Increasingly, Thoughtful American Jews Are Re-Thinking Zionism

[Classical_Liberal]

According to the Jan. 15 Washington Jewish Week, “The missive called for dismissal of the charges against Rabbi Arik Ascherman, who faces charges of interfering with police for protesting home demolition in Beit Hanina and the village of Issawiyah, north of Jerusalem. Ascherman, 44, is the executive director of Rabbis for Human Rights in Israel...If convicted, the U.S.-born Reform rabbi who now lives in Jerusalem could face three years in jail and fines. But Rabbis for Human Rights is hoping that it will be Israel’s policy of demolishing illegally built Arab homes that will really be on trial.”......

Rabbi Ascherman and other members of his group expect the trial to take months. The rabbis want to turn the spotlight on Israel’s demolition policy, which they say violates both Palestinian human rights and Jewish ideals. They charge that Israel discriminates by destroying Palestinian homes built without permits while encouraging construction in Jewish neighborhoods in the West Bank near Jerusalem. In addition, they argue, since the l967 Six-Day War, Jerusalem officials have tried to keep the city’s Arab sector at about 28 percent of the population, moving Jews into East Jerusalem and limiting building permits for Palestinians. According to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, 2,500 homes have been demolished in East Jerusalem and the West Bank since l967, leaving l6,000 Palestinians homeless.

In April 2003, an Israeli bulldozer rumbled toward Rabbi Ascherman as he protested a home demolition. Unlike Rachel Corrie, who had been crushed to death the previous month in Gaza, the rabbi was not hurt. Having lost his skullcap in the rubble, however, he said, “I am hoping that someday Palestinians will dig up the kippah and see that Jews in the name of Torah tried to fight this policy.”

The recently published Wrestling with Zion (Grove Press, 2003) assembles for the first time some of the most important writers and thinkers in modern American Jewish life to address the ongoing crisis in the Middle East. It is a book which deserves far more attention than it has received thus far.......

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May_2004/0405067.html

[mhr]

1. I've Long Asked When This Would Happen - Jewish Pride Cane Be Just As

destructive as Muslim pride.

Sooner or later these people are going to have to learn to live with one another, Like It Or Not!

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Now be scared

as you see increasingly more and more Jews (I realized this over five years ago), that we need to get out of that deadly embrace, we are entering that deadly embrace wiht the arab world, courtesy of BushCo....

Sad but true...

Oh and one more thing, Rabbi Lerner has been at the forefront of this for YEARS.... google Tikkun and read the site

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. The Irish had the same epiphany before things finally became peaceful

in Ireland. The first thing they did was attack the Irish-Americans who were donating and supporting militant groups like the I.R.A. and the other organization that was prone to violence.

[Cassandra]

12. But Christian pride is just oky doky?

Your comment was a bit inane. Since when is wanting a national homeland where one's usual minority is in the majority a mere matter of pride, Jewish or Muslim?

[rebellious woman]

40. What is your residence/ citizenship? USA/ISRAEL/BOTH? Curious....

[Gimel]

3. Survival of Zionism

The world has already insured the demise of Zionism by forcing sworn enemies to live together. Making Israelis out to be racist because they reject living with Arabs who are sworn enemies of Jews. Talk about Sabra and Shantila till you're blue in the face, and then force genocide on Jews in Israel. Thanks a lot world.

[el_gato]

5. Hey Gimel have you read this book

A Peace To End All Peace by Fromkin

In it, I forget what page he writes about the beginning of Zionism
and the creation of nation-states. This desire for a "country" came
about at the same time that the idea of nationalism came into existence.
Furthermore, the cause of zionism was trumpeted by the christian end-timers as early as the late 1800's (or earlier, I need to reread that section).

Anyway, Your statement "Thaks a lot world" says so much. I think what I just pointed out is a major reason why Brittain would not let in jewish refugees at the close of WWII and instead decided to send them to Isreal.

[Gimel]

6. No

haven't read that book. Don't think I will either. It doesn't sound like you got much truth out of it.

[bemildred]

8. It is an excellent book.

The Magistrate informed me of it, and I took the time to
read it, and it was well worth the trouble. It's not a polemic
for either side in the I/P conflict, in fact I/P is just
a side issue, but it does document a good deal of the history
of the area prior to and during WWI, which has great relevance
to how things are today.

[el_gato]

9. Oh sorry, I thought you might be interested in historical facts

I guess I was giving you too much credit.

[Gimel]

10. What you relate to

doesn't give me anything meaningful, since Herzl was working for Zionist cause several decades before the end of the 1800's.
This has nothing to do with my post which you responded to, however. Historical facts are available in many historical references.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Historical facts...

Here's something in yr post that doesn't appear to be a historical fact...

...since Herzl was working for Zionist cause several decades before the end of the 1800's.

No, he wasn't. I'd be fascinated to see where you found this 'historical fact' as everything I've read says that he was born in 1860 (several decades before the end of the 1800's), he was a journalist who didn't have any interest in Jewish affairs until the Dreyfus Affair in 1894 (not several decades before the end of the 1800's) got him interested in it. He wrote 'The Jewish State' in 1896, and political Zionism grew from there....

Violet...

[Gimel]

19. Your dates are correct

Since the poster el_gato didn't give any dates, and neither did I, I thank you for supplying them, Ms. Crumble.

Another date of importance is that of the Russian Jews who formed a group and decided to make the first Aliyah to Israel in 1881.

It doesn't matter in the least to me if Christians also thought it was a sound idea based on scripture, as though they had written the Haggada.

It was the antisemitic atmosphere of Europe that poisoned the air for Jews. That predates Dryfus, as his trial was but one manifestation of it.

Edited for technical correction.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Glad you didn't mind the correction...

After all, claiming that Herzl was working for Zionist causes several decades before the end of the 1800's was a bit of a clanger and in no way historically correct :)

Violet...

[Djinn]

11. ???????????????

"The world has already insured the demise of Zionism by forcing sworn enemies to live together"

So in the late 40's we should have assisted in the ethnic cleansing of the entire region to make the NEWCOMERS feel better?????

" Making Israelis out to be racist because they reject living with Arabs who are sworn enemies of Jews"

Really??? I know plenty of Arabs who'd reject that piece of propaganda - but then again all Arabs are the same aren't they Gimel

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Djinn]

16. You'll alert on me for what????

"I think that the Arabs who wanted to stay in the Jewish controlled country should have been welcomed."

How nice of you to allow people already living there to stay

"Jews only neighborhoods are perfectly legitimate as long as there are Arab only sections in the country."

can you name a neighbourhood that is Arab only??

You DID say that Arabs were the sworn enemies of Jews - I disputed that I know a European Jewish man who is married to a Muslim woman of Egyptian extraction - I personally have many Muslim friends and acquaintances - have nevr felt they are my sworn enemies

These are your words - I don't see anything alertable about quoting and responding to them but if it makes you feel better - feel free to alert away - I'd be interested if the mods see it your way

BTW - coz I'd hate to misinterpret you what did this mean:

"Talk about Sabra and Shantila till you're blue in the face, and then force genocide on Jews in Israel."

Who exactly is "forcing genocide" on the jews in Israel?

[Gimel]

20. Response

They also say that the Philangists were the sworn enemies of the Palestinian refugees, yet I'm sure you can also find instances of inter-marriage. No, fyi, I don't hate Muslims, but the leaders that the Palestinians follow (at least a majority of them claim to) are bent on the destruction of Israel, and all Jews.

Not all Muslims are Arabs, I imagine, btw. And not all Arabs are Muslims.

I also know of inter-marriage, wonderful Arab individuals, living peacefully in Israel. However, it is the attitude that there cannot be a neighborhood established to accommodate the settlers relocation inside the Green Line but with the condition that some of the residents be the members of Hamas.

There are in fact Arab villages, such as Aqbra and Madge el Krum near Tzfat and several others in the Galilee. Of course the city of Natzert is also Arab.

Sympathy that encourages radicals to murder innocent Israelis in large numbers forces genocide on Israel. So give free passage to Arafat. Make him a hero, give him a prize and see what happens. Doh! (but of course most think of the murder of 1,000 Israelis irrelevant anyway so why bother to discuss it here?)

"How nice of you to allow people already living there to stay"

I was expressing my opinion on the matter. If you turn it into an insult, that's your problem. And the majority of Jews who lived in Israel then had no problem with it either. It was not my opinion that mattered, so don't try and take the attitude that I'm being snotty about it. I was not involved in "allowing them to stay how nice of you" anyway. So if you think my words are inappropriate , so are your's claiming that I proposed ethnic cleansing.

[Djinn]

31. strange then

"if you think my words are inappropriate , so are your's claiming that I proposed ethnic cleansing."

how my comments appear to have been within the posting rules and not yours

[tinnypriv]

7. With regards to home demolitions

Israel is currently employing an interesting trick - when it needs to demolish some Arab's land/house/farm etc which is in the way of their fence, they simply present the Arab with a demolition order in Arabic.

What's wrong with that you say? Well, the Arabic doesn't include the passage saying that the owner can appeal to the military courts or the Israeli High Court.

The Hebrew and English do (clearly for the benefit of western 'humanist' supporters of the Glorious Democracy).

Of course, even the appeals are mostly useless, since the army just tells the civilian courts to shove it. An "Army with a state", perhaps, to quote Israeli military analysts.

[Gimel]

14. Interesting

observations seeing as how the court rejected request for demolitions in the very area where the murders of the five settlers took place.

Additional note: The courts in Israel would almost necessitate knowledge of Hebrew, and most of the attornies helping in such cases are Israeli Jews. I doubt if any omission in the Arabic would have any consequences other than propaganda.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. Let me see if I can get this straight

1. The home demolitions take place in the West Bank and Gaza, not Israel.

2. The people who live in these homes bein demolished are not Israelis and live on land where 92% of the population is not Israeli.

3. The legal system necessitates a knowledge of Hebrew, so it is the responsibility of these non-Israeli Arabs to know Hebrew, because that is the language of the law imposed on them by the occupation authorities.

Do I have that right?

[Gimel]

18. some points are wrong

Arabic is an official language in Israel. All Judges have to know Arabic as well as Hebrew, English and 3 or 4 other languages.

Home demolitions are sometimes carried out in Israel, not exclusively in the "territories."

I do not have any reference other than the previous poster's statements that the clause about applying for an appeal appears only in Hebrew and English, not in Arabic. I would like to know how many of these orders he has examined and on what basis he makes such a claim, at least before it becomes a major issue.

[tinnypriv]

21. I'm not making the claim

I'm quoting the Association for Civil Rights, in Israel.

The relevant excerpt:

"In the case of Deir Qaddis ... the work in the village is being carried out according to an invalid order: the order that was issued by the Head of Central Command in Arabic, and that orders the expropriation of the village’s land, did not contain vital details that appeared in the Hebrew version. The written notification of the village resident’s right to object to expropriation of land was removed from the Arabic version, thereby denying them the basic right to be heard before a decision is made on their behalf."

http://www.acri.org.il/english-acri/engine/story.asp?id=172
http://www.acri.org.il/hebrew-acri/engine/story.asp?id=830

(emphases added)

I trust that this clears up your confusion. Note that (as usual), my only "claim" is the facts. You can also join with me in condemning this devious practice at a time of your choosing.

[Gimel]

22. Thank you

Actually, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel didn't say any such thing. As you may know, I read English quite well, with advanced comprehension. My reading skills in Hebrew are somewhat lower. However, this petition relates to a particular instance:

In the case of Deir Qaddis, Pinchuk adds, the work in the village is being carried out according to an invalid order: the order that was issued by the Head of Central Command in Arabic, and that orders the expropriation of the village’s land, did not contain vital details that appeared in the Hebrew version. The written notification of the village resident’s right to object to expropriation of land was removed from the Arabic version, thereby denying them the basic right to be heard before a decision is made on their behalf.

This is not stated as though it was a common practice. In fact, your claim that there is no Arabic in the order is quite misleading. As this clearly says, "The written notification of the village resident’s right to object to expropriation of land was removed from the Arabic version." when something is removed, it means that it was there originally, but someone had taken it. No indication of who that might be. It could have happened after posting, or at anytime from the point of issuing it until it was brought to the court.

You, however, said in words that implied that this was a common practice. Tsk, tsk. But it is not the first time that such a "trick" has been employed by you.

On edit: You might also credit the court with having halted the work on the fence until the persons involved had a chance to appeal the order. Again, you implied that there was an injustice done by the court system, when in fact, the decision was favorable to the petitioners.

[tinnypriv]

23. "removed"

Actually, the Hebrew word nish'mat more accurately translates in common usage to the verb construct "to be left out" - not "removed".

So, the clause wasn't there in the first place - it was in the Hebrew, and specifically left out of the Arabic. As I said.

As for "common practice", I gave just one citation. If you would like more, check these:

http://stopthewall.org/latestnews/65.shtml ("An insufficient and inaccurate official Arabic translation by the Israeli military was attached to the original Hebrew order")

http://www.mideastweb.org/hopeflowers/ ("I want just to inform you about the demolition process of the School cafeteria. On the afternoon of November 4th, 2003, and after the school day, the neighbours of the school informed us that a force from the Israeli army came to the school cafeteria and left a paper there. The paper was written in Hebrew and with some translation in Arabic. The paper was about a final warning to demolish a building and gave the characteristics of that building. The demolition notice had only a number; the owner of the building was not listed in that warning, nor were there any other details")

Two examples from many.

As for "crediting the court", I actually did - I said that the appeals are mostly useless because the military tells the civilian courts to shove their orders. That's an indictment of the military forces, not the Israeli courts (though they're not perfect, as you can easily discover by reading Amira Hass's recent article on them).

With regards to telling the courts to "shove their orders", you can check the article I metioned - Ben Kaspit's article in Ma'ariv on the anniversary of the Intifada (where he says there is a question over whether "the state has an army" or "the army has a state"), and a couple of others:

1. "Mofaz warns delay in barrier construction increases terror risk", Ma'ariv Jan 29 2004. The relevant excerpt:

"Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz launched an attack on Israelis who petitioned the High Court of Justice against the construction of the security barrier, winning a temporary injuction. According to Mofaz, any legal delay “provides the suicide bomber with more time and another chance to infiltrate”.

The Defense Minister toured sections of the barrier near the Green Line. He directed the IDF to concentrate its efforts in areas that do not yet have any fence or wall."

2. "Jerusalem Home Demolitions Fact Sheet", Rabbi's For Human Rights, Jan 2004. The excerpt:

"In a number of recent cases security forces at the site of demolitions prevented or delayed the presentation of court restraining orders or officials refused to accept oral notification of such orders, resulting in partial or total destruction of homes protected by these orders. In other cases courts were falsely told that homes had no chance of receiving a legal permit or proceedings were carried out without the notification of home owners or their lawyers, resulting in demolitions."

Relevant to both of these excerpts, you can also check the official orders given by the IDF on christmas eve (the date surely deliberate for PR reasons) to "build immediately" in all sections beyond the Green Line. In other words, mark the "facts on the ground" with a route known to be "totally indefensible" (latter quote from the current Justice Minister of Israel - Lapid).

Or, on this topic, you could consult the article in Yediot Aharonot by B. Michael, 31 Nov 2003 (widely translated in activist circles), where the author states that:

"The State of Israel, on the other side of its eastern border, is conducting a harrowing sequence of evil deeds, callous deeds, robbery, deceit and barbarity. According to the Geneva, Hague and Rome Conventions many of these deserve the label of Crimes of War and Crimes against Humanity. And rightly so"

He adds:

"One cannot go on looking away, shutting eyes, ears, mouths, and wallowing hypocritically in acquired and insistent unknowing."

Perhaps he should also have added that the "insistent unknowing" is aquired by way of considerable effort, in order to "see no evil" when the Holy State is involved?

[Gimel]

24. The orders

The examples you give do not contain demolition orders after all. They pertain to the separation fence, which is a different matter. Demolitions have been used, as you are aware, for punishment, but also for buildings built without permits or those that present a safety hazard, as they are elsewhere in the world. As such, the court orders are different from those that were issued for the fence.

As there have been appeals, and appeals for demolitions are routinely made, there is no justification for faulting the Israeli court process, or the notification given for demolitions.

A case in point.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/427462.html

It would be nice if you would apologize for your unjust accusations.

[tinnypriv]

36. Actually not

They do contain demolition orders, as I quoted (accurately) and as you'd easily discover if you took the time to read the citations I gave.

For the facts: Israel routinely demolishes homes that are in the way of the fence. The fact it also demolishes homes elsewhere is separate matter (not "different", because the style and manner are the same, and they're both carried out by the same military authorities).

In any event, the appeal process is a joke, as is the "building without a permit" argument. Again, something you'd discover if you checked the citations I gave.

Since you didn't, I'll quote the most pertinent one for you:

"The entire market of the village Nazlat Issa, known far and wide for its lively trade, has been razed to the ground. The pretext, as usual, is illegal construction. This is a highly useful pretext, since the Palestinian villagers have not a chance in a million to ever receive construction permits, and whatever they build is "illegal" and demolishable at any given moment, to begin with."

(emphasis added, B. Michael, Yediot Aharonot, 31/10/03)

[Gimel]

25. Your attitude

is well known. It is admirable that when trying to construct the barrier at as fast a pace as possible to protect innocent civilians from a daily threat which was very real, that the residents of the area area were given warning. Of course they don't like it. And even if they know Hebrew well, will complain about every line that is missing in the Arabic. But they are not threatened with death as the Israelis are.

[Classical_Liberal]

26. Tinyprive advocates the two state solution

How is that anti-israel?

[Gimel]

27. That is not the point at all

There are many expressions that are very slanted in many things he posts.

[Classical_Liberal]

28. pot meet kettle

.

[Gimel]

30. If I may

it seems that your friend is not so much favorable to the Palestinians as he dislikes the Israelis. that is what is known as "impartial".

[tinnypriv]

35. Well

No, I'm not "impartial", because that is impossible.

I will admit to having a bias for the following: truth, justice and freedom, in equal measure, for both Israelis and Palestinians.

If you want to pretend otherwise, sans evidence, that's your problem.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Palestinians DO have the threat of being attacked without provocation...

Palestinian civilians have been the targets of the IDF, Gimel. They've also been the targets of extremist settlers. All you need to do is spend some time reading AI reports to know that...

Violet...

[Gimel]

37. It is not the opinion

Many qualified observers are satisfied that that is not the case. A soldier who does not follow the guidelines and acts to harm innocent civilians is prosecuted, and you should be aware of that. No, not the very next day or week. It is not the quick kangaroo court like that of the Palestinians. Innocent civilians may be inadvertently hit, but civilians are not targeted.

And, BTW, I'm referring you to a reference that documents that 16% of the Palestinian deaths are caused by inter-Palestinian strife:

http://middleeastinfo.org/article4255.html

There is danger to the Palestinians in daily life, as there is elsewhere, but it it not as random and as persistently horrific as the suicide bombing attacks. For persons living in Jerusalem, or Tel Aviv who travel frequently on buses, the chances are significant that that person or someone in his or her family will be killed or seriously injured in a suicide bombing attack.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Those 'qualified observers' must be blind as bats...

Here's just a few examples, though there's many more out there. A child playing soccer with friends was shot in the head by the IDF. The IDF later tried to claim that there'd been a riot (of course one has to wonder about the eyesight of those who'd mistake children playing soccer for a riot), a claim that their own reports proved to be false. What about the children who are shot for throwing stones? What about all those civilians killed when the IDF targetted their building and dropped a one-tonne bomb on it, knowing full well that it'd kill civilians? These are not inadvertent killings any more than deaths caused through suicide-bombings are. What about the IDF targetting innocent civilians (both Israeli and Palestinian) engaging in non-violent by opening fire on them with live ammunition? What about the IDF firing rockets into crowds of people?

What's worse? Someone stating they intend to kill some civilians and going and doing it, or someone having such a lack of regard for the lives of civilians that they don't give a shit whether they kill them or not, and make constant claims of 'oops! that was an accident' on the way too regular times it happens? I happen to think they're both as bad as each other, and it's cold comfort to the families what the claimed intent of their killers were. To claim that the dangers Palestinians face in their daily lives is the same as elsewhere is totally ludicrous. And to try to imply that suicide-bombings negate the very real dangers the Palestinian people face is even more ludicrous. Is it too difficult or 'anti-Israel' for someone to acknowledge that both Palestinians and Israelis face danger in different forms from different groups?

Violet....

[Djinn]

38. Speak to people who LIVE in Palestine

they have a seriously different view than you. Besides - even IF you beleived the demonstrably untrue claim about never targetting civilians - when you fire a missile into an apartment building or crowded street it is facetious in the extreme to say "we weren't targeting civilians".

Would you feel any better about burying a relative killed by "collaterall damage" if the Palestinians somehow got hold of the weaponry of the IDF and blew up a military post?

Should a Palestinian mother, burying her child feel better than a Israeli mother burying hers because her child was only killed because he/she was in the general vicinity of someone the IDF was aiming for?