fbpx

June 3, 2012

Tibetan monks continue self-immolation to protest Chinese rule

” title=”New York Times” target=”_blank”>New York Times:

One young Tibetan monk walked down a street kicking Chinese military vehicles, then left a suicide note condemning an official ban on a religious ceremony. Another smiled often, and preferred to talk about Buddhism rather than politics. A third man, a former monk, liked herding animals with nomads.

All had worn the crimson robes of Kirti Monastery, a venerable institution of learning ringed by mountains on the eastern edge of the Tibetan plateau. All set themselves on fire to protest Chinese rule. Two died.

At least 38 Tibetans have set fire to themselves since 2009, and 29 have died, according to the International Campaign for Tibet, an advocacy group in Washington. The 2,000 or so monks of Kirti Monastery in Sichuan Province have been at the center of the movement, one of the biggest waves of self-immolations in modern history. The acts evoke the self-immolations in the early 1960s by Buddhist monks in South Vietnam to protest the corrupt government in Saigon.

Read the Tibetan monks continue self-immolation to protest Chinese rule Read More »

Egypt’s Mubarak sentenced to life, protests erupt

Hosni Mubarak, toppled by an uprising last year after 30 years ruling Egypt, was sentenced to life imprisonment on Saturday for his role in killing protesters after a trial that sets a precedent for holding Middle East autocrats to account.

But it was not enough for thousands of Egyptians who poured onto the streets afterwards in a nation already on edge before a deciding presidential vote in two weeks. Some wanted Mubarak executed, others feared the judge’s ruling exposed weaknesses in the case that could let the ex-military strongman off on appeal.

Wearing dark glasses, the 84-year-old Mubarak was wheeled into a courtroom cage on a hospital stretcher to join co-defendants including his two sons Alaa and Gamal, former Interior Minister Habib al-Adli and six security officials.

Addressing the hushed courtroom, Judge Ahmed Refaat said: “The court has ordered a punishment for Hosni Mubarak of life in prison based on charges of participating in crimes of killing and attempted killing.”

Propped up on the stretcher and stony-faced during the verdict, the only words the former air force commander uttered were to acknowledge to the judge over a microphone that he was present before the ruling was read out. Afterwards, he was whisked off by helicopter to a prison hospital.

His two sons, businessman Alaa, and Gamal, a former banker was once seen as being groomed for president before his father was toppled on February 11, 2011, had corruption charges quashed, but stay in jail over another case referred to court last week.

Refaat sentenced Adli, whose police force was hated for the brutal tactics used against the revolt, to life in prison. About 850 people were killed in the 18-day uprising against Mubarak.

But the judge acquitted the senior security officials for lack of evidence, a decision that worried lawyers for victims’ families who said that could help Mubarak win any appeal.

Businessman and Mubarak ally Hussein Salem, being tried in absentia, was also acquitted of corruption charges.

It was the first time an ousted Arab leader had faced an ordinary court in person since a wave of uprisings shook the Arab world last year, sweeping away four entrenched rulers.

State television said Mubarak suffered a “health crisis” when he was flown to Cairo’s Tora prison, where he was admitted to a hospital facility. Mubarak had been held at a luxurious military-run hospital during the 10-month trial.

ONCE FETED, NOW FALLEN

A medical source said Mubarak argued with those around him when he landed at Tora, refusing to leave the aircraft. Mubarak always appeared in court sessions on a stretcher but his ailment has not been defined.

Long feted by Arab leaders and his U.S. and other Western allies as a lynchpin politician who offered stability in a turbulent region, Mubarak’s ousting has helped redraw the Middle East’s political map and let Islamists he once repressed sweep up parliamentary seats in the Arab world’s most populous state.

The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s biggest Islamist group, is now fielding one of the two challengers in a fraught run-off vote for the presidency against Mubarak’s last prime minister, Ahmed Shafiq, who like his former boss once led the air force.

Unlike elections in Mubarak’s time, that were routinely rigged and the outcome guaranteed, no one can be sure who will emerge victor in the June 16 and 17 run-off that has polarized the nation, leaving many worrying both about Islamist rule and the alternative of handing power back to a former military man.

Refaat opened proceedings by hailing Egyptians for removing the only leader many of them had known. Mubarak came to power in 1981 after his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, was assassinated by Islamists angry at Egypt’s 1979 peace deal with Israel.

“The people of Egypt woke on Tuesday, January 25, 2011, to a new dawn, hoping that they would be able to breathe fresh air … after 30 years of deep, deep, deep darkness,” he said, referring to the day the uprising erupted.

Yet many Egyptians are still waiting for the light – the chaos that erupted in court after the ruling typifying a messy political transition that has been led by the military. Generals say they will hand over power to a new president by July 1.

After a silence during sentencing, scuffles broke out inside the court between security officers and people chanting “Void, void” and “The people want the cleansing of the judiciary”.

Rather than a healing experience that many Egyptians wanted, many saw the trial that acquitted top security officials as showing how much of Mubarak’s old order was still in place.

Protesters gathered in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, focus for the uprising that drove Mubarak out. In Alexandria, demonstrators chanted: “We are done with talk, we want an execution!”

Al Jazeera reported that Mubarak would lodge an appeal. His lawyers could not be reached immediately for comment.

BROTHERHOOD WANTS RE-TRIAL

Yet some Egyptians said Mubarak’s sentencing was enough, even if they were unhappy security officials were off the hook.

“I think the verdict on Mubarak is fair, he is over 80 years old and a life in prison verdict is a hard one, as it means he will certainly spend all his remaining years in jail,” said Ahmed Raouf, 30, who works at a private Cairo computer firm.

Brotherhood presidential candidate Mohamed Mursi promised in a news conference he would deliver “retribution for the martyrs” and would dig up evidence to try those responsible for killings.

“The blood of the martyrs will keep boiling in my veins,” he said, painting himself as the choice for revolutionaries and those seeking change in the presidential race.

Ahmed Shafiq, appointed premier in the last days of Mubarak’s rule and who calls the ex-president a role model, said on his Facebook page the trial showed no one was above the law.

“This verdict brings Egypt back to its leading regional role as the country witnesses the first condemnation of an Arab pharaoh who ruled for 30 years,” said Nabil Abdel Fattah from the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.

But he said the verdict would be a political football in the election. He said Mursi wanted to show he was the only one who could reform the system and Shafiq would seek to prove that this showed the judiciary could deliver a tough sentence, despite criticism of the ruling by protesters.

Lawyers acting for the families of victims said the acquittal of the six security officials showed the weakness of the prosecution case. They said the sentence was designed to appease public anger, but could be overturned at appeal.

“Regarding accusations against the police leadership, the court is of the opinion that none of the actors who committed the crimes of murder were caught during or after the events, so there is no direct evidence for the charges,” the judge said.

Charges against the six included complicity in killing protesters and failing to prevent damage to public property.

New York-based Human Rights Watch said the ruling “sends a powerful message to Egypt’s future leaders that they are not above the law”. But it said the acquittals suggested a prosecution failure to fully investigate killings of protesters.

Few Egyptians had expected Mubarak to be put to death, although protesters have often hung his effigy from lamp posts.

Hanafi el-Sayed, whose 27-year-old son was killed early in the uprising, travelled from Alexandria for the trial.

“I want nothing less than the death penalty for Mubarak. Anything less and we will not be silent and the revolution will break out again,” he said shortly before the verdict.

Additional reporting by Yasmine, Saleh, Tom Perry, Patrick Werr and Marwa Awad; Writing by Edmund Blair; Editing by Alistair Lyon and Ralph Gowling

Egypt’s Mubarak sentenced to life, protests erupt Read More »

Learning from Hillel and Shami

A Brooklyn based newspaper, Yated Ne’eman, has recently tried to cast more inclusive sections of Orthodoxy in a negative light.  Instead of understanding Rabbi Zev Farber’s recent Morethodoxy post about the cultural place of women in shul as a tension between two competing values, that of traditional prayer architecture and process on the one hand and that of the desire by the halacha to honor and include all Jews (even women) on the other, Yated saw only one side.

In the Gemara (Shabbat 31a) Hillel and Shamai argue regarding conversions.  Convert after convert comes to both Shami and Hillel and each convert presents themselves as insincere, desiring to convert to only some of the laws of the Torah or to convert for selfish reasons.  Obviously the decision to accept or reject such converts lies again in a tension between two competing halacic values, on one side the need to not dilute the Jewish people and their commitment to Torah, and on the second the Jewish value of embracing others and not mistreating the stranger.  Shami emphasizes the first value over the second in an extreme way, so much so that he chases the would be convert out with a stick, and Hillel emphasizes the second value, so much so that he immediately embraces the seemingly insincere (yes I know what Tosfos says)  convert and converts them all right away.  Which is right?  Both are legitimate Jewish opinions, both the word of God, but only one is the halacha, the path we as Jews are to follow, that of Hillel.  Indeed the Talmud explains that the law is like Hillel due to his embracing, tolerant personality (Talmud Aruvin 13b).

Today Yated is suggesting YCT Rabbonim continue to be excluded from the RCA. In times past their camp suggested the RCA be excluded from Orthodoxy.  Today they suggest YCT’s future talmide chachomim are illegitimate, in years past they (or papers like them) suggested the RCA’s Godol was illegitimate.

When I was growing up in the Charedi world I heard only slander about the RCA and Yeshiva University.  That YU was a, “Rabbi factory” and that their musmachim knew nothing.  I think I was 15 before I realized that “JB” was not a famous criminal but a Gadol Ba’torah, Rabbi Yosef Dov Solovetchik. 

Any orthodox person who is over 30 and grew up to the right of modern orthodoxy remembers these things.  But the RCA did not become a new movement as people feared; the RCA saw itself as legitimately orthodox and in the eyes of much of the orthodox world remains so. 

Less tolerance for fellow Jews and human beings, a less embracing attitude toward the would-be proselyte, dismissing ways within halacha to include women in traditional tefilah, these things, though perhaps sounding pretty frum, do not make one more of a Torah Jew.  Just ask Hillel.

Learning from Hillel and Shami Read More »

Letter from Tel Aviv: Borders and boundaries

Before I left for Israel a few days ago, the wonderful quote by the explorer Thor Heyerdahl popped into my head: “Borders? I have never seen one. But I have heard they exist in the minds of some people.”

From the skies, only natural borders exist. After take off, California quickly became Canada which became the Hudson Bay and then Greenland and Europe and so on and so forth. In physical geography, water and land divide, not class or race or gender or politics. And well, ice; the seemingly endless sheets of white that separate much of Greenland from the rest of civilization is a different kind of border entirely, not something one can really cross but a boundary to be observed. Israel brings to mind both: indeed its very existence seems to hinge on the security of its borders and the sustainability of its internal boundaries.

All of this came to mind since visiting Israel usually entails some mental preparation. It’s not a place you just visit, it’s a place you journey. Time in Israel tends to involve emotion, psychology, ancestry, ideology. It requires travel and learning, and encompasses challenge and connection. It means too much to be treated as a casual visit. And yet, two days in, the experience of being here often feels contrary to that notion.

I was invited to Israel for ten days by Tel Aviv University (TAU) because they are coming upon the 40th anniversary of their film department which they want to show off—and raise $20 million to expand. TAU has graduated some of Israel’s leading entertainers, many of whom have had success in Hollywood including Gidi Raff, creator of “Hatufim” upon which the Showtime series “Homeland” is based, Hagai Levy, creator of “BeTipul” which became HBO’s “In Treatment” and Ari Folman, director of the Oscar-nominated “Waltz With Bashir”. The aim of the trip is to introduce American journalists to TAU’s film department as well as other aspects of Israel’s entertainment industry, and, since it is co-sponsored by the Israel Ministry of Tourism, to also ensure that we see the country’s essential sights, eat delicious food, and learn a little history.

There are six other journalists on the trip, all women, mostly New Yorkers, all of whom have been writing or broadcasting for as many decades as I’ve been alive. One woman, who is wrapping up her sixth novel, has a PhD in French Literature which I’m unashamed to say I envy; when I excitedly told her I had just read “Story of O”, she responded with a deep-throated laugh that gave away her opinion of its literary merit. I was comforted that Susan Sontag limned an essay to the contrary.

Though all but one of the other journalists count themselves as Jewish in some form or another (only one described herself as religious, saying, “I definitely want to visit the Western Wall!”) none of them have previously been to Israel. Which made it all the more disappointing that on Shabbat, the itinerary included nothing in acknowledgment. Instead we walked nearly eight hours through Tel Aviv’s Neve Tzedek neighborhood—the “Garden of Justice”, originally a suburb of Jaffa that was once home to writer S.Y. Agnon and the first chief Rabbi of Palestine, Rav Kook. Wandering the streets of a major Israeli city, despite the fact that it self-identifies as “secular” on the slowest, quietest day of the week here invited many questions about the customs of the day. The representative from the university was surprised by this but maintained that “with all the money the university is spending on this trip, we couldn’t possibly lose two full days to Shabbat.” I maintain, you cannot possibly experience the fullness of Israel without it. For here, it is not simply a religious ritual but a foundational cultural rhythm upon which the country’s sense of time, movement and pace pivots. 

Our walk concluded with an afternoon stroll along a stretch of Rothschild Boulevard, home to an array of Bauhaus architecture, countless cafes and shops and a swanky new condo development designed by architect Richard Meier, responsible for L.A.‘s Getty Center and Wolfgang Puck’s “Cut” restaurant at the Beverly Wilshire. We were told that when a Russian oligarch purchased three Meier units for $27 million, the sale catalyzed the massive social protest that took place here during the summer of 2011, when hundreds of thousands of Israelis took to the streets demanding an end to economic inequality. According to our tour guide, housing prices in Tel Aviv have since gone down 5-10%.

And then there is the sea. At night the wine dark sea, by day deep blue. It breathes behind me, beneath me, as the rolling crash of waves and carried voices of beachwalkers float up through the tower where I’m perched, sitting with the view and my laptop. The visage erases pain, the breeze obliterates heat. As Nancy Huston wrote about the power of beauty, “Over the years, I have watched it attack and corrode borders, then take me with it into foreign territories. Borders are ideas erected between age groups, social classes, all sorts of hierarchical entities, in order that a society may function as predictably and as decently as possible. They are not solid brick walls. Beauty eats them away.”

I once heard it taught that Israel is not only history, memory, and piety, it is the summer day, the sunbather and the sea.

Letter from Tel Aviv: Borders and boundaries Read More »

Israeli scientists invent marijuana ‘without the high’

Israeli scientists have cultivated a cannabis plant that doesn’t get people stoned in a development that may help those smoking marijuana for medical purposes, a newspaper said on Wednesday.

According to the Maariv daily, the new cannabis looks, smells and even tastes the same, but does not induce any of the feelings normally associated with smoking marijuana that are brought on by the substance THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol.

“It has the same scent, shape and taste as the original plant—it’s all the same—but the numbing sensation that users are accustomed to has disappeared,” said Tzahi Klein, head of development at Tikkun Olam, the firm that developed the species.

Read more from AFP via Google.

Tikkun Olam Medical Marijuana Greenhouse

Israeli scientists invent marijuana ‘without the high’ Read More »

Is arguing with God a virtue? Dennis Prager vs Mormon thought

Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. – Jacob 4:10 (Book of Mormon)

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.  – Isaiah 55:8-9


In his Is arguing with God a virtue? Dennis Prager vs Mormon thought Read More »

USC Poll: Sherman over Berman in June primary, both to advance to November general election

Rep. Brad Sherman (D – Sherman Oaks) will finish first in the June 5 primary election, a new online survey has found. Rep. Howard Berman (D – Van Nuys), who, as a result of redistricting, is also running for reelection in the hotly contested 30th congressional district, is expected to come in second.

Given a choice between all seven candidates who will appear on the primary ballot, 32 percent of voters in the new West San Fernando Valley district chose Sherman, while 24 percent said they had or would be voting for Berman. If the survey turns out to be accurate, that would set up a second round for the two veteran Democratic Congressmen.

Under a new California law, the top two vote-getters in the primary will advance to a runoff in November.

The online survey, conducted by polling firms M4 Strategies and Tulchin Research for the University of Southern California Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, asked 329 likely registered Primary Election voters in the district a series of questions in an online format.

Republican candidate Mark Reed came in third in the poll with 10 percent of voters saying they would or had voted for him. Trailing Reed were Republican Navraj Singh (4.3 percent), Green Party candidate Michael Powelson (3.5 percent), Republican Susan Shelley (1.9 percent) and Democrat Vince Gilmore (1.5 percent).

Twenty-three percent of voters said they were undecided.

Dan Schnur, director of the USC Dornsife Online Survey and director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC, said that the high number of undecided voters could be a result of the poll’s being conducted online.

“On an online survey, respondents are much more likely to say, ‘I don’t know,’ or ‘No opinion,’”Schnur said.

Other than that one quirk, Schnur said that the survey had been experimenting with online polling since the beginning of the year, and its results so far have shown that online poll results should be considered to be as reliable as traditional phone surveys.

The results were announced in a release early this morning. Here are the three meatiest paragraphs:

Schnur pointed out that both candidates performed best among their current constituents, but that Sherman’s current district represents a larger portion of the new district than Berman’s. He also noted that Sherman supporters were more likely to prioritize taxes, infrastructure and immigration as the most important issues in their decision, while Berman voters ranked healthcare and the candidate’s experience as their top concerns. Sherman’s backers were heavily Latino and Catholic, while Berman ran much stronger among Jewish voters, especially Reform Jews.

“Both candidates run best on their home turf among voters who know them best,” Schnur said. “They are going to spend the next several months fighting over voters who supported neither one of them in the primary and attempting to discourage their opponent’s supporters from turning out.”

“Ironically, the battle between these two Democratic stalwarts may be decided by Republican voters.”

The poll, which was conducted between May 29 to 31, 2012, and has a margin of error of +/- 5.4 percent, also makes use of some online tools that wouldn’t be available to pollsters working over the phone. In an interview on Friday, Schnur told me that online polls allow pollsters not just to ask more questions, but also to show voters videos of advertisements to then gauge their reactions.

This poll showed voters ads for Sherman and Berman and then gauged their persuasiveness. Of the two ads shown, the Sherman campaign ad did better.

But in an interesting move, the pro-Berman ad shown to voters was not to one of the ads created by the Berman campaign itself.

The surveyed voters watched one of the ads created and paid for by the Committee to Elect an Effective Valley Congressman, the only pro-Berman Super-PAC still active in this race. Those ads have been called “amateurish” by some.

USC Poll: Sherman over Berman in June primary, both to advance to November general election Read More »

June 3, 2012

Note to Syria interventionists: Be careful what you wish for

‎

International intervention in Syria could push President Bashar Assad into even more ‎extreme actions in what has now become a sectarian war, warns Chemi Shalev in ‎Haaretz.‎

The Syrian conflict may have been sparked by the Arab Spring, but by now it ‎has very little to do with it. The standoff between the Alawi-dominated ‎regime and the exclusively Sunni opposition is not a part of some Facebook ‎revolt or Twitter rebellion and is no longer, if it ever was, an insurrection of ‎democracy-seeking civilians against an oppressive autocratic regime. This is ‎now a sectarian blood feud, an age-old vendetta, another bloody chapter in ‎an ongoing conflict between a pilloried, outcast and persecuted sect that 40 ‎years ago, after a millennium of persecution and degradation, ingeniously ‎succeeded in seizing power and turning the tables on its historical ‎oppressors.‎

Syrian intervention risks upsetting global order

Writing in the Washington Post, Henry Kissinger takes a critical look at the criteria ‎for international intervention in a sovereign state, and whether action in Syria would ‎meet those criteria. ‎

While the United States accelerates withdrawals from military ‎interventions in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, how can a new military ‎commitment in the same region be justified, particularly one likely to face ‎similar challenges? Does the new approach — less explicitly strategic and ‎military, and geared more toward diplomatic and moral issues — solve the ‎dilemmas that plagued earlier efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan, which ended in ‎withdrawal and a divided America? Or does it compound the difficulty by ‎staking U.S. prestige and morale on domestic outcomes that America has ‎even fewer means and less leverage to shape? Who replaces the ousted ‎leadership, and what do we know about it? Will the outcome improve the ‎human condition and the security situation? Or do we risk repeating the ‎experience with the Taliban, armed by America to fight the Soviet invader ‎but then turned into a security challenge to us?‎

Orthodoxy and the Internet

The ultra-Orthodox world is fighting a losing battle on censoring the internet, a ‎medium which has thrown Jewish thought and expression open to the masses, writes ‎Jeremy Rosen of Algemeiner.

‎

Much of the Charedi world preserves its intellectual stranglehold on the ‎faithful by censoring innovative rabbinic opinions. Books printed over the ‎past five hundred years that have expressed contrarian or lenient views have ‎had pages and sections removed from new editions. Uncomfortable personal ‎details that give the lie to stereotypes and hagiography have disappeared ‎from official view. The internet now allows the originals of all such books to ‎be published and readily available to anyone with a computer and a basic ‎Talmudic education. We can now all see what was permitted in previous ‎generations and where current rabbis have pushed the boundaries far ‎further than ever before.‎

The Human Rights Council: Give Credit Where Credit Is Due

Results show that the United States was right to engage with the UN’s ‎controversial Human Rights Council, and will be better placed to end its ‎obsession with Israel from within, writes Stewart M. Patrick in the Council ‎on Foreign Relations.‎

Beyond placing abusers in the “hot seat”, the United States has over the past ‎three years scored some impressive victories on thematic resolutions.  For ‎years, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its predecessor (the ‎Organization of the Islamic Conference) had pushed a “defamation of ‎religion” resolution that collided with free speech principles. The Obama ‎administration, building on its emerging partnership with Egypt, launched a ‎diplomatic outreach to major Muslim capitals, from Jeddah to Islamabad. ‎The result was an historic achievement: passage of a resolution on freedom ‎of expression and religion that contained none of the problematic ‎language—and yet enjoyed widespread support among Muslim countries. ‎

The Window is Closing for Riyadh

Saudi oil money will not last forever, and the country needs to invest in its human ‎resources before it is too late, argues Robert Looney in Foreign Policy.

‎

Initially caught off guard when the Arab Spring movement erupted in early ‎‎2011, Saudi officials scrambled to stave off unrest in the way that comes ‎naturally to this authoritarian kingdom awash in oil revenue. Their ‎response focused largely on the immediate problem of easing the country’s ‎surprisingly high unemployment, shelling out $120 billion on social ‎programs, government and private-sector job creation schemes, and ‎subsidies to household income. But pouring money on the problems goes ‎only so far; the economy must find better ways to cope with an entitled, ‎skill-short Saudi workforce, not to mention religious restrictions that ‎constrain efforts to modernize the economy. ‎

Dangers Ahead for Egypt

Nathan J. Brown of the National Interest finds that while neither of Egypt’s ‎presidential candidates promises a smooth future, he still has hopes for the ‎country’s new -found democratic spirit.‎

When they return to the polling stations in mid-June, Egyptians will be ‎forced to choose between one candidate posing falsely as Mr. Order ‎‎(Ahmed Shafik, a cranky leftover from the old regime) and the other ‎even less persuasively as Mr. Personality (Mohamed Morsi, the ‎Brotherhood’s “spare tire” who became the movement’s nominee only ‎when its first choice was disqualified because he previously had been ‎convicted by a kangaroo court).‎

‎ ‎

June 3, 2012 Read More »

Israeli Independence vs Naqba – Finding the Truth in Two Different Narratives – Part II

The Israeli and Palestinian narratives reflect, in part, the national identities and perceived histories and experiences of each people. Our respective narratives are built on historical fact and myth. In the interests of finding a way to peace between our two peoples, I believe it is necessary to clarify what is the objective truth of the history of this conflict, to confront it honestly, to acknowledge the pain of the other, for each side to accept responsibility for what has taken place, and then to somehow transcend all that to find a way to partition the land for the sake of peace and security for our two peoples.

The following is hardly exhaustive, but it is an attempt to clarify what actually happened the 1948 war. (see Part I)

Claim/Myth: Arabs formed a majority of the population in Palestine and the Zionists were colonialists from Europe who had no claim to or right to the land of Israel.

Fact: Jews have continually lived in the Land of Israel since at least the time of David (1000 B.C.E.). Since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by Rome in 70 C.E. Jews who were forcibly removed or who fled to the Jewish Diaspora have prayed towards Jerusalem and yearned for a return. No other religion, people, ethnicity, or nationality can claim as long an historical, religious and emotional tie to a particular land as the Jewish people have had with the Land of Israel and the holy city of Jerusalem.

At the time of the 1947 UN Partition resolution, the Arabs had a majority in western Palestine as a whole. But the Jews were in the majority in the area allotted to them by the UN Partition resolution (a small but contiguous area along the coast and in parts of the Galilee).

A major reason for the Arab majority was that many thousands came from neighboring Arab countries (e.g. Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Egypt) to find work, opportunity, education, and health care as a result of improved conditions brought about by the rapid development of the land by Zionist pioneers in the first part of the 20th century. Most of these Arab population numbers (i.e. an increase of 630,000 people, or 75.2%) were people from other Arab countries and were NOT Palestinians. A Palestinian Arab was defined as one who resided in Palestine for at least 2 years, even if his/her origin was from elsewhere. However, many Arabs have lived on the land for centuries and they too claim this land (“Palestine”) as their ancestral heritage.

Claim/Myth: Most of the area of Israel was once Arab owned.

Fact: According to British government statistics, prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, 8.6% of the land area now known as Israel was owned by Jews, 3.3% by Arabs who remained there and 16.5% by Arabs who left the country. 71.6% of the land was owned by the British government. Under international law, ownership passed to Israel once it was established and approved as a member nation by the United Nations in 1948. (Survey of Palestine, 1946, British Mandate Government, p. 257).

Claim/Myth: The establishment of Israel violated the right of Palestinian Arabs to self-determination.

Fact:  The United Nations had offered self-determination and separate states to both Arabs and Jews in western Palestine in 1947. The Jews accepted the offer and the Arabs unanimously rejected it and went to war to “drive the Jews into the sea” (per President Gamel Abdel Nasser of Egypt). This war had followed decades of Arab terrorist attacks on innocent Jews throughout the area of Jewish settlement.

Claim/Myth: Israel expelled the Palestinians in 1948 and took over Palestinian land.

Fact: There is general agreement among Israeli historians on the left and the right that many Arabs were forced to leave their homes and villages in 1948. Of the 700,000 Palestinians who left about 300,000 were forcibly expelled by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) whereas between 100,000 and 200,000 left on their own. The reasons for the flight of the rest is unclear.

There is disagreement, however, among these same historians about the nature of the expulsions (i.e., whether there were explicit orders from the leadership of the Yishuv to expel Palestinians, or whether the expulsions were spontaneous responses to military conditions on the ground as carried out by local leaders).

The debate is over Tokhnit Dalet (Plan D), the military plan that called for expulsions near or behind enemy lines or in hostile villages. The Israeli historian Benny Morris argues that the evidence doesn’t show an intentional program designed ahead of time, but rather a spontaneous response to military conditions by low-level commanders in the field. Others argue (using Morris’ own evidence) that documents show a plan for mass expulsions from above, that is, that Tokhnit Dalet was the realization of the “transfer impulse” under the cover of military language. Still other scholars take a middle position, arguing that Tokhnit Dalet was originally intended as a purely military and small-scale operation, but that once Palestinians were “encouraged” to leave and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had attained military superiority, it was understood that the long-term interests of Israel were served by having as few Palestinians as possible remain within the Green Line (i.e. the 1949 Armistice Line).

Many Palestinians, however, fled their homes and villages out of fear of what their own leaders were telling them would happen to them when the Jews would enter their villages and cited the massacre by Jewish extremist paramilitary units of more than 100 men, women and children at Deir Yassin near Jerusalem as evidence of what the Jews would do to them. Others fled because their leaders promised that when the Jews would be defeated they could return home and enjoy the booty of the vanquished Jews. After they fled, Israel took over their villages, leveling many and planting fields.

What now? How one regards the historic facts and each people’s narrative will either advance or hinder a negotiated two-state solution and partition of the land. The meaning of Jewish and Palestinian nationalism in the minds and hearts of their peoples, the ability to acknowledge the national legitimacy of the “other,” to acknowledge the pain and suffering of the other, and then to compromise for the sake of peace, justice and security for each people are essential to a negotiated outcome of this conflict.

We Jews are and have always been an ever-hopeful people. We are also a people of memory, and the pain and victimization we have experienced in our history are long and deep. The Palestinians too have been bruised and victimized by history, by their leaders, and by the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. The key question for us both is whether we can transcend our pain, fear and hatred for the sake of finding a better future for ourselves and the other.

Israeli Independence vs Naqba – Finding the Truth in Two Different Narratives – Part II Read More »

The great Independence Day debate: Letter 4

This the fourth letter in a debate on changing the date of Independence Day in Israel.  Readers who are not yet familiar with the debate can read more about it here.

Letter 4 is by Rabbi Dr. Michael Avraham, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and former teacher at the Yerucham Hesder Yeshiva.

After reading the comments by the rabbi it struck me that this [the proposed legislation] is a brilliant idea and incredibly effective. As he explains, with one thing and another, this holiday is moved all the time. So why not make a permanent arrangement?

Is there some kind of prohibition that this day can be a nice one for the Zionist worker who wants a long weekend? Where has this hatred come from for the barbecues that I like so much? It seems to me that if it’s a gentile constitution, then the [Remembrance Day] siren or wearing trousers or eating cornflakes are also a gentile constitution.

Have something to say about this? Join the debate at Rosner’s Domain on Facebook

Ultimately, it’s a pleasant and successful custom from our American cousins, and I see no reason not to adopt it (maybe our budget will also start to resemble theirs, who knows) [the rabbi refers here to the custom of celebrating holidays on certain days of the week, instead of insisting on specific dates – S.R.]. After a year or two, when the storm has abated, we will all forget about it and relate normally to Independence Day, in the same way that everyone celebrates it, just as we do most years without batting an eyelid.

For the sake of full disclosure: I’m aware of the fact that my position reflects the lack of religious sentiment I feel towards this day [Independence Day]. To me it is a civil-secular, not religious, holiday. Which of course does not negate the thanks due to the Holy One, just as I thank Him for the breakfast He provides for me each morning.

The attempts to infuse a religious sensibility into a civil day such as this are in general doomed to failure, and I believe to be artificial.

Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar. 

Read the previous correspondence:

Letter 1: Rabbi Avraham Gisser

Letters 2 and 3: Rabbi Benayahu Bruner and Rabbi Ronen Neuwirth

The great Independence Day debate: Letter 4 Read More »