of course you don't see who's cropped out, but they hold up the whole thing.

If the State Department had issued travel advisory warnings to US government officials about to travel to Israel, Vice President Joe Biden would have no doubt ignored them.  A better friend to Israel could not have been found in the 36 years that Biden represented Delaware in the US Senate and there was speculation that his popularity among Jewish voters and major Jewish donors was the primary reason he was added to the Democratic ticket. According to all reports, Biden’s trip was to mend fences with the Israeli officials and with the Israeli Jewish public which had become disenchanted with the Obama administration where the president’s popularity is measured in the low single digits.

Indeed, even a day after having been blind-sided by the announcement that Israel would build 1600 new and exclusively Jewish housing units in East Jerusalem, Biden was still trying. In a prepared speech, he once again bragged, this time to a Tel Aviv university audience, that he was a Zionist and that, “Throughout my career, Israel has not only remained close to my heart but it has been the center of my work as a United States Senator and now as Vice President of the United States,” a statement that should raise questions about dual loyalties and which, curiously, was omitted from all reports on his speech in the US press.

In addition, Biden repeated what he said on his arrival in Jerusalem, that, “There is no space — this is what they [the world] must know, every time progress is made, it's made when the rest of the world knows there is absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to security, none. No space.  That's the only time when progress has been made.” Biden did not offer any examples of such progress and would have had a hard time doing so.

It was not until the end of his speech, after he had thoroughly regurgitated the standard Israeli line on the threats to its existence from Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah, that he felt safe to offer words of criticism for his treatment at the hands of his hosts. The words of condemnation issued the previous day, however, were patently missing. Almost apologizing for doing so, Biden told his audience:

“Now, some legitimately may have been surprised that such a strong supporter of Israel for the last 37 years and beyond… as an elected official, how I can speak out so strongly given the ties that I share as well as my country shares with Israel. But quite frankly, folks, sometimes only a friend can deliver the hardest truth.

“And I appreciate… the response your Prime Minister today announced this morning that he is putting in place a process to prevent the recurrence of that sort of that sort of events [sic] and who clarified that the beginning of actual construction on this particular project would likely take several years … That's significant, because it gives negotiations the time to resolve this, as well as other outstanding issues. Because when it was announced, I was on the West Bank. Everyone there thought it had meant immediately the resumption of the construction of 1,600 new units.”

What, of course, Biden meant was not that Israel should not be able do as it pleases in East Jerusalem, but that announcements of its plans should be handled in a more tactful manner, when, presumably, he, or other US officials are several thousand miles away.

Biden, of course, was patently ignoring repeated statements by Netanyahu that Israel’s decisions to build in East Jerusalem will not be subject either to pressure from Washington or negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

Moreover, as Ha’aretz noted, those projected 1600 units are only a small part of 50,000 units planned for the eastern part of the city, which was annexed in 1967, and which are designed to preclude it not only from becoming the capital of a Palestinian state but also to prevent Palestinian residents of the city from traveling to the West Bank.

According to Yediot Ahronoth, Israel’s most widely read newspaper, Biden had privately complained to Netanyahu that Israel’s behavior was “starting to get dangerous for us.” “What you’re doing here,” he reportedly said, “undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us, and it endangers regional peace.”   That Biden made such a statement has been denied by the White House, but it follows closely an earlier memorandum sent by General Petraeus to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his testimony before a US Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

In his prepared statement, Petraeus depicted the Israeli-Arab conflict as the first “cross cutting challenge to security and stability” in the CENTCOM area of responsibility [AOR]. “The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR.”

Treading in an area where few members of the US military have dared to go before, Petraeus observed that “The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.” It should be noted that neither the NY Times’ Elizabeth Bumiller nor the Washington Post’s Anne Flaherty included any reference to these comments by Petraeus in their coverage of his testimony.

In other words, in the view of Gen. Petraeus, resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict is critical to the US national interest and that, plus his reference to the “perception” of Washington’s pro-Israel bias, is what may have been what, for the moment, occasioned President Obama through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to ratchet up the criticism and publicly brand Israel’s treatment of Biden as “insulting.”

Rather than letting the issue die, she had her office publicize the fact that she had given a piece of her mind to Netanyahu in a 43 minute phone call in which, according to her spokesperson, P.J. Crowley, she described the planned units in East Jerusalem as sending a “deeply negative signal about Israel's approach to the bilateral relationship and counter to the spirit of the vice president's trip" and that "this action had undermined trust and confidence in the peace process and in America's interests." 

Moreover, she made three demands of Netanyahu that were spelled out in the Israeli press but which were only alluded to in the US media: cancelling the decision to approve the 1600 units, making a "significant" gesture to the Palestinian Authority to get it back to the bargaining table, and issuing a public statement that the indirect talks will deal with all the core issues, including Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees. Pretty heady stuff for those used to see Clinton falling all over herself to show her loyalty to Israel.

To emphasize the US position, the Obama administration cancelled the scheduled visit of Middle East envoy George Mitchell who had planned to meet with Israelis and Palestinians in what had been touted by the administration as “proximity talks.”

The gravity of the situation was not lost upon Israel’s new ambassador, American-born historian, Michael Oren, who, in a conference call with Israel’s US consulates, reportedly expressed the opinion (which he now denies) that this was the worst crisis in US-Israel relations since 1975 when Pres. Gerald Ford and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger publicly blamed Israel for the breakdown of negotiations with Egypt over withdrawing from the Sinai.  As a consequence, Ford announced that he was going to make a major speech calling for a reassessment of Israel-US relations. Although hardly the powerhouse that it has become today, AIPAC, the only officially registered pro-Israel lobby, responded to the threat by getting 76 senators to sign a harsh letter to Ford, warning him not to tamper with Israel-US relations. Ford never made the speech and it would not be the last time that AIPAC got three quarters of the US Senate to sign a letter designed to keep an American president in check.

Others point to the nationally televised speech on September 12, 1991 of the first President Bush, who, upon realizing that AIPAC had secured enough votes in both houses of Congress to override his veto of Israel’s request for $10 billion in loan guarantees, went before the American public depicting himself as “one lonely man” battling a thousand lobbyists on Capitol Hill. A national poll taken immediately afterward gave the president an 85 per cent approval rating which sent the lobby and its Congressional flunkies scuttling into the corner but not before AIPAC director, Tom Dine, exclaimed at that date, Sept. 12, 1991, “would live in infamy.” Following the election of Yitzhak Rabin the following year and up for re-election himself, Bush relented and approved the loan guarantee request.

There are those who, while aware of what happened to Ford and of the subsequent humiliations visited by Israel upon American presidents and secretaries of state, view the Biden affair as a charade designed to placate the heads of Arab governments as well as their respective peoples and give the impression that there is a space between Israel and the US when it comes to resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict when, they assert, none exists.

Viewing the unrelenting expansion of Jewish settlements and settlers in the West Bank through one US administration after another for the past four decades they would appear to have a solid argument.  It is undermined, however, by one obvious fact: while the rest of the world considers the Israel-Palestine conflict to be a foreign policy concern, for Washington and both Democrats and Republicans it has been and remains primarily a domestic issue. In that arena there is only one player, the pro-Israel “lobby” which is represented by a multitude of organizations, the most prominent of which is AIPAC.

As if it needed more help, flocking to Israel’s side in increasing numbers over the past several decades have come the majority of America’s Christian evangelicals whose doomsday theology fits in nicely with that of Israel’s ultra right wing settler movement. The result is that in each election cycle anyone with any hope of being elected to a national political office, be it in the White House or Congress, whether incumbent or challenger, feels obligated to express his or her unconditional loyalty to Israel by shamelessly groveling for handouts from Jewish donors and the nod from Jewish voters who make up critical voting blocs in at least six states.

This being the case, it is not so strange that a string of leading elected American officials would willingly submit to public humiliation by a country so politically and militarily dependent on the U.S. and whose population is less than that of New York City or Los Angeles County, even when doing so has made the U.S. seem weak in the eyes of a world in which Washington has other, more pressing interests, than pleasing Israel.  There is no better example of this phenomenon than Barack Obama whose stature as leader of “the world’s only superpower” has been severely undercut by repeated verbal face-slappings at the hands of Netanyahu and his cabinet ministers.

It clearly has been in the US interest that the Israel-Palestine conflict be peacefully resolved. There is nothing in the proposed “two-state solution” that would interfere with Washington’s regional objectives.  On the contrary, the creation of a truncated Palestinian statelet, allied and dependent, politically and financially on the US, as it most certainly would be, would be a boon to US regional interests and ultimately viewed as a setback for anti-imperialist struggles worldwide. It was not just to expend some US taxpayers’ money that the GW Bush administration built a four story security building for the PA in Ramallah (that Sharon later destroyed), brought PA security personnel to Langley, VA for training with the CIA, and had Gen. Dayton build a colonial army to maintain order.

Israeli officials view all of this from a very different perspective, as should be obvious, and will do everything they can to prevent any kind of a Palestinian entity from coming into existence since this would interfere not only with its expansion plans but would also create a junior competitor for US favors in the region. This was why Sharon targeted the US built institutions on the West Bank and the CIA trained personnel during the Al-Aksa Intifada despite the fact that they were non-participants, which raised the hackles at CIA headquarters, as reported at the time in the Washington Post.

What the insult to Biden was clearly designed to do, as were the previous humiliations, was to remind the current and future occupants of the White House that when it comes to making decisions concerning the Middle East, it is Israel that calls the tune. As Stephen Green spelled it out in "Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with Militant Israel" (Morrow, 1984) a quarter century ago, "Since 1953, Israel, and friends of Israel in America, have determined the broad outlines of US policy in the region. It has been left to American presidents to implement that policy, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, and to deal with tactical issues."

That Netanyahu was also taken unawares by the announcement concerning the housing units as he claimed is questionable, particularly since he has apologized only for its timing, not its content and the offending minister remains unpunished.  Netanyahu was surely cognizant that next week he will be coming to Washington to speak before AIPAC’s annual policy conference where he will find a greater degree of support than anywhere in his own country. Last year’s conference attracted a record 7,000 attendees plus half of the US Senate and a third of the House and it is likely to be ever larger this year in response to the administration’s perceived hostility to Israel.

Netanyahu will no doubt happily recall that before he met with President Obama for the first time last year, 76 US senators, led by Christopher Dodd and Evan Bayh, and 330 members of the House, sent AIPAC- crafted letters to the president calling on him not to put pressure on the Israeli prime minister when they met. The only report of this in the mainstream media was by a Washington post blogger who noted the AIPAC tagline on the pdf that was circulated among House members.  Netanyahu will also be succored by memories of the House’s near unanimous support of Israel’s assault on Gaza and by its 334 to 36 vote condemning the Goldstone Report in its aftermath.

In addition, during last year’s Congressional summer recess, 55 members of the House, 30 Democrats led by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and 25 Republicans, led by Eric Cantor, the House’s lone Jewish member, visited Jerusalem.  Both groups met with Netanyahu and afterward held press conferences in which they expressed their solidarity with Israel, particularly with its claims on East Jerusalem, at a time when the Obama administration was calling for a settlement freeze. These visits, too, went unreported in the mainstream media.

Under the present circumstances, we can expect to see AIPAC extend every effort to make this year’s event the largest and more successful yet and there should be no doubt that those attending will give a far more rousing welcome to Netanyahu and to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is also on the AIPAC program, than to Secretary of State Clinton.

AIPAC is already posting statements on its website from members of Congress who are taking the Obama administration to task for making its differences with Israel public and for keeping the issue alive when the focus should not be on Jewish settlements but on the growing threat of a nuclear Iran which has been at the top of AIPAC’s agenda since the beginning of the Iraq War.

Nevertheless, given that the Democratic Party remains dependent on wealthy Jewish donors for the bulk of its major funding, estimated to be at least 60 per cent, and that this is an election year, we can expect Clinton to reach out and once again embrace Israel as she did at the 2008 AIPAC conference when, Biden-like, she said, “I have a bedrock commitment to Israel's security, because Israel's security is critical to our security….[A]ll parties must know we will always stand with Israel in its struggle for peace and security. Israel should know that the United States will never pressure her to make unilateral concessions or to impose a made-in-America solution.”

For those with short memories, here is a sampling of past humiliations of US presidents and secretaries of state at the hands of our loyal ally:

March, 1980, President Carter was forced to apologize after US UN representative Donald McHenry voted for a resolution that condemned Israel’s settlement policies in the occupied territories including East Jerusalem and which called on Israel to dismantle them.  McHenry had replaced Andrew Young who was pressured to resign in 1979 after an Israeli newspaper revealed that he had held a secret meeting with a PLO representative which violated a US commitment to Israel and to the American Jewish community.

June, 1980 After Carter requested a halt to Jewish settlements and his Secretary of State, Edmund Muskie, called the Jewish settlements an obstacle to peace, Prime Minister Menachem Begin announced plans to construct 10 new ones.

In December, 1981, 14 days after signing what was described as a memorandum of strategic understanding with the Reagan administration, Israel annexed the Golan Heights “which made it appear that the US either acquiesced in the move or else has absolutely no control over its own ally’s actions. In both cases the US looks bad….he has once again poked his ally, the source of all his most sophisticated weapons and one third of his budget in the eye.” (Lars Erik-Nelson)

In August, 1982, the day after Reagan requested that Ariel Sharon end the bombing of Beirut, Sharon responded by ordering bombing runs over the city at precisely 2:42 and 3:38 in the afternoon, the times coinciding with the two UN resolutions requiring Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

In March, 1991, Secretary of State James Baker complained to Congress that “Every time I have gone to Israel in connection with the peace process.., I have been met with an announcement of new settlement activity… It substantially weakens our hand in trying to bring about a peace process, and creates quite a predicament.” In 1990, he had become so disgusted with Israel’s intransigence on the settlements that he publicly gave out the phone number of the White House switchboard and told the Israelis, "When you're serious about peace, call us."

In April 2002, after Pres. George W Bush demanded that Ariel Sharon pull Israeli forces out of Jenin, declaring “Enough is enough!,” he was besieged by a 100,000 emails from supporters of Israel, Jewish and Christian and accused by Bill Safire of choosing Yasser Arafat as a friend over Sharon and by George Will, of losing his “moral clarity.” Within days, a humiliated Bush was declaring Sharon “a man of peace” despite the fact that he had not withdrawn his troops from Jenin.

In January 2009, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert publicly boasted that he had “shamed” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by getting President Bush to prevent her from voting for a Gaza cease-fire resolution at the last moment that she herself had worked on for several days with Arab and European diplomats at the United Nations.

Olmert bragged to an Israeli audience that he pulled Bush off a stage during a speech to take his call when he learned about the pending vote and demanded that the president intervene.

 “I have no problem with what Olmert did,” Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, told the Forward. “I think the mistake was to talk about it in public.”

That episode and Foxman’s comment may have summed up the history of US-Israel relations.

Jeffrey Blankfort is a long-time pro-Palestinian activist and a contributor to The Politics of Anti-Semitism. He an be contacted at jblankfort@earthlink.net

Below is the analysis of Henry Herskovitz (with Michelle J. Kinnucan) of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends to a recent

There are many problems with IJAN, which lead me to doubt the purposes of the group. I first question whether they are a Palestinian solidarity group or yet another group that seeks to shield and preserve Jewish power both in Palestine and in the U.S.

In this writer's opinion, Jews – if they are acting in a group that represents Jews in the peace movement – should first and foremost challenge what Akiva Eldar and J. J. Goldberg, among others, call the "Jewish lobby" – the powerful people and institutions (and their rank-and-file supporters) who dominate the US discourse and policy regarding Jews and Israel. Often, these are the very people behind the charge of "self-hating Jews" (and for non-Jews, "anti-Semites") about whom Rebecca Tumposky, national organizer with the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, complains. Yet, nowhere in her article does Ms. Tumposky show a disposition to directly do that.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that three originators of IJAN who live in southeast Michigan, including "Invincible," declined the invitation to stand vigil with Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends at our Global Vigil Day in 2007 or at any other time. They refused to expose and challenge Beth Israel Congregation–a local institutional bastion of open, unabashed Jewish support for Israel–when they had the opportunity. And yes, I'm the first to admit that standing in front of a synagogue is not the only way to challenge Jewish power, but at the same time ask where does IJAN directly challenge this power using another tactic?

In Tumposky's op-ed she says IJAN "seeks to challenge the violence and injustice of Israeli apartheid" but she and IJAN are US-based. So, where is her mention, let alone challenge, of the Jewish supremacism/power that allows Jews – less than two percent of the US population – to so effectively steer US policy and resources into underwriting Jewish apartheid in Palestine?

Right out of the box, she shows her hand – Tumposky's and IJAN's opposition to apartheid is rooted not in universalistic notions of justice and human rights but in Jewish chauvinism/exceptionalism. Thus, they appeal to Jews on the grounds of "our varied traditions of social justice." And Tumposky wants to make sure – absolutely certain – that fighting anti-Semitism is prioritized in any work on freeing Palestine from the genocide brought on by the Jewish state. Thus, she writes, "We challenge anti-Jewish prejudice while standing in solidarity with organizations that support Palestinian liberation and historic justice …" In short, IJAN enters the Palestinian solidarity movement with an explicit agenda of highlighting, if not foregrounding, the concerns of Jews, the very people who enjoy Jewish privilege here and in Israel.

Her opposition to Zionism is carefully couched as a subset of opposing colonialism and imperialism, in general: "We share a commitment to participation in struggles against colonialism and imperialism. We therefore oppose Zionism … IJAN, in fact, opposes all imperialist aggression". She refuses to take notice of the peculiar situation of Zionism – Jewish imperialism – in that Jews lacked a nation-state of their own and, thus, Zionists commandeered other countries, namely Britain and the US, to realize their goals.

Tumposky beats up one or two carefully placed straw men along the way: "We will say it again and again, despite accusations of being 'self-hating Jews': Zionism is not Judaism and the Jewish community." Just who is it that equates Zionism with "Judaism and the Jewish community"? And why is this point so essential for "anti-Zionists" like the IJAN folks? What would Tumposky say to the 757 rabbis – "the largest number of rabbis whose signatures are attached to a public pronouncement in all Jewish history" – who in 1942 stated that Zionism is an "Affirmation of Judaism" and "Anti-Zionism, not Zionism, is a departure from the Jewish religion"?

She also plays a Left Zionist game when she attempts to distinguish the 'types' of Zionism, claiming that "the Zionism we oppose is not a longstanding cultural or religious expression". She conveniently ignores the fact that when push came to shove, all the Zionists – Left, Right and Center – gave their blessings to destroying Palestine.

In the first chapter of his book Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Norman Finkelstein challenged the myth that any of the Zionist tendencies (Labor, Religious, etc.) were ever benign. In short, the only thing about Zionism that really matters is that it "is a form of racism and racial discrimination," as the UN General Assembly correctly identified in 1975.

Tumposky's definition of Zionism is also problematic – "the 19th century ideology that led European Jews to work with imperialist powers to displace and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people, which continues today." It is folly to imply that Jews were passive objects of that "ideology". Zionism was created, implemented, and popularized by Jews. Are readers supposed to believe that it was the imperialist powers that Jews only "worked with" that committed this crime? Isn't it more accurate to say that Jews led these imperialist powers by the nose – as they still do today – to have non-Jews die for the Jewish state?

When she writes "Israel and its U.S. lobby helped pushed us toward the Iraq war and are exerting similar pressure to attack Iran", readers need to be cognizant of what she omits – EVERY major constituent group of the organized Jewish community pressed for war on Iraq, and there's a list of at least two dozen Jewish individuals – in powerful government or media positions – who also pressed strongly for war.

Tumposky touts "Jewish visions of collective liberation and traditions of social justice", but doesn't give us any proof that this tradition ever existed, other than in the minds of Jews who want their image spit-shined, if not outright falsified. More than 300 years ago, Benedictus de Spinoza, who is often upheld as a great Jewish intellectual, observed that Jews had in fact nothing to commend themselves as superior to others, had acted in such a way as to "incur the hatred of all", and that this hatred was the glue that bound Jews together. Other than, perhaps, a few years during the Civil Rights struggle (and Benjamin Ginsberg casts doubt on even this), Jews collectively have acted in concert NOT for universal well-being, but for the benefit of Jews. IJAN does not seem to be an exception.

Distinguishing IJAN from AIPAC, J-Street and Tikkun, might make good reading, but doesn't let them off the hook. Once again, I'm reminded of Paul Eisen's words: "The crime against the Palestinian people is being committed by a Jewish state with Jewish soldiers using weapons displaying Jewish religious symbols, and with the full support and complicity of the overwhelming mass of organized Jews worldwide. But to name Jews as responsible for this crime seems impossible to do." It seems obvious to me that IJAN and similar organizations exist, in no small part, to prevent the naming of Jews as responsible for the Jewish-led genocide against the Palestinian people.

Israeli Tourism poster in London... Where's Palestine?

A common blueprint of Israeli hasbara, or official propaganda, is to deflect criticism of its actions in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip by stressing that within the 1948 boundaries, it is a model of democracy incomparable to other societies in the Middle East. The reality however is far from this. In fact, Israel is in the grip of a wave of unchecked racism and incitement, both from a societal and an institutional point of view. It therefore does not come as a surprise that last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee that Israel is going to officially monitor "incitement" within the Palestinian Authority (PA), and periodically issue reports on it.

Toward this end, Netanyahu appointed Brig. Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, the former senior intelligence officer of the IDF Central Command, as government coordinator for incitement in the PA. "The incitement index" will be produced by monitoring broadcasts in the official PA media, statements and actions by senior PA officials and textbooks, senior Israeli official spokesmen stated.  Yossi aims to monitor all acts which "encourage terrorist acts", which demonize Israel and which create an atmosphere of hostility. This "index" will allow the Israeli government to "set parameters by which to measure the level of incitement," and which encourage a supposed atmosphere of violence and alleged anti-Semitic manifestations.

Not only is it hard to understand how the collection of non-numerical data can be "quantified", there also seem to be various flaws in the thrust underpinning this proposal.

The debate started with Mahmoud Abbas' decision to name a square in Ramallah after Dalal Mugrhabi, a Palestinian woman who took part in the coastal road operation three decades ago, in which 38 Israelis were killed. It seems however that the granting of "martyrdom" status is not confined to the Palestinian Authority only.  Let us not forget the 1994 massacre, in the city of Hebron, when Baruch Goldstein entered a mosque and opened fire, killing 29 Muslims during prayer. Subsequently, a shrine was erected in Goldstein's memory in the Meir Kahane Memorial Park, a Jewish settlement adjacent to Hebron. Until 1999, when legislation and a Supreme Court ruling prohibited monuments to terrorists, this shrine was a pilgrimage site visited by over 10,000 people. Its plaque read: "To the holy Baruch Goldstein, who gave his life for the Jewish people, the Torah and the nation of Israel." In any case, the inauguration ceremony in the Ramallah square was cancelled.  Netanyahu stated that naming a square after Mughrabi was "problematic in the extreme" and that "this was not how peace was made". Well, let us look back a couple of decades, and see how, if anything, Israel can enlighten us on how peace is not made. 

Israel's argument is that, under the "1993 Oslo Agreements", the Palestinians committed themselves to eliminating violence and "incitement" against Israel.  In fact, the Oslo Agreements required a commitment from both sides to refrain from incitement and an agreement to amend the educational systems to reflect the peaceful coexistenceⁱ.  Under the 2003 Quartet-backed "Road Map for peace" proposal, the Palestinians committed to end violence and incitement against Israelis, and Israel was required to halt all settlement construction, amongst other things. There is no point for Israel to point the finger at Palestinians for "inciting" violence against Israel, when a plan to build 1,600 settler homes in the Ramat Shlomo settlement was officially approved last week.  Not only are these settlements unlawful under international humanitarian law, which prohibits population transfers by an Occupying Power into lands that it occupies, but they are severely depriving the Palestinians from their basic human rights. Therefore, by reducing the argument to whether or not the Palestinians have abided by their agreement and stopped "incitement" against Israel, simply misses the point.

We can easily turn the coin and examine how Israel uses misleading language and terminology in the media on the events occurring in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.  For example, Zvi Bar'el explains in his article, Israel is demanding peace from the Palestinians as its own racism spreads. The West Bank is referred to as "Judea and Samarae", we are often presented with a decorated illegal annexation of East Jerusalem which is termed a "defensive operation" and settlements which are deemed illegal under international law commonly referred to as mere "towns".  So who is inciting violence against whom?

Israeli settler violence against civilians is a theme which is also often overlooked. When Palestinians attack Israelis, the Israeli authorities use all means at their disposal (including non legal means such as administrative detention and arbitrary arrests, which are incompatible with international law and international humanitarian law) to arrest suspects and bring them to trial. Settlers on the contrary enjoy the support of the government, and when they attack Palestinians, the Israeli authorities employ leniency and fail to enforce the law against them.  The discrimination undermining this difference of treatment is a clear example of how Israel flouts the well known principle of "equality before the law." One is probably not bewildered by this attitude, since the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman, has himself lived since 1988 in Nokdim, a settlement in the West Bank. 

Before moving to racism within the 1948 boundaries, it is worth mentioning how Palestinian children are often used as tools to support Israel's "incitement" campaign. Israel claims that these children are "full of hate" against Israel. What else is to be expected from children, when up to 300 are being held in Israeli prisons in administrative detention for throwing stones, or not even that? These children are forced to sign confessions in Hebrew, forcing them to admit to crimes they did not commit. Some of these are as young as 12, who according to a recent Guardian article, when held behind bars are treated like "terrorists". What other means of protesting do they have when the checkpoints and Jewish only roads prevent them from going to school? Israel state officials also complain about the Palestinian educational system, whose textbooks apparently do not portray history accurately and do not refer to Israel. It is interesting that they touch on the issue of geography textbooks, because not too long ago the Northern Line on the London Underground advertised an "Experience Israel" tourism campaign which wiped out the West Bank and Gaza Strip off the map (and Lebanon, for that matter).

Finally, it is important to mention the spread of racism within Israel. A recent poll conducted by the Maagar Mochot research institution and presented at a Tel Aviv University Conference show that 56% of Israeli high school students believe that the country's Arab citizens should be prohibited from being elected to the Knesset and should not be allowed to vote, and that the figure rises to 82 percent among religious youths.  Israel lacks a written constitution unlike Britain, which has no written constitution either but contains the Habeas Corpus act of 1679, the Human Rights Act of 1998 and many other quasi-constitutional documents and constitutional conventions which guarantee individual rights. Israel is yet to enact a constitution or laws which guarantee equal rights to all citizens regardless of religion, race, ethnicity or national origin. The Israeli Supreme Court is flooded with employment or land dispute cases, and is simply not equipped to guarantee equality between Israeli Jews and their Arab counterparts. If the Israeli government wants to condemn "incitement", shouldn't they start by first cleaning up their act and redress this discriminatory imbalance?

This article does not aim to justify any alleged Palestinian incitement, since two wrongs do not make a right. It is evident however that the position of both parties is substantially different, and the context of the occupation should always be taken into account. Officially monitoring Palestinian levels of incitement distorts the reality and demeans the suffering of the 1,5 million Palestinians under siege in the Gaza Strip, of the hundreds of innocent Palestinians who are administratively detained and of the hundreds of families who are left homeless when their houses are demolished by bulldozers.  It also silences the voice of brave young Israelis who refuse to serve in the IDF army and are jailed for this, and of human rights activists like Rachel Corrie, who was killed by a bulldozer operated by the IDF forces whilst attempting to prevent them from demolishing the home of a Palestinian family. 

This initiative aims to portray Israel as angelic. It aims to transform its status of "Occupier" to that of "victim". It is a hoax and I did not fall for it.

iArticle XXOO Oslo II Agreement

source: http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/35-palestine/791-on-the-absurdity-of-a-qpalestinian-incitement-indexq

I arrived at the bridge, went through the routinized luggage and security screenings and headed for the passport window. The woman in the occupying army at the window asked me questions when it was my turn. She asked me what I was planning to do in "Israel," a word and question that makes my blood boil given that I was clearly trying to enter Palestine.  Although I have spent extended periods of time living in Palestine since the summer of 2005, this is the first time I did not say that I was doing research as my reason for entering. This question normally got all sorts of questions, too, but at least it did not implicate my friends, something I had been unwilling to do before now. When I first went to Palestine in 2005 I used names of colonists, because I would much rather to have them questioned, but since 2006 when I adopted a policy of anti-normalization I refuse to speak to or normalize with a single colonist other than the occupying soldiers I am forced to deal with at the border and at checkpoints. I had arranged beforehand with my friend to say that I would be staying with him since he lives in Jerusalem and I wanted to make sure that I did not get one of those new stamps that said I can only enter the West Bank (my real plan was to stay in Doha, but I did not want to give additional names of friends). I was also asked how long I would be staying, and even though I had only planned to come for the weekend, I said I was not sure because I wanted to avoid getting one of the increasingly frequent stamps that is only for one week. I was worried that it would have implications for longer visits in the future. In the past I have always been given the three-month visa at the bridge (I've never entered the airport in occupied Lydd). But there have been occasions in the past when I wanted to come just for a wedding, just for the weekend when I was still given a three-month visa. 

The occupying female soldier gave me a piece of paper to fill out and told me to wait. I'm used to the waiting part, but not this paper. It's new. It asked for basic information such as the address where you live, your employer, phone numbers and email address, as well as who you will be staying with and their contact information. I filled it out and waited. After about an hour one of the occupying private security contractors came over  and asked for my paper and told me to wait. But first he wanted to know about my other passport. He read the back page and noted the two-year expiration on my passport and said he knew I had another one. I said that I don't have it with me. He said, well maybe we'll check your luggage to see if it is there. I said it isn't and I don't have another passport (which, of course, is not true). I said if you need to see that passport in order for me to enter then you need to send me home now. Finally, he said that he did not need to see it in order for me to enter. There were at least a dozen people ahead of me. So I waited. After another two hours (around 7 PM) he returned to ask me questions. He wanted to know more about my friend. He wanted to know his age, what he did for a living, where he worked, where he lived exactly, how I know him, etc. I told him you have his phone number and you may call him and ask him yourself, but I don't see how this is any of your business (he never did call my friend). I replied only that he is my age and that he lives in the Old City in Al Quds. Then he asked me questions about how long I was staying for and where I would go. I said that I didn't have any definite plans. He didn't like that answer and so I said, okay I'm staying for one week. Is that a better answer? He didn't like that answer either and said I had to sit down again.

I waited with others, mostly Palestinians with American or Jordanian passports, although there was a young, white American couple studying Arabic in Amman who had already been held since 2 PM. Eventually all of these people were allowed in after a good 7 hours of waiting each. The occupying private security contractor returned and asked me the same questions a couple more times. Then he said I would have to have an interrogation with someone from the "Israeli" Ministry of Interior and a body search (which they never got around to). This was also nothing new. Usually I do get questioned and have to wait anywhere between 5-7 hours. But I've never gone at night before. Usually their questions are also mostly about my research and sometimes about things they seem to find on Google about me. 

By 10 PM  or so there were only about five people still waiting, all Palestinians with huwiyyas. They decided at this point that they would check my suitcase and purse. They told me to sit down, but I told them no I wanted to watch them go through my clothes, toiletries, and books. They said I can take my money out of my purse before they go through that. I had two change purses, one with Jordanian cards and money, the other with my Arab Bank ATM card and money from the occupying entity. They said I could not take the change purses, but that I could only take the cash. They wanted to take all of my cards–ID cards, credit cards, everything–into another room away from my field of vision. I told them no. I've been through this process numerous times before and never have they tried to do this. Eventually they said I could keep my ATM cards, but that my huwwiya, driver's license, and bank account cards (detailing my account information) would have to go into the other room. I said no. They also wanted to take my SIM cards for my Jawal and Zain (Jordanian) phones into the other room as well. I said no. I don't trust thieves with my personal papers. They had my passport; that was enough. There were about 12 occupation private security contractors and police around me looking through my things at this time. They were asking questions about my religion because somehow the Arabic-English dictionary in my purse is a clue about my religion. They were, as always, very curious about the books in my bag and examined them with a fine-tooth-comb, including my Bedford Anthology of World Literature, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, and Edward Said's The Question of Palestine. They were also going over my student attendance sheets (which are in Arabic) and my syllabi, which were in my bag. 

Eventually they let me pack up my suitcase and told me to go back and wait. At this point there were three of us left. Two brothers from Ramallah and me. They were allowed to leave at around 5 minutes to midnight when the bridge closes. I was made to wait until about 1 AM. I asked for my passport several times as I still didn't know what they were going to do, but they told me that I'd get it when they decided I'd get it. After midnight, after all the floors had been washed and the terminal was empty, all the occupying soldiers and private contractors stood around laughing and doing nothing. But still no passport. I was alone for at least an hour. Eventually I heard one of them speaking in Arabic to the jordanian mukhabarat on his walkie-talkie and I knew then that they were calling for a bus and that somewhere there had been two other men also waiting to be deported. I got on the bus and returned to Jordan. I was told by one of the occupying police that I "should never bother to try returning to Israel again."

The story above is, of course, ordinary. This happens regularly to activists invested in liberating Palestine. It happens even more frequently to Palestinians trying to enter their own country. Perhaps I was denied entry because I refused to talk about my friend or would not submit to their search in full. I know that there is a game at the bridge. That one is supposed to be polite, sometimes laugh or smile. I don't know how to do that with murderers and thieves and I don't know that I want to learn how to do that. The anger that I feel when I see that flag symbolic only of a history of massacres and massive land theft at the border makes me irate. Perhaps it would have enabled me to see my friends. But it is also not clear that this is not related to my work with ISM in the past (including a day in jail for protesting in Bil'in) or my work with the BDS movement that they saw online, although they did not question me about that yesterday. In any case, if I never have to hear their language or see their flag again it will not be too soon. Although I don't think it has hit me yet what this means, on some level it is an honor to be denied entry because of my failure to submit to the rules of the colonist.

Marcy Newman is a literature professor at Amman Ahliyya University and an Organizing Committee member with the US Campaign for the Cultural and Academic Boycott of Israel (usacbi.org).

WRITTEN BY AVIGAIL ABARBANEL 

Inverness Scotland, 18 March 2010

Please watch the documentary ‘Children of Gaza’ by Jezza Neumann here. Then please visit http://childrenofgazafund.org/  to make a donation to help Amal who has been living with shrapnel in her brain since Israel’s attack just over a year ago.A couple of nights ago I watched the documentary ‘Children of Gaza’ on Channel 4’s ‘Dispatches’. The film was made by the award winning documentary maker Jezza Neumann. Since then I can’t get the face of Amal, one of the four children featured in the film, out of my head. Amal was wounded during Israel’s attack on Gaza just over a year ago. She was found under rubble and I understand that for a while she lay near the dead and mutilated bodies of her uncles, one of whom had his head split in two.

Since Israel’s attack over a year ago, Amal has been living with several pieces of shrapnel lodged in her head. She is suffering from frequent awful headaches and nosebleeds. This is in addition to the obvious psychological trauma that she has to live with. As a psychotherapist I have no idea how long it will take and if it will ever be possible for Amal to recover from the trauma she has been through, and what life will be like for her if the shrapnel can’t be taken out of her brain.

In the film it was explained that an Israeli charity arranged for Amal to see a neurosurgeon in Israel to see what could be done for her. I understood the necessity but I still don’t think it was appropriate to send Amal to Israel for treatment. Imagine what it must feel like for her. Amal knows perfectly well that Israel is responsible for what had happened to her, to her family and her community. Can you imagine what she must have felt when she was sent to an Israeli surgeon? That surgeon, good or not, is or was a solider in the same military force that has been hurting Amal’s people. To send her to someone like that is insensitive and macabre.

I was also absolutely appalled that despite receiving permission to go into Israel to be examined by the surgeon, Amal and her elderly grandmother were made to wait 7 hours outdoors to get permission to cross the border. This is just another example of the indignities that Israel puts the Palestinian people through on a daily basis. There was no real reason for the wait just like there is no reason to keep anyone waiting for hours at checkpoints every day. Jewish Israel does not think that the Palestinian people deserve to be treated with dignity.

But do not make the mistake of dismissing this as the random acts of a messy and dysfunctional third world style bureaucracy. Rather this is a deliberate and calculated campaign to humiliate the Palestinian people and break their spirit. Broken people stop resisting even when exposed to the worst abuses.

In its fight against the spirit of Palestinian resistance Jewish Israel does not distinguish between the very young, the infirm, the able-bodied or the elderly. Every human spirit can inspire resistance. The inspiration and motivation to resist can come from your elderly grandmother just as much as your ten-year-old niece or newborn baby. Every single person with an aspiration for freedom is a threat to an occupier and oppressor. This is why Israeli soldiers can murder young children in their parents’ arms. They don’t distinguish between freedom fighters and ordinary people. This is the reason behind Israel’s persistent policy of collective punishment. It’s also why there is an international law against it. It’s because occupying powers and oppressors have always viewed the whole group as a threat, not just the designated freedom fighters.

The lack of compassion and humanity on Israel’s part is staggering and frankly I have had just enough of this. I don’t believe that a Jewish Israeli child or soldier with a brain injury would have been treated as poorly as Amal was. What Israeli soldier would allow his grandmother to be treated the way Amal’s grandmother was?

Enough is enough! I can’t sit by any longer and watch this happen without doing something. I would like to see Amal flown to a country overseas with an adult family member to be examined and possibly operated on by a capable and caring surgeon who has nothing to do with Israel and who would be prepared to take on Amal’s case. I know this is likely to cost a lot and will be hard to organise, so I hope a group of us can get together to arrange this somehow. I have never done anything like this before and have no experience. But among the readers there are people with great organising, campaigning and fundraising skills and experience, people who have means, people who have influence and people who know people in key places.

I am asking you to join together to take on Amal’s cause, and help her and her family end this ongoing nightmare. It’s important that Amal’s family in Gaza is contacted so that they can be an integral part of any attempt to help her.

All the children of Gaza need help; all the people of Gaza need help. I would like to help everyone and the way to do this is to do everything possible to end the siege, open the borders and ultimately end the occupation of the Palestinian people. It is unacceptable that people should live the way the people in Gaza do. Jewish Israel cannot be trusted to end this nightmare out of the goodness of its heart. Israel is going very fast down the slippery slope of war crimes and human rights violations. Despite its relentless protest and cries of ‘poor me’, Jewish Israel is a morally bankrupt state that is rapidly losing the legitimacy it should never have had in the first place.

On the Channel 4 website Jezza Neumann, the director of ‘The Children of Gaza’ wrote a short piece (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/children-ofgaza-filmmakers-feature  describing his experiences in Gaza. In it he mentions that if anyone wants to help any of the children featured in the film they should contact http://childrenofgazafund.org/  There you will be able to make a donation for one or more of the four children mentioned in the film. The site is hosted by True  Vision Productions, which was “founded in 1995 by Brian Woods and Deborah Shipley to make international campaigning documentaries. A number of charities have grown out of the films [they have] made… The Foundation is for those viewers who SPECIFICALLY want to help the individuals featured in our films. Each film will have its own account, and donations to that account will be used solely in connection with helping the characters from that film.”

Please make a donation through the site but let’s see if we can do more than give money. Perhaps we can in some way support the True Vision foundation to offer the help that Amal and the other children need so urgently.

The film http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-56/episode-1

Compiled by Blaine Coleman

University of California at Berkeley–
Student Senate votes for divestment against Israeli war crimes

UC Berkeley student senate passes divestment resolution

Press Release
From UC Berkeley SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine)

March 18, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Download the text of the UC Berkeley Divestment Bill here. 

For the first time in the University of California history, the UC Berkeley Student Senate has approved a bill to divest from two US companies in response to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and to Israel’s siege and bombardment of the Gaza Strip.  

This Resolution is on the Web at:
http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-news-0376.html

* "The Wayne State University Student Council voted for total divestment from Israel." 

http://dearbornboycottsisrael.blogspot.com/2008/07/blog-post.html

 Resolution for Ending Support to Israel:  

The Human Rights Commission urged Ann Arbor City Council to also approve this Resolution.

Click on the Resolution to enlarge it.

_______________________________________________
 "Arms Divestment and Cessation of US Military Aid to Israel"
 A resolution of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice and its MiddleEast Task Force

 http://peacepalestinedocuments.blogspot.com/2006/01/approaches-to-economic-engagement.html

As persons of faith who believe in the equal worth and dignity of all people, we are distressed that Israelis and Palestinians have become locked in an escalating cycle of violence. We categorically condemn the taking of any life, Israeli or Palestinian. We are convinced that only the end of the Israeli occupation and the establishment of a geographically and economically viable independent Palestinian state can bring peace to the Middle East and achieve the goal of two nation-states — Israel andPalestine — living peaceably side-by-side, with equality and security, possibly in a confederation.

We have long been dismayed by threats to the existence of Israel. We areequally dismayed by the continual military occupation and virtual colonization of Palestinian territory by Israeli armed forces and settlers,the human rights abuses against Palestinians, and the destruction of the Palestinian economy. Devastation of the physical and social infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza — including the forcible eviction from anddemolition of homes — does not quell terrorism. It engenders more.

Such actions fuel deeper hatred of Israel in surrounding countries, while causing a major humanitarian disaster among Palestinians. And they leave Palestinians continually vulnerable to expulsion from the land in which they have been deeply rooted for generations. U.S. weapons and military funding are being used in these violations of human rights andinternational agreements. Americans of conscience must protest.

We do not have faith that governments alone will take the necessary actions to bring about a change in the Israeli government policies described above. We therefore believe that nonviolent civilian action is needed, aiming tolimit the present intense funding of Israeli military activities.

Accordingly, we will work with those groups who are calling on the governing bodies of our religious institutions, the City of Ann Arbor, the University of Michigan, and our fellow citizens 

* to use their influence to encourage the United States government to end its complicity in these violations of human rights by suspending it smilitary aid and arms sales to Israel, and

* to divest themselves from all companies that manufacture or sell arms and other military hardware to Israel, in order to bring about:

* Israel's compliance with United Nations Resolution 242, which calls for "the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in therecent (1967) conflict";

* Israel's compliance with the United Nations Committee Against TortureNov. 2001 Report (paragraph 53), which recommends that Israel's use of "thecrime of torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment orpunishment" must be prevented;

* Israel's cessation of settlement building and expansion, and itsvacating of existing settlements in the Occupied Territories in compliancewith the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states "The Occupying Power shallnot deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." (Article 49, paragraph 6, 1949);

* Israel's acknowledgment of the applicability of United NationsResolution 194 (1948) with respect to the rights of refugees, andacceptance that refugees should either be permitted to return to theirhomes and property or be justly compensated for their losses.

This statement is derived from multiple sources, including severaluniversity divestment petitions; and from members of the Middle East TaskForce of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice and thePalestine-Israel Action Group of Ann Arbor Friends Meeting.

"Call for Peace in the Middle East" by Ann Arbor Committee for Peace which later changed its name to Michigan Peaceworks. 
[This Resolution calls for an End To US Military Aid to Israel until the Occupation Ends and ALL the settlements are dismantled]
 
See below:

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/39754.html 
 
Preamble: The Ann Arbor Area Committee for Peace recognizes that theconflict in Palestine/Israel is an issue of great concern in our community,around which emotions often outweigh objectivity.

We do not wish to contribute to the discord, but rather to unify people around common goalsof nonviolence and fairness. Our organization formed shortly after 9-11-01 to address issues of peace, civil liberties, and civil rights-particularly how these issues would be affected by the U.S. government military response to the 9-11 attacks. We consider a peaceful resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to be an important element in curtailing the cycle of violence worldwide.

Statement: Over the past two years, we have witnessed in grief and anguishthe appalling destruction resulting from the spiral of violence in theMiddle East. Violence will only beget further violence. We condemn in the strongest terms the practices that bring about the deaths of innocent people and the destruction of communities.

Fortunately, there are many who work for peaceful resolution of theconflict. These people and organizations give hope that future generationsof Israelis and Palestinians can live normal, secure lives, in peace witheach other. We support the Israeli and Palestinian peacemakers, including the Bereaved Families for Peace, who call on their fellow citizens torenounce violence. We support the Israeli soldiers who refuse to serve inthe occupied territories. We support those from Israel and other countrieswho work with Palestinians to rebuild destroyed homes. We support the efforts of those states and organizations that have made proposals for a just peace, including the member states of the Arab League, which hascalled for normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for creationof a Palestinian state and a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

In solidarity with all those working for peace in the Middle East, we call for the following: 

* An immediate end to the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank, Gaza,and East Jerusalem;

* An immediate end to the violence on both sides, recognizing violence as including Occupation, military incursions, and suicide bombings;

* A full evacuation of all settlements with the exception of minornegotiated border adjustments;

* A just settlement for the refugees who have been forced by war toleave homes in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza;

* Establishment of the state of Palestine side by side with the stateof Israel with the boundaries established by UN Resolution 242;

* Social and economic justice and full legal rights for all citizens of both states;

* A major international effort to assist the reconstruction of Palestine;

* An end to U.S. military aid to Israel until the Occupation ends and the settlements are dismantled;

* Negotiations towards arms control and disarmament of weapons of massdestruction for the entire region;

* Recognition of and normalization of relations with Israel by all thecountries of the Middle East. 

Adopted by the Ann Arbor Area Committee for Peace on November 11, 2002

Resolution to Divest in Principle and Practice, From Israel by the National Lawyers Guild 

http://peacepalestinedocuments.blogspot.com/2006/01/approaches-to-economic-engagement.html

(Adopted by NLG National Convention 10/24/04)

WHEREAS the Israeli government with its illegal occupation and expansionist program in the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip is engaged, and has been engaged in grave human rights violations including but not limited to:

the use of live ammunition on unarmed civilians (including men, women, and children);
massive and disproportionate use of force including the firing of missiles from Apache helicopter gunships against defenseless civilian populations;
illegal mass arrests and institutionalized torture (including men, women, and children); the willful destruction of agricultural land;
the deprivation of water;
forced malnutrition with concomitant health consequences including stillborn deaths and irreversible developmental damage to children;
the mass demolition of homes and confiscation of land;
hostage taking and extra-judicial assassinations;
denial of medical services to the sick and wounded;
the use of human shields (including children);
the targeting of schools, and hospitals;
the building of illegal fortified "Jewish-only" Israeli colonies/settlements on confiscated land connected by "Jewish-only" bypass roads, and the heavily subsidized transfer of hundreds of thousands of its own civilian population into these colonies/settlements;

WHEREAS the International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel's Apartheid Wall violates international humanitarian law which governs Israel's administration of the Palestinian territories it has occupied since 1967 as well as the fundamental human rights of the Palestinians;

WHEREAS by virtue of, but not limited to, the Principles of the Nuremberg Charter and Judgment;

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights;
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights;
The Geneva Conventions, in particular, but not limited to the 4th Geneva Convention, the Convention Against Torture, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Protocol 1, Additional to the Geneva Conventions, as well as other international covenants and the general humanitarian principles of international law,
these acts constitute war crimes, and in some cases crimes against humanity.

WHEREAS, the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 22 USC sec. 2304, provides that "no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights;"

WHEREAS, the UN General Assembly on October 22, 2003, reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and …. reiterating its opposition to settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories almost unanimously, with the exception of the US, Israel,…
 
BE IT RESOLVED that the NLG seeks, in principal and practice, to support national and international campaigns to divest from Israel…and (a) support divestment campaigns to make full public disclosure of any and all investments it or other institutions have in Israel and of any and all profits earned from companies invested in Israel, and (b) either immediately divest from those companies, or cause such companies to disinvest from Israel until all of the following conditions are met:

1. Withdraw armed forces;
2. Permit interested refugees to return to their homes and compensate the rest;
3.End torture;
4.Vacate all Jewish-only settlement/colonies;
5.Compensate all Palestinian victims.

"University of Sussex students vote to boycott Israeli goods"

November 27, 2009

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=4378

"Faculty Senate in Wisconson passes divestment bill"

"Dearborn Student Gov't Demands Divestment"

"Dearborn student government pushes 'U' to divest funds from Israel"

"The student government at the University's Dearborn campus last week unanimously passed a resolution calling for the University's Board of Regents to vote to divest from Israel."

Reported in the Michigan Daily, at:

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/dearborn-student-govt-demands-divestment 

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/dearborn-student-govt-pushes-israel-divestment 

Call to divest from Israeli Occupation, by Howard University's faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences 

Adopted May 13, 2003  

Approved unanimously by the Ann Arbor Human Rights Commission.

 http://www.jai-pal.org/content.php?page=501 

"Prominent call for divestment at Howard"

by: Will Youmans – The Arab American News

17th, March 2007

Activists calling for ending financial support for Israel welcomed a victory at a university in Washington, DC. The faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences at Howard University voted overwhelmingly to call on the university's board of trustees to divest from Israel.

The faculty at this historically Black institution came down with a 25 to 2 vote in favor of divestment, beginning with the identification of university "funds that are being invested in 'offending' companies that are offering material support to Israeli Occupation."

The March 8th call was introduced by David Schwartzman, a biology professor of Jewish origin. He told "The Arab American News," there was not much opposition, except by the college's Dean, who refused to put divestment on the agenda. He plans on introducing a similar resolution to the faculty Senate this spring.

He sponsored the measure in the hope that "these resolutions start spreading around the country and generate action comparable to the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s."

النص الأصلي باللغة العربية بالاسفل

Call for all Muslims living in "Israel "

In this message, we would like to explain the view of Torah regarding non- Jewish inhabitants in Israel. Firstly, we say that all human beings were created by one God and every faithful man must be treated respectfully. Therefore, the view of Judaism is not racial nor inhumane! It is all about religion!

The gist of our religions both is the belief in God, the creator. As we both believe, God gave us Torah which contains the duties and messages that we must achieve.

As what Holy Qur'an says, there is no contrast between what Torah says and what Qur'an says. As faithful Jews, we must achieve our duties. In many parts of Torah, it is written that the land of "Israel" was promised to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their grandsons ONLY! All the people agree that we are the grandsons of the ancient people of Israel, grandsons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!!

Moreover, it is written in Torah that this small land is a property of the Jewish people ONLY! And it is forbidden to let others live here permanently. It is also written in Books of Nevi'im (Books of the Prophets) that we were dismissed because we did not achieve this divine order! The Jewish people were dismissed and stayed outside their homeland for 2000 years. Now and after we have returned back to the land of Israel, as we were promised by Prophets; it is time for the Israeli people to achieve this divine order. So, we ask you to leave the land of Israel!!!

We say that in the point view of religion and to guarantee peace in Israel! We explain to you all the holy speech in both Qura'an and Torah. We think that when you understand that we do not hate you nor do we want to fight you because of your belief in Islam, you will come to understand the reason behind our determine to achieve the divine order! As Islam says, " There is no god but Allah. "

Here is the divine order. God told Moses:

Torah, 33 . 56-50

God talked to Moses on Moab regarding Jordan and Jericho saying:
Tell people of Israel that you will pass Jordan to the land of Canaanites.
So, you will dismiss all the inhabitants from there, will vanish all their statues and you will control all their heights.
You will own the land and live there because I gave you the land to possess and to divide it by lot regarding your tribes.
You should give more for the big tribes than the small tribes.
And if you did not dismiss the inhabitants, they would be thorns in your eyes and bodies and they would annoy you in the land you live on
And I will punish you the same way I wanted to punish them.

After you see the divine speech and because Islam is a religion of morals, and to avoid the Jews to possess another land, you must have no objection!! You have wide countries to live in!!! You must understand that we achieve the order written in Torah. Because it is not easy to leave millions of people without financial support, we suggest you to negotiate with "State of Israel" (which embodies the promise of prophets) to get economic aids to live wherever else!!!!

When we and you obey God, then we can live peacefully. We, you, our grandsons and your grandsons for a long time!!

As prophet Ichaaih said, " No nation holds the sword on the face of another nation and they no longer learn about war."

Regard the holiness of these pages. (End of the publication!)

*****

Translated into English
By: Shadi Y. Nassar

Please, suggest a better translation by contacting me on:

shadinassar@hotmail.com

Note: all the holy verses of Qur'an were omitted.

****************

I have made a French translation of your document: (By: Gwénaëlle Taffin)

Une copie de la traduction publiée par les habitants Israëliens de Jerusalem dans le cadre de leur sauvage campgagne de " judaisation" de Jerusalem et la partie historique de la Palestine:
النص الأصلي باللغة العربية بالاسفل

Appel aux musulmans qui vivent en "Israël"

Dans ce message, nous aimerions vous expliquer la position du Torah concernant les habitants non-juifs d´Israël.
Dans un premier temps, nous déclarons que tous les êtres humains furent crées par un seul Dieu et tout fidèle sera traité avec respect. en conséquence, le point de vue "judaique" n´est ni racial ni ihumain!!!! Il n´est question que de religion!!

L´idée essentielle de nos deux religions est la croyance en Dieu, le createur. Comme nous le savons tous deux, Dieu nous donna le Torah qui contient les tâches et messages que nous nous devons de réaliser.

Selon ce que dit le Coran, il n´y a pas de contraste entre ce que dit le Torah et ce que dit le Coran. Comme juifs croyants, nous devons réaliser nos tâches. Dans beaucoup de passages du Torah, il est écrit que la région d´Israël a été promise SEULEMENT à Abraham, Isaac, Jacob et à leurs petits enfants.

De plus, il est écrit dans le Torah que ce petit pays est la propriété UNIQUE des juifs!!!! Et il interdit de laisser d´autres (gens) y vivre en permanence. Il est également écrit dans les Livres de Neviim (Livres des Prophètes) que nous avions été reniés pour ne pas obéir cette ordre divin!!!! Les juifs ont été renvoyés et sont restés en dehors de leur patrie pendant 2000 ans. Maintenant et après être de retour sur le sol d´Israël, comme les prophètes nous avaient promis, il est temps que les Israëliens réalise cet ordre divin. Nous vous demandons donc d´abandonner le pays d´Israël!!!

Nous le disons du point de vue religieux et pour garantir la paix en Israël!!! Nous vous expliquons le discours du Coran et Torah ensembles. Nous pensons que lorsque vous comprendrez que nous ne vous haissons pas ni ne vous combattons pas pour votre croyance en l´Islam , vous arriverez à comprendre la raison à notre détermination pour réaliser cet ordre divin!!! Comme dit l´Islam , " Il ´n´y a de Dieu qu´Allah!
Voici l´ordre divin: Dieu dit à Moses

Torah, 33 . 56-50

Dieu expliqua à Moises et à Moab, en contemplant le Jordan et Jericho:
Dites aux gens d´Israël que vous allez dépasser le Jordan vers le pays de Canaanites.
Donc, vous allez renvoyer tous les habitants d´ici, vous détruirez toutes leurs statuts et contrôlerez tous leurs " évolutions" .
Vous posséderez le pays et y vivrez car je vous ai donné le pays pour le posséder et le diviser en lots selon vos tribus.
Vous devrrez donner plus aux grandes tribus qu´aux petites.
Et si vous n´aviez pas abandonné les habitants, ils auraient été des épines dans vos yeux et corps et ils auraient dérangé dans le pays dans lequel vous vivez.
Et je vous punirais de la même manière que j´ai voulu les punir.
Après avoir vue le discour divin et parce que l´Islam est une religion de morale, et afin d´éviter que les Juifs possèdent un autre pays, vous ne devez avoir aucune objection!!!! Vous avez de larges pays pour y vivre!!!

Vous devez comprendre que nous obéissons l´ordre écrit dans le Torah. Comme il n´est pas facile pour des millions de personnes de partir sans appui financier, vous vous suggérons de négocier avec "L´Etat d´Israël" (qui incarne la promesse des prophètes) afin d´obtenir des aides économiques pour vivre ailleurs!!!!

Lorsque vous comme nous ayons obéi à Dieu, nous pourrons alors vivre en paix. Nous, vous , vos petits enfants et leurs petits enfants pour longtemps.

Comme dit le prophete Ichaaih : "Aucune nation ne porte l´épée à une autre nation et ils n´apprendront pas plus sur la guerre " .
Etudiez la sainteté de ces pages (Fin de la publication)

**********

المنشور الذي وزعه الكيان الصهيوني على أبناء مدينة القدس ضمن الحملة المستمرة لتهجيرهم و تهويد القدس ومقدساتها وتفريغها من أهلها
ويبدأ البيان بآية من القرآن الكريم :

" ( ولا تجادلوا هل الكتاب إلا بالتي هي أحسن إلا الذين ظلموا منهم وقولوا أمنا بالذي انزل إلينا وانزل إليكم وإلهنا وإلهكم واحد ونحن له مسلمون).

نداء إلى جميع المسلمين الساكنين في ارض إسرائيل

نريد أن نشرح لكم هذه الرسالة رأي التوراة بالنسبة لسكن غير اليهود في ارض اسرائيل , نقول أولا انه حسب التوراة كل إنسان خلق من نفس الله , ويجب التعامل مع كل إنسان مؤمن باحترام , ولذلك نظرة الدين اليهودي ليست عنصرية أو غير إنسانية , فهو ديني فحسب.

الأصل في ديننا ودينكم هو الإيمان بالله , ملك العالم , وحسب إيماننا وإيمانكم أعطانا الله التوراة وفيها الواجبات والرسالات ويجب علينا القيام بها.
حسب مقولات القرآن الكريم لا يوجد أي تناقض بين ما أمرتنا التوراة القيام به وبين ما أمركم القرآن به , كيهود مؤمنون يجب علينا القيام بواجبات التوراة , وفي التوراة مكتوب في عدة أماكن أن ارض إسرائيل وعدت لإبراهيم واسحق ويعقوب و أحفادهم ولا غيرهم , الكل يجمعون بأننا أحفاد شعب اسرايل القديم , أحفاد إبراهيم واسحق ويعقوب.

ومكتوب في التوراة أيضا بان ارض إسرائيل , هذه الأرض الصغيرة , هي ملك الشعب اليهودي فقط , ومن الممنوع سكن غيرهم فيها بصورة دائمة.
مكتوب أيضا في أسفار الأنبياء انه بسبب عدم قيامنا بهذا الأمر الالهي , الشعب اليهودي طرد وبقي خارج بلاده 2000 سنة , ألان وبعد عودة شعب إسرائيل إلى ارض إسرائيل ,كما وعدونا الأنبياء , حان الوقت ليقوم الشعب الإسرائيلي بتنفيذ هذا الأمر الالهى , ولذلك نطلب منكم مغادرة ارض إسرائيل.

نحن نقول ذلك من وجهة النظر الدينية , لنضمن السلام في ارض إسرائيل , نحن نشرح لكم المقولات التوراتية والقرآنية , ونحن نعتقد انه حين تفهمون أننا لا نكرهكم ولا نريد محاربتكم بسبب إيمانكم بالإسلام , ستفهمون سبب إرادتنا القيام بأمر الله , كما قال الإسلام لا اله إلا الله.

هذا الأمر الرباني قاله الله لموسى :

التوراة , سفر العدد 33 . 56-50 :

كلم الرب موسى في عربات مواب على أردن أريحا قائلا
كلم بني إسرائيل وقل لهم أنكم عابرون الأردن إلى ارض كنعان
فتطردون كل سكان الأرض من أمامكم وتمحون جميع تصاويرهم وتبيدون كل أصنامهم المسبوكة وتخبربون جميع مرتفعاتهم
تملكون الأرض وتسكنون فيها لاني قد أعطيتكم الأرض لكي تملكوها
وتقتسمون الأرض بالقرعة حسب عشائركم الكثير تكثرون له نصيبه والقليل تقللون له نصيبه حيث خرجت له القرعة فهناك يكون له حسب أسباط آبائكم تقتسمون
وان لم تطردوا سكان الأرض من أمامكم يكون الذين تستبقون منهم أشواكا في أعينكم ومناخس في جوانبكم ويضايقونكم على الأرض التي انتم ساكنون فيها
فيكون أني افعل بكم كما هممت أن افعل بهم

وفي القرآن الكريم :
سورة الإسراء : ( وقلنا من بعده لبني إسرائيل اسكنوا الأرض فإذا جاء وعد الآخرة جئنا بكم لفيفا)

سورة الاحقاف : ( ومن قبله كتاب موسى إماما ورحمة وهذا كتاب مصدق لسانا عربيا لينذر الذين ظلموا وبشرى للمحسنين)

سورة المائدة : ( إنا أنزلنا التوراة فيها هدىً ونور يحكم بها النبيّون الذين اسلموا للذين هادوا والربّانيون والأحبار بما استحفظوا من كتاب الله وكانوا عليه شهداء فلا تخشوا الناس واخشون ولا تشتروا بآياتي ثمنا قليلا ومن لم يحكم بما انزل الله فاؤلئك هم الكافرون)

بعدما رايتهم الأقوال السماوية ولان الدين الإسلامي هو دين أخلاقي , ولان لا تكون بيد الشعب اليهودي أي ارض أخرى , لذلك يجب أن لا تكون لكم معارضة لهذا – ولديكم بلدان واسعة يمكنكم السكن فيها- وتفهمون بان علينا القيام بالأمر المكتوب في التوراة . ولأنه من غير السهل مغادرة ملايين الناس بدون مساعدات مالية , فإننا نقترح عليكم أن تفاوضوا دولة إسرائيل ( التي تجسد وعود الأنبياء) , على أن تحصلوا على مساعدات اقتصادية للسكن في مكان آخر.

ولما نطيع الله نحن وانتم , يمكننا العيش بسلام , نحن وانتم وأولادنا وأولادكم لسنوات طويلة , كما قال النبي يشاعيه : ( لا ترفع امة على امة سيفا ولا يتعلمون الحرب في ما بعد)

يطلب الحفظ على قدسية هذه الصفحات. (نهاية المنشور)!! "

http://www.shorouknews.com/ContentData.aspx?id=194150

Here are scanned copies of the original publication in Arabic :

http://www.qudsmedia.net/uploads/1062009-035507PM.jpg

http://www.qudsmedia.net/uploads/1062009-035555PM.jpg

http://www.qudsmedia.net/?articles=topic&topic=4371

Below is a letter I sent to the Corries but more importantly to executive and legislative members in Washington State where Rachel Corrie was a resident.   It includes the Governor, Lt. Governor, Senators and Congressmen in D.C. and senators and members of the general assembly in Washington State as well as the media.

This coming March 16 will be the seventh anniversary of Israel's deliberate murder of a 23 year old young idealist college student from Olympia, Washington named Rachel Corrie.   Her story and the shocking photos of her murder can be found in the links below.

Notice how Israel publicly rebuffed President Obama on freezing illegal settlements.  It not only continued building illegal settlements by the hundreds in the West Bank and East Jerusalem but it continues to demolish Arab Christian and Muslims homes in East Jerusalem while the U.S. retracted its opposition and took the usual default position of silence and blaming the victims as it's done for over 60 years.

The blatant and open murder of an American citizen by Israel was met by utter callousness and silence by the White House, Congress, and the main stream media.   The enormous and heart wrenching pain her parents have endured all these years have been suffered alone without any substantial support from our government whose main responsibility is the protection of its citizens.   They've travelled across this country and abroad keeping the memory of their daughter's death alive while seeking any support for justice for their daughter.   Rachel.   Other peace activists have been similarily killed, maimed and injured by Israeli forces for their just work to protect the civilian Palestinian population and bring their plight to the world's attention.

An American ecumnenical group called the Christian Peacemaker Teams (http://www.cpt.org/) risk their lives daily as they escort Palestinian children to school thereby preventing their murder or injury by Israeli soldiers (See Guardian UK paper article:  Israeli Officer:  I was right to shoot 13 year old child, Radio exchange contradicts army version of Gaza killing, Nov. 24, 2004)

Compare our national silence on Rachel's murder to the uproar and outrage by our government and media that followed the murder of Daniel Pearl, WSJ journalist, in Pakistan.   A movie was made about his murder while for the first time in modern history the State Department placed an advertisement for the movie, A Mighty Heart, on its official website.    The website later took down the ad.

PLUS, UNLIKE RACHEL'S DEATH SEE WHAT OUR CONGRESS DID.

Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act Subsequent to the U.S. House of Representatives passing the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act on June 10, 2009, Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) introduced the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act to the Senate on October 1, 2009, where it is currently under consideration by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This legislation would direct the State Department to include information relating to freedom of the press worldwide in annual country reports on human rights practices. "The right to a free press is a right upon which we all rely. And every time a journalist is kept from doing his or her job, it is each of us whose right is being violated,"

What Now for Rachel's parents as they continue their painful struggle for justice for their murdered daughter? 

Will you the elected officials of Washington State muster the courage and compassion to speak out for this young dead American peace activist who saw the wrongs of what our nation is doing in its blind and unquestionable support of Israel?

Or will her death be once again ignored and swept under the rug of political expediency, fear and political correctness?   Is her life less worthy and valuable than Daniel Pearl's or the murder of any other American citizen abroad?

When will this idealistic young Washingtonian rest in peace knowing that her parents no longer struggle alone but have been joined by your spirit for truth and justice?

Many of you are parents and grandparents and can fully understand and sympathize with the tragic pain of having a young daughter killed by an American bulldozer in a nation that wouldn't exist without America's support and contiued benevolence.

I ask you in all that is holy and meaningful in your lives do not let Rachel's death go unanswered, do not let this young woman's death pass without justice.   Her parents need your help and support as they take on one of the world's most powerful nations, politically and militarily, with unprecedented support in our Congress and media. 

Washingtonians need to know you'll be there to help, support, and protect them against the evil dangers they face abroad whether in Israel or Pakistan.

May the memory of our dear Rachel always be an inspiration to Peace and Freedom loving peoples throughout the world.

With all due respect and hope, I remain

Daniel Pearl's Website with Congressional Act included

The post that follows, (one of two) was on Facebook, where a discussion ensues giving more detail and perspective, and where "Geneviève" (probably her most charming alias) participates. Far from answering a single question (other than claiming she is a Muslim, but not explaining the behaviour that would be very difficult for a Muslim to accept), she accuses others of being Zionists, being murders, being lonely even!  I was hesitant to publish this. After some reflection and advice seeking from a person who has studied in the most important Quranic school in Senegal, I reached the conclusion that it was necessary to publish about this deception in our community. The reason is quite evident. My friend told me that there is a consideration of morals and responsibility that must be assumed, and I believe the reason is convincing. "If a person puts a shard of broken glass where someone will be walking, that person is responsible for harming another. If instead, I do not put that glass there, but know it has been put there and do nothing to remove it or to warn you that it is there, I too assume responsibility for this harmful act, as if I myself had done it." 

This is why activists attempt to protect one another from infiltrates, from harmful persons, even just suspicious persons or situations. They seek to keep the persons and cause they defend safe from harm. There are activists who will walk down the path paved with shards of "Geneviève"'s broken glass and deception. They should heed the warning, protect their privacy and beware. She certainly isn't the only one out there, just one whose game has been discovered. - Mary

This is the link where you may read the comments http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?v=feed&story_fbid=10150149787930204&id=100000513050132#!/note.php?note_id=360215809086&id=100000372458065&ref=mf  The second post is even more explicit, and if you have Facebook, you can check it out yourself, following the link in the comments.

Written by Maik Finch

By Khalid Amayreh in occupied Jerusalem

As a torrent of questions was directed at him, the British diplomat switched "from straight talk" to PR talk, recollecting some of the "pro-Palestinian" gestures and postures made recently by the British government, such as supporting the Goldstone Report at the United Nations.

Day was asked if he thought that the flaccid British approach toward Israel – for example, asking nicely if the Jewish state would like to refrain from undermining peace efforts   would really make Israel reconsider its manifestly criminal policy toward the Palestinians. Fleeing from the heat of the question, Day said there was no alternative to peace talks. He then dodged another question on whether he thought the impending talks would be truly genuine or just more of the same, as most Palestinians think. He was reminded about the fiasco of direct PA-Israel talks which lasted for eighteen years. One journalist asked, "What makes you think that three months or even one year of indirect talks will succeed in achieving what eighteen years of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians failed utterly to achieve?" Frustrated by the directness of the questions, Day seemed at a loss about how to answer, knowing very well that the present so-called "peace efforts" are nothing more than a desperate regurgitation of previous talks.

He refused to answer a question on why the European Union, including Britain, was refusing to exert meaningful pressure on Israel to stop building Jewish colonies on occupied Palestinian territories, which undermine really seriously the feasibility of the increasingly moribund two-state solution. One journalist asked Day if he thought the Obama administration, which has been unable to persuade Israel to freeze settlement expansion, would be able to force Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Unable to answer the question, Mr. Day, who had earlier praised the Obama administration, said he was speaking only on behalf of the British government.

Our encounter with the British diplomat convinced us that Britain has a consistently pro-Israeli policy and that the occasional gestures made toward the PA regime are meant only to cover up the long-standing British acceptance of Israeli criminality. Britain does give the PA regime some aid in the form of training the PA police force. However, it is very clear that the British aid is not conditional on an undertaking by the PA to respect the human rights and civil liberties of Palestinian citizens in the West Bank. Hence, one can claim safely that Britain is effectively helping the PA to torment its citizens and violate their human rights, a fact corroborated by many human rights organizations, including the London-based Amnesty International.

Palestinians, along with many honest and conscientious people around the globe, including many British citizens, have hoped that successive British governments would one day try to atone for Britain's grave sins against the Palestinian people. After all, it was Britain which gave Palestine to the Zionist movement through the infamous Balfour Declaration in 1917.

However, to the chagrin of many, Britain has shown consistently that the same criminal mindset that gave Palestine to Zionism on a silver platter remains alive and well in London. In fact, one could cite hundreds of examples showing that Britain is not really sincere about reaching a just peace in Palestine.

For example, the decision by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to prevent the issue of arrest warrants for suspected Israeli war criminals, such as Ehud Barak, Tzipi Livni, Gabi Ashkenazi and Ehud Olmert, to name but a few. Under the new proposal made by Brown less than two weeks ago, the Crown Prosecution Service will take over responsibility for prosecuting war crimes and other violations of international law. Bowing to Zionist pressure and utterly ignoring the massacres Israel carried out in Gaza last year, Brown wrote in the Daily Telegraph, "As we have seen, there is now significant danger of such a provision being exploited by politically-motivated organizations and individuals who set out only to grab headlines knowing their case has no realistic chance of a successful prosecution".

This ill-advised proposal by Brown should be viewed as a blunt betrayal of the thousands of Palestinians killed, maimed and incinerated by the Israeli war machine during Israel's genocidal onslaught against the people of Gaza. It should also be viewed as a tacit encouragement to Israel to keep up its militaristic approach toward the Palestinians. In the final analysis, crime unpunished is crime encouraged. The proposal also shows that the British decision to back the Goldstone Report at the UN was no more than a PR exercise intended to maintain a semblance of credibility among Britain's Arab friends.

This duplicity on the part of the British government is further underscored by the virtual British silence in the face of the latest provocative decisions by the Israeli occupation authorities to build tens of thousands of additional settler units for Jews in East Jerusalem.

The feeble and certainly ineffective British stand in the face of Israel's determination to destroy every chance for peace proves that Britain is actually a hindrance to, rather than a facilitator of, peace in the Middle East. Indeed, since British Ambassador to the UN Lord Caradon drafted the Resolution 242 in November 1967, Britain has been pandering to the whims of the Zionist regime in a manner that is only outmatched by America.

Some Palestinians and Arabs had thought naively that the exit of the certified war criminal Tony Blair from the British government would restore some balance to British foreign policy toward the Muslim world, especially Palestine. However, with a gung-ho approach towards Iran, the murderous intervention in Afghanistan and the nefarious connivance with the Israelis, Britain is riding roughshod over all Arab and Muslim sensibilities. This more or less strengthens the arguments of extremist groups like al-Qaeda, which say that the West will not behave justly and decently toward Muslims unless it is forced to do so.

While the British government is certainly to blame for its hypocrisy and duplicity toward the Palestinians' plight, for which it must shoulder some responsibility, Palestinian and Arab officials should always challenge British diplomats and officials to act on their criticism of Israel. It is unacceptable to criticize Israeli settlement expansion in the morning while assuring Israel in the evening that relations with Britain will remain exceptionally strong and be unaffected by any differences over the settlement issue. Britain is the mother of all the calamities that have befallen the Palestinian people since 1914. Hence, a British discourse toward the Palestinian people that is based on deception and dishonesty can never be accepted, even if British diplomats claim it is based on good will.

source: Middle East Monitor  

Cassese notes the “obvious discipline and sophistication of those behind the attack.”  He explores at length the theoretical ethos of the work being undertaken, a step he terms “indispensable.” He concludes that

“All the organs of the STL are not unmindful of the host of hurdles they will have to face, both at present and when they begin to discharge their judicial mandate fully. But they are prepared to surmount those hurdles with intrepidity. After all, the undertakings of anybody struggling for the realization of human rights, and in this case, for the vindication of the rights of the victims and the punishment of the authors of very serious misdeeds, is a labour of Sisyphus.”

Intrepid as they may be, however, it must be remembered what the tale of Sisyphus has come to symbolise: a task that accomplishes nothing beyond its own futile implementation.  The mythological figure, you will recall, was subject to the eternal punishment of pushing a boulder up a hill, waiting for it to roll back down, and then pushing it up again and again.  

 The complex mysteries of unsolved assassinations in Lebanon, Cassese suggests, may always remain just that.  It is ironic timing then, that just as the STL published its report, we find other perplexing news reports on this complex business of assassinations in the Middle East.  There is the admiration expressed for a British/Israeli “spy.”  And there is the audacious pride exhibited over the recent “Dubai mission.”

“He exemplified how to fulfill a public mission,” said Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in praise of David Kimche, who died of cancer 8 March.  Born and bred in Britain, Kimche emigrated to Palestine in 1946, where he went to work for the Zionist project of Israel.  As agent and later deputy head of the Mossad, as well as director-general of the Foreign Ministry, Kimche “took to his grave,” says the Jerusalem Post, “scores of secrets about Israeli clandestine activities that were not only classified information, but in many cases were without documentation and filed only in his brain.”

Israeli media champions this “master of disguise” who posed as a British businessman, a journalist, or maybe a diplomat, with his “extraordinary talent for winning people’s confidence,” noting that the “work he did in Arab countries is inestimable.”

Following the killing of eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, for instance, Kimche “helped direct Israel's spectacular revenge” with the aid of its European agents: a string of assassinations in Lebanon and across Europe.  “The aim was not so much revenge but mainly to make them frightened,” Kimche stated.  “We wanted to make them look over their shoulders and feel that we are upon them. And therefore we tried not to do things by just shooting a guy in the street—that’s easy.”

Easy indeed. 

Kimche was well-suited to his position, as he was “known for his elegant English accent and courteousness, and these qualities sometimes deceived people, as he could be very cunning, determined, and even cruel.”  He was just the man to woo the Francophile, Christian Phalangists in Lebanon, in order to set the groundwork of allies for the Israeli military invasion in 1982, when assassinations were camouflaged amongst the carnage of the brutal onslaught that ensued. 

Yet inexplicably, Kimche inspired an aura of admiration rather than disgust.  The BBC labels him a “spymaster,” a “descendant of a prominent Swiss Jewish family.”  Haaretz finds him “similar in style to the characters described by the British author John le Carre in his spy novels.”

(Quote sources: Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, BBC)

It seems there are many who admire the Bondian license to kill.  American media giant ABC expresses amusement that “After Dubai Hit, Sales of Mossad Merchandise Soar.”   The “tale of an Israeli hit squad swooping into an Arab country to kill a Palestinian militant commander,” ABC reports, “has sparked pride” in Israel.  Quoting a representative of Israel-Catalog.com, t-shirts reading “don’t mess with the Mossad” are now best sellers.  “Before the Mossad operation no one was really interested in these t-shirts, but now everyone wants one.”  Many varieties are available, including “Mossad’s Dubai Operation” (now on “weekly special”) and “I’m Gail Folliard’s alibi.”  This last one is particularly noteworthy.  As Folliard is wanted by Interpol for an arrest warrant issued by the UAE for Crimes against Life and Death, it is a fair indication of the extent that cover-up is routinely endorsed in this complex business of assassination. 

The Western-Middle Eastern collusion is far from an isolated incident.  On 9 March Dubai's police chief accused Israel of “vast falsification” of travel documents, noting that dozens of false passports have been uncovered:

“Israel is falsifying Western passports on a large scale. We discover forged passports on a daily basis.  The world must stop an operation of vast falsification of official documents (that) a formal body (Israel's spy agency Mossad) is carrying out.  It is shameful for the European countries that a country which claims to be a state of law is falsifying their passports.  This is an unprecedented phenomenon for one country to forge the documents of another, [which is] usually done by criminal gangsters, not states.” [AFP]

Meanwhile, an Israeli supermarket has created a new advertising campaign.  Mocking the security camera footage showing suspected assassins in Dubai, the commercial shows actors carrying tennis rackets, and wearing hats, glasses and wigs — the same disguises worn by the alleged killers — as they make their way through store aisles. “We offer killer prices,” announces the advertisement's tagline.  The advertising executive responsible claims “It's a funny take of this event.” [AP] 

“Event”?  An assassination, an international scandal steeped in fraud and political greed, is laughed off as an “event” suitable for parody.  Clever salesmen ridicule the justice system to joe-public, who parades the untouchable crime and criminal on his t-shirt.  A cold-blooded con-man who ordered executions like room service is remembered for his cunning and polished accent. 

 Assassinations in and around Lebanon have for years been challenged only by gossip.  Yet in this complex business of international intrigue, we see $51.4 million in the first year alone being spent in a Netherlands office building to house a “Special” Tribunal for Lebanon.  A tribunal that hopes somehow it might balance its aim to “render expeditious and true justice and to accomplish the truth-seeking mission entrusted upon it by its founding instruments” on the one hand. . . with a boulder-pushing Sisyphus on the other.

Vice President Joe Biden is a seasoned politician with over 30 years in the US Senate with many years of tenure as Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and one would assume is a smart man who can understand words and actions. He seemed to lose both while on his visit to Israel.

It seems the Obama-Biden’s White House does not get it. V.P. Biden's statement quoted in Haaretz, “Palestinians, Israelis must decide for themselves if they want peace” sounds very good but when it comes from someone like Joe Biden such statement is not only stupid but reckless as well.

All of the US administrations with the exception of Eisenhower and Kennedy including Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and now Obama has always acted not as an unbiased arbitrator but as partners with Israel and always gave Israel the legal, political, economic and military cover needed to continue with its occupation, with its expanding settlements, with its seizures and closures, its never ending daily aggression and pretended always to ignore the fact that Israel whether Labor, Likud, Kadima, Shas or whatever never was interested in peace with the Palestinians based on land for peace. One can only explain US-Israel relationship as one of a “pimp and his bitch” with Israel being the “pimp” of course.

Elie Yishai, the Israeli interior minister, did not let the visit of Joe Biden to Israel end without taking deliberate action not only to humiliate Joe Biden and the Obama administration but also to make sure he rubs Biden's face in the dirt with his announcement that Israel will build 1,600 new units in occupied East Jerusalem.

For many years since the early days of the Reagan and Bush administration continuing with Clinton and now Obama administrations, everytime there is visit by a high ranking American official, Israel announces either expansions of Jewish settlements, expulsions of Palestinians from East Jerusalem, expansions of security checkpoints, expanding the Apartheid Wall, committing targeted assassinations or attacking neighboring countries.  This is the message American officials get from Israel every time they can pretend they are on a “peace mission”.

One would think that after some 43 years the American administrations get the message right, that Israel never was and never will be interested in any kind of peace with the Palestinians. Israel was, is and remains committed to Greater Israel, remains committed to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from all of Palestine including Israel and the West Bank with calls for making Jordan the home for the future Palestinian state.

Haaretz also announced that Israel is in the process of planning to build 50,000 more units in the occupied West Bank, this is in addition to those 1,600 announced by the Netanyahu government as a welcome reception to Joe Biden and George Mitchell. The Israeli actions from the early days of 67 was for making the West Bank part of the “Jewish” state never referring to the area as “occupied” but as “Judea and Samaria” and at best “disputed” territories.

One can understand Washington’s failure to understand that Israel does not want peace; one could never understand Ramallah and the Arab League actions and statements that assume Israel does want peace.

The PLO leadership failed to understand this "strategic” and “ideological” decision on the part of Israel when it entered into negotiations with Israel leading to Oslo with the agreement and acquiesce of the Palestinian Trio of Arafat, Abbas and Qurai leaving Israel with total and absolute control over 57% of the “occupied territories”, total and absolute control over East Jerusalem including the power to ethnically cleanse Arabs from East Jerusalem.

More troublesome is the decision by Abbas and his administration in Ramallah to continue to negotiate with Ehud Olmert for a couple of years while Olmert and his government was building and expanding settlements more than ever.

In 2008 Israel built 1,647 units in the West Bank an increase of 60% over 2007 and built 5,431 new units in East Jerusalem an increase of 600% over 2007, not to mention expulsions of tens of thousands of Arabs from East Jerusalem. Yet Mahmoud Abbas, and his chief negotiator Saeb Erekat and the PLO executive secretary Yaser Abed-Rabou continued to negotiate with Olmert on a regular basis, meeting at times over dinner as if there are no new settlements.  One has difficulty to understand why Abbas and his PLO team continued to negotiate with Olmert and his war criminal partners Livni and Barak and needed to have Arab League cover to start “proximity” talks with Netanyahu.  Nothing has changed between Olmert and Netanyahu, both are committed to Greater Israel, both are committed to keeping Jerusalem united and under total Israeli control and both never considered the West Bank as “occupied territories” but always referred to it as “Judea and Samaria”.

I guess the only thing left for the Ramallah and the PLO leadership to negotiate is the annual management fees it gets from Israel, US and EU as manager of the Jewish Occupations and the numbers of VIP passes for its many top level executives and functionaries.  One can understand if Washington does not get it, one could never understand why the PLO leadership does not get it? Why Amer Musa and the Arab League do not get it? That Israel was and is and will remain never interested in “peace” with the Palestinians if that “peace” means ending the Jewish Occupation that started on June 5^th, 1967. One also could never understand the Arab continued reliance on the US as an “honest broker” in the “peace process” when the US past and present administrations where always Israel’s “bitch”. Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, peace can happen only when Israel decides and takes the necessary measures and actions it wants peace not before.

also here:
http://www.jeffersoncorner.com/america-does-not-get-it/

an example of changing the context of the issue by appealing to emotions and creating a brand new narrative

Here is a leaked copy of the Zionist plan to attack the Boycott and Divestment Campaign Against Israel's Occupation and to strategy to shut down the debate on the Palestinian issue and to shift it discussion of anti-Semitism and not Israel's illegal Occuption and illegal settlements and human rights violations. (thanks to the various people who supplied this material).

Delegitimization of Israel: “Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions”
Co-Chairs: Dr. Mitchell Bard and Professor Gil Troy

This position paper summarizes the discussions of the Working Group on Delegitimization at the 2009 Global Forum against Anti-Semitism. Our task was to generate specific action plans to respond to the BDS – boycott, divestment, sanctions – movement, to reframe the issues in our favor and to set a new proactive agenda. If there was one clear conclusion that emerged from the two-day session in December, it was THERE MUST BE FOLLOW UP. There is a need in the Jewish world today for more coordination, for more sharing of best practices, for more LEADERSHIP in the fight against anti-Semitism. Activists in the field feel alone. Those who succeed are not sharing their successful tactics and strategies; those who are less experienced flounder, wasting precious time, resources, goodwill. Everyone was honored and excited to participate in the Global Forum; no one wanted it to be limited to a two-day meeting, and many volunteered to keep the global conversation growing.

Beyond that, this paper will spend less time on definitions and narratives, and instead serve as an initial brainstorming document. Through the use of a Wiki set up with the assistance of Dr.Andre Oboler, task force members helped edit these two papers. The first was initially authored by Gil Troy, the second on taking offense, by Mitchell Bard. We thank all the participants for all their time, passion and expertise – and look at this as the start of an ongoing process, which we hope will continue.

BDS AS A CLEAR TARGET:
There is a clarity in fighting against BDS that could provide traction in the Jewish world and beyond. In the current climate, Israel advocates are always going to lose a fight over “settlements” and “occupation,” or at best get mired in stalemate. BDS shifts the terrain, making the battle one over Israel’s right to exist, over the legitimacy of Zionism, over the anti-Semitic tropes shaping the anti-Israel movement, and the rank anti-Semitism behind the disproportionate, obsessive focus on Israel. It is also a battle about freedom of speech and of open discourses, given the BDS attempt to shut down normal flows of learning and commerce with Israel. This is a battle we can win – and (shhh, don’t tell anyone) have been winning so far, in many ways, in many communities.

We also should recognize that BDS is a part of a broader campaign to delegitimize Israel. This campaign of delegitimization, Dr. Joel Fishman writes, has been "a central motif of Palestinian propaganda in international bodies" and reflects a strategy of a "People's War," as full blown political, economic, cultural, ideological struggle against the very existence of Israel.

The Foreign Ministry can help centralize the fight against BDS and delegitimization, coordinate responses to what is a coordinated attack, share information, take a moral stand against the human rights hypocrites, engage diplomats in a fight for Israel’s basic rights, and train Israeli diplomats about the BDS movement. But the fight also has to be local not international, rooted in particular community norms, and necessarily somewhat distanced from the Foreign Ministry which is, naturally, perceived as a biased party, and whose involvement in all facets would help our enemies argue that we are fighting for Israel using the fight against anti-Semitism as camouflage.

PUT BDS IN CONTEXT:
Part of the fight against BDS is an educational one. And central to that is explaining that
(as mentioned before) BDS crosses the line into traditional bigotry, both by resurrecting traditional anti-Semitic tropes, and by following the traditional ways of all bigots in attacking the essence of Israel and the Jewish people rather than constructively seeking to change particular policies or actions.BDS is part of the “Durban Strategy” adopted by NGOs during the infamous Durban Conference that was supposed to be against racism in late August, early September 2001. Good liberals on campus and elsewhere who think they are just fighting for “justice” need to be confronted with the fact that they are advancing a particular agenda with a particular – and quite problematic – pedigree.BDS is also part of the broader Islamist strategy to undermine the West. Especially in North America, activists need to understand how positions they are taking are aiding the same people who support shooting up Fort Hood, trying to down commercial jets on Christmas, and succeeded in killing nearly three thousand people on September 11, 2001.

Strategy / Vision A 5 Year Plan

All too often, we get mired in the tactics of the day-to-day battle and are too reactive. The group decided that before plunging into a more detailed discussion of some dimensions of the problem, we should step back and think about our vision, about our strategy and about what tactics will achieve our broader goals, five years from now.

Our Vision:

Includes: Israel being a cause to celebrate

Humanization of Israel (using a vibrant proactive approach making the Zionist case while emphasizing Israel’s many positive accomplishments and appealing characteristics

Driving a Wedge between Soft Critics and Hard Delegitimizers

Strategy

To have in place legislative prohibitions vs. BDS which can then be applied in different communities, acknowledging the different legal traditions.

Creating “Best Practices” which can be modeled and taught.

To have in place institutions (centralized, or 'hub within network' institutions) that can share information. (Committee members disagreed whether the bulk of the work should be from the government or from the community/civil society).

Institutions: To have in place Affinity Groups – lawyers, accountants, academics etc who can help fight BDS from within

Israeli intellectual 'buy in' – mobilizing Israeli academics and other professional who understand the seriousness of the threat and fight it

Encouraging more Israel Studies on campus as part of a broader rebranding and reversing of the current wherein enemies of Israel on campus are rewarded and friends are punished

Debranding the NGOs (Non-governmental Organizations) – naming and shaming

Pursuing a strategy of ridicule and satire – especially on the internet

Here are some steps we should follow to achieve those goals:

1. Let’s Reframe to Name and Shame:

BDS means very little to most people – and sounds like a communicable disease (which in some ways, like anti-Semitism itself, it is…) The awkwardness of the language, and the venom behind the sentiments, together provide a double opportunity. We can rename and reframe their movement. We need to point out how BDS crosses the line from legitimate criticism to historically- laden, anti-Semitic messaging. We should note that BDS fails the “Sharansky Test” of Demonization, Double Standards and Delegitimization” because it singles out Israel for special condemnation, speaking for example about the “apartheid nature of the state” rather than specific policies. We could reinforce this by adding a 2-E Test – “exceptionalism” and “essentialism” – which again focuses on singling out Israel and, in the nature of traditional bigotry, condemning the actor not the act.

In that spirit, in Toronto, the Jewish Federation re-christened the movement the Blacklist, Demonize and Slander movement. In addition to exposing the animus of the movement, the label cleverly filtered the BDS movement through the correct cultural framework when the BDSers targeted the Toronto Film Festival. Jane Fonda, initially, was happy to sign a petition bashing Israel. When she found out that she supported a “blacklist” – a major no-no in post 1950s Hollywood culture, she felt ashamed and retracted. Similarly, the leading academics fighting boycotts have been scientists, because free exchange is the lifeblood of the scientific community and the thought of risking that for mere politics is appalling to many. At the same time, there are (some, not enough) voices in the gay community denouncing groups such as “Queers Against Israeli Apartheid,” because they know how much more liberal Israel is than any other Middle Eastern country (the major international association of gay travel agents held its annual meeting in Israel in 2009).

These examples suggest we need to think, case by case, about how to frame the BDSers in the way that most emphasizes the gap between their actions and the democratic ideals they pretend to espouse. Recasting the campaign as a blacklist is a powerful way to demonstrate what the movement is really about. We should think of other strategies that help delegitimize the delegitimizers.

1.1 Ensuring tactics don't defeat strategy

The campaign against the University and College Lecturers' Union's boycott attempt in the UK was a signal success, mainly due to a classic job of re-framing. The BDS crowd wants the debate to be about Israel and the pro-Israel crowd made it about academic freedom. Although this is an exquisite tactic it runs the risk of leading to a strategic defeat.

What happened was that the "bad guys" talked about how bad Israel is and the "good guys" talked about how bad boycotts are. In the end the only messages that anyone heard about Israel were how bad she is. The boycott motion was handily defeated, but such a triumph contains the seeds of a Pyrrhic victory. Perhaps it's natural to glory in any kind of victory we can obtain in this fight, however, “Israeli policy makes me sick, but boycotts make me sicker” (as stated as a typical progressive view in the BDS fight) is hardly the ringing endorsement of Israel we would all seek!

To quote Charles Jacobs (late of the David Project), students are often reduced to arguing that "Israel doesn't suck." This is only a slight exaggeration. Unless we can come up with a way to produce a new meta-frame for discussing the Middle-East the BDSs will keep us on the run until we are worn out.

2. Dig Deep to Undermine

When the Student Society of Concordia University in Montreal was overtaken by Palestinians and anarchists in the late 1990s, early 2000s, rumors were rife about activists just enrolled in one course per semester to keep their eligibility for the Student Society, about money from outside the university being pumped into the pro-Palestinian activities and about money from the Student Society being diverted both for personal gain and for unauthorized political use. Surprisingly, neither the Jewish community nor the journalistic community undertook the kind of Edwin-Black- style investigation the whole mess deserved, for various cultural and political reasons. Investigative journalism is an underutilized tool in the fight against coordinated movements like the BDS movement.

Similarly, we need to do more historical research, showing the polluted origins of the Zionism is racism, Israel apartheid, and BDS movements. In October 1976, just under a year after the 1975 Zionism is Racism resolution passed the UN General Assembly, Professor Bernard Lewis published an article “The Anti-Zionist Resolution,” in Foreign Affairs (Vol. 55, No. 1 (Oct., 1976), pp. 54-64), uncovering the Soviet and Nazi roots of the resolution. Lewis’s research remains relevant today – as does his example.

3. We Need a War Room

The BDS movement is well-coordinated (and well-financed) (MY NOTE: HUH???) . The Jewish community needs a war room, tracking this movement, sharing best practices, coaching communities. All too often (and most especially on campus), when an anti-Israel initiative is launched the few who care act as if such a thing never occurred elsewhere and start working on their own strategy – rather than relying on a broad network and a collective memory that should be helping them.

The War Room could also provide the necessary intelligence and background that could be useful in the kinds of grassroots fights necessary to defeat BDS. Whether this War Room should be linked to the Ministry, or to the Global Forum, or to another Jewish organization, or stand on its own, is an important subject we should debate.

In describing this much-needed body of activists and academics we debated the nomenclature – some call it a clearinghouse, others a hub – but we need to share information, coordinate strategy, learn from each other, and push certain lines, taking offense, not just playing defense. In North America, the Federation system is talking about launching a coordinating body to fight BDS. England has “Fair play” functioning as a hub. In France the CRIEF coordinates. All these initiatives should be coordinated globally – through Israel, the target of the attack and the center of the Jewish people.

To be specific:
* Our guiding principle is that the first people to fight are the people on the ground – this is added value not a command center
* The mission is to be informational and tactical – a clearinghouse of information and like the town crier of old – a spur to action with weekly updates, particular tactics
* Like an iceberg, partially submerged – we need to make some public points to shape the narrative against BDS, delegitimizing the delegitimizers, but we also need ome private initiatives. We should not share all our strategies and tactics for the enemy to see
* Broadcast and narrowcast – having some messages that work globally, but also customizing our messages for campus, unions, civil society
Professor Irwin Cotler spoke at the Global Forum about “the globalization of the indictment” and our need to take back the narrative, to become the plaintiff…. How can we do this is we don’t coordinate strategies, if there isn’t a central body for information sharing, with a great website, but also engaged experts, representing the different countries, helping to shape this battle, sending out weekly updates, helping people who want to get involved, and, as one of our participants suggested targeting the bad guys, using the blogosphere to mock them, to embarrass them, to name and shame?

Each community should of course have its own structures but this war room should act as a hub. It should start simply by coordinating a proactive, integrated structure against BDS and delegitimization – if it works, it could be a crucial resource when crises develop,and it truly could be a global forum against anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and delegitimization, but for now let’s keep it focused.

4. BDS Draws a Line in the Sand 

5. BDS merits a double ju jitsu move  

7. Make the fight Horizontal, Hip, and Hysterical… 

8. Speak to Israelis about their roles as ambassadors and dangerous role as enablers 

At the same time, Israeli critics of Israeli policy need to understand that in an age of instant communication, what they say “within the family,” echoes throughout the world. The Norman Finkelsteins and Noam Chomskys of the world quote Israelis incessantly. No Israeli should feel compelled to change their politics, no matter what Chomsky and Finkelstein would choose to do. But ALL Israelis should watch their language, understanding that false Nazi/Apartheid/ Racism analogies feed Israel’s harshest enemies, who wish to wipe out the state. There is a rich bank of historical analogies and words Israeli critics can use to criticize Israel. There must be an awareness of how harmful the Nazi and Apartheid analogies are, and how they are used – the slogan “Never Again” should apply to false, offensive, analogizing, not just the mass murder itself

Note the analysis of Uri Avnery of the BDS. Avnery has a long record of harshly criticizing Israel, but distinguishes between his ultimately loving criticism and the exterminationist agenda underlying much of the BDS Campaign. He writes: “Reading some of the messages sent to me and trying to analyze their contents, I get the feeling they are not so much about a boycott on Israel as about the very existence of Israel. Some of the writers obviously believe that the creation of the State of Israel was a terrible mistake to start with, and therefore should be reversed. Turn the wheel of history back some 62 years and start anew.

“What really disturbs me about this is that almost nobody in the West comes out and says clearly: Israel must be abolished. Some of the proposals, like those for a “One State” solution, sound like euphemisms. If one believes that the State of Israel should be abolished and replaced by a State of Palestine or a State of Happiness – why not say so openly?

9. Ally, Fraternize, and Build Coalitions 

9.3 Reporters 

9.4 Bloggers 

9.5 Professional Organizations and Communities 

10. Zero in on a moment to raise awareness of the BDS threat and start delegitimizing the delegitimizers 

11. Meet “lawfare” with “lawfare.” 

12. Let’s Push More Broadly for a Citizenship 2.0 Campaign 

GOING ON OFFENSE

The time has come to explore ways to put the boycotters on the defensive and to initiate our own campaigns to highlight issues of concern. For example:

2. Lobby academic journals to adopt policies barring submissions from anyone who advocates an academic boycott. Journals are supposed to promote academic freedom and intellectual exchange and should not collaborate in efforts to stifle such exchanges. If academic boycotters cannot get published, they will perish.

3. Circulate information on Muslims acting contrary to Islam. If the people of countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia knew their “pious” leaders were really alcoholics, gamblers and perverts, they might hasten regime change.

4. Create a “Student Rights Watch” organization that would seek to counterbalance certain NGOs that have become Israel-bashing specialists. SRW could go in at least two different directions – one would be to make a human rights organization that monitored activities around the world with the emphasis on non-democratic states (as HRW once did) – another approach would be to have the students focus on rights as students on college campuses with an emphasis on how Israel and Jews are treated, but also monitor other abuses inside and outside the classroom.

5. Launch a Saudi apartheid campaign. It is galling that Israel is tarred with comparisons to South Africa when there is a country that really does merit this comparison. Progressive and women’s groups should be natural allies in such a campaign, which might have a goal of adopting Sullivan-like principles for Western companies doing business in the kingdom.

6. “Buy Israel” campaign. This is already being done is some areas, but it might be adopted as an international program.

7. Buy Israel Bonds. It has been done quietly, but a more aggressive effort might be made to sell Israel Bonds to corporations and other entities (there is a danger to raising attention to it as it might create a new target for BDS). It may be a tougher sell given current interest rates at the moment, but one of the best responses to BDS is multimillion dollar bonds purchases made by banks, unions, pension plans, and others.

8. Outreach to mainline Christians. We have spent too little time on educating non-Jews and reacting only at the last minute when some of their leaders try to adopt BDS proposals at their national conventions. These churches bring in a parade of anti-Israel speakers who are rarely countered. Rather than focus so much attention preaching to the choir, greater efforts should be made to speak directly to non-evangelical Christians. The MFA could be especially helpful in this area.

9. Outreach to key minorities. In the United States, Hispanics will become an increasingly influential factor in American politics and, therefore, the U.S.-Israel relationship. Too little effort has been given to educating this community about Israel.

10. Developing Israel Studies as an academic discipline. Most universities have few if any courses about modern Israel and many of those that are taught are usually taught badly. A variety of steps can be taken to enhance the field across the globe. In the U.S., for example, the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), has brought 65 visiting Israeli scholars to teach for an academic year at more than 40 universities over the last 5 years. AICE also supports graduate students pursuing Ph.D.s in Israel-related fields and postdoctoral fellows. Chairs and centers of Israel studies are being created in the U.S. and, more recently, the U.K. Providing the next generation with a good education about Israel is vital for the future as well as critical to countering present campus-based efforts to delegitimize Israel.

11. Try to make inroads at the UN and its associated agencies by targeting small nations. Many of these countries do not give a lot of thought to the Middle East and go with the herd. In fact, we know the UN reps sometimes act with little or no instruction from their governments. It may not be possible to overcome the Arab/Islamic bloc and its allies, but it may be possible to chip away at its majorities so votes are not one-sided and resolutions so biased (a small effort along these lines is underway in the U.S.).

AGENDA FOR THE WORKING GROUP MEETING

These were some of the questions we addressed – although it was difficult to cover them all, let alone answer them adequately in two short sessions. Still, we include them as food for thought for future conferences.

Universities (or other institutions) that invest in Israel seldom do so for reasons of Zionist sympathy. If they have put money into Israel or Israeli companies it's because their investment advisers have told them that it's the right thing to do in order to grow their endowment. Hence, divestment would be financially inadvisable.
If, in the midst of a divestment campaign, campus unions that represent technical, administrative and janitorial staff were convincingly informed that the divestment campaign might well lead to job cuts (and not amongst the tenured academics pushing for BDS) they might easily be persuaded to condemn such a campaign. How embarrassing for the "progressive" academics pushing BDS to be opposed by the representatives of the lowest paid workers on campus?

9.2 StudentsFar too much of the fight against anti-Semitism and for Israel occurs within a Jewish community bubble. The Foreign Ministry can be a particularly useful force here in helping build alliances with academics, business people, politicians, anti-terror/ national security types, Christian Zionists, civil libertarians – creating a broad coalition that is against demonization. Moreover, we learn from the anti-academic- boycott movement in England, whose guiding principle is that “the first people to fight BDS should be the people in the sector,” self defense is the best defense.9.1 Labor unionsBDS merits a double ju jitsu move: First, the BDS response to Israel is so over the top, it should be an opportunity to delegitimize the delegitimizers. Second, the Toronto community has been particularly effective in turning the lemons of BDS into lemonade – going from “Boycott” to Buycott – with the results being sold-out Israeli movie nights at the Toronto Film Festival, record-ticket sales for the targeted Dead Sea Scrolls, and a run on kosher wine when BDSers attacked Israeli wine. More broadly, the second paper offers many interesting ideas for getting off the defensive, becoming pro-active and taking the fight to the BDSers.

Khalid Amayreh

Khalid Amayreh (*) is a journalist who lives in Hebron, a city brutalized and bloodied daily by armed Jewish settlers who are driving the authentic inhabitants by force. He is what might be called a true Palestinian; a man of integrity who was never seduced by financial rewards and prestige; a man standing who has remained with his martyred people in order to witness every day the atrocities he suffers at the hands of the Israeli army, but also, and this is the most painful, at the hands of the authorities of Ramallah. He himself has been imprisoned, savagely beaten without knowing why, by this Palestinian police to the training of which Bernard Kouchner is so pleased to have participated.