The Buie Knife

Israelis Killed Far More Palestinians Than Vice Versa

Little Known But Interesting Fact (LKBIF): Since the beginning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 1948, there have been 7,978 Palestinian civilian casualties, and 1503 Israeli civilian casualties. Even considering that nearly 1600 Palestinians were killed in intra-Palestinian violence, it's clear that the Israelis have killed far more Palestinians than vice versa. (Source: Wikipedia.)

'Exodus', Great 1960 Movie About the Founding of Israel

The Academy-award winning 1960 movie, "Exodus," a slightly fictionalized account of the founding of the state of Israel, was filmed partly in Cyprus, where Jewish refugees from the European Holocaust were held by the British before being allowed to board flotillas to Palestine.  It was great to see, in the movie, some of the sights I've actually seen in Cyprus, but also to be reminded of the early courage of the Israelis who risked everything to found their own country. While I have serious doubts about current Israeli policies toward the Palestinians,  I think the founding of Israel was basically a heroic act. This movie tells that story without whitewashing the plight of the Palestinians, especially if you need a refresher course on how Israel was founded in 1948.

I wonder if some writers or cinematographers are now behind the scenes chronicling what is likely to be the founding of the nation of Palestine in the not too distant future. The Israeli government today reminds me of the British in the 1940s, frozen by fear and unable to live up to their nation's best ideals.

The entire film, "Exodus," is posted on Youtube.com, so you only have to click through from one segment to the next to watch the whole thing.

 

Related:

• Wikipedia entry on the movie, "Exodus."
• Netanyahu's Trap for America (Andrew Sullivan).

 

 

Israel Should Relinquish 1967 Borders, George Friedman Says

George Friedman, the security analyst respected by both liberals and conservatives, says Israel should give up Netanyahu's rigid commitment to its 1967 borders.

"There is an argument prevalent among Israelis and their supporters that the Arabs will never make a lasting peace with Israel. From this flows the assumption that the safest course is to continue to hold all territory. My argument assumes the worst case, which is not only that the Palestinians will not agree to a genuine peace but also that the United States cannot be counted on indefinitely. All military planning must begin with the worst case.

"However, I draw a different conclusion from these facts than the Israelis do. If the worst-case scenario is the basis for planning, then Israel must reduce its risk and restructure its geography along the more favorable lines that existed between 1949 and 1967, when Israel was unambiguously victorious in its wars, rather than the borders and policies after 1967, when Israel has been less successful. The idea that the largest possible territory provides the greatest possible security is not supportable in military history. As Frederick the Great once said, he who defends everything defends nothing."

Read more: Israel's Borders and National Security | STRATFOR

In a separate article, Friedman quotes Meir Dagan, the former head of Mossad, the Israeli security agency. Dagan says the current Israeli government's lack of flexibility, judgment and foresight is “reckless and irresponsible.” Given that Dagan's record is that of a hawk, in no way ideologically inclined toward accommodation with Arabs, Friedman considers his point of view persuasive.

Friedman urges Israel to "accept some variation of the 1967 borders and force Hamas either to break with its principles and lose its support to an emergent group or openly blow apart the process. In other words, the Israelis can also pursue a strategy of provocation, in this case by giving the Palestinians what they want and betting that they will reject it. Of course, the problem with this strategy is that the Palestinians might accept the deal, with Hamas secretly intending to resume the war from a better position...But then if that happens, Israel has the alternative to return to the old borders."

The far more interesting question, Friedman says, is whether Palestinians can unite behind a government that recognizes Israel's rıght to exist. By giving them territory based on modified 1967 borders, Friedman says Israel will test Palestinians' abilities and strength to form a viable government.

Read more: The Palestinian Move | STRATFOR

Growing Rift Between Young Israelis and Young Americans?

An overwhelming majority of young Israelis "see little value in peace and freedom," Haaretz reports. They "grow up seeing a parliament that passes nationalist, often outright racist laws, hear a Prime Minister who keeps fanning fear of Israel’s imminent demise by Iranian attack, and are told the world hates Israel no matter what it does." They express extreme nationalism, seem to "prefer power over freedom" and are extremely skeptical of peaceful coexistence with Arabs, ever.

In contrast, as a new generation of Americans with no personal memory of the Holocaust begins to exercise political power, they are showing a new sympathy for the plight of Palestinians. And with the emergence of JStreet, a "pro-Israel, pro-peace" group, we are seeing more diversity of opinion in America about Israeli actions. This is hastened by a reaction against the growth of right-wing extremism in Israel. Slowly, knee-jerk support by the US for anything and everything the Israeli government does may give way to a more balanced policy and more enlightened American self-interest. 

Related:

• Purge the Prophets? Are J-Street Supporters Suspect in Israel?

 

America and Mideast 'Quicksand'

I've finished "Quicksand: America's Pursuit of Power in the Middle East," by Geoffrey Wawro, a professor of military history at the University of North Texas, and found it to be a worthwhile read -- a definitive account of American involvement in the region. The most shocking parts of the book for me were

• how Israelis have engaged in both terrorism and "ethnic cleansing" of Arabs while the US either looked the other way or indirectly funded it. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs have been driven from their homes, their homes systemically destroyed, and their villages blown up or burned. Many have been brutally slaughtered. Israel's Minister of Agriculture urged his colleagues to "rob Arabs down to their shoelaces." Israeli terrorism going back to the Stern Gang in the 1940s (led by future Prime Minister Menachin Begin) has been practiced as a way of discouraging Arabs from trying to return to their homeland. 
• Despite strong criticism of America's enabling of Israeli extremism, Wawro is by no means an Arabist. He is deeply critical of Arab dictatorships which, he says, have stifled the ambitions of too many bright young men, who in their frustration have turned to terrorism. And he points out the historic obstinance of Arab leadership that could not recognize the reality of Israel's political power and instead engaged in quixotic acts of rigidity, revenge and counter-terrorism.  
• He is especially critical of the US relationship with the autocratic monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

"From the 1940s, we viewed Saudi Arabia as a promising gas pump, and as the “elephant fields” emerged from the ground, we chose to ignore and even encourage the kingdom’s unique blend of sloth, corruption, piety and viciousness. Someone in Washington authorized a secret flight of Saudi slaves (on a U.S. plane) to serve the princes attending the UN Conference in San Francisco in 1945."

The American political class -- both Democrats and Republicans -- have rarely shown strategic wisdom, but have simply "milk(ed) the Middle East for domestic political benefit." Example: 

During the Truman administration there was a lively struggle between Secretary of State George Marshall and Secretary of Defense James Forrestal on one side and what Truman called the White House “back room boys” (Eddie Jacobson, Max Lowenthal et al) on the other. Marshall and Forrestal condemned the too rapid and eager embrace of Israel, accusing the president of making U.S. power unpopular in the broader Middle East in order to pick up votes among American Jews.

Truman’s reply anticipated all subsequent policy: “I’m sorry gentlemen…but I don’t have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.”

The author contends that American leaders since the 1940s have not been thinking strategically or in the long-term interests of the United States but only short-term, cow-tailing to domestic political concerns -- casting a blind eye to Israeli injustice against Arabs, interested only in shoring up support in the American Jewish community and among Christians who equate the nation of Israel founded in 1948 with Biblical Israel.

The US gives Israel billions annually with virtually no strings attached, with few questions asked and no demands made. This lack of balance greatly damages US credibility in Muslim countries where sympathy for tens of thousands of displaced Palestinians is a widely shared humanitarian concern. 

Wawro chronicles the mistakes of nearly every American president since Franklin Roosevelt, culminating in the rank stupidity of Ronald Reagan's administration funding and arming Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. George H.W. Bush likely approved biological weapons for Saddam. After helping to create these Frankenstein monsters, Americans then had to try to kill them. Then George W. Bush, disingenuously saying privately that it really didn't matter if Saddam had WMDs (while saying publicly WMDs were what justified war), and led by neo-con zealots, went off half-cocked into what Wawro calls a "war of murderous naivete." 

The book is fascinating, but it doesn't inspire much confidence in America's ability to extract itself from Middle East "quicksand."  One criticism I'd have of the book is that while it exposes American incompetence in the Middle East, and the consequences of our naivete and ignorance, it doesn't really offer a viable alternative history. For cultural, political and religious reasons, it was inevitable that the U.S. would support Israel strongly. For economic reasons -- our dependence on Middle Eastern oil to fuel our automobile-crazed lifestyle -- we had to become friendly with Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern dictatorships.

Let us hope that in the near future, we won't end up on the wrong side of Middle Eastern democracy, on the wrong side of the quest for Palestinian autonomy, and find the strength to challenge Israeli paranoia and aggression. 

Drill deeper:

• Wawro audio interview with Lewis Lapham on Bloomberg (focuses primarily on Woodrow Wilson's view of Middle East, Balfour Declaration, and the first half of the book) 
• Audio interview with Wawro by Jeff Blankfort and positive review ("this book invaluable to anyone seriously concerned with understanding the Middle East") here and here. 
• "A Century of Mideast Mistakes," interview with Wawro in WashingtonPost.com.
• Positive review by Harvard.com
• Critical review of "Quicksand" by Gregory Gause, author of The International Relations of the Persian Gulf. 
• "Quicksand: America's Pursuit of Power in the Middle East," Amazon.com reviews.

Previous:

• Has Israeli Lobby Distorted America's Perceptions and Actions in the Middle East?

Has 'Israeli Lobby' Distorted America's Perceptions and Actions in Middle East? If Americans Knew...

I was surprised that such an exceptionally well-written and well-documented book as "Quicksand: America's Pursuit of Power in the Middle East," has not been reviewed or even mentioned by major American media. I have to wonder if the reason for their negligence is the book's highly critical account of America's relationship with Israel. The lack of attention in the American media to Quicksand raises the question once again of whether U.S. journalists, particularly those working for publications with large numbers of readers who are passionate Israeli supporters, as well as politicians eager to garner votes, consider even modest challenges to Israel "too hot to handle."

This is hardly the first time this question has been raised. In 2010, I couldn't believe how little coverage, advocacy or even curiosity Americans displayed over the brutal death of U.S. citizen Furkan Dogan, shot five times at close range by Israeli soldiers aboard a flotilla headed for Gaza. In 2009, Jon Stewart and others noted how one-sided U.S. media coverage of Israel's war in Gaza was.

A friend suggests maybe the reason The New York Times, the New Yorker and the New York Review of Books haven't reviewed Quicksand is because the book isn't well-written. Having read the book, I certainly disagree with that. Decide for yourself if it is well-written. You can read the first chapter for free here.

IfAmericansKnew.org is a website founded by American freelance journalist Alison Weir that gives a different perspective on the Israeli-Palestine conflict than found in mainstream U.S. media outlets. Board members include former congressman Paul Findley and career foreign service officer and ambassador Andrew Kilgore. Traveling through the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 2001, Weir "found a situation largely the reverse of what was being reported by the American media. Upon further examination of this issue – she read dozens of books on the topic – she found that the U.S. press portrayal was significantly at odds with information being reported by media throughout the rest of the world."

A video created by "If Americans Knew" and posted to Youtube.com has garnered more than three million hits. 

Watch on YouTube.com.

I'm still a Zionist, and I continue to believe in Israel's right to exist. But I do not support Israeli belligerence towards its neighbors. The failure of the American media to fairly present the side of the Palestinians and Israeli injustices is similar to the American media's support for segregation and the perspective of African Americans prior to the civil rights revolution.

Related:

Essay Stirs Debate About Influence of a Jewish Lobby (NYTIMES, 2006)

Books: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by John J. Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, a professor at the Kennedy School at Harvard University. "A powerful pro-Israel lobby has a pernicious influence on American policy...Now that the cold war is over, Israel has become a strategic liability for the United States,” they write. While ''there is a strong moral case for supporting Israel's existence,'' the country's ''past and present conduct'' brutal mistreatment of Palestinians, refusing serious peace offers, even spying on the United States ''offers no moral basis for privileging it over the Palestinians....Yet no aspiring politician is going to say so in public or even raise the possibility” because the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful. They credit the lobby with shutting down talks with Syria and with moderates in Iran, preventing the United States from condemning Israel’s 2006 war in Lebanon and with not pushing the Israelis hard enough to come to an agreement with the Palestinians. They also discuss Christian Zionists and the issue of dual loyalty...''The bottom line,'' they write, ''is that Aipac, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress." (NYTIMES, 2007)

A Jewish Cabal Controlling the Media? Not at all, Walt told the Times: "“This isn’t a cabal; this isn’t anything secretive." American Jews who lobby on Israel’s behalf are not all that different from the NRA or AARP. “They just happen to be really good at it...It’s the way American politics work. Sometimes powerful interest groups get what they want, and it’s not good for the country as a whole. I would say that about the farm lobby and about the Cuba lobby.”

• Carter View Of Israeli' Apartheid' Stirs Furor: He concludes that Israel is now following a ''system of apartheid,'' in which Israelis are dominant and Palestinians are deprived of basic human rights. Mr. Carter defined apartheid as the ''forced separation of two peoples in the same territory with one of the groups dominating or controlling the other." The former president also said American journalists practice "self-restraint" (not exactly self-censorship, but close) in their coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and newspaper editorial pages and columnists almost uniformly support whatever the Israeli government does. A vocal pro-Palestinian viewpoint, he said, is nonexistent in this country (the US) to any detectable degree.'' (NYTIMES, 2006)
• Does Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman have an 'anti-semite problem'? "Foxman escaped the worst of the Holocaust, but it has deeply shaped his sense of the world and is presumably responsible for his feeling that nothing short of supreme and unflinching vigilance will ward off the next cataclysm....(Another) possible Holocaust, so remote to many of us, seemed to rise up before him with a terrible clarity. ''Oh, my God!'' he cried, as if reeling in horror before the vision he had himself conjured." (NYTIMES, 2007)
• My review of Quicksand.

Visit Israel? Sure

I think it would be really fascinating to visit Israel while I'm living in the region. The main question is when. 

I learned from a visit to Northern Ireland years ago, during "the troubles," that media reports of scattered violence does not mean a country is unsafe. If you focused on crime news in the US, you could assume it is unsafe. Most of the time, it is safe. The same is true of most countries.

This 2007 report by David Crabtree of WRAL.com, the TV station in Raleigh, NC, about numerous ties between North Carolina and Israel, makes me even more eager to visit. 

 

Watch at WRAL.com

Purge the Prophets?

I have been very impressed with JStreet.org, "the political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans." I was therefore shocked when I learned that the Israeli Knesset was holding hearings on the organization as a danger because it does not support Israel reflexively and unconditionally. Harold Meyerson nails Israel's problem with young American Jews, who see Israel losing its democratic flavor and moving toward apartheid:

J Street is one of the few points of connection between those younger Jews and the Zionist democratic ideal. “You’d think a country as small as Israel would want to broaden its base of supporters,” Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s executive director, told me. Declaring groups such as his to be enemies of the state, he notes, “isn’t much of a survival strategy.”

It also doesn’t comport, he might have added, with the most fundamental Jewish traditions. If the Old Testament were purged of its prophets’ attacks on the Israeli people for failing to live up to their ideals, it would be about half its length. In the Book of Isaiah, Israel is described as “a sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers.” In Jeremiah, the Jews are a “foolish people” who “have eyes and see not, that have ears and hear not.”

Maybe the Knesset’s Un-Jewish Activities Committee should hold hearings on Isaiah and Jeremiah. Pretty subversive stuff, if you ask me.

The Knesset's action, combined with a new law that removes money from municipalities or Israeli Arab groups that commemorate Independence Day by noting the destruction of Arab villages and the exile of Palestinians, suggests Israel is in danger of tragically losing its sense of political diversity.

Nations often feel a tension between freedom and security -- when feeling insecure, they reduce the amount of individual freedom allowed to citizens and increase their investment in national security apparatus. With so much change and turmoil among its neighbors, Israel is obviously having difficulty figuring out where to draw the lines in its own democracy. 

Fortunately, two-thirds of Israelis come to the support of JStreet, according to polls: 40% said American Jewish organizations should defend Israel’s right to exist, but not necessarily Israeli government policy; 27% said American Jews should promote what they consider best for Israel, even if it conflicts with government policy. Some 19% of Israeli Jewish respondents called for unconditional support of Israeli policies from American Jewish organizations. 

Drill Deeper:

• JStreet.org
• J Street, a Moderate Voice, Stirs Up America's Jewish Lobby (NYTIMES)
• Israeli Knesset hearings (NYTIMES)
• Harold Meyerson column (Washington Post)
• Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic: "Those Israelis, and those American Jews, who believe that J Street, and the spirit it represents, are fleeting phenemona have absolutely no idea what is happening in the Jewish world."
• Why J-Street Speaks to Us
• A Changing American-Jewish Landscape (Boston Globe)

Father of American Teen Killed By Israeli Soldiers Aboard Gaza Flotilla Seeks Redress

Deeply disappointed that the US State Department has not probed the death of a 19-year-old American citizen shot five times at close range by Israeli soldiers, the young man's father is seeking redress in American courts. Ahmet Dogan, father of Furkan Dogan, writes in the Albany, NY Times-Union that "it is my responsibility to speak for my son and voice his concern for Palestinians in Gaza. It is my responsibility to stand up to an Israeli propaganda effort that has attempted to paint our beautiful child as a fanatic and not the caring young man we knew him to be."

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/A-father-speaks-for-his-son-1027970.php#ixzz1FvB3RRLU

I've had a chance to meet Dr. Dogan, a professor at Erciyes University in Kayseri, Turkey, interviewed him and his family, and have followed this story since it first broke. 

In an interview with the Israeli publication Haaretz, Dogan said: "I want the United States to demand justice for its citizen, and support decisions related to this [injustice] at the UN. We are very disappointed by the way the U.S. has handled the events until now, because in theory the U.S. is supposed to view all of its citizens equally." Doğan believes the U.S. gives more weight to its relationship with Israel than to the welfare of its own citizens.

Meanwhile, Amnesty International has characterized Israel's report on the commando raid May 31, 2010 as "a whitewash." 

Related:

• Lawyer: US faces moral test over Furkan Dogan's death in Israel
• Flotilla victim's father seeks legal redress in US

Previous:

Why Won't The Israelis 'Express Regret' Over Loss of Civilian Life? Israel's diplomatic relationship with Turkey remains in jeopardy because of Israel's refusal to express regret over the death of Furkan Dogan and its refusal to offer compensation to the families of civilians killed aboard the Mavi Marvara. You'd think that in a rapidly changing Middle East, Israel needs all the friends it can get, and that renewing the alliance with Turkey grows in importance. 

Birthplace of Jesus; Sun God and Christmas; the State of Religion in America

Bethlehem Nativity Church, oldest church in the Holy Land still in use. It was built in 326 A.D., above the cave locals believe Jesus was born in, and is considered sacred by both Christians and Muslims. It was built just 13 years after the Roman Emperor Constantine, in the edict of Milan, declared Christianity the official religion of the empire, while remaining tolerant of pagan religions.

Bethlehem, on the West Bank, has been under Palestinian control since 1995. The church is in a dilapidated condition, but in 2010, the Palestinian Authority announced a restoration project, according to Wikipedia. My friend Tom Lassiter created a virtual reality photograph of the church in 2008 that can be experienced here. Reporter Nour Odeh of Al JazeeraEnglish notes that tourism to Bethlehem in 2010 is considerably more than in 2009 -- about double, according to AP -- the largest number of pilgrims since 2000, due largely to declines in violence between Israelis and Palestinians. Christians make up only about two percent of the population of the Holy Land today, compared to 15 percent in 1950. National Geographic magazine in this photo essay gives us a sense of Bethlehem today. 

My friend Ajamu Dillahunt on Facebook quotes Dr. Norman Finkelstein:

"If Joseph and Mary set off from Nazareth to Bethlehem today, they would have to cross 11 Israeli checkpoints, a conflict zone, several security checks, and a 30 foot high wall. They would never have made it."

Richard Cohen, author of "Chasing the Sun: The Epic Story of the Star that Gives Us Life," has a fascinating column in The New York Times on how the birth of Jesus came to be observed as part of Roman and pagan celebrations of winter solstice. Early Christians thought the birth of Jesus was in the spring or the fall; it was proclaimed as December 25 by Pope Liberius in 354, sharing a birthday with the pagan celebration of the sun's birthday.

Ross Douthat has a thoughtful piece on how December is "a tough season for believers"; it's when "American Christians can feel most embattled. Their piety is overshadowed by materialist ticky-tack. Their great feast is compromised by Christmukkwanzaa multiculturalism. And the once-a-year churchgoers crowding the pews beside them are a reminder of how many Americans regard religion as just another form of midwinter entertainment, wedged in between “The Nutcracker” and “Miracle on 34th Street.”

He recommends sociologist Robert Putnam's book, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, co-written with David Campbell of Notre Dame, based on a comprehensive survey of religion in American life. "Thanks to Americans’ ever-increasing tolerance, we’ve been spared the kind of sectarian conflict that often accompanies religious zeal," Douthat observes.

He also recommends To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World, by UVA sociologist James Davidson Hunter. Noting that Christianity no longer dominates American culture like it once did, the author critiques what he calls the flawed strategies of activists on both the religious right and the religious left.

Perhaps Christianity has come full circle. Religion in America today, Douthat notes, looks more and more like "the diverse and complicated Roman Empire where their religion had its beginning."

Related:

• Pagan Influences on Christianity
• 'The God Who Wasn't There'