jewishfrontier · adding fresh voices and points of view to our pages. ... secure borders with a...

SINCE 1934 A LABOR ZIONIST JOURNAL

A p r i l - J u n e 2 0 0 2

FRONTIERJewish

Double TalkJay Eidelman on the forked tongue of Israel

and its friends and adversaries

True ColorsBennett Lovett-Graff on revelations since

Operation Defensive Shield

In the Wake of Violence: Some Israeli EncountersJerry Goodman, with Avital Shapira, reports on the effect

of recent violence on workers in Israel and the Territories

A Rabbi Wrestles with the KoranElliot B. Gertel looks at the Koran and its

connections to Judaism and Christianity

Fearing Fear ItselfLetter from Jerusalem by Jared Matas on the

shadows over Israel’s Indendence Day.

The Real Facts about TerrorM.J. Rosenberg on terror’s defeat when there

are two partners to a peace process

…and poetry from Menachem Stern, report on the newanti-Semitism from Michael Landsberg, and thoughts on

war, peace, and dialogue from Ariel Jankelson andSenator Robert Torricelli.

CONTENTSLXVIII, No. 2 (642)

April-June 2002A Labor Zionist JournalSince 1934

Editorial Board

Henry Feingold, Chairman

Ari M. ChesterSaul B. CohenJay Eidelman

Jonathan J. GoldbergEmanuel S. Goldsmith

Jerry GoodmanRabbi Mark W. Kiel

Chava LapinJudy Loebl

Jeffry V. MallowDaniel Mann

Mordecai NewmanSamuel Norich

Michael S. PerryMark Raider

Eduardo RauchEzra Spicehandler

Shari TroyDavid Twersky

Nahum Guttman, Publisher

Bennett Lovett-Graff, Managing Editor

GB Tran, Layout/Design

JEWISH FRONTIER (ISSN 0021-6453) is published bimonthly by the Labor ZionistLetters, Inc. The business office is located at 275 7th Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY10001. The editorial office is located at Jewish Frontier, POB 4013, Amity Station, NewHaven, CT 06525. Editorial office may be contacted by e-mail only [email protected]. Periodicals postage is paid in New York, NY. POSTMASTER:Send address changes to Circulation, POB 4013, Amity Station, New Haven, CT 06525.

Subscription rates for U.S. and possessions, $20.00 per year for 4 issues; Canadiansubscribers add $2.50 for postage and handling. All foreign subscribers must remit in U.S.dollars drawn on a U.S. bank: $30.00. Back issues are available for $10.00 each. Multiyeardiscounted subscriptions available as well. Advertising, editorial, and subscriptioninformation may be found at www.jewishfrontier.org/frontier (information includes ad andnotice rates, subscription rates, advertising calendar, editorial calendar, submissionguidelines, subscriber list). All contributions, unless otherwise noted, ©2002 Jewish Frontier.Signed articles do not necessarily reflect the offical position of the JEWISH FRONTIER.

JEWISH FRONTIER is available on microfilm from University Microfilms, 300 NorthZeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.

Note to SubscribersIf you plan to move, please notify our Editorial

Office six weeks in advance.Changes of address may be forwarded to

CirculationJewish Frontier

PO Box 4013Amity Station

New Haven, CT 06525

WELCOME

OpinionDOUBLE TALK

TRUE COLORS

Letter from IsraelFEARING FEAR ITSELF

PoetryJOSEPH ON THE WAY TO

MEET HIS BRETHREN

EssayA RABBI WRESTLES WITH

THE KORAN

THE REAL FACTS ABOUT TERROR

SpeechTHE CHALLENGE OF THE LEFT

THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITYAND CONGRESSIONAL DOUBT

ReportANTI-SEMITISM ARAB STYLE

IN THE WAKE OF VIOLENCE

1

3Jay Eidelman

Bennett Lovett-Graff

8Jared Matas

10Menachem Stern

11Elliot Gertel

M.J. Rosenberg

17Ariel Jankelson

Robert Toricelli

22Michael Landsberg

Jerry Goodman, with Avital Shapira

FoundersHayim Greenberg

Marie Syrkin

JEWISH FRONTIER

1JEWISH FRONTIER April-June 2002

OPINION: JWELCOME

June 2002

Dear Chevre,

There is nothing like a second issue to test aneditor’s mettle, and personally, I feel pretty welltested after the last few months.

At Jewish Frontier, we continue to turn new corners,adding fresh voices and points of view to our pages.Many of this issue’s contributions reflect the latestevents, which have no doubt troubled us all. Newquestions have been raised. Is there a viable Palestinianpartner in the peace process? Why has Europe turned sovehemently on the Jewish state? Do Arab states trulyseek peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Aresecure borders with a Palestinian state a fading vision?Why has the United States shown such staunch supportfor Israel?

In at least two of the pieces presented here, “DoubleTalk” and “True Colors,” I and Jay Eidelman take manyof these matters head on. Our other contributors offerinsights from different angles of vision. MichaelLandsberg explores the new and perhaps more virulentanti-Semitism that has taken root among Arab states;M.J. Rosenberg debunks one of the most commonlycirculated arguments among right-wing opponents tothe peace process; Ariel Jankelson, a voice fromAustralia, rightly argues that even among combatantsthere must always remain the possibility of dialogue;and Rabbi Elliot Gertel entices us to look more closelyat the Koran, if but to note its emphasis on thecontinuity between Judeo-Christian and Islamicscripture.

And yet there is so much more to say. A great deal hascome to the fore during the last few months that callsout for more extensive analysis and commentary. Onesuch is the international response to OperationDefensive Shield, which threatened to unbalance Arabnations and compelled Saudi Arabia, of all nations, totake the lead in proposing a peace arrangement(regardless of its shortcomings). Often we hear aboutthe threat of destabilization—from the Americanintervention in Afghanistan to India and Pakistan’s massmobilizations along the line of control. But is

destabilization always a bad thing? Can it be a politicalstrategy for achieving results? Some of the consequencesof Operation Defensive Shield beg for such an analysis.

Another political reality in dire need of examination isthe abject failure of the political left in Europe, whichhas adopted positions that fly in the face of goodjudgment and fair dealing, and show a disturbingdisregard for human life. In short, despite legitimatecriticism that we may all have of Israel’s continuedoccupation and heavy-handed administration of theterritories, nearly all of the European left has acceptedviolence against noncombatants as a legitimate form ofresistance. (This is except, of course, when it affectsthemselves in Northern Ireland, the Spanish Basqueregion, or Corsica.) Moreover, the European left has forsome reason placed the the pursuit of autonomy before,rather than side-by-side with, that of democracy. Thisno doubt explains why Palestinian independencecontinues to be a cause celebre while millions inZimbabwe defrauded of their right to free elections havebeen blessed with a deafening silence.

Finally, a more detailed look is surely needed at thestrange reality I describe in this issue of theseparate tracks that seem to be evolving in Israel’s

future relationship with the Palestinians. The massmovement in Israel to fence off the territories and thePalestinian clamor for internal reform raise questionsabout how each is bound to affect the other. Will thefirst stall the second or accelerate it? Such an importantset of developments demands an analysis that treatsthem in relation to one another.

These are some of the issues calling out for furtherexploration. Perhaps you, dear reader, might considermaking such a contribution or offer one of your ownchoosing that speaks to the important issues thatconcern each of us today. Whatever form your response,we welcome it.

Hoping for Peace,

Bennett Lovett-GraffManaging Editor

2 JEWISH FRONTIER April-June 2002

TO THE EDITOR

In his recent article on the Lindberghs, Hal Dernerwrote, “Anne, undoubtedly brighter and moresensitive, appears to have been aware of the long-

term implications of her husband’s anti-Semitic fervor,although she regrettably never saw fit to repudiate itpublicly.”

Never saw fit? She also never saw fit to raise her fivechildren in a part of the state where Jews were, at thevery least, allowed to live. Darien, Connecticut, is thelocation of Laura Hobson’s Gentleman’s Agreement andthe subject of a chapter on American antisemitism inJames Loewen’s recent book Lies Across America.

Hal Derner, like every other writer who mentionsAnne’s supposed regrets over Wave of the Future, alsofails to give any citations for these imaginary apologiesto the American Jewish public. I have been doingresearch for over six years and have never come acrossany such statements made by Anne Morrow Lindbergh,so I would really like to know where, exactly, Mr.Derner learned this elusive fact.

To my knowledge, Anne agreed with her husband aboutJews. Not only did she willingly raise her children in aJewish-restricted town, but their closest friends were theSikorskys—another family that refused to repudiateanti-Semitic acts by a famous relative. Igor Sikorsky’sfather was a wealthy and prestigious psychiatricprofessor and the “expert” witness against MendelMenachem Beilis at his 1911 blood libel trial in Kiev.Igor’s father testified at the notorious trial that Jews killChristian children for their blood.

And we never heard a peep of repudiation from anySikorsky yet. But, I am sure that if it ever becomesknown to the public that the Sikorsky clan can alwaysdo what the “brighter” and “sensitive” Anne Lindberghdid to cover up the bad news, namely hire A. Scott Bergto write a biography of the despicable old Jew-hater,then who knows? Spielberg might even be duped intomaking a movie about them.

Ronelle Delmont

Ihave been affiliated over many years with LaborZionism and a reader of the Jewish Frontier for atleast 35 years. In the past ten or fifteen years I had

given up on it as a meaningful and informativepublication. It was simplistic, doctrinaire, and irrelevant

to current events and problems. Reading Ari Chester’s“The Jewish Problem” in the first 2002 issue wasunbelievable. The article was magnificent.

In the past feature writers wrote as if it were Poland in1927, and their ideas reflected the situation then. Israelwith all its wars and turmoil was treated as if BenGurion were about to rise from the dead and lead theLabor party again.

I commend Mr. Chester on his article. It reflects mybeliefs and understanding. I hope his position asexecutive director of the Labor Zionist Alliance willbring a new day and vitalization to an organization thatseemed to have been becoming moribund andantiquated. A few years ago in Chicago I attended ameeting of Labor Zionists that felt more like a reunionof first World War veterans. I hear that this chapter, too,has had an infusion of new blood, and I only wish therewere such a chapter here in Naples, Florida.

Mr. Chester, I am happy to know that you are in charge;I wish you all the luck. Even now I wonder how youever got the old guard socialists and Yiddish nostalgicsto accept you.

Herbert Herman

From the staff of theJewish Frontier and the

membership of the Labor Zionist Alliance

Happy 50th Anniversary

Habonim Dror North America

Workshop Program

From the staff of the

Jewish Frontier and the

membership of the

Labor Zionist Alliance


OPINION Jay Eidelman

It is hard to remember a time when doubletalk wasn’tpart of Mideast politics. Lately, however,obfuscation and duplicity have become so blatant in

the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that it is almostimpossible to tell fact from fiction.

As Israelis buried their dead from a series of Palestinianattacks, supporters of Israel continued to rage at whatthey perceive as the Arab/Muslim world’s duplicity.Yassir Arafat, notorious in Jewish circles for saying onething in English and another in Arabic, continued toincite violence at home while playing the peace cardabroad.

Moreover, such duplicity underscores the purposefulambiguity that characterizes calls for the “liberation ofPalestine.” Certainly, when the few Palestinianmoderates left speak of it, they mean the West Bank andGaza. But when groups like Hamas talk about it, theymean all of historic Palestine. And when Arafat speaksof it? Well, no one really knows.

As for what will happen to the Israelis when Palestine isliberated—whatever that means—I don’t think Hamas,Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, or even the radicals within Mr.Arafat’s Fatah Party are above genocide. Ultimately,Israel and the Israelis will simply have to leave or beeradicated. Perhaps that is why Yassir Arafat betrayedthe strong support of President Clinton by rejecting theCamp David compromise. Without the promise thatArafat was seeking for the return of Palestinian refugeesto Israel, the Palestinians could not unleash thedemographic bomb that would eliminate Israel onceand for all.

Nor is this penchant for doubletalk limited to Arafat.Take the Saudi peace plan adopted by the Arab Leagueat their meeting in Beirut. While seemingly a step inthe right direction for its offer of full normalization ofrelations with Israel, the plan is little more than the oldmaximalist Arab position that Israel has already rejected.Again the sticking point is the so-called right ofPalestinian return. Those closer to the situationrecognize that not only is the return of Palestinian“refugees” impossible if Israel is to survive as a

democratic Jewish state, but all the palaver aboutrestoring Palestinians to their homeland is merely asmokescreen for the threat they pose to the growingvolatility in Arab states. The reality is that Arabgovernments are itching to relieve themselves of theirPalestinian populations, once a thorn in Israel’s side,now a thorn (as Lebanon had discovered) in their own.

It is a shame that Arab governments could not musterthe courage to offer full normalization of relations withIsrael at the start of the peace process. Here, too, doubletalk abounds. This is apparent in how greatly the ArabLeague’s peace plan differs from that outlined earlier byCrown Prince Abdullah in conversation with the NewYork Times columnist Thomas Friedman. While youcan’t blame the Prince for the wheeling and dealing of asummit, the fact that his plan was initially floated inEnglish and not in Arabic has led many to question itssincerity. As Norman Podhoretz pointed out in anopinion piece on National Public Radio, if peace withThomas Friedman was the Arabs’ objective, it couldhave been achieved long ago.

The double talk in Europe has also gainedtraction as politicians fell all over themselves todenounce Israel’s inhumanity in the territories

while anti-Semitic violence kicked up its heelsthroughout the continent. Not suprisingly, France—with its large Arab population, strong economic interestin Iraq, and history of malevolent indifference to Jews—led the call for European Union sanctions against Israel.Meanwhile, France’s Jews experienced a series ofoutrageous anti-Semitic demonstrations and hate-crimes. Indeed, things got so bad that France’s Presidentand Prime Minister actually commented on the matter.Meanwhile, European intellectuals, pooh-poohing anycharge of anti-Semitism, rushed about trying to

Double Talk

t

I don’t think Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad,or even the radicals within Mr. Arafat’s

Fatah Party are above genocide.

t


delegitimize the state of Israel by branding Israelischolars academic outlaws. I guess labeling any Israeliaction, regardless of provocation, as state terrorismclears Europe’s conscience for the millions of Jewsmurdered on its soil over the centuries. You can imaginethe Europeans saying: “See, those Jews weren’t really sonice after all.”

Even the United States has spoken with a forked tongueabout the Arab-Israeli conflict. For a short while even Iconsidered Dubya “our man on Israel,” that was untilthe “Crawford Oil Summit,” where Poppy, Dick andthe Saudis issued new marching orders. Don’t get mewrong, of course, the United States is undoubtedly stillIsrael’s best friend. And the Arab/Muslim world iscorrect when it argues that America favors Israel. Israel,after all, is more culturally familiar to Americans and amore trustworthy ally. But the United States’ failure tosee the recent Palestinian attacks in Israel as part andparcel of the terrorist threat that America has committeditself to eradicate has many Israelis and supportersscratching their heads. The United State can overrunentire nations when attacked but Israel must sit on itshands to appease Arab dictatorships and Western oilinterests.

Even Israel and its supporters have become miredin their own form of double talk. Witness ArielSharon’s labeling of Yassir Arafat as “irrelevant”

during the height of the attacks in March. Presumably,the move was meant to delegitimize the Palestinianleader and bring about a change of regime in thePalestinian Authority. Strategic benefits of this planaside, it seemed a bit strange for Sharon to then turnaround and call upon Arafat to personally stopPalestinian attacks. Clearly, the statements were awashin contradiction; is it any wonder that the whole effortcame off looking immature, if not disingenuous? Moreto the point, the episode reflected denial on the part ofthe Israeli leadership to accept the inevitable reality of aPalestinian State, most likely with Yassir Arafat at itshead. Had anyone doubted that, the Likud party, withBibi Netanyahu taking point, went so far as to reject anyPalestinian State no matter its borders. Sometimesdenial is the greatest form of affirmation.

Clearly, Israel and its supporters have deludedthemselves into thinking that somehow they are incontrol of the Palestinians, that theirs is a benevolentoccupation, and furthermore, that the only path to

security is through an ever-increasing show of militarymight. Though Israel has seen a reduction in suicidebombings since the Israeli incursion, attacks have notstopped and may well be on the rise again. Deterrencecontinues to come at an enormous human, spiritual,and political cost. It certainly looks as if current tacticswill fail to bring a permanent end to Palestinianincursions or lessen Palestinian determination. Despitethe iron fist, Israel is still at a loss to find a way out ofthis morass.

These misapprehensions have led some of us to believethat somehow we can put off the inevitability of aPalestinian state and more of us to think that that wecan dictate the nature of that state-in-the-making.Presently, even those who accept the idea of aPalestinian state want to impose any number ofpreconditions: the future Palestinian state must bedemilitarized; Israel must control its borders; Israel mustcontrol its aquifers; Jerusalem must never be divided,and so forth. The past few months, however, havedemonstrated that this approach is wrongheaded andultimately self-defeating. Sure we can make demandsthat reflect our best interests, but these are only openingbids in what is going to be a long negotiation.

Trying to control the Palestinians seems to me anexercise in futility. First, they will see any meddling byIsrael as repression, which will ultimately lead to moreattacks. Of course, if the Palestinian state is completelydemilitarized, it will not be able to protect itself frominternal threats such as those posed by Hezbollah andHamas. This, in turn, can only endanger Israel, just asthe degradation of the Palestinian Authority’s securityforces exacerbated the situation in the past few months.Is Israel going to forever police Palestinian internalsecurity? I hope not. Nor is this story any easier withrespect to water and borders. Let’s be realistic, howmuch can Israel control and still expect peacefulcohabitation?

I am certain that there will be an independentPalestinian state sitting alongside Israel. The Palestinianswant it, the United Nations including the United States

Continued on page 28from page...

t

Even Israel and its supporters have becomemired in their own form of doubletalk.

t


OPINION Bennett Lovett-Graff

It has been a most unusual period since the last issueof Jewish Frontier appeared, and the Israeliincursion—Operation Defensive Shield—that

paralyzed world politics since then has done much toreveal the cliched “true colors” of the participants in thisdrama.

Most damaging is what captured files from the offices ofthe Palestinian Authority revealed. In short, documentsdetailed the involvement of nearly the entire PalestinianAuthority in attacks against Israeli civilians and militarycheckpoint personnel. Although this revelation wasinitially buried under media reports of a supposedmassacre in Jenin, enough now know that the realtragedy behind the incursion is the unmasking of apartner who is no partner at all. Even the Arafatalternatives, such as Jibril Rajoub, who had held someform of credibility with the Israeli government and theAmerican intelligence community because of hissometimes vicious crackdowns on Hamas and IslamicJihad, is under suspicion. This is a bad sign all aroundsince it has made evident to the Israelis, United States,European Union, and Arab States that the PalestinianAuthority has become a “loose cannon” on the worldpolitical stage, constantly undermining Americandiplomatic efforts, the stability of Arab regimes, andeven the European Union’s ostensible pro-Palestinianhumanitarian efforts.

Of course, revelations of the PA’s complicity in attackson Israel had little effect on changing the view on thestreet in the Arab world, which is so mired indisinformation that no mountain of evidence canpersuade Arab peoples of anything other than what theywish to believe. Palestinian officials have mastered theart of the outrageous claim, from the Israeli fabricationof evidence of PA support for suicide bombings to themassacre that never happened in Jenin. Sadly, thePalestinians have joined the rest of their Middle Easternbrethren, who devised such classics as the Mossadplanned the destruction of the World Trade Center;footage intimating Osama bin Laden’s knowledge of theattacks were American (or again Israeli) creations; video

of Palestinians dancing in the streets after the September11 attacks was old footage from their celebration ofIraqi attacks on Israel during the Gulf War; and mypersonal favorite: recent suicide bombings have been thework of Israeli rightists seeking to sabotage diplomaticefforts. It hardly seems worth the time combating theselaughable assertions in the Western press were thepolitical left not so desperate to believe anything thatcan justify a cause that continuously embarrasses themand the Arab press looking for ever greater heaps of dirtto throw on Israel for lack of anything useful to sayabout their own pathetic regimes.

Most interesting is the way OperationDefensive Shield has played out in the worldof Arab internal politics and foreign affairs.

The very extremism that Arab governments havefomented among their peoples and even export to oneanother has come back to haunt them. Arab peopleshave for years seen their plight reflected in that of thePalestinians, which their own oppressive governmentshave always succored by letting them express their angertowards the “Zionist entity” on the streets of Amman,Riyadh, and Cairo. It made for the perfect distractionfrom the real woes of their present regimes. But now thistool of manipulation has come to haunt the Arab world,forcing moderation upon it. Despite the Saudi plan, it isbecoming apparent that Arab states would probably bewilling to accept any terms for peace in the region, if butthe two parties would actually engage in such a process.Alas, with Sharon and Arafat at the helms, neither ofwhom they control, it appears that they are out of luck,and so have resorted to their last tactic, pressuring theUnited States to bear down on Israel. Unfortunately,they have run into another wall that perhaps they hadnot anticipated: George Bush and the Republicans.

George Bush’s support of Israel has been bothinvigorating and worrisome. Certainly the Jewishcommunity has been surprised by the loyalty of theBush administration, and it suggests not mere politicsbut a question of personality, too. Bush cannot standArafat. His inclination to lie, particularly about the

True Colors

ge...


Karine A episode, and his purposeful jeopardization ofWhite House plans to remove Saddam Hussein havebecome slaps in the face of the most powerful worldleader. One senses that Bush has taken this personally—and perhaps rightly so. But there are more wrinkles thanthis. One such is that the Bush administration hasexpressed a significantly stronger commitment todemocratic regimes, including the imposition of themby force, if necessary, than prior administrations.Notwithstanding the rotting influence of the Israelioccupation of the West Bank, no one can argue the factthat the country is still the only true democracy in theregion and responds as a democracy to opportunitiesand crises; the same cannot be said of its neighbors andeven of the the so-called “democratically elected” YassirArafat (who is still commonly referred to in Palestiniancircles as “chairman,” which reveals a great deal aboutthe Palestinian Authority’s utter lack of commitment totrue democracy). Even calls for reform of the PA areviewed with increasing skepticism by all—including thePalestinians.

Moreover there is a cultural disconnect that has placedBush in Sharon’s corner rather than Arafat’s. As one WallStreet Journal guest editorialist had put it, the keydisjunction between Americans and Palestinians is quitesimple: they don’t share the same set of values for howone enacts political change. The path of the gun and theexplosive belt, no matter how right the cause, has wonfew, if any, American hearts, whether we’re talking aboutthe Palestinians, the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, or AbuSayyaf.

Bush’s detestation of Arafat and American disgustwith Palestinian tactics are not the only factorseither. Politics always has its role, too, and

Republicans, as a result of the crisis, have uncoveredopportunities to advance their causes. Anyone whoknows the world of political lobbying rightly recognizesthat political action committees give to both sides. Inthis case, the Republicans have found in siding withIsrael an opportunity to capture money that AIPACoften gives to Democrats. Moreover, they’ve nosed outanother in moving Jewish voters and political moneytowards the support of increased domestic oil drilling.Intimations of Arab threats to withhold or curtail oilsupplies may well give that courtship somemomentum—enough such that even the most liberalJew must give pause and ask him or herself what is more

important: the preservation of the Jewish state or a rarebird species in Alaska? With Bush’s unabashed supportof Israel, a new friendship—and loss of a democraticconstituency—could be in the making.

Alas, no opportunity comes without a threat. The latestto-do over Cuba is illustrative. Former President JimmyCarter’s plea for easing trade and travel restrictions toCuba has underlined how beholden Republican andDemocratic administrations have been and remain tothe Cuban-American community and, moreimportantly, Florida’s electoral votes. The heightening ofFlorida’s importance in the last presidential election hasplaced enormous power in the hands of a potentiallynew one-issue swing vote: the state’s elderly Jewishpopulation. Certainly the butterfly-ballot debacle of2000 has the Bush administration thinking about itspolitical vulnerability in Florida, especially among thisclass of voters whom that catastrophe disproportionatelyaffected. What better way to respond than showing anunswerving loyalty to Israel?

And then there are the Europeans. Their reactions torecent events have been among the most revealing andperhaps the most disheartening. The spate of anti-Israelrallies that swept European capitals, the vicious acts ofanti-Semitism that reared their ugly heads in France andBelgium, and the threat of European boycotts againstIsrael do more than raise old specters. They reveal theparalyzed politics of a Western Europe that has not shedthe extremism of right and left that has characterized thebehavior of its citizens for so many centuries. Indeed,Europe’s growing population of disaffected Arab votersunveils how beholden these nations have become to thisnew swing constituency—particularly France, wherethat population has grown by leaps and bounds. Inshort, despite the many noises European leaders havemade regarding the newfound openness of their

t

Certainly the Jewish community has beensurprised by the loyalty of the Bush

administration, and it suggests not merepolitics but a question of personality, too.

Bush cannot stand Arafat.

t


immigration policies, they will say just about anythingto gain the vote of the very people whom their nationssystematically discriminate against. This crassmanipulation of political sentiment not only bespeaksthe bankruptcy of European politics but of the Left inparticular, underscoring how willfully Europe hasignored its own silent majorities. No surprise that therightist Le Pen beat out the socialist Jospin in recentFrench elections, creating one of the more interestingironic twists in European left politics and for the Arabconstituency it is trying to woo. Having viciouslyattacked the only democracy in the Mideast, the veryArab Europeans that demonstrated so vehementlyalongside the Paul Boves of this world found themselvesthrown into the same pit as the Jews by the fascistic LePen, who would like nothing more than to see Jews andArabs alike ejected from a more Christian France.

Finally, one comes to Israel itself. Sharon has alwayspurported that, as a hawk, only he can make thepeace that Israel needs to guarantee its security

and future prosperity. However, he has shown himself tobe something of an old ideologue, trying to recreate asituation in the 1980s that is no longer the reality of thetwenty-first century. Support for Defensive Shield hasbeen vigorous in Israel, and not surprising in light of therevelations concerning the Palestinian Authority. Buteven the lowest nitwit recognizes that continuedexpansion of settlements in the West Bank is a recipe fordisaster on nearly every front possible: it jeopardizes thelives of Israeli settlers and soldiers; frustrates anyprogress for peace with the Palestinians, regardless ofleadership; compounds the worsening threat of Islamicinsurgency in Arab nations that have sought tomoderate; provides additional leverage for Palestinianextremists; drains the military of its effectiveness; costsmoney better spent elsewhere (anywhere, in fact); andso on ad nauseum. Sharon, however, appears to havefound a friend in Bush only inasmuch as Bush hasfound few real real friends in the Arab world, betweenArafat’s duplicity; Saudi Arabia’s continued export ofIslamic extremism; Egypt’s utter economic and politicalinefficiency; the terroristic behavior and support of suchby Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and the United ArabEmirates; the encouragement of hatred for the UnitedStates by Al-Jazeera and for Israel among the panoply ofgovernment-controlled Arab newspapers; and so forth.Indeed, at this point in time, the argument among theJewish left that Sharon must be reined in, particularly

on the issue of settlements, has almost nothing to dowith worrying about the withdrawal of American aid orpandering to Arab cries of outrage and everything to dowith the deleterious effect of such a policy on Israel’ soulas a nation and integrity as a democracy.

This leads us in the end to the position of the Jewishleft, which has been paralyzed the last year and looks tobe so for the next few years. With respect to the far left,notwithstanding the well-intended excoriations of theMeretz crowd, there is little patience in Israel (and evenless among generally rightward-leaning American Jewishcommunity) for criticism of Israeli government policyin light of the duplicity, nay-saying, corruption,propagandizing, and terroristic behavior (or support ofsuch behavior) among Palestinians and other Arabnations. The hope that the Palestinian leadership coulddistinguish itself from other Arab national entities—inlight of the initially secular, pluralistic, and highlyeducated population within the West Bank—by actingthat much more enlightened has been dashed, corruptedby Arafat’s traditional tactics, the very same that nearlydestroyed Jordan in the early 1970s and did wreck thefragile balance of pre-Syria-controlled Lebanon in thelate 1970s. For the center left, the picture has been moretroubling. Palestinian attacks have given Labor the coverto participate in the ruling coalition, while permittingit—within reasonable limits—to position itself as arestraining influence on its more bellicose Likudpartner. This restraining hand is dubious at best andsome have argued—such as Labor Zionist Alliancepresident, Jeffry Mallow—that certain red lines must bedrawn for continued Labor participation in thegovernment. The more extreme of the two that Mallowhas identified is the vicious suggestion of forciblytransferring Arab populations. The second—namelyincreasing the number of settlements—is the morecomplex of the two for the simple reason that Laboritself oversaw significant increases in the number of

t

The heightening of Florida’s importance inthe last presidential election has placed

enormous power in the hands of apotentially new one-issue swing vote: the

state’s elderly Jewish population.

t



LETTER FROM ISRAEL Jared Matas

polls to sense how much Palestinians and Israelis nowdespise each other. We live in that boiling cauldron ofrage every day, born of Israelis too scared to ride publicbuses and Palestinians in fear of the next IDF incursioninto the supposedly autonomous Palestinian “Area A.”

It is still quite amazing how successfully the right winghas succeeded in gaining political power and attainingvirtual hegemony over the Israeli politicial spectrum.During the 2001 Barak-Sharon race, the Labor Partyran a controversial ad, an hypothetical fictional newscastfollowing Ariel Sharon coming to power. The campaignad, which seemed sensational at the time, suggested afuture in which ultra-right wingers Avigor Libermanand Rehama Ze’evi would find themselves invited tobecome part of the Israeli cabinet, and Israel wouldsuffer wave after wave of terrorist attacks, the armywould recapture sections of the West Bank underPalestinian control. The item that drew the mostattention, however, was the army instituting anemergency call-up of reserve soldiers. Reflecting on thisad over a year later, it is hard to believe that each of these“shockers” has long since become a reality. The onlysignificant gap in the dire newscasts was theparticipation of Labour party in the fantasy scenariowith which it had sought to scare the Israeli public.

After a year of continual humiliation, claiming ithas been, if anything, restraining the right-wingmilitaristism of Sharon and other cabinet

hawks, the Labor party leadership reminds me of abattered spouse. It threatens to leave if things get anyworse but is ignored because the threats go empty.Meanwhile the abusive spouse continues to wreakhavoc. The pseudo-dovish Labour Party claims theimportant cabinet positions of Foreign Minister(Shimon Peres) and Minister of Defense (Benjamin“Fuad” Ben-Eliezer), but the party and its leaders haveremained virtually mute for at least the past month, ifnot longer. Perhaps even Peres and Fuad have finally

April 17, 2002, Jerusalem, Israeli Independence Day.

Today Israelis and Jews around the world shouldbe celebrating the 54th anniversary of thefounding of the state of Israel. As is the tradition

in Israel, yesterday was the national memorial day forIsraeli’s fallen soldiers. Although this is always a difficultday for the family members of the over 20,000 Israeliswho have been killed while in uniform, this year hasproven especially difficult for the entire nation. Withthe great number of Israeli victims of the intifada—bothcivilians and soldiers—the number of Israelis whoattended funerals of loved ones this year was significant.It was hard to watch the fireworks over Jerusalem lastnight. Although the celebrations are meant to be a signof defiance—a refusal to let terrorists ruin our nationalholiday—it also seemed like some kind of sick joke. Asif there were not enough explosions in this region,particularly Jerusalem! Even though we all knew theloud explosions going on all night were only fireworks,I’m certain that I was not the only Jerusalemite waitingfor the one explosion that would be followed by thesound of sirens to which we have become all tooacclimated.

This year’s Independence Day celebrations were filledwith pain and irony. Israel has entered the second yearof the Al-Asqa Intifada, and prospects for any kind ofresolution to the conflict seem dimmer than ever. Whilein the first few months of the intifada, many Israelipeaceniks could reminisce about the glory days of Osloand reflect on “how close we were” at Camp David, thatall appears as ancient history now. After the terrorattacks during Passover, followed by the Israeli army’sreoccupation of the West Bank, peace has never feltfurther away, and not merely as some kind ofintellectual critique of the political situation but on aviscerally emotional level experienced by both Israelisand Palestinians. One does not need to read opinion

Fearing Fear Itself


now refuse to set foot in Jerusalem, while a few defiantones insist on eating at their favorite restaurants andcafes, as a way to prove the terrorists have not stoppedthem from living as they would.

The cycle of violence has indeed spun out of control.Militants and hatemongers, who now wield much morepower in the Israeli government and have come to exerta far greater influence on public opinion in the Israeliand Palestinian street, keep raising the level of violencewhile the international community fails to intervene.The most painful and lasting results of the escalation ofthe conflict will have been the planting of the seeds ofhatred in another generation on both sides. While inthe 1990s, caught up in the hope and excitement of theOslo Accords that peace might just be around thecorner, there were numerous attempts at dialogue—bringing groups of Palestinians and Israeli Jewstogether. This sort of activity has stopped completely.Both sides are too busy burying their dead to wastetime on sympathy or understanding. Even if there weretime, the divide has grown too great to bridge.

Every Independence Day, there is an annualnational candle-lighting ceremony on MountHerzl. This year 4,000 people attended,

accompanied by 1,000 security personnel. I did notattend the official celebration. Instead, I participated inan alternative candle-lighting ceremony sponsored byYesh Gvul, the organization of Israeli soldiers whorefuse to serve over the Green Line. This ceremony,held under Israeli flags across from the Prime Minister’sOffice, honored those who I have come to see as thereal Israeli heroes: social activists working to make Israellive up to the lofty ideals of equality and social justiceinscribed in its Declaration of Independence over half acentury ago. Unfortunately the state of Israel has a longway to go. And yet seeing these social activists workingto end the occupation of the West Bank and religiouscoercion of the Orthodox rabbinate, fighting forequality and civil rights for Israeli Arabs, struggling toeliminate discrimination againsts women, gays, andlesbians gives me hope that despite the dire situation inwhich Israel finds itself, there is a glimmer ofpossibility. As long as there are people who believe inthe vision of Israel as an embodiment of social justiceand equality, and as long as these people are willing toput in the hard work to make this vision come true,then there is hope that this dream can come true.

abandoned the delusion that their presence in thecabinet has any moderating effect on Sharon’sbloodthirstiness. Surely everyone else in Israel has longgiven up on the Labor party. Since the escalation overPassover—the Netanya seder bombing; the attacks inJerusalem, Haifa, and Tel Aviv; and finally the IDF’sOperation Defensive Shield—Fuad and Peres have heldtheir peace. Perhaps they finally realized that no one waslistening to what they have been saying anyway.

While sitting in Jerusalem on the anniversaryof the creation of the state, strange feelingshave gathered around the news of anti-

Semitic attacks throughout Europe and the acts ofvandalism against synagogues in even Canada andAustralia. Here I am in Jerusalem, the sovereign capitalof the Jewish state that nonetheless seems under siege.The sight of soldiers on street corners or roadblocks onrandom roads is no longer surprising. Virtually everycommercial establishment—restaurant, supermarket,movie theater—now has at least one security guardchecking everyone at the entrance. On a daily basisevery Jerusalemite reassesses the situation and decideswhat risks are worth taking over the course of the day. Isit a good day to visit the bank downtown or better towait until next week? Should I do my shopping at asmall store that is unlikely to be a target or at theshopping mall, which although the more obvious targethas far more security in place? How many days has itbeen since the last attack? Does that mean today there ismore or less of chance to be another?

Whenever there is an attack, everyone goes on highalert, presumably making it harder for the would-bebomber to reach the target. But then again, these attackscome in waves, so who knows if the next wave is not onits way? And when there is a relatively calm period (inthis town a full week without an attack seems like a longtime), then maybe things are finally improving. Or thenagain, maybe they aren’t, and we are growingdangerously complacent.

To varying degrees, these are the thoughts that holdevery Jerusalemite hostage every morning before leavingthe house. Every individual seems to set differentpersonal limits. Some refuse to step foot on Yaffa Streetor the Machaneh Yehuda; others try to beat thebombers, reducing their risks by shopping on weekdaysinstead of Friday afternoon or frequenting restaurantson any other night but Saturday. Indeed, many Israelis q


POETRY Menachem Stern

While on the way to his brethrenA new dream rose in Joseph’s mindThat as a blossom in springIs beautiful and kind.And as he happily walked byA hill stony and tallHe greeted warmly his brethrenGrazing the sheep on a grassy mall.But no smiles were on their facesNor friendly outreach of hands. From their mouths riseA sarcastic, mean yell:“Here is the man of dreams.”

And like dogs attacked him,Pulled down from his bodyThe pretty shirt father JacobGave him with loveAnd threw him into a deep pit…Joseph lay degraded, abused,And bitterly cried: “A whole morn“I dreamed of friendship and peace“But the brethren did against me bait“With sarcasm and hate…”Then a dove appeared on pit’s edgeAnd softly cooed:“Do not cry beloved dreamer.“Rejoice for a caravan is coming“And on this very morning“They will bring you up“From the pit’s depth“To your brethren’s stunning!”

Joseph on the Way to Meet His Brethren


ESSAY Elliot B. Gertel

The Koran is part of my story. We Jews haveknown it well. Those who lived within the reachof the vast Muslim lands knew that not only

their Jewish culture but their very lives depended onhow the Koran was interpreted. Preeminent Jewishteachers and scholars, as well as merchants and traders,periodically expected to move from one side of theIslamic empire to another as extremist understandingsof the Koran cropped up in one place or another.

The Koran is a book of 400 or so pages, consisting of114 surahs or chapters, some of them 30 pages inlength, some of them only a few lines. These surahsusually deal with many subjects, one after another, frompoints of religious law (pertaining to charity, divorce,inheritance and much else) to beautiful prayers, fromretellings of biblical stories in the Hebrew and Christianscriptures to vivid calls to war. The surahs may havebeen the speeches of Muhammed, whom Muslimsregard as the greatest and last of the prophets of God orAllah (Arabic for “El” or “Elohim”).

Muhammed (570-632) was a merchant, a gifted speakerand a thinker who could neither read nor write. He wasnonetheless deeply interested in the religious narrativesof Jews and Christians whom he had met in themarketplace. He felt called by God to reveal certainwords, in beautiful Arabic, to his people and to all pagannations, urging them to submit to the will of the OneGod and to worship only God. (The word, “Muslim,”means one who submits to God; Islam is the name ofthe religion of such submission.) Muhammed’s inspiredwords became the surahs that were gathered into a singlebook, much like the gatherings of speeches from theHebrew Prophets.

The word Koran recalls the Hebrew koreh, to read.Koran means sacred reading, much like the Hebrewword for scripture, Mikra, and such expressions as KeriatShema (the reading of the Shema) and Keriat Ha-Torah(the reading of the Torah), terms for scriptural passagesread at Jewish services. Muslim services consist largely ofreadings from the Koran.

The Koran has been a most effective book, to say theleast. Between the time of Muhammed’s death at age 60,in 632, and, within just over a hundred years, by 750,Islam had spread from the Middle East to Afghanistanand even to Spain, beginning with Muhammed’sconquest of Mecca and then with a series of leaders,caliphs, and generals who followed in his wake, allinspired by the Koran. By the tenth century, Islamicculture had encouraged Jews to refine their way ofreading the Torah with respect to grammar and musicalnotations (or tropes) and develop an intellectualtradition that actively competed with the Koran-inspired Arab interest in poetry and philosophy.

My first encounter with the Koran occurredduring Hebrew High School in a class incomparative religion. The teacher showed

enormous respect for Islam, thus giving us a deeperappreciation of it. For background he used as histextbook an introduction to Islam by Abraham I. Katschof Dropsie College. Years later, at the Jewish TheologicalSeminary, I and my fellow students learned much aboutthe history of the Jews under Islam and how Jews hadthrived during the Golden Age of Spain. One of thegreat scholars, Professor Moshe Zucker, was an expert intenth- and eleventh-century Jewish philosophy underArab influence and Jewish culture in Arab lands. Hepieced together like a jigsaw puzzle fragments found inthe Cairo Geniza of Saadia Gaon, the first major Jewishphilosopher after antiquity, who wrote in Arabic. Inlight of his research, Professor Zucker argued forciblythat “You can’t be a scholar of Judaism without knowingArabic.”

One must acknowledge at the outset that Muslimnations and provinces were among the kindest to andmost tolerant of Jews during the medieval era. Somecountries, like Turkey, became veritable havens for Jews.Arabic culture in medieval Spain enabled and inspiredHebrew culture to flourish. Even so, life in the Muslimworld proved at best a mixed blessing. While respectedand tolerated alongside Christians as “People of the

A Rabbi Wrestles With the Koran


Book,” their Muslim hosts also treated Jews as second-class citizens, often resenting them for their“stubbornness” in clinging to their peculiar covenantwith God.

JEWS: BELIEVERS OR INFIDELS?

So what does the Koran, in fact, say about Jews?This is a pressing question in today’s climate andjustifiably deserves some scrutiny.

Muslim countries typically imposed restrictions andspecial taxes on Jews. More crushing still was thejudgment, based on passages in the Koran, that Jews areunbelievers and hypocrites, betrayers and plotters, evenagainst God (3:54). They were also less capable offriendship and good will than the Christians (5:82). TheKoran furthers adds that Muslim believers should nottake either Jews or Christians as friends because “theyare but one another’s friends” (5:51).

All of this sounds a lot like the problem of three friendsconstantly playing one against the other. But there issomething reassuring about it because we recognize thekind of contradictions that Jews and Christians have intheir holy books, too. And sacred oral traditions teachall three faiths that the seeming contradictions are anopportunity given by God to interpret the sacred bookin a holy way, to advance peace and to exalt God’s name.

In Islam, as in Judaism, certain passages have beeninterpreted to refer to one period in history only and notto all time, just as Christian churches have interpretedcertain verses as referring to some Jews in Jesus’ time,but not to Jews for all time. There is a very powerfulpassage in the New Testament in which a Jewish mob isdepicted as taking upon themselves and theirdescendants all culpability for the death of Jesus(Matthew 27:25). Many modern Christian scholarsregard this verse as added later by a disgruntled earlyChurch. The Catholic and other churches absolvedcontemporary Jews of the sin of deicide. And yet thisverse will always be taken literally by pious Christianssomewhere.

Similarly, the Koran refers to the “wickedness of certainJews…[who] turn many from the way of God” (4:160).Such passages can be disastrous once interpretersarrogate to themselves the power to decide which are the“certain Jews.” The good news is that the Koran alsodescribes a “certain number” of “the people of Moses”

who guide others with truth, and who practice what isright according to it”(7:159). So Muslims are told toexpect to encounter a number of righteous and inspiringJews whom they can admire.

Criticism of Jews in the Koran is more complex still. Itdescribes Jewish tribes that conspired againstMuhammed and provoked violence against him out ofobjection to his teachings. But one wonders whether theJews ever had that kind of power. Muhammed quotesextensively from biblical stories and rabbinic legendsthat he had heard from Jews. But he became angry at theJewish community when it would not trade in itsreligion to follow his teachings. His complaints againstJews run the gamut from their not embracing hisrevelation as God’s last word to their not accepting themiracles attributed to Jesus. The Koran accepts thevirgin birth through Mary as a “sign” and test of belief,but denies that Jesus is anything but an “apostle” or“messenger.” “Believe in God and His apostles,” theKoran teaches, “but say not, ‘Three’ [that there is aTrinity].’ Far be it from His glory that He should have ason! His, whatever is in the heavens, and whatever is inthe earth! And God is a sufficient guardian” (4:171).

As a Jew, I admire the Koran for defending puremonotheism. But must such affirmation of the OneGod of Abraham and Moses go along withcondemnation of Jews for believing that their covenantwith God is full and binding and not in need of Islamto complete it? Sometimes Muslims use Koranicpassages to criticize Christianity’s concept of God,defending, in essence, the beliefs of Judaism, only to castJews as “unbelievers” in relation to Christians. Yet thisview need not bind the Muslim since the Koran itselfrecognizes that Jews have a Book by which they are tobe judged—what the Koran calls the “portion of theBook of God of which they [the Jews] were the keepersand the witnesses” (5:44).

The purpose of the Koran is to establish a monotheisticfaith intent on converting the world. The Koran doesnot dote over the Jewish people, nor ought we expect it

t

Muhammed quotes extensively frombiblical stories and rabbinic legends

that he had heard from Jews.

t


to do so. Implied in its very program is a call to all thefamilies of the earth to join a universal belief system thathas expanded the playing field far beyond Jews orChristians.

The Koran insists that Abraham was not really a Jew,nor were the Hebrew Prophets. They were, in fact,Muslims, namely, those who submit their wills to Godas guided by the Koran. Muslims thus regard the Koranas having remained in Heaven as a Divine blueprintuntil it was given to the last and greatest of the Prophets,Muhammed. “Abraham was neither Jew nor Christian,”said Muhammed. “But he was sound in the faith, aMuslim; and not of those who add gods to God” (3:67).Ironically, some of these beliefs adapt the rabbinicteaching of 2,000 years ago that the Torah had beencreated before the world came into existence as ablueprint and remained in Heaven until it was deliveredto Moses at Mount Sinai.

The Koran allows the Jews to persist in their beliefs butstops short of endorsing Judaism. It sighs that the“People of the Book”—Jews and Christians—will bestubborn until God’s Day of Resurrection (4:159). Yet italso says that “they who believe, and the Jews, and theSabeites, and the Christians—whoever of thembelieveth in God and in the Last Day, and does what isright, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they beput to grief ” (5:69). This latter passage does give hopefor peace and understanding, though the political andideological outlook and systems of most Islamiccountries have yet to exemplify it in discernable ways.

VIOLENCE OR WARNING

Having looked at the Koran’s attitude towardJews (and Christians), one can’t help askingwhat it teaches about a society like America,

where there are many monotheistic non-Muslims as wellas Muslims, and many who have other beliefs or nobelief. Is the Koran inexorably hostile and murderous assome have charged?

Various media discussions have made Westernersfamiliar with the frightening words in the Koran: “Taketherefore none of them [the infidels] as friends, till theyhave fled their homes for the cause of God. If they turnback, then seize them, and slay them wherever ye findthem; but take none of them as friends or helpers”(4:91); “When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their

heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them,and of the rest make fast the fetters” (47:4).

As many pundits have rushed to point out, the HebrewBible also has several passages about holy war against theCanaanites and others, and in the Christian scripturesJesus speaks of having come to bring a sword whennecessary (Matthew 10:34). Are all scriptures potentiallyan incitement to violence? Is the Koran more violentthan the others?

It all depends upon how scriptures are interpreted.Judaism is not a religion that believes in conqueringother peoples, either spiritually or politically. The Torahhas no mandate to spread Judaism to the nations,whether by gentle persuasion or by violence. Yet thereare many passages in our Scriptures that speak of theneed to destroy the nations who have been in thePromised Land, and to take the land from them. TheHebrew Bible argues that the original residents lost theirright to the land through idolatry and were to be wipedout. This even holds true, however, for the Israelites,who are to lose the land, to be “vomited out,” as theTorah puts it, if they do not follow God’s teachings: “Inthe towns…which the Lord your God is giving you as aheritage, you shall not let a soul remain alive. No, youmust proscribe them [wipe them out; the term is herem,holy war]—the Hittites and the Amorites, theCanaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and theJebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you,lest they mislead you into doing all the abhorrent thingsthat they have done for their gods and you stand guiltybefore the Lord your God” (Deut. 20:16-18);“Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey,after you left Egypt—how, undeterred by the fear ofGod, he surprised you on the march, when you werefamished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers inyour rear…..Therefore…you shall blot out the memoryof Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!” (Deut.25:17-19).

t

The Koran insists that Abraham was notreally a Jew, nor were the Hebrew Prophets.They were, in fact, Muslims, namely, those

who submit their wills to God asguided by the Koran.

t


Does that mean that I, as a Jew, am obligated to openmy telephone directory and look up “Amalek,” and“Jebusite,” and, if I find a Joe Amalek or a JoanieJebusite I am obligated to ring that person’s door belland then kill him? Not at all. The rabbis decreed twothousand and more years ago that these laws applied tothe time of Moses alone. Furthermore, the Bible itselfprovides an out. It explains why those people werealways around, even after the Israelites, who werecommanded to wipe them out, were long settled in thePromised Land. Two reasons are given. These nationscould be evicted only “little by little,” lest the Israelitesbe invaded by wild beasts (Deut. 7:22), and they were tobe kept around to test the loyalty of the Israelites to theirown religion (2:22-23; 3:1,4).

Jewish scriptures and Jewish history have designs for oneland. But they also allow for that land to be occupied byothers while Jews are living there. Our interpreters have,in the main, by and large, read the commandment todisplace the nations around Israel as limited to biblicaltimes. But in a growing haredi or fundamentalistpopulation in Israel, these verses are being interpreted asa call to physically remove the Palestinians. These voicesare still those of a minority, but it is a growing group,fueled by tensions in the region.

The question now is whether the Koran will beinterpreted in such a way as to fuel furtherfundamentalist attacks against Israel and the

West. Like Judaism, Islam believes in the importance ofan oral tradition in the interpretation and application ofGod’s revelation in sacred scriptures. Most of the classicinterpreters of the Koran have said that the calls to warthat appear in many a surah were limited to the time ofthe prophet. Indeed the reader of the Koran comesacross eye-catching and noteworthy statements over andover again. For the Koran describes itself, its purpose, ina most remarkable and instructive way: “This Koran is amanifesto to man, and a guidance, and a warning to theGod-fearing” (3:138). “In truth the Koran is no otherthan a warning or reminder to all creatures” (38:88; seealso 16:43-44 and 50:2). The Koran is an “easy”warning because it was given in a tongue understood byits people (44:58); it is “no other than a warning for allcreatures” (68:52). The Koran is most impressed withthe story of Noah, at least as it was related by theRabbis. For Noah was seen as building the ark to warn

the people of God’s judgment—for nearly a thousandyears, according to the Koran (29:14).

Thus the Koran regards itself, as scripture, to be awarning to humanity, and not necessarily a war cry todestroy others. Many passages in the Koran do leave thefinal judgment to God, and to God alone. “As to thosewho believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites, and theChristians, and the Magians, and those who join othergods with God, of a truth, God shall decide betweenthem on the Day of Resurrection; for God is witness ofall things” (22:17).

WHO FEARS GOD?

Having outlined what the Koran says about Jewsand about battling the world, we might askwhat religious insights it offers to those of

other faiths. When it speaks of the heart and soul ofreligion, it speaks beautifully. It echoes the words of theHebrew prophets and even of the rabbinic traditions. Ithas prayers for “the patient, and the truthful, the lowly,and the charitable, and they who seek pardon at eachdaybreak” (3:17). “And who has a better religion,” saysthe Koran, “than he who resigns himself to God, whodoes what is good, and follows the faith of Abraham inall sincerity” (4:125).

But if it reverberates with the familiar words of HebrewProphets, it also resonates for many Americans who readit now with the sounds and images of September 11:“And how many cities which had been ungodly, andwhose roofs are now laid low in ruin, have Wedestroyed! And wells have been abandoned and loftycastles” (22:45). “We will strike them with terror”(17:60). It should be noted that the “We” referred tohere is God in the divine royal plural, which is commonin the Koran and found in the opening chapters ofGenesis. These passages are not a call to humanterrorism and destruction of buildings and cities andairplanes. They affirm that God will ultimately judgeand punish.

How will the leaders of Islam, in the academies and inthe mosques, interpret these passages? The Korancommands believers not to treat individuals or theirproperty with disrespect; believers are not to commitsuicide or, as some have read the passage, not to kill one


This article was circulated on April 26, 2002, by the IsraelPolicy Forum, a nonpartisan think tanks devoted toexploring Israeli policy matters.

Remember the term “fuzzy math.” It’s back. Atleast, it should be, because discussions about theIsraeli-Palestinian conflict are full of it.

Unfortunately, and sometimes even offensively, themath is essentially a body count used by all sides toexplain their position. Apologizing in advance, thiscolumn is about those numbers.

An op-ed piece by Yoram Hazony in last Friday’s [April19, 2002] New York Times relied on numbers to bolsterthe argument that the Oslo process has been a disasterfrom its inception. In fact, without the math—in thiscase the number of Israelis killed in acts of terror beforeand after Oslo—there is essentially no argument at all.All that is left is the opinion of the writer.

Hazony writes: “Israeli casualties at the hands ofPalestinian terrorists since the Oslo agreement amountto 774 dead and 10 times as many wounded—numbersthat dwarf anything Israel has ever known. At the heightof Yasir Arafat’s terror-state in Lebanon from 1970 to1982 (the years of the Munich and Ma’alot massacresand the Entebbe raid), Palestinian terrorists claimedonly 162 Israeli lives. In the last 18 months alone,terrorists have taken 469 Israeli lives.”

Hazony’s point is simple, and if the math supportedhim, would be unassailable. Oslo produced terror. Thepeace process, designed to end violence, increased it.

The facts tell a different story.

Hazony’s figures of 162 Israelis killed in acts of terrorfrom 1970-1982, and 774 since Oslo, are correct. Butthen comes the fuzzy math, when he says that “in the

last 18 months alone, terrorists have taken 469 Israelilives.” In other words, 469 of the 774 deaths occurrednot during Oslo but after the failure of the Camp Davidsummit, Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount, andthe outbreak of the Al Aqsa intifada. That means thatmost of the 774 (all but a still horrific 305) were killednot as a result of Oslo but as a result of Oslo’s collapse.

The question then is when the 305 were killed. After all,Prime Minister Rabin embraced the Oslo process, inlarge part, because he believed that Israel would only beable to end terrorism once and for all when it hadPalestinian partners (i.e., the PLO) working with Israelin that fight. The Oslo agreement was in essence a trade:the Palestinians got the territories (or most of them) forjoining Israel in the war against terror.

That was no small task. During the early years of Oslo,as today, Islamic Jihad and Hamas were dedicated tothwarting any Israeli-Palestinian cooperation and todestroying Arafat. They believed that terror againstIsraelis would cause the Israeli government to end itspartnership with Arafat and would eliminate the“threat” posed by peace. Under Oslo, the PalestinianAuthority had the responsibility to fight them. And theydid—no responsible Israeli government official everclaimed they did not.

But it was slow going until Prime MinisterNetanyahu insisted that the American CIAmonitor PLO compliance and instruct it on how

to improve its tactics. At that point Israelis andPalestinians began meeting, under CIA auspices, toadopt and implement a clear antiterror strategy. Withina very short time, Israeli and Palestinian security officialswere working so closely together that the American rolebecame almost superfluous.


ESSAY M.J. Rosenberg

The Real Facts About Terror

ge...


It is at this juncture that Israeli-Palestinian securitycooperation succeeded in thwarting the terroroperations which Islamic Jihad and Hamas werelaunching with regularity. The Palestinian Authorityboth tipped the Israelis off on operations before theyhappened or stopped the operations themselves.Ha’aretz and the Jerusalem Post both reported that thePLO’s confrontations with Hamas and Islamic Jihadwere so intense that they raised the specter of civil war.

And, according to the Israeli government, betweenSeptember 1997 and the outbreak of the Al Aqsaintifada in November 2000, not a single Israeli civiliandied in acts of terror. (One soldier was killed in 1998.)

In other words, there was a three-year-period whenIsraeli-Palestinian security cooperation succeeded insecuring Israel from terror. That period ended with a carbombing perpetrated by Islamic Jihad 4 months afterthe failed Camp David summit and 5 weeks afterSharon’s visit to the Temple Mount. By then, Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation was over. The Israeli-Palestinian partnership was history.

Today it is hard to imagine three years withoutterror in Israel, but back then it was almosttaken for granted, along with the booming

economy, expanded trade and diplomatic ties withformerly hostile nations, and hotels bursting withtourists.

Sometimes, depressed about the situation in the MiddleEast, I allow myself to recall the memory of those days.I remember an afternoon our family spent in Tel Aviv inFebruary 1999. After visiting the fascinating BenGurion museum in north Tel Aviv, our little groupstrolled over to the beach. It was a wonderful sunny day,the kind of day in which Tel Aviv has the aspect ofwinter days in Miami Beach or Santa Monica. We foundan outdoor café right near the Dolphinarium, orderedlunch—including wine and beer—and sat talking andlaughing in the sunshine for three hours.

Involved in the cause that is Israel is my entire life, andhaving visited dozens of times, I knew enough to savorthe moment even as it was happening. Israel had neverfelt that gloriously safe. Peace was here. It would finallybe possible not to worry about Israel. My wife, born ina Displaced Persons camp in Germany after World WarII, recalls wishing that her parents, Holocaust survivorswho never knew an Israel at peace, could have lived tosee the day.

q

Stephane Acel Former Executive Director, LaborZionist Alliance

Jay Eidelman is president of Camp Na’aleh Inc.,a progressive, Jewish summer camp serving NewYork, New England, and northern New Jersey.

Elliot B. Gertel is rabbi of CongregationRodfei Zedek in Chicago and the author ofa new book, What Jews Know AboutSalvation (Eakin Press, Austin, Texas).

Jerry Goodman is executive director of theNational Committee for Labor Israel.

Ariel Jankelson is secretary generalof Habonim Dror Australia.

Michael Landsberg is secretary generalof the World Labor Zionist Movement.

Bennett Lovett-Graff is managingeditor of Jewish Frontier.

Jared Matas is former secretary generalof Habonim Dror North America.

M.J. Rosenberg, director of policy for Israel PolicyForum, is a long-time Capitol Hill staffer andformer editor of AIPAC’s Near East Report.

Avital Shapira works for the InternationalDepartment of the Histadrut.

Menachem Stern is a poet fromRego Park, New York.

Robert Torricelli is the senior Democraticsenator from New Jersey.

CONTRIBUTORS

It started getting dark and a little cold. We gatheredourselves up and headed back to the hotel. Tomorrowwould be another day.


SPEECH Ariel Jankelson

Today it seems that being left of center or eventhe slightest bit critical of the status quo is metwith scorn, disdain, and usually generous

servings of ignorance. This is troubling and I thought Iwould explain by relating some personal experiencesrepresenting the leftist cause and then try to analyze whyit has been and continues to be such a challengingpredicament.

By far the most complex period has been these last fewyears that I have believed in, and spoken on behalf of,the Israeli left. For those who know me, they will not besurprised that I have been involved in countlessarguments that pit “right vs. left” or, as I sometimes liketo call it, “right vs. right.” Among others things, I haveargued against settlers, settlements, targetedassassinations, bulldozers, and the occupation. I havesimultaneously argued for dialogue, peace, borders,cooperation, and human rights. I find, in almost everyargument with fellow Zionists that I am cornered intodefending the Palestinians and, as a consequence,accused of being self-hating or even supportingterrorists and suicide bombers.

This is obviously not true. I am a Zionist. I support andlove Israel. And when I speak against something thatIsrael does, it is not because I do not care. It is preciselythe opposite; it is because I care so much. Israel exists,and it is our job as Zionists to do two things. First, toensure the continuation of the state; second, to ensurethat our country is the kind of country we want andexpect it to be. For me, this is a country that respectshuman rights for all human beings, loves peace,promotes egalitarian ideals, and is something of whichwe can all be proud. When I see something with whichI disagree, something that I believe runs contrary to

what I hope for in Israel, I am obligated as a Jew and aZionist to speak up.

So what does it mean to be leftist today? For me theanswer is fairly straightforward and lies at the heart ofthe leftist ethos: Do unto others as you would havethem do unto you! Try to understand others rather thanjudge them. Listen and hear them before you tell themthat they are wrong, guilty, or evil. Try to ask yourselfhow you would act under similar circumstances. Bylooking at only one side of the story it is easy to becomebiased, subjective, and clouded. Furthermore by lookingprincipally at one side alone you will necessarily becomeangry, disillusioned, and upset with the other. By takinga holistic approach, however, I believe that a moremoderate and sensible view will emerge.

Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict. There is no doubtthat the history of this conflict can be viewed from atleast two, if not several, points of view. By viewing oneside and not the other, one necessarily adopts that oneside’s argument: its pain, its triumphs, and its defeats.One will also be blinded to the plight of the other. Thisperhaps explains differing views of an event like theIsrael’s declaration of independence in 1948, which isseen by Jews as the culmination of the Zionist dreamand by Arabs and Palestinians as Al Nakba, the Day ofCatastrophe. So is one right and one wrong? The answer

The Challenge of the Left

t

I support and love Israel. And when I speakagainst something that Israel does, it is not

because I do not care. It is precisely theopposite; it is because I care so much.

t


must be a resounding no! Both narratives reflect thefeelings, emotions, and points of view of the sidesinvolved, and no conflict is capable of resolutionwithout at least trying to listen to the other side andunderstand its point of view. From this point only candiscussion with that other side begin on a mutuallyagreeable solution. It is my belief that if this were donebut a couple of times in human history, much todaymight be different and the better for it.

So where does one go from here? When I present myviews to others they often tell me, “I agree with you inprinciple, but matters have gone too far. Your solutionsmight have worked thirty years ago, but they areirrelevant today!” To this, I always respond that we mustlisten to one another, since only doing so can ultimatelyreinforce the message of nonviolence, peace, andeventual reconciliation. Consider Australia’s relationshipto the Aborigines. The most groundbreaking eventaffecting interracial relations there was the delivery of acourt-case judgment that did not so much reconciledifferences as simply recognize that Australia was not anempty land before the English arrived. It was thisadmission that began the difficult process ofreconciliation that continues today. For me the sameapplies to Israel and the Palestinians. Both are afraid totake responsibility for their actions, past and present.Both, in turn, need to admit to having made mistakes.They must focus less on the guilt of the other and admitthat just because they have wronged one another doesnot mean either has the right to continue actingwrongly. Peace begins with changes in how we act now,not after meeting conditions that depend solely on ourown grievances.

An old proverb states that the best way to get ridof an enemy is to turn him into a friend, and asusual the wisdom of old sayings proves wise

again today. The best way to get rid of a terrorist is notto kill him; it is to take away his motivation for wantingto use terror. The greatest tragedy on both sides of thishorrible conflict is that previously marginalized voiceslike Hamas and Islamic Jihad—or alternatively Kachand fundamentalist Israeli groups—have receivedgrowing support. There will always be those who opposepeace, but we can choose whether they are viewed as theenemy of both sides and of important, peaceful progressor as the heroes of their cause. We must remarginalizethese voices in the hope that those who continue to call

for peace, nonviolence, and reconciliation will onceagain be heard, and that we can all truly move forwardtowards solving a conflict which I believe is solvable andmust be solved!

Thus I return to the original question: why doeseveryone seem to deplore the left? With what I haveargued, is it now because we are too optimistic andunrealistic? I don’t think so. I think it is becauseeveryone hates to admit they were or are wrong. No onewants to take responsibility for their actions and makethe more difficult choice of acting contrary to popularsentiment. It is always easier to play the victim, ignorethe other side of the argument, point the finger, and tryto hurt your opponent. Well, to the Palestinians andIsrael I say: “Grow up! Get off your moral high-horseand deal with the issues at hand. Neither of you hasclean hands.”

While both have their points, neither islistening to the other. Or rather, both arelistening, but neither is hearing. It is time to

hear and it is time to act. It is time to stop asking whostarted it and start asking who is going to finish it. It istime for both sides to stand up and say, as YitzchakRabin had, “Enough.” Neither nation can afford tocontinue in this way. The only way forward is shalom,salaam, and peace!

****

As an epilogue I would like to discuss some commentsmade about this piece when first presented:

Some have commented that it lacks a practical, tangibleelement to it. But that is the point. I wanted to presenta challenge to the underlying, ideological basis for thedecisions and actions being taken by those on bothsides. Clearly no one expects parties involved to shakehands and be friends. But a very basic level ofacknowledgment must occur without conditions.

Others have mentioned that my ideas are too idealistic,perhaps too optimistic. This article, however, is not asolution. It is but an attempt to open up dialogue ontopics not discussed often enough. Solutions andchange are rarely logical and never easy; they alwaysinvolve painful sacrifice and compromise. They alsorequire vision and healthy doses of idealism. q


SPEECH Robert Toricelli

The following remarks were delivered on the floor of theUnited States Senate by Senator Robert Torricelli,Democrat of New Jersey, on May 15, 2002.

Mr. President, throughout all of my adult life,I have traveled frequently to Israel. I havehad the honor of knowing almost all of

Israel’s principal leaders. As many Americans, though Iam of the Christian faith, I have always felt a strongidentity with the struggle of the Jewish people and thesurvival of the Jewish State.

I believe the American relationship with Israel iscomplex: Our sense that Israel represents the edges ofWestern civilization; the identity of a struggling peoplesimply desiring to survive; the sense of humanity’sobligation to the Jewish people who have survived theHolocaust; and, of course, an inevitable Americanidentity with a democracy, a pluralist state that sharesour most basic value.

Through this association, I have witnessed Israel inmany struggles. Years ago, all Americans marveled atIsrael’s ability to overcome extraordinary militaryadversity in the 1967 war facing overwhelmingconventional arms against them. In 1973, a similar arrayof armed forces having entered the very heart of Israeland being turned back was a demonstration ofremarkable courage and sacrifice by the Israeli people.In the years that followed, there was the conventionalconflict in which Israel’s triumph was matched by herability to stand down mounting strategic armaments

from the Syrians, the launching of limited missiles fromLebanon.

In each of these conflicts, courage, determination, guile,and skill allowed Israel to survive. None of these things,however, would have prepared any of us for the conflictin which Israel is now engaged. Previous generationsovercoming strategic weapons and conventionalweapons and the guerrilla warfare of the war ofindependence are in some ways little preparation forwhat the current generation of Israelis are experiencing.It is the ultimate test of any Western society. It goes tothe heart of the ability of any country to be able toendure when terrorism strikes the center of our cities,destroys our families, interrupts our means oftransportation, denies the ability of our economies tofunction, our democracies to vibrantly engage in debatein the prospect of such terror.

It is a conflict not simply between two sides but twocenturies, two concepts of life, two abilities to organizesociety. I felt confident in Israel’s previous wars, despitethe odds, the overwhelming weapons, or the disparity ofmanpower because courage and intellect would dictatethe result. There is no amount of courage, no amount ofintellect that can face down a terrorist bombing. This isa different war. It is dangerous.

My concern is amplified by the voices in Asiaand Europe that were once so sympathetic tothe struggling Jewish State that are now at

best silent and often giving comfort to Israel’s enemies.Those Europeans which shared American responsibilityfor the children of the Holocaust somehow have

The Palestinian Authorityand Congressional Doubt


forgotten. Those in Europe who admired the courage ofthe Israelis in building a democracy are silent. ThoseEuropeans who in every case would reach out to anotherdemocratic society with an identification, abrotherhood of pluralist democracies, now seem to failto find any identity in Israel.

There are so many emotions that this brings forward forAmericans. It should thus be said at the outset, if in thisstruggle Israel and America must stand alone, then Israeland America never stood in better company.

In this struggle, victory will not be by the numbers. Wewill not be intimidated by the coalitions or silenced bythe critics. This is a fight about principle. And thestrength of the Jewish cause in Israel may best bedefined by its objectives. Jews want to survive in theirown homeland. This is not a struggle about conquest orwealth or national pride; it is survival. Jews stay in Israelor they die with their backs to the sea. That is what thestruggle is about.

I recognize that many of our European friends, for theirown economic or political reasons, may no longeridentify with Israel. They may have made theirarrangements elsewhere.

History has a short memory. To them, the obligations ofthe Holocaust or the promise to the Jewish people oftheir homeland may be a distant memory. Maybe Israeland America will fight alone, but it should not beforgotten that we may fight alone, but this is not ourfight alone.

If terrorism succeeds in Israel, who among us woulddoubt that its next battlefield will be Europe? Certainlyno one in my State of New Jersey doubts that it will beAmerica. We have seen terrorism. Woodrow Wilsononce said that America’s two best friends were theAtlantic and the Pacific. They have become very littlefriends. Terrorism in another part of the world, halfwayaround the globe, offers no comfort to any American byits distance; it can be here tomorrow.

The fight for Israel’s security is the fight for the securityof every free nation, whether they are aligned withIsrael, whether they wish Israel well. She fights our fight,and her fate is our fate.

There are many obstacles to a peaceful resolution in theMiddle East. I believe profoundly that there will neverbe a military answer to the conflict between thePalestinians and the Israelis. These are two people ofsome common ancestry who live in a shared land. Bothwill learn to live together.

As profoundly as I believe in a peace process, I amalso convinced that unless the PalestinianAuthority understands that terrorism will not

succeed, that there is no military answer, and that at allcosts Israel will survive, no negotiated settlement ispossible.

There are those who may think that their militaryoperations at the moment give them advantage innegotiations. There are others who believe their militaryoperations hold not the promise of the West Bank andGaza as a Palestinian State, but the destruction of theJewish State in its entirety. To them, there is not aPalestinian State envisioned in the West Bank and Gaza,but in Haifa and Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

I have never represented any cause in the Middle Eastother than a negotiated settlement. I believe profoundlyin the peace process as essential to the survival of Israeland in the interest of the Palestinian people, but I refuseto counsel Israel that it should negotiate with peoplebent on its destruction, or that it is of any value toengage in peace negotiations as long as their adversariesbelieve that a military victory is possible and Israel’sentire destruction conceivable.

It is almost axiomatic to declare that peace negotiationsand peace settlements are historically nothing but areflection of the realities on the battlefield. The realitythat Americans and Israelis see is two people in acommon land who need their own homelands. Thatmakes peace negotiations by Americans or Israelis notonly possible but inevitable. But no nation cannegotiate with itself, nor can peace be unilaterallydeclared.

Unless the Palestinians, and not simply the PalestinianAuthority but important elements of the society,recognize that such military outcomes are impossible,only then will peace negotiations be meaningful.

t

This is not a struggle about conquest or wealthor national pride; it is survival. Jews stay inIsrael or they die with their backs to the sea.

That is what the struggle is about.

t


There are those in America who genuinely believe thatby pressuring Israel not to respond militarily, not to seekterrorists in their own territory, we are giving goodadvice to the Israeli Government.

It is a difficult argument to understand in anAmerican context. Who in this Senate would becounseling the U.S. government, after a terrorist

attack, to exercise restraint? Which member of theSenate would suggest to our own military, if Chicago orMiami or Los Angeles were to fall victim to a terroristattack, that we should not respond? Which part of theAmerican arsenal would you withhold if it wereAmerican cities experiencing bombings, American busesbeing destroyed, American children losing their limbs?

I dare to say there is not a member of this Senate whowould urge restraint or withhold a single weapon in ourarsenal. The Palestinians may believe there is little forthem to be grateful for today. Their cities are beingdestroyed. The Israeli Army has occupied parts of theWest Bank. Gaza awaits an invasion. There issomething, however, for which they should be grateful.If it were the United States of America that enduredthese attacks and not Israel, the response they haveexperienced from the Israeli Army would be a smallshadow of the problems that would be visited uponthem.

Finally, there are those in the Senate who wonder, withIsraelis having to respond with their lives, the Israelieconomy in shambles, what is it any American can do?How is it that in this moment of crisis we can exercisetrue fidelity with Israel in its fight for survival? Ourwords are important. So is our presence in Israel.

Nothing would demonstrate more our commitment toIsrael than members of Congress, like the Americanpeople themselves, being present, exhibiting courage,showing our commitment.

In this Senate, we 100 have a different opportunity. Thefight for Israel’s survival is not only militarily decided, itis also economically decided. The Clintonadministration 18 months ago, after the withdrawalfrom Lebanon, pledged Israel $450 million forsupplemental assistance. It was to compensate for thewithdrawal, to help recreate a security zone in the northof Israel, and for missile defense.

That money was never provided. Regrettably, the Bushadministration never even included it in itsrecommendations for the Congress this year. At a timewhen Israelis look across the sea to America forconfidence of their own survival, broken Americanpromises are not helpful. Indeed, they are troubling.The first thing this Congress can do is ensure that everycommitment is kept, all resources are given. In thecurrent stage of this fight against terrorism, despite allthe sacrifices of September 11 and the courage of oursoldiers in Afghanistan, at this moment most Americansare not asked to sacrifice with their lives. We haveexperienced that before. It may come again. At thismoment, the sacrifice is Israeli. The least we can do ishelp them with the means to win this war.

All of us look for the words telegraphed around theworld to those who believe that the Jewish state wasboth created and will die in a single generation, wordsto put at rest those who are committing their energy andtheir resources to this war on terrorism against Israel.Here are mine: Israel is forever. As long as there is aUnited States of America, there will be an Israel. It took2,000 years for the Jewish people to get home. Theyhave been there for a single generation. They are notleaving. Those in Europe who would counsel or comforther enemies, those in the Middle East who are bent onher destruction, would do best to accept that reality.

There is land enough for all peoples to decide their owngovernments and design their own futures. Let there beno question, for those who respect the will and thepower of the United States of America, one of thosepeoples will be Jewish and one of those countries will beIsrael.

I yield the floor.

t

If it were the United States of Americathat endured these attacks and not Israel,

the response [the Palestinians] haveexperienced from the Israeli Army would

be a small shadow of the problemsthat would be visited upon them.

t

q


REPORT Michael Landsberg

THE NEW ANTI-SEMITISM

At the beginning of the third millennium, theJewish people face a familiar argument, one thatis being articulated in a new form across the

globe, one that’s nothing less than a new form of anti-Semitism. In the past Jews had been accused of killingJesus and of continuing this sacrificial practice by killingChristian children. Today these accusations comecloaked in anti-Zionist and anti-Israel rhetoic.

Throughout history, Christian countries refused torecognize the right of Jews to live freely as equals amongthe nations. They often cast them as parasites thrivingon the success of humanity. This view was reinforced, inparticular, by St. Augustine’s theological prescriptionthat Jews occupy a downtrodden place in Christiansociety so that they might humbly witness thesupercession of Judaism by the “True Israel,”Christianity.

Today, 2,000 years after the exile of our people from ourhistoric land and the astonishing revival of our nation,the Jewish people have found a political solution to itsnational-ethnic-human condition. However, thepredominant view of the state of Israel around the worldis of an artificial state created by Western colonialistpowers. This is the meaning of the phrase “Zionistentity” typically circulated in the anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic writings.

This phenomenon, by which an ancient people isdeprived of the right to a physical, political, cultural,

and spiritual existence, has no parallel in history. Onlyreligious intolerance has this historical pattern.Therefore, what we are witnessing at the beginning ofthe twenty-first century as the rhetoric of anti-Israel andanti-Zionist sentiment is but anti-Semitism by anothername.

During the last few years, the attempt to dehumanizeand delegitimize the state of Israel has grown tounprecedented levels. Consider the following examples:

DOWN IN DURBAN

The official UN-sponsored World Conferenceagainst Racism, which took place in Durban,South Africa, was held in an atmosphere that

sought to portray Israel as a racist state that practiced“apartheid.” Tragically, a conference intended toexamine effective mechanisms to combat racism andpromote understanding and awareness of this importantglobal problem became instead a stage for its own formof racist baiting. Draft resolutions initiated by the Arabstates and Palestinian delegation and promoted by amajority of the over 3,000 NGO representativesattending the conference accused Israel of conductingsystematic racist crimes, including war crimes, genocide,and ethnic cleansing. These drafts were acts ofincitement against Israel, aimed at providing afoundation to the presumed lack of legitimacy of theJewish state. Developing countries and NGOs alikeselected Israel to fulfill the role of ultimate evil in our

Anti-Semitism Arab Style


world, casting it not only as an illegal entity but animmoral state whose very existence endangers worldstability and security. Without a “solution to the Jewishproblem,” said the Nazis, the world cannot be savedfrom itself. Without a solution to Israeli colonialism,argued the participants in Durban, the world can fareno better. The Zionists, they claim, will destroy it. Andyet how reminiscent this sounds of Nazi doctrine.

REVISING ZIONISM

How many today are aware of the growing tiesbetween Western Holocaust deniers and theArab world, which came to light in December

2000, when the Institute for Historical Review (IHR)announced that its 14th revisionist conference wouldtake place in Beirut, Lebanon, in early April 2001? Inprevious years the IHR held its conventions closer tohome, in places like Orange County and Los Angeles,California, a state famous for the outspokenness of itsneo-Nazi groups. More interestingly, and in anotherbreak with IHR tradition, the Beirut conference was tobring together historical revisionism and Zionism. TheIHR was assisted by its Swiss counterpart, AssociationVérité et Justice, founded by Jurgen Graf. Scheduledspeakers were to include Roger Garaudy, RobertFaurisson, Fredrick Toben, and Mark Weber. The IHRalso pointedly announced that no one—includingjournalists—whose passport contained an Israelientrance or exit stamp would be permitted to attend.

Soon after the conference was announced, several Jewishorganizations voiced their concern about the possibilitythat the conference would lead to increased anti-Semitism in the region. The Simon Wiesenthal Centerwent so far as to urge the Lebanese government tointervene in the matter, saying that in the interests ofregional peace, the conference must not go on. “Thereis a wide range of viewpoints as to how peace can bereached in your region,” the Wiesenthal Center wrote tothe Lebanese ambassador, “but certainly theintroduction and acceptance of Holocaust denial intothe mainstream of Lebanon and the Arab world is notone of them. It will only poison hearts and minds of theuninformed and further fan the flames of hate andmistrust in the region.” Others also urged the Lebanesegovernment to ban the conference, including, accordingto reports in the Arab press, the U.S. State Department.

French news organizations announced that 14independent Arab intellectuals had also denounced theconference, including Palestinian poet MahmoudDarwich, Lebanese writer Elias Khoury, andPalestinian-American professor Edward Said.

By the end of March 2001, Lebanese Prime MinisterRafik al-Hariri had announced that his governmentwould not permit the conference to take place.“Lebanon has more important things to do thanholding conferences that hurt its international standingand smear its name,” al-Hariri said. News of the ban wasapplauded by Western politicians and writers, many ofwhom expressed the hope that the ban presaged growingcooperation between Israel and Arab countries. OnMarch 30, IHR and Vérité et Justice officiallyannounced that the conference was called off, thoughsome free-speech advocates in the West decried thedecision.

The cancellation inspired another group, the anti-normalization Jordanian Writers’ Association (JWA), tohost a conference of its own, whose theme was “WhatHappened to the Revisionist History conference inBeirut?” Scheduled speakers included Lebanese,Jordanian, and Syrian writers, one of whom pledged toread the paper Robert Faurisson had intended to give atthe Beirut conference. Though the Jordanian authoritiespostponed JWA’s conference at least twice, theconference eventually took place in Amman on May 13,2001. According to one of the organizers, IbrahimAlloush, the participants resolved to condemn thefourteen Arab intellectuals who had opposed the Beirutconference and to establish an “Arab Committee ofHistorical Revisionism.”

BLOODTHIRSTY JEWS IN THE ARAB MIND

In a national broadcast of the Abu-Dhabi television,Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is depicted as avampire, drinking with pleasure blood of young

Palestinian boys, hated by God and humanity.

On March 10, 2002, the government-run dailynewspaper Al-Riyadh in Saudi Arabia published anarticle claiming that on Purim, Jews bake cookies madewith the blood of Christian or Islamic adolescents; onPassover, the author claimed, Jews use the blood ofchildren under ten years old to make matzah. This latest


representation of the age-old blood libel wascondemned by the United States government, whichissued an editorial on the State Department-run Voiceof America radio broadcasts, stating, “No one who isnot blinded by hate for Jews could ever believe suchnonsense.” The editorial implied that the Saudinewspaper was lending an air of credibility to this bloodlibel, which was neither common sense nor “moralsense.”

The repetition of the age-old blood libel in anewspaper published in the holiest land in Islamcontinues a phenomenon that began in the

1930s. Blood libel charges originated in Europe, withthe death of the young Christian, Hugh of Lincoln, in1209. It comes out of the belief in medieval Christianitythat the Jews killed Jesus, the “child” of God. It thenextended the link to Passover because of its proximity toEaster. The blood libel was adopted by Christian Arabsin Syria in the nineteenth century, with the famous1840 Damascus Blood Libel. Then, during World WarII, as an expression of anti-Western and anticolonialistfeelings, Arab leaders sided with the Nazis, adoptingtheir propaganda, including the most base anti-Semiticcharges and images ever to be leveled at the Jewishpeople. None of this rhetoric is of Islamic origin, andironically it runs counter to Islamic tradition, whichteaches tolerance toward Christianity and Judaism andestablishes a special status for Jews and Christianswithin Islamic society. This fact is reflected in non-ArabIslamic countries, which have not incorporatedChristian anti-Semitic images. Only Arab countries andIran have adopted these attitudes.

After the establishment of the State of Israel, thesecharges were transferred from Jews themselves to Israel

and Zionism. Thus, Israel as a Jewish state located in theheart of the Middle East is the center around whichmodern anti-Semitism throughout the world revolves,using anti-Semitic literature and propaganda in massmedia.

After the September 11 terror attacks on theUnited States, familiar charges emanated fromthis region. These arguments reveal the depth of

the hatred Israel and the Jewish people. They includethe claim that the Israeli Mossad committed the terrorattacks of September 11, that Osama bin Ladentriggered the attacks because the United States favorsIsrael in the Middle East conflict, and that even if Israelis not to blame for the attacks, Israel’s behavior threatensthe American-led coalition against terror.

I had the pleasure to serve as member of the SteeringCommittee of the Sixth International Conference ofJewish Ministers and Members of Parliament, whichtook place in Jerusalem in January 2002, and tomoderate a panel on the “Struggle against Anti-Semitism” there. My recommendation then were asfollows:

•Increase awareness in the world and in Israel about thephenomenon of anti-Semitism.

•Take effective action to prevent turning the Arab-Israeliconflict into a religious one by, among other things,building a coalition with moderate Muslim leaders.

•Reestablish ties with the community of human rightsorganizations.

•Take measures in the field of education and lawenforcement, especially where local legislation permits,as in Rio de Janeiro, where an internal policedepartment for anti-Semitic harassment and anti-Semitic activities was established.

The threat of anti-Semitism is not a chimera. It is real,and it has heated up significantly because of theincreased tensions between Israelis and Palestinians. Wemust not let this become an opportunity to stoke firesof Jew-hating that swept Europe during World War II.We must attack this disease directly and root it out.There is no place for this type of hate when we all soeagerly seek peace.

t

Without a solution to Israeli colonialism,argued the participants in Durban, the worldcan fare no better. The Zionists, they claim,will destroy it. And yet how reminiscent this

sounds of Nazi doctrine.

t

q


SPEECH Jerry Goodman, with Avital Shapira

The National Committee for Labor Israel works to buildsupport for and educate the public about the achievementsof Israel, especially its labor sector. It is committed tostrengthening ties among the Jewish community, the labormovement and Israel, and to help Israel fashion a societybased on peace, social and economic justice, and equality ofall of its citizens.

THE MIDDLE EAST:VIOLENCE AND ECONOMIC CHANGE

In the last few years, Israel has undergonetremendous economic changes. It is still in theprocess of a radical transformation from a planned,

centralized economy to a free-market economy. Thepolicies of all governments in the same period, whetherright or left, were designed to divest the state from directinvolvement in the economy and to privatize an array ofstate-owned companies. At the same time a process of“rationalization” of industrial units was put in place,whereby units of production were to become separateentities responsible for their own profits and losses. Asan unforeseen consequence, however, this led to the lossof secure jobs. In a twist of fate it also led to anincreased reliance on outsourcing and an expandedreliance on manpower companies providing temporaryemployment.

At virtually the same time Israel began to suffer a majorrecession. In the food sector alone a steep declinedeveloped in production, reflecting the loss in purchasepower of many families. As a result factories were forcedto close or were consolidated, and within a short periodof time over 4,000 workers became unemployed.

To complicate matters, the Histadrut, the GeneralFederation of Labor in Israel, went through a traumaticchange process of its own. Once viewed as a general

social and economic movement involved in all facets oflife, a role it played before Israel’s proclamation ofstatehood, it began to concentrate on its central task asa federation of 21 separate trade unions, with 30regional branches scattered throughout the country.

The most serious of the changes took place in 1994,when the decades long link between Histadrut and themajor, nationwide health service, Kupat Holim Clalit,was severed by law. This led to a dramatic decline inmembership, from 1.6 million to approximately700,000. Many Histadrut members, such as retirees,could now opt to enroll in Kupat Holim directly,without paying dues to the labor federation.

An eroding political and security situation furthercomplicated matters. Beginning in September 2000 asevere economic crisis slowly unfolded in the wake ofthe launching by Palestinians of what was initiallydescribed as the “Al-Aqsa Intifada.” Within monthsarmed violence mounted, marked by Arab bombermurders and Israeli military responses.

Today, Israel is suffering from a severe recession, withunemployment hovering at approximately 230,000, or10% of the work force. Some sectors were especiallyhard hit by recent developments, with tourism a majorvictim.

Rated as one of Israel’s major industries, tourismprovided work to thousands of Israelis and Palestinians.The nationwide network of hotels alone reportedlyemployed more than 36,000 people.

The widely broadcast acts of violence caused byPalestinian murder bombers led to a precipitous declineof about 75% in the number of tourists arriving inIsrael. This led to a loss of $2.6 billion in revenue, amajor factor in the rapid decline of Israel’s GrossDomestic Product (GDP) from $9.2 billion to $6.4.The evaporation of about $2.8 billion is attributable to

In the Wake of Violence:Some Israeli Encounters


the tourist industry and is more than a two percentdecline in overall economic growth.

Many hotels throughout the country were forced toclose and 16,000 workers were fired immediately. Theremaining workers had their salaries cut by 20% to50%.

The Histadrut, together with the Hotel and RestaurantWorkers Union, quickly agreed on short-term measures,and persuaded the government to help alleviate thesituation. Among other things they secured jobguarantees for 5,000 workers scheduled to be fired andenabled them to take three months of unpaid leave,while receiving unemployment benefits and vocationalretraining. The arrangement committed employers tocontinue paying workers’ benefits, and to rehire them atthe conclusion of the unpaid leave.

By the end of May of last year the security situation hadnot improved, while the grace period had ended. Toprevent a near disaster the Chairman of the Histadrut,MK Amir Peretz, and the General Secretary of the Hoteland Restaurant Workers Union, Rachel Abanayim,requested that the Ministers of Finance and of Laborextend the unpaid leave by an additional three months.They also suggested that the Histadrut and theGovernment try to encourage tourism and enlisted locallabor councils for this purpose. At the same timeemployers were to agree not to fire workers. Within amonth the Government ratified the agreement andmassive layoffs were prevented.

In the wake of the September 11 attack on NewYork’s World Trade Center and the heightened wavesof terrorist attacks inside Israel, the hotel and tourist

industry seemed to be heading toward rock bottom.The hotel workers union and the Associations of Hotels,aware of the possible impact on the country, signed anadditional agreement early this year that divertedadditional massive layoffs. As a result 2,000 workerswere fired, instead of an anticipated 7,000. Anadditional 400 workers accepted early retirement, while11,000 out of 18,000 workers agreed to reduce somebenefits, such as holiday payments. They wererewarded, in part, with a reduction in union dues.

An unexpected blow to the hotel industry was thefallout from a softening of Israel’s high-tech exports.

Executives and workers in this sector had beenaccustomed to meet in hotels for workshops andconferences, and for recreation. A sharp decline inincome caused them to halt this practice.

Also hit hard was the food sector whose members sufferfrom a severe loss in income caused, to a great extent, bythe decline in tourism. This was aggravated by the lossof $250 million resulting from the virtual halt in tradewith the Palestinian Authority.

IMPACTING THE HISTADRUT

The economic decline during the last year and ahalf has been painful for all Israelis. It has had aprofound affect on the financial position of its

unions, including the central federation.

The decline in the food and tourism industries has ledto a serious erosion of income for the labor federationthat depends heavily on affiliation fees. Ironically, thelosses to those unions suffering from severe deficits cameat a time when their members needed additionalassistance to help overcome a decline in wages andbenefits.

For the Histadrut the security and economic situationprompted an aggressive effort to increase membership.To facilitate this goal, help was promised by expandinglegal services to members, designed to guarantee thestatus of workers in an era of globalization andprivatization. Among other things, counselors weremade available for the 30 regional branches of theHistadrut, and legal advice expanded to includemembers in places of work that are not organized. Theuse of legal aid has, in fact, already been brought intovigorous use during the current crisis.

In addition, the Histadrut and its affiliated unions havereached out to all workers to organize and join theirranks, with working women as a special target.

t

In the wake of the September 11 attack onNew York’s World Trade Center, and the

heightened waves of terrorist attacks insideIsrael, the hotel and tourist industry seemed to

be heading toward rock bottom.

t


A situation room was created to help prepare theHistadrut deal with events on the ground, either as acoordinating body or to initiate and mold policy. It alsoacts as staff headquarters providing support for theorganization and management of the new campaign.Furthermore, the strike-fund was reinforced so workerscould campaign for their rights, without drawing uponfunds needed for living.

In a departure from old patterns the Histadrut’saccelerated organizing activity includes extensivemarketing through the electronic and print media, streetposters, personal encounters, telemarketing, and thewide deployment of union representatives in all workingplaces.

Another target was the protection of temporary workerswho use manpower companies. The expanded relianceon these workers to fill long-term positions had been asore point for years. The Histadrut maintained thatmany employers, including government agencies, weretaking advantage of the security crisis and risingunemployment to expand the use of unprotectedworkers.

The Chairman of the Histadrut, a Knesset member,initiated legislation to change the relationship ofmanpower companies to new workers. Any personfrom a manpower company employed in the same workplace for a maximum of nine months may now becomepermanent and be eligible for a full and equal basket ofbenefits. During this period they will have the samerights and receive the same benefits enjoyed bypermanent employees. It is anticipated that this willend the practice of limiting the rights of temporaryworkers, who will now find improved conditions fromthe start.

ASSISTING THE PALESTINIAN WORKERS

Labor unions, traditionally, are proud of theiradherence to the principle of international laborsolidarity. Since the signing of the Oslo accords

in 1993, the Histadrut had focused most of its energieson working with the PGFTU (Palestinian GeneralFederation of Trade Unions). It also supportedprograms at the International Institute-Histadrut inKfar Saba that brought participants to Israel forspecialized training, from over 100 countries. Thisincluded many eager candidates from the PalestineAuthority.

The framework Agreement for Cooperation signed onMarch 5, 1995 between the PGFTU and the Histadrutleans heavily on the support that both organizationsgave to what was then an unfolding peace process. Theyalso agreed that efforts to achieve a just, comprehensiveand lasting peace would be based on UN SecurityCouncil Resolutions 242 and 338 to help secure thewell being of Israelis and Palestinians.

The Agreement also dealt with fund transferences fromthe Histadrut, with specific goals to help supportPGFTU trade union activities. The PGFTU and theHistadrut agreed to the direct transfer of funds from theIsraeli Occupational Services Office to PGFTU. Thesefunds were to come from the organizational dues of thePalestinian workers in Israel, with 50% to be transferredto the Histadrut and the other 50% to the PGFTU.According to the Histadrut, the PGFTU received$2,287,518 between 1995 and 2001, an amount thePGFTU claims is much too low. A recent rupture inrelations has prevented accurate adjudication of theissue.

Other examples of solidarity include the following:

1. Attorneys were assigned the responsibility of handlingthe legal needs of Palestinians employed in Israel. Whilethey maintained legal offices in Israel, they workeddirectly with the PGFTU and its members in the WestBank and Gaza.

The range of legal claims were primarily for severancepay, delayed wages, and other rights covered by Israel’sLabor Law, such as annual vacation pay. They alsocovered such issues as convalescence pay, clothingstipends, social allotments, and disputes with theNational Insurance Institute. This level of cooperationwas especially helpful in assuring benefits for thePalestinian workers.

2. A joint workshop for Israeli, Palestinian, and Germangarage workers, held in Tel Aviv and financed through afund established by Japanese trade unions. The venturefocused on health and safety issues, and was rated ashighly successful, from a professional and personal pointof view. It was also an effective means to enhancerelations between unionists in a global economy.

3. A variety of training programs aimed at building thecivil society and strengthening democratic unions wereorganized with the PGFTU at the International


have called for it, and Israelis themselves recognize thatit must be so. But what kind of state will thePalestinians have? That’s a mystery that will only beginto be worked out when that state comes into being. Thisleaves Israel two choices: it can delay the inevitable andendure untold years of bloodshed and internal struggle,or Israel can accept this reality and prepare itself for it.As it stands now, however, Israel seems unable to movebeyond tit-for-tat retribution.

So, what should Israel do now?

The first thing it should do is stop indulging inthe type of double talk that depends on playingthe end game at the beginning. Israel must

accept that it cannot predict the future and focus insteadon the present—what will improve the situation rightnow. Next Israel must find creative, near-termsolutions. Those calling for unilateral separation arepresenting one such solution. I am not necessarilyadvocating it, but at least it represents somethingbeyond the current cycle of violence. Another ideawould be for the Labor Party to formally declare theAllon Plan dead, thus differentiating itself from theLikud and sending the world a message that noteveryone in Israel believes settlements are a solution.Finally, Israel must find leadership that can offer thePalestinians something they want more than revenge.

Double Talk Continued from page 4 from page... settlements and has shown little willingness to break

away on this issue.

Amos Elon, in a May 23, 2002 New York Reviewof Books article, clarifies that matter, illustratinghow beholden democracies can become to bad

policies because of swing votes. In the case of Israel, thatswing vote comprises those who even if they don’tsupport settlements, at least oppose their dismantling.This inevitably raises the issue of whether Labor has thestrength of spirit to break from the government on thismatter, risk possible election loss, and assume the role ofa vocal opposition. Present signs indicate that it neitherhas that strength nor, without a significant change in thebehavior of the Palestinian leadership, has even goodreason to leave the government. In the end, this suggestsa troubling scenario. Palestinian advocacy of violence—official or unofficial—has essentially deprived the Israelileft of the political strength to stand in the way offurther settlements. Of course, Palestinians may wellargue—and rightly so—that a Labor government neverdid much in the first place to curtail settlements, raisingthe even scarier specter that the Israeli left has not eventhe strength of spirit to counteract its own worstinstincts should it be given the opportunity to leadagain on this matter.

Today the talk is of unilateral separation anddemocratization of the Palestinian Authority. These twomove along separate tracks raising another set of

True Colors Continued from page 7 from page...

Negotiation is a two-way street. If Israel genuinely wantspeace and security, only initiatives that improveconditions for the Palestinians themselves will bring itabout.

In the end, once we get past the delusions that surroundthis conflict, Israel peaceniks face a fundamentalquestion that no amount of double talk will do awaywith: Do the Palestinians want real peace? I’m not sure,but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give it to them. Ironmay be strong but it is also brittle. To win this round ofthe conflict we must show the flexibility of steel.

Institute-Histadrut, in Kfar Saba. This study programwas supported by Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

Virtually all union activities and contacts have beenhalted, following the deterioration in relations betweenIsrael and the Palestine Authority. Formal meetings wereprohibited either in Israel or in the Authority.Furthermore, workers covered by the arrangementbetween the Histadrut and the PGFTU could no longerbe employed in Israel.

It remains unclear what the future will bring, andwhether Israel and the Palestine Authority will soonreturn to the negotiating table. In the meantime theHistadrut recognizes that meaningful links with thePGFTU are unlikely to resume until peace andcooperation are restored in the region. q

q


another (4:29). Can this be applied to treatment of non-Islamic nations? Does it explicitly prohibit suicidebombing? Does Islam have a concept akin to theHebrew Bible’s notion of “fearing God,” of having abasic respect for life, the term applied to the Egyptianmidwives who would not kill babies when Pharaohcommanded them to do so (Exodus 1:17)?

I would suggest that Islam has this concept because ithas the Hebrew Bible behind it. The Koran affirms andcites the Hebrew (and Christian) scriptures repeatedly.And yet, my personal experiences have led me towonder whether rank-and-file Muslims in the UnitedStates and around the world have a contempt for andhatred of Hebrew scripture. When I was chairman ofthe Broadcasting Commission of the Chicago Board ofRabbis, I was involved in the production of an interfaithtalk show, called The Sunday Chronicles. During thePersian Gulf War in 1991, we called together Jewish,Christian, and Muslim clergy and congregants to

discuss the situation. Each group invited rank-and-filemembers from its churches, synagogues, or mosques tospeak.

While I expected some of the usual anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian rhetoric from the liberal Christians andMuslims, and the old Christian canard about OldTestament justice versus New Testament love, I wastaken aback at the utter, unmitigated contempt for theHebrew Bible and for Judaism shown by the Muslimrepresentatives, who were not extremist spokespeoplebut your typical congregant at an American mosque.They nodded in approval as one of their members saidthat Islam is the most peace-loving of religions and thatJews are a bloodthirsty, tribal people who have no senseof peace, and that the Hebrew Bible is a “bloody” andbase book.

But that Hebrew Bible is the basis of many of theteachings of the Koran, including a fundamentalprinciple that one does not “fear God” unless one

has an underlying respect for human life and anunshakable aversion to taking human life. To trash theHebrew Bible as antipeace is, for Muslims, to scrap thevery concepts and concerns in that revered Book towhich the Koran constantly refers. It is to bloody—or todismiss as bloody—the living waters of reverence for lifethat flow into the Koran from Hebrew scriptures.

The Koran itself understands this. It refers to thebiblical story of the sons of Adam, Cain, and Abel. Itenvisions Cain, angry that God did not accept hisoffering, threatening to slay his brother Abel. Abelreplies: “God only accepts from those that fear Him.”He goes on to explain what he means by “fearing” God:“Even if thou stretch forth thy hand against me to slayme, I will not stretch forth my hand against thee to slaythee. Truly I fear God, the Lord of all worlds” (5:27-28).Here, as in the Hebrew Bible, being “God-fearing”means anything but acting murderously.

Indeed, the well-being of the entire world may dependon whether a reverence for the Hebrew Bible will informinterpretation of the Koran with respect to Jews, themodern State of Israel, warfare, and the spreading of thefaith. In the words of my favorite passage from theKoran, a prayer attributed to Abraham: “My Lord!Make this a region of security and bestow upon it itsfruits, such of them as believe in Allah and in the FinalJudgment” (2:126).

A Rabbi Wrestles With the Koran Continued from page 14 from page...

questions concerning intentions. Might not unilateralseparation provide Arafat with an excuse not todemocratize since such a separation puts an end to theneed for a more democratic PA to negotiate with? Howdoes a security fence along the Green Line address thepresence of settlements and the vast tracts ofunoccupied land around them that Israeli forcescontinue to hand over to settlement dwellers? Is it notmore likely that the fence Sharon ultimately wishes tobuild will surround Palestinian cities rather than theWest Bank itself, thus creating islets of trappedPalestinians whose movements are continuously subjectto Israeli permission? Unilateral separation—fence andall—only makes sense with the removal orabandonment of settlements and their inhabitants (ifthey refuse to leave). Democratization of PA only makessense if the ultimate goal is to further negotiations for abilateral arrangement. Much has been revealed sinceOperation Defensive Shield. But much remainsunanswered, and so it appears that not all true colorshave come to light. q

q

For More Information…

About Camp Galil in Ottsville,PA, near Doylestown, PA, servingEastern Pennsylvania, SouthernNew Jersey, and Delaware,contact 1-800-346-7297 [email protected] or visit oursite at www.campgalil.org

Camp Na’aleh in Milford, PA(near Port Jervis, New York)serving New York, NorthernNew Jersey, and New England,contact 1-800-646-1277 [email protected] or visit ourwebsite at www.naaleh.org

Camp Na’aleh and Camp GalilJewish Summer Camping Has Never Been So Good

"There's a feeling of family here. Littlechildren and big children get to knoweach other. Once we sent a child here,he or she refuses to go anywhere else."

Galil alumni, now the parentsof three new campers

Reason #3

Campers learn skills of leadershipfrom working, playing, and

living together.

"I've gone to a lot of camps before.None were as good as this. I learn

to work here. I learned about sharingand working together. I feel herethat we, the campers, make itwhat it is, and I like that."

6th Grade Camper

Reasons #4

Campers discover a unique blendof Jewish and Israeli cultureand education that they will

value forever.

Reason #1

Campers learn the fundamentalvalues of their Jewish heritageand then live those values in a

setting where sharing and beingresponsible are part of

the experience.

"My husband and I both work.We needed the children to be outof the city in some place beautiful

and green. Galil is the perfect placefor them, and they really enjoy it."

Parents of 4th and5th grade campers

Reason #2

Campers have FUN, FUN, FUN,because silly, wild, crazy, playful,

hilarious things happen justabout every day!

FRONTIERLXVIII, No. 2 (642)

A p r i l - J u n e 2 0 0 2

Jewish

Labor Zionist AllianceNational Convention

Chicago, Illinois

Friday, October 4, 2002-Monday, October 7, 2002

Labor ZionismA Program for Perilous Times

Please hold the dates. A formal invitation will be forthcoming shortly

jewishfrontier · adding fresh voices and points of view to our pages. ... secure borders with a...

Documents