ISRAEL’S MERCY IS INHUMANELY STRAINED by Vacy Vlazna
January 12th, 2012
|
|
You are currently browsing the archives for the Middle East category.
|
|
The
Editor
The
Guardian Weekly
Kings
Place
90
York Way
London
N1 9GU
UK
Dear
Sir/Madam
RE: LETTER TO THE
EDITOR – PALESTINIAN
STATEHOOD
I would suspect that observers of Middle East politics would not be in the least surprised to learn that Netanyahu is attempting to undermine peace talks yet again and that the US
is still backing him no matter what. (Chris McGreal: Netanyahu undermines Obama and Harriett Sherwood: Israel urged to avoid retaliation, TGGW 23.09.2011).
Some might have hoped that President Obama would have taken more strenuous steps to support Palestinian statehood and human rights. Sadly, this is not the case. In fact, it
has just been revealed that while publicly pressuring Israel to make deeper
concessions to the Palestinians, President Obama has secretly authorized
significant new aid to the Israeli military that includes the sale of 55
deep-penetrating GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrator bombs known as bunker busters.
This military sale was arranged behind the scenes as Obama demanded that Israel
stopped building new settlements on disputed territories.
This hypocrisy demonstrates that Obama will not lift a finger to support Palestine apart from
uttering a few empty words, no matter what outrages Israel commits in the future
.
It was therefore surprising that your editorial in the same edition (Fresh wind in the
Middle East) opposed the move by the Palestinians to have their statehood recognised by the UN.
I agree that such a move may not immediately force the Israeli regime to remove roadblocks or its illegal settlements on Palestinian land, begin to dismantle its Korean-style
wall, maintain its inhumane blockade or cease invading Palestinian lands. Nor will it immediately force the US administration to act in good faith. Yes, and knowing the track record of Israel, there is the very real possibility that it will find excuses to retaliate.
However, what do the Palestinians have to lose? This behaviour would continue whether the Palestinian Authority sought UN recognition or not.
If there is UN recognition of the state of Palestine, there will be much greater inclination
for other nations to support Palestine more strongly than before and to take
appropriate sanctions against Israel’s inappropriate actions against the newly
recognised state. We should remember that the UN refusal to recognise the
Indonesian invasion of East Timor was important in forcing many member nations
to finally support independence although, some like the US and Australia,
actively supported the Indonesian occupation.
It could also be argued that it would be more difficult for the US and nations like Australia
that tend to lamely follow American policies to continue their unwavering
support for Israel’s leaders while there is international acceptance of the
state of Palestine.
It is time to face up to the fact that ever since the state of Israel was established in Palestinian territory, its leaders have never come to the peace table with honest intentions
and the US has always backed Israel despite its insincerity and belligerent actions against Palestine and Lebanon. This was acknowledged by the late Professor Tanya Reinhardt, an Israeli citizen, a Jew by religion and author of the book , How to End the War of 1940 -
Israel/Palestine. She is supported by Professor Noam Chomsky, the members of the Jewish Voice for Peace and many other prominent Jews, who could be refered to as “Righteous Jews”. (Many may remember that Jews referred to non Jewish people who helped save Jews during World War 2 as “Righteous Gentiles”).
We should all be urging our leaders to support the recognition of Palestinian statehood. How can there be support for a state of Israel without recognising Palestine?
Not to do so is utter hypocrisy.
Andrew (Andy) Alcock
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12199&page=0
Why I stopped being Jewish By Ron Witton – posted Monday, 20 June 2011
As early as I can remember, I was Jewish. I knew I was Jewish because my parents were Jewish and we had Seder on Friday nights when my mother would light the candles and my father would say prayers in Hebrew before we had the Sabbath bread and then dinner. I knew I was Jewish because on High Holy days my father would take me to synagogue and we would fast on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. When I was young I could never really remember which Holy Day was which, but I knew that on one of them we fasted all day. I also knew I was Jewish because when I went to Rose Bay Public School in the early fifties, that for weekly ‘scripture’ class, I went with the other Jewish kids to Jewish scripture. I also knew I was Jewish because my parents had arrived in Australia as Jewish refugees from Hitler’s Germany just before the Second World War and that my mother’s parents had been killed there because they had not been able to escape. As a child, I was still a bit confused about my identity. I didn’t think I looked Jewish because unless I self-identified as a Jew, no one knew I was one. I also knew my parents were German, or at least had been German, and they still had fairly strong accents, they spoke German to my grandmother who lived with us, and we ate food that was different to my ‘Australian’ friends. I recall that I always felt awkward in the fifties when my friends would tire of playing at being cowboys and Indians and switched to playing Second World War games in which we would fight the Germans. I knew I was Australian and that my father must be Australian as he had been in the Australian army during the war. However, I also knew that my parents were in some sense German. In the end, I usually made up some sort of excuse and headed for home.
As puberty approached, so did my bar mitzvah. There was never any question I would not study for it and be prepared for it by the rabbi. The day duly came when I recited my prayers in Hebrew, at the Temple Emanuel in Woollahra. I had learnt the prayers by heart, as I could not understand Hebrew, though I had been taught to read the Hebrew letters in which they were written.
I remember that shortly after my bar mitzvah, I began to doubt the existence of God and came to view Judaism and all religions as human-made fantasies, left overs from primitive times. I wondered at otherwise rational people who believed the most amazing tales (including miracles) of their own religion, but viewed the beliefs of other faiths, such as Hinduism or Zoroastrianism, as strange and unbelievable.
After a while my parents accepted that I did not attend synagogue on High Holy Days. Indeed my mother soon joined the NSW Humanist Society and declared herself an atheist. I felt the same way, and when many years later the Australian Atheist Foundation was established, I was glad to become a member.
Despite having left Judaism, I still knew I was Jewish. I knew that I could migrate to Israel if I wanted to and become a citizen of Israel. I knew that I could be the target of anti-Semitic acts, though I can’t remember ever experiencing any. Given that I was no longer a believer, I was always in a bit of a quandary if I was asked my religion. I usually dealt with the question by saying that my parents had been Jewish refugees from Germany. Without me saying anything further, people knew I also was Jewish.
I could of course have said I was not a practicing Jew. However, it seemed irrelevant and gratuitous to say this because even if I did not practice Judaism, I still remained a Jew because my parents had been Jewish. This was despite the fact that I did not look Jewish (whatever that meant) and my name did not seem Jewish. During the war my parents had changed our surname from Witkowski to Witton, a name they had made up for themselves, and so I felt my Jewish identity was in some way in hiding.
My religion has rarely come up in my daily life. Indeed, there have only been two reasons for me ever coming out as being Jewish.
The first has been to oppose anti-Semitism. For example, if I overheard an anti-Semitic remark, though this has in fact almost never occurred.
The second reason has been to support the Palestinian cause. I had always been aware that Israel had been established for the victims of the holocaust and that I had relatives there.
However, I came to realise that Israel had been established on Palestinian land, in the same way Australia had been established on Aboriginal land, and that in both cases the land and its original inhabitants had been subject to ‘ethnic cleansing’.
For Palestine, this resulted in the creation of generations of refugees stranded in the countries around Israel prevented from returning to their homeland. Meanwhile Israelis, including some of my relatives, built kibbutzim on the land from which Palestinians had been evicted. It seemed the ultimate injustice that I, who had a safe and secure life in Australia, had a so-called ‘right of return’ to go and live in Israel while the Palestinians had no such right.
Feeling I needed to do something concrete about this, I decided late last year to join Jewish and non-Jewish members of the Australian contingent who, together with over 1 400 people from all over the world, took part in the Gaza Freedom March. This event aimed to publicise the fact that Israel had turned Gaza into what David Cameron, Britain’s Prime Minister, has recently described as “a prison camp”.
Gaza is a place where some half a million people, including many families with disabled and injured children and ailing old people, are being collectively punished by Israel to live in abject poverty. They are denied commerce and communication with the rest of the world, and even humanitarian aid, while vital infrastructure such as sanitation plants, destroyed by Israeli bombing, cannot be repaired because of the Israeli blockade.
I went on the Gaza Freedom March partly because I felt that as a Jew I had a moral responsibility to do so. I knew that others who were not Jewish were also taking part and their reasons were just the same in terms of opposing injustice, cruelty and the increasing racism of Israel, but I felt a particular need to take part because I was Jewish.
However, it is only in the last week that I have realised that many of the historical ‘facts’ of Jewish history are in fact myths and, at a personal level, that I am not even genetically Jewish. This realisation has come about by reading Shlomo Sand’s international bestseller The Invention of the Jewish People. This book, originally published in Hebrew in 2008, is the work of an Israeli historian who teaches at Tel Aviv University, and is a ground breaking analysis of the myths that have shaped not only my world but also Israel.
The myths he examines and shows to lack historical basis are such central Zionist beliefs as that of the exodus from Egypt and the exile of the Jewish people from their homeland. He also draws on a wide range of existing research to demonstrate convincingly that Jews do not share a common genetic descent from Abraham, Isaac and Joseph.
He uses existing, though often conveniently ignored, historical scholarship to show that the biblical stories that are used to justify Israel’s usurpation of Palestine have no basis in historical or archeological record. For example, he shows how there are no historical or archeological records to lend any credibility to such stories of the Bible as the migration of the whole Jewish population (i.e. Jacob and his 12 sons) to Egypt and then their wholesale exodus from Egypt, led by Moses, to the ‘promised land’. Indeed, upon mere reflection, it defies credibility that this could have occurred.
The idea that Moses led all the so-called Children of Israel out of Egypt and then wandered for forty years in the desert before returning to Israel is quite preposterous. There is firstly the fanciful assertion that the waters of the Red Sea ‘parted’ allowing both the children of Israel to escape and conveniently causing the wholesale destruction of the pursuing Egyptian forces.
Sand shows there is absolutely no Egyptian record of this having taken place. It needs to be recalled that Egyptian records are vast and detailed, and a momentous event such as this would not have escaped being recorded. Moreover, given that there were ostensibly some 600,000 Jewish warriors that were being led by Moses, this means that we are talking, with their families and others, of some three million people wandering in the desert for some forty years. Just try and think of the logistics of such a trek. It defies understanding.
Further, with regard to Moses being ‘given’ an empty promised land of milk and honey, the reality is that archeological records show that the so-called promised land was both populated and indeed ruled by Egypt. As Sand writes: “In the thirteenth century BCE, the purported time of the Exodus, Canaan was ruled by the still-powerful pharaohs. This means that Moses led the freed slaves out of Egypt…to Egypt?” (p.118) More significantly, Sand examines the historical and archeological records to prove that the exile of the Jews from Israel, whether in 586 BC after the destruction of the First Temple, or in 70 CE with the Roman destruction of the Second Temple,never occurred.
The idea of exile is of course the great myth that has justified the return of the Jewish homeland and the dispossession of the Palestinian people. He shows how in ancient times there have never been historical examples of the uprooting of entire populations of sedentary agricultural peoples leaving lands empty. Sand draws on the works of many scholars whose inconvenient findings have been consistently ignored in the face of the purported truth of the Bible. He shows how the uncritical perpetuation of historical myths in Israel’s universities have been engineered by universities such as the Hebrew University, having two separate history departments: one named the Department of Jewish History and Sociology; the other named the Department of History.
As Sand looks at more and more of these accepted historical ‘facts’, their validity fades before our eyes and we realise the world has been duped into believing, in effect, a fairy tale that has fuelled world history and continues to affect the daily lives and fate of the Palestinians.
It is the belief in the promised land that has resulted in Israel continuing to defy international law by occupying Palestine land and allowing, and often encouraging, so-called Israeli settlements to spread beyond its borders, thereby destroying any hope of even a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
There is an even more dramatic myth that Sand explodes. As a Jew, I knew that even if I no longer believed in the religion, I was still a descendent of the Israelites, that is, I could trace my family origins back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I was part of an ethnos whose membership was hereditary. However, I had often wondered about the great divisions among the Jews. I knew that the vast majority of Jews in the world were the European Ashkenazi (of which my family was a member) but there were also the Sephardic Jews who were Middle Eastern in appearance.
Despite the great difference in our separate physiognomy, we were all supposed to be related. I had also heard that there were African Jews in Ethiopia and even Chinese Jews. This had in fact already begun to stretch the bounds of my credibility in terms of our common heredity.
It is only through Shlomo Sand’s careful scholarship that I have come to understand what the real story is. Sand documents that Judaism was in fact an early militant religion whose beliefs were spread through proselytisation and conquest. For example, in the eighth and ninth centuries there occurred the conversion of the Khazar kingdom in the north Caucuses and this explains the origins of the many millions of Jews who have lived in such regions no constituting modern-day Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
Similarly, Judaism spread through conquest and conversion along the Mediterranean coast of North Africa and this explain the origin of the Berber Jews of Morocco. Of course, over time, many of the peoples who had adopted the Jewish faith were subsequently conquered by, and/or converted to, Christianity, and then later many of these Christians and many remaining Jews were in turn conquered by, and/or converted to, Islam.
Hence I have come to realise that I am not in fact descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Rather, my ancestors were Jewish converts and that, as a descendent of Ashkenazi Jews, I am not Semitic. Indeed, if one is looking for the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then the place to look is in Gaza and other areas of Palestine where the descendants of the original population of this region continue to live.
There is a dreadful and cruel irony that the European Ashkenazi Jews, who promoted Zionism, usurped this heritage for themselves and have managed to evict the real descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph. Sand documents how this lack of a common genetic heritage of Jews is shown by the very DNA analysis that the Zionists hoped would prove a common Jewish descent. The fact that there is no common genetic heritage shared by Jews throughout the world, in fact confirms the historical record that many, indeed the majority, of the ancestors of the world’s Jews entered the faith through conversion.
Even demographically, one would be hard put to explain how the diaspora of large number of Jews throughout the world could have resulted from the progeny of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph. Sand examines in detail how Zionist scholarship has explained away the Jewish diaspora by means of such concepts as ‘The Wandering Jew’ and has dealt with awkward demographic realities of vast numbers of Jews far from their promised land by resorting to such arguments as the claim that Jewish extreme fecundity is a result of Jewish hygienic practices.
What is really chilling in Shlomo Sand’s study is his close description of the way the Israeli establishment and its Zionist supporters throughout the world have harnessed vast resources to counter the research of the academics he cites. Historical home truths that have been analysed in many books over time have been conveniently ignored, or when that proves impossible, have been disparaged, derided and written off. Indeed, the newly-published English language edition of Sand’s book, has a supplementary chapter ‘Afterward: A Reply to My Critics’ which documents the strength of the pro-Israeli and Zionist lobby both in Israel and abroad that resists engaging in honest scholarship in order to protect what Sand calls the ‘mythistory’ that provides the continuing rationale for Israel as a Jewish state, rather than a multicultural democracy for all its citizens. This book has freed me from a misguided belief that that I was in some way genetically related to all God’s ‘chosen people’. What I have learnt is that I can engage with the whole world though a common humanity in order to create a better world for all.
Dr Ron Witton is a Senior Fellow in the Faculty of Law, University of Wollongong
However, another great concern is Mamdouh Habib’s claim that he was tortured by Omar Suleiman, the head of Egypt’s feared security agency, the General Intelligence Directorate. Omar Suleiman was nicknamed the CIA’s man in Cairo because of his close relationship with the US in its extraordinary rendition program. This program involved kidnapping suspected terrorists and taking them to a third country for interrogation and torture.
This has very real implications for the future of a truly democratic Egyptian government that respects human rights because Omar Suleiman is currently Egypt’s Vice-President and is seen as a possible successor to former President Hosni Mubarak.
All who respect the principles of democracy and human rights would be appalled at the idea of Omar Suleiman becoming Egypt’s new president after what the people have suffered over the past three decades.
Our leaders need to press President Obama to ensure that the US will not intervene in the Egyptian political crisis to bring about a regime that merely continues the repression. They also need to ensure that Australian intelligence personnel do not become involved in torture and human rights abuses in cahoots with the CIA again. Apart from the moral implications, Australian involvement in such activities does not serve our international image well
Of course, there will be some Australian politicians who will use these claims by Mamdouh Habib to attack his character as they did when he was detained. We should remember that he was released in 2005 without charge and returned to Australia. In December 2010, the federal government settled a legal action brought by him against it for allegedly aiding and abetting his torture by foreign agents.
Yours sincerely
The Egyptian Revolt is Coming Home
By John Pilger
February 10, 2011
The uprising in Egypt is our theatre of the possible. It is what people across the world have struggled for and their thought controllers have feared. Western commentators invariably misuse the words “we” and “us” to speak on behalf of those with power who see the rest of humanity as useful or expendable. The “we” and “us” are universal now. Tunisia came first, but the spectacle always promised to be Egyptian.
As a reporter, I have felt this over the years. In Cairo’s Tahrir (Liberation) Square in 1970, the coffin of the great nationalist Gamal Abdul Nasser coffin bobbed on an ocean of people who, under him, had glimpsed freedom. One of them, a teacher, described the disgraced past as “grown men chasing cricket balls for the British at the Cairo Club”. The parable was for all Arabs and much of the world. Three years later, the Egyptian Third Army crossed the Suez Canal and overran Israel’s fortresses in Sinai. Returning from this battlefield to Cairo, I joined a million others in Liberation Square. Their restored respect was like a presence – until the United States rearmed the Israelis and beckoned an Egyptian defeat.
Thereafter, President Anwar Sadat became America’s man through the usual billion-dollar bribery and, for this, he was assassinated in 1980. Under his successor, Hosni Mubarak, dissenters came to Liberation Square at their peril. Enriched by Washington’s bag men, Mubarak latest American-Israeli project is the building of an underground wall behind which the Palestinians of Gaza are to be imprisoned forever.
Today, the problem for the people in Liberation Square lies not in Egypt. On 6 February, the New York Times reported: “The Obama administration formally threw its weight behind a gradual transition in Egypt, backing attempts by the country’s vice president, General Omar Sulieman, to broker a compromise with opposition groups … Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it was important to support Mr. Sulieman as he seeks to defuse street protests …”
Having rescued him from would be assassins, Sulieman is, in effect, Mubarak’s bodyguard,. His other distinction, documented in Jane Mayer’s investigative book, The Dark Side, is as supervisor of American “rendition flights” to Egypt where people are tortured on demand of the CIA. He is also, as WikiLeaks reveals, a favourite in Tel Aviv. When President Obama was asked in 2009 if he regarded Mubarak as authoritarian, his swift reply was “no”. He called him a peacemaker, echoing that other great liberal tribune, Tony Blair, to whom Mubarak is “a force for good”.
The grisly Sulieman is now the peacemaker and the force for good, the man of “compromise” who will oversee the “gradual transition” and “defuse the protests”. This attempt to suffocate the Egyptian revolt will call on the fact that a substantial proportion of the population, from businessmen to journalists to petty officials, have provided its apparatus. In one sense, they reflect those in the Western liberal class who backed Obama’s “change you can believe in” and Blair’s equally bogus “political Cinemascope” (Henry Porter in the Guardian, 1995). No matter how different they appear and postulate, both groups are the domesticated backers and beneficiaries of the status quo.
In Britain, the BBC’s Today programme is their voice. Here, serious diversions from the status quo are known as “Lord knows what”. On 28 January the Washington correspondent Paul Adams declared, “The Americans are in a very difficult situation. They do want to see some kind of democratic reform but they are also conscious that they need strong leaders capable of making decisions. They regard President Mubarak as an absolute bulwark, a key strategic ally in the region. Egypt is the country along with Israel on which American Middle East diplomacy absolutely hinges. They don’t want to see anything that smacks of a chaotic handover to frankly Lord knows what.”
Fear of Lord Knows What requires that the historical truth of American and British “diplomacy” as largely responsible for the suffering in the Middle East is suppressed or reversed. Forget the Balfour Declaration that led to the imposition of expansionist Israel. Forget secret Anglo-American sponsorship of Islamic jihadists as a “bulwark” against the democratic control of oil. Forget the overthrow of democracy in Iran and the installation of the tyrant Shah, and the slaughter and destruction in Iraq. Forget the American fighter jets, cluster bombs, white phosphorous and depleted uranium that are performance-tested on children in Gaza. And now, in the cause of preventing “chaos”, forget the denial of almost every basic civil liberty in Omar Sulieman’s contrite “new” regime in Cairo.
The uprising in Egypt has discredited every Western media stereotype about the Arabs. The courage, determination, eloquence and grace of those in Liberation Square contrast with “our” specious fear-mongering with its al-Qaeda and Iran bogeys and iron-clad assumptions, bereft of irony, of the “moral leadership of the West”. It is not surprising that the recent source of truth about the imperial abuse of the Middle East, WikiLeaks, is itself subjected to craven, petty abuse in those self-congratulating newspapers that set the limits of elite liberal debate on both sides of the Atlantic. Perhaps they are worried. Across the world, public awareness is rising and bypassing them. In Washington and London, the regimes are fragile and barely democratic. Having long burned down societies abroad, they are now doing something similar at home, with lies and without a mandate. To their victims, the resistance in Cairo’s Liberation Square must seem an inspiration. “We won’t stop,” said the young Egyptian woman on TV, “we won’t go home.” Try kettling a million people in the centre of London, bent on civil disobedience, and try imagining it could not happen.