Monthly Archives: June 2019
The below is from the International Crisis Group. On this page is the executive summary of a report on the issue of annexation and Israel. You can access the complete report at the link below.
Israel is advancing new policies to entrench its de facto annexation of most of occupied East Jerusalem. Moreover, depending on what coalition government emerges from forthcoming parliamentary elections, it could shunt the city’s Palestinian areas lying east of the separation barrier into disconnected Israeli administrative units outside the municipality’s jurisdiction.
Why did it happen? Israeli decision-makers are concerned that Jerusalem will soon have a non-Jewish majority. The Netanyahu government has conceded that its neglect of East Jerusalem has failed to induce Palestinians to leave. Instead, neglect has bred crime and violence, and created numerous lawless areas, particularly east of the barrier.
Why does it matter? Israel’s plans – removing from the municipality certain Palestinian areas outside the barrier, cataloguing all occupied East Jerusalem lands in the Israel Lands Registry and inducing Palestinian schools in East Jerusalem to adopt Israeli curricula – would exacerbate the conflict in and over Jerusalem.
What should be done? Palestinians, Israelis and allies of both leaderships should press the Israeli government not to carry out these plans. If it wants to reduce poverty and crime in East Jerusalem, Israel should allow Palestinians to establish civic leadership bodies in the city and end its ban on Palestinian Authority activities there.
Israel is advancing new policies to entrench its de facto annexation of parts of occupied East Jerusalem. In 1967, Israel occupied East Jerusalem but never fully applied Israeli laws: land registration was partial, most Palestinian schools do not use Israel’s curriculum and East Jerusalemites have residency, not citizenship. In May 2018, with the stated aim of reducing socio-economic inequality, Israel adopted a five-year plan allocating $530 million to East Jerusalem. But the plan’s real goal is to assert Israeli sovereignty, including, most dangerously, by cataloguing all East Jerusalem’s lands in the Israel Land Registry and inducing its schools to use Israeli curricula. In parallel, to protect Jerusalem’s Jewish majority, Israeli leaders are thinking about redrawing the Israeli-demarcated municipal boundaries in order to remove Palestinian-populated areas that lie within these boundaries but to the east of the separation barrier. This “excision” scheme, along with the land registry and curricular initiatives, risks deepening conflict in Jerusalem. Whatever government Israel forms after the 17 September 2019 election should not carry out these plans.
For 50 years, the state has tried to attract more Jews to East Jerusalem and to prod Palestinians to leave. Israel’s national leaders increasingly recognise that this policy has failed to secure a lasting Jewish majority: too few Jews have moved in, and many continue to leave, while too few Palestinians have departed. If current demographic trends persist, Jerusalem could become a minority-Jewish city as early as 2045.
Unable to have all of East Jerusalem without most of its Palestinian inhabitants – and buoyed by support from the Trump administration, international neglect of the Palestinian issue and growing Israeli cooperation with Arab states – Israel is phasing in a plan that would consolidate Israel’s rule over East Jerusalem territory west of the separation barrier. (The separation barrier is a physical divide erected during the 2000-2005 intifada with the security aim of preventing West Bank assailants from entering Israel and the political aim of establishing that in any future solution, Israel would annex many Jewish settlements, including those in and around East Jerusalem, even as a large number of East Jerusalem’s Palestinian residents end up on the other side of the border.)
In East Jerusalem and its vicinity, the barrier mostly separates Jewish settlements from Palestinian communities, East Jerusalem from the West Bank and Palestinian areas from one another. In order to increase the proportion of Jews in Jerusalem and prevent the loss of a Jewish majority in the city, a number of Israeli leaders across the political spectrum advocate excising Palestinian-inhabited areas of East Jerusalem east of the barrier from the municipality, turning them into separate Israeli regional councils. The most widely supported excision proposal would leave Palestinians with status as residents of Israel in excised areas (there are also Palestinian citizens of Israel in these areas). Palestinians fear that this step would be the prelude to revocation of their residency – without which they cannot enter East Jerusalem or Israel. Other excision proposals call for rescinding the residency status of excised areas’ inhabitants.
Excising Palestinian-inhabited areas in order to forestall the loss of a Jewish demographic majority in the city could set a dangerous precedent, offering a model for how Israel could annex large parts of the West Bank while shunting Palestinian residents into separate Israeli administrative units, where they might have residency but not citizenship. Excision would also deepen poverty, chaos and militancy in the most forsaken corners of the city. An excision plan could go into effect shortly after a new coalition government takes its seats following the 17 September Knesset election, depending on its composition.
Israeli political parties, from both the coalition and the opposition, that seek to preserve stability and minimise the risk of escalation should block any excision of Palestinian areas, press their government to discard the most inflammatory components (East Jerusalem land registration and Palestinian adoption of Israeli curricula) of its five-year plan and loosen Israel’s ban on Palestinian Authority activities east of the barrier in areas that Israel has refused to govern. The international community, and in particular the EU and Arab states, should warn Israel of these schemes’ possible repercussions and signal that excision would bring Europe closer to recognising a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Outside powers also should allocate funds to help Palestinian Jerusalemites establish civic leadership bodies in East Jerusalem to operate both east and west of the separation barrier, in coordination with Israel. Indeed, Israel, too, should have an interest in having such a leadership, which can help reduce crime that spills over into West Jerusalem, provide services that could begin to correct for decades of neglect and create a mechanism for addressing conflict in East Jerusalem.
The below is reprinted from Tablet (June 5, 2019). I have no problem with criticizing Israel and believe criticism is often well-deserved. But BDS and its supporters make legitimate criticism difficult if not impossible. For Israel to look the way BDS describes you have to be immersed in some malicious misinformation and be more interested in simply lashing out rather than productive conversation. I make the article below available for a little counterpoint.
The Big Lie
And the toxic BDS professors who tell it
Fiercely anti-Zionist students have become a fixture on American college campuses. They depend on professors for their doctrine, and the professors are spreading disinformation, as Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) between 2006 and 2012, shows in his valuable new book, Israel Denial : Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism, and the Faculty Campaign Against the Jewish State.
Nelson’s argument is simple: If you want to single out Israel as uniquely worthy of condemnation among the nations of the earth, you have to sign on to a series of lies. BDS’ chief campus influencers, including Judith Butler, Steven Salaita, Saree Makdisi, and Jasbir Puar, traffic in hyperbolic calumnies about the Jewish state that are easy to refute—if, that is, one is interested in facts rather than blatant prejudice.
Yet Nelson shows that major academic presses sympathetic to BDS, like Duke University Press, have printed these false claims without bothering to engage in even the most basic fact-checking. After Nelson’s book, no one should be able to take the work of the BDS professors seriously, given their reliance on propagandistic lies.
We can start with Jasbir Puar , the Rutgers University professor whose book The Right to Maim (published by Duke) won an award from the National Women’s Studies Association, which officially endorses BDS. Puar has said in print that Israel mines organs from “Palestinian bodies” killed in violent conflict, and that this is “well-documented.” But she cites no documentary proof, because what she claims is impossible: Bodies killed by bullets during violent clashes are useless for organ transplants since they are instantly contaminated by bacteria. Only the scientifically illiterate could swallow Puar’s bizarre claim, which is of a piece with her equally counterfactual assertion that Israel is running a campaign to stunt Palestinians’ growth by denying them adequate nutrition. Nelson carefully demolishes this fabrication, for which Puar cites no evidence.
Nelson is very funny about Puar’s kooky obscurantism. She busily stirs her witches’ brew of bias, rumor, and postmodernist jargon, denouncing “the dark and destructive assemblage that swirls around the Jewish state, a biopolitical assemblage of control that instrumentalizes a spectrum of capacities and debilities.” But Nelson soberly adds that Puar’s high-profile work presents a deadly serious problem: A university press is presenting as evidence-based scholarship what is actually baseless slander, calculated to incite hate.
Even more lurid in his hatred than Puar is Steven Salaita , who absurdly states that any Arab entering Israel can expect a vaginal or anal search. Salaita is a self-confessed despiser of Israel who unleashed a storm of vulgar hate-filled tweets before and after the last Gaza War in 2014, and was then denied a campus appointment at the University of Illinois—a decision Nelson endorses, since Salaita in his books as well as his social media posts is a proud hatemonger who disdains the academic virtues of civil debate and free exchange of ideas. Like Nazis banning Jews from the professions, Salaita wants to ban Zionists from the left. Should a university hire someone like Salaita, Nelson asks, who would proudly promote discrimination on campus?
More banal than Puar and Salaita, but just as insidious, is Saree Makdisi, professor of English at UCLA and celebrated BDS advocate. Makdisi proclaims in his books that Israel has no Basic Law guaranteeing equality of citizenship and no Supreme Court decisions referencing equality. He is, of course, stating the opposite of the truth, as he must know. Israel’s Basic Law gives equal rights to all citizens and this principle has often been cited by the country’s Supreme Court.
Makdisi is just as careless about facts in his account of Bedouin villages which, he inaccurately claims, Israel has refused to recognize. Nelson traveled to one of the villages, Arab al-Na’im, which was recognized in 2000, as Makdisi might have learned from Wikipedia. Its Bedouin leader, Nimer al-Na’im, angrily said that Makdisi’s account was full of “lies,” and was astonished, as Nelson puts it, that “someone halfway around the world” was misrepresenting his home town. Nelson presents a moving account of how the village developed in tandem with a neighboring Jewish town, Eshchar. Makdisi refuses to acknowledge such instances of Jewish-Arab collaboration, instead telling a made-up tale of endless, motiveless Jewish hostility toward Arabs. He also derides the Palestinian Authority for engaging in a peace process with Israel, apparently preferring Hamas’ terror.
Nelson convincingly suggests that BDS recapitulates a choice familiar from centuries of Christian history and theology: “Jews can remain demons or else they can convert” to Israel hatred. Among the superstar converts is Judith Butler , the famously obscure theorist who is president-elect of the Modern Language Association. Butler like other BDS advocates paints herself as nonviolent and rejects the notion that she engages in hate speech. But instead of merely condemning Israeli policies, she voices, as Nelson remarks, an “existential rejection of Israel’s cultural institutions and its right to exist.” In this way she encourages hatred that licenses and promotes violence.
To hear Butler tell it, the Jewish state can be erased through nonviolent means, because when Israelis and Palestinians become Butlerians their nationalism will wither away and be replaced by—well, it’s hard to tell by what. At any rate, terrorism will disappear and with it nationhood itself. As she puts it in her clotted style, “There is we might say, a necessary and impossible attachment that makes a mockery of identity, an ambivalence that emerges from the decentering of the nationalist ethos and that forms the basis of a permanent ethical demand.” Nelson responds, “Good luck with that. Does she think millions of Arabs and Jews are mere clay she can mold to fit her fantastical ambitions for them?”
Butler, when she talks about Israel, seems to be running an outlandish thought experiment, not to be taken seriously as policy because it would lead to endless warfare. She pretends, Nelson says, that it would be “neutral or beneficial” to dissolve the State of Israel, but this is a “frankly lunatic” proposition.
If Jewish statehood came to an end, as Butler and BDS insist it must, Israeli Jews would not flee, they would fight. The only way an anti-Zionist agenda could win would therefore be through massive bloodshed. BDS’ claim to nonviolence is therefore meaningless, since the goal it proposes would unleash a wave of massacres with both Jews and Palestinians as victims. Even seemingly more moderate goals, like restricting weapons sales to Israel, would have disastrous results. Without its Iron Dome system, largely financed by America, Israel would have to make full-fledged war against Hamas, causing vast suffering for the Palestinian people.
Butler has an essentialist definition of Jews, one that comes out of her head rather than lived reality. For her, to be truly Jewish is to be ferociously anti-Israel, though anti-Zionists are currently a tiny minority among world Jewry.
The Butlerian Jew is at home with diasporic (non-)identity, exile, and otherness. One might respond that such a strategy was hardly a choice and didn’t always work out so well during the 2,000 years of Jewish statelessness and political powerlessness prior to 1948. Today, Israeli Jews make up nearly half of world Jewry. They are in no way diasporic, but deeply attached to their homeland. Butler’s solution, acting as the extremist rabbi of the academic left, is to anathematize and erase their Jewishness.
Butler says that BDS boycotts only institutions, not individuals, a well-worn talking point for a movement that habitually cloaks its eliminationist aims. But again, this simply isn’t true. Organizations that abide by BDS like the American Studies Association discriminate against Israeli academics by preventing them from using university funds to appear at conferences. Israelis have been kicked off the editorial boards of academic journals simply because they are Israeli. Students have been denied letters of recommendation to study in Israel. All of these measures hurt individuals.
Those who have never been subject to prejudice because of their national origin, ethnicity, or race might find it hard to identify with the pain someone feels on being rejected for a job because she comes from a despised nation. Perhaps they should perform a simple ethical thought experiment: putting themselves in place of the hated Israeli.
BDS has three “nonnegotiable” demands: that all descendants of Palestinian refugees be given Israeli citizenship, that the separation barrier between Israel and the Palestinian territories be taken down, and that Israeli Arab citizens be given equal rights with Israeli Jews. This last demand is simply misleading, since Israeli Palestinians already have equal rights.
As for the first two demands, no Israeli government, even a far-left one, would ever contemplate accepting them, as removing the separation barrier would lead to a wave of terror attacks, new wars, and an exponentially higher death toll—especially on the Palestinian side. Giving all Palestinians Israeli citizenship would lead to the death of the Jewish state. But of course, the end of Israel as a Jewish state is precisely BDS’ goal, and it doesn’t matter how many Arabs and Jews are killed in order to achieve it.
BDS proponents habitually call Israel an apartheid state. But Israel has no segregation or passbooks like the kind that blighted apartheid South Africa. There were no blacks serving in apartheid South Africa’s parliament or seated on its Supreme Court. The historian Russell Berman points out that Nelson Mandela happily accepted an honorary doctorate from Ben-Gurion University in 1997, and in his acceptance speech thanked Israel for its contributions to South Africa (through the collaborative programs that BDS wants to ban). Since then, affirmative action keeps boosting the number of Israeli Palestinians in Israel’s universities and, especially, medical schools. The University of Haifa is 40% Arab, twice the percentage of Arabs in the Israeli population.
BDS activists, who imply they know more about apartheid than Mandela, ignore his praise of Israel, just as they diligently attempt to rewrite Martin Luther King Jr. By turning Israel into apartheid South Africa, they demonstrate their ignorance of what apartheid was actually like—while casually denying and erasing the brutal violence and unceasing hatred to which Jewish Israelis have been subjected by neighboring Arab countries since before the founding of their state. Racism exists in Israel just as it does in the United States, but Israel has taken large and visible steps to counteract it.
To counteract BDS it’s not enough merely to condemn the movement’s lies, Nelson writes. In a series of chapters interspersed throughout Israel Denial, Nelson shows his commitment to the imperfect yet inspiring reality of Israel, giving his own ideas about increasing peace between Israelis and Palestinians through a series of trust-building Israeli concessions like ceding parts of the West Bank’s Area C to the Palestinian Authority. The point is to create a two-state dynamic even without a peace deal. He describes his own practice of “teaching for empathy” by presenting Jewish and Palestinian poets together. Nelson’s Israel is not the mythic realm of demons fantasized by BDS advocates but an actual place that contains signs of hope.
Yet professors and students like Nelson are often denied chances to share their experiences. Instead they are silenced by BDS, which seeks to advance their agenda not through reasoned debate but by a full-frontal assault on free speech. BDS adherents have in the last few years tried to shut down 90 mostly Israeli speakers, some of whom were bona fide leftists. Tactically, the BDS movement uses violence and extreme pressure to forcefully prevent reasoned discussion about Israel on campus, and make university faculty, administrators, and students afraid.
It is in the context of the BDS movement’s campaign of continuous pressure and often violent intimidation against those who hold more nuanced, fact-based views that the apparatus of academic BDS publications and conferences should properly be understood. The jargon of po-mo theory, words like “apartheid,” and baldfaced lies about organ harvesting and biological warfare are intended to intimidate while serving as a fig leaf for the eliminationist fantasies they are intended to justify. Even when the facts are wrong, the fact that books are published and conferences are held allows nervous administrators to pretend that the BDS movement is somehow observing normal rules of academic discourse, rather than violating them.
Yet perhaps because of these social pressure tactics, BDS gets a free ride in much of the mainstream media. Their violent heckling of speakers, their traffic in disinformation, and their opposition to dialogue and open debate are nowhere mentioned, for example, in a recent New York Times Magazine piece by Nathan Thrall. When BDS looks in the mirror, what it sees is the noble faces of crusaders against injustice—but that’s because the mirror is cracked, too.
These days, American universities give awards to student BDS organizations like Students for Justice in Palestine , which dutifully parrot the hateful nonsense spewed by their professors, in a grotesque parody of what a humanistic education should look like. Instead, the academy ought to follow the German Bundestag, which declared on May 17 that “the pattern of argument and the methods of BDS are anti-Semitic,” and, the Bundestag added, clearly reminiscent of Nazi-era anti-Jewish boycotts. It’s time that these words became as commonly accepted in America as they are in Germany.
Read more from Tablet magazine’s deep archive of stories on campus anti-Semitism .
(May 31, 2019 / Reprinted from JNS) Just one month after the inauguration of the 21st Knesset, parliamentarians voted to disband the government and send the country into national elections for the second time in six months.
The Knesset vote came after a tension-filled last-minute effort by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to formulate a majority ruling coalition of at least 61 Knesset members before the midnight deadline between Wednesday and Thursday. But that effort came up short. Netanyahu’s political nemesis, Avigdor Lieberman, refused to bring his five-member Yisrael Beiteinu Party into the government, despite recommending Netanyahu as prime minister, leaving the coalition just one Knesset member shy of a clear majority.
Lieberman claimed that his refusal centered on a proposed law that would increase the number of haredi conscripts drafted into the military. Lieberman’s secular Russian party wanted the proposed law to pass, while two religious parties who were critical to the formation of Netanyahu’s government wanted to reduce the numbers.
Lieberman told the Knesset that his party “refuses to join a halachic government,” implying that the religious parties would run the country based on Jewish law.
In the run-up to the fateful vote, Netanyahu feverishly attempted to devise compromises, as well as woo opposition members into the government to gain a parliamentary majority.
The most dramatic moment of the night took place at around 7 p.m. when the prime minister offered Knesset member Avi Gabay, chairman of the Labor Party, the deal of a lifetime. He offered the Labor Party control of the finance ministry, plus three other ministries, if they would join his government. Knowing that Labor would not support him if he continued pursuing legislation granting him immunity from prosecution and laws curtailing the power of the supreme court (bills that Likud had already been preparing for this Knesset term), Netanyahu promised to shelve both of those agenda items. Gabay and Labor’s six mandates would provide the prime minister and Likud with a comfortable 66-seat majority.
While Gabay seemed to take the offer seriously, four Labor MKs rejected immediately. Itzik Shmuly told JNS that he immediately objected to the deal “because at the end of the day, I have to be able to look at myself in the mirror. Yes, Netanyahu said no law for immunity, but he did say he would require our support for immunity via the Knesset House Committee. I cannot accept giving the prime minister immunity in return for ministries and power.”
At around 7:45 p.m. after meeting with the Knesset members in his party, Gabay announced that he refused the prime minister’s offer.
Another dramatic turn came when Likud offered Druze member of Blue and White Gadeer Mree (the first Druze woman yet in the Israeli Knesset) a position in the government, alongside changes to the Jewish Nation-State Law that the Druze community finds offensive. She turned down the offer.
There were rumors throughout the evening that the haredi parties could cave and give in on the enlistment legislation because of their concern that they would lose votes in the new election. In addition, the haredim do anything to avoid elections revolving around religion and state issues that generate significant negativity towards their community. And sure enough, at around 11 p.m., the word got out that the leading rabbi in the ultra-Orthodox community instructed the haredi MKs to do whatever they could to prevent new elections. But those efforts were to no avail, as they simply could not accept the legislation Lieberman was demanding as a condition for entry into the government.
At approximately 11 p.m., the prime minister’s motorcade pulled up to the Knesset, and as he entered the building, Netanyahu told the media: “We are heading to new elections.”
And that is exactly what happened.
As the clock struck 12, the secretary of the Knesset called out the names of each Knesset member in alphabetical order, and the MK replied either “in favor” or “against.” In a wild twist, 45 Knesset members from the parties that did not support Netanyahu and should have been anxious to support new elections voted against the law. They argued that new elections prevented the president from giving Benny Gantz, leader of the Blue and White Party that tied the Likud with 35 MKs, with the mandate to try to form a government following Netanyahu’s failure to do so.
But 74 MKs—the 60 seats from parties supporting Netanyahu, Lieberman’s five MKs and the 10 Arab MKs—voted in favor of the law.
And that is how, at the end of an immensely intense day and exactly one month after it was inaugurated, the 21st Knesset came to an end.