Tuesday, November 26, 2024
Facebook Linkedin RSS Twitter

PLO State to Include at Least All West Bank and Gaza

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-
  • When permanent status negotiations begin, borders of the state of Palestine, including Jerusalem and all other territories occupied in 1967, will be determined by the terms of reference of the Oslo Agreement.
  • the “peace of the brave”, must ensure the rights of Palestinians as set forth in international resolutions. These rights must include, among others, the Palestinians’ right of return to the land from which they have been exiled.
  • From now on, all international forums and contacts should be mined in order to bring to bear the maximum amount of international pressure on Israel.
  • Palestinians sense a lack of seriousness on the part of the Palestinian leadership and note the gap between its statements and its practices… Committees recommended by the Central Council to prepare the way for full Palestinian sovereignty have never been activated… The efforts of the whole world to support us will not be of any use to us if we fail to get the credibility we need from our own people.

Borders First – Official Fatah Website
http://www.fateh.net/e_editor/99/150799.htm

In agreeing recently to play the role of mere “facilitator”, rather than mediator and referee, in the negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, the US appears to be abandoning its responsibilities as a co-sponsor of the peace process. This role change creates a situation similar to the one that existed before Netenyahu’s election in 1996. It appears that the Labour Party is trying, before the word of Dennis Ross becomes absolute in the region, to forestall any obstructionist moves on the part of the Likudniks and their US supporters. We have already lived through the difficulties which resulted from the pro-Israeli bias of the Oslo Agreement. Now, if we are to prevent a total breakdown in the peace process, it is time to lay down new terms of reference for negotiation.

The Oslo Agreement set forth objectives, along with schedules and deadlines. In order to evaluate what has been achieved in the past five years, we need to compare these stated objectives with the actual results which came about. Sound management of the process in the days and weeks ahead cannot rest on good will alone.

Clearly, on the Palestinian side, there is an enormous gap between objectives and results, all the way from the Oslo Agreement through the Wye Memorandum. Indeed, so few achievements were made that it could be said that the major result of the five-year process was Palestinians’ success in keeping their objectives unchanged — despite the massive pressure put on them by both Ross, Netenyahu and their respective governments. Both parties, US and Israeli, made every effort to impose their own vision on the Palestinian leadership. Again and again, in myriad ways, representatives of both countries attempted to lower the expectations of Palestinians regarding our future.

What Palestinians need now is not simply a new chapter in our dealings with Israel. Just as important is the need to open a new chapter in our internal relationships among our own Palestinian people. Palestinians today are painfully aware of the gap that exists between the verbal commitments made by the Palestinian leadership and the practices of that leadership. Instead of being fed more statements, we need to define, once and for all, a national consensus on each of the issues that confront us.

Already, in calling for merging implementation of the Wye Memorandum with negotiation of final status issues, Barak is making it clear that, in this respect at least, he is taking a stand every bit as dangerous as any taken by Netenyahu. In failing to implement the Wye Memorandum by canceling the third Israeli troop withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, and thus failing to carry out Israel’s commitments under the interim agreements, Barak is, in effect, arranging things so that in the final status negotiations, Palestinians will have to re-negotiate issues that have been negotiated already. In the June 16 issue of Ha-aretz, the Israeli left-wing daily, Yuel Marcos wrote that Barak has implicitly threatened Arafat that if the third withdrawal does not become part of the final status negotiations, then negotiations could drag on endlessly. Barak cannot, he told Arafat, begin the negotiations with such a large territorial concession. Barak also warned, according to Marcos, that negotiation of all final status issues will be extremely difficult. Obviously, what is being suggested — and none too subtly — is that Palestinians should expect to make concessions regarding the final status issues if they want to see the interim commitments fulfilled.

Despite the lack of concrete achievements during Netenyahu’s term, Palestinians in fact made significant progress in a realm less tangible but just as vital: that of international consensus on the justice of our cause. Such consensus will be essential when final status negotiations do begin. The Berlin Declaration on Palestinian self-determination, for instance, in raising the subject of United Nations Resolution 181, will have an important influence on the issue of Palestine’s borders. In the same international resolution which created the state of Israel, Resolution 181 affirms the right of Palestinians to create their own state. The resolution further establishes international law as the arbitrator for determining the borders of the Palestinian state.

The Palestinian leadership insist that the Wye Memorandum and the remaining as-yet-unimplemented parts of the Hebron Protocol, as well as all other interim issues, be fairly concluded before final status negotiations begin. Palestinians insist that issues which have already been negotiated, but not implemented by the Israeli side, are not to be subject to re-negotiation as final status issues. Final status issues must include only those not already negotiated — issues which will be tough enough when tackled separately, such as the third phase of Israeli troop withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank and the related issue of future borders of the Palestinian state.

The Israeli Labour Party now in power must undertake to fulfill all obligations its government has already assumed without subjecting them to the Likud’s destructive influence. Clearly, the Israeli army should withdraw from all the Occupied Territories except those related to the issues of Jerusalem, Israeli military installations, borders, and settlements established before the signing of the Oslo Agreement. (Settlements established after the Oslo Agreement were signed are illegal under the terms of that agreement and should be dismantled immediately.) This means that Israeli troops should withdraw from all of Area C, with the exception of lands related to the issues just mentioned. This is the scope of withdrawal which is in line with the spirit of the Oslo Agreement. When permanent status negotiations begin, borders of the state of Palestine, including Jerusalem and all other territories occupied in 1967, will be determined by the terms of reference of the Oslo Agreement.

The historic peace agreements grew out of the need to put an end to all wars in the region and to establish a true and lasting peace. Such a peace, called first by Palestinians and now by Barak, echoing them, the “peace of the brave”, must ensure the rights of Palestinians as set forth in international resolutions. These rights must include, among others, the Palestinians’ right of return to the land from which they have been exiled. The term “peace of the brave” implies that both parties to the peace should achieve historic rights based on principles fair to both. The term also suggests that our belief in the future of humanity should help us bring about the kind of democracy that guarantees a just and lasting peace.

The Palestinian “state” that Barak has talked about does not meet these criteria. Barak’s vision of a Palestinian state is to Palestinians no more than a symbolic step along the path toward statehood. A “state” on a mere 3% of the area of Palestine is not a state at all, but rather, at best, a kind of limited autonomy. A “state” in which half of the population lives in refugee camps is not a state. A “state” in which land can be confiscated at will for settlement by another people, with no concern for human values, is not a state. Finally, a “state” without Jerusalem as its capital may be a state for most, but is not the state of Palestine.

Our state will be achieved on the basis of full separation from Israelis. As Barak himself has said, quoting the American poet, “A good wall makes good neighbors.” The Palestinian “wall” that is likely to achieve real peace and stability is one that gives our state its borders with Egypt in Gaza in the South and with Jordan in the East.

As we enter the permanent status negotiations, we will require new terms of reference, ones that Oslo does not provide. We also require adherence to the Fourth Geneva Convention, despite the opposition of Israel and the US.

US opposition to the convening of the conference in Geneva is merely one more sad reminder of US pro-Israeli bias. It shows, further, to what lengths the US is prepared to go in denying Palestinians the right to employ the legal mof the internatiocommunity to advance our cause. Over the objections of both Israel and the US, the conference was indeed held, with the sole concession that sanctions allowable under international law not be discussed, as a gesture of good will towards the newly elected Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak. From now on, all international forums and contacts should be mined in order to bring to bear the maximum amount of international pressure on Israel. Such connections and the international support they bring will go far to strengthen the position of the Palestinian negotiating team in any future negotiations.

The conflicting positions taken by different sectors of Israeli society toward the Geneva conference confirm the importance of the event. On the one hand, the conference was officially described as a “non-event on a non-issue”. On the other hand, Moshe Zack described the conference as a destructive event for Israel. In the Jerusalem Post Zack wrote that the conference was based on United States General Assembly resolutions that consider East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory occupied by the Israelis. The conference opens the way for the international community’s adoption of measures against Israel that no US veto can deter. Finally, Zack noted that Palestine was invited on an equal footing with countries that signed the Geneva Convention.

Barak’s call for resumption of negotiations on all tracks — Syrian and Lebanese as well as Palestinian — means that the leadership of the three should coordinate a unified strategy for achieving a just peace in the region. This strategy should be based on a full understanding of both the positive and negative aspects of agreements reached with Israel. Meanwhile, the Palestinian call for a summit including Egypt and Jordan in addition to Syria, Lebanon and Palestine indicates how deeply Palestinians are committed to the larger Arab cause.

The importance of united international and Arab positions does not constitute an alternative to a unified Palestinian strategy on present and future requirements. As was mentioned at the beginning of this article, Palestinians sense a lack of seriousness on the part of the Palestinian leadership and note the gap between its statements and its practices. Official Palestinian reaction to Barak’s moves came very late. Committees recommended by the Central Council to prepare the way for full Palestinian sovereignty have never been activated. In fact, three months have passed without any of these committees having been convened. Such lassitude can only strengthen the position of those who do not respect the Palestinian institutions that endorse decisions which are at once most dangerous and most important. The Central Council, it should be mentioned, is the Palestinian institution that endorsed the Oslo Agreement. It also represents the Palestinian National Council, and filled the legal vacuum created by the expiration of the interim negotiation period.

The efforts of the whole world to support us will not be of any use to us if we fail to get the credibility we need from our own people.

Revolution until victory!

“Don’t Release Murderers”

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

(July 26) – Since Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s return from Washington, rumors are flying about the upcoming release of terrorists, with or without “blood on their hands.”

There have been attempts of redefining who “really” has blood on their hands and who doesn’t; there has been talk of separating “killers” who actually pulled the trigger or stuck in the knife, and those who “merely” aided and abetted.

There have been suggestions of “goodwill” gestures, whereby terrorists tried and sentenced by Israel will be released.

All of these ideas are not new. The same ambassadors of “goodwill” brought up these immoral travesties of justice to the late Yitzhak Rabin, and to prime ministers Shimon Peres, and Binyamin Netanyahu.

On each of those occasions, I spoke to those three prime ministers, and pointed out to them that my son Nahshon’s kidnapper “merely” aided and abetted the three other terrorists who murdered him and were themselves killed in the failed rescue attempt at Bir Naballa, where he was held hostage for six days.

For us, the nightmare of those six days, which shook the entire country, indeed our entire people, as well as people of goodwill everywhere, has never faded.

I sat at the trial of the driver of that cursed car that kidnapped my son, listened to his attorneys and the IDF prosecutors who asked for life imprisonment, and was witness to his sentencing, in a fair and democratic trial. Any reversal of the justice meted out to that monstrous kidnapper of my son would be a mockery of justice, a travesty of law and order, and an act of extreme immorality.

With all due respect to the peace process, and with the true hope and prayer for Barak’s success in bringing true peace to our region, I do not believe that overturning acts that were right and just can lead to peace. All of these values must go hand in hand, and an act of injustice and moral corruption cannot ever further peace.

We must never sell out one value for the sake of another, a principle which I am certain Barak would agree with, as did his predecessors, among them his mentor, Yitzhak Rabin, as did US President Clinton as well, in a private conversation with my husband and myself at our beloved son’s graveside.

May right and justice prevail in our land.

Esther Wachsman, an American trained educator who has lived in Israel for the past thirty years, is the mother of seven Israeli-born sons, one of whom, Nachshon, was kidnapped and later murdered by Arab terrorists in October, 1994.

Biochemical Warfare Threat to Israel?

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

The likelihood of a chemical terror attack in Israel’s cities is such that Minister of Defense Ehud Barak ordered the Chemical Response Unit on full alert during these critical days of the peace process.

Lets picture the scenario.

VX gas is released along the shore-line of Tel aviv. What happens?

  1. The sirens are sounded. Citizens have no idea what is going on. Many assume it is a prank. Some turn on the radio and hear that they are requested to go to sealed rooms and put on gas-masks. Gas? But there is no crisis with Iraq; no missiles have fallen. Some turn to the foreign media. They hear that terrorists have released a lethal gas in central Tel Aviv and the authorities are presently checking the wind direction.
  2. Citizens in Tel Aviv, most without adequate shelter, most without access to gas-masks, begin to flee the city. The roads become blocked and they begin to run on foot.

Who can run faster than the wind?

Presently this is the best protection offered to us. Instructions published by HAGA relate only to a missile attack and give no instructions what so ever for response to Chemical, Biological or nuclear terror attack. This must reflect a lack of coordination of security policy regarding civilians and non-conventional weapons which is leaving Israel’s citizen’s tragically vulnerable and mis-informed.

The gas masks, if we have them, are ineffective four hours after breaking the seal. We have presently no civilian answer for a second strike on the civilian frontier.

With limited budgets and confused priorities it seems citizens have no choice but to demand security measures that have otherwise been sorely neglected.

For more information and press contacts: Yael Haran (04) 984-0310
The Sleeping Giant
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/7663
harans@internet-zahav.net.il

Clinton and the Right of Return

By
David Bedein
-

On July 1, 1999, President Clinton stated that American policy was that Palestinians have a right to live “wherever they would like to live”.

Clinton’s policy statement resounded through the Palestinian media and the United Nations Relief and Work Refugee Agency (UNRWA) camps which have serviced Palestinian Arab refugees in “temporary” shelters since 1948, under the premise and promise of the UN resolution #194, that assures the 3.6 million Palestinian Arab refugees under the aegis of UNRWA that they have the “inalienable right of return to the villages that they left in 1948, which now constitute Jewish communities throughout Tel Aviv, Haifa. Ashkelon, and at least 200 kibbutzim and Moshavim.

Far from being a theoretical notion, the “right of return” remains a living program that moves the hearts and minds of 3.6 million Palestinian Arab refugees. For UNRWA camp residents, the “right of return” is not a dream: it is a plan of action.

The policies of UNRWA, whose greatest funder for the past fifty years remains has been the US, reassure Palestinian Arab refugees that they may indeed realize their right of return”, while the new Palestinian Authority forbids housing assistance or eve voting rights to UNRWA camp residents, under the premise of the “right of return”. >

Toward that end, the curriculum of the Palestinian Authority Educational system, funded in part by the US, stresses the “right of return”, as UNRWA school principals and teachers inculcate a new generation of Palestinian youth to prepare themselves to return “home”, and that does not mean to the west bank and Gaza.

Meanwhile, a senior US State Department official told me that Under Secretary of State Dennis Ross has reassured the Israeli government that UN resolution #242 (that recognizes Israel’s 1967 ceasefire lines) supersedes UN resolution #194.

However, nobody bothered to tell that to 3.6 million people who linger in UNRWA refugee camps, who are also assured by US officials in the employ of UNRWA that they have the right to return to the homes and villages that they left in 1948.

Egyptian Al-Ahram: Peace Only if ’48 Refugees Return Home

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Full Text:
Even if the statement made by US President Bill Clinton last week that millions of Palestinian refugees “should be given the freedom to settle wherever they want to” was a “slip of the tongue”, as the new Israeli government would like to believe, it was a Freudian slip that may have revealed more than Clinton intended. Any objective mind would agree that the Palestinians are entitled to enjoy rights equal to those of other human beings. All human beings are “chosen people” — one ethnic or religious group alone cannot claim that title for itself.

If the US led NATO in a long war to force Slobodan Milosevic to accept the return of nearly one million Albanian refugees to their homes in Kosovo, why is the world’s sole superpower not moving at all to help more than four million Palestinian refugees dispersed worldwide by the “pioneering” Zionists, the builders of modern Israel, return to their homes? President Clinton was apparently taken by surprise when the question was put to him by an Egyptian writer who accompanied President Hosni Mubarak on his visit to Washington.

Although it has been 51 years since Zionist gangs systematically terrorised and massacred thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians to empty the land of its real owners, many of the million Palestinians expelled in 1948 continue to hold the keys to their houses. The names of their villages and towns have been changed in an effort to rewrite history, but they can still remember every street and alley, and continue to feed that information to their children and grandchildren. If any Palestinian refugee was given the “freedom” to choose where he or she would like to settle, the answer would definitely be: Palestine, my home, my land.

If the new government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak recognises this important fact before starting negotiations with the Palestinians, the outcome of these talks must necessarily be a just and comprehensive peace. Without justice, peace will never exist. And justice will be served only when the Palestinian refugees are allowed to return to their homes.

Article researched, located and shared by IMRA, “Independent Media Review and Analysis”.

Abu Mazen: No Negotiations Unless Barak Drops Red Lines

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

The following are excerpts from an interview of the Palestinian Authority’s chief negotiator, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) published in the Palestinian weekly, El Ashaab, on 5 July, 1999:

[The interviewer is not identified; the interview took place in Abu Dhabi.]

Question: What happens if Ehud Barak fails to back down from his four noes?

Mazen: If the four noes are the maximum of what Barak is willing to give then there will be no final status talks.

…

Question: After Barak won there has been a return to talking about the Beilin-Abu Mazen agreement. Does such an agreement exist?

Mazen: No. A document does not exist. An agreement does not exist. All that there was was dialogue between myself and Beilin regarding the final status issues. Beilin wanted to tell Yitzhak Rabin about this dialogue but before he could Rabin was murdered and the dialogue ended.

Question: Could the dialogue be the basis for the coming talks?

Mazen: Like all dialogue it could be a basis but it is also possible to go to back to the starting point.

Question: What about Jerusalem?

Mazen: Jerusalem is occupied Arab land like the other occupied Palestinian land. Resolutions 242 and 338 should be implemented – Israel should withdraw from all occupied territory.

Barak’s “Red Line” Coalition

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Quotes from text:
“There are enough hawks in Israel’s emerging coalition — including perhaps Barak — to insure that no withdrawal from occupied south Lebanon is likely to be forthcoming without firm Syrian or international guarantees for Israel’s security”

“not a single party in Barak’s new political dispensation… is likely to challenge his “red lines” of no shared sovereignty in Jerusalem, no dismantling (but probable expansion) of settlements and no withdrawal to the 1967 borders. And there are a few — like Yisrael B’aliya and NRP — who will blanch at the prospect of a Palestinian statre, even if it is truncated and demilitarised.”

“The only parties in Israel who oppose that consensus are the three Arab lists which, between them, command 10 seats in the new Knesset. And it is because they oppose the consensus that they cannot be in an Israeli government”

Excerpts:
Despite — or perhaps because of — the onslaught on Lebanon, Israel’s prime minister elect Ehud Barak’s long toil to form a government appears slowly to bearing fruit. For the Arabs — as always with Israel — it is a mixed harvest.

The first coalition agreements were signed on 25 June within hours of Israeli warplanes returning to base from Lebanon. As widely predicted, the Russian Immigrant party, Yisrael B’aliyah, landed the Interior Ministry. Less widely predicted — and ominously for the Palestinians — the far right and pro-settler National Religious Party received the Housing Ministry, a post with inordinate powers to market lands and offer tenders for settlement construction in the occupied territories. Having wooed representatives of Israel’s “right” and “centre”,

…

Following a terse five minute meeting with Barak on 28 June, Sharon was “sorry to say the partnership [between One Israel and Likud] was not a partnership of truth”. It was certainly going to be an equal partnership if that was what Sharon had intended.

…

The apparent departure of Sharon and Likud from government undoubtedly will be greeted with sighs of relief by most of the Arab world. Yet it would be unwise to cheer too loudly. The removal of Likud will probably make things easier for Barak to resume negotiations with Syria from the “point they left off” in 1996 or, more precisely, from the different points each side think they left off. But there are enough hawks in Israel’s emerging coalition — including perhaps Barak — to ensure that no withdrawal from occupied south Lebanon is likely to be forthcoming without firm Syrian or international guarantees for Israel’s “security”.

As for Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority, this will be faced with an Israeli government that, unlike its Netanyahu predecessor, accurately reflects the Israeli consensus. This could mean the implementation of the 1998 Wye River agreement and a resumption of Oslo’s final status negotiations. But there is not a single party in Barak’s new political dispensation that is likely to challenge his “red lines” of no shared sovereignty in Jerusalem, no dismantling (but probable expansion) of settlements and no withdrawal to the 1967 borders. And there are a few — like Yisrael B’aliya and the NRP — who will blanch at the prospect of a Palestinian state, even if it is truncated and demilitarised.

The only parties in Israel who oppose that consensus are the three Arab lists which, between them, command 10 seats in the new Knesset. And it is because they oppose the consensus that they cannot be in an Israeli government….

Article researched, located and edited by IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis

America Too, Is Part of the Exile

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Today we have interesting computer programs which can help us search for all kinds of things. One which is very helpful to Jews, is a calendar program which takes the solar calendar and co-ordinates it with the Jewish lunar calendar.

This way we can check out when our child’s bar mitzvah will come out, and we can go back and check to see the Hebrew date which fell on the day we were born.

I was experimenting with this program a while back and made an interesting discovery. I plugged in the date, July 4, 1776. I was amazed to find that in that year the Hebrew date was the 17th of Tamuz.

This date, on the Hebrew calendar, marks the beginning of a three week mourning period for the destruction of our holy Temple in Jerusalem. For two thousand years we Jews have marked this period as one of national mourning. On this day, when the mourning period begins, we all fast and contemplate this enormous tragedy to the Jewish People.

Thus, on the very day when the United States of America declared its independence from Great Britain, and became a sovereign nation, while the majority of the new American citizens were celebrating and feasting, the Jews were mourning and fasting. Clearly this fact was no coincidence. The symbolism is prophetic. On the surface it may have seemed that the establishment of the United States of America was an opportunity for the Jew to find acceptance and true freedom from religious oppression. Indeed, over the past two hundred and twenty-three years most Jews would declare that this country has proven itself to be the best thing that ever happened to the Jewish People during our long Exile.

This fact alone is reason to mourn. The Jewish people were never meant to find peace and tranquillity outside of her homeland. We were scattered to the four corners of the world as a punishment. We were destined to wander and never find contentment until, at long last, our Exile would end and we would come home to our country, the Land of Israel.

In every nation of our Exile, in every generation, we made the best of a bad situation and kept our Judaism intact. We prayed for the day when we would be able to come home, and never lost hope that the day would finally come.

It wasn’t hard to keep the dream of Zion alive in the ghettos, and under the many persecutions which we had to suffer. But in the Land of the free and the home of the brave we faced a challenge for which we were unprepared. We were permitted to live as we wished. Surely there was anti-Semitism here too, but it was easier to ignore and hide from than in most of our temporary homelands.

Because it was a nation of immigrants, there really was no such thing as a pure bred American. It thus became easy to cast aside those things which made us appear different from our neighbours and to blend in with them. We took upon ourselves a new culture and rejected at least those parts of our Judaism which made us different.

We forgot the blessing of Balaam, that we are destined to be a nation that stands alone, not to be reckoned among the nations of the world. No.

We would find a way to be like our neighbours, and to be accepted by them as equals. That was the new Jewish dream.

The United States of America is the most dangerous place in the world for the Jewish people. The dangers here are more subtle than in other places. The fact that Jews have been able to achieve financial and political success has created an illusion that is nearly impossible to shatter.

We have been taken in by this illusion. We live in beautiful homes, send our children to the best schools, drive new cars and enjoy all of the best technological advances of mankind. We never had it better. But do we ever stop for a minute to look at our children? Where do they get their values? How are they equipped to deal with the moral conflicts which face them as they grow up among the American Gentiles?

Chances are, aside from their friends at school, most of their values are learned from the television and movies they watch. The watered down version of Judaism that they are given has no substance for them. What kind of role models do they strive to emulate?

The President of the United States is certainly not the kind of role model any moral individual would want for his children. Yet he is there, and he does present such an image. No matter how high a standard of living we have in the United States, no amount of money can adequately insulate the Jew from the depraved foreign values being imparted to his children. Even among the religious Jewish segment of American culture, which tries to develop a strong barrier between themselves and the society around them, it is impossible to avoid exposure and contagion with the alien culture in which we are submerged.

Throughout our history there have been Jews who dealt with anti-Semitism in different ways. Some gave up their Judaism outright in the futile hope that this would gain them acceptance in the eyes of the Gentile.

Others tried to adjust their Judaism to make it less different than the religion of their neighbours. And a hardy few kept a low profile but adhered to their heritage with a passion. Those are the ones who survived over the centuries. We can see all of these mechanisms at work in the United States as well.

Many have outrightly rejected their heritage. They married out of the faith and changed their names. Others re wrote our Torah and made Judaism easier for the goyim to accept. But, even with the strongest of our people, those who did not give in and who have kept their Judaism strong and proud, even these people cannot help but be affected by the warped society in which they live. Today there is only one guarantee for the survival of the Jewish People. Only by returning to our homeland and striving to rebuild, not only the Land, but the Jewish way of life, will be breathe true redemption into the dry bones of our Exiled people. We must seriously consider the very ominous implication of the fact that the birthday of the United States of America was a sad day for the Jewish People.

Let us understand that we have only one homeland. It is the Will of G-d that the Jewish People be gathered together in the Land He Promised our Father, Abraham, as an internal inheritance. Until 1948 it was extremely difficult to come home. But today, despite the many problems, at least it is under Jewish sovereignty and a modern nation. Today we have no excuse to remain in the cursed Exile which is destined to come to an end. We have no future outside our homeland.

We can wait for the Exile to spit us out or destroy us, or we can elect to come home now, with our pride and our possessions.

Interview with Rabbi Arik Asherman, director of the RABBIS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Allan: Tell me a little about yourself.

Asherman: Sure, my name is Rabbi Arik Asherman. I’m the executive director of Rabbi’s for Human Rights. I also, on a part time basis am the Rabbi for Kibbutz Yahel in the Arava. I’m originally from the United States, born in Eerie, Pennsylvania. I have an under-grad degree from Harvard in 1981, sociology… rabbinic ordination from Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion from 1989. I’m married to Rabbi Anot Ramon, who’s the first Israeli woman ever to become a rabbi. It’s an intermarriage of sorts, I’m a reform rabbi and she’s a conservative rabbi. And as of now we’re the only rabbinic couple in Israel. And we have a little baby, Adi, whose now about eleven and a half weeks old. Alright, so that’s our story.

Allan: When did you come to Israel?

Asherman: I’ve been here off and on since the early ’80s. In 81, 83 I worked for a program called interns for peace which is a committee work program for promoting coexistence between Jewish Israelis and Arab Israelis. I did my first year of rabbinical school back here in ’86-’87 for a community work program… that’s also when I met my wife. From then on pretty much back every summer and officially made Aliya in ’94.

Allan: In the U.S were you politically active at all?

Asherman: Yeah. It depends on what period. In my university days I was particularly active in the struggle against apartheid. There was a very intense movement on campuses, particularly on Harvard, to push for universities to dis-invest from corporations doing business in South Africa… In my years in rabbinical school I did also in… for five years as a rabbi out in California. A lot of that time I was very involved with issues dealing with homeless and this kind of thing. And a lot of other things here and there. A lot of other things. I went a couple of times to Russia to work with, former Soviet Union, to work with congregations there. A lot of things over the years.

Allan: Tell me about Rabbis for Human Rights.

Asherman: Rabbis for Human Rights was founded just a little… it was ten years ago December, during Intifada when many people felt, this is the age of the orders to break bones and this kind of thing to put down the Intifada, and many people who by no means considered themselves left wing felt we’d gone over some form of red line. And that there needed to be a Jewish rabbinic response to what was happening. And when our founder, Rabbi David Foreman, wrote an open letter saying “Why is it that all we ever hear from the Jewish, the religious establishment in this country is about Shabbat observance and Kashrut… keeping kosher. As important as those things are where are the Abraham Joshua Heschels?” I don’t know if that name means something to you or not but… Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel was a scholar but also an activist. “Where are the Abraham Joshua Heschels in this country speaking to the burning moral issues of our times, of our day?” And that struck a cord with a number of people. Today we are ninety some rabbis and some rabbinic students. We are the only rabbinic organization in this country, to the best of my knowledge, where reform, orthodox and reconstructionist rabbis coexist. And we work on a number of issues. We champion universal human rights and interfaith understanding. And human rights, that’s whether we’re talking about Jewish Israelis or foreign workers or Palestinians. So we work on a number of issues ranging from the Israeli health care system to the whole issue of home demolitions, Palestinian home demolitions. We work with lobbying Knesset, we work with the media, we do direct action, civil disobedience. We work in a number of different ways.

Allan: Anything else?

Asherman: We also work on educational projects… going to schools working with teachers, with students, talking about Judaism and human rights. Another project where we’re working with the Kibbutz teachers on Oranim to create a Talmudic style commentary to the Declaration of Independence.

Allan: Did Rabbis for Human Rights, when first created, immediately have connections with Palestinians?

Asherman: I wasn’t around at the time but, yes, I think some of our… pretty much immediately, yes. At the time it was so unusual for rabbis to be concerned with universal human rights that we worked a lot with groups like B’tselem… because in advertising an issue all we had to do was show up and pay a visit and that was news because its so unusual for rabbis to be concerned about these kinds of things…

Allan: Today, the PA exists as a governing authority, does Rabbis for Human Rights deal with the PA or any of its subcommittees?

Asherman: Not to a great deal. We had a meeting with Arafat in 1995, October of 1995. And a year or so ago our chair person participated in a… as a representative with other organizations that went to meet with Arafat. We… the Palestinian organizations we tend to work with may have connections with the PA but they tend to be independent. They are just the people we work better with, found more of a common language with. The other thing is that as rabbis our primary audience is Jews. So that certainly when we met with Arafat we expressed some of our concerns about human rights issues in the West Bank. Same thing when we… sometimes when Palestinian human rights activists have been arrested we expressed our concern one way or the other. But, basically because our audience is Israeli Jews we haven’t spent so much time dialoguing or whatever with Palestinian bodies in that way.

Allan: Is that a question of protecting the organizations image?

Asherman: The opposite. Many people on the right say “Why don’t you criticize the PA for this, that, and the other thing?” We say “When we’ve had the opportunity we’ve expressed our opinions.” But our audience is Jews. Secondly… its not a matter of image. If there was some project… Our job is to be dealing with human rights abuses done by Jews not done by Palestinians. By no means do we say there aren’t human rights abuses being perpetrated by Palestinians. But when we have an opportunity, we certainly make our opinion known; we’ve always done that. In terms of just working cooperatively with PA bodies… as I said, to the extent that we work with Palestinian organizations they tend to be organizations which are also a little bit more distant from the PA. But that’s not really a policy or anything like that.

Allan: What would you like the relationship with the PA to be?

Asherman: Well I’d like it to be cooperative. Listen, if the ideal situation was that we could call them up and say we’re concerned about the death penalty, we’re concerned about what’s happening here; and maybe they’d have an open ear. Or alternatively there are issues, for example, like the whole issue of home demolitions. We feel that there’s a lot more the PA could be doing. You know, for example, I would think it would be in the Palestinian national interest to have a fund so that anyone whose home was demolished would have the money to start rebuilding. And often representatives of the PA don’t even show up when homes are demolished. So, those things I would definitely like to see them to do. I’d like to have an open dialogue with where they’d be interested in some of the things we see on the ground.

Allan: What topics were discussed in the 1995 meeting with Arafat?

Asherman: Basically we talked about… first of all praised Arafat for his courage to enter into a peace process, courage to continue with the peace process. Then we spoke about MIAs, Israeli MIAs… And then we talked in general about the concerns about human rights abuses in the Palestinian Authority. His reaction basically… he spent a lot of time talking about all the plots to kill him. And basically said “You Israelis, on the one hand you want me to stop terrorism, to fight terrorism, on the other hand you want me to observe human rights and you can’t have both and I’m here to fight terrorism… “

Allan: Moving on, I briefly wanted to discuss Palestinian refugees. It is my understanding that the policy of UNWRA is to keep Palestinians within refugee camps. I was curious as to your reaction.

Asherman: I don’t know if its just UNWRA. Historically the Arab world has wanted to use refugees as a political weapon, propaganda weapon. So, because of this… because of that… yeah, refugees have stayed in camps. That is certainly true. I’m not totally, I’m not totally up on what is happening most recently but that is the historical reality. Once again, there’s… it’s a question of mandate and whether we as rabbis that is an issue that we need to be working on. You know, there’s a terrible… there’s a very interesting phenomena, I find it very often in some of the comments I get, not from serious people but more often from not serious people that want to be critical of what we’re doing, which says “You say you’re interested in human rights so why aren’t you doing x, y, and z?” I mean, that’s like going to a housing rights group and saying why aren’t you worrying about health care. There’s an infinite amount of issues that people could work on, and somehow the implication is you’re not really serious if you’re not working on this, or it means you’re not really objective or something like this. But it’s a… Knei Britsute, as we say the tradition, it’s bench reed. It’s a misleading kind of thing so that as I said we… it’s… you ask for example about UNWRA or something it’s not a question of whether or not there’s something wrong going on, it’s a question of… I’m here on a three quarter time position. We’ve got another quarter time staff person. We see our primary mandate as speaking to the Jewish people as rabbis. So, you know, I would feel we were being one sided if all we did was be concerned about Israeli oppression of Palestinians but the answer from what I see as our mandate is not to be dealing with what UNWRA is doing or what the PA is doing but rather to deal with issues such as health cares for Israelis which is an issue of what [the] Israeli government is doing to Israeli Jews, as well as all Israeli citizens, for example. That’s the way that I believe is the proper way, as opposed to balancing ourselves by finding international or Palestinian organizations that are also oppressing Palestinians.

Allan: Then, is it (dealing only with Israeli abuses of human rights) a policy based on lack of time?

Asherman: No, it’s a number of things. A, Our mandate as rabbis is to speak to the Jews, it’s not to speak to international bodies or to the Palestinians. So, once again, when there’s a need to do so, or when there’s an opportunity to do so. For example when we were invited to speak to Arafat it would have been wrong for us go and speak with Arafat and not bring up some of our human rights concerns as a human rights organization if we’re already… but, but, if I’m looking to balance our activities, I would balance them by looking at issues by looking at issues where Jews are oppressing Jews to balance the activities were we look at where Jews are oppressing Palestinians as opposed to balancing by looking for where Palestinians are oppressing Palestinians. Do you see what I’m saying?

Allan: Yes… Would a more appropriate name for the organization then be, Rabbis Against Jewish Violators of Human Rights?

Asherman: I mean… that’s a rhetorical question… I mean… that’s a rhetorical question, it’s like does your name have to… You could also say should we be Rabbis for Human Rights who are currently working on the Jali, on Israeli health care, on this, this, this, to explain why we’re not working on… as I said we’re working on health care but not working on improving income tax. The reality is, we do dialogues with rabbis who live in the West Bank, we do dialogues with all kinds of groups. It’s only the totally non-serious people that even bring those things up. I mean… I mean people with different views than ours but are serious don’t bring those kinds of things up because it’s so not important. Now… in terms of, in terms or our image the thing that does concern me more is that there aren’t enough people that realize we also work for Jewish human rights and this kind of stuff. And there are people who think all we do is work for Palestinians. That is something of greater concern to me than these other things… that are only brought up by people who are doing it for the sake of argument and aren’t very serious.

Allan: Let me ask you one more question, before we change topics. Do you believe the human rights abuses of today are more prevalent in concern to Palestinian against Palestinian or Jew against Palestinian?

Asherman: I don’t really know how to answer that. I never try to quantify it. And it’s also, sometimes not so easy to sort out for example, we’re starting a new project, we’re concerned about health care in the territories. Now, on the one hand, as today 90 percent of Palestinians are, their health care is being managed by the PA, not by Israel. So, if you look at problems in health care the primary address today is the PA. On the other hand you can argue… but this after 30 years of neglect by Israeli authorities that didn’t develop the infrastructure, that didn’t develop the hospitals and left things in a mess. And on the third hand, what was there before then? And how much did Jordan or anybody else invest in health care in the territories? Maybe in another couple of months I’ll be… after we’ve finished the research stage it’ll be an interested test case for the question you’re bringing up. I would say… Most Palestinians will tell you, many Palestinians will tell you, that in some ways, I don’t know about the PA, but other Arab countries had a very… at least as responsible as Israel for many of the problems that they’re in today. Once again, as a rabbi, as a Jew, as an Israeli, the question is how important is that? In other words, if you were to say that 90 percent of the problems of the Palestinians are caused by Palestinians or other Arabs and ten percent by Israel, I as an Israeli religious Jew would still be terribly concerned about that ten percent. And it doesn’t matter to me if that was 10 percent or 15 percent or 75 percent, what is more important to me in terms of how we define our agenda is the seriousness of the problem as opposed to other problems we could be working on. In other words, in other words, if someone said to mean, “The problem of the Israeli government is giving all kinds of educational resources to North Tel Aviv and not to development towns is a much more acute problem than demolition of Palestinian homes.” That to me… so let’s talk about that. Have we miss set our priorities because we’re not really looking at the most serious human rights issues? And if you can tell me that A, that it’s a more acute problem, and B that it’s more systematic, and C that… there’s nobody else working on that problem, that would be something I would take to our board and say “Maybe our priorities aren’t straight.” But the issue of what percentage of the problems the Palestinians are by Israelis and what are by Palestinians… it wouldn’t make sense to be a factor. The only other thing I can say… is that our board decision is that we must always have a balance in terms of being… we must being working on something… because there is a balance… it’s true that we are working today on more things concerning Palestinian society than Israeli society, but there must be something we working on that’s dealing with Israeli society… The image projected by the vast majority of… of religious Jews in this country today, it wasn’t always that way but that’s the current situation today for all kinds of reasons we could get in to, is a very inwardly focussed lack of concern for the non-Jew. And many secular Israelis also interpret that as being the true face of Israel because that’s what they… it’s the dominant image. I’m not saying that all religious Jews are that way because that certainly wouldn’t be true to make a blanket statement. But that’s the predominant image. And therefore, therefore, it would always be important for us to make a statement that we, as religious Jews, are concerned not only with Jews but also with non Jews. But on the other hand, you know it’s the old statement by Hillel, “If I’m not for myself than who am I, If I’m only for myself what am I?” So… obviously… The other option of being concerned only about the other would also be wrong. So we try to always being working on projects that deal with each of those…

Allan: Do you coordinate activities with the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions?

Asherman: The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions is a umbrella organization and with different individuals and organizations more or less formally represented. And yes, we see ourselves as a part of that coalition.

Allan: How do you feel about civil disobedience?

Asherman: In general I think there are times when that’s the right course of action. For example, there are a lot of things that groups… you know in the U.S, you hear people crying gevult about the religious right and mixing religion with politics. You hear people talking about the orthodox parties here, religion and politics. I have a problem with some of that criticism. I disagree with the religious right in the States or a lot of the policies of the orthodox parties in this country on the issues, and certainly when it, on anything that has to do with coercion. But for me to say that you shouldn’t mix religion and politics… that’s what I do too. I do what I do because of my thing… My problem wasn’t that the idea that somebody, based on their beliefs is willing to engage in civil disobedience… Obviously, in a democratic society if you engage in civil disobedience you must also be willing to pay the price for your beliefs. In fact, many people engage in civil disobedience, if you look at the theory of civil disobedience historically and around the world, even welcome that because it gives you the chance to challenge those things which are legal in the society you’re part of and which you think are wrong. And, you know, so that’s another aspect of civil disobedience. And maybe, I’m just talking a little bit associatively now, but to bring up another thing, is you also heard this whole thing… “How can religious parties or establishments challenge the supreme courts?” Now, I also find there are problems where there are decisions of the supreme court which I think were mistaken. The fact that the supreme court consistently uphold home demolitions, or torture, I think is awful. So, one thing it would be hypocritical for me to say that automatically that someone who dares to criticize a decision of the supreme court to say that’s out of bounds in a democratic society; that’s not the problem. The problem is when you say, “We don’t recognize legitimacy of that institution,” you incite against that institution… and the line can be a very fine line but there is a distinction between those two things.

Allan: Has the Israeli government done anything to help the house demolition issue?

Asherman: Well, good question. After, there was a tremendous amount of Israeli and international pressure on the, after last summer around the demolition and then our public rebuilding and the re-demolition of the house of al-Shwarme house in Anata. As a result of that fact the civil administration floated a trial balloon. Which apparently was adopted because also it’s been in the Prime Minster’s office it’s been the states policy of retroactively legalizing seven hundred homes. The problem is we’ve never been to get guidelines in terms of which homes are in this and which aren’t. No one has been able to receive a list of whose homes have been retroactively legalized. So, I don’t know, have they really done anything or not? It’s a very good question. I can tell you that in the Jerusalem area… with the civil administration, for pretty much from October from February, we stopped rebuilding homes and during that period we… all kinds of negotiations with the civil administration on particular cases, kind of an attempt at constructive engagement. One of the reasons that we went back to rebuilding was a feeling that we were just being carried along for a ride and, taken for a ride, and that nothing was happening. In fact, we just recently got, finally, detailed written answer to all the specific questions we asked about specific families and things. And this was after we met with the head of the civil administration and talked about what his principles were and being invited by him to bring up issues that seemed to violate the principles that he was saying they worked according to. So we brought up all these specific cases and every one was white washed one way or the other. Now in Jerusalem, there seems to be a more serious attempt at constructive engagement. So, for example, there a number of the different communities which, the Palestinian villages, which have been absorbed by the Jerusalem municipality, that have been working on agreements with the municipality whereby homes would not be demolished while the communities are preparing new zoning plans. One of… there’s a whole system of, legal system, which leads up to the bottom line in this catch 22 situation which is it’s virtually impossible for a Palestinian to get a legal permit, a legal building permit, and then when they have no choice but to build there house is legal tender to demolition. There’s almost always a legal justification. In other words, so it’s a question in the narrow sense of the word, the demolition is legal even if it’s not just or moral. And even if you were to step back and look at the pattern you would have to say is the whole thing legal at all. Not to mention international law or Jewish law, but within Israeli law, in a narrow sense it’s legal. One of those things… wide tracks of land are zoned as green land or agricultural land or open land and not to be built on. And so, a place like, Isuweia, some 70-80 percent of their land has been expropriated since 1967 and of the remaining, over a quarter of it has been zoned as land you can’t build on. I mean there’s a real problem here. But some of these communities work with city planners, with architects to do rezoning. And there has been some willingness of the municipality to play ball and have unwritten understandings, although for example, in Jabu Vkaver there were a couple of homes, and they had an agreement like this, demolished three weeks ago. But that was really a problem because there was overlapping responsibilities between the interior ministry and the municipality itself. The interior ministry had never been signed on to this unwritten understanding and that’s what we’re trying to do now. So that might be, to answer your question, might develop into a model of more constructive engagement where the government authority does agree to look for constructive solutions. Our policy is not against planning. It’s in everybody’s interest to have decent planning. My problem is that we don’t have true partisan or non-partisan fair play, we have a politically motivated catch 22 system. I’ve had Likud members in the Knesset… and found some people that are open to this… I tell people you can be in favor of the greater land of Israel, the medium land of Israel, or the small land of Israel… So, and some of these people are receptive. And what I always say, this should be above politics. It’s not an issue of right or left or government or opposition. It’s an issue of human rights, things that should be above politics. And what I try to tell folks is that… there needs to be a fair set of principles which are the same whether you’re Jewish or Palestinian, or whatever that for a reasonable price that people know they can apply for a permit according to a fair set of principles and that their application will be accepted or denied according to those principles. There probably are some people that are building their homes places where they shouldn’t be getting permits. But when you have a situation when nobody’s getting permits, then you’re not talking about a fair equally applied set of principles, which is what’s necessary.

Allan: Does Rabbis for Human Rights affiliate with any Jewish organizations?

Asherman: There’s no official connection with any Jewish organization. There are rabbis who are members or Rabbis for Human Rights who are affiliated with or even work with some of those organizations. But there’s no official connection.

Allan: Could you name some of these individuals?

Asherman: Sure, one of our founding members was Rabbi David Rosen who today is the director of the Israel operations for the ADL. He actually, when he accepted the position as director, he stepped down from our board, but he’s still a member… I think he felt that as a… that in some ways it wasn’t appropriate… And I know that he’s continued sometimes on our behalf sometimes in the name of ADL on issues that we have common concerns, to write letters. Two examples I can give you are when there was an issue in January when the Greek Orthodox Christian community from Yaffo went to the courts because the rabbi from Bat Yam was going to withdraw the kashrut certificate from the place that allowed them to have their New Years celebration. Or just now, we were a… because the chief kaddi of Israel asked us to look into case of a mosque in Ashkelon which, its sanctity is not being respected… by the city of Ashkelon. And when I spoke with the municipality they sent me a letter which was a response to a letter written by Rabbi Rosen so I assume… he probably decided to write and express concern about that.

Allan: Today is Yom Yerushaliyim, how do you feel as a Jew and a rabbi knowing that you can freely go to the Old City, to the Kotel, and pray?

Asherman: I want to answer that in… I want to expand the scope of your question a little bit. Last year in particular, for Israel’s fiftieth anniversary there was a… and here I’m talking as an individual not as director of Rabbis for Human Rights because these are things that as an organization we don’t take positions on, necessarily. Especially around the fiftieth anniversary we had all our huge celebrations and there was this whole parallel thing where commemorating fifty years of El Nakba, the catastrophe. And, I know some people that were so wrapped up in El Nakba, Jews, that they couldn’t celebrate our fiftieth anniversary. To me, that is to become terribly estranged, to cut yourself off from your own roots. And… Yom Yerushaliyim… I think its which we legitimately celebrate. So the question is, is there any model within our tradition to celebrate and yet remember the pain of others, and somehow remember what we’re celebrating is the same thing that is a catastrophe for somebody else? I think we’ve got a couple models in our tradition. First of all in Mseked Tanit, which tells us a lot about rain and lack of rain. There’s this whole thing about… the rain which for us is a, for the farmer is a blessing, is a disaster for the person whose roof gets blown off. Or even, more importantly, look at Pesach. On Pesach we celebrate with great joy our liberation from Egypt. Any yet we recite the plagues and take out the ten drops because our joy cannot be complete when, even if there was no way around it, other people suffered as part and parcel of our liberation. On the seventh day of Pesach, which is the day according to our tradition the day that we actually crossed the Red Sea, we only do a partial hallel, every other day of Pesach we do a the full hallel, the joyous songs that we chant on many of our holidays. So, we have a perfect model. To suggest that we should stop to celebrate or be joyful about our liberation from Egypt because Egyptians died and suffered… it would be crazy. But yet Hazall had the greatness of spirit to be able to incorporate within our celebration the fact that we can’t forget the pain of others. And so what I think about Yom Yerushaliyim, I don’t want to stop celebrating Yom Yerushaliyim, that is an important joyful day for me, but at the same time… it would be wrong for me to forget that it’s El Nakba for other people…

Allan: Does Rabbis for Human Rights have a formal relationship with the CPT?

Asherman: No formal relationship with them, we cooperate with them where it’s appropriate. Once again… I always hear from folks like David Bedein that, “How can you have any connection with these anti-Semitic folks?”, and this kind of stuff. But… sometimes I find them naive (the CPT), some of them I have occasionally found a little bit of, at least latent, anti-Semitism to my understanding. But the question is on the issues and on which issues… we don’t have any formal relationship with them, we don’t work with them on everything but things like home demolitions are things we incorporate on.

Allan: In what way have you noticed “latent anti-Semitism”?

Asherman: Well… there are some of them. Their international director is great and he’s here and has a deep understanding how we feel as Jews and the role for American Christians in a situation like this… But… every once in awhile some of the people that come here, there are always people coming in and out, rotating, you know, I’ve heard stuff, basically [they] try to see this whole situation as a black and white situation as oppressed and oppressors. But… you know, it would be almost unethical to reprint a statement like that out of context….

End of Transcription

As the tape reached its end Rabbi Asherman continued to speak of the dilemma of reprinting his statement concerning the CPT and his fear of being taken out of context and misunderstood. It was explained to Rabbi Asherman that his statement would be transcribed and nothing would be written which he did not in fact state.

I suggested that the interview come to an end as I did not wish to continue without the aid and security of the tape recorder. Asherman agreed although one more question was asked concerning the position of Rabbis for Human Rights on the issue of the Orient House. Asherman explained that while certain members of Rabbis for Human Rights may attend demonstrations the organization takes no official stance.

The remainder of the time spent with Rabbi Asherman focussed on his concern of what was to come of his tape recorded words, primarily those concerning the CPT. It was, at this point, explained to Rabbi Asherman that unless otherwise stated his statements were considered on the record and suitable for publishing. Again Asherman expressed concern over his CPT related statements and requested that he be sent an advance copy of the interview prior to its publishing. It was made clear to Asherman that standard journalistic practice allows for only the editor to review a story or interview before its ultimate publishing. Asherman consented to this, courtesies were exchanged and the interview came to a formal conclusion.

Journalist Pressured not to Report Jewish Dimension of Balkan War

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Budapest, Hungary – I’m a journalist and a Jew, but it was only recently that I became a Jewish journalist.

Not by choice, mind you. It was thrust upon me. And larded with Jewish guilt, no less.

Curiously enough, it all began with Kosovo conflict.

This two-month war has spawned a number of large-type headlines: the first NATO attack on a sovereign state; the first mass exodus of refugees in Europe since the Holocaust; and the first post-Cold War standoff between Russia and America.

But far from front pages is a story that is perhaps only of interest to Jewish audiences – the possible demise of two more Jewish communities in the Balkans.

As bombs rain down on Yugoslavia, Serb forces continue to kill, loot and expel ethnic Albanians from their homes. The refugees pour over the border into Macedonia (among other places) and threaten to tip the country’s own delicate ethnic balance.

All the instability has Jews in both states considering flight to safer havens.

Sounds pretty straightforward, no? Who wouldn’t want to get the heck out – especially if you had the connections to do so?

Now here’s the rub. Despite traditionally friendly relations with their countrymen, these Jews fear their exodus may be denounced by their neighbors as a “betrayal” of the nation. That would unleash anti-Semitism, which would further discourage these Jews from ever returning home. In reporting on their fate for the NY-based Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), I have been torn by the following issue: present “the facts” and “the truth” of their plight, or assume a partisan role that feels, to me, like something bordering on complicity.

Is my first obligation to you, the reader, or to the safety of these small, nervous Jewish communities? For in this case, the two objectives are incompatible, even diametrically opposed.

My father, of course, had some wisdom to share. Quoting my deceased grandmother, a Hungarian Holocaust survivor, he emailed me: “Do nothing that might harm a single hair on any Jew’s head.”

So, journalistic credos be damned!

But as a committed, career journalist, the choice isn’t so clear-cut. For five years I’ve been a freelancer based in Budapest, writing mostly for, among others, JTA and the Christian Science Monitor. (Quite a tandem, religiously speaking.)

But the events of March 24 shattered my illusion of neutral observation – environmental conditioning notwithstanding. On that day, NATO launched airstrikes against Yugoslavia. In turn, Serbs accelerated their ethnic cleansing of Albanians from the southern province of Kosovo.

And within hours, busloads of Yugoslav Jews were on the road to Budapest, 250 miles north. They’d been invited by the Hungarian Jewish community, a plan that was kept hush-hush. I only learned of it days later, after JTA, informed by other sources, ran a short bulletin on its newswire. Now JTA wanted me to follow up with a feature story.

On Monday morning, March 29, I walked to the local Jewish community center, a couple blocks away from my apartment in downtown Budapest. Overnight, the airy, newly renovated center had been transformed into a hostel. And instead of its normal quiet – until dozens of Holocaust survivors stroll in for their afternoon card games – the place was bustling with 150 or so Jewish youth and older women, speaking Serbo-Croatian.

The din didn’t last long.

When the crowd saw me approaching with pen and notepad, they became edgy and suspicious. I asked to be de-briefed by the local representative of the Joint Distribution Committee – which was offering assistance to the newcomers – and by the Yugoslav group’s appointed spokeswoman.

And soon, the stonewalling began.

After a few general details of the situation, the Joint rep, normally a media-friendly type, suggested we wait a few hours until “we” received clearance from headquarters in New York. Then I could go ahead with my story. I politely informed him that, regardless, I would be writing an article that day.

Next came the spokeswoman, who is also head of the Jewish women’s organization back in Belgrade, the Yugoslav capital. From the outset, she insisted that her contingent not be referred to (and consequently stigmatized) as “refugees.” They were, she said, officially “tourists,” and wished to be described as such. (Later, a second Joint official suggested I refer to them with the awkward phrase “bombing escapees.”) I wondered aloud about the definition of refugee: one who seeks refuge, no? And this group certainly fit the bill – here they were, welcome and safe in serene Budapest; meanwhile, back home, family and friends were tormented each night by air-raid sirens and bone-rattling bombs.

I told the spokeswoman that frankly, I’d have trouble playing along with the “tourist” euphemism. But her reasoning was clear: Nationalists could easily twist and sensationalize the news of their departure, and portray them as “traitors.”

And that, of course, would make life more miserable for the 3,000 Jews remaining in Yugoslavia. This, after all, is a totalitarian state where media is so tightly controlled – and libel and slander are alien concepts. Once you’ve been branded a traitor, there’s little hope of defending yourself.

Still, I wondered if this woman wasn’t being just a bit overly paranoid. “They’ll read what we’re saying,” she said, through the Yugoslav Embassy in DC.

I scoffed: if it were in the New York Times or Washington Post, sure. But why would any Yugoslav read JTA?

Besides, I thought, who could blame someone for leaving? Any other Yugoslav citizen would do the same – especially if they had the cash or connections. (Indeed, tens of thousands of Serbs are camped out in Hungary’s hotels, and Serbo-Croatian can be heard throughout Budapest’s streets and cafes.) The real reason for the spokeswoman’s anxiety, then, is that Jews – especially those in Eastern Europe – know better than anyone that in a flash, anti-Semitism can rear its ugly head. Anytime, anywhere. Yugoslav and Macedonian Jewry, like so many of their European counterparts, were decimated by the Holocaust. (It must be noted, however, the deed was not carried out by homegrown fascists).

Then came four decades of repressive Communism: the public was conditioned to never challenge authority, or else pay a price – like unemployment, prison or even death.

That’s why the president of the Yugoslav Jewish community, himself a Holocaust survivor, instructed this spokeswoman not to utter a single politically oriented comment while abroad.

So the more I probed, the more nervous she became. She didn’t want her name used. Then she wanted to retract much of what she’d already told me. Soon, a crowd formed around us; from all sides I was being pressured not to write anything at all.

I tried to explain my predicament.

How could I act as if I had not seen these people? Their very reaction – their fear of exposure – convinced me this was even more of a “story.” How could I conceal the fact there were Jews in the world who felt endangered? Moreover – and from a practical, but purely competitive standpoint – I’d just learned from someone in the crowd that the Israeli and Hungarian media had also gotten whiff of their exodus.

Their story would get out one way or another, I told them.

Understandably, the Jews surrounding me were unsympathetic to my cause. After all, this was their life I was writing about. And here I was, upset about mere journalistic principles.

“As a Jew,” they pleaded, “you have certain responsibilities.”

They were right, of course. But I didn’t like it. Deflated, I managed a couple more half-hearted interviews (names and identities withheld, of course) and headed home.

I still had an article to write. My thoughts raced as I outlined how I’d word it. As soon as I got home, I fired off an elaborate email to my editors, describing the pickle I was in. (They would later tell me to proceed, but cautiously.)

And then I wrote. Among other points, I danced around the “refugee” vs. “tourist” distinction; touched on their anxiety about the loyalty issue; and went to great lengths to illustrate the Jewish community’s fondness for Yugoslavia and their desire to return home soon.

No lies, mind you. Just a case of emphasizing certain angles, downplaying others. It was an article I could live with.

The only slip up – in the eyes of the Yugoslav Jews and Joint officials who read it later – was to quote an unnamed young woman as saying “Milosevic is a jerk” among her comments.

Too political, I was told later. Too dangerous.

Over the next couple of weeks, I wondered how the Jews in Macedonia were holding up. I’d visited them a year and a half earlier, and was impressed with how actively this small, tight-knit community – officially 190 members – was in preserving its identity, history and traditions.

However, early on in the Kosovo crisis, JTA had reported that eight university-age men from the community had fled to neighboring Sofia, Bulgaria. (Not true, I was later told.) And I’d been reading in the papers how the influx of Kosovo Albanians was exacerbating relations between the Macedonian majority and its own large, restive population of ethnic Albanians.

When I finally met Macedonia’s Jews a few days later, in mid-April, it was deja vu all over again. I’ll spare you all the details, but it was more linguistic acrobatics. I was free to ask them anything, they said, but they wouldn’t tell me everything. Again, the truth was too risky – it might rile the neighbors.

My meeting with community leaders was two hours of cat and mouse: I chiseled away for nuggets of information; they responded diplomatically, with grand but bland statements like “Jews have always shared the fate of the Macedonians.” Later, someone finally stumbled and admitted that the Bulgarian Jews in Sofia – like the Hungarian Jews in Budapest – had offered some sort of escape route, just in case.

Today, it seems that offer may come in handy. Most people I spoke with during my week in Macedonia – Macedonians, Albanians, Jews and others – predicted that their country, too, was ripe for civil war. Tomorrow, perhaps, or in 10 years.

So that’s what I wrote for JTA.

What, then, are the lessons learned from these two experiences?

I still wrestle with the moral dimensions of the question: does publishing the truth serve the greater good? I think it does. Certainly, heeding grandma’s words, I don’t want to be the cause of harm to any hair on any head.

But in this case, writing that everything is honky-dory within Yugoslavia and Macedonia – for Jews or any other minority – only misleads the outside world. And sadly, it is the outside world that will be needed to resolve these conflict.

After living in Central Europe for six years, I’ve learned close-up about this Jewish tendency to avoid “making waves.” Yet it’s a hopeless Catch-22. A synagogue is vandalized, or a politician says something anti-Semitic. Rather than speak up — for fear of making it worse — they suffer in silence. Which means no one knows there’s a problem, so it happens again. I’d wager that if a reporter had asked the Hungarian Jews (my favorite example, for familial reasons), how they were doing in early 1944, I’d bet they would have responded — on the record — with an enthusiastic “Fine. No problem.”

Within a few months, of course, half a million were dead.

Today must be different.

Writing about the dilemma Yugoslav Jews face today – as of this writing, up to 500 have made their way to Budapest; some are considering aliya to Israel – has helped mobilize numerous international Jewish groups.

But more importantly, it illustrates the precarious situation confronting all minorities in the Balkans.

These conflicts are not simply about ethnic hatred between Serbs and Albanians, or Macedonians and Albanians. It is more the overall lack of respect for human rights, and a general lack of democratic tradition, culture and institutions.

Which is what spurred Western intervention in the first place – and will, hopefully, continue to do so in the future.

The author, a New Jersey native, can be emailed at michaeljjordan@csi.com , tel/fax (+36-1) 332-1640.

1...1,1631,1641,165...1,201Page 1,164 of 1,201

Column from the Director

David Bedein
David Bedein
2478 POSTS6 COMMENTS
Michael Kuttner
Michael Kuttner
431 POSTS0 COMMENTS
Rochel Grosz
Rochel Grosz
1 POSTS1 COMMENTS
daniel
daniel
0 POSTS0 COMMENTS
© A WEBstationONE.com production, partially funded by the Internet Development Fund and the IDF Link technology.

© 2003-2020 All rights reserved. Articles and Special Reports on IsraelBehindTheNews.com are copyrighted. Every reader is welcome to reprint any and all articles, and with citation.