It is hard to imagine what it is like to be an Israeli soldier in the occupied territories.  Most soldiers who served in the Gaza Strip or in the West Bank do not enjoy discussing their military experiences - it reminds them of a long and endless nightmare.  And the media, on its end, covers events like Palestinian riots, settlers from Hebron harassing Palestinians, or soldiers capturing terrorists and discovering smuggling tunnels, but does not convey a picture of what it is like to be an occupier on a daily basis.  However, in the past few years, through the voices, photographs, and testimonies of soldiers - both men and women - the mundane, yet alarming, life of soldiers, settlers, and Palestinians in the occupied territories has become more imaginable.

The testimonies, which have been collected in the past ten years, paint a very complex picture of soldiers who are but 18, 19, or 20 years old.  The soldiers have to manage interactions with the Palestinian residents, search for terrorists and prevent impending terrorist attacks, protect the settlers, and cope with few hours of sleep.  Soldiers easily find themselves angry, desperate, bored, or frustrated, and sometimes take it out on the Palestinians.  At times when things get too quiet, soldiers provoke Palestinians to act (like making them throw stones at the soldiers) in order to react, following the concept of: "peace and quiet is not necessarily good, and if there isn't mayhem... create it."  A female soldier frequently faces chauvinism or isolation, and even more so if she criticizes the soldiers' misconduct, which the testimonies recount:  by releasing frustration by beating up Palestinians - sometimes even kids and elders; confiscating car keys from Palestinians without explanation; making Palestinians detainees sing the Israeli anthem; throwing rotten vegetables at passer-bys on a donkey-cart; searching houses in the middle of the night, throwing contents onto the floor, mocking the owner, and on the way out taking "house souvenirs," "[but] nothing too big"; shooting Palestinians who come too close to the border fence in the "air of their lungs" instead of first shooting in the air in order to alert them; photographing Palestinians corpses, and then using these photos as computer screen savers on the base.

Did you know that these behaviors occur with some regularity?  Did you know this could be the reality that some soldiers face in the occupied territories during their military service?  Neither did I until five years ago when I saw Breaking the Silence's first exhibit in Tel Aviv and was startled by what I observed and heard.  Breaking the Silence was started by a group of young soldiers who had served in Hebron.  The soldiers reflected upon their service in the occupied territories by asking themselves who they became, what they had done, and how their friends acted during their three years of military service.  In 2004, realizing that most Israelis are unaware of the various aspects of soldiers' service in the territories, they took upon themselves the responsibility to expose the public to the routine life of an Israeli soldier as an occupier.  Their aim was to stimulate public debate about the moral price that Israeli society as a whole has been paying for a reality of young soldiers controlling the lives of an occupied population.  The founding exhibit featured photos from "normal life" scenes in Hebron, displayed dozens of keys from confiscated Palestinians cars, screened soldiers' testimonies, and told their personal stories.  

Breaking the Silence grew as an organization and became more active throughout the Second War in Lebanon and the War in Gaza.  As the territories remain occupied, Breaking the Silence has published more than six hundred testimonies of soldiers in the last decade.  The new Israeli government, and even more so the IDF, are livid about these testimonies, claiming that they are all baseless.  Moreover, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself has already urged European governments to cease financial aid to groups of this kind.  Referring to Breaking the Silence, the Prime Minister said, "There is no silence to break; what are they talking about?"

A few weeks ago, Breaking the Silence - together with fifteen other organizations (all New Israel Fund grantees) - was singled out by a relatively new purportedly-Zionist group named Im Tirtzu ("If you will it").  The group criticized these organizations for having supplied materials cited in the Goldstone Report, maintaining that these materials effectively marred the image of Israel, and accusing them of airing Israel's "dirty laundry."

The "dirty laundry" - the testimonies published by Breaking the Silence - are not easy to read, nor is the notion that loss of control and humanity could happen to any Israeli teenager in his or her obligatory military service.  But preventing the airing of "dirty laundry" cannot be a legitimate concept in a civilized democracy.  First, a true democracy will strive to abide by the rules of national and international law, thus avoiding the aforementioned misconduct.  Second, if the rules are broken, there should be a governmental body that investigates the matter, punishes, and publicly deters.  And last, if no governmental organization fills that role, it is not only legitimate, but morally necessary for citizens to fill the void -- to advocate for increased transparency, for better military conduct, and for increased awareness in the public of the moral and social costs of the occupation.  Breaking the Silence fills this void as it plays a dual role - serving as an ear for the soldiers and as their mouth to the public.

On Saturday, February 20^th 7:00-9:00pm at the Columbia University Hillel, the New Israel Fund will host Dana Golan, the executive director of Breaking the Silence, who will elaborate about the organization's role in shaping Israeli society and its democratic values.  The event will feature a documentary about Breaking the Silence's work and will focus on women soldiers' experiences in the occupied territories.  This will be a great opportunity to learn more about this fascinating topic and to support Breaking the Silence.  To RSVP for the event, please go to the NIF's site: http://nif.org/IDFwomen.

Haaretz reported this morning that the Israeli Defense Force's Major General Avi Zamir has recently declared his lastest target: supermodel and Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue cover girl Bar Refaeli. At a lecture he gave at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Zamir explained his frustration at not being able to punish Refaeli for supposedly avoiding her mandatory army service by marrying an older man believed to be a family friend.

At the time of their quickie wedding Bar was 18, and her now ex-hubby was 37. In America she'd be just another gold digger, but in Israel this behavior is apparently cause for a boycott. While avoiding serving in the army is not respected in Israeli culture, Zamir took his disrespect and turned aggressive, encouraging Israelis to boycott products that use Refaeli in their advertisements, including Israeli denim company, Fox. "We are a society that has an army," Zamir explained, "and Bar Refaeli doesn't have to participate in ads for Fox - and if she advertises Fox than you shouldn't buy their products."

Zamir is accurate in stating that his country, as most do, has an army and he is also right in saying that Refaeli did not have to participate in the Fox campaign. In fact, that may be the best part about the current state of Bar's career - having achieved outrageous success in her field, she now never has to appear in an advertisement that she would prefer not to. It seems Refaeli is nowhere near as ashamed as Zamir would like her to be for avoiding serving in the IDF and for that reason alone - let's never wear Fox jeans again. 

Being only one of possibly thousands who avoid IDF service, Bar Refaeli seems to be taking the brunt of the military's disdain on the matter. Zamir closed with an ever more aggressive, yet unintentionally hilarious quip: "She is the one who has to look at herself in the mirror." Zamir is right again - Bar does have to look at herself in the mirror each morning, but I can guarantee her reflection is far more enchanting and seductive than any other Israeli who recently dodged their IDF service. C'mon Maj. Gen. Zamir - don't hate Bar cause she's beautiful.

For the second time in the past year, I tracked down Natalie Portman at a public appearance in New York City and asked her about connections between her Jewish faith and her vegan diet. After the world's most famous Jewish vegan took the topic in a different direction in April, I asked her a much more direct question as part of The New York Times' Arts & Leisure Weekend on Saturday night.

While performing my journalistic duty as a Jewish-vegan blogger, I learned several fascinating things. First, Natalie loves the name "heebnvegan." (I somehow managed to maintain my composure when she said this.) Second, she apparently remembers our initial encounter. Third, she sees her decision not to take animals' lives for food as the core of her Judaism. Finally, she thinks vegetarian food in Israel and California is excellent, but unlike the world's second-most famous Jewish vegan, she finds New York vegetarian food disappointing.

Below is a transcript of our conversation during the Q&A portion of the event.

Continue reading...

The following is an open letter I have sent to several officials in the Israeli government. In short, influenced by Henry David Thoreau and Thomas Paine (among others), I have declared war on the IDF. 

(The illustration is Benjamin Franklin's proposal for the Seal of the United States (see here and here). According to Franklin's own description of his design,

Moses standing on the Shore, and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his Head and a Sword in his Hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses, to express that he acts by Command of the Deity. Motto: Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.

Update: I could explain why this notice of Franklin's Seal is woefully mismatched with the IDF Seal that is actually shown. But instead of explaining this discrepancy, I thought it'd be more fun to instead just put a reference to Robert Silverberg's foreword to Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials by Wayne Douglas Barlowe. I'm serious. Really, I'm not kidding. A book about extraterrestrials explains why an IDF Seal is explained as being Franklin's for the United States. Really. Rully truly.

The subject of my letter is concerning my conscientious objection from IDF service, and the disobeying of orders to perform West Bank expulsions. Now, Henry David Thoreau, in his "Civil Disobedience", explained his civil disobedience in the cause of abolition of slavery, but he never explained why slavery itself is evil; he took this for granted. Similarly, I wish to take it for granted that "land-for-peace" is folly and unwise on purely security grounds. I do not wish to argue this point, because the point of my letter is not justifying my opposition to land-for-peace, but rather, I wish to focus on my own personal civil disobedience and conscientious objection in the wake of land-for-peace. But briefly, two stories:

In fact, the muezzins (Muslim prayer callers) in Hebron had for days been yelling "Itbah al yahud" ("Slaughter on the Jews!"). Days before the Baruch Goldstein massacre, the IDF had told Goldstein (who was an IDF physician) to stockpile medical supplies, in expectation of an Arab massacre. Goldstein asked the IDF why they wouldn't stop the massacre in advance, and the IDF replied that Oslo tied their hands. Jewish lives were going to be sacrificed on the altar of Oslo. (Related in Moshe Feiglin, Where There are No Men.)

The very day of Oslo, my rabbi was driving from Jerusalem to his home in Beit El (in the West Bank). On the way, the IDF stopped him and diverted him to a side-road. My rabbi asked why he couldn't take the main road anymore to Beit El. Remember, this is the very day Oslo occurred. The IDF told my rabbi that the main road was no longer safe to drive on, because of Oslo. The very day of Oslo, the IDF already recognized that Oslo compromised the safety of innocent human life. My rabbi added that he had been a kashrut supervisor (mashgiah) in an Arab factory, but that Oslo made it too dangerous for him to travel to the factory anymore, and thus, the Arab factory's kashrut certification lapsed. Because of Oslo, this personal (and potentially peace-inspiring) interaction between Arabs and Jews ceased. (Related to me by my rabbi, Rabbi Menachem Listman, of Machon Meir, Jerusalem.)

The following sources will also provide a glimpse at why I oppose land-for-peace, based on security and safety grounds:
--- "The Late Great State of Israel", Aaron Klein, The Jewish Press, here
--- "The Late Great State of Israel", Jamie Glazov, FrontPageMag, here
--- "New Book By Aaron Klein Pulls No Punches", Jason Maoz, The Jewish Press, here
--- "The Late Great State of Israel", Lori Lowenthal Marcus, American Thinker, here
--- "The Late Great State of Israel: How Enemies Without and Within Threaten the Jewish Nation's Survival", Fern Sidman, Intellectual Conservative, here.
But as I said, I do not wish to argue the justice or safety of Oslo per se, because the point of my letter is not justifying my opposition to land-for-peace. I only wish to focus on my own personal civil disobedience and conscientious objection in the wake of land-for-peace. 

 

It is important to note that in the letter,I use the term "liberal" in it true denotational sense, not in its modern (and false) connotational sense of being left-wing or Democratic. Wiktionary defines "liberal" as "Favoring social freedom; permissive" and as "Favoring ideas that treat all people with equal justice regardless of educational, financial, sexual or racial status." Wiktionary defines "liberalism" as "any political movement founded on the autonomy and personal freedom of the individual, progress and reform, and government by law with the consent of the governed." It is in these senses that I am liberal, and it in rejecting these views that Israeli leftists are illiberal fascists.

My letter follows. I have made a few very small additions, which are enclosed in brackets [].

-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------

Hello. 

I was discussing conscientious objection by IDF soldiers, their refusal to follow immoral orders to expel Jews from their homes in the West Bank. My friend "Max" responded to me,

Of course, it would be ideal for the IDF to identify soldiers who have moral qualms about carrying out certain West Bank actions AHEAD of time, so that the IDF can place them in a unit or role that will most likely not have to deal with such things.

 

To be honest, I've decided to entirely forgo serving in the IDF myself. For me, it is not enough to merely not perform expulsions myself. I do not want to be complicit in an IDF that performs such expulsions at all, even if I'm myself not the one doing them. Besides, if I serve in the IDF, even without performing expulsions myself, I am doing a job that frees up a position for someone else to perform an expulsion. As Henry David Thoreau says in his landmark and highly influential essay "Civil Disobedience" (online here; this essay was the direct inspiration for Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr.), "What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn." By serving in the IDF, I am at least indirectly allowing expulsions to take place. Thoreau further adds [regarding his aunt's bailing him from prison by paying on his behalf the poll tax which he himself was jailed for refusing to pay]:

If others pay the tax which is demanded of me, from a sympathy with the State, they do but what they have already done in their own case, or rather they abet injustice to a greater extent than the State requires. If they pay the tax from a mistaken interest in the individual taxed, to save his property, or prevent his going to jail, it is because they have not considered wisely how far they let their private feelings interfere with the public good.

Continue reading...

In an event already being declared a breakthrough in Arab political identity and self-esteem by media outlets throughout the Middle East, Islamic resistance group Hamas secured the return of 20 Palestinian female prisoners held in Israeli jails, in exchange for a video of a single, emaciated Jew.

Hamas-leader-in-exile Khaled Meshal said during a speech-in-exile in Damascus that the exchange represented the greatest-ever affirmation of the sanctity that the Arab world places upon its prisoners, and the righteousness of their sacrifice.

"Imagine if we send them a fingernail, we could free every prisoner in Israel", Meshal told the crowd at Martyrs' square in the Martyrs' Heights neighborhood of Damascus, before mumbling something about "Zionist vampires" hijacking his Twitter feed.

In later statements made to an AP writer in Damascus, Meshal said he had received "unconfirmed proof" that Israeli agents had implanted a GPS tracking device in the left breast of each prisoner, in order to better facilitate future punitive air strikes on their homes and sleeping children.

The Gaza newspaper "Palestine", which secured a choice product placement in the video, reported that all 20 prisoners were currently undergoing reprogramming in UNRWA-run schools in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in order to expunge the trade school certifications and high school equivalency exams they completed while in the prisons of the Zionist entity.

On Friday, Palestinian families throughout the West Bank rejoiced in the glory of their loved ones' return home, with many saying it was their happiest day since the last of their regular visits to them in Israeli prison.

Also Friday, relatives of Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit celebrated their first view of their son since he was kidnapped in a cross-border raid by Hamas in 2006, saying that the three years without any contact or confirmation of his well-being and Hamas' refusal to allow Red Cross visits made viewing the 2:42 video all the sweeter.

 

Benjamin L. Hartman is an editor at Haaretz.com, the English Web site of Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz

Kim Chernin is the author of Everywhere a Guest, Nowhere at Home: A New Vision of Israel and Palestine. She is guest-blogging this week on Jewcy, and this is her first post.

I am worried about us, the whole community of us, American Jews who have lost the ability to hold a reasonable discussion. I became aware of this as I was writing a book about Israel and Palestine. I had published many books before so it is customary, when I run into old friends or acquaintances, to be asked what I'm working on. In the past, people didn't seem particularly impressed or interested; I guess the question was mainly polite and I learned not to answer it in too much detail.

But with this book, everything was different. The responses were often explosive and urgent, sometimes immediately embattled. I remember a few of them. "Why Palestine? Are you one of those self-hating Jews? What do you have to say that hasn't been said a hundred times already? We really need another book about Israel? I sure hope you're not going to attack Israel." Those were the negative responses from people who were not friends but belonged to a larger circle of acquaintances. It wasn't clear to me why their response was hostile before I had a chance to describe the book or my intentions for it; perhaps the word Palestine in the title sounded suspicious, as if anyone writing about both Israel and Palestine was probably not going to take Israel's side?

The positive responses sounded something like this: "Good for you. Oh, are you courageous. That's the most important topic in the world right now. Oh boy are you going to run into some angry people. I hope you're ready for a strong response." The neutral responses were few and far between. "What's your point of view? I'll be interested to find out what you are thinking." I explained, when given a chance, that my point of view was evolving; that the book was difficult to write, especially for a woman who had been a Zionist since she was a little girl, when the State of Israel was established in 1948.

Most of the discoveries I was making while doing research were about my own ignorance. I had lived in Israel for a time, I had strong opinions about Israel, but once I started to read it was clear to me how little I knew. I had a couple of basic misconceptions. I thought the Israeli army was fundamentally different than any army in the world. I took seriously that it practiced a "purity of arms." My boyfriend, when I lived in Israel, was a student at the Technion. He was studying to be an engineer but he loved poetry and was becoming interested in the Kabbalah. When he came to stay at our Kibbutz as the commander of an armed border patrol he had hair down to his shoulders, played chess in the Moadon after dinner, and was always engaged in serious discussions with members of the Kibbutz. For me, and for everyone else who met him, he embodied the idealism we wanted to associate with the Israeli army. In fact, for a long time, my entire impression of the Israeli army was based on him, and on an article I had read that Israeli soldiers cried at the funerals of their comrades and that the army higher command was debating whether this was an appropriate behavior for a soldier. Long-haired soldiers who read poetry and weep at funerals: that seemed at the time sufficient knowledge on which to base my strong opinions about Israel's fighting men.

But my reading and research were opening up other views of the Israeli army, a ferocious fighting force, the fourth largest army in the world. Israel, my little-sister country, had nuclear weapons and the largest army in the Middle East. Did that mean that Israel was perhaps less endangered than I had thought?

My other misconception concerned the Palestinians: I had thought that all of them were terrorists.

These are pretty slim qualifications for writing a book, I admit. But in their own way this these misconceptions became interesting AS the subject of a book written by a hot-headed, opinionated, ignorant author. All I had to do was turn the focus on myself, to wonder how I'd come to hold such strong opinions in the face of such blatant ignorance and to wonder whether other Jews who also were constantly getting into heated arguments about Israel might have arrived at their condition in the same way that I had. I put a lot of facts and statistics and quotations and stories and anecdotes in my book but the book remained essentially a narrative of consciousness-how it shaped itself through what it was willing to include and what it forcefully and militantly kept out of itself.

It's funny to think that one could be inspired to write a book because of one's misconceptions. But here we are.

On the same day that two of their reporters were brought home from North Korea, Current TV released this investigative piece about women in the IDF.

Best line: "Coming from the United States, where military service is still an option for females..."

Wait, does this mean the draft is mandatory for men? Because I was under the impression that the United States has a volunteer military.

 

 Hat tip: Young Manhattanite

At a glance, there really aren't that many "movements" in Judaism. Orthodox, reform, reconstructionist and conservative. That's pretty much it. Sure, there are some variations on this, but compared to the Christian world, Jews like to keep it simple.

Or do we?

I decided to jump into the proverbial rabbit-hole of Jewish Denominationalism and discovered that there are more ways of being Jewish than there ever have been before.

Secular-As-Balls:

You still don't understand WHY Jews believe in G-d. Frankly, you think the whole "G-d Thing" is irrelevant. There's nothing about being Jewish that requires religion, customs, beliefs, worship, a love for Israel or the Jewish People. But if anyone DARES to slam the Jewish People or pretend that the Holocaust didn't happen, you'll be the first to kick their ass. It's like being an older brother: you can torture your siblings all you want to. But the minute some other kid tries to pick on your kid brother/sister, you're going to pound them into the ground. You express your faith (or lack thereof) by reading Heeb Magazine and going to the opening of the new Jewish Museum in your neighborhood. Just try to avoid the rabbi at all costs!

See: anyone on the Tattoo Jew Facebook Group

Hippiedox:

The product of Orthodox or immigrant parents, you voted for Obama because he's cool like the new iPhone. Your tone of voice moves between stoner and yiddishkeit, and your love for Matisyahu at times rivals the Lubavitcher Rebbe. You're more comfortable at Whole Foods than you are around your conservative in-laws, but you still feel a sense of sadness when a non-kosher restaurant opens near your shul. Kabbalah is your favorite pastime, because it's like being on a permanent acid trip.

See: Shemspeed, FrumSatire and "that guy" on the Birthright Israel trip.

 

Chabad-Could-It-Be: Thanks to Chabad's supply chain of eager rabbis, your small town of approximately ten Jews just got an Orthodox shul. Too bad for you that you have a shaved head, love bacon and still don't know what a mezzuzah is. But because you feel a cultural connection to Judaism, you decide to start attending services. You really hate the religio-political attitude of Chabadniks, but because this movement offers you the "real" Judaism that you cannot muster for yourself, you keep going back as an atonement for all the Friday nights you spent playing X-Box instead of reading the Good Book.

See: any Jew living west of the Mississippi river and east of Phoenix, Arizona.

 

Trans(gender) Denominational: You're an activist within Judaism. You want to reform (no pun intended) every corner of the Jewish World. Your obsession with Tikkun Olam really has nothing to do repairing the world as a whole, but instead concentrating on key issues within Judaism. Such examples include gay/lesbian rights, trans-inclusion, gender feminism, environmentalism and animal rights. You can't settle on one shul because they just don't address your "issues". Like a serial monogamist, you fall in love with one synagogue/rabbi and work the hell out of it until there is nothing left, then move onto another hot affair.

See: Union For Progressive Judaism, Barney Frank, and Kosherveg.com.

 

PolitiKosher: You love Israel. In fact, you're IN LOVE with Israel. There's something about the desert, the ruins, the graffiti and the bombs that just gives you this tingling feeling in your stomach. You think the Palestinians are secretly plotting your death and that if Netanyahu could just get his act together, the Messiah will surely come. Hopefully that person is you. Just in case, you've got your passport and a duffle bag filled with tallit ready to go.

See: Friends of the IDF, the Libi Fund and anyone wearing an "I Love The IDF" T-shirt.

 

Deconstructionist Judaism: Innovation is the tradition of the Jewish faith, and you are its greatest champion. You believe that G-d has a great sense of humor and personally marvels at your creative thinking skills. You pioneered such moments in Judaism as the chocolate seder, dog and cat bar mitzvahs, and menorahs hacked together from leftover Ikea stuff. You express your Judaism by taking Jewish ideas and making them better.

See: Moderntribe.com, Rabbi Laura Baum, Mel Brooks.

Many religions approach their movements like a ladder: the higher up you climb, the more "authentic" your faith. And generally speaking, the more conservative practice is usually what you're striving for. Judaism has a motto of horizontally-intergrated faith. A belief that Judaism is not a climb to the top, but rather a continuum that you place yourself on. More liberal? Slide to the left! More Orthodox, then move to the right.

Judaism, for me, is more like a spider web. A spider web starts by having a few pillars to hold it together. From these platforms, the spider is able to weave its web to the center. The purpose: to catch what the spider needs in order to survive. If one of the pillars that the web is connected to simply cannot hold the web, then the creative little spider finds a new anchor. If someone breaks the web from the inside, then the spider repairs it, differently than it was originally created. Still, the web stays intact. And every spider web is different, just like everyone's Judaism.

Once permission has been given to the destroyer to do harm, it does not discriminate between the guilty and the innocent. (Mechilta, Bo)

Today the NY Times reported on an issue that has gripped the Israeli press and public for some time now:

In the two months since Israel ended its military assault on Gaza...testimony is emerging from within the ranks of soldiers and officers alleging a permissive attitude toward the killing of civilians and reckless destruction of property...On Thursday, the military’s chief advocate general ordered an investigation into a soldier’s account of a sniper killing a woman and her two children who walked too close to a designated no-go area by mistake, and another account of a sharpshooter who killed an elderly woman who came within 100 yards of a commandeered house.

In reading these accounts, I'm especially struck by the powerfully defensive reaction of many within Israel - insisting that these were either isolated incidents or that they were simply untrue. Witness Defense Minister Barak's recent statement on Israel radio:

The Israeli Army is the most moral in the world, and I know what I’m talking about because I know what took place in the former Yugoslavia, in Iraq.

I don't know if Israel's army is the "most moral" in the world. I'm not sure if I even know what that means. I don't know what we really expect when we train young men and women to kill, give them the most sophisticated killing instruments on earth, then demonize their enemies before sending them off to battle.

Israel has long claimed its army follows the military war ethic of Tohar Haneshek ("Purity of Arms"). Whether or not this was ever true, there is seems to be growing evidence that in the heat of battle (or if you prefer, the "fog of war"), the difference between "legal killing" and "war crimes" becomes increasingly fuzzy to those who wield the weapons. And I'm fairly sure that this is the case whether or not the soldiers in question happen to be Jewish.

Even more disturbing are the reports from Israeli soldiers that the Israeli rabbinate is urging them to view this conflict as nothing less than a holy war. Richard Silverstein, blogging over at Tikkun Olam, has translated some of the Hebrew press accounts, uncovering this jaw-dropping testimony from a commander named Ran:

The military rabbis sent us lots of material and in these articles the message was clear: we are the nation of Israel.  We arrived by a miracle in Israel.  God returned us to the Land (of Israel).  Now we must battle to remove the non-Jews who disturb us in our conquest of the Holy Land.  That was the main message.  And the sense of many of the soldiers in this operation was that it was a religious war.  From my perspective as a commander, I tried to talk about politics and various strains within Palestinian society.  That not everyone in Gaza was Hamas and not every resident wants to conquer us.  I wanted to explain to them that this war was not about Kiddush Hashem (sanctifying the name of God), but about stopping Qassam fire.

Expect more horrifying news in the coming weeks...

Dr. Max Nordau, the apostle of muscle-Jewry, was also an avid Zionist and friend of Theodor Herzl, but they differed on how long it would take to get the Jews in shape for independence. As Herzl wrote in his diary on November 19, 1895:

Nordau, it would seem, is completely won over to the cause. My talk with him concerns objections in the higher realms; "If the Jews are anthropologically fit for nationhood?-and the like.

Experience will tell.

Nordau thinks that the plan will need three hundred years for its realization.

I believe thirty--provided the idea makes headway.

Nordau seems to have thought that the Jewish body had to evolve in the Darwinian sense before they could be ready--something that would have taken a lot more than 300 years. Herzl's diary entry on September 3, 1897, contained this boast: "If I were to sum up the [First Zionist] Congress in a word...I founded the Jewish state. If I said this out loud today I would be greeted by universal laughter. In five years perhaps, and certainly in fifty years, everyone will perceive it."

Exactly 50 years and 87 days later, on November 29, 1947, the UN partition vote created the Jewish state; Israel's nationhood was proclaimed on May 14 the next year. It was not evolution, it was revolution, and it was in large part a revolution of the body.  

Between1904 and 1914 an estimated 40,000 Jews came to Israel. One, Aaron David Gordon, was a founder of the first kibbutz, Degania. Like many Zionists, he thought a major part of the Jewish "problem" was that Jews had an unhealthy alienation from physical labor on the soil. At his death in 1922, he was widely known in Israel as an old man with a long white beard who farmed in the fields of the kibbutz all day and led the young men and women in song and dance at night.

But all was not song, dance, and working the soil. Causes of death ranged from malaria through suicide; there were Arab attacks, and Jews in the older settlements had hired Bedouin and Arab guards - basically, a protection racket in which Jews paid Arabs not to attack them. In 1907 a group of ten Jews began to protect themselves, and their success led to an expanded multi-settlement organization called Ha-Shomer - the Guard. They dressed as Arabs and spoke Arabic well but slung bandoliers of bullets across their chests like Mexican revolutionaries. They were good horsemen, considered both fierce and fair by the Bedouin, and their motto said it all: "By blood and fire Judah fell, by blood and fire Judah will rise up."

The rest, like they say, is history. European Jewry was doomed, and the Zionists who had foreseen that doom took the helm of Jewish destiny. Six million Jewish bodies were crushed by the Nazi murder machine and millions more were permanently hurt in mind and body by the ravages of deliberately inflicted starvation, disease, beatings, loss, humiliation, and more. The Jewish body took on a new element in the form of a tattooed number on the arms of survivors, and this indelible mark on that body will not only outlive them, it will stand out forever in our collective memory as emblematic of what happens when Jews allow others to define their bodies.

Of the remnant, hundreds of thousands went to Israel and followed their Zionist predecessors into blood and fire. But Judah did rise up, and the martial courage and prowess of the new Israeli Jews stunned the world, friend and foe. For Jewish Americans, only a tiny fraction of whom joined those fights, the success of the new Jewish body in the uniform of the IDF would recreate the pride of the distant past.

In the tiny historical space of a single lifetime, Jews have experienced the greatest physical weakness and vulnerability in their long, often tragic history, both as a people and as individual bodies. After centuries of relying on mind, faith, and spirit, they discovered that no matter how good your mind is, bodily weakness is still dangerous. In the same single lifetime they have also experienced their greatest historical strength, giving the lie to millennial slanders about their physical fortitude and courage.

Strength is better.

 

Melvin Konner's website is www.jewsandothers.com, See the videotrailer for his new book, The Jewish Body here: http://www.nextbook.org/bookseries/title.html?bookid=25 and listen to a podcast here: http://www.nextbook.org/cultural/feature.html?id=3175

The elite of the elite.Fredrik recently finished basic training in the 51^st Battalion of the Golani Brigade. Together with thousands of other soldiers he is waiting on a base a few miles from Gaza, ready to be deployed in case the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas collapses. The only difference is that he is not an Israeli citizen, or even Jewish. He is a 29-year-old Swedish Pentecostal Christian.

Fredrik came to Israel for the first time nine years ago as a tourist. "It was love at first sight. I stepped out of the airplane, looked around and felt that this was a country I could die for." He returned to his small Swedish hometown, where his father serves as a pastor in the local Pentecostal church. "I always commit 100% to things that I do and I felt strongly that this is where God wanted me to be," he explains, so he wrapped up his own career as a youth pastor and moved to Israel. The love he felt for the land was uncompromising.

Soon after his arrival, a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up along with 21 young Israelis in a discotheque in Tel Aviv. "Suddenly I realized that not everybody is nice," Fredrik says with a touch of irony. "When I was called up to do army service in Sweden, I had refused to carry a gun."

After having experienced terrorism up close he stopped being a pacifist. "I realized that there are situations when one needs to use weapons to defend oneself."

That insight led him to an IDF conscription office in the summer of 2001, where he explained that he wanted to join the IDF. He received a resounding no for an answer, since he was not an Israeli citizen, nor Jewish. He was not even a legal resident, only a tourist.

Continue reading...

Though rockets continue to land in Israel every day, and Israel continues to drop bombs in Gaza, most of the media seems to have gotten bored with the situation and moved on to other things. Welcome to intractability! Where the exciting becomes deadening.

Two groups have not lost interest yet: the Spanish court system and the Hague, both of which are laying the groundwork for pursuing war crimes cases against Israel. The allegations surround the use of white phosphorous, which some Palestinian and international groups claim was inappropriate. Ha'aretz has details:

The IDF is itself currently investigating whether a reserve paratroops brigade made improper use of phosphorus shells during the 22-day offensive against Hamas in Gaza.

The brigade fired about 20 such shells in a built-up area of northern Gaza.

Aside from this one case, the shells were used very sparingly and, in the army's view, in compliance with international law.

No one knows yet what exactly happened in that instance. It's important to note that white phosphorous is not itself illegal under international law, and that the Red Cross has so far sided with Israel in the public debate (i.e. that Israel only used the agent to light up combat areas, not directly against enemy combatants or civilians).

The question: if they are found to have used white phosphorous inappropriately, should these soldiers be prosecuted for war crimes?

Argument for: White phosphorous is an incredibly inhumane weapon. It burns clean through anything it touches, including human flesh and bone, unless its oxygen supply is cut off. It is indiscriminate and extremely difficult to escape -- if it was used as a weapon it likely injured or killed many civilians. Israel, in compliance with international law, explicitly bans its use in this fashion. Any soldiers who were using it this way violated the laws of their own country as well as the laws of international human rights. In other words, this was not an innocent mistake -- the soldiers knew that they were breaking the law, and they chose to proceed anyway.  Israel has an obligation to give these men and women up to the ICC.

Argument against: The legacy of "Cast Lead" is still indeterminate. The 2006 Lebanon War solidified for Israelis a feeling of impotence and helplessness that very much contributed to its Gaza operation. War crimes trials for Israeli soldiers would seal the fate of "Cast Lead" for the public as one more failure. Trials would give credence and support to the paranoia of the far-right in Israel, and their incoming governing coalition would be immensely strengthened. At a time when moderates have so much hope that Obama will part ways with Bush, Netanyahu may part ways with Olmert, leaving us with the same situation, the roles merely reversed. While those soldiers may be criminals, a prosecution by the ICC (or, again for some reason, by the Spanish) represents a potentially catastrophic failure to see the big picture. Israelis will not make concessions to Palestinians if they feel that their ability to defend themselves has been jeopardized, period. ICC prosecutions, no matter how justified, must be postponed indefinitely.

Continue reading...

IDF soldiers are given strict orders in terms of combat procedures as per IDF moral code; the IDF tells them when it is appropriate risk their lives, to save others, and to shoot. The details are numerous, but the basic outline is as follows:

IDF soldiers have three priorities in combat, and they are listed here in order of priority (all quotes in italics are taken directly from the IDF Moral Code):

1. Accomplish the mission

"The IDF soldiers view their service in the IDF as a mission; They will be ready to give their all in order to defend the state, its citizens and residents."

2. Protect oneself and comrades

"The IDF servicemen and women will act out of fraternity and devotion to their comrades, and will always go to their assistance when they need their help or depend on them, despite any danger or difficulty, even to the point of risking their lives."

"The IDF servicemen and women will act in a judicious and safe manner in all they do, out of recognition of the supreme value of human life. During combat they will endanger themselves and their comrades only to the extent required to carry out their mission."

3. Avoid collateral damage (damage to civilians and their property)

"The IDF servicemen and women will use their weapons and force only for the purpose of their mission, only to the necessary extent and will maintain their humanity even during combat."

Believe it or not, it's moral and lawful for those guns to be used. Among other things, implicit in the IDF moral code is the fact that soldiers risk their own lives in two cases: in order to accomplish a mission and in order to save the lives of their comrades. Individual soldiers are not permitted to risk their own lives in order to avoid collateral damage or to save civilians, and there is nothing peculiar or immoral about this in terms of military protocol. The United States Army, along with most standing armies, have the same principle.

The IDF warns civilians about incursions and goes through leaps and bounds to plan missions, on a strategic level, that are designed to keep civilians in mind. During Operation Cast Lead, the IDF even went as far as to reroute missiles already on their way to targets in Gaza, due to the fact that too many civilians 'gathered' (they were most likely being used as human shields by Hamas) near the original targets. Individual soldiers, however, must first accomplish their missions and protect themselves and their comrades-- these are the rules of war, and you'll be hard-pressed to find a military that does not follow the same protocol. Naturally, in this case, there are civilian casualties.

Even though the IDF's moral code is listed on its official website and is written in various publications for all to see, the IDF's PR front doesn't exactly advertise the fact that combat soldiers have a defined list of priorities that does not call for sparing the lives of civilians in all cases. Given the indisputable fact that this moral code is lawful, it should be advertised. During Operation Cast Lead, those speaking for the IDF repeatedly said that the IDF does 'everything that it can' to prevent civilian casualties. This is overwhelmingly true when it comes to senior officials planning missions, but the IDF failed to make it clear that there are situations in which it views civilian deaths as unfortunate, but justified. The obvious example is one in which civilians are killed because they were used as human shields by Hamas, who wouldn't allow them to vacate buildings, homes, schools, and other areas that Hamas used as military targets, despite having been warned before attacks by the IDF; the IDF considers these deaths to have been caused by Hamas, and rightfully so. The other example of civilian deaths that the IDF considers within the bounds of morality and legality is less obvious, and those are the deaths that happen due to a soldier's adherence to the IDF moral code and its list of priorities. Why should the IDF make this clear in the press?

The fact that IDF Moral Code is not made clear worldwide is a major part of the reason that much of the media call the IDF a bunch of liars, though not always in so many words. We say that we do everything possible to avoid civilian deaths, and next to these quotes from senior military officials, you'll find photos of dead Palestinian civilians. The truth is that, like any other military at war, we have a list of priorities. Contrary to popular belief, the principle of proportionality within the realm of international law does not relate to the number of civilians that are killed during war. Rather, it demands that the civilian casualties and property damage must be in proportion to the significance of the military target as it directly relates to the completion of military objectives. If the IDF kills 15 civilians when bombing a house that a Hamas operative once visited for a cup of tea, that is disproportionate. If , during a war whose objective is to decrease the ability for Hamas to carry out attacks against Israel, 15 civilians are killed when the IAF bombs the Hamas Government Complex, from which the planning of terror attacks occurs, this is not disproportionate. In addition, a soldier's life comes before a civilian in enemy territory, and even those that ideologically massacre principles of war in the name of 'international law' specifically when talking about the IDF, can't argue that this principle is illegal. As such, it would be to the IDF's benefit if it were forthcoming about its moral code. Those tragic photographs of dead civilians may be tragic, but why make it easy for the media to call us liars? Our moral code doesn't state that we protect civilians in all cases, and we need to explain that to the world.

Israel would have much less of an image problem if its PR front had the strength of the IDF's convictions.

From a former IDF solider:

Dear Soldier,

Here's the thing. You've got to help the children. You're not Hamas. You're better than Hamas. So act it. I once asked Abdel-Aziz Rantisi, the late, unlamented Hamas leader, if he would help an injured Jewish child if  he came across one lying on the street. He said no. And he was a pediatrician by training.

You're not Rantisi. So when you operate, operate with the children in mind. It's a burden Hamas has placed on you -- it's no joy to fight an enemy who hides behind his children. But that's what you're facing. And when you come across scenes like the one described in this Washington Post story, help the children. Yes, I'm sure the Red Cross makes things up from time to time -- they don't like you and never have -- and I'm sure some of the Palestinian self-reporting isn't accurate, but, really -- horrible things still happen, and it's your responsiblity to protect innocent people, not make their lives even more miserable. I would refer you to this Jewish prayer for the children of Gaza. Understand its message!

If you haven't read Jeff's book Prisoners, take your cyber self to Amazon right now and buy a copy. In addition to being a terrific foreign correspondent, Jeff has a talent for spotting the absurdist details of war, a trait I can't help but add is probably genetically overdetermined in writers whose ancestry derives from the Pale of the Settlement (one thinks of Isaac Babel, Vasily Grossman).

I remember hearing him speak about his experiences over a year ago in Manhattan. If you want a sense of the surrealism of the modern Middle East, consider the following anecdote he related. As a guard at Ketziot Prison in the Negev, Jeff had struck up a few odd but rewarding friendships with Fatah militants, one of whom carried the amity well beyond the walls of his cell (I'm not sure if holiday cards and birthday announcements were exchanged, but they might have been).

Years later Jeff, now an established American reporter, was traveling through the Gaza when he realized he was being followed by a car carrying some farouche, gun-wielding toughs, and that his own driver was making all the wrong turns. Having been kidnapped once before, and being well aware of how these things usually go down in Palestine, he panicked. Then he hit upon a good idea: Call his old inmate friend, who was now in a senior security position in the PLO. The guy answered right away (how's that for Jeff's press clout?), and started laughing. I have to paraphrase the conversation since my memory isn't what it used to be:

"You know I'm being followed."

"Don't worry about it."

"No, this is serious."

"I said don't worry about it."

"Wait... Did you... Are these your men? Is this my bodyguard detail?"

Laughter.

"That's so sweet!"

 

Last week I received a press release from Physicians for Human Rights-Israel about a sharp increase in child burn victims in the Gaza Strip. This was before the Israeli air campaign began. After what's happened in the last couple of days, PHR's email now seems like a message from another historical era, a time so calm that it was a major concern that

"In December alone, 16 Palestinians were hospitalized who were burned while trying to heat their homes. Most of the cases reported to the NGO were of children playing with fire, following attempts to light bonfires for heating and cooking and lighting candles in order to illuminate homes."

The fires, that is, were the result of the siege of Gaza, which included fuel shortages and power outages. The head of the burn unit at Shifa Hospital in Gaza reported that his unit was collapsing under the strain. I can only guess that Dr. Nafed Abu Shaaban is having a much harder time this week.

Nonetheless, the problem of kids getting burned can help to understand why all of Gaza and southern Israel are in flames at the moment.

Israelis don't see the effects of the siege in Gaza, or the way it was maintained during the six-month "calm." Israeli journalists have a far easier time covering Mumbai than covering Gaza. What Israelis saw during the "calm" were Palestinian violations. Israel claimed that Hamas wasn't keeping the agreement. That was true. It was also true that the Israeli government continued hoping, against all evidence, that the siege would provoke popular uprising against Hamas rule. Hamas regarded the calm as a failure in relieving siege conditions.

When the six months ended, Hamas decided that those Israelis would only understand force. To a man with a hammer, as the saying goes, everything looks like a nail - especially to an angry man. With a little careful thinking, anyone on the Hamas side could have figured out that no Israeli politician wanted to agree to reduce the siege in response to rocket fire. That would be giving in.

To continue reading, please visit South Jerusalem.

Of course they have one. (For what it's worth, so does the Multinational Force-Iraq):

The IDF Spokesperson's Unit is the Israel Defense Forces' professional body responsible for media and public relations in Israel and around the world. This is our new site that will help us bring our message to the world.

We are saddened that YouTube has taken down some of our exclusive footage showing the IDF's operational success in operation Cast Lead against Hamas extremists in the Gaza Strip. As the State of Israel again faces those who would see it destroyed, it is imperative that we in the IDF show the world the inhumanity directed against us and our efforts to stop it. It is also worth noting that one of the videos removed had the highest number of hits (over 10,000) at the time of its removal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is a rainy Monday night in Jerusalem, day three of the Hanukkah war against the Hamas terrorist regime in Gaza. I just met a family from Ein Tzurim that spent the day in Jerusalem. Ein Tzurim is a religious kibbutz located about 23 kilometers northeast of Gaza, by now well within range of the Grad rockets being fired at Israeli towns. The family, along with all the other people living in their part of the kibbutz, was expelled from the Gush Katif settlements in the summer of 2005. They still live in temporary structures with thin plywood walls, waiting for the houses that have been promised them for three and a half years now. There is not a single bomb shelter in the entire neighborhood, so this family of seven decided to take the day off in Jerusalem. They are so used to being screwed over by the Israeli government that they don't even have the energy to be cynical about it. On the way to Jerusalem they were pulled over by the cops because there were more kids than seat belts in the car. "We are from Gush Katif," they said to the police officer. Gush Katif. This nonsensical name of a place that does not even exist anymore, a name that has come to signify defiance. The officer let them go without a word.

Am Yisrael Chai: Soldiers by a bus stop/bomb shelter in Sderot.

As I write this, thousands of Israeli troops are waiting from the green light along the Gaza border. The Israeli Air Force has just about exhausted its target bank in Gaza after three days of intense bombing, unequaled since the Six Day War in 1967. Rumors have been circulating since mid-afternoon that the ground invasion has already started, but so far nothing has been confirmed. What can be said for sure is that morale is high, to the point where media has been forbidden access to the soldiers. Israel obviously does not want the polished rhetorical efforts of Peres, Livni, and Barak to be undone by gun-wielding 18-year-olds expressing their excitement about the prospects of killing people.

Continue reading...

Trawling through the media coverage of Israel’s attack on Gaza, thankfully not every commentator follows the comment/analysis by the Telegraph’s Sean Rayment that Israel is “Addicted to violence”. How Rayment expects to be taken seriously as a supposedly impartial defence correspondent after churning out this nonsense is a mystery to me. Among some media at least, including some perhaps surprising commentators, there seems to be a more nuanced view of events.

This morning on the Today programme James Naughtie picked up on the AFP story that Hamas is refusing to allow the injured and wounded out to Egypt, where doctors are waiting in vain to treat them.

Over at CIF Seth Freedman, who is consistently and harshly critical of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, writes under the un-Guardianish headline: ‘The Recklessness of Hamas’:

As Israeli spokesmen have reiterated time and again in the media, there is not a country in the world which would allow such assaults to take place on a daily basis without taking action to defend their citizens. Hamas knew this, and that their barrage of rockets would inevitably bring retaliation on the people of Gaza. Despite the ever-louder sabre-rattling by Israeli politicians during the last week, Hamas continued to use heavily-populated civilian centres as launching pads for their daily attacks on Israel.

before asking:

Who will castigate Hamas for their reckless endangerment of civilian lives in Gaza?

While over at my own paper, The Times, Mick Hume, recounts a recent trip to Sderot:

To make sense of a conflict in which both sides claim to be victims requires more than an emotional response to gory pictures. I support the Palestinian right to self-determination. But I am disturbed by the rise of anti-Israeli sentiments in Britain and the West, as when my old friends on the Left declared: “We are all Hezbollah now.”

and:

“The Israelis I met bear no comparison with the caricature of expansionist “Zio-Nazis”. “

and even:

Back in Sderot, Mr Avraham, the [Israeli] paramedic spoke of his future hopes: “I am left-wing, I believe in peace, we don’t have a choice. I hope to live here side by side one day.” Just so long, many might sadly say today, as those sides have a security barrier between them.

The rights and wrongs of the security fence aside, such nuanced arguments all brought back happy memories of my student days arguing and debating (civilly) with my friends in the former Revolutionary Communist Party, publishers of Living Marxism magazine, for which Mick used to work. Unlike the brainless robo-mini-trots of the Socialist Workers Party, the RCP were usually at least willing to engage intellectually. Perhaps finally there is some kind of intellectual backlash or shift going on in parts of the British left over their comrades’ hero worship of Hamas and Hezbollah.

For more on the world’s responses to Israel’s attack on Gaza see Tom Gross.

Israelis have become so accustomed to the idiotic reaction by world leaders whenever Israel goes to war, that we now get a sense of satisfaction from the mere fact that such reaction is not totally one-sided. One Israeli paper has had a headline today saying: "Europe refrains from one-sided condemnation of Israel." Hurray!

Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni explained today that "[t]he international community understands that Hamas is an extreme Islamist organization that spreads its hatred in the entire region, which is being supported by Iran. And the international community needs to understand that this is the translation of the right of Israel to defend itself, that there is no other alternative and we are doing what we need to do in order to defend our citizens."

But does it really understand?

The much admired President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy - no doubt a better friend to Israel than his predecessors, and someone who does understand the need to fight against terror - has called today for "an immediate stop to the firing of rockets on Israel and to the Israeli bombings in Gaza and calls for all parties to use restraint." The not-as-much admired British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has said: "I am deeply concerned by continuing missile strikes from Gaza on Israel and by Israel's response today."

To be fair, these statements do show a predisposition by European leaders to "understand" that deterioration was caused by Hamas' decision to allow - or more accurately orchestrate - rocket fire into Israel. Thus, they preach first for "stop to the firing of rockets" and only then to "Israeli bombings." But one has to wonder: why the mention of Israel? Why the concern about Israel's legitimate response to the daily rocketing of its civilians? Why only the reviled US administration has the courage and the clarity to respond to the Gaza operation without feeling the need to engage in linguistic acrobatics?

"The United States strongly condemns the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and holds Hamas responsible for breaking the ceasefire and for the renewal of violence in Gaza," [State Secretary Condoleezza] Rice said.

Middle East complications aside, it is, sometimes, as simple as that.

 

 

 

It’s a ritual that Israel observes before every election. One or more highly-qualified exemplars of what an Israeli parliamentarian lose out in their party primaries or decide, in disgust or exasperation, not to run again. This year’s latest victim is Isaac Ben-Israel, MK for the Kadima Party.

In an interview with Ari Shavit in this morning’s Ha’aretz (which doesn’t, for some reason, appear on the website of the paper’s English edition) Ben-Israel explains why he’s not seeking reelection, and why he’s disappointed with Kadima. “The real strategic threat to Israel is the state of its political system. That threat is more dangerous than the Iranian bomb and the economic crisis,” he declares.

Ben-Israel (whose name in Hebrew is Yitzhak Ben-Yisrael) has one of the best brains ever to grace the Knesset. He came to the legislature after a long career of IDF service as a pilot, in air force operations and intelligence, and weapons development; he has headed the Israel Space Agency and the security studies program of Tel Aviv University. In the midst of all that he managed to get advanced degrees in physics, mathematics, and philosophy.

So what? The Knesset has plenty of generals. It’s even got another philosopher, the Likud’s Yuval Steinitz .

Two decades ago, Isaac Ben-Israel published an intriguing little book in Hebrew called Dialogues on Science and Military Intelligence. It’s an analysis of the intelligence debacle of the Yom Kippur War in the form of a series of hypothetical conversations between a philosopher, a senior army officer, with occasional interjections by other characters, like a psychologist and a historian. Ben-Israel argued that the philosophy of science—in particular, that of Karl Popper and his followers—offers an epistemological method that military intelligence organizations would do well to follow.

In his book, Ben-Israel proposes that the reason Israeli intelligence failed to understand that Egypt and Syria were preparing an attack was that intelligence officers were looking for information to confirm their theories and beliefs about Arab intentions and capabilities. But instead of looking for confirmation, he writes, a good intelligence officer should try to think of what kind of incoming information would falsify his thesis—and comb the reports coming in for precisely these items.

This kind of sober analysis should and can be done in army intelligence. It’s a lot harder to do in politics and government, where image is as, if not more important, than rational policy making. And that’s why Ben-Israel is quitting.

I don’t always agree with Ben-Israel. He comes down more often on the hawkish side than I do. I’m skeptical about the wisdom of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, which Ben-Israel favors. He’s skeptical that talks with Hamas can help solve the Gaza impasse; I think they need to be part of Israel’s strategy.

But we’re both skeptical of those, on the right and the left, who think that just dialogue or just force can solve Israel’s security problems. When Ben-Israel advocates the use of force in Gaza, he acknowledges that it cannot in the short term end the missile attacks on Israeli territory. The use of force is a tactic, not a strategy. It has to be part of a larger strategy in which Israel uses diplomacy and military power in proper balance. We need to talk to Hamas, but talking won’t help if we don’t show them that we’re willing to take risks to defend ourselves. Military action is useless if it is not predicated on the realization that eventually, in the end, you need to talk about armistices and borders and commerce and the environment that we share. A responsible government is one that explains to the public that there are no easy answers.

Ben-Israel’s frustration is hardly unjustified. As I wrote here last month, Israel’s large parties (and some small ones) have instituted a system for electing their slates that looks democratic but actually promotes the worst kind of mediocrity. And the press here—as in the U.S.—certainly shares the blame. Most journalists who write about politics offer celebrity gossip or horserace commentary rather than delving into the candidates’ philosophical outlooks and stands on the issues. He’s certainly correct that a political system that keeps us from having intelligent discussion of the issues and planning for the long term is more dangerous than nukes, missiles, and a plummeting stock market. Maybe it’s time for him to join the Green Movement/Meimad list and give it the benefit of his sharp mind and philosophical acumen.

Read more by Haim at South Jerusalem

So, Hamas has decided that a few months' respite from resistance was too great a betrayal of the cause, and has decided to end its cease-fire with Israel. Fusillades of rockets are falling once again on southern Israel. What should Israel do?

For starters, Egypt, which has been almost completely ineffective as a mediator between Israel and Hamas, should be ignored. Egypt's priority throughout the crisis has been to insulate itself from the chaos emanating from Gaza. The Mubarak regime is weak and its competence limited; it asks Hamas to stop firing rockets, but demands that Israel not respond to such provocations. Egypt prefers quiet but will settle for low-level conflict -- anything to keep the Gaza cauldron from spilling into its territory or inciting its own radicals.

Israel is in a different kind of predicament. Invading Gaza and sending the Hamas leadership to the grave, along with many of the group's fighters, is perfectly warranted -- but such a strategy contains serious downside risks. The Fatah party is too weak, incompetent, and estranged from Gaza to replace a toppled Hamas regime. This effectively leaves Israel without an exit strategy.

And should Israel invade, the "international community" would descend into hysterics almost as fast as Khaled Mashaal can denounce the Zionist devils. A major military operation would be met with shrill media condemnations and allegations of civilian massacres not seen since the Hezbollah war in 2006, and right now the Olmert government is not strong or popular enough to weather such a storm. The Palestinians learned a valuable lesson in 2002 when for a few weeks they convinced the world that Israel had perpetrated the mass-murder of civilians in Jenin: next time, produce some bodies. Hamas will make sure that any Israeli incursion is accompanied by as many dead civilians (preferably children) as possible. Already, Hamas has been documented using kids to retrieve rocket launchers off the battlefield, hoping that they will be cut down by Israeli return fire. Nobody wants to instigate what will undoubtedly be a series of international crises two months before a national election.

Which brings up the electoral dynamic. The outgoing Olmert government is focused on the easy pursuit of largely meaningless peace negotiations with Syria. The minister of defense, Ehud Barak, is attempting (however implausibly) to become Prime Minister, and does not want his electoral fortunes to be afflicted by a military operation that will be a going concern on election day. And none of the contenders -- Barak, Livni, and Bibi -- wish to make promises about Gaza that will be attacked by their rivals, and which they might have to either keep or abandon later.

There is a policy that Israel should pursue in the interim, however: targeted killings of Hamas leaders. For one, the leadership deserves to die far more than do the brainwashed teenaged minions sent into battle on their behalf. Targeted killings keep the IDF off the battlefield in Gaza, reducing the likelihood fabricated massacre claims. And most importantly, targeted killings strike Hamas at their most vulnerable point: the leadership wishes to protect its rule over the mini-Iran that it has established on the Mediterranean. The IDF could establish meaningful short-term deterrence by killing as many Hamas leaders and commanders as possible, and make the group fear for its existence. It wouldn't be such a bad idea to kill Khaled Mashaal in Damascus as well. Targeted killings are both the most morally defensible way to wage war, and among a host of bad options, will probably be the most successful.

Last week, the IDF and Israeli police forces forcefully removed settlers from Beit HaShalom, a disputed home in Hebron. In case you've been living under a rock, the story is the same as usual-- the Jews claim that they bought the home legally and Palestinians dispute the claim. The court sided with the Palestinians and the settlers were forcefully removed. As Jeffrey Goldberg reminded us in his recent post, the event was marked by extremism on part of the settlers.

Well, some of the settlers. Despite what the media may have you thinking, the small group of young people that carried out these heinous, inexcusable attacks on Palestinian people and their property, in addition to vicious attacks against the IDF soldiers carrying out the evacuation, do not come close to representing the actions of the majority of the Jews in Hebron. Regardless, even if the community rabbis warned settlers that they must protest peacefully, some people didn't adhere to that advice. What happened in Hebron was a tragedy on more than one level, and it illustrates the mixed feelings that the settlements bring about for Jews in Israel, myself included.

The day before the pullout began, the IDF declared Beit HaShalom a closed military zone. The evacuation seemed imminent and I was fuming. I'd heard this story before, and I was disgusted with the court for its ruling based on a general rejection of the settlements and a denial of their legitimacy. I sat on my bed, in uniform, wondering what to do. I didn't want to be a part of the IDF on a day in which they removed Jews from a home that they'd purchased-- something that I'd naively hoped would never happen again in the Jewish State. Suffice it to say that I didn't perform my duties in the army during this time and I can confidently say that I did not in any way assist the IDF during this operation. Strangely enough, I'm not feeling content.

Given my feelings about so-called ‘disengagement', you'd think that I'd be proud of, or at least satisfied with, my actions. It's not so simple. I don't doubt my principles related to the settlements, but reading about young extremists and seeing masked Jews looking like members of Islamic Jihad takes its toll. My commitment to the land is unwavering, but it's a separate issue. I don't feel strongly for the community of people that allows violence like this to take place. I could almost cry for the settlers that peacefully protested and watched their Jewish brothers and sisters forcefully remove their friends and family-- except for the fact that their condemnation of the violent extremism isn't loud enough. Sure, a few important rabbis have condemned the attacks and I'm thankful for that-- but where are the protestors? Why aren't the residents of Hebron bullying their violent community members like they tried to bully the soldiers that carried out the evacuation?

They aren't protesting because deep down, they aren't ready to make the statement that violence targeting the innocent is unjust, even when one is certain that his ideology and his claims are morally sound. My political views aside, until they're ready to make that statement, I won't feel much for the residents of Hebron. We don't have much in common, and our respective visions of what it means to be a state held to the standard of Jewish values can't coexist.

Jewish Voice for Peace (my favorite marginalized Jews for peace nonprofit) is currently conducting a campaign for the Shministim 2008-a group of young conscientious objectors refusing to begin service in the Israeli Army. (They've also got about 800 supporters on Facebook.)This group of about 100 12^th graders has articulated their reasons for refusing to serve in this smart and clearly heartfelt letter. The students are not protesting mandatory service but rather the policies of the Israeli government in the West Bank and Gaza. They see the government's current policies as moral indefensible and a dead end.

They also call for dialogue and an end to the claim that there is no one to talk to on the Palestinian side: "In a place were there are humans, there is someone to talk to."

It is moving to see young Israelis choose to serve repeated jail sentences rather than act in opposition to their moral views.

If you're interested, you can send a letter of support for their cause to the current Defense Minister, Ehud Barak.

Many years ago, when I lived at Kibbutz Tirat Tzvi, a storm erupted in synagogue on Shabbat Vayare-the Shabbat, like this coming one, on which we read the story of Akedat Yitzhak, the binding of Isaac.

The shouts of anger and dismay were occasioned by one of the plethora of pamphlets that appear in nearly every synagogue in Israel, each one offering interpretations and glosses on the weekly Torah portion. The pamphlet in question had been written by an American immigrant to Israel, and it broke with tradition by condemning, rather than lauding, Abraham's willingness to follow God's command to sacrifice his son.

This was many years ago, so I don't remember the name of the author or his exact words, but he pointed out-and he was hardly the first to do so-the anomaly between Abraham's attempt to deter God from his plan to destroy the evil city of Sodom and the patriarch's mute acceptance of the command to slaughter his son. In pleading for Sodom, Abraham argues that the city's righteous inhabitants would be killed along with the guilty-and that God, the world's judge, would be seen as committing an injustice. Yet Abraham raises no objection at all to the unjust sentence imposed on his own innocent, beloved son, nor to God's insistence that he, Abraham, be the instrument of God's injustice. The writer expressed his horror at Abraham's behavior, and censured it in no uncertain words.

My guess is that his visceral reaction to Abraham's apparently mindless obedience was triggered by a liberal American liberal upbringing. Like me, he'd been taught by his parents and by his society not to remain silent in the face of injustice and never to obey an unjust command without question.

Nearly all traditional interpretations and classical commentators view this, the last of Abraham's ten trials, as a manifestation of the first Jew's steely resolve to maintain his faith even at the price of losing what he loved most-the son born to him by his wife Sarah in their old age. In reference to Abraham's fierce face, medieval Jewish liturgical poets called him "Eitan," meaning "the strong one."

While it broke with tradition, the modern writer's view of the story was firmly grounded in the Torah's text. The dissonance between pleading for Sodom and binding Isaac is glaring and even traditional commentators felt they had to explain it. And even the Sages of the Talmud and Midrash did not hesitate to criticize and even condemn the actions of biblical heroes.

So why did the writer's critique of Abraham arouse such anger in Tirat Tzvi's synagogue that morning?

The ethos of national, and in particular, military service is strongest in two of Israel's subcultures, the kibbutzim and the national-religious community. Tirat Tzvi, the oldest of the country's handful of religious kibbutzim, belongs to both those sectors, so military service is a sacred value. A large portion of the kibbutz's young men serve in elite units that perform some of the IDF's most dangerous missions. Parents, and the kibbutz community as a whole, actively encourage sons to volunteer for such units. (Tirat Tzvi also expects its young women to perform military service and no small number even reach officer rank, but in general they service in much less risky positions. So the ethos of self-sacrifice to the point of possible death is still very much a male one.)

Parents who have raised their children to give their all for their country and who have encouraged their sons to aim for the best and toughest army units, inevitably read the binding of Isaac in a different way. This is the position that I and my wife Ilana find ourselves today: if our primary concern was for our sons' safety, we would have raised them to think of themselves first and to do their best to get through their army service at desk jobs. In a way, in bringing up our sons as we have, we have bound them and placed them on an altar-and we pray fervently that God will not require the sacrifice.

The angry kibbutzniks at Tirat Tzvi felt they'd been insulted by the American immigrant who had dared criticize the sacrifice that Abraham had been willing to make. While it was hardly the writer's intention (in fact, he fervently apologized the following week's pamphlet), the people of Tirat Tzvi felt that they were being accused of injustice and moral obtuseness in having sent their sons off to combat service in their country's army.

Yet both readings of the story are valid, well-founded, and valuable. What was on evidence at Tirat Tzvi that Shabbat morning was a glaring failure, on both sides, to read the text and understand the tradition with due humility. The writer was so incensed by Abraham's intent to murder his son that he summarily dismissed the traditional commentaries without trying to understand them. The outraged kibbutzniks were so caught up in their allegiance to traditional readings and in the personal choices they had made that they were unwilling to consider any other reading of the story.

If the Torah's stories and commandments are to have any relevance to us today, we must place them in the context of our lives in the modern world. Yet we err if we dismiss traditional readings and understandings as primitive, benighted, or insensitive. After all, our great-grandchildren's children will live in a different world than we do today but they will still read the Torah. And we hope that they will both find messages relevant to them and strive to understand, with respect and humility, what those stories meant and how they were read by previous generations-including ours.

 

Image: The Binding of Isaac by Roni Pinto

Our daughter was strangely quiet. Her words usually flow like snowmelt slashing through a canyon. Was she getting sick? My wife kept looking in the rear-view mirror to see if she could figure out was wrong, in the way that parents who drive regularly learn to do.

“I don’t want to go to jail,” Skylar suddenly blurted out. I turned around to look at her. Jaw set, teeth seeking into her lower lip, she looked determined. And angry.

Continue reading...

Reading Between the Lines: and languages Soon after I arrived in the Dover Tzahal unit of the IDF, I began browsing the army's online historical archives. The Dover Tzahal is the Spokesperson Unit, essentially responsible for army PR. One of Dover Tzahal’s responsibilities is to maintain the IDF website, which is written in both English and Hebrew, features news updates and cutesy human interest stories, and a reliable weekly declaration that we will protect the State of Israel, given by Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi. With a bit of browsing, you’ll also find that the IDF has historical archives, which are basically summaries of historical events that have taken place since just before Israel’s declaration of statehood in 1948.

As a native English speaker who is also proficient in Hebrew, I was wide-eyed with both shock and disgust as I began to explore what struck me as an historically inaccurate, grammatically incorrect massacre of supposed facts. The archives weren’t manipulative or skewed in one way or another; they simply didn’t make sense. After a bit of investigation, I discovered that this mess was a result of translations by native English speakers who lacked sufficient historic knowledge and Hebrew language skills. They had been forced to translate the archives from Hebrew to English within a couple of days, an order that was given by (what I’m generous in calling) an incompetent officer that, thankfully, is no longer anywhere to be found in Dover Tzahal.  With my sincere interest in history, the written word, and the historical and political image of Israel, I requested the responsibility of editing the archives. Since then, the task has been officially delegated to me just as I’d so desperately wanted—and yet, I feel cursed.

I’ve spent the last several years of my life playing catch-up after being raised in an assimilated family and having attended public schools that glossed over the history of the Middle East and Israel, in particular. At this point, I consider myself to be more than generally knowledgeable about the topics of Jewish, Zionist, and Israeli history along with contemporary affairs, and so I’d simply assumed that editing the historical archives would be somewhat effortless and maybe even fun. I was wrong.

My difficulties are completely unrelated to historical accuracy; I can easily read one paragraph at a time and alter what is not correct, verify facts with credible sources and make certain that the information is solid. The major issue, which impedes the process most of the time, is word choice. For example, there are no generally accepted definitions of a terrorist, a Palestinian, a defensive operation, a massacre, an arrest, or any other term that is essential in describing Israel’s past. I’d become accustomed to using these words in a way that coincided with my understanding of these loaded terms and phrases. Now, however, I’m not speaking for myself, my education, my personal bibliography, or my group of likeminded friends—I am speaking for the IDF, and thus, in some ways, I am speaking for Israel.

Israel critics would have difficulty finding historical inaccuracies or biased terms in the IDF historical archives that are written in Hebrew. That said, the country also needs to express its political actions and ideals as fairly and articulately as possible in English—its second language. For example, in Hebrew, the word piguah refers to an attack. It does not strictly refer to acts of terrorism, but most English-speaking immigrants in this country—the ones that do all of the translating for the IDF—only hear this word in that particular context. If there was a piguah, in all likelihood, a suicide bomber has attacked. Linguistically, however, the word could refer to any type of attack, even a justified counter-attack, and certainly any number of attacks that are not politically motivated. It isn't easy to find translators whose understanding of the cultural and linguistic connotations of the sensitive words used to describe Israel’s “official stance" is deep enough to be published and disseminated, especially considering that they are the very translations taught in classrooms, aired on the news, and influencing voters and policy makers, everywhere.

Most people don’t have a reason to read the IDF website, especially when it comes to the online historical archives. That thought in particular has reduced some of the stress associated with editing the archives, but my general understanding of both the fate of all that is written and the ideological conflict that surrounds the State of Israel, regardless of what it or its supporters do, makes this endeavor nearly impossible. My understanding is that even if the overwhelming majority of people rely on other news sources, books, academic journals, and credible professors for their information, one thing is certain: those looking at the IDF with negative, preconceived notions about our military history and our interpretation of it will read the IDF historical archives, and they will, however unfairly, use our website to conjure up arguments that could falsely represent the position of the IDF and thus fuel the opposition in the ideological war that Israel is, and always has been, fighting.

I know that the IDF archives are misleading due to bad translations, but to most others, they are simply a representation of the IDF and its official stance regarding controversial, historical events. In Israel, we do not have the luxury of overlooking typographical errors, misquotes, or numerical mishaps. Everything associated with this country—every military operation, every sentence written in any publication, the general justification of our existence—is scrutinized in an aggressive way that no other sovereign state has had to contend with.

I see no need to embellish or to leave any portion of our narrative untold, but it's a challenge to make certain that the language coincides with the truth, both in the context of the archives and out of context. For now, I’ll continue to research both Israeli policy and international law in order to best define some of these terms. I'll strive to choose words that speak the completest truth possible, and that serve to further the understanding of our people’s national experiment.

Grannies On Patrol: unafraid of hot sun, long lines, or jaded soldiersAny effective Israeli checkpoint guard must have the following defining characteristics:

• Fearlessness
  
• Stubbornness
  
• Nosiness
  
• Chutzpa

Sound like your Jewish grandmother? Well, that’s what the ladies over at Machsom Watch thought too. Upset about the current state and management of Israeli checkpoints, they formed an organization of female Israeli peace activists to offer civilian supervision. Too many times, they say, lengthy holdups at checkpoints have caused students to miss exams, women in labor to give birth before they reach the hospital, and degrading incidents. They especially lament the treatment of Palestinians at these checkpoints, who are often not permitted to travel freely even within their own townships. They decided that checkpoints would benefit from neutral civilian supervision. But who would they send to do the job? The solution: Jewish grandmas.

Take Rahel Weinberg and Julia West, for example. Armed with sunhats, clipboards, and water bottles, they brave the heat on a daily basis in order to monitor the behavior of the Israeli checkpoint soldiers. What do they have that the soldiers do not? It's more about what they don't have: A lack of military training and an absence of M16’s on their shoulders. Like any good grandma, these two also have heart and compassion. They are willing to stand in the sun all day just so they can help speed up the checkpoint crossing process for those in need, and they understand the difficulty of the checkpoint soldier’s occupation.

Says Rahel, “They have a dreadful job. It is boring, they work in scorching temperatures and their shifts last ten hours.” What they are there to do is to make sure that these strenuous conditions do not lead to an abuse of power. Rahel continues, “When they see us, the soldiers ask themselves 'what would my mother or my grandma have to say about the way I'm behaving?'”

Bottom line: When grannies are on watch, people watch their step. And that is exactly what Machsom Watch wants.

A top IDF general will meet U.S. Admiral Michael Mullen to discuss Israel's intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program:

Mullen's visit to Israel will be exactly a week after the publication of the NIE report that claimed Iran had frozen its nuclear military program in 2003 and has yet to restart it. During his visit, Military Intelligence plans to present him with Israel's evidence that Iran is in fact developing nuclear weapons.

"The report clearly shows that we did not succeed in making our case over the past year in the run-up to this report," a defense official said Thursday. "Mullen's visit is an opportunity to try and fix that." 

Sexy sabra: One of the Maxim adsMaxim has teamed up with the state of Israel to point out what every American Jew already knows: that IDF soldiers are foxy.  Naturally, the Maxim campaign has already created controversy among those who think Israel's chosen a declassé wingman, a topic the New York Post--also a class act--covered today with the headline "Piece in the Mideast." 

But here's why this is especially interesting, at least to people like me who spend most of our lives staring into a glowing screen: Gawker's having a contest to see if their readers can come up with a better headline, and the comments are not only relatively funny, but nice.  Is it possible that bringing up Judaism makes a bunch of hardened NYC media types get all gentle and kindhearted?

Then again, the comment section also demonstrates something we at Jewcy know all too well: It's hard to come up with a new Jewish pun.  Go enjoy the lack of bitchiness, and then see if you can do them one better.