Tension and anticipation filled the room. Would Ahmadinejad live up to the mission of the Durban Review Conference's focus on ending racism and speak to the thousands of oppressed Baha'i in his country? Would he admit the existence of homosexuality in Iran? The balcony, filled with international media including our crew, looked on. It took him 45 seconds to deliver - "Ladies and gentlemen, let us take a look at the UN Security Council. Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless on the pretext of Jewish sufferings." All of the sudden a large group of UN representatives and pro-Israel NGO representatives stood up and walked out in a dramatic protest. Jewish student activists who had smuggled in clown suits screamed ‘You're a racist!!' while being tackled by UN security. The Iranians and Muslim countries and NGOs cheered voraciously. The Middle East issue had obviously continued to disrupt.

AhmadinejadI wanted to speak to the Iranians, people from a country whose president had repeatedly denounced Israel, incited violence against Jews and denied the Holocaust. If they believed in Ahmadinejad's message then I wanted to give them the chance to explain. Although polite, they were very suspicious of our project and only after our cameraman cornered Iranian UN Ambassador Moayeri on the last day of the conference did we manage to get a statement.

-- Ambassador Alireza Moayeri, UN Ambassador, Iran: "He never crossed the line. His position was perfectly focused on the subject matter of racism. He was just giving examples and instances, which we can see the most vivid examples of it taking place in occupied territories of Palestine by the Zionist regime of Israel."

As I spent the week in Geneva attending conference events and events thrown by activists outside of UN jurisdiction I got a much better understanding of how these groups interact on the international level. Inside the UN they form into political and strategic blocks of influence in order to get enough votes to pass resolutions, in the NGO community they talk past each other not to each other - a pro-Palestinian event in one room, and pro-Israel event in another. If you were to shut your eyes while sitting in the Serpentine Lounge, where delegates gather for espresso and sandwiches, and just listen to all the groups from all over the world huddled up by interest group, cacophony might be a good way to describe it.

Continue reading...

Israel has never been the most popular of nations. Since its inception, the Jewish state has consistently found itself in the precarious position of having to choose between shielding its public image and implementing arguably necessary security measures that inevitably undermine that same image. When faced with the choice between accolade and survival, Israel has routinely opted to take those steps which it deems necessary to its survival, no matter the damage done to its credibility nor the Jewish People's.

Never so much has this been the case as with the second Palestinian intifada, which, since its outset, has compelled an Israeli military response staggering in its appearance of disproportionality and consequently staggering in its appearance of brutality. Worse yet for Israel, these events bear the unfortunate circumstance of coinciding with the advent of the Internet era, unfolding at a time that has inevitably placed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at center stage among all international conflicts -- at least online. Throughout the last eight years, the World Wide Web has been an unyielding source of horrifying images and, to put it mildly, unflattering news emanating from the Middle East, as well as heart-rending appeals by Palestinian solidarity activists and an infinite stream of ill-informed and conspiratorially-minded (if not outright antisemitic) screeds demonizing the actions of Israel and the influence of its supporters in Washington.

All of this has lent to the increasingly popular view -- whether held by individuals in whole or part -- that Israel is a racist, apartheid state engaged in ethnic cleansing and war crimes and, furthermore, that the American Jewish community is exerting undue influence in support of Israel's purportedly Naziesque policies, which Jews "of all people" should know better than to pursue. In the specter of this image, is it any wonder that Israel's 2006 operation in Lebanon and its recent assault on Gaza inspired more public outcry and protest against the Jewish state than ever witnessed before?

For most Jews and Israelis, of course, such a depiction of Israel could not be any more outrageous, further from the truth, nor threatening to the security of the Jewish state and Jewish people around the globe. The lopsided vilification of Israel, as it's perceived, not only overlooks the nuances and mischaracterizes the nature of the conflict, but it also negates the legitimate concerns and rights of the Jewish people who are entitled to live in peace and security within their own state.

For this fact, countless Jews have tasked themselves with the role of stating Israel's case publicly and defending the Jewish state from its detractors whether in the media, on college campuses, or in the political arena. In the U.S. alone, dozens of Israel advocacy or "hasbara" (public relations) projects infused with tens of millions of dollars annually are focused full-time on countering such anti-Israel sentiment, from large community supported initiatives like those spearheaded by the Anti-Defamation League and the United Jewish Communities, to smaller initiatives like Fuel for Truth and Stand With Us, which were founded by independent activists. Many of these organizations provide training and assistance to college students to help combat anti-Israel activism on campus, including challenging the tenure of professors who are alleged to discriminate against Zionist students. Others have zeroed in on the online threat, with groups like GIYUS and the Jewish Internet Defense Force mobilizing Jewish Web surfers to tilt online polls and combat anti-Israel submissions to popular User Generated Content Web sites. The Israeli Consulate has even launched a Twitter account and its own various blogs in order to engage in the online debate.

Often, the case for Israel -- whether made in a blog entry or in a shouting match across a campus quad -- is stated with a series of standardized talking points: Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle East, it is the only reliably pro-Western ally in a notoriously anti-Western neighborhood, and it is an important strategic ally of the U.S. economically and militarily. In rebuffing claims made against Israel in its treatment of the state's Arab minority, it is claimed that the Arab population of Israel has full equal rights and protection under the law, that Arabs are free to vote in Israeli elections and to run for and serve in public office, and that the quality of life maintained by Arab citizens of Israel is unsurpassed by that of any other Middle Eastern nation.  

But what would happen to Israel advocacy efforts should those talking points cease to reflect reality of the situation? Or to be more exact, what happens when a prominent Israeli politician pursues proposed policies that would explicitly disenfranchise Israel's Arab minority or even eliminate its very presence from the state all together?

As chairman of the far-right party Yisrael Beiteinu, Avigdor Lieberman has, throughout his political career, proffered many extreme ideas, from drowning Palestinian political prisoners in the Dead Sea to executing Israeli Arab legislators who maintain contacts with the Hamas government in Gaza. His most recent controversial proposals include redistricting the state of Israel to exclude Arab-majority regions all together and requiring the remaining Arab population to take a loyalty oath or otherwise forfeit citizenship. Both policies would be enacted without the democratic consent of the Arab population.

As ludicrous as these policies may seem, the party's strong showing in today's elections evidences that Lieberman's ideas are gaining traction among a war and peace process weary Israeli electorate hungry for new ideas that adequately address Israel's oldest challenge: maintaining both the Jewish and democratic character of the state.

In their biggest polling victory to date, Yisrael Beiteinu won 15 seats in the Knesset, coming into third place ahead of the once dominant Labor party. While the party has seen moderate electoral success in the past, neither Yisrael Beiteinu nor its chairman has ever enjoyed so much public support nor media attention. Now Yisrael Beiteinu may very well decide whether Tzipi Livni's centrist Kadima party or Benjamin Netanyahu's moderate right Likud party forms the next government coalition.

What this means for Lieberman's proposed agenda remains to be seen. It's quite unlikely that such policies would ever see the light of day under a Likud or Kadima administration. Yet the fact that a prominent Israeli politician is gaining ground on such a platform itself gives cause for concern, as it risks further undermining an already considerably weakened pro-Israel position. Should such policies ever come to pass, experts say that defending them would be untenable.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a former press officer at the Israeli Consulate General in New York said that should Lieberman's policies gain footing, "It would be a hasbara disaster."

"The state is already criticized in the media for the poor conditions under which Israeli Arabs currently live," he said. "These policies would only lend weight to the accusations that Israel is becoming an apartheid state."

"A lot of people on the center left in Israel and even on the right are already pretty concerned about how it looks to the outside world," says Amos Kamil, director of the Israel Advocacy Initiative at the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. "The 'Zionism is racism' crowd is going to seize onto this and we're never convince them of anything."

Of greater concern, says Kamil, are those who have not yet made up their minds about the conflict. "It's going to be tricky for those in the middle. If an advocate is trying to convince people who are undecided, this might be a problematic turn of events."

Steve Rabinowitz, a former Clinton White House aide and a media strategist for several Israel advocacy organizations, concurs. Were such policies to be implemented, says Rabinowitz, "it would brutalize mainstream public support for Israel."

"Politically savvy American Jews who want to maintain mainstream American support for Israel would have to jump through a lot of hoops separating how they feel about Israel as a country, Zionism as a concept, and their lack of support for the Israeli government and its policies," says Rabinowitz. "We'd hear so much more of that than ever before, especially among those Jews trying to keep non-Jews in the pro-Israel fold. It's tough enough now as it is."

"I think it would definitely challenge us as a community whereas many of those positions are ones we don't agree with," says Amos Kamil. "But I don't think, as Israel advocates, that you can throw out the baby with the bathwater." That one may disagree with the policy, he said, "doesn't necessarily change our need to advocate for Israel. We can openly disagree with the policies and still defend Israel's right to exist."

Jon Loew, founder and chairman of Fuel for Truth, believes that Lieberman's policies could have both negative and positive effects.

"I think that some people will view his policies as extreme and become alienated further from Israel," he says. "But I also think other people will be able to relate to his policies and further embrace Israel."

When asked what kind of rhetoric to expect from Israeli officials and Israel advocates should they be forced to defend Lieberman's polices, the former consulate press official said, "There would likely be a major effort to paint Israeli Arabs as people who have not shown loyalty to the country. You would likely see statistics and images promoting the notion that Israeli Arabs support Hamas and the like. And I think that strategy will fail miserably."  

Loew, on the other hand, sees a silver lining. He believes Lieberman's proposals could have the potential benefit of reprioritizing the activist agenda.

"Right now the world is obsessed with stopping Israel from expanding their townships in disputed territories," says Loew. "Maybe if Lieberman is successful in implementing these even more controversial policies, the world will focus on that instead of nitpicking every brick that's laid in Efrat [a West Bank settlement]. It may end up giving Israel more room to negotiate."

For those wary of such an outcome, "The good news," says Rabinowitz, "is that there is nearly zero chance" of Lieberman's policies gaining real ground.

"I think the only way that Lieberman makes it into the coalition is if the coalition is so broad that he could never bring the coalition down by himself. [The winning party] would be foolish to build a narrow coalition with him, lest they be held captive by him."

"I would be surprised if his positions would be adopted by any coalition government in which he'd be asked to serve," says Kamil. Noting that Lieberman had previously served in both Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert's administrations to little effect, he says that, "Although Lieberman's policies might be repugnant to some, they have still never been part of any government he's been asked to serve in."

"I don't have to tell you that what somebody says in Israeli politics before and after an election are two very different things," he added.

The former consulate press officer also agrees.

"He's going to be reined in. You're going to see his position move towards the center because the Israeli public won't tolerate it and Netanyahu [the expected winner at the time of this interview] won't tolerate it. If he wants to stay in the government and have his constituency's interests met, he's going to have to toe the party line."

For the moment, a reprieve.

Adam Klasfeld: Playwright of Good Fences

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors, written by Adam Klasfeld, is an absurdist play about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Klasfeld is making a name for himself with surreal plays focusing on the human root of political problems -- his docu-drama about Mark Twain, The Report of My Death, was a New York Magazine top pick when it debuted last year, and it will soon begin touring in the tri-state area.

Of Klasfeld’s plays, I think Good Fences is his most challenging, dynamic, and politically charged. It follows Rosh, a writer in a country called "Arabia." Rosh's neighbors recently shot him in the arm, resulting in an amputation, but neither his wife nor his friends nor even his doctor can tell that he's missing a limb. Convinced he and his family are in danger, Rosh begins patrolling his house, and soon he is negotiating with an elf in order to protect himself from his neighbors.

Is Rosh seeing things? Is his pain real? I met up with Klasfeld to better understand the symbolism of his play and his feelings regarding the conflict. Despite his strong political opinions, Klasfeld has never been to Israel, but he's heading out on a Birthright trip this weekend, so I'll check back with him when he returns to see if the visit changed his mind.

Continue reading...

The mission of the Other Israel Film Festival is to expose the lives of Muslims that live in Israel. I am behind the mission of the festival. I am interested in the Muslim perspective in Israel and I am interested in the art that Muslims are generating. Do they feel like second-class citizens, how do Muslim women view themselves, and what is the Other Israel?

This is the first year of the festival, and I believe that it was an inspiring one. I have been to my share of festivals, including the Sundance Film Festival and the New York Film Festival, and I've thrown my own. There were technical problems with the festival, like the films being re-sized as we watched them, but I understood these problems as a festival's growing pains. The Other Israel Film Festival got a group of films and filmmakers together that got the other side seen and heard, and I commend them for that.

Here are some highlights of the festival.

The Syrian Bride

Nervous on your wedding day?Every bride is nervous on her wedding day. She might trip on her dress or Aunt Ethel might get wasted at the reception. A million things might go wrong, but eventually, her nervousness recedes, she kisses the groom, and the two begin a married life.

Mona is nervous on her wedding day for different reasons. As a Palestinian, once she marries her Syrian fiancé, she can never return to Israel or see her family again—the Israeli government has also prohibited her father from attending her wedding. So Mona must turn her back on her family in order to get married. This is more than most brides have to deal with on their wedding day.

The Syrian Bride exposes the difficulties of not being a citizen of your homeland. My biggest critique of the film is that it could have gone further, and investigated what it means to live with resignation— to know that you are not in control, do not have basic privileges, and are denied happiness because of your lack of identity. The Syrian Bride alludes to these themes, but the lack of resolution leaves loose ends where solid conclusions are necessary.

Pickles

Women starting a feminist revolution through...Pickles?According to convention, Muslim widows are dead to the world. They cannot remarry or work outside of the home, or do anything other than raise their children and mourn their husband's death. They must live the rest of their days with their husband's family as well. The family watches over the widow and ensures that she does not disrespect her husband's memory.

These are the makings of a barren, miserable, and lonely life.

However, this is not the case for a group of eight Muslim widows. They start a pickling factory to earn money for their families, and in so doing, they give meaning to their lives. They have a place to go to, a job to do, and soon, a social network forms. However, none of the women is prepared for the difficulties that await them.

This is a moving documentary about the limitations of faith and culture, and the inherent disadvantages of living in a chauvinistic society. Pickles asks: must we accept these limitations? It is an articulate and intimate portrait of Muslim life.

Roads

The road from poverty.Amores Perros begins with two young men in a speeding car, escaping a car full of thugs, as a dog bleeds to death in the backseat. Roads begins with two young boys in a speeding car, escaping a car full of thugs, as a sheep bleeds to death in the backseat. Coincidence?

Roads is about a young Arab boy working for a heartless drug-dealer. One day, he decides to take the money and run. Then, he gets his best friend and a Jewish drug-addict involved. Will he escape his life of poverty or get stopped along the way?

Perhaps if Roads were not a rip-off of Amores Perros, I could appreciate it. Then again, the terrible plot-development, sloppy editing, and lazy camera work were no picnic to sit through. As a filmmaker, I've learned that a great idea does not make a great film; good storytelling, strong acting, and careful attention to detail make a great film. It takes vision and a high level of technical skill to pull one off—and you must make your stories your own. Roads lacks the originality that makes a film worth watching.

Gary Kasparov is not the only chess prodigy making waves these days. Natan Sharansky has a piece on today’s Wall Street Journal Opinion page about the ongoing legal battle in France over media coverage of the alleged killing of Mohammed al-Dura. Al-Dura was the 12-year-old Palestinian boy seen huddling with his father behind a barrel amid a hail of Israeli bullets in September of 2000. The horrifying footage was (understandably) inescapable around that time and became an iconic media byte, launching anti-Israel rallying cries the world over. It certainly added heat, and blood, to the second intifada.

In a clip released soon after the attacks of September 11, Osama bin Laden said:

In the epitome of his arrogance and the peak of his media campaign in which he boasts of 'enduring freedom,' Bush must not forget the image of Mohammed al-Dura and his fellow Muslims in Palestine and Iraq. If he has forgotten, then we will not forget, God willing.

But almost immediately after the al-Dura footage aired, the circumstances surrounding the incident were called into question and the legitimacy of the 59-second clip itself became a matter for some contemplation. An inquiry by the IDF concluded that it would have been nearly impossible for al-Dura to have been hit by bullets fired from the Israeli’s positions. For those who doubt the findings of such an interested party, The Atlantic, sighting sources outside of the IDF, ran a fairly exhaustive and thought-provoking breakdown of the evidence. The New Republic, Commentary, and a German documentary also weighed in with similar conclusions.

Continue reading...

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a nonprofit that provides translations of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish media, caught up with Sheik Ahmad Bahr, acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, during his tour of the Sudan.

In a friendly sermon delivered on Friday at a Sudanese mosque, the kindly representative of the Palestinian people made the congregants' weekend with assurances that, with the help of Allah, all Jews and Americans would be annhilated. Some of the excerpts of that sermon, courtesy of MEMRI:

Ahmad Bahr began: "You will be victorious" on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] "you will be victorious," but only "if you are believers." Allah willing, "you will be victorious," while America and Israel will be annihilated. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere.

The Hamas spokesperson concluded with a prayer, saying: "Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them."

Brought to you by a Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld of Ohev Shalom, after witnessing Carter's speech at George Washington University.

"I believe Jimmy Carter is an anti-Semite and his intention is to hurt Jewish people."