“Salt and Water” As A German Leader is Rejected

by James M. Wall

Ma’an reported Thursday that a general strike has begun in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. 

As part of the strike, Palestinians shut down their shops and businesses in solidarity with the more than 1,500 Palestinian prisoners now enduring the 11th day of their “Freedom and Dignity” hunger strike.

The Arabic graffiti above means, “Salt and Water,” the only nutrients striking prisoners allow themselves. Placed on the locked door of a Palestinian shop, “salt and water” signals  support for the strike which was organized by imprisoned Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouthi.

The general strike calls for a Day of Rage on Friday, April 28, during which Palestinians are expected to show their solidarity with the Palestinian prisoners’ movement.

The deserted streets and closed shops evoke memories of the First Intifada, which began in 1987, when Palestinians held general strikes as part of a civil disobedience campaign against Israeli forces.

A few miles away from those deserted streets an entirely different drama unfolded when German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel arrived in Jerusalem for a prearranged meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Before his meeting with the Prime Minister, the German Foreign Minister first met with the Israeli NGO, Breaking the Silence, an organization of Israeli army combat veterans against the occupation.

Gabriel’s planned meeting with Netanyahu was immediately canceled.

The Prime Minister’s Office defended the sudden cancellation with an official statement, reported by Anshel Pfeffer, in Ha’aretz:

The United States or Britain wouldn’t meet with foreign diplomats who met with NGOs calling American or British soldiers war criminals

The last part of that defense was a lie.

Breaking the Silence does not call its fellow IDF members “war criminals”. What the organization does is tell their stories of having served as soldiers in the occupied territories.

Breaking the Silence also take visitors to the West Bank. One of their earlier visitors, Irish writer Eimear McBride, reported on her first visit to the occupied territories for the Irish Times, a report shared in an earlier Wall Writings posting.

In that report she wrote: “All that is human in me recoils from this;”

The headline over the Ha’aretz story carried the revealing and stinging title, “Israel Not a Regular Democracy”. Pfeffer agreed with the first part of Netanyahu’s rationale:

Foreign leaders visiting Washington and London don’t meet with those kinds of NGOs − not because Israeli soldiers are worse offenders than any offenders in those countries, but because Israel isn’t the United States or the U.K.

When foreign ministers, prime ministers and presidents of democratic nations, visit “functioning democracies”, as Pfeffer puts it, it is not unusual for the visitor to meet with the host country’s “opposition leader”. The only times they meet with “leaders of civil-society and human-rights groups” is in countries where “there is a special concern over these issues that they want to emphasize”.

The problem for Israel is that on the issue of the occupation, there is no opposition political party. 

The U.S. has a consistent record of visiting with dissident groups on trips to countries which are not functioning democracies.

Barack Obama made a point of this on his historic visit to Cuba last year to meet with Cuban dissidents at the U.S. Embassy. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry did so often as well, making a point of this on visits to the capitals of Egypt and Russia, for example.

As a Western diplomat once stationed in Israel says, “these are the kind of meetings we have only in nondemocratic countries. So you can understand why Netanyahu is angry.

Israel doesn’t like to be reminded that while it thinks of itself as a functioning democracy, it also has this unusual issue of the occupation.

So true, Israel does have this occupation thing on, which just happens to echo an exchange in the Coen brothers film. O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Everett: (George Clooney) Pete’s cousin turned us in for the bounty.

Pete: (John Turturro) The hell you say! Wash is kin!

Wash: (Frank Collison) Sorry, Pete, I know we’re kin, but they got this depression on. I got to do for me and mine.

Pete: I’m gonna kill you, Judas Iscariot Hogwallop!

Pete was angry. Cousin Washington Hogwallop had allowed three escaped prisoners to sleep in his barn. Then he notified the sheriff.

Netanyahu was also angry, Pfeffer acknowledged, not just because German Foreign Minister Gabriel met with an organization critical of the occupation, but because Netanyahu realized he was not being treated with the respect he desperately wants as the prime minister of a democracy.

The problem facing Israeli and the U.S., is that they do not want to acknowledge that a democracy is not acting as a democracy when it militarily occupies and controls an entire population for more than five decades.

Israel and the U.S. want the world to accept Israel as a functioning democracy, but Israel refuses to allow open discussion of the occupation, the single factor which is plunging Israel deeper into international isolation.

The graffiti picture is from Maan.  The Israeli soldier pictured is on occupation duty, patrolling a Palestinian road. It was taken by Connie Baker. The picture of Foreign Minister Gabriel is by Sebastian Scheiner/AP. 

Posted in Israel, Middle East, Middle East Politics, Movies | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

An Irish Writer and a US Scholar Walk Into a Bar

by James M. Wall

The Irish writer is Eimear McBride. The scholar is a fellow named Chas Freeman. They did not actually walk into a bar together. Most likely they have never met. But they are soul-mates.

Chas and Eimear have each recently offered readers a deeper look into the evils of Israel’s occupation. The old “walk into a bar” line is merely a device to entice you to read what they want to share.

Eimear McBride speaks first. She is back from her first visit to  Palestine. She is angry. She has brought many pictures with her. She slams one of them on a table.

In the picture, a Palestinian boy stands on the tiled floor of what had been his bathroom. The roof and the walls are gone.

The house was not bombed. It was destroyed, one might say to the boy, by some bad people who didn’t want him to live there.

After she returned to Ireland, Eimear McBride wrote an essay which appeared April 15, in The Irish Times, under the headline: “Eimear McBride in the West Bank: ‘All that is human in me recoils from this’.” 

In the essay she gives the background of the picture of the boy: 

As I took a photo of a man’s goats grazing in the rubble of what had been his house, he said: “Hey take a picture of my son”. But when I did, he said: “No, where his kitchen should be, where his toilet was.” When he put the child down, his baby shoes soaked up the wet from the tile fragments surrounding the skeletal remains of a squat loo and the thin line of debris dividing it from where a kitchen must have been. I took the photo and looked at the little sodden feet. I couldn’t imagine how they would ever get dry in that tiny tin shack where this little boy, along with his whole family, now lived, and hoped would not be torn down again soon.

From where I stood I could easily see into the warm, well-built homes of the settlers beside, who were obliging their close neighbours to live in this foulness, who must’ve looked out every day through the well-fitted glass of their comfortable kitchens on to this shameful site.

Eimear McBride’s essay will appear in early June in the anthology, Kingdom of Olives and Ash, edited by Michael Chabon and Ayelet Waldman. McBride’s visit to the West Bank came after an invitation from Breaking the Silence, an organisation of Israeli army combat veterans against the occupation.

McBride’s novel, A Girl Is a Half-formed Thing, won the inaugural Goldsmiths Prize in 2013 and the 2014 Baileys Women’s Prize for Fiction. She is 41 years old.

Her opening words in the Irish Times essay begin:

I had not thought about the world for a very long time and, of all places, this place had seemed easier to ignore. I am driving down to Jericho now and, for the first time in a week, I breathe.

Not because I have become accustomed to the hassle of checkpoints or seeing young men and women, still teenagers some, looking out at me from behind guns that they know how to use. Not because I have stopped noticing how grown men and women close themselves up behind a mask of quietude in order to cope with their every movement being at the whim of those same youngsters.

The red signs at every turn off into the West Bank, warning that the Israeli government forbids entry and that entry is dangerous, have not ceased, in a whole variety of selfish and unselfish ways, to alarm me. Quite to the contrary, I am only beginning to see, learning how to look, and my sense of alarm is off the charts.

“Learning how to look” is a clarion call from a writer who came  to Palestine because of an invitation from former Israeli soldiers. These soldiers want the outside world to know the ugly reality of occupation, a reality ignored by far too many who do not want to look.

It is time now for Chas Freeman to speak. This veteran US scholar and diplomat was Barack Obama’s initial 2009 choice for chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Immediate and intensive lobbying by Israel, working through its Israel lobby and its media allies, led to Freeman’s forced withdrawal.

After his removal from Obama’s leadership team, Freeman continued his career in academia. He is currently Senior Fellow, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University.

Freeman, a man accustomed to Zionist vitriol which keeps American politicians in line, undergirds Eimear McBride’s “sense of alarm” from his perspective.

On April 6, Freeman delivered the third in a series of lectures at Brown University on the theme: “Reimagining the Middle East”. He began: “U.S. wars in the Middle East are — without exception — wars of choice. These wars have proven ruinously expensive and injurious to the civil liberties of Americans. They have poisoned American political culture with various manifestations of xenophobia.”

The lecture was delivered just hours before President Trump’s Syrian Tomahawk attack was launched without any consultation with Congress. Freeman told his Brown audience that none of the ongoing U.S. wars in the region have been “authorized by a congressional declaration of war that justifies the commitment of U.S. forces, sets parameters and objectives for their uses of force, and establishes a legal state of war”.

All of these wars are in violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution. That article requires a congressional declaration to make wars of choice legal. “The Constitution’s assignment of the war power to the Congress is unequivocal and fundamental to the separation of powers”.

Freeman added:

Notwithstanding this, all current American wars are presidentially ordained, permitted but not forthrightly endorsed by Congress, and subject to no effective oversight by anyone other than the nation’s generals. Such is American militarism. None of these wars has a coherent purpose. In none is the United States now in a position to determine the outcome. In none is any end in sight.

The central objective of US policy in the Middle East has long been to achieve regional acceptance for the Jewish settler state in Palestine.

It is this “Jewish settler state in Palestine” that so alarmed Irish novelist Eimear McBride on her first visit to the settler-controlled state of Israel.

Freeman, a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, turned his attention to the charade that the US “doggedly sought a political basis for a reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians”, a so-called reconciliation which “was never designed to reach a fair nor a just conclusion”.

The US as an “honest broker between Israel and Palestine”, has been a lie of such enormous consequences that even the lies of Donald Trump, up to this point, can not compete. The difference, of course is that the “honest broker’ set of lies were peddled for decades with the slick smugness of skilled US and Israeli spin masters.

Chas Freeman said more in his lecture, much more, but we bring to a close his contribution, with these words which seem especially apt for a Palestinian child who wonders why the house that was his home is no longer there:

The Jewish state has evolved since its founding. It has left behind it both the humanism that inspired Zionism and the universal moral precepts traditionally espoused by Judaism.

The perception that Israel no longer shares values it once aspired to exemplify is increasing its international isolation, especially from Jews in Europe and the United States.

But American diplomacy no longer even pretends to seek to halt Israel’s triumphant march toward existential implosion despite the obvious negative consequences of this for the security and international influence of the United States. 

The pub is closing. Eimear McBride and Chas Freeman have had their say, for the moment.  Those who have listened are left to wonder why a child’s home has been destroyed by the Jewish state.

In Israel on the 18th day of April, more than one thousand Palestinian prisoners have begun a hunger strike to accomplish two things: Better treatment from their jailers, and a wider international understanding of Israel’s unjust and evil military occupation.

Marwan Barghouti, (left) who refused to recognize the Israeli court that sent  him to prison, is spearheading the strike.  He managed to smuggle out an oped to the New York Times, which ran in the Times’ international edition and on line.

If your media of choice ignores that hunger strike, this is one thing we can all do: Ask that media outlet why a child in Palestine who now lives in a shack, and the protests of strikers in Israeli jails, imprisoned by an occupier’s military system, are not important to them.  

The picture of the child in his destroyed home and the Israeli warning sign are by Eimear McBride. The Barghouti picture is from 2002, from Flash 90.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Trump at The Movies: “Put an Amen to It”

by James M. Wall

A raid has killed members of a frontier family. Ethan Edwards, portrayed by an angry, unforgiving John Wayne, was secretly in love with one of the victims. The quick burial in a nearby hillside cemetery is conducted by a family friend, the Reverend Captain Samuel Johnston Clayton (Ward Bond).

Mourners sing, “Shall we gather at the river”. The Reverend Captain Clayton, formerly of the Confederate army, stands beside three wooden crosses. He prays.

Ethan Edwards abruptly ends the service with an angry shout, “Put an amen to it. There’s no more time for praying.”

A posse prepares to ride out in search of the raiders.

These moments below from John Ford’s 1956 classic western film, The Searchers, begin a long search driven by the dark emotions of hatred and revenge.  

It is now Holy Week in America, a time when Christian America prays in its solemn assemblies.

“Putting an amen” on those prayers, our angry new president has ordered his navy to fire 60 Tomahawk missiles at an airbase in Syria.

It was from that base the U.S. claims Syrian President Bashar al-Assad launched a deadly chemical attack on a rebel-held town in northern Syria.

What prompted this first American attack on Assad’s forces in the seven-year civil war? The official rationale: “Vital national security interests”.

Main stream media responsed to the Tomahawks by praising President Trump for finally acting “presidential”. Even New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, a media champion for oppressed children worldwide, concluded the Tomahawk attack was the right thing to do:

President Trump’s air strikes against Syria were of dubious legality. They were hypocritical. They were impulsive. They may have had political motivations. They create new risks for the United States.

But most of all, they were right.

I’m deeply suspicious of Trump’s policies and competence, but this is a case where he is right and Barack Obama was wrong. Indeed, many of us believe that Obama’s worst foreign policy mistake was his passivity in Syria.

Nicholas Kristof’s newspaper, the Times, published a lead story on Friday, by Michael R. Gordon and Michael D. Shear, which described the American missile attack on Syria’s Al Shayrat airfield.

The missiles were aimed at Syrian fighter jets, hardened aircraft shelters, radar equipment, ammunition bunkers, sites for storing fuel and air defense systems.

Robert Parry turns to a different movie to signal his conviction that blaming Syria for the initial sarin attack in northern Syria was a flawed “rush to judgment”.

Parry suggests that the eagerness with which US neocons in the US  “treated the Syrian government’s responsibility for the poison-gas incident as flat-fact”, might be Donald Trump’s Wag the Dog moment.  

It may have been Assad or it may have the rebels. Or maybe it was an accident. In any event, the Trump response did not reflect careful deliberation.

Parry began his analysis of Trump’s Wag the Dog moment with a different reading from that of the main stream media.

Just two days after news broke of an alleged poison-gas attack in northern Syria, President Trump brushed aside advice from some U.S. intelligence analysts doubting the Syrian regime’s guilt and launched a lethal retaliatory missile strike against a Syrian airfield.

Trump immediately won plaudits from Official Washington, especially from neoconservatives who have been trying to wrestle control of his foreign policy away from his nationalist and personal advisers since the days after his surprise victory Nov. 8.

Parry also points out that the New York Times’ “lengthy story did not even deign to include the denials from Syria and Russia that they were responsible for any intentional deployment of poison gas.”

Parry maintains that the Times story was as emotionally flawed as was the President’s decision to fire the missiles.

Logic and respect for facts no longer prevail inside Official Washington, nor inside the mainstream U.S. news media.The mainstream U.S. media has presented the current crisis with the same profound neocon bias that has infected the coverage of Syria and the larger Middle East for decades.

Parry also finds that the eagerness of the Times to bring Trump into the neocon orbit, and move him away from his previous nationalism, is consistent with its 2003 cheer-leading for George Bush’s “shock and awe” attack on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq forces.

The two films, The Searchers and Wag the Dog, do not offer exact parallels to the initial chemical attack and Trump’s eagerness to attack Syria. The two films, each in its own way, however, do point to two certainties: Trump’s irrational grab for revenge and the ability of government officials and the media to “change the narrative” for the President.

Michael Gordon, who was one of the authors of the Times piece about Trump’s attack, has long served as a reliable Times neocon advocate.

The use of military power is the preferred neocon change method.

This was evident in 2002 when Gordon was “the lead author with Judith Miller of the Times’ bogus “aluminum tube” story in 2002 which falsely claimed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was reconstituting a nuclear-weapons program”.

That 2002 Gordon-Miller article was cited by President George W. Bush’s aides as a key argument for invading Iraq in 2003. That war is now generally acknowledged to be one of this country’s worst and most tragic foreign policy decisions.

On Friday, August 30, 2013, President Barack Obama faced a similar choice Trump has just faced early in his administration.

Should Obama punish Assad for using chemical weapons on his own people, a violation of the red line Obama had drawn, or should he, as Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in the Atlantic, “step back from air strikes and allow the violation of a red line he himself had drawn to go unpunished”.

Obama told Goldberg that “today that decision is a source of deep satisfaction for me”.

“I’m very proud of this moment,” he told Goldberg. “The overwhelming weight of conventional wisdom and the machinery of our national-security apparatus had gone fairly far. The perception was that my credibility was at stake, that America’s credibility was at stake. And so for me to press the pause button at that moment, I knew, would cost me politically.

And the fact that I was able to pull back from the immediate pressures and think through in my own mind what was in America’s interest, not only with respect to Syria but also with respect to our democracy, was as tough a decision as I’ve made—and I believe ultimately it was the right decision to make.”

This was the moment President Obama believes he finally broke with what he calls, “derisively”, the “Washington playbook.”

“Where am I controversial? When it comes to the use of military power,” he said. “That is the source of the controversy. There’s a playbook in Washington that presidents are supposed to follow. It’s a playbook that comes out of the foreign-policy establishment. And the playbook prescribes responses to different events, and these responses tend to be militarized responses.

Where America is directly threatened, the playbook works. But the playbook can also be a trap that can lead to bad decisions. In the midst of an international challenge like Syria, you get judged harshly if you don’t follow the playbook, even if there are good reasons why it does not apply.”

Finally, former British Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, suggested that one cause of the initial chemical explosion in northern Syria could have been a bomb that struck chemical weapons stored by rebel troops.  Here is his interview with BBC:

Obama made the right decision in 2013. Trump has just made the wrong decision, embracing both the revenge of The Searchers, and the media manipulation of Wag the Dog.  

The photo above of President Trump is from Shutterstock, taken during his 2016 campaign. The scenes from The Searchers are from Youtube.

Posted in Donald Trump, Israel, Middle East, USA, War | 6 Comments

This Israeli Memoir Will Shake Up Jewish Liberals

by James M. Wall

Larry Derfner’s memoir, No Country for Jewish Liberals, is must reading for anyone even slightly interested in the “issue” of Palestine and Israel. Read it before he arrives at a location near you.

The author is expected to arrive in the U.S. soon to begin a book tour arranged by his American publisher, Just World Books.

He should be seen and heard on any platform from which word can go out to decision-makers, tax-payers, and devotees of honest, probing, revealing and inspired writing.

His memoir tells the personal story of an Israeli journalist working in a society which is living a lie, a society that extends from Derfner’s birth state of California, to his present home in the Jewish settlement city of Modi’in.

His title, No Country for Jewish Liberals, echoes the opening line from William Butler Yeats’ poem, Sailing to Byzantium”, “No country for old men”, a title also utilized for a 2005 book by Cormac McCarthy and a 2007 film, No Country for Old Men.

Yeats wrote his poem in 1926 when he was in his early 60s. Wikipedia writes that the poem “uses a journey to Constantinople (Byzantium) as a metaphor for a spiritual journey”.  Derfner is now in his early 60s. His life journey began in California as the son of  Holocaust survivors. He worked as a journalist during the upheavals of the 1960s before moving to Israel in 1985.

Derfner’s publisher accurately describes his book as an exploration of his personal and political life, which views “Israel’s moral decline through the lens of his own experiences”.

In reviewing the book for Mondoweiss, James North writes:

No liberal Zionist who reads this 260-page, sprightly-written book will be able to close it with their complacency intact. And among what Derfner calls the “right-wing chickenhawks of organized American Jewry,” there will be teeth-gnashing and a dilemma: should they ignore Derfner and hope that few notice him, or should they launch a campaign to try and smear him?”

Derfner initially arrived in Israel as a “true-blue” Zionist. He confesses he had little awareness of the history that ushered in the modern state of Israel. His change to a new reality as he worked as a journalist, was gradual. His experience as a journalist and his obligatory service in the IDF led to an awakening to what had happened to the country he continues to love.

He recalls one particular incident in the West Bank when he drove with a fellow soldier to transfer a large pile of trash to another location, any location. The driver found the “right site” and dumped the trash next to a large Palestinian garden next to the road.

An outraged Palestinian woman charged the truck, screaming at them in Arabic. The driver used what little Arabic he knew to call her “a whore”. He told her to shut up as he drove away.

Repeated moments of such cruelty led to darker topics and changes in the content and tone of Derfner’s increasingly caustic columns for the Jerusalem Post, a conservative Israeli newspaper.

Finally, at the age of 60, in one column he tried to explain what had led to Palestinians “fighting back” violently. He was fired by the publisher. Derfner understood that he had finally crossed the economic fence that kept journalists from writing what smacked them in the face on a daily basis.

He regretted the column and even offered an apology on Facebook. The publisher refused his request to run the apology in the Post. Derfner confessed he had failed to consider his column’s impact on a reading public that lived under a dome of denial, a dome he had finally escaped.

One key paragraph in his memoir outlines his understanding of the distorted reality Israel and Israelis have created to live as occupiers. Below is a screen shot of that paragraph:

Larry Derfner began his journalistic journey in 1981 with City News Service of Los Angeles.  After moving to Israel, he had a long career as a columnist and feature writer with the Jerusalem Post. He has also worked as a correspondent in Israel for U.S. News and World Report, and as a contributor to the Sunday Times of London, Salon, The Nation, Tablet, Forward and many other publications.

After he was fired by the Post, he began work as a copyeditor and op-ed contributor for Haaretz. He continues to live in Modi’in, Israel with his wife and sons. In his memoir, Derfner says he and his wife have attempted to instill in their sons both a love for Israel and a recognition of the impact of the Palestinian occupation on the morality of their nation.

Larry Derfner has performed a great service by writing No Country for Jewish Liberals, the story of his journey to the painful discovery of how a entire population continues to live under a dome of deceit.

Posted in Israel, Palestinians | 4 Comments

A “New Sheriff in Town” Is Kicking Up Her Heels

by James M. Wall

Nikki Haley, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, (right) was greeted as a rock star at this year’s AIPAC Washington Conference.

The former governor of South Carolina wowed the crowd of 19,000, in an on-stage interview in which she bragged that she blocked the appointment of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a high UN position, solely because he is a Palestinian.

She followed up by bragging that she had persuaded the UN secretary general to withdraw a report which described Israeli policies as apartheid.

The longest and loudest AIPAC crowd roar came when she brought the house down by proclaiming “the days of Israel-bashing at the United Nations are over.”

She declared her intention to end Israel-bashing by metaphorically combining her footwear with her display of strength:  “I wear heels. It’s not for a fashion statement. It’s because if I see something wrong, we’re going to kick them every single time. . . .Anyone that says you can’t get anything done at the U.N., they need to know there’s a new sheriff in town.”

Ha’aretz reported: “Haley embraced the fierce Republican hostility towards the United Nations and [she] is wielding defense of Israel as the sword with which she will slay the organization”.

Speaking in her southern folksy style, Haley, unwittingly perhaps, exposed an attitude which carries more than just a whiff of condescending racism toward Palestinians.

“So when they decided to try and put a Palestinian in one of the highest positions that had ever been given at the U.N., we said no and we had him booted out. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t a nice man. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t good to America. What it means is, until the Palestinian Authority comes to the table, until the U.N. responds the way they’re supposed to, there are no freebees for the Palestinian Authority anymore.”

Haley, the daughter of immigrant parents from India, grew up in South Carolina. Was there no inner voice from her childhood to tell her just how racist she sounded when she said, until the Palestinians come to the table and do what we tell them to do, there will be “no more freebees” anymore?

My childhood was in Georgia, next door to Haley’s South Carolina. Racist culture remains deeply embedded in both Georgia and South Carolina. In a society which has a history of racism, one way to exercise racial superiority is to demean and dismiss anyone who proposes the end of racist structures.

Haley’s second racially-rancid comment came when she dismissed the “ridiculous” Falk Report, as she incorrectly dubs it, by demeaning one of its co-authors, Princeton Professor Richard A. Falk.

So then they tested us again. And a ridiculous report, the Falk Report, came out. I don’t know who the guy is or what he’s about, but he’s got serious problems. Goes and compares Israel to an apartheid state. So the first thing we do is we call the secretary general and say, this is absolutely ridiculous. You have to pull it. The secretary general immediately pulled the report. And then the director has now resigned.

“They”, from Haley’s perspective, are against us. They “test us” with reports that are “ridiculous”.  This is classic colonial racist thinking where “they and us” live in two different realms.

Haley dismisses the “guy” who was behind the apartheid study as someone who has “serious problems”. She has been at her UN post long enough to learn that Richard A. Falk is not just some guy who engages in “Israel-bashing”.

Falk, as Haley should have known, is a UN veteran who was asked by Rima Khalaf, Executive Director of the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), (right) to co-author an apartheid study with Professor Virginia Tilley, a professor of political science at Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

 Falk had both the experience and the training that made him the right person to share preparation of the report with Professor Tilley.

On March 26, 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed Falk to a six-year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.” Falk replaced South African professor John Dugard who left his post in June 2008 after seven years. Falk’s appointment expired in May 2014. (Wikipedia)

Haley should have been better prepared for her first AIPAC appearance. Her record shows signs of sensitivity in racial matters. She was appropriately lauded for her role in persuading the South Carolina legislature to agree that the Confederate flag was no longer an appropriate banner to wave over the state capitol.

She also has skills as a political orator. She is now gaining experience for future higher office. Some have even touted her as a Republican opponent against Trump in 2020.

If she desires such a future, and plans to continue courting American Jews, she should be aware that the mighty AIPAC is showing signs of wear. By 2020, opposition to Israel among American Jews could escalate to levels that would dramatically shift the U.S. political landscape.

This opposition this year surfaced on the streets of Washington while Haley was being interviewed on AIPAC’s main stage. 

Ha’aretz reported:

Hundreds of young Jewish American activists marched outside of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in Washington. 

The activists, who oppose AIPAC’s support for the policies of the current Israeli government on the settlements, carried signs and chanted calls to end the occupation. Some chained themselves to the entrance of the conference center, blocking it.

IfNotNow, a group of young, left-wing American Jews organized the event, which was billed as a “Reclaim, Resist, and Reimagine” rally. Almost 700 people said they would attend on the event’s Facebook page.

Protesters posted photographs and videos on Twitter using the hashtags #ResistAIPAC and #JewishResistance.

If Nikki Haley wants to reach that growing number of resisting American Jews in her future campaigns, she will need an internal shift away from booting Palestinians out of jobs just because they are Palestinians.

She will also need to understand UN history and the valuable role played by Americans like Richard Falk, before she bashes that world body . 

She will also need to recognize that her job as UN ambassador is to serve the best interests of her nation and its values, not the interests and illegal apartheid values of a foreign state. 

To read Haley’s interview, click here for the full text.

Her full 17-minute interview with Dan Señor is below:

The picture of Nikki Haley at AIPAC in Washington this week is an AP Photo by Jose Luis Magana.

Posted in Israel, Middle East, Netanyahu, Palestinians | 13 Comments

Israel’s Apartheid Elephant Is Still in the Room

by James M. Wall

In a 1935 stage production of Billy Rose’s Jumbo, Jimmy Durante is leading an elephant down the street. A policeman stops him and asks, “What are you doing with that elephant?”

Durante responds, “What elephant”? That line became a 1935 nightly show-stopper. Durante repeated the same question in the 1962 film version of Jumbo (right).

Wikipedia speculates that this line may have contributed to the phrase, “the elephant in the room”, which refers to the denial of something as a reality, when that something is obviously in the room.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres last week became the latest official to deny the obvious presence of the apartheid elephant enforced by the state of Israel.

He joined the parade and said, “What elephant?”, when he instructed Rima Khalaf, Executive Director of the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), to withdraw a report written for her agency.

The report concluded that Israel imposes an apartheid regime on Palestinians. She refused to withdraw the report. Then she resigned as ESCWA’s Executive Director.

The Palestinian news agency Ma’an reported that Dr. Khalaf told reporters in Beirut that the report was the “first of its kind” from a UN agency.

She also said the report sheds light on “the crimes that Israel continues to commit against the Palestinian people, which amount to war crimes against humanity.”

The ESCWA, which is comprised of 18 Arab states from western Asia, said in the report that Israel was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” of imposing apartheid policies against Palestinians.

Richard Falk, who co-authored the original ESCWA report with fellow American academic, Virginia Tilley, has an important article in The Nation magazine, about the preparation and impact of the report. 

Falk explained the final careful steps of the report from draft to the finished document:

ESCWA, for its part, took steps to ensure that the report lived up to scholarly standards, submitting the draft text to three prominent international jurists, who anonymously submitted strong positive appraisals along with some suggestions for revision, which we gratefully incorporated before the final text was released. For government officials and others to dismiss our report as a biased polemic is irresponsible, with respect both to the authority of the UN and to international law.

Predictably, Israeli officials were quick to denounce the report, comparing it to Nazi propaganda and calling for Guterres to publicly reject it. Just as predictably, the U.S. quickly f0llowed with its Me-Two attack on the report.

The report is no longer on the ESCWA website, but it is posted elsewhere. It demands a close reading.

Falk closed his article for The Nation on a note of hope:

It remains our central hope, one shared by ESCWA, that the widespread availability of the report will lead to a clearer understanding of the Palestinian plight and encourage more effective responses by the UN, by governments, and by civil society. Beyond this, it is our continuing wish that people of good will throughout the world, especially within Israel, will work toward a political solution that will finally allow Jews and Palestinians to live together in peace, with justice.

The co-authors of the original draft of the report are Virginia Tilley, a professor of political science at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, and Falk, currently a professor emeritus of international law and practice at Princeton University. He was the United Nations Human Rights Rapporteur in the Occupied Territories from 2008 until 2014. 

Guterres, the UN official who dissed the report, is new to his post. He was sworn in as the new United Nations secretary general on Monday, December 17, 2016. The 67-year-old former Portuguese prime minister most recently served as head of the UN’s refugee agency. 

Rima Khalaf served as Executive Director of ESCWA from 2010 to 2017. A citizen of Jordan, she holds a BA in Economics from the American University of Beirut and a Master’s in Economics and a PhD in System Science from Portland State University in the U.S. 

Earlier in her career, Khalaf served her own Jordanian government as

Minister of Industry and Trade (1993–1995); Minister of Planning (1995–1998); Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Planning (1999–2000).

Her resignation for conscience’s sake, came more than a decade after President Jimmy Carter published his 2006 book, PalestinePeace Not Apartheid, a study of his years of dealing with Israeli governments.

President Carter was attacked by forces which have frantically sought to hide behind a wall of unreality, a wall that protects Israel’s five-decade long dedication to its illegal oppressive occupation.

The attackers were afraid a book by President Carter with “apartheid” in the title would lead many in the public to wake up to the presence of the apartheid elephant running all over Palestine, locking up children and building more check points.

Israel relies heavily on “Fifth Column” U.S. citizens loyal to Israel, to defend a false narrative which “justifies” the establishment of Israel’s apartheid state for “security reasons”.  

That “security” rationale for apartheid is showing additional signs of crumbling, thanks in part to Israeli officials who have seen the apartheid elephant in the line of duty, up close and personal.

Among those officials is former Israeli Mossad chief Tamir Pardo, who has just warned Israelis that they clinging to an unreality.

At a conference at Israel’s Netanya Academic College, Pardo said that Israel’s occupation and its conflict with the Palestinians are “the only existential threat facing Israel”.

“Israel has chosen not to choose, hoping the conflict will resolve itself – perhaps the Arabs will disappear, maybe some cosmic miracle will happen,” Pardo told a conference at the Netanya Academic College.

“One day we will become a binational state because it will be impossible to untie the Gordian knot between the two peoples. That is not the way to decide.”

Pardo stated: “Israel has one existential threat. It is a ticking time bomb. We chose to stick our head in the sand, creating a variety of external threats”.

The American people are discovering the hard way, what it means for its president to live in a self-enclosed understanding of reality.

President Trump is a man who clings to what he thinks is true in spite of overwhelming evidence that it is not true. Like the current leaders of Israel, he surrounds himself with loyalists who support him in his views of reality.

It does seem clear, however, that when Israel and its U.S. loyalists, and Trump, and his Russian-loving pals, cling to their own narrow understanding of reality, we can hear them asking,”What elephant?”

Allison Weir, who has long seen the apartheid elephant, has debunked Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu’s flimsy new law to keep Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) supporters out of Israel by asking in good Joe McCarthy fashion, “Are you now or have you ever been in favor of BDS”?

Weir flattened Bibi by writing “a letter to the Israel government”, which she posted on  Dissident Voice.

In her letter she says: “I’m not trying to go to Israel. I want to go to Palestine.”

“I want to go to Bethlehem and Nablus, Ramallah and Hebron, Jenin and Tulkarem. I hope to return to Khan Yunis, Rafah, Gaza City, and numerous other towns and villages in the West Bank and Gaza.

In other words, I want to go to Palestine – a country recognized by 136 countries around the world. But your law, astoundingly, prevents me from visiting that country. You control entry and exit to the places I want to visit, even though they’re not part of your territory, or included in your exclusive democracy.”

Israel’s anti-BDS law is a confession that Israel’s apartheid elephant stands guard in both Palestine and Israel, protecting Israel from opinions.

Border monitors will not change the reality that Palestinians will not have freedom as long as the apartheid elephant exists.

“What elephant?” 

Posted in Israel, Jimmy Carter, Middle East, United Nations | Tagged , | 10 Comments

The Political History Behind Trump’s Curtain

by James M. Wall

Writing in the current issue of In These Times, American History scholar Theo Anderson follows the modern political conservative movement’s rise to power from the founding of the Heritage Foundation in 1973 through Donald Trump’s inauguration in 2017.

It is a story of an ideological movement dedicated to the creation of “an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society flourish.” (Heritage Foundation mission statement)

In 1980, that movement rode initially to White House power on the coattails of an amiable movie actor, Ronald Reagan, while picking up crucial political allies among evangelical Christians. 

Evangelical Christians played a major role in elevating a non-religious Reagan to the White House, even as they help toss out one of their own, a born-again Southern Baptist, President Jimmy Carter.

Co-founders of the Heritage Foundation in 1973, Paul Weyrich (above) and Edwin Feulner (below), were funded lavishly by beer baron Joseph Coors.

Many Evangelical Christians frown on consumption of alcohol beverages, except, it appears, when profits from those beverages fund their political ambitions.

Weyrich and Feulner were shrewd political operatives who knew their targets: Americans who were rich, and Americans who believed they should be rich. Both targets believed in liberty for themselves, less so for “others”.

Anderson writes that “Weyrich’s dogged institution-building was driven by a burning vision: Organize evangelical Christians into a powerful voting bloc, reinvent the Republican Party and radically reconstruct the nation.”

He adds:

In the late 1970s, Weyrich used anger over encroachments on “religious liberty”—namely, the liberty to deny African Americans entrance to religious private schools—to mobilize the Christian Right. His efforts propelled Reagan to victory in 1980 via another organization Weyrich cofounded, the Moral Majority.

Weyrich, who belonged to a Catholic sect, spoke a language of personal responsibility that resonated with evangelicals. He believed that individualism was the heart of the Judeo-Christian tradition and its great nemesis was the growth of government.

Heritage had long been knee-deep in the religious liberty crusade of the Christian Right. It built a successful on-line publication, The Daily Signal, which claims to have more than 2 million readers

The Daily Signal looks for “what it considers outrageous government intrusions on Christians’ rights, especially their right to discriminate against LGBT people. These stories often involve the travails of fundamentalist bakers, florists and wedding planners”.

For libertarians and corporate conservatives, freedom means low taxes and little or no regulation. When the influential libertarian economist Milton Friedman died in 2006, Heritage posted a tribute to him on its website, claiming that “his powerful insights” had “saved millions or billions of people from decades of oppressive statism.”

In his essay, Anderson writes, since its initial start with Coors’ beer money, “Heritage has grown large enough to boast an annual budget of about $100 million and a staff of about 90 “experts” who hold such pseudo-academic titles as “research fellow’ and “policy analyst.”

With additional support from Coors, Weyrich also founded the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress (CSFC), “an organization that trained and mobilized conservative activists, recruited conservative candidates, and raised funds for conservative causes”.

Under Weyrich, the CSFC “was one of the first organizations to tap into evangelical Christian churches as places to recruit and cultivate activists and support for social conservative causes. In 1977, Weyrich co-founded Christian Voice with Robert Grant. Two years later, with Jerry Falwell, he founded the Moral Majority (1979–1989)”.

Over the next two decades, Weyrich founded, co-founded, or held prominent roles in a number of other notable conservative organizations. Among them, he was founder of the American Legislative Exchange Council, [ALEC] an organization of state legislators; a co-founder of the Council for National Policy, a strategy-formulating organization for social conservatives.

Heritage is not the only gun in the conservative movement’s arsenal, but its impact is obvious in the current Trump administration.

Anderson writes:

“We are different from previous generations of conservatives,” Weyrich said in the early 1980s. “We are radicals, working to overturn the present power structure of this country.”

As a recent Salon essay notes:  Trump is that movement’s best hope yet for achieving its great dream of “gutting government”. 

Trump’s proposed $1.15 trillion budget for 2018, appears to race forward in that gutting effort. Domestic agencies are trimmed significantly. Only the Pentagon budget moves higher, much higher. 

Salon wrote that “Donald Trump is relying on a blueprint budget from the conservative Heritage Foundation and the guidance of a former Rand Paul staffer, to deliver the most extremely right-wing restructuring of the federal government in decades.”

The Trump transition team has been at work for months with career staffers at the White House and throughout the federal bureaucracy to draft a plan to cut $10.5 trillion out of the federal government over 10 years, according to multiple reports.

The president-elect vowed to slash government spending on the campaign trail, promising to add those savings to the massive budget of the Department of Defense. New reporting now outlines just which parts of the federal government will be eliminated by the incoming Trump administration.. . . .

As Anderson writes: “Heritage isn’t an appendage of the Trump administration’s radicalism. It’s the heart of it. Trump is just a tool.”

To those voters who hope that maybe the gutting of so many progressive dreams will be side-tracked with an impeachment or resignation of President Trump, Anderson delivers the bad news.

Vice President Mike Pence . . .has deep ties to the Foundation.

In 2006, Weyrich, who considered himself a mentor of Pence’s, said of him, “Nobody is perfect, but he comes pretty close.”

After the election of the Trump-Pence team, in early December, 2016, Pence gave the keynote speech at a Heritage event, held, of course Trump’s D.C. hotel, to honor the foundation’s biggest donors. He promised that the Trump administration “is now and will continue to draw on the institution’s work”.

Weyrich died, at age 66, on December 18, 2008, a month after the election of Democratic President Barack Obama. 

Edwin Feulner, now 76, (right), Weyrich’s partner in establishing the Heritage Foundation, is still going strong. He began a career that included a long run as chief of staff for ultra-conservative Illinois Republican congressman Phil Crain.

Feulner served as Heritiage President from 1977 to 2013, when he was replaced by former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, who left a safe South Carolina seat to move to the real power center of the conservative movement. 

In an interview with The National Review, Feulner was asked to identify Heritage’s most important achievement. He responded, “I think we have made conservative ideas mainstream and equally credible”.

With Trump’s election in November, Heritage has become a key power broker in Washington. It has an administration willing to further its agenda.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in late February, 2017, Trump advisor Steve Bannon said that the administration’s priority was the “deconstruction of the administrative state.”

The conservative movement’s rise to power began in the aftermath of what seemed like conservatism’s collapse through the 1950s and 1960s. 

Anderson concludes his In These Times essay: “Heritage’s use of an ideological cipher like Trump to carry out an agenda that seemed hopelessly stuck just four years ago is the latest example of the movement’s resilience.”

“If Trump is impeached and removed from office, they will be happy to have Pence”.

The picture of Paul Weyrich at top is from In These Times. It was taken in 1986 by Susan Biddle, for the Denver Post. It is a Getty photo. The picture of In These Times, is the cover of the April issue. The picture of Edwin Feulner is a publicity shot. 

Posted in Donald Trump, Politics and Elections, Stephen Brannon, US govermemt | 2 Comments

Bibi Blocks BDS Backers At Israel’s Borders

by James M. Wall

On Monday, March 6, the Israeli Knesset passed a travel ban which strongly resembles a U.S. travel ban scheduled to go into effect the middle of next week.

The U.S. ban is a second effort by the Trump White House to ban travelers entering the U.S. from six predominantly Muslim nations, a white nationalist action which strongly resembles Israel’s travel ban against supporters of boycotts against Israel, Israeli settlements or Israeli institutions.

As Palestinians and Palestine supporters who have traveled to Palestine can testify, the new law will codify what unofficially has been operational for decades.

This new Israeli ban blocks travelers identified as supporters of BDS.

Specifically, the law states: “No entry or residency permit of any kind will be given to a person who is not a citizen of Israel or a permanent resident, if the person, the organization or body that he is active on behalf of, has called for a boycott of Israel in any public media or who committed to participate in such a boycott.”

When President Trump ordered “that entry to the U.S. be suspended for residents from six Muslim-majority countries and blocked refugees from around the world Monday, retooling the executive order that stoked chaos at airports and drew international condemnation and a rebuke in the courts”.

Trump removed Iraqis from the list of travelers who were temporarily banned, clarified that holders of visas and green cards can come to the U.S. and took other steps aimed at ensuring the order holds up in court.

Trump and Netanyahu are now partners in crime through the linkage of their respective nationalisms. Israel sells itself as an increasingly isolationist nation, at the same time it continues, unabated, an illegal and brutal occupation which produces its isolation.

Trump’s white nationalism, which was a big factor in his 2016 presidential election, links him to Netanyahu through their nationalisms soaked in religious exceptionalism. 

The Forward reports that sponsors of Israel’s anti-boycott bill argue that calls to boycott Israel represent “a new front of war against Israel.” Knesset member Roy Folkman of the Kulanu party said, “we can defend the state of Israel’s name and dignity and it’s not an embarrassment.”

Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights attorney, described the impact of the new law:

In theory, the law could target a huge swath of travelers – from outspoken activists who join West Bank protests, to foreign nationals including several European politicians like the British Jeremy Corbyn who have called for boycotting economic, academic and cultural institutions in Israel or the West Bank.

Cornel West is a long-time supporter of BDS. West said he would obviously be a target for this ban. In an interview with Ha’aretz, he said:

“BDS is not a homogenous movement. There are a lot of different voices, but it is the only non-violent response I can see to the very ugly occupation, and I would do exactly the same if there was a Palestinian occupation of Jews. It’s a moral issue, a spiritual issue”.

In his interview with Ha’aretz, West was asked if he would consider visiting Israel to speak about BDS and the occupation. In spite of his support for a boycott, West says he would have, before the ban. “I could not get in now. But I consider Israelis my brothers and sisters, whether they are Jewish or Arab, just as I consider Palestinians, who are wrestling with the Israeli occupation”.

Columnist Jonathan Cook writes from Nazareth:

Legislation passed by the Israeli parliament on Monday night will only intensify the exclusionary trend. The new law forbids entry to anyone who supports a boycott, even if it is only of the settlements. As one legislator pointed out, that means Israel may quickly find itself bound to refuse entry to all officials from the United Nations and Europe.

In a sign of the new direction, Israel denied a tourist visa last week to Human Rights Watch’s new director for Israel and Palestine, having earlier refused him a work permit. One of the most prominent human rights organisations in the world was dismissed as an outlet for “Palestinian propaganda”.

The growing spirit of resistance to Israel’s occupation, has gathered momentum. In June, 2015, almost two years ago, William Booth and Ruth Eglash wrote in the Washington Post:

Suddenly, again, Israel is seeing new threats everywhere. The latest come not from rockets, the Israelis say, but from students armed with petitions and Palestinians seeking sanctions against the Israeli soccer team.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his supporters here and in the United States are warning that Israel is unfairly beset on all sides, by old foes and new. Most worrisome of all, they say, are not armed militants but a campaign of “delegitimization” against the Jewish state.

Yesterday’s threat may have been a Hamas militant digging an attack tunnel across the Gaza Strip border.

Today’s threat, according to the Israeli government, appears to be a college student in Britain with a petition who supports the “boycott, divestment and sanctions” (BDS) movement against Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, who are approaching their 50th year of living under Israeli military occupation.

The nationalism that led to the Brexit election victory in the United Kingdom has strong right-wing allies in Europe.

In the 2016 German elections, a new party leader emerged with enough right-wing appeal to evoke Newsweek’s headline: The Trump of Germany:

In the dawn of the Trump era, one political party formerly on the fringes of German society has been glowing: the anti-immigrant, anti-EU Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).

Four days after Trump’s inauguration, I met AfD’s party leader, Frauke Petry (at left), who represents the district of Saxony, at her office in Leipzig, where she compared Trump’s victory to Britain’s vote to leave the EU. .  .

While other prominent right-wing leaders, like Marine Le Pen of France’s National Front and Geert Wilders of the Dutch Freedom Party, have received more attention for their fiery brand of politics, the AfD’s Petry may, in some ways, be the most consequential of all the nativist European politicians.

Across the English Channel, Nigel Farage, an important right-wing figure in England’s split with the EU, shares with Trump and Gemany’s Frauke Petry an anti-immigrant stance. 

Nigel Farage has his own ties to Stephen Bannon and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, two anti-immigrant players in the Trump Administration. 

In her superb New York Times Magazine essay on February 28, 2017, Emily Bazelon (right) describes the relationship of these two men and their connection to Nigel Farage.

She begins her narrative:

One night in September 2014, when he was chief executive of Breitbart News, Stephen Bannon hosted cocktails and dinner at the Washington townhouse where he lived, a mansion near the Supreme Court that he liked to call the Breitbart Embassy. Beneath elaborate chandeliers and flanked by gold drapes and stately oil paintings, Jeff Sessions, then a senator from Alabama, sat next to the guest of honor: Nigel Farage, the insurgent British politician, who first met Sessions two years earlier when Bannon introduced them.

Farage was building support for his right-wing party by complaining in the British press about “uncontrolled mass immigration.” Sessions, like other attendees, was celebrating the recent collapse in Congress of bipartisan immigration reform, which would have provided a path to citizenship for some undocumented people.

At the dinner, Sessions told a writer for Vice, Reid Cherlin, that Bannon’s site was instrumental in defeating the measure. Sessions read Breitbart almost every day, he explained, because it was “putting out cutting-edge information.”

For Bannon and Sessions, “immigration was a galvanizing issue, lying at the center of their apparent vision for reshaping the United States by tethering it to its European and Christian origins”.

That was October, 2014.

Stephen Bannon is now the influential policy adviser to Donald J. Trump. The President has installed Bannon in the inner circle of the National Security Council.

Jeff Sessions is the attorney general of the United States. The two of them, with their allies, have a “vision of the nation besieged”. That vision can advance the Bannon-Sessions justification for policies that will develop their “divisive nationalism”. 

For one sample of the Sessions approach to governance, just this week, the AG issued this statement:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Thursday that he would advise President Trump to send newly captured terrorism suspects to the wartime prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, which he called ‘a very fine place,’ rather than to bring them to civilian court for prosecution by the Justice Department he now runs. ‘There’s plenty of space,’ Mr. Sessions said of the prison. 

For Bannon, Sessions and their allies, “immigration was a galvanizing issue, lying at the center of their apparent vision for reshaping the United States by tethering it to its European and Christian origins”.

How does the Trump new anti-immigration order sound to those who do not dwell inside the Trump bubble?

The Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, described the new order as a “watered-down ban” that was still “meanspirited and un-American.” 

Margaret Huang, the executive director of Amnesty International USA, said in a statement that the new order would “cause extreme fear and uncertainty for thousands of families by, once again, putting anti-Muslim hatred into policy.”

Also this weekthe ties between the two governments now running Israel and the U.S., were strengthened even more when “the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on Thursday to approve the nomination of David Friedman (at left), a vocal supporter of Israeli settlements and a longtime associate of U.S. President Donald Trump, as the next U.S. ambassador to Israel. Eleven Republican senators voted for Friedman, joined by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) who broke ranks with fellow Democrats, all remaining nine of whom voted against the nomination”.

The vote of the full Senate on David Friedman is expected to reach the floor next week.

The picture of Netanyahu is from Mondoweiss; the picture of Petry is a Nurphoto/Getty photo by Emmanuele Contini; the picture of Friedman is an AFP photo by Win McNamee.

Posted in Donald Trump, Israel, Middle East, Netanyahu, Palestinians | 2 Comments

The NFL Star Who Refused to Shine For Israel

by James M. Wallseahawks-com

When I learned of the courageous decision made recently by Seattle Seahawks defensive end Michael Bennett, I remembered my 1973 trip to Israel.

Bennett (right) made headlines when he pulled out of an Israeli government-sponsored trip to Israel designed for NFL players.

He refused to be a part of Israel’s hasbara campaign.

Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now, interviewed Bennett after he had written an open letter in which he said:

One of my heroes has always been Muhammad Ali. I know that Ali always stood strongly with the Palestinian people, visiting refugee camps, going to rallies, and always willing to be a ‘voice for the voiceless.’ I want to be a ‘voice for the voiceless’ and I cannot do that by going on this kind of trip to Israel.”

I made a similar trip just after the 1973 war, a trip arranged, but not paid for, by the American Jewish Committee. It was a journey with a surprise ending. 

It was on that trip that I had the epiphany that opened me to the incredibly one-sided Israeli version of events that had led to the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, and to the occupation of Palestinian territory since the 1967 war.

On that trip,  I was guided by an American Jewish Committee (AJC) staffer. One day on the trip, I had three experiences my AJC host did not want me to have.

Through these three experiences I had a consciousness-raising, life-changing epiphany.

First, I saw my first Israeli settlement planted illegally on Palestinian land. That settlement is now Ma’ale Adumim, which became a “Jewish City” in 1991. Its 2015 population was 37,525.

Second, I had a long discussion with a Palestinian farmer whose water supply had been stolen by Israeli industrial farms in the Jordan  Valley. He showed me his almost-empty well down the hill from a modern Israeli well.

Third, I met the Bir Zeit College President and his latest faculty member. More on them below.

I have written elsewhere of my epiphany, and the young Mennonite minister who took me on my journey along the Jericho Road and up the Jordan Valley, to the Golan Heights and down to the campus of Bir Zeit College.

That longer story is available on line at Link magazine, published by Americans for Middle East Understanding (AMEU).

My epiphany in 1973 was different from that of Bennett’s. It was a different time. Bennett had a mentor like Ali, who had identified with the occupied Palestinians. I had no mentors in the U.S. like Ali.

What we share, Bennett and I, is the desire to share a truth we have encountered. Bennett’s decision was to make a risky moral decision to stand with Palestine. He shared that truth with other NFL players who were invited on the same “ambassadorial” trip.

In the end, only five out of the original 13 players accepted Israel’s one-sided trip to Israel. Bennett’s witness had struck a chord with them.

Bennett was blessed with a mentor named Muhammad Ali. I had to travel to Palestine to find my mentor.

When I became editor and publisher of The Christian Century magazine in 1972, one of the first calls I received was from a staff member of the American Jewish Committee. I was soon invited to lunch with the Chicago Israeli Consul.

At that time, and still today, Israel has an active hasbara campaign which targets American pastors with tempting invitations to “come and walk where Jesus walked”. The pastors are told that if they bring members of their parish on their trip, the pastor’s expenses are covered.

The same good-will trips are offered and accepted by politicians, police chiefs, NFL players, preachers, public officials, journalists, and anyone else with influence on others who are susceptible to a one-sided journey to “the Holy Land”.

In 1973, I was not a pastor, but a clergyman editor of an ecumenical national publication. Israel’s strategy to recruit pastors and other public leaders was, by 1973, already a huge success. They had less success, though, with this religious journalist.

When I was being courted by the Israelis in my early months as editor, I was new to what western governments then called “the Palestinian problem”. My understanding of the issue, I am ashamed to admit, was largely shaped by the Leon Uris book, Exodus, and the movie that followed, featuring Paul Newman as Israeli military leader Ari Ben Canaan.

My experience and abject ignorance were shared by generations of seminary graduates who entered parish ministries. Seminaries were no help in introducing us to this immoral, highly significant criminal social justice issue.  What little we knew about “The Holy Land” was shaped by a pro-Israel secular media and our devotion to the scriptures, a devotion Israel has always been eager to exploit.

In that “Holy Land”, this criminal violation of the Palestinian people remains a daily occurrence.

A current news story in the Palestinian publication Ma’an, is but the latest example of the brutal, illegal occupation. It was circulated by the IMEMC (International Middle East Media Center) in Jerusalem:

Israeli soldiers abducted, Tuesday [February 28], five students of Birzeit University, including three females, in the Ramallah and al-Biereh District, while protesting near the Ofer Israeli prison, and violently assaulted them.

The students were participating in a massive nonviolent procession held in solidarity with Palestinian detainees holding hunger strikes in Israeli prisons, including the former head of the Students’ Council in the University, journalist Mohammad al-Qeeq, and Jamal Abu al-Leil.

The abducted students have been identified as Ahmad Khader, Hassan Daraghma, Miran Barghouthi, Zeinab Barghouthi and Bayan Safi.

In Israeli parlance, “abduct” is a euphemism for “arrested”. What the story does not add is that Palestinians who are arrested by soldiers of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), are not allowed to contact family members, nor lawyers.  

This is not the conduct of a democracy; it is the method of dictatorial control by a nation funded by U.S. tax-payers. 

In 1973, that dictatorial control was already in full military mode. I saw it then and have continued to see my American government cajole, suggest, tolerate and fund, successive Israeli governments who are free to arrest and imprison protesting students. 

Forty-four years ago, I had not the slightest awareness of the evil of occupation, which is why I eagerly accepted the American Jewish Committee’s invitation to visit Israel, a few weeks after the 1973 war.

It was a good and quiet time to be there. The war had frightened away tourists. The American Colony Hotel was eager to have me occupy one of their many empty guest rooms.

Early in my visit, while sitting with my AJC host in an almost-empty Jerusalem restaurant, the mayor of Jerusalem came by our table to welcome me to Israel. He was looking for American friends. 

I had made one stipulation for my trip. I would accept arrangement assistance for travel and hotel arrangements, but as a journalist, I insisted on paying for that travel and hotel.

That made it easier for me to escape the AJC schedule near the end of my trip and agree to visit Palestinian territory under the watchful eye of a Mennonite I met. I would not have had my epiphany with my AJC host.

When my Mennonite friend, Leroy Friesen, and I visited the Bir Zeit campus, we had a long discussion with the college president, Hanna Nasir, who would later bring Bir Zeit into university status (BZU). 

In retirement he serves as the chairman of the Palestinian Central Elections Commission, and is also the chair of the Board of Trustees of BZU.

Nasir introduced us to a new professor just back from graduate school in Virginia. She was a Palestinian, Hanan Ashrawi, who had earned her Ph.D. in Medieval and Comparative Literature from the University of Virginia.

Dr. Ashrawi became the first woman elected to the Palestinian National Council. Over the years she has been active in Palestinian government affairs. She became a familiar figure on western television news programs as spokesperson for President Yasir Arafat.

Michael Bennett drew national attention to the injustice suffered by Palestinians when he refused to take a hasbara trip to promote Israel. He then influenced eight of his fellow NFL players to withdraw from the trip with him.

Leroy Friesen was my personal Michael Bennett. He introduced me to the reality of the Palestinian Occupation.

I should say how Leroy and I met. It was at a clergy meeting at the Holy Land Institute, in Jerusalem, which I described in my Link article, as “an institution of a more evangelical persuasion than that of the Christian Century, which is known in church circles as a liberal magazine.”  

During a coffee break he quietly spoke to me and said, “you are not getting the full story on this trip”.

He offered to take me on a drive the next day through the occupied Palestinian West Bank. I cancelled my AJC schedule for the day. Early the next morning, we headed down the Jericho Road on a journey on which I was blessed with my epiphany.

In 1973, there were few Americans interested in hearing the Nakba story. There were few Americas who cared to understood the horror and brutality of a military occupation. Israel had successfully captured the hearts and minds of the American people through its intensive campaign to co-opt opinion-makers.

Today, 44 years later, a growing number of opinion-makers know and understand the ugly truth about Israel’s creation and its illegal occupation of Palestine.

One of those opinion-makers is a prominent professional athlete with a large personal following, Seattle Seahawks defensive end, Michael Bennett. At great personal risk to his career, Michael Bennett has taken a stand for Palestinian justice. 

Bennett needs others to stand with him.  He needs American politicians, police chiefs, NFL players, preachers, journalists, and anyone else offered a one-sided journey to “the Holy Land”, to follow his lead. Spread the word, Michael Bennett’s got your back.

Posted in Israel, Media, Palestinians | 16 Comments

Trump Delivers “A Deportation Force on Steroids”

by James M. Wallscreen-shot-2017-02-22-at-3-55-59-pm

In response to a question about Antisemitism, President Trump summarized his answer with one of his typical non sequitur closings: “you’re going to see a whole lotta love.”

What we are getting from Trump is not even remotely related to love. What we are receiving from the result of the disastrous 2016 election, is the huge package of hate Trump promised in his campaign, and now implements as president. 

Trump deports undocumented immigrants because he now has the job his White Nationalist supporters helped him win. 

The Congress, and Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, set up and oiled the  mechanism for deportation under the direction of the “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an American federal law enforcement agency under the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS).” (Wikipedia).

In a Democracy Now interview posted by Amy Goodman Wednesday the nation Trump rules, now has an ICE force that implements the hatred he generated in his campaign, a campaign that began, we must never forget, with Trump’s Big Lie about Barack Obama’s birth place.

The ICE is intended to carefully identify undocumented immigrants for depotation.

Under President Trump, the ICE is riding on a Trump-instigated wave of hatred to conduct “a deportation force on steroids”.

That superb summary statement came in the Goodman interview from Cesar Vargas, who is co-director of DREAM Action Coalition. He is New York state’s first openly undocumented attorney. Responding to Goodman, Vargas said:

We are seeing now a deportation force on steroids, because the fact is that the deportation force was created back, you know, with George Bush, but also strengthened with President Obama, who deported more people than any president in American history. So, Donald Trump has really taken the keys of this deportation machine, and refueling it and really aggressively pursuing and targeting every immigrant.

Congress and Presidents Bush and Obama, handed a loaded pistol of free-wheeling deportations to future presidents.

Vargas continued:

When he talks about ‘Not all. We’re just going to go after the bad ones, after the rapists, the criminals,’ well, he’s not targeting just those violent criminals, but he’s targeting potentially parents, hard-working children, students and veterans, and he claims to be a supporter of, champion of veterans.

He is now about to deport veterans and the families of these veterans. So we are seeing Donald Trump taking the keys of an aggressive deportation machine, that President Obama created, and taking it over 100 miles per hour.

Goodman also interviewed Margo Schlanger, professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School, who served in the Obama administration as head of civil rights and civil liberties at the Department of Homeland Security.

Amy Goodman asked Professor Schlanger, “talk about what you think are the critical guidelines here and what they mean for millions of immigrants in the United States?

She responded: “Well, the problem is, there really aren’t guidelines. What the president has done, and what DHS has now confirmed, is rendered basically every person who’s here out of status a prospect for deportation. And so, it’s everyone. If you read through what are supposed to be the priorities, they reach pretty much everybody.”

We had reason to be aware of the personality we elected in 2016.  He was already a public figure when the 2012 Academy Awards evoked a “from the desk of Trump” video outburst from him.

The Daily Beast shared the video of Trump’s outburst Wednesday (see below) in advance of this Sunday’s annual Academy Awards presentations.  The target in the 2012 video was Sacha Baron Cohen, who dumped ashes on red-carpet interviewer Ryan Seacrest.

The ashes event was a stunt, designed to showcase Cohen, playing the role of an Eastern European immigrant named “Ali G”. Trump did his insult-praise routine, attacking Cohen and describing Ryan Seacrest as a “great guy”.

It was disgraceful,” shouted Trump. “And the security guard that was standing to the right? He ought to be fired immediately. That guy had nothing. He is not capable. He allowed this guy to get away with so much. Believe me, if that ever happened to somebody with real security, Sacha Baron Cohen would not be in good shape right now. He’d be in a hospital. He would have been punched in the face so many times, he wouldn’t have known what happened.”

A bit of context: Trump was punked by Cohen on The Ali G Show back in 2003. He later claimed, via Twitter, “I never fall for scams. I am the only person who immediately walked out of my ‘Ali G’ interview.” Cohen later claimed Trump was full of it, saying “he was there for seven minutes” sitting in his chair while Ali G took [him down], which was “quite a long time” for a bit.

A Trump attack on the media, so prevalent now that he is President, wraps up his 2012 attack on Ali G, with a report on one of the parties surrounding that year’s Academy Awards.

Here is his video attacking Sacha Baron Cohen and Vanity Fair. This is from 2012. He was saying the same stuff then that he said as a candidate and now as a president. 

He made sure his viewers know that the “absolute worst party” of the night was thrown by Vanity Fair, “a  publication whose newsstand circulation is falling. It has lost its focus; it used to be a wonderful magazine. Right now it is boring, just like the party they had. Too bad, it was a great institution. It’s gone”.

After Citizen Trump’s attack on Vanity Fair in 2012, the magazine continued to give its annual Academy Awards party, hosted by Graydon Carter, the magazine’s editor. 

In its January 23 issue, Vanity Fair editor Carter had this to say about the nation’s new president:

Donald Trump, our 45th president, sold the electorate an America First bill of goods, when what he really had in mind was Me First. “I won,” he gloats, “therefore I can do this! I won, therefore I can do that!” In early January, our then president-elect was invited up to the offices of Condé Nast, the parent company of Vanity Fair, to meet with the editors of its magazines.

The get-together was off the record. (Not my wish. Nor was the meeting itself.) The standard practice is that, in such a context, nothing of what Trump said can be repeated. It doesn’t really matter, because I recall nothing being said that he hadn’t already said many times before.

Is there any American at this point who hasn’t heard Trump talk about pretty much everything? He always speaks lovingly about his favorite subject—himself. He spent an entire campaign talking about the size of his victories, the size of his rallies, the size of his Twitter following, the excellence of his golf game, and the greatness of his company.

The magazine’s circulation, by the way, has remained an obsession with Trump. 

On December 16, 2016, after his election as president, Vanity Fair ran a negative review of a Trump grill. The president-elect was not pleased. He was ready with a tweet. Fastcompany.com, a business-oriented outlet, reported:

Yesterday, Donald Trump tweeted that numbers for Vanity Fair magazine are “way down,” and that the Condé Nast-owned lifestyle publication is in “big trouble.” The tweet—apparently a response to VF’s skewering of Trump Grill on Wednesday—is part of a pattern for Trump, who has a history of taking to Twitter to attack media brands that write unflattering things about him.

According to Trump, Vanity Fair’s numbers are “really poor,” but what numbers is he talking about? Audience data for the magazine shows it had a pretty good year both in print and online. In fact, it’s having a pretty good decade. According to the Alliance for Audited Media, VF’s verified and paid circulation averaged 1.2 million for the first six months of 2016. That’s slightly above where it was five years ago and not too shabby for a print magazine these days.

The Daily Beast assumes the President will be glued to his television this coming Sunday night. He will most likely be sending out tweets to express his approval and disapproval. 

Meanwhile, President Trump’s ICE forces will be busy rounding up those undocumented “bad guys”, he promised his political base he would deport. 

The picture of ICE agents at top is a screen shot.

Posted in Donald Trump, Obama, Politics and Elections | 1 Comment