Human Rights Watch (HRW) has accused Israel of increasing its arbitrary repression of Palestinian non-violent activism lately. Abdullah Abu Rahma’s arrest — which I reported on in the second segment of my interview with Starhawk — is part of this crack-down in Bil’in, Nil’in, and Ramallah, where grassroots demonstrations have begun to mobilize Palestinians, Israelis, and international solidarity against the wall being built between the occupied territories and Israel. According to HRW,

Israel is building most of the barrier inside the West Bank rather than along the Green Line, in violation of international humanitarian law. In recent months, Israeli military authorities have arbitrarily arrested and denied due process rights to several dozen Palestinian anti-wall protesters.

Starhawk believes that the Israeli government fears this non-violent resistance more than the violent action they’ve contended with for years. Why? Because the government knows the movement’s power to shift public opinion and mobilize people against Israeli injustice. These grassroots efforts undermine several pillars of Israeli control in the occupied territories, according to Starhawk, and start to shatter the story that Palestinians are all evil terrorists.

Like most Jewish kids in postwar America, Starhawk grew up believing that Israel was the salvation of the Jewish people. She collected pennnies to plant trees in the Holy Land, learned Israeli folk songs and Israeli dances, and dreamed of going to Israel. At 15 she finally attended a Zionist program in Israel.

Star believes that she was raised with a compelling story — that Jews were kicked around for 2,000 years, almost exterminated in the Holocaust, and out of those ashes, finally got their own land again. “And by God,” she adds, “nobody’s going to take an inch of it away from us.” This is a persuasive story for many people, according to Starhawk. But unfortunately, the Palestinians aren’t in it.

For Starhawk, as for many American Jews of her age, it was painful to face the injustice that Israel was carrying out against the Palestinian people. Star senses that much of this injustice stems on a deep psychological level from an inability to see the Palestinian people as people — with their own humanity, their own rights, their own desires and flaws. Denying Palestinians that full range of humanity — and acknowledging that their ranks include the good, the bad, the vicious, the kind, the compassionate — is at the root of the unjust treatment they receive. Seeing every Palestinian as a suicide bomber who wants to kill an Israeli will not resolve this conflict. Nor will denying the existence of the Palestinians.

Starhawk hopes that another compelling narrative will begin to take the place of the one that she grew up with. This is a tale that’s very familiar to readers of Tikkun. It’s the story that Judaism stands for justice, for the regneration of the world, for tikkun olam. This, too, is a powerful story. And Star believes that if we can call people back to that story — as painful as it is to face the truth of what Israel has done to Palestine — then we can actually stop this injustice.

For those of you who don’t know her, Starhawk is the best-known Wiccan author alive today. She’s published eleven books, including The Spiral Dance, which introduced many of us to Wicca. And from the beginning of her career, she’s been very involved as an activist, most recently supporting Palestinians in the occupied territories.

After spending last week with Starhawk, I realized that she’s a “meta-activist,” a node of many different types of activism, and a font of knowledge about how to act most effectively when demonstrating, educating, and building a new world. She’s been active in the women’s movement, the anti-nuclear movement, the anti-globalization movement, in creating greater sustainability and a permaculture for the Earth, as well as in supporting Palestinian non-violence for the creation of a Palestinian state. Fortunately for all of us, as an active workshop presenter, Star has been passing along what she’s learned in all these areas. I interviewed her about two of those movements, the two p’s: Palestine and permaculture, and want to share those interviews over the next few days, beginning with her thoughts about Palestine.

This past December, Star planned to participate in the Gaza Freedom March, a demonstration of 1,400 people from 38 different countries that included a large contingent from France. The purpose of this gathering was to bring in much-needed humanitarian supplies as well as to call attention to the inhumane conditions in Gaza after the yearlong Israeli blockade that followed their bombing of Gaza.

As you may recall, Israel attacked about a year ago in response to rockets that Hamas shot into Israeli settlements. As Star reiterated in her comments, the international demonstrators came to support Palestinian non-violent resistance to Israel, and in no way condoned Hamas’ hostility. But Israeli aggression a year ago worsened an already difficult situation in Gaza, killing 1400 people, destroying 4,000 homes and 88 public buildings. Since then the Israeli blockade has kept needed supplies from reaching Palestinians in Gaza, resulting in abject poverty, malnutrition, and bad drinking water, as well as a lack of building materials and equipment to rebuild the devastated area. The state of affairs has deteriorated to the point where Gaza has become essentially an open-air prison with little to keep it going.

A religious revolution is in progress in Israel. It will either upend or extend the reach of the Ultraorthodox religious establishment, which presides over the institutions of marriage, divorce, and conversion in Israel, siphons off public funding for yeshivas, and worst of all has prevented the state from enacting a constitution that could provide significant protections for religious minorities.

For much of last year, Ultraorthodox factions seemed ascendant and able to exercise their clout in new ways. They pushed for gender-segregated public buses in particular neighborhoods in Jerusalem and agitated against the tradition for Jewish women to gather for special prayers at the start of each month. Initially, the Israeli government yielded to their demands, sanctioning the segregated “mahedrin” buses and arresting medical student Nofrat Frenkel, whose only crime was to wear a prayer shawl at the Western Wall. A theocratic movement seemed to be moving frighteningly close to the levers of power.

But Reform and Conservative Jews both within and beyond Israel responded to the Ultraorthodox aggression as never before. Nofrat Frenkel’s arrest sparked protests around the world, while her fellow congregants in the “Women of the Wall” prayer group continue to meet each month at the Western Wall. The liberal Israel Religious Action Center recently brought suit against the Transportation Ministry for the segregated busses, and the Israeli Supreme Court struck down the medieval seating arrangement as illegal. These forward-looking Jewish organizations are pushing back against the Ultraorthodox establishment, and not merely to return to the status quo. They are trying to marginalize fanaticism altogether.

interView with Rabbi Dr. Burton Visotzky

Response By Hafsa Kanjwal

An important point that Rabbi Visotzky raises is the role that religious leaders and activists involved in international interreligious dialogue often end up playing in second tier diplomacy. For me, the use of inter-religious understanding to promote certain political or policy agendas can be and has been fraught with complications. Especially given the global context surrounding the politics of Islam, Muslims have been unable to truly engage the deeper issues in interreligious dialogue without a strong eye towards improving Islam’s image. In addition, significant programming led by governments or foundations relating to Muslims in inter-religious dialogue takes on a counter-terrorism narrative.

I agree with Rabbi Visotzky that it is important to begin locally. In response to Rabbi Visotzky’s question on what we are seeking to accomplish when we do inter-religious dialogue, I believe that a priority must be to build relationships that promote the common good, rather than serve narrow political or policy interests. While the translation of dialogue to diplomacy or policy is sometimes inevitable, it must be met with a critical analysis on the part of those who seek to promote mutual understanding and cooperation.

What the Israeli Left Once Was

Nearly everyone I met while living in Israel last year was politically apathetic — with the notable exception of right-wing ideologues. What had happened to the strong left-wing that had built the country? Where had the once-dominant Labor Party gone? Where were the peace activists? The hippies? The reformers? The answer, to my relief, was that there was still a strong left-wing. But its adherents shunned politics. Disaffected by a stagnant and ineffective political system, they flocked to human rights organizations, the arts scene, high tech companies, and universities.

Everywhere members of the Israeli left seemed to go, success followed — to a stunning degree. Take for example high-tech industries. New York Times Columnist David Brooks recently wrote an article on “The Tel Aviv Cluster,” which notes that:

Tel Aviv has become one of the world’s foremost entrepreneurial hot spots. Israel has more high-tech start-ups per capita than any other nation on earth, by far. It leads the world in civilian research-and-development spending per capita. It ranks second behind the U.S. in the number of companies listed on the Nasdaq. Israel, with seven million people, attracts as much venture capital as France and Germany combined.

These high-tech startups have been founded and run disproportionately by highly educated, liberal Israelis. Just go to Tel Aviv (or Herzliya or Haifa or Qiryat Gat) and have a look around.

Israeli NBA Player Omri Casspi and Iranian NBA Player Hamed Haddadi

This year, Omri Casspi made history as Israel’s first basketball player to play professionally in the National Basketball Association. His career is already showing promise. He was a first-round draft pick and is becoming an integral part of his Sacramento Kings team, having averaged around eleven points per game and “hounded” some of the best ball-handlers in the league on defense.

Most recently, he showed off his skills with the best of the best, scoring thirteen points and helping to lead the rookie All-Star team, along with Tyreke Evans and DeJuan Blair, to victory over the second-year All-Star team. It was the first time in seven years that the rookies were able to defeat their more seasoned counterparts.

Osnat Aram-Daphna and Najeeba Sirhan

At a meeting in the Israeli city of Acre, Osnat Aram-Daphna and Najeeba Sirhan, two school principals, one Jewish and one Muslim, looked across a table and became friends. It was during the Second Intifada, a Palestinian uprising that began in September 2000. Both were attending a principals’ co-existence workshop, and there they discovered a shared vision: Through education and cross-cultural contact, Arabs and Jews can learn to respect one another; and respect can ultimately become acceptance, trust and even friendship. Osnat described Najeeba. “Like me, she is a doing woman, not a talking woman.”

Their paths to Acre could not have been more different.

Najeeba, the oldest of eight children, was born into a working-class family in the religiously mixed village of Kafr Yasif. Her father, a farmer, had recently returned to Israel from Lebanon. Poorly schooled, he believed in education and worked to ensure that all his children attended university. After finishing her Master’s degree at the University of Haifa, Najeeba taught for 15 years before making an unusual transition: she became a female Arab school principal at the Al Salaam school in Majd Al Kurum.

In contrast, Osnat was born in 1955 into a very liberal, and proudly Zionist, family in Tel Aviv. In the 1940s, her father was a member of the Palyam, tasked with escorting illegal Jewish immigrants from Europe to what was then the British Mandate of Palestine. After the 1973 Yom Kippur War, she attended university in Tel Aviv, became a teacher, moved to the Galilee and, later, was selected as principal of the Kalanit school in Karmiel.

During the Bush Administration, Americans became used to feeling at peace at home while the country was at war overseas. In Israel, the opposite may be true: Israelis feel that war is all too present at home, while the country helps make peace overseas through a surprising number of humanitarian initiatives. Most recently, Israel sent a contingent of 230 search and rescue professionals, doctors, and aid workers to Haiti — a remarkable number given that Israel is a country of only 7 million.

Over the past decade, Israel has sent emergency medical and rescue teams to Turkey (following its 1999 earthquake), Kosovo (during the war in the former Yugoslavia), Thailand (after the tsunami), and India (in response to the terrorist incidents in Mumbai). Israeli doctors and rescue workers have an unfortunate amount of experience in responding to emergencies, from the “mass casualty” incidents that have taken place on Israel’s streets. As a result, they have proven to be important partners in international relief efforts.

Two months ago, I discussed on this blog how the sun was setting on the two state solution in Israel. At the time it felt a bit hypothetical; while Palestinian leaders and commentators were saying that a single state was the only solution, I didn’t find many in the mainstream (neither Stephen Walt nor Philip Weiss can yet be characterized as “mainstream”) who were saying anything in favour of the idea. But suddenly, things have changed and there’s all sorts of talk about it.

In The Nation, Harry Siegman (former executive director of American Jewish Congress and of the Synagogue Council of America) writes a stunning piece that concludes that an “externally imposed solution” is the only route to two states, and that without such intervention only a single state solution is possible. Here’s a taste of the piece:

Anat Hoffman is fingerprinted for her role in a Jewish service

The suppression of Jewish religious practice due to prejudice is anti-Semitism. A recent series of quasi-legal actions taken against female worshippers at the Western Wall in Israel should be considered no differently. The real difference lies is who is committing the misdeed. With remarkable irony, it is the politically powerful Ultra-Orthodox religious establishment in Israel that is working to suppress select Jewish rituals.

Most recently, as reported in the Forward, Anat Hoffman, director of the Israel Religious Action Center, was interrogated for her participation in a gathering of women for monthly Rosh Hodesh prayers that has been taking place for over two decades. The police told her that she may be charged with a felony for her actions. If this is not anti-Semitism, what is?

Here is more from the Forward on the incident.

The leader of Women of the Wall, a group of women who gather monthly to pray at Jerusalem’s Western Wall, was questioned by police, fingerprinted, and told that she may be charged with a felony for violating the rules of conduct at what is considered Judaism’s most sacred site.

But this incident follows the arrest in November of another member of the group, Nofrat Frenkel, and is contributing to a sense among the women in the organization that the Israeli authorities are stepping up their surveillance and intimidation of activities that challenge the ultra-Orthodox control of the holy site. A spokesperson for the Israeli police said he did not know of the interrogation and declined further comment.

Anat Hoffman, director of the Israel Religious Action Center, said that police interrogated her for more than an hour on January 5 about her activities during Women of the Wall’s last monthly service in December. Speaking by phone from Jerusalem, Hoffman said she did nothing differently that day than she had for the 21 years of her group’s existence.

One of the most important legal cases in Israel’s history was just decided in the Israeli High Court. The Court determined that the highly controversial Route 443 could not both be built on land taken from Palestinian towns in the West Bank under the pretenses of eminent domain and benefit for the townspeople and then denied usage by Palestinians.

In and of itself, the case is of incredible importance in that it affirms the rights that Israelis owe to their Palestinian neighbors. But more importantly, and somewhat more behind the scenes, the case demonstrates the effectiveness of one of Israel’s largest human rights organizations, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which litigated the case. (Full disclosure: my wife worked there last year while we were living in Jerusalem.)

While at first I was skeptical that the ‘Israeli version of the ACLU,’ as several of its staffers have termed it, could be so effective, it seems to have assembled a terrifyingly bright legal team of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Israelis to bring case after case in front of the Israeli High Court. In 2008 alone, it litigated over 60 court petitions. Coupled with growing education and public outreach programs, ACRI is set to become the major player in human rights advocacy in Israel.

So in the midst of more gridlock in the peace process and the building of settlements in East Jerusalem, there is a bright spot — and one that seems to be getting brighter by the year. Perhaps in 2010, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel will make the ACLU proud to be its ‘American version.’

I like this post from last summer that just came to my attention. The Israeli author, Ralph Dobrin, says of himself that “nationalistically I have views that place me more Right Wing than Avigdor Lieberman.” Still, he got into conversation with the Arab workmen whom he hired to renovate his bathroom. Having done a few of those myself I know how nicely the tea and lunch breaks can develop into deep talk with the client.

So Dobrin objects to the Arab workmen about Muslim jihadists attacking Israel, and the workmen explain the true spiritual meaning of jihad. This may not be news to most Tikkun Daily readers as it was not to me, but I really enjoyed the description of these lunchbreak conversations, and the way the author feels he has learned something so new he must blog about it.

That the workmen were doing such a good job is critical to the story. Their work had gained their client’s respect, and so he was more open to hearing their opinions. This is something social change activists don’t always appreciate about the ordinary interactions of trade: that they promote trust across the boundaries as people do mutually profitable things for each other. And so, starting with purely materialistic or monetary motives, people nonetheless are drawn into relationship. Ideology and mistrust so often overwhelm these fragile feelers that people put out to each other, that we become prone to expect that they always will. So I love stories like this, of people hearing each other in mundane situation like a bathroom renovation.

Yesterday, New York Times Reporter Roger Cohen wrote a verbose op-ed about the travails of growing up as a Jew in Britain. The entire article amounted to its last sentence: “And I still believe the greatest strength of America, its core advantage over the old world, is its lack of interest in where you’re from and consuming interest in what you can do.” This is not a particularly earth-shaking conclusion, particularly for such an insightful journalist. So what is the story behind this article? Why does Cohen spill so much ink talking about his upbringing as a Jew?

In the late 1960’s, I went to Westminster, one of Britain’s top private schools, an inspiring place hard by Westminster Abbey, and was occasionally taunted as a “Yid” – not a bad way to forge a proud Jewish identity in a nonreligious Jew.

The teasing soon ended. But something else happened that was related to the institution rather than adolescent minds. I won a scholarship to Westminster and would have entered College, the scholars’ house, but was told that a Jew could not attend College nor hold a Queen’s Scholarship. I got an Honorary Scholarship instead.

This seemed normal then but appears abnormal in retrospect. So I wrote to the current headmaster, Stephen Spurr, asking what the grounds were back then on which Jews were not admitted to College; whether the same regulation still exists; when the practice was changed (if it was); and how Westminster defines, or defined, Jewishness.

I would have been entirely surprised by Cohen’s bland op-ed were it not for a panel discussion I attended two weeks ago at the Reform East End Temple in New York. Entitled “Can Iran be Stopped?” Roger Cohen was pitted against Wall Street Journal reporter Bret Stephens in a heated debate about how (and if) Israel, the United States, and the international community should engage with Iran. (Professor David Menashri of Tel Aviv University avoided much of the excitement, as a moderate who alternately espoused and gently disagreed with views presented by his fellow co-panelists.) While the interchanges between Cohen and Stephens were animated, they remained relatively respectful. Both men are highly opinionated reporters, but also quite articulate and germane. The uncivilized comments came from the audience.

Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyhu is Israel’s Prime Minister and shrewdest politician. Even his fiercest critics admire his savvy. But his latest maneuver, intended to appease both voters at home and U.S. President Barack Obama, may permanently debilitate peace talks with the Palestinians. We must not fall prey to his sly trick.

Under pressure from the Obama Administration, Bibi agreed last week to what sounds like a complete freeze of settlements. But, as the New York Times’ Editorial Board aptly pointed out, it is one that “exempts Jerusalem, schools and synagogues and permits Israel to complete 3,000 housing units already under construction.” This is tantamount to claiming that housing currently being built by Israeli companies through (at best) questionable means in East Jerusalem should not be considered ’settlements’ by the international community.

Such a move will further what the Association for Civil Rights in Israel terms the “continuing cycle of neglect, discrimination, poverty, and shortages” for Palestinians living in East Jerusalem. But far worse, it will drive a permanent wedge between the U.S. and the moderate citizens of Israel and Palestine.

Perhaps recent leaders of Israel might made better choices had they spent more time reading Sherlock Holmes. Of particular use to them might have been The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet in which Holmes says, “It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Then they might have realized that the result of making a two-state solution impossible was to make a one-state solution inevitable. Having worked to weaken Palestine, to undermine all Palestinian leaders, to create – in Sharon’s memorable phrase for the settlements – facts on the ground they are now like a go player who having focused exclusively on a specific battle over territory suddenly looks at the bigger picture and realizes he’s lost the game.

We are now at that point of realization. Almost 10% of Israeli Jews now live in the Territories or in East Jerusalem. It would be impossible for any Israeli government to make a peace offer to Palestinians that would give up those homes and settlements: in Israeli politics, their coalition would instantly disappear. (And it’s unlikely they could do it militarily: the BBC reports that , “An increasing number of Israeli soldiers are publicly objecting, on religious and political grounds, to their role in the evacuation of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.”) Similarly, it would not be possible for any Palestinian leader to accept the kind of offer any Israeli leader might realistically make: his support would also disappear. The handful of bantustans offered as a Palestinian country at Oslo might have been the closest to a joint solution ever reached. And if a two-state solution is impossible,as seems increasingly clear, then the only alternative, however improbable, is a one-state solution.

Rabbi David Ellenson

Members of the American Jewish community have long pushed for better enforcement of the Israeli laws guaranteeing equal rights for its Arab citizens. But this month, the Jewish movement for Arab-Israeli rights went mainstream, as leaders of America’s largest branch of Judaism unanimously endorsed a “Resolution on Israeli Arab Citizens.”

The Union for Reform Judaism proudly issued the declaration at its Biennial Conference in Toronto. Among its major points, the Resolution on Israeli Arab Citizens asserts:

THEREFORE, the Union for Reform Judaism resolves to:

1. Recognize Israel’s repeated commitment and efforts to address inequality among Jewish and Arab citizens, reflecting the principles in its Declaration of Independence.

2. Encourage the Israeli government in its efforts to implement its Or Commission recommendations to reduce the gaps between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel in all areas of life, including but not limited to education, housing, industrial development, employment, and services….

The resolution did come with its share of external critics. But as Rabbi Dr. David Ellenson, President of Hebrew Union College, aptly put it in an interview with the Jewish Telegraph Agency, “In general, I think that people who are treated with respect and dignity tend to respond to those who treat them this way.”

The Union for Reform Judaism’s resolution will significantly increase pressure on the Israeli government to enforce the standards it legislates and live up to the Biblical mandate to respect minorities: “for you were strangers in the Land of Egypt.” Let us hope that the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Union have the courage to follow suit.

There has been some buzz about this proposed march and here’s the latest email about it, in full, below. First, a Tikkun editorial statement, endorsing the nonviolent aspirations of the march leaders, but written out of an appreciation that true nonviolence at its most effective is a hard thing indeed to achieve when anger is high:

We hope that this challenge to Israel’s treatment to Gaza can happen in a way that rejects the “bash Israel” perspective that sometimes accompanies these demonstrations. We believe that more will be accomplished by the nonviolent flavor of a Martin Luther King, Jr.-led demonstration than by a demonstration that can easily be portrayed as filled with “hate-Israel” types. We understand the anger created by the murder of hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza last year, and we support the call for a full investigation suggested by The Goldstone Report to the U.N. But we believe that the demonstrations would be far more significant if done in a way that reassured the Israeli people that their legitimate grievance at the shelling of Israeli civilians by Hamas in the months before the war in Gaza was taken by the demonstrators was also being acknowledged, thereby conveying that the solution sought by peace forces recognizes that the larger struggle between Israel and Palestine is too complex to fit in any “good guys vs. bad guys” scenario.

The official announcement:

Historic Gaza Freedom March to Israeli Border Set For December 31

Global grassroots initiative inspired by Gandhi/Mandela aims to break blockade

I am a rabbinical student who spent most of last year in West Jerusalem. I have a deep affection for Israel and its Christian, Jewish, and Muslim citizens. (That’s not to say that I have a deep affection for many of its policies.) But to think that moderate critics of Israel should ever be silenced — by an American state’s political party no less — is not only wrong but actually un-Israeli. Because, like the country’s policies or not, it has one of the freest presses in the world and citizens who are its own harshest critics. Israeli pundits hurl criticism at politicians of all stripes so hard that it leaves dents in your computer screen as you read news articles. One can hardly say that they are silenced.

By contrast, this week the Illinois Republican Party, as reported in the Daily Herald and then analyzed in the Huffington Post, called on the Illinois Coalition for Immigration and Refugee Rights to kick the Council on American-Islamic Relations off of its list of partner organizations for alleged ties to Hamas (something Chicago CAIR’s Executive Director called “utter rubbish”) and ‘anti-Israel’ placards that have been spotted at events sponsored by CAIR. I cannot speak to the first allegation, though it smells somewhat of scare tactics given that CAIR has not been indicted. But on the second account, we must all speak out.

Photo from Agence-France Press/Getty Images

The peace process has reached another crisis point – yet one inadequately emphasized in the world media. Mahmoud Abbas just announced his intention not to run in the Palestinian elections in January. While many leaders (and reporters) have interpreted the move as a bluff intended to pressure the Obama Administration, Abbas may very well follow through if there is no sign of tangible progress towards peace and, more concretely still, the betterment of life in the Palestinian Territories.

Abbas is caught in a political bind, flanked by Hamas leaders on the right. Having seen his motorcade firsthand, I realize that the threat of his assassination by rightists is just as real as the possibility of his electoral defeat. Abbas needs to have something to show for his overtures of peace and so far does not have nearly enough. Much talk and little action on all sides is particularly harmful to Abbas, given his precarious political position. And his resignation would place a serious impediment before the peace process. The Israeli government has come to trust its Palestinian counterpart in an unprecedented way — a crucial piece that had been missing during the negotiations taking place with Yassar Arafat.

It is now incumbent upon the Obama Administration, and its expert negotiators (namely George Mitchell and Hillary Rodham Clinton) to increase Abbas’ legitimacy in the Palestinian territories and show what should have been true all along: that sincere steps toward peace come with immediate rewards. Abbas may be bluffing, but has far too many reasons to follow through on his declaration.