Serwer draws a parallel between divisions in Jewish communities over Israel and divisions in (U.S.) Black communities “about loyalty and authenticity.” Describing Netanyahu’s characterization of David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel as “self-hating Jews” based on their support of a settlement freeze, Serwer writes,

What makes this kind of argument particularly interesting, however, is how much it resembles intraracial arguments between black folks about loyalty and authenticity. In the eyes of those who support all of Israel’s actions uncritically, the “Juicebox Mafia” are “House Jews”: Jews whose positions on Israel are motivated by their internalizing long-standing anti-Semitic myths and identifying with those who seek to oppress the Jewish people. These Jewish conservatives are, ironically enough, embracing the same kind of bare-knuckle identity politics as the blacks they love to hate.

Also, this totally resonated with me:

I’ll cop to caring about Israel more because I’m Jewish—but that doesn’t mean I’ll evaluate its actions uncritically out of blind loyalty. In fact, in most cases it’s precisely because liberal Jewish bloggers care about Israel that they’re critical of its actions: They see Israel’s behavior in the region, particularly its treatment of the Palestinians, as harming Israel’s long-term interests.

Serwer’s post hits on a particular type of parallel between Jewish communities and U.S. Black communities that (while perhaps ignoring the overlap between the two groups) is too often left by the wayside when these communities are discussed. How can we learn from the way different groups handle intra-community tensions and accusations of self-hatred? How can we use a grounding in identity as a strategic move, positioning ourselves as uniquely able to critique specific actions because they have been taken in our name(s)?

Saturday night, there was a shooting at the Tel Aviv GLBT community center. Two people were killed and 15 more were injured when a masked gunman walked in and opened fire with his M-16 on a group of teenagers at their support group. I am shocked and saddened.

The next morning, two Palestinian families living in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem were forcibly evicted from their homes.

In the past two weeks I’ve spent a good deal of time with these families, in their homes, hearing their stories. One night last week I slept at one of their houses to try and prevent their eviction. The Israeli police arrived early this morning, they broke windows and arrested 21 people (3 Israeli and the rest international) who were sleeping at the houses to possibly deter, and if not, document the state’s actions. After the Police forcibly removed the two Palestinian families from their homes, they escorted a group of settlers into the homes. Internationally, a large and broad consensus has denounced these evictions as a case of a politically ideological group exploiting the legal system to obtain unjust and immoral results.

I see these two events, which happened hours apart, as being connected. Both events impacted marginalized communities; communities fighting for full and equal rights. GLBT Israelis face high levels of homophobia and discrimination, while Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem are systematically denied full rights because of their status as “residents,” and not citizens. Additionally, the timing of the first seems to be acting as an opportune distraction and cover for the second. The media, both Israeli and international, is focusing coverage on the Tel Aviv shooting. They should. It is an important story and deserves coverage. But the time of the eviction appears to have been chosen for a moment when Israelis and the world would be distracted.

All of this is to say, I woke up at 7:30 this morning. When I finally turned my phone on at 8:15, I learned about the shooting from last night, and the eviction from early this morning. I’m not sure what knowing sooner would have gotten me, but still, I needed to know. From now on, I’m sleeping with my phone on.

the piece is online, at http://monthlyreview.org/090622lang.php, but i also want to encourage you to read it in an actual copy of MR that you can hold in your hands, dog-ear, underline, lend to friends, drip coffee on, prop up unsteady chairs with, &c. because one of the problems with reading online is that you don’t encounter interesting things by accident without doing a lot of work. and MR is well worth stumbling across; i’m sharing an issue with a detailed look at the economics of the u.s. penal state in the current crisis and a look at the prospects for land reform in paraguay, among other things.

a few words for those unfamiliar with MR:

i’d be fond of Monthly Review even if i didn’t find its articles as valuable as i often do, because it’s a non-sectarian radical magazine that’s made it through 60 years of struggle. it’s anchored in heterodox marxism, with a lot more openness to other strains of radical thought than that usually implies, and in a strong commitment to thinking transnationally, while being well aware that it’s a u.s.-based publication. it’s strongest on political economy, which means the tone can be a bit academic at times, but given the lack of serious economic analysis on the left these days that’s a small price to pay. the online MRzine brings together an impressive range of voices and subjects, with the weight generally shifted away from the global north. which reminds me to mention MR Press, which you may know if you’re my age as one of the first to publish EZLN communiques in english, or if you’re somewhat older, as a publisher of socialist feminist writing, or if you’re somewhat older as a key source of writings from third world revolutionary movements from china to chile and beyond. anyway: take a look.

This poem, Wings, for Gaza, was recorded, and first read, in January 2009 at a Poetry for Gaza benefit in Oakland, CA for the Middle East Children’s Alliance.

i’m posting levy’s piece here because it’s a mark of how interesting the conversation is becoming about zionism inside jewish israeli contexts. i’ll be thrilled when it reaches a similar point in u.s. jewish communities.

it’s important, though, to note that one of levy’s most basic presuppositions is historically just plain untrue. he wants there to be a distinction between ‘the zionism of the right’ and the zionism of what he calls ‘the left’ (labor, meretz, kadima), at least in terms of their attitude towards palestinians.

unfortunately for him, as benny morris has documented extensively, no such difference has ever existed in practice, whether in the time of the yishuv, during the nakba, or during the days of the 1987 intifada and ehud barak’s “bone-breaking” policy. similarly, ze’ev sternhell’s exhaustive the founding myths of israel has demonstrated that on the ideological level as well, ‘labor zionism’ is only distinguishable in its rhetoric from the more overtly ultra-nationalistic strains of zionism. his research, in part, is why he was targeted for assassination last year. nava etshalom & matthew n. lyons’ recent piece in Upping the Anti on ‘labor zionism’ describes how that difference of rhetoric masking identical policies operates today.

levy is absolutely right to say that the zionist left has “reached the end of its road”. he’s just as absolutely wrong to believe that there is any way forward for the left through zionism, however redefined. if he would only take courage from his first conclusion and ask what can be done to strengthen the growing israeli left that rejects zionism, he might come to a conclusion that’s both more hopeful and more grounded in reality.

Does Zionism legitimize every act of violence?
Gideon Levy

The Israeli left died in 2000. Since then its corpse has been lying around unburied until finally its death certificate was issued, signed, sealed and delivered on Tuesday. The hangman of 2000 was also the gravedigger of 2009: Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The man who succeeded in spreading the lie about there being no partner has reaped the fruit of his deeds in this election. The funeral was held two days ago.

The Israeli left is dead. For the past nine years it took the name of the peace camp in vain. The Labor Party, Meretz and Kadima had pretensions of speaking in its name, but that was trickery and deceit. Labor and Kadima made two wars and continued to build Jewish settlements in the West Bank; Meretz supported both wars. Peace has been left an orphan. The Israeli voters, who have been misled into thinking that there is no one to talk to and that the only answer to this is force – wars, targeted killings and settlements – have had their say clearly in the election: a closing sale for Labor and Meretz. It was only the force of inertia that gave these parties the few votes they won.

There was no reason for it to be otherwise. After many long years when hardly any protest came from the left, and the city square, the same square that raged after Sabra and Chatila, was silent, this lack of protest has been reflected at the ballot box as well. Lebanon, Gaza, the killed children, cluster bombs, white phosphorus and all the atrocities of occupation – none of this drove the indifferent, cowardly left onto the street. Though ideas of the left have found a toehold in the center and sometimes even on the right, everyone from former prime minister Ariel Sharon to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has spoken in a language that once was considered radical. But the voice was the voice of the left while the hands were the hands of the right.

On the fringes of this masked ball existed another left, the marginal left – determined and courageous, but minuscule and not legitimate. The gap between it and the left was supposedly Zionism. Hadash, Gush Shalom and others like them are outside the camp. Why? Because they are “not Zionist.”

And what is Zionism nowadays? An archaic and outdated concept born in a different reality, a vague and delusive concept marking the difference between the permitted and the proscribed. Does Zionism mean settlement in the territories? Occupation? The legitimization of every act of violence and injustice? The left stammered. Any statement critical of Zionism, even the Zionism of the occupation, was considered a taboo that the left did not dare break. The right grabbed a monopoly on Zionism, leaving the left with its self-righteousness.

A Jewish and democratic state? The Zionist left said yes automatically, fudging the difference between the two and not daring to give either priority. Legitimization for every war? The Zionist left stammered again – yes to the beginning and no to the continuation, or something like that. Solving the refugee problem and the right of return? Acknowledgment of the wrongdoing of 1948? Unmentionable. This left has now, rightly, reached the end of its road.

Anyone who wants a meaningful left must first air out Zionism in the attic. Until a movement that courageously redefines Zionism arises from the mainstream, there will be no broad left here. It is not possible to be both leftist and Zionist only in accordance with the right’s definition. Who has decided that the settlements are Zionist and legitimate, and the struggle against them is neither?

This taboo must be broken. It is permissible not to be a Zionist, as commonly defined today. It is permissible to believe in the Jews’ right to a state and yet come out against the Zionism that engages in occupation. It is permissible to believe that what happened in 1948 should be put on the agenda, to apologize for the injustice and act to rehabilitate the victims. It is permissible to oppose an unnecessary war from its very first day. It is permissible to think that the Arabs of Israel deserve the same rights – culturally, socially and nationally – as Jews. It is permissible to raise disturbing questions about the image of the Israel Defense Forces as an army of occupation, and it is even permissible to want to talk to Hamas.

If you prefer, this is Zionism, and if you prefer, this is anti-Zionism. In any case, it is legitimate and essential for those who do not want to see Israel fall victim to the insanities of the right for many more years. Anyone who wants an Israeli left must say “enough” to Zionism, the Zionism of which the right has taken complete control.

to me, there’s only one thing worth saying on the journalistic side:

24 israelis have been killed by rocket or mortar attacks from gaza, ever.
more than 300 palestinians have been killed by the israeli blitzkrieg in gaza in the past 2 days.
more than 3,300 palestinians have been killed by the israeli military in gaza since 2000.

and it needs to be said over and over and over again.

beyond the journalistic. words aren’t worth much, or are everything.

i’ve been looking for a translation of perets markish’s “di kupe” ['the heap'], which i remember as a powerful poetic response to the willful destruction of a city, but i can’t find it.

so this will have to do, from howard fast’s raw, flawed, “Never to Forget”:

LET the memory be cold as ice, clear as glass, and bright as a diamond!
For every child killed, for every body flayed,
For every tear wept, for every moan, every scream, every pain,
For every naked body in a mass grave,
For every cut and bruise,
For every oven where flesh became ash, for every gas chamber,
For every diabolical device,
For every gallows where the bodies, swaying, measured the wind,
For every ignominy, for every wrong,
Let there be no forgetfulness,
Let there be no dimming of the memory.

this is not a substitute for our voices in the street, and our concrete solidarity in action. there are demonstrations in solidarity with the people of gaza all over the place today and tomorrow. if there isn’t one planned where you are yet, organize it. and palestinian civil society organizations from across the political spectrum and around the world are reminding us all that they have made a single, specific request of all of us: to actively boycott, divest from, and call for sanctions on israel.

that means following the same principles that the anti-apartheid resistance followed in south africa, and that the worldwide boycott of nazi germany followed (until it was undermined by the zionist ‘transfer agreement’). that means a consumer boycott (if the barcode begins with 729, don’t buy it), a tourism boycott, a boycott of cultural institutions, and equally broad divestment campaigns. all of which will continue until the israeli government complies with international law by

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

you can look here for the palestinian civil society calls to action, and for more concrete details on the boycott campaign, or here for an example of a local, highly effective divestment campaign (and in you’re in NYC, join us!)…

let there be no dimming of the memory

keynmol = keynmol
khurbn = khurbn
shveygn = toyt

In the U.S., those who refuse to serve, we call them conscientious objectors. In Israel, young high school students who refuse to serve in the Israeli military in opposition to the occupation of Palestinian Territories are called Shministim.

From Howard Zinn who wrote eloquently about Raz Bar-David Varon, to Ed Asner who penned a piece on Huffington Post about how Omer Goldman’s story grabbed him, over 12,000 people have joined in calling for their release.

Their stories and statements speak for themselves. On the day Raz was arrested, this was Raz’s statement:

“I have witnessed this army demolishing, shooting and humiliating people whom I did not know, but have learnt to respect for their ability to go on dealing with these horrors on a daily basis. There’s supposed to be a good reason for all of this. This reason is supposed to be my defense. I feel like screaming: ‘This does not defend me! It hurts me!’ It hurts me when people, Palestinians, are being so brutally assaulted, and it hurts me when they later turn their hatred towards me because of it. I wasn’t born to serve as a soldier who occupies another, and the struggle against the occupation is mine too. It is a struggle for hope, for a reality that sometimes feels so far away. I have a responsibility for this society. My responsibility is to refuse.”

Omer Goldman has received additional press in particular because her father is the outgoing deputy head of Mossad, the Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations. Igal Sarna writes a moving piece about Goldman’s journey:

For months before she refused to be drafted into the Israel Defence Forces she went to a psychologist every week to prepare for what was to come: incarceration in a cell in a military prison. A narrow cage for a songbird.

This Thursday, December 18th, there will be a Day of Action in support of the Shministim, where groups will visit Israeli Consul Generals across the country to lobby for the release of the young students.

According to Jewish Voice for Peace:

So far, about 7 of the approximately 60 young Israeli students who have signed the Shministim letter of 2008 have served time in prison. Typically, they go in for up to 3 weeks, are released for a week and then sent back in. This continues until they are 21 or obtain a medical release.

Nineteen-year-old Tamar Katz (picture to left) is currently in solitary confinement where advocates say “she is being mistreated” by jailers because she refuses to wear a military uniform.

On the 18th, there will also be a rally in Tel Aviv, where the Shministim and supporters will hand-deliver these 12,000 voices in the form of postcards and letters to Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Organizations from AFSC to Amnesty International, Gush Shalom and Sojourners are involved in the organizing effort.

In thinking about the Shministim, I am reminded of a sermon that Rabbi Ellen Lippmann gave this past Rosh Hashanah on seeking moral leadership.

Traditions so often sustain us. Coming into Rosh HaShanah, I could hear the sounds of Avinu Malkeinu in my head, as I yearned to hear its haunting melody and words yet again. But not all traditions need to be repeated again and again; some can be altered, some discarded, some replaced. Akiva himself broke through the order of prayer in his time to give his urgent prayer of necessity. Chutzpah!

Surely we too are living in a time that requires urgent prayer and an overturning of the usual order—some chutzpah. When I think of Rosh HaShanah in this way, I realize that as much as I love singing Avinu Malkeinu, I am sick of the Akkedah, the story of the binding—sacrifice? murder?—of Isaac. This story is everywhere in the midrash, poetry, art, and yes, our liturgy. And I am sick of it. It contains not a single character I want to identify with, not the God who commands the sacrifice, not Abraham who obeys so submissively, not Isaac who goes along with only one question along the way, and not even the poor ram who loses his life because someone has to. It is our tradition to read this story on Rosh HaShanah and I am sick of it. Over the cries of “We can’t leave it out, it’s part of our tradition!” I say, “Let’s.”

Not just because we need change, though that is clear enough in our liturgy, in our nation, in our world. No, I say let’s leave it out because what we need now to face the terrifying world is a story of moral courage, of protest, of hope, not one of submission to God who lays down an impossible command. What we need is an Akiva to overturn the usual in a time of crucial urgency.

In a country where all young people are required to serve, saying no, refusing to go along with “the tradition” of serving in the army, in a country and a world so embroiled in violence and war, is a story of moral courage.

According to Igal Sarna, the first letter was written thirty-eight years ago, by high school students who sent a letter to then prime minister, Golda Meir, in April 1970, against the occupation and the War of Attrition.

In a letter by the Shministim in 2008, they write:

We hereby challenge every citizen who wonders if the military’s policy in the occupied territories is conducive to the progression of the peace process, to discover by himself/herself the truth and to lift the veil which distorts the reality of the situation; to verify statistical data; to look for the humane side in him/her and in the society which stands in front of him/her, to disprove the myths that were routed within us regarding the necessity of the IDF’s in the Palestinian Occupied Territories, and to stand up against every action which he finds irrational and illegal.

In a place where there are humans, there is someone to talk to. Therefore, we ask to create a dialogue that goes beyond the power struggle, the retaliation and one-sided attrition actions; to disprove the “No Partner” myth, which is leading to a lose-lose situation of an ongoing frustration, and to move to more humane methods.

We cannot hurt in the name of defense or imprison in the name of freedom; therefore we cannot be moral and serve the occupation.

In her declaration of refusal Mia Tamarin (picture to left) stated:

“I have no doubt that I should be serving my country, I have been doing so in many ways from a very young age, and intend of course to continue doing so, not out of compulsion but fully and truly of my own will. I cannot become part of an organization the purpose of which is to fend off violence by violence, because it stands unequivocally contrary to everything I believe in and to my whole life. There always is another, non-violent option, and it is this option that I choose.”

Send your letter of support here.

Further Reading:

Looking to the Future: Investing in our Youth as a Form of Effective Resistance

reviewing the chain of events that led to Thursday’s eviction of settlers who were squatting in the Palestinian-owned Hebron property. [Ofran] will also offer her insights regarding the threat of rising settler violence, and will take questions from the audience.

Hagit joined the call from Jerusalem. I kept up with most of the call, but my hand cramped up while she was talking about Gaza. I sent what I transcribed to Hagit to clarify any points I may have missed, and since I’m not working with the recorded material to fully transcribe. Below is the result. Also, I stopped in the Q&A, but APN said that they will be a putting up a full recording of the call available on their website for those interested in listening.

___________________________________________________
OFRAN:
What really happened in Hebron and broader context:

The story of the house started in March 2007 when a group of settlers broke in. Only after they broke in, they asked for a permit to enter.

The Minister of Defense said no, that the government did not want to establish a new settlement in Hebron. There’s already a settlement in the center of the city of Hebron, and over the past ten years, the Palestinian life of Hebron has been shut down by the Israeli military to protect Israeli settlers. [Here's a map of restrictions by year from B'Tselem]

The settlers appealed, and kept appealing to almost every court they could, confusing the Israeli public, claiming that they purchased the house. So the dispute in Israel, was moved from the principal question of whether we want to have another settlement, to the technical question of whether they bought the house and should they be evicted. In that way, the settlers did well in confusing the Israeli public.

About three weeks ago, the Supreme Court decided that regardless of who owns the house, they don’t have a right to be there, and that they had three days to evacuate. This alarmed settlers and they organized people to come to the house and protect them from eviction. Last Monday, there was a rumor that they were going to be evicted, and 1500 young settlers came to their help. While sitting, waiting, they started to attack Palestinians.

The big violence we saw started before the eviction. They were waiting for the police, they wanted to make it harder, they wanted to make a mess, and they did. I think that the Minister of Defense only decided to evict them because they were so violent, pouring chemicals on police and soldiers, damaging Muslim graveyards and mosques. I think the eviction came because of the violence. The violence continued, not only in Hebron, but all over the West Bank, the stonings of Palestinian people and cars, spraying graffitti on mosques with curses to Mohammed, and other horrible things, all over the West Bank by those settlers.

How did we come to this point that this violence takes place, and why does it take place?

The settler movement was always based on holding land and properties by force. The very presence of Israelis in the West Bank was possible due to the Israeli aggressive occupation. The violence has always been there. However the extent of violence and the massive amount of youngsters attacking together is a relatively new phenomenon. The disengagement from Gaza in 2005, and the failure of the settlers leadership to prevent it, left many of the settlers, and especially the younger generation very frustrated. The Yesha Council leadership along the years was based of a threat on the government, from the one hand, a political threat and the threat of violence, and from the other hand constant contacts with the government, cooperation and engagement with the State organs. This policy had worked for many, many years. This failed them in the disengagement. The frustration in the settler movement made many of the settlers question the tactics of cooperation with the government, and they argued that instead, the leadership should have fought against the government more strongly in order to prevent the eviction of Gaza. The extremist, younger, and some Rabbis said they should fight against the government and the state, and they’re the violent group we see today, trying to change the rules of the game in the West Bank. So they say: if you’re planning to evacuate any settlement, we’re going to retaliate by attacking Palestinians and attacking soldiers so that the state will become afraid of dealing with them, and it is a true threat for the government. For so many years, there have been violations of the law, and the government did not take care of it seriously, and now it’s getting out of control of the older leadership on the young generation of the settlements.

Where does that lead us?

Paradoxically, it has some positive aspects. When most Israelis see those horrible pictures of what really looks like a pogrom, Israeli people are saying: we don’t want these people doing what they’re doing anymore. We don’t like the settlers, we don’t see this as a good move, and I think this is a positive development because this has been one of the biggest obstacles for peace. It is very hard to decide to give up what we fought for, what we invested so much in, and to give up land for peace. I think more Israelis are seeing this now. Most Israelis see in the television what we all see, and say, it’s horrible. We in Peace Now are trying to take this anger into action, into some message. We had a very big demonstration in Tel Aviv in front of Ministry of Defense last Saturday night, calling for evacuation of all Hebron.. As long as settlers sit in the middle of the city, such violence is inevitable. In order to stop the violence we see, we have to make the move. We wanted to do something about it, not just say how horrible it is. The demonstration was decided Thursday morning, and only by email and phone calls, we had 500 people demonstrating Saturday night.

This is also important in upcoming elections, where the first time in a number of years, there will be a dispute on the very question of giving a chance for peace or preventing it. For so many years, we had a unity government that actually said that right and left are doing the same because there is no alternative. I believe that in this election, there is some kind of choice between a chance for peace, or closing the door in front of peace.

_____________________________________________

This also seems like a good moment to plug an op-ed written by Michael Manekin of Breaking the Silence before the evacuation in the Jerusalem Post titled, “It’s Only One House.” Here’s an excerpt:

It is important, though, to keep in mind that we are not talking about the evacuation of the entire settlement of Hebron (which consists of fewer than 1,000 extremist settlers in an area of some 500 square meters), but of one building deep inside the city that has been considered illegal almost from day one.

It is also important to remind ourselves that if the settlers are evicted (and that is by no means a certainty – there is already talk of postponing the evacuation to a much later date), Hebron will continue to be a place that embodies the worst of Israel’s occupation policies. Hebron will still be a place where Palestinians are prevented legally from walking on their own roads, a city with sections that have become virtual ghost towns as a consequence of Israeli policies.

Palestinians will continue to suffer daily from harassment by soldiers and from the fact that the Israeli authorities do little to prevent settlers from attacking them, destroying their property and harassing their children.

As soldiers who served in Hebron, we at Breaking the Silence have long been aware of how things work there. We have seen firsthand how the policy of separation, paired with the absence of law enforcement vis-a-vis violent settlers, has affected the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinians. We, too, have become subject to regular harassment and abuse from these settlers as we guide tours in the city. This will not change if and when the building is evacuated.

Sunday, October 26, 2008
Call to Boycott & Protest Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra US Concert Tour

Between now and November 16, 2008, the Israeli government-sponsored Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra will perform in fourteen American cities in California, Nevada, Arizona, Kansan, Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan.

This would seem to be a good opportunity to nonviolently protest and raise awareness of the Palestinian calls for economic, cultural, and academic boycotts of Israel. A specific statement from the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee regarding the JSO concert tour is expected soon. Because the next concert is tomorrow night this notice is being issued as a stop-gap measure in the interest of time. Below is the concert schedule.

In the interest of space, I’ve deleted the rest, but here’s a link to the concert schedule if you happen to live in one of these states.

I do believe in the (eventual) effectiveness of boycotts, and I absolutely believe that if American funding to Israel was seriously threatened, the West Bank could be emptied of settlements in a week. But there’s some important background necessary on the Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra which makes this boycott seem particularly ineffective.

First of all, the orchestra is not exactly “state sponsored.” Unfortunately, as we know, the Israeli government spends plenty of money on providing soldiers to guard illegal settlements in Palestine and financial incentives to Jews who want to live there. They spend billions on the most disgustingly unnecessary welfare system in the world, allowing the fathers of Haredi families with 17 children to study full-time at yeshivas while their wives take in mending. And they give money to all kinds of projects which further destroy the land and any chance of peace.

Unfortunately, what they don’t do is willingly support culture. The orchestra would not be able to survive on what the State of Israel gives them. The orchestra survives like many American cultural organizations – through donations. And their American tour has been entirely paid for by the American Friends of the JSO. A boycott of the orchestra has no financial impact on Israel whatsoever.

Perhaps the point is to boycott Israelis? Again, let’s take a look. The conductor is American, and is president of Bard College in New York, which, last I checked, was one of the “bastions of liberalism” we keep hearing about. The concertmistress is German, the librarian is Russian, and the orchestra is primarily made up of people who were not born in Israel. In fact, many are Russians who fled to Israel after they were allowed to leave, and are now treated almost as badly as they were in Russia. Even the music they are playing on tour was written by American Jews, not Israelis.

There are also a number of left-wing activists in the orchestra, who stand at checkpoints and pick olives and teach music to Palestinian children. This shouldn’t come as a surprise; artists have a tendency to care about human rights, and to express that care through their art.

The problem, of course, is that so few people know these facts. A protest outside of one of these theaters in the US will simply communicate to others that the boycott is against Israel and whatever it produces. And I’m aware that this is the message we want to get across.

So where is the balance between staging a protest which will effectively communicate to large numbers of people a simple message, like “Israel’s policies are unacceptable,” and recognizing the complexity of the truth behind the organization or people being protested?

My suggestion is this: if you live in or near any of the tour stops, absolutely organize or join a protest. Make sure your signs carry clear messages – music may play a role in healing the world, but not as long as Israel’s government keeps denying Palestinians their rights. All artists should have the right to travel and share their music, not only the ones that Israel allows to leave and return. And don’t be surprised if a few of the musicians come and join you.

For hundreds of years, the land where Canada Park was built was home to the Latroun area villages of Imwas, Yalyu and Beit Nuba, where thousands of Palestinian families lived. In 1967, tens of thousands of people were forcibly expelled from these villages by the Israeli military. Within a year after the expulsion, the military completely destroyed the villages including thousands of homes, schools, places of worship, and farmland. And just a few years later, Canada Park was established, “to conceal what happened,” in the words of Michal Katorza, in charge of signage for the JNF.

In a testimony given by ‘Aysha ‘Ali Hammad who is originally from Yalyu, he said, “I recall my first visit back to my village in 1978 to what is now referred to as ‘Canada Park‘… I told my children, ‘This is the road to my father’s house, the road to the mosque. Here is where our house used to be.’ Then I burst into tears… It is all gone.”

On August 1^st, we walked through areas of the park that have been forested and are rarely visited by park-users. Following signs that said “Roman Bath” in Hebrew (see photo) we found a Palestinian Muslim shrine- obvious by the architecture. Eitan said that the one piece of villages that Israeli courts do not give legal mandate to destroy is often the Mosques and other religious shrines. In this case, an excavation found a Roman bathhouse below the shrine, so now, all the signs in the park point to this bathhouse erasing the hundreds of years in between when Palestinians lived here. Next to the shrine is a cemetery with some Palestinian graves still in tact (see photo).

On a Zochrot tour of Canada Park a few years ago, they posted signs at the shrine and cemetary telling park-goers what they were. They soon got a call from the park saying the signs were illegal and had been removed. This turned into a public debate within the Israeli High Court creating in a lot of media about the issue and ultimately resulting in a mandate to the JNF to include Palestinian history in Canada Park signage. When the official signs were installed, they were soon vandalized and removed. Zochrot is currently fighting to get the signs back in place. (in this photo the part above talks about the Roman history and the part below (blackened out) is the part about the about the Palestinian villages).

In Canada Park there are commemorative plaques which bear the names of hundreds of Canadian donors to the JNF. In a JNF brochure it states that Canada Park is a “…a proud tribute to Canada and to the Canadian Jewish community whose vision and foresight helped transform a barren stretch of land into a major national recreational area for the people of Israel.” The commemorative plaques meanwhile, are hung on walls built from the stones of the houses from Umwas, Yalyu and Beit Nuba. Included on these plaques is the name Martin Luther King, which almost certainly refers to the famous fighter for human rights- a donation made in his name after his death.

I spent one week working with Zochrot on the beginnings of a project to let these JNF donors know about the violent history of Canada Park which bears their names, with the goal of furthering a public debate about the on-going Palestinian Nakba. If you’re interested in supporting or getting involved with this project, please be in touch.

* The 1st, 2nd and 5th images and a lot of this information is drawn from: Where Villages Stood: Israel’s Continuing Violations of International Law in Occupied Latroun 1967-2007 by Al-Haq in December 2007