U.S. Jewish groups furious over campaign to bring expat Israelis back home

Cross-posted on ProgessivePatriotGirl.tumblr.com:

An Immigration and Absorption Ministry campaign in the United States to convince expatriate Israelis to return has raised the ire of American Jewish groups.

The campaign warns Israelis that if they continue to live in the United States, they or their children are likely to become assimilated.

The drive began at the end of September with billboards in cities with large concentrations of Israelis, including New York, Los Angeles and Palo Alto. The messages included “Before Hanukkah turns into Christmas, it’s time to come back to Israel,” and “Before Abba turns into Daddy, it’s time to come back to Israel.”

The article neglected to mention that the video even implies marrying an American Jew could be problematic.

I am reminded of my work days with a social service agency in Berkeley, CA a few years ago, in a neighborhood quickly seeing an influx of immigrants from India and Pakistan.  About equally divided between Hindus and Muslims.  Living and working together.  And they all said the same thing about why they were so happy to be in America — to be able to live happily and peacefully, side-by-side with their neighbors in a way that was impossible in their own countries.

Palestinian Unity Deal

Some interesting commentary on yesterday's agreement between rival Palestinian movements Fatah and Hamas, as they announced a decision to reconcile and form an interim government ahead of elections, after a four-year feud.

Steve Clemons, at WashingtonNote:

Behind the scenes, Fatah and Hamas have been working and talking for years about terms of reconciliation. But their efforts were stymied by both their own suspicions and demands of each other -- but also by Omar Suleiman who was the anointed Egyptian peacemaker but who worked behind the scenes with the US to make sure that both sides never got to "yes" at the same time.

Now, Egypt is out of the game of working on one hand to appear supportive of a Palestinian unity government while on the other hand sabotaging it on behalf of the United States, and indirectly Israel.

Matt Yglesias, writing on the Israeli view of the Hamas-Fatah civil war:

Each of these positions has, on its own terms, been plausible. And as an Israeli tactical strategy for avoiding overwhelming political pressure to engage in serious negotiations and serious steps toward Palestinian statehood, it’s been incredibly successful.

But put in broader context, it looks an awful lot like a cross-party strategy for endless military domination of the West Bank. Politicians don’t want to explicitly endorse that vision, both because it would play poorly abroad and also because the domestic audience doesn’t seem to want to face up to what’s actually going on, so you see this affection for a shifting series of specific arguments about why now’s not the right time. Meanwhile, scenarios like the moral obscenity of Hebron and the construction of Jews-only highways through the West Bank continues apace even though nothing about Palestinian negotiating posture forces Israel to do these things. It’s become fashionable in left-wing Jewish American circles to argue that this kind of approach won’t work and will eventually cost Israel its international support. And maybe it will, but the reality is that American public opinion has become more strongly pro-Israeli even as Israeli conduct has become less defensible. The truth is that it’s morally wrong, whether or not it’s strategically viable.

From the horse's mouth, at least one of them:

Referring to the expected Fatah-Hamas unity deal, President Shimon Peres said on Thursday that the world could not support the foundation of a country, when part of the regime of which is a "bona fide terrorist organization.

"The move, as it stands, is a fatal mistake," Peres said, adding that a future Palestinian election could lead to a "terror organization ruling both Gaza and Judea and Samaria and the triumph of Hamas' policies."

Referring to the possible consequences of "walking hand in hand with a terror organization," the president said the reported unity deal "would lead to a regression and prevent the formation of a Palestinian state.

Peres added that the meaning of such a shift would be "continued rocket fire, the continued killing of innocent people, and the continuation of Iran's intervention, which supports and funds regional terror."

And finally, an excellent analysis from the editorial pages of Haaretz, tying in the status of the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, to the need for a formation of an independent, Palestinian state:

The weakness of the peace with Egypt and Jordan stems from the fact that the peace has only belonged to a few politicians, army officers, diplomats and a group of business people on both sides, while the gulf between peoples has continued. The main reason for this disconnect remains the public's criticism in the Arab countries of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians in the territories. Arab public opinion is concerned about the Palestinians in the same way Diaspora Jews are concerned about Israel's welfare, peace and prosperity. Israel has a clear interest in broadening international public support for the peace agreements and ensuring their stability and development. To further that goal, it should also reach a peace accord with the Palestinians based on a partitioning of the land into two states.

Peace deals negotiated with only a few -- in part represented by a dictatorial, ruling elite.  Strategically viable positions, that are nothing less than morally wrong.  The opportunity to reach a peace accord between two peoples, by taking into account politically (and geographically) much larger problems.

Much to consider.  Take it all in.

On The Street Where You (Can't) Live

Former Arkansas governor, and likely 2012 Republican Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee would justifiably be very upset if as an American, he was restricted with regards to where he could make his home in this country. He spoke of it as he addressed a crowd in East Jerusalem this week.

He continued by saying “I cannot imagine as an American being told that I could not live in certain places in America because I was Christian, or because I was white, or because I spoke English. I would be outraged if someone told me that in my country, I would be prohibited and forbidden to live in a part of that country, for any reason.”

Further, he believes Jews should be able to live anywhere in Israel – anywhere that “God gave them.” The emphasis is mine.

“In many ways, it’s probably appropriate that the weather was acting against us because there is no doubt but that many forces acted against the Jewish people in returning to their homeland, being able to live in the place that God gave them,” he said. “It is inconceivable in many ways that we would have to even argue and debate whether or not Israelis could live in Israel, not just in parts of Israel but anywhere in Israel they wished to live.”

Not so much for non-Jewish Israelis. OK to tell them where not to live. Restrict.  Relocate.  Transfer.

"There are vast amounts of territory that are in the hands of Muslims, in the hands of Arabs. Maybe the international community can come together and accommodate," he said in a meeting with reporters.

Welcome to the nightmare of Republican foreign policy, 2012-style. As he says, inconceivable to argue and debate whether or not Israelis could live in any part of Israel. Someone needs to (publicly) remind the good governor that non-Jewish citizens of Israel are Israeli, too. Just Arab Israelis, for the most part.  Muslim and Christian alike.  Does he not know this?  I suspect he does.

Say what you mean: that only Jewish Israelis should be able to live where they like. Arab Muslim Israelis, not so much.

Time For Democratization?

A quite candid article in Time today, insinuating the Israeli government has a vested interest in the maintenance of dictatorial rule under President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

With a deep investment in the status quo, Israel is watching what a senior official calls "an earthquake in the Middle East" with growing concern. The official says the Jewish state has faith in the security apparatus of its most formidable Arab neighbor, Egypt, to suppress the street demonstrations that threaten the dictatorial rule of President Hosni Mubarak. The harder question is what comes next.

"We believe that Egypt is going to overcome the current wave of demonstrations, but we have to look to the future," says the minister in the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel enjoys diplomatic relations and security cooperation with both Egypt and Jordan, the only neighboring states that have signed treaties with the Jewish state. But while it may be more efficient to deal in with a strongman in Cairo — Mubarak has ruled for 30 years — and a king in Amman, democracies make better neighbors, "because democracies do not initiate wars," he says.

Having said that, I'm not sure the time is right for the Arab region to go through the democratic process."

The last quote is from a minister who spoke on condition of not being identified by name or portfolio. To the unnamed minister we should ask, “When would be the right time for the Arab region to go through the democratic process?”

As noted, while there is some truth in the idea that there is less chance a democracy would initiate war in comparison to a dictatorship, the arrogance portrayed in this article is evidence that the Israeli government is far more fearful of having to make peace, than fighting another war. Should a real democratization movement take hold in the Middle East, the international pressure on Israel to negotiate with “un-dictatorships” would be intense.

As of course would be the pressure on any fledgling Arab democracies. Because after all, as the unnamed Israeli government official says, if “democracies do not initiate wars,” then surely they seek peace.  Or at least, don't block it.

Time for both sides to envision the possibility of a very different future.  And begin to act like that future is already here.

A Family Affair

A delightful column published every Friday, in the Israeli left-wing newspaper Haaretz. Family Affair does a profile each week, giving to the word “family” its most diverse meaning.

Reading it each week paints a fascinating picture of a truly complex society. Treat yourself to some excellent reporting, every Friday morning.

Israeli Labor Party On The Brink

This weekend, former Israeli Prime Minster Ehud Barak announced he is stepping down as chair of the Labor Party, and forming his own party.  Barak presently serves as Defense Minister, and he is taking four fellow lawmakers along with him to form (yet) another centrist party.  His new party is expected to remain in the governing coalition, but a handful of other Labor Party ministers have resigned their positions, but will stay in Labor.  

Some are questioning whether the Labor Party has any future in Israel.  The party has been feuding for the last few years over the decision to join the right-leaning coalition. And now, rather than exerting the power inherent to leadership, the chair himself leaves to form a new party  Arguably, very odd indeed.

For more, read Josh Marshall’s excellent analysis at Talking Points Memo.

Tunisia On The Map

Where in the world is Tunisia?

An odd take from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the popular revolution taking hold in Tunisia this weekend.

Speaking during the cabinet's weekly meeting in Jerusalem, Netanyahu said that recent turmoil in Tunisia was an example of "how unstable Israel's region is."

"There are several centers of instability in our region and we hope that peace and security return to the region," Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu added that the Tunisian unrest also highlights an important issue regarding a possible Middle East peace treaty, saying that there is doubt whether or not such an agreement would be followed by all sides in the long run in view of the pervasive political instability in the region.

"We don't know if a peace agreement would be respected and so any peace deal would have to include on-the-ground security arrangements," the premier said.

For one thing, Tunisia is not part of the Middle East. Neither is Algeria or Morocco. North Africa, last time I looked. It is hard to imagine what Tunisia would directly have to do with treaties in the Middle East, or more importantly the real issue at hand – negotiations regarding a Palestinian State.

Secondarily, although it is too early to tell what will come of the popular revolt in Tunisia, this could be a very good thing – and a positive example for the Arab world. Free elections. Transparent rule. What could be bad, especially in the long run, no? Not unless there are underlying reasons for some in the Israeli government to wish to perpetuate the status quo, and see the Arab world remain as it.

Well, he got called to task on the editorial pages of the left-leaning Haaretz this weekend, but not so much for the potential ramifications of having the opportunities to make peace with Arab democracies, but for his own fear of social unrest coming from the left in Israel.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday characterized the popular revolution in Tunisia as an example of "instability in our region." While Western leaders (and the Arab League!) praise the great achievement of the freedom struggle and the ousting of a tyrannical despot, Netanyahu does not see achievement in civil protest. He only wants "stability to return," with or without freedom.

Perhaps he actually does see, and that is why he didn't say anything. Dr. Daniel Zisenwine is a research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, of Tel Aviv University, specializing in North Africa. He explained in an interview that it was not the political opposition that brought down President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali: "They are only fragments of parties, in a very weak position ... and mainly busy fighting among themselves." Sound familiar? The strong elements in Tunisia, Zisenwine said, are the trade unions and nongovernmental organizations, which "suddenly woke up and could awaken public life in the country a little more." Maybe that's why Netanyahu is backing up Lieberman's remarks and actions with regard to human rights organizations. He is "afraiiid," as Netanyahu once famously said about the left.

A very interesting analysis.  A lot to ponder.