I should have known exactly who would be at the Hebron Fund gala last night in New York City, but it was worth going just to understand: orthodox Jews, mostly in their 50s, a lot of them overweight. We're talking about outer borough people. Religious people. Not sophisticates.
I stopped a few of them as they were going in. "It's important to me that Jews be able to settle in any part of Israel," a lady with a blonde wig said to me as she sat on a bench to change into her party pumps. Are you concerned about Barack Obama? "I'm concerned about America in general. We've been attacked on 9/11 and we have to keep our eyes open."
Why is this event important? A 30-year-old guy getting out of an SUV: "It's more of a nationalistic thing. As a Jew it's important."
A number of the settler-supporters told me about the passage in Genesis where Abraham buys a piece of land near Hebron for 400 shekels after Sarah dies. "Jews have been living there continuously from Abraham's time till 1929. Now they're moving back." "It is the only city in the world that has a deed to it in the oldest book, it was bought by a Jew named Abraham; and it is the only place in Israel where Jews are not allowed to live."
A tall handsome black-hat guy with a red beard said that to me. I said, "What about the two state solution?"
He said, "What about a two-state solution in the United States. Al Qaeda gets half. How would you like that?"
I said I wouldn't, and he said, "OK," and walked away.
There were 35 demonstrators representing 8 different anti-occupation groups in a holding pen out on 45th Street. "Viva Viva, Palestina!" they shouted. "Hebron Settlers Ku Klux Klan."
Some of the orthodox Jews went over to the holding pen to argue. The one who stayed the longest was small and young and showed no expression even when an Iranian-American was shouting at him repeatedly, "You're lying, you're lying, you're lying–" His girlfriend was with him. She didn't have a coat and stood there shivering in her black dress as he put his face up to the demonstrators. His kind of bland pugnacity reminded me of the character Hazel Motes in Flannery O'Connor's novel about religious zealotry, Wise Blood. His name was Ari Kahane (no relation).
Kahane was drawn to Aaron Levitt of Jews Against the Occupation. They got in an argument across the steel railing of the barricade. Levitt is tall and bearded, bundled against the cold. He tried to break thru Kahane's imperviousness, with his girlfriend there shivering. He told him about seeing settlers throw rocks at Arab girls as they tried to go to school.
Kahane said that was wrong but sometimes there were good reasons for it. "Little girls have a right to go to school but when their going to school interferes with other people's rights, whose land is there, it's another situation."
From there it went into the, Sometimes there is collateral damage in situations like this. In Dresden, the Allies killed 100,000 Germans. That was collateral damage.
"This week our Torah portion records our purchase of the land."
Levitt shouted at him: "No it doesn't. It records Abraham's purchase of the land. I'm familiar with Torah."
I don't know whether Kahane realized Levitt was Jewish till right then. He seemed to change his tactics. He murmured something in Hebrew, and said that Levitt was guilty of treason to the Jewish people. I asked Kahane to explain this. "There are times when you can disagree. But to stand out here with the enemy and disagree, there is no forgiveness."
By enemy he meant the Arabs wearing keffiyehs. It broke Kahane's heart to see there were Jews protesting. But I thought that was the best part of the protest: it was such a motley group, and everyone got along. A lot of Jews, a lot of Arabs, some Muslims, Brooklyn lefties, some regular old honkeys too. Levitt said to me that if you turned the situation around and a protester went up screaming to a group of orthodox Jews in Hebron, they'd stone him. But here the protesters were happy to talk to the settlers, or shout back and forth anyway, but not hurt them. Palestinians don't mind Jews in Hebron, Levitt said. But they don't want my-way-or-the-highway Jews. They want Jews who want to get along with Arabs, as they did for centuries, till the massacre in '29. And even in the massacre, many Arabs sheltered Jews.
It was cold. More settlers came out, and I kept moving from one argument to another. There were two girls in long dresses screaming about how Arabs would leave an injured child in the road, and only Jews would save the child. There was a Lubavitch couple, a guy with a white beard and glasses, the woman with a jetblack wig. Once again the guy was drawn to Levitt.
"Abraham bought it. It belongs to us. What's your Hebrew name?"
Levitt ignored him. He said everything they were doing in Hebron was a violation of Torah. "What does Halacha say about stoning school girls?"
"It's not allowed," the guy said, but he immediately went into Palestinian children blowing themselves up. Finally he got Levitt to tell him his Hebrew name. After that the guy wanted to jump for joy. His eyes lit up like a Chabadnik.
"Thank god. Be proud you're a Jew," he said. He stuck his hand out, but Levitt refused to shake it.
He said he had no respect for the guy's attitude.The guy was saying, Jews have a compact to be nice to each other. "But other people are just flesh."
The wife with the jet-black wig started shaking. She held her hand up near her face. "It's a tiny tiny piece of land. You want them to die in the sea? Oh oh oh, I'm too emotional."
Levitt tilted right at her. "No! You're not emotional enough."
That was the best thing I heard all night. I've been thinking about it since. You're supposed to stay cool in an argument. Levitt generally tries to stay cool when he's arguing with people. But when he's with people like this, he doesn't try to persuade them. He tries to wake them up.
I left with some despair about the two-state solution. What does it mean that these people get to have a big ball in New York for settlements that the whole world disapproves of and that violate international law and that our presidents all say they disapprove of? Why is this allowed by anyone? Why is my country allowing it? Where is J Street? How entrenched are these zealots in Israeli life, and what will it take to disabuse them of these expansionist fantasies? And why isn't there war inside American Jewish life over their activities?
The depths of chauvinism of the colonists is quite remarkable. But that's Zionism for you.
The guy was saying, Jews have a compact to be nice to each other. "But other people are just flesh."
Such nice people. Of course, many racists think people of other races are just meat. I understand it's taught in Scientology, also, that Scientologists are not to respect non-Scientologists and are entitled to rob or kill them for any reason, or no reason at all.
I am dead; aren't I? Tell me the truth! I must know!
"But when he's with people like this, he doesn't try to persuade them. He tries to wake them up."
YET ANOTHER POLEMICIST?
NY Fundraiser for Settlers: 'What If There Was a 2-State Solution in the U.S. and Al Qaeda Got Half–How Would You Like That?'
AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THEY CAN HAVE THE 'RED STATES'!!!!!!
I think both you and Leavitt missed your opportunity.
When asked "is it wrong to stone children going to school?" according to your report, they stated "YES. It is wrong."
At that point the rational response to that rational response should have been "How can we change the situation so that the Jews that are living there are living according to what is right?"
Similarly, if Leavitt and you had kept your cool, when someone responded that you were disloyal (ever hear that?), you could have rationally responded. "NO, we care more. We want to be fully Jewish, not just loyal."
In some ways, they were right. That when someone offers to shake your hand, to refuse to because you imagine what they are thinking and it doesn't fit your picture of what others should think, that in itself is a form of bigotry.
Do you want to convince, or do you want to browbeat?
There are other very reasonable ways to spin the orthodox responses positively. First, that the DESIRE to legally reside in Hebron does NOT conflict with ethics (except exclusionary nationalist ones).
Why the fuck did you two go to war, when war was not necessary?
"What does it mean that these people get to have a big ball in New York for settlements that the whole world disapproves of and that violate international law and that our presidents all say they disapprove of?"
It means that there is freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in the US.
"The guy was saying, Jews have a compact to be nice to each other. "But other people are just flesh.""
Is that your idea of professional level of journalism, repeating a figurative projection as if its a quote?
Actually, Richard, it means there is no responsible MSM, which is an abuse of the privilege given to the press.
Also, "But other people are just flesh" indicates the guy's attitude, and is rendered as what the guy actually said.
Too funny… I saw your headline and assumed that the Israeli colonialists were analogous to Al Qaeda.
The bottom line: Palestinians go hungry in the dark in Gaza so that these fatcats at a fancy party can have live their illusions.
And dissenting in the form or ranting, rather than talking and listening, continues whatever is actually illusion.
Olmert called Nov 10 for withdrawing from the territories and "returning to the area that was Israel until 1967." Livni said in an interview with Army Radio: "I as Kadima Chairwoman am not committed to the outgoing prime minister’s comments, but to Kadima’s platform, and this is what determines exactly how we will hold negotiations. Between myself and Olmert there have been differences. When I wrote the platform of Kadima, upon its establishment, Olmert spoke in terms of hitkansut. You can’t just throw the key to the other side and hope for the best, especially not in Judea and Samaria. We want to maintain a safe state in Israel and this cannot be done on all of it. We need to finish the conflict with the Palestinians and look out for the security of our citizens."
– hitkansut! love it!
"The guy was saying, Jews have a compact to be nice to each other. "But other people are just flesh.""
Is that your idea of professional level of journalism, repeating a figurative projection as if its a quote?
Could you explain Richard?
It feels contradictory, but maybe I don't understand.
If Phil repeats a "figurative projection" the settler used (in an anger context) that is a quote. No? Why not?
I hesitantly agree with some of what you write here. The confrontation ultimately must lead into circles of non-communication here.
Quoting means actual words, not what his projection of what he thought was implied.
Interesting to note the quality and mentality of the responses to Phil's number of unloaded and open-ended questions.
Richard, what does this mean?
And dissenting in the form or ranting, rather than talking and listening, continues whatever is actually illusion.
While I don't generally post to blogs, I feel I should respond briefly to Mr. Witty's comments.
1) "They stated 'Yes'": It took many repeated efforts to get either of the people to whom Mr. Weiss refers to answer this simple question, and even then, both followed immediately with rationalizations about why, in this case, stoning schoolgirls was either understandable or desirable, or both (it wasn't clear which).
2) "disloyal": It's been several years since I lost my cool over being called disloyal, traitor, self-hating Jew, etc. The novelty has rather worn off.
3) "Do you want to convince or do you want to browbeat?": In a word, yes. What I want to do is create positive change. In many cases, I've found that logic and gentle persuasion are the most effective means to do this, and they are certainly my preferred methods. I have never had much luck, however, convincing someone of fundamental moral axioms. If Mr. Witty knows a way to convince a white supremacist that African-Americans are his equals, or a Nazi that Jews are, or a Hebron settler that Palestinians are, then that is absolutely fantastic, and maybe sometime I'll get a chance to learn from him how he does it. Until then, I will contest these peoples' corrupted morality with all the passion and intensity I can muster. If nothing else, it sends a message to the bigots that they will be opposed, and to the victims that they will be supported.
3) "shake your hand": The primary issue here is not this man's attitude, nor what he was thinking, but what he was doing. This is a man who, according to his own account, lived in a Hebron settlement for three years. He then chose to attend a fundraiser to support a group of violent racists whose routine activities (which I have personally observed during human rights work in Hebron in three different years) fall clearly within the best definitition of terrorism I've encountered: the deliberate use of violence and/or terror against non-combatants in the pursuit of military or political goals. In these settlers' case, that goal is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Hebron, which one settler confirmed to my face, and which their leaders have acknowledged in at least one published interview, and I believe more. I do not shake hands with people I know to be terrorists, nor with their material supporters, particularly at the site and moment of their crime, and to do so would be an intolerable moral abdication.
That said, given my understanding of this man's attitude towards non-Jews, I might well have refused to shake his hand, regardless. Could I be mistaken in my belief that this man views non-Jews as less than fully human? Absolutely. But I was a member of the Chabad community for several years as a young adult, met many of their best and their worst, and developed a fairly nuanced appreciation of some of the common strengths and weaknessness of the group's culture. The inference I drew regarding this man's attitudes towards non-Jews is not infallible, but it is well-informed, and I am reasonably confident of my interpretation. I don't shake the hands of terrorists because it would be, in my eyes, immoral. I don't shake the hands of racists and bigots because, frankly, I don't like them.
Anyone who likes is, of course, welcome to respond to this post. FYI, though, I won't be reviewing the blog, so I won't see or be able to respond to any comments. Sorry, it's just too easy to get completely sucked into these discussions, at the expense of work and studying!
A number of individuals came over to talk with the protestors, to actually talk.
That is SUCCESS at demonstrating, to get an opportunity to change minds.
I wasn't there. I didn't see what actually occurred.
I can only rely on Phil's reporting of it.
Witty, it's clear Phil printed actual words used. Are you questioning
Phil's honesty in rendering/paraphrasing/condensing/summarizing the balance of what he heard the individual was saying/said?
Here's Phil again:
The guy was saying, Jews have a compact to be nice to each other. "But other people are just flesh."
You're demand:
"Quoting means actual words, not what his projection of what he thought was implied."
If you don't think Phil was distorting the gist of what he heard, would you
approve the following tendering:
Revised Phil reporting:
The guy was saying, in essence, that Jews have a compact to be nice to each other. "But other people are just flesh."
Makes us pieces of meat feel better.
Aaron,
Why did you post, if you didn't want to dialog?
I am SEEKING like-minded mutually respectful activists to join in self education and in sharing that self-education with other Jews primarily, for the purpose of encouraging a more sensitive and respectful approach to actual Palestinians.
I've been harrangued by the left for loving Israel AND by the right for respecting Palestinian aspirations.
But, I am utterly convinced that it is the humane approach.
I find some validity in some of the settlers' comments, limited validity. The response of the left is of "no validity", and in that they err, in making pendulum-swing outlandish and functionally racist conclusions.
For example, that non-Zionist Jews were forcefully expelled from Hebron is a good reason for them to be allowed to assert their title claims to individual tracts of land under color-blind rational law.
That DIFFERS from the basis of title that "Torah defines it" as it does not pass the test of evidence of third party witness, consent and continuity.
If you are willing, please ask Phil for my e-mail address, and correspond directly. I'd like to talk to you further.
Thanks, Richard. I should have checked Phil's text. This time "I" didn't read carefully.
But I am still on Phil's side or Aaron Lewitt's for that matter. And I definitively liked his poem and Lawrence of Cyberia's (sp) photos.
Macmillan USA Encyclopedia Damns Zionism as Racism
Richard, the reason I don't have quotes on that bit about Aaron Levitt saying the guy regarded other people as just flesh, is that I didn't hear Levitt's actual response to what the guy said. So I asked Levitt what he had said, later, and he told me. So I paraphrased Levitt's meaning there.
I must say, you are often extremely insulting to me about my journalism abilities. It's one thing I'm actually proud of. I can only say I've been at it a long time and God isnt finished with me yet! Phil
AJC Attacks Ignatiev, Congratulates Martillo.
Richard,
I posted due to a failure of self-discipline (now repeated), and because I was actually a subject of the blog entry, and hence the later comments. I'll respond to a couple of points, and then I really am butting out of this thread, no matter who emails me the latest comment!
First of all, just to clarify, the "meat" comment was my interpretation of my interlocutor's statements and actions. These were not his words, and, in fact, I have never heard this specific language used by any religious Jew in reference to non-Jews. I resorted to hyperbole where I probably should not have, because I was (and remain) absolutely furious at what these people are doing. Lest anyone get too indignant about my choice of language, it is worth noting that I have heard religious (American) Jews dismiss the war in Vietnam as "goys killing other goys", religious (Israeli) Jews refer to Palestinians as "garbage", "sewage", and "animals", along with any number of comparable phrases.
Second, I *absolutely* support the rights of Jews who were driven out of, or fled from, Hebron following the riot/massacre in 1929. I pray that they will be restored to their homes and property in my lifetime, together with the 700,000+ Palestinians who were similarly driven from their homes in Israel. This isn't just rhetoric for me; I mean every word, in both cases. Every Palestinian adult with whom I've spoken in Tel Rumeida, Hebron, agrees with this, by the way. In fact, some of these folks exchanged letters, and even visits, with their old neighbors for 50+ years.
You might be interested to know that, while 67 Jews were tragically killed during the '29 riots, the other 500 or so members of the Hebron Jewish community survived primarily due to the direct intervention and heroism of their Palestinian neighbors. These selfless acts were attested to shortly after the fact by both the Ashkenazi and Sephardi chief rabbis of Hebron, and one of the official Zionist organizations (I forget which) issued letters of commendation to a couple dozen of these heroes. There was, however, one documented case in which a commendation was not given: two Palestinian men saved the life of a Jewish prostitute, who decided to remain in Hebron after the riots. The Zionist group in question explicitly decided not to recognize their act for these reasons; the woman was apparently good enough for Palestinians to save, but not for Zionists to acknowledge. {All the source documents concerning these events may be viewed at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem, where I accessed them in August, 2006.}
Several of the families of these men and women still live in Tel Rumeida, where they proudly relate the stories of their heroic forefathers, even as they are endure unending persecution by settlers who use these very riots to justify their own crimes!
I had the good fortune to interview a man who I believe is the last surviving member of this impressive group. His father was commended for his actions during the riot, during which he hid his Jewish tenants in his own home, despite the risk to his wife and children, and (armed with a sword, I believe) stood off a mob that tried to gain entry. Much later, British police showed up and escorted the Jews to a more secure location in the local police station. My interviewee was 16 years old at the time, and carried all the cash and jewels of his family's Jewish tenants through the still-dangerous streets of Hebron to the police station. When he arrived, he was severely beaten by the British police for his pains, until the people whose lives his father had saved intervened on his behalf. He is almost 100 years old, now. He doesn't leave his son's house for fear of settler attacks, and he will almost certainly die soon in that same house, because Palestinian ambulances aren't allowed into Tel Rumeida, and settler ambulances don't concern themselves with Palestinian heroes, unless it's to veer towards them on the street when driving past.
If Mr. Witty, or anyone else, would like to contact me directly, I can be reached by email at aaronjlevitt@hotmail.com.
@ Richy,
From one liberal Jew to another, "Rock on!"
"I resorted to hyperbole where I probably should not have, because I was (and remain) absolutely furious at what these people are doing."
Then the specific action and policy should be your focus, NOT the person.
I can see reasonable ways that Jews would want to support Jewish presence in Hebron. I was in Hebron in 1968, the year after the 67 war. Prior to that, Jews had been excluded. That the Jewish presence in really only three significant religious locales through thousands of years of moderate harrassment, is testimony to the degree of mature sentimental attachment to the places (Jerusalem, Safed, Hebron).
During that period from 1929 – 1967, Jews felt a great and arbitrary loss.
Between 1948 and 1967, the West Bank was effectively ethnically cleansed of Jews (mostly a-zionists in the political sense).
In 1968, visiting a few sites (that I barely remember, I was 13), the feeling was of relief, of connection. At the time, the Israeli authorities allowed Jews exclusive access to the Machpelah site on one day, then the next Muslims had access.
It was always tense nevertheless.
In an environment of either/or approach (either Jewish OR Muslim – by the fanatics on BOTH sides), and very heightened stress, those that are not thoroughly grounded in their spiritual commitments do idiotic things.
Neither Jews nor Muslims, nor the world as a whole, are served by zealots.
I will NOT participate in a public action that expresses zealotry. There is no way to distinguish my voice and my ear, seeking reconciliation, from the voice of those that yell only, rather than listen.
That is MY civil disobedience. I prefer the cool headed, to the hot headed.
Hot-headedness is a car speeding 60 miles an hour in a residential neighborhood. The people in the car might get to where they thought they were going. But, they do NOT experience the way there. They don't even know what was there to begin with. They don't know who they ran over. They don't even get to smell their own fumes.
Which are we? Hot-headed drivers or courageous walkers.
Left or right really doesn't matter.
Humanizing is the missive of the hour, not successful demonization. Thats if you want peace.
Speaking of racism, check this out:
Jewish Girl Pranks Her Parents