During the war in Gaza one of the threads that we followed here on Mondoweiss was the shameful response from Jewish communal organizations, which ranged from outright support to ambiguous silence. Reader Michael Levin contacted us at that point to share his frustration with Rabbis for Human Rights – North America and their silence in the face of Israeli human rights abuses. He even produced a ready-made poster for them to voice their opposition, which we linked to at the time.
In the wake of Israel's ongoing attacks against nonviolent protests in the West Bank, Levin is continuing his campaign. From Levin:
On a regular basis I drop by the website for Rabbis for Human Rights – North America to see if they have made any new stands/statements regarding current events in Israel-Palestine. Tonight, looking to see if there is any response by RHR-NA to the IDF and Israeli border police firing live rounds against demonstrators in the West Bank – or about the shooting -with-gas-canister of the American, Tristan Anderson, after the protest in Ni’ilin, I again felt a bit like Charlie Brown getting the football pulled away by Lucy – because, as is usually the case, there was no statement from RHR-NA. However, as I scanned the website, my disappointment [both with RHR-NA, and with myself for having any expectation that they would take a leadership role] gained a bit more edge when I realized that — as far as a I can tell from the website – RHR-NA has not even made a public call for an end to the Israeli occupation.
So, in the spirit of the scene near the end of the movie The Wizard of OZ, I have concluded that while they have a great name, what RHR-NA lack is a human rights poster (click to enlarge). This is my effort . . .
Rabbis for Human Rights. humans mean jews, especially jews for the jewish state of the jews, which would be 99.9% of jews. the .1% are jews, not supporting overt atrocities, eg gaza, lebanon, but who still believe the jewish state of the jews has a right to exist on another's land and without their consent.
Lovely work, Adam. Thanks.
Seems like a lot of self-viewed progressive humanity type Jewish Americans are in their hearts still stuck in the
them versus us assumptions of the talmudic commentaries–the Talmud may have been censored for public consumption but the orthodox are not fooled by the PC replacement nouns for goyhim. The pattern Phil suggests supports this, does it not? It also supports the view that the organized Jewish support for the Civil Rights movement and subsequent legislation, and ditto the 1965 USA Immigration Act, and too the advocacy for continued open borders, is capsulized in the formula divide and conquer.
The test of virtue is power, and in the diaspora and in Israel, the lesson is obvious. Costly financial lesson for
broke non-Jewish Americans, and for those members of same who had faith in the Jews as moral leaders; similarly those Jewish Americans who believe in the highest calling of their faith. Superman, I guess, is really only a Jewish comic book character. Might does not make right–even with an S on his
shirt and big shoulders. Of course, the SS proved that, don't you think? Hell, they had two SS, and lots of big chins.
Someone on an earlier thread mentioned that centuries ago, Jews proselytized. That they don't anymore might be one reason why organized Jewry has grown increasingly supremacist, and Israel's behavior is merely a reflection, rather than the cause, of its supremacist incarnation.
Think about it: those whose goal is to bring others into the fold are going to be predisposed towards kindness and benevolence towards outsiders; those who want to keep people out are going to be predisposed towards hostility. And when one throws in the bloodline angle, and veneration of Israeli militancy, much of Judaism's entire identity becomes positively fascist.
A return to proselytizing could transform Judaism's entire psyche, and marginalize the obsessive racists.
Its unreasonable to expect a group like Rabbis for Human Rights to risk their reputation on information that is speculative, and oriented to a very short term time scale.
If they are working on opposing settlement expansion, recognition of Palestinian experience, and for color-blind application of law, that is GOOD by my book.
Most Israeli human rights organizations STRONGLY objected to the resumption of shelling of Israeli civilians by Hamas and other factions following (actually just before) the official ending of the cease-fire.
They were desparate for an approach that actually stopped Hamas from such harmful and self-defeating approaches.
The idea of short shock-and-awe was presented as the Powellian doctrine, effective for its shock, but not overly harmful for its shortness.
If you evaluated "support" for Israel's actions in Gaza early in the process, then you could say "they supported".
NOONE that I knew supported cruelty or targeting of overtly civilian sites.
What was your opinion of the Hamas resumption of shelling on December 18th? Did you support it, ignore it, condemn it?
It's as if 'human rights' groups objected to Native Americans scalping settlers, but ignored the land theft and other abuses of those claiming a Manifest Desiny.
@ Witty
How many times do regulars on this blog have to give you the evidence the Israelis broke the truce? You don't even give them the time of day of their many posts here ever since January. Furthermore, Israel has a
long track record of breaking every sort of truce they made with the Palestinians, as somebody detailed a week or so back on this blog. You insult people with your comments Witty–that's not a way to win hearts and minds to your cause. I don't have the time right now to go back through the blog, but regulars here will know if what I say is the truth; meanwhile, Witty go here, and read; otherwise you are no better than CB et Stools who routinely ignore the data people have gone to the trouble to give them and merely puke out hasbara talking points:
http://www.whobrokethetruce.com/
Also not unreasonable to expect a group like "Rabbis for Human Rights" to risk their reputation by bringing up data/ information that is contrary to what they'd like to believe, especially when that data is furnished by universally recognized international human rights organizations. The subject Rabbi group does not do this, as Phil merely pointed out. The subject rabbis make a mockery of the term "human rights." The end game is the same, there are humans, and then there are human jews, and hence
a double standard. Who exactly, Witty, do you think you're kidding? You don't use potty words, and you
don't toss out ethnic slurs in a heartbeat, but you are not the Reasonable Man, nor the Ethical Man
your rhetoric attempts to suggest. I wouldn't want you in my foxhole. I'd think about the term "fragging"
and make any excuse to have the leader send you elsewhere–like on KP or digging slit trenches for
real potty.
Witty is a TROLL. He is just subtle and civil. But the same basic hasbara is employed.
No different from Berel or SoG or Euro or Thom or Suzanne.
It doesn't take much reading of Witty's bullshit apologetics on this blog and Richard Silverstein's to understand that.
I've read the facts of the sequence of events thoroughly.
There is no objective basis to state that "Israel broke the cease fire".
Please site me proof, beyond assertion by leftists selectively interpreting.
Citizen, what you meant to say was, "How many times do regulars on this blog have to lie about the evidence before you are forced to believe that the Israelis broke the truce?"
Citizen, you'll just have to keep on lying. It is obvious to all, but antisemites, that Hamas broke the truce.
Atta boy, CB–we love your customary way of telling us what we meant to say. Usually you just infer it, or toss labels on us, but
now you just blurt it right out! We forgive you for thus violating Hasbara Rule # 1: Honesty is the last policy.