Countering the hasbaroid ‘Judenrein’ accusation against Maen Areikat, Mahmoud Habbash, the Palestinian minister of religious affairs, stated:
“The future Palestinian state will be open to all its citizens, regardless of their religion,” Habbash said, according to USA Today. “We want a civil state, which in it live all the faiths, Muslim, Christian and Jews also if they agree, (and) accept to be Palestinian citizens.”
Maen Areikat, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s ambassador to the United States, told POLITICO that his comments earlier this week which some interpreted as meaning Jews would not be welcome were misconstrued.
“In no way was there a suggestion that Jews cannot enter Palestine or be in Palestinian state in the future,” Areikat said.
The officials’ comments follow a controversy the ambassador’s remarks at a breakfast on Tuesday hosted by the Christian Science Monitor in which he said that Jews and Palestinians “need to be totally separated.”
USA Today reported that Areikat was calling for the future Palestinian state to “free of Jews.”
In the headline and story, Palestinian Ambassador Maen Areikat says he was referring to Israelis, not Jews, when he stated that “it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated first.”
For future reference, the US tabloids might care to comprehend Dr Saree Makdisi’s analysis about the PA:
“The PA has become what it was always intended to be; a full blown collaborationist apparatus whose main function is to facilitate the occupation and colonization of the West Bank not to challenge it or end it … The unelected leadership in Ramallah which having been swept from office by elections in 2006 was brought back to office almost literally on the turret of an Israeli tank remains completely uninterested in any accounting for the scandal of the Palestinian Papers or anything else for that matter.”
The 2011 Edward Said Memorial Lecture with Dr. Saree Makdisi “Palestine: Epicenter of the Arab Revolutions”
Israeli police evict a Palestinian family from their home in Jaffa.
Open Letter to John Michael McDonagh from Don’t Play Apartheid Israel
Dear John Michael McDonagh,
We write you this letter in the hope that you will carefully consider cancelling your participation in and the screening of your film “The Guard” at the Haifa International Film Festival in October 2011 in Israel. Your participation will undoubtedly be interpreted as a political statement in support of Israel’s harsh and illegal apartheid.
As described by the Palestinian Campaign for the Cultural and Academic Boycott of Israel (PACBI), “the Festival is sponsored by Israel’s political establishment, from the Minister of Culture and Sport to the Mayor of the city of Haifa. The Israeli Haifa elite celebrates Haifa as “a city that has become a symbol of co-existence, tolerance and peace,” in flagrant contradiction to the realities of segregation, discrimination, and racism suffered by the native Palestinian residents of Haifa, and in denial of Israel’s violent history of ethnic cleansing in that city.” [1] Thus, by screening “The Guard” at this festival, you would be lending your support to the Israeli government and its policies of apartheid, occupation and war crimes against the Palestinian people.
The PACBI call to boycott has been made by over 200 Palestinian civil society organisations, and has been endorsed by filmmakers and artists such as Ken Loach, Mike Leigh, Roger Waters, Pixies, Iain Banks, Leftfield, Arundhati Roy, Elvis Costello, Naomi Klein, John Berger, Breyten Breytenbach and Gil-Scott Heron among others. Indeed, since 2006, Ken Loach has refused to participate in the Haifa Film Festival or any other cultural events in Israel while this terrible oppression of the Palestinian people continues. [2] [3] [4]
Over 200 artists in Ireland, including great directors and actors, have signed a pledge to boycott Israel. [5] These artists refuse to allow their work to be exploited by an apartheid state that disregards international law and universal principles of human rights. Attending cultural events in Israel truly is a political statement in support of apartheid, and against human rights. Please be aware of the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s statement in 2005 that “We see culture as a propaganda tool of the first rank, and…do not differentiate between propaganda and culture.”
The BDS (Boycott, Divesment and Sanctions) movement has reached global proportions and people around the world are joining in solidarity with the oppressed people who live under Israel’s harsh, oppressive, racist apartheid system.
There are many reasons not to participate in this film festival, some of them follow. The recent International Red Cross report on the siege of Gaza demonstrates how terribly damaging it is to Palestinians. [6] The siege most definitely constitutes human rights abuse. Also, the UN Report of 200found that Israel commited war crimes in its assault on Gaza in 2008/2009, including using white phosphorous on civilians and using human shields. [7]
In the light of last year’s murder of humanitarian activists by the Israeli military and the ongoing illegal and immoral siege of Gaza, as well as the occupation of Palestine, it is profoundly important that Israel not be allowed to profit from artists visiting the state until it upholds international law. Apartheid was wrong in South Africa and is wrong in Israel; please take a stand against it. [8] [9]
Our sincere hope is that you honour both your craft and human rights, and refuse to cross the picket line drawn by the Palestinian call for cultural boycott and cancel your film screening in Israel.
We are a group of 774 members representing many nations around the globe, who believe that it is essential for artists to heed the call of the PACBI, and join in the boycott of Israel. This is essential in order to work towards justice for the Palestinian people under occupation, and also in refugee camps and in the diaspora throughout the world.
[8] Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa (HSRC) study : Israel is practicing both colonialism and apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Media_Release-378.phtml
OPEN LETTER to George Clooney: Say NO to Haifa International Film Festival
Dear George Clooney,
Arts and culture have become an important weapon in the Israeli government’s public relations campaign, and in 2006, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs launched an initiative called “Brand Israel,” to salvage Israel’s deteriorating image abroad.
The Haifa International Film Festival is an arm of the Israel Ministry of Culture and Sport and the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, both of which are happy to exploit your good name as part of their effort to re-Brand Israel as a normal country by showing its “prettier face”–its vibrant cultural and artistic community. Thus, Israel is portrayed as an enlightened center of arts and technology, thereby concealing the ugly facts about its occupation, racial discrimination and grave violations of international law and fundamental Palestinian rights.
It came to our attention that the film you directed “The Ides of March,” will be the “opening film” at the Haifa International Film Festival.
Mr. Clooney, we urge you to follow the example of the renowned filmmaker Ken Loach, who declared in 2006 that he would decline any invitation to the Haifa International Film Festival, or other such occasions, as an acknowledgment of the Palestinian call for boycott, which Palestinians have been driven to pursue “after forty years of the occupation of their land, destruction of their homes and the kidnapping and murder of their civilians.” Loach was responding to the 2006 call by Palestinian filmmakers, artists and others to boycott state sponsored Israeli cultural institutions and urged others to join this campaign.
Since the Haifa International Film Festival has made no attempt to dissociate itself from Israel’s apartheid policies, we can only assume the festival organizers and sponsors are happy to screen films under the patronage of the State of Israel and/or its institutions. Meanwhile, the charges of war crimes against Israel hang thick in the air worldwide.
The apartheid wall, shown in these photos, is just one aspect of Israel’s illegal suppression of the other half of the population that is not Jewish. That other half is oppressed in atrocious ways that amount to war crimes. An estimated 7 million or more Palestinians live as refugees. Refugees that are denied their full legal right to return to their homes. Refugees that live in poverty and squalor, through no fault other than that they are not Jewish. They were expelled, in order for a jewish state to be formed. That state, globally, more and more, is known as “Apartheid Israel.”
George Clooney, please be on the right side of history, the side that eventually will win. The side that contributes, each person in their own small way, to the abolishing of apartheid.
Gaelic Neilson
member “Don’t Play Apartheid Israel”
(A group of over 770 people united to stop apartheid in Israel)
Today, another major artist expressed their commitment to justice and human rights, answering the call of Palestinian people for boycott, divestmeent and sanctions against apartheid Israel by cancelling her performance there.
“I had an idea that performing in Israel would have been a unique opportunity to encourage and support my fans’ opposition to the current government’s actions and policies. I would have personally asked my Israeli fans face-to-face to fight this apartheid with peace in their hearts, but after much deliberation I now see that it would be more effective a statement to not go to Israel until this systemised apartheid is abolished once and for all. Therefore I publicly retract my well-intentioned decision to go and perform in Israel and so sincerely hope that this decision represents an effective statement against this regime.”
Kudos, Natacha, for standing strong on the right side of history! Who’ll be the next musician, artist, writer or sportsperson to stand up and be counted against apartheid Israel?
Abbas’s rousing speech in the UN arguing for Palestinian statehood belies the impotence of the PA to stop further Israeli appropriations, with crowing zionists announcing another 1,100 illegal Israeli colonial homes to be built on Palestinian land in the West Bank. Within Israel, 30,000 Bedouins are to be ethnically cleansed and their lands confiscated to make room for more jews-only settlements. From the Palestine Papers, it’s clear Israel has rebuffed the most generous of offers by Abbas in the past and that Abbas colludes with Israel to suppress Palestinian resistance. No matter what concessions Palestinians make, Israel always raises the bar, most recently with Nutanyahoo’s demand for recognition of a ‘jewish’ (racist) state. Israel has no intention of offering a viable state for Palestinians or equal rights for all – a brief glance at the Likud platform attests to this fact. Palestine has all the resources, most importantly, water, and without them, Israel would choke. As long as the US and EU remain merely ‘deeply disappointed’, ziocode for ‘business as usual’ and fail to insist on Israel’s adherence to international law, there is no impetus which can make Israel stop its oppression save steadfast non-violent resistance and BDS, BDS and more BDS.
The best antidote for Abbas’ deceptive two state euphoria is Ali Abunimah’s interview about it. Ali sees Palestinian people beginning to focus increasingly on a struggle for equal rights.
If the October Knesset vote for annexation of the West Bank is affirmative, the necessity for equal rights with one and a half million illegal settlers presently occupying Palestinian land will become urgent.
The Palestinian Authority’s bid to the United Nations for Palestinian statehood is, at least in theory, supposed to circumvent the failed peace process. But in two crucial respects, the ill-conceived gambit actually makes things worse, amplifying the flaws of the process it seeks to replace. First, it excludes the Palestinian people from the decision-making process. And second, it entirely disconnects the discourse about statehood from reality.
In a speech today, Ashton congratulated herself for increasing Europe’s involvement in something called the Middle East peace process. “I have worked to achieve a greater EU role as I believe we are ideally placed as a friend of both parties,” she said.
Three United Nations independent experts Tuesday called for an immediate end to the Israeli demolitions of Palestinian owned-houses and other structures in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, which have seen a dramatic increase since the beginning of the year, according to a press release by OHCHR.
– At my meetings, I said, all right, Turkey is a model of democracy, a secular state, a social state with the rule of law upheld. We are not intentionally trying to export a regime — we couldn’t care less. But if they want our help, we’ll provide any assistance they need. But we do not have a mentality of exporting our system.
…
Turkey is getting stronger as time goes by, and the situation of many European states is quite obvious.
Most wars in the world end when the leaders of both parties come to understand that continued fighting will not bring them any benefit. In many cases the benefit in question is any personal profit leaders themselves. In other cases, when a nation gets the leaders deserve, benefit at heart is the good of society.
Israel is significantly inferior in its war against the people of Palestinians, that does not go unnoticed by any one who looks with open eyes on the balance of power in the Middle East. Israeli – Palestinians can not end Israel’s victory on the first model. Not difficult to conclude that this strategic situation assessment – History and basic rational considerations. However, this conclusion is also from the experience and the historical facts themselves, without any theory.
In June 1967 the State of Israel was close to the end of war from the first model than ever before, and above all close she could reach it in the foreseeable future. But war is not over. On the other hand, the Arab side during Israel – Filastin be theoretically possible to win and bring the war to end the first model.
The moral is that the Israeli Government to end the war, according to the second model. To do this, create a situation of East – Mediterranean in which no Arab ruler, including leaders of the Palestinians, there will be nothing to gain personally for the war, and none of them has a strong emotional stimulus will be enough to start a global campaign to another.
“The current Israeli leadership unfortunately is racist and aggressive, especially Leiberman and his team which is only tolerated for the sake of the coalition government. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis have gathered to protest economic situation in the country. Change in Israel hinges on how far Lieberman will be tolerated”.
The Turkish deputy premier said Israel had lost Egypt’s friendship in the Middle East as well.
“Egypt used to be one of the closest allies Israel had in that region. Now Egypt is friends with Turkey and it had cut all diplomatic ties with Israel. Everyone knows very well what kind of a position an isolated Israel will be in when devoid of ties with Turkey.”
James Brandt from the JDEF makes it clear that the zionist lobby had a political agenda when censoring the “Child’s View from Gaza” exhibit scheduled months ago to be held at MOCHA.
Upon hearing about the exhibit, Jewish community representatives met with MOCHA staff to voice our concerns. First, the exhibit’s violent, even gory images are wholly inappropriate to be viewed by young children. Second, the exhibit and its associated programming were designed to further MECA’s well-documented agenda to delegitimize Israel.
But violent images of Israeli suffering are OK.
Certainly, an appropriate context could be created for MECA’s exhibit. Professionals could determine the appropriate minimum age for visitors. Images could be added to present a balanced context.
These would depict the shelling of Israeli schools, Israeli families praying for the return of kidnapped soldiers and Israeli children grieving for parents killed in terrorist attacks.
Got that? images of violence of Palestinians GOOD, images of Israeli violence BAD.
The Museum of Tolerance held a workshop for children to respond to drawings of children from Darfur of the genocide which they witnessed. These drawings are being used as evidence of war crimes by the Sudanese government in the International Criminal Court. Are Israel’s defenders worried that Gazan children’s drawings may be used similarly? Regardless, the Israel lobby’s double standards on violence and children are shockingly apparent.
This exhibit constitutes propaganda aimed at indoctrinating our children under the guise of art. There is no context given to understand the complex issues facing Israel and the Palestinians.
Brand Israel bullies children. Palestinian children endure apartheid, occupation and oppression, and their art is deemed unacceptable because it challenges the monopoly on victimhood held by Brand Israel. The obsessive need to control the narrative of oppression was a striking characteristic of the apartheid South African regime also.
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which appealed against the ban on Route 443, dared suggest the word apartheid and was reprimanded for it. In her ruling, Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch wrote that “the great difference between the security means adopted by the State of Israel for defense against terrorist attacks and the unacceptable practices of the policy of apartheid requires that any comparison or use of this grave term be avoided.”
Today, a demonstration of many community groups concerned about the political censorship of Gazan children’s art was held in Oakland outside MOCHA. Here’s an account of the protest and related events on the MOCHA facebook page:
Mocha partially changed its opinion half an hour before the demo after it saw the public and many artists rally behind the exhibit and also after realizing that MECA found a place nearby to show the kids’ drawings. Many Mocha staff members are outraged by the decision of the board and many Mocha members ended their membership after walking into the museum and throwing a fit because of the shameful behavior of Mocha. There were many angry emails and phone calls too. The presence of the media today also compelled Mocha to reconsider. Mocha’s scandal grew every day and public scorn grew with it too.
Mocha missed the Thursday deadline that was given to it by MECA and today, it was too late. Mocha realized that it made a big mistake and MECA was not going to save its ass from public scorn. Besides, Mocha refused to show all the drawings and wanted to pick and choose and that is still censorship. So yes, it’s still about censoring the artwork of the Palestinian children.
Some of the advocates for censorship of the exhibition also revealed an underlying motivation to attack BDS, unstated elsewhere publicly.
David Marshak: We are trying to respond to the BDS campaign, which is very well-funded and organised. We can’t match the funding and numbers but we can improve our ability to respond to attacks like these. We have a lot of work to do. JVP is very good.
Crayons of mass creation speak truth to power. The Israel lobby art censors quiver and quake at their impact, and struggle to suppress images and language which attest to Israel’s war crimes and collective punishment perpetrated against the civilian population in Gaza subject to Israel’s oppression – apartheid, occupation and siege. Yet since Israel’s survival apparently depends on censoring children’s drawings of its crimes, Israel has surely doomed itself.
An exhibit of controversial drawings and paintings by Palestinian children was shown in a downtown Oakland museum’s courtyard Saturday, after the Museum of Children’s Art canceled the display three weeks ago.
After criticism from exhibit founder Middle East Children’s Alliance, the museum made a late offer Friday to reschedule the event at a later time, but the organizers said they had already found their own space.
…
The Alliance’s executive director, Barbara Lubin, said she received a call Friday afternoon from a museum representative asking to meet with her group to discuss rescheduling the exhibit.
“I just laughed,” she said. “I said, ‘You must be crazy; we have spent the last three weeks looking for a place to display (the artwork.) … I
can’t believe you have the chutzpah (audacity) to call me at this late date.’ I have just signed a lease on a space for (an exhibit) for the next two months.”
…
On Saturday afternoon, a band played while people held up the drawings in the courtyard, and patrons filed into the Museum of Children’s Art.
The museum’s interim executive director, Masako Kalbach, was sympathetic to the views of museum critics.
“We do understand their feelings about our offer of being too late,” she said. “We would really like to talk to them.”
Also at the showing Saturday were about a dozen people from StandWithUs/San Francisco Voice for Israel.
“I think an exhibition that also shows the suffering of children of Southern Israel who have had (thousands) of rockets aimed directly at them could be a much more balanced exhibit,” said group spokesman Mike Harris.
The museum’s decision to cancel the exhibit triggered an outcry against what critics called censorship of Palestinian children’s art, especially since the museum has presented similar wartime artwork, including an exhibit of Iraqi children’s drawings depicting the U.S. war in Iraq.
A museum representative originally said the art was “not appropriate for an open gallery accessible by all children.” But late Friday, museum board member Randolph Belle issued a statement.
“When we canceled the exhibit ‘A Child’s View from Gaza’ earlier this month, we did so both because we lacked a formal policy for sensitive content, and because we were not confident that we had the resources to deal with the numerous concerns we received regarding the exhibit. In response to input from the community and careful consideration by our board of directors and staff, the Museum of Children’s Art has developed a new policy governing the exhibition of items with sensitive content,” the statement said.
Belle’s statement said the Middle East Children’s Alliance has been invited to reschedule the exhibit in keeping with the new policy.
Lubin said she had not seen Belle’s statement Saturday.
She is traveling to Gaza next month to collect new artwork from the children based on how they feel about having their exhibit banned from the museum.
Lubin said she will consider working with the museum to show this set of artwork as long as they do not censor the show.
Board member Randolph Belle said the decision was based on the violent nature of some of the work in the show. “Basically we got some [calls from] concerned parents, the Jewish Federation and MOCHA community members,” Belle said, “stating that they didn’t feel that children should be exposed to these images in a public space.”
On Friday, dozens of protestors in front of MOCHA, organized in part by the San Francisco-based Arab Resource and Organizing Center (AROC), shouted “Shame!” and accused the museum’s board of censorship. “It is very hurtful,” said AROC Youth Program Coordinator Lubna Morrar, who spoke at the protest. “We had been working with [MOCHA] for so long, and if they felt like they didn’t want to take on this project then they shouldn’t have even implemented it to begin with.”
Ziad Abbas, associate director of the Berkeley-based Middle East Children’s Alliance (MECA), said that during the six months of preparing for the exhibit, which was to include various workshops, “the staff was very supportive, very helpful.” But just two weeks ago, Abbas said, MECA was informed that the event would not take place.
He said the MOCHA representative who called him did not explain in detail—”just that it is an internal issue they are having,” Abbas said. “But we know, we understand that the moment you talk about Palestine, or mention Palestine, you will find the pro-Israeli groups try to put the pressure to silence or to shut you down.”
Abbas said he understands MOCHA was under pressure from various groups. “That is what we saw on the Internet later,” he said. “Many people supporting Israel were congratulating each other after the museum cancelled the exhibition.” Specifically, Abbas and his associates point to both the Jewish Community Relations Council and the Jewish Federation of the East Bay as playing a role in the exhibit’s cancellation.
Faith Metlzer, of San Francisco Voice for Israel, said she was relieved the exhibit would not be shown at the museum. “The art has anti-Semitic, as well as anti-American, symbolism,” she said. “To me, things like this—bombs with Jewish stars on them—it’s just a way of demonizing our people and our religion.”
Metlzer said she worried about how the exhibit would have affected Jewish children in Oakland. “How would you go around with a Jewish star on a T-shirt or on a chain, when the symbol of your people and of your religion has become a hate symbol?” she asked.
In addition to complaints about the violent imagery included in the show, Belle acknowledges that MOCHA did receive calls from people worried that the exhibit was “painting the Jews in a negative light.” But he says the cancellation was not political, and was instead done to protect children from inappropriate, graphic images.
“We are being painted as censors, we’ve been portrayed as having caved in,” Belle said. “We’ve been portrayed a lot of different ways that are just not accurate. We would never have taken the show had we ascribed to any kind of censorship.”
Belle describes MOCHA as a small organization that was caught off-guard and overwhelmed by the emotional reaction the exhibit generated. “We probably did not diligently look at the implications of having this show,” he said. “I don’t know if it was naïveté or just a misjudgment, but there were some mistakes made, and we are paying for them right now.”
Before this controversy, MOCHA had no official exhibition policy, and the “Child’s View of Gaza” exhibit was accepted with a simple up-and-down vote by the board. “In retrospect,” Belle said, “we should have done things differently.”
While “no one threatened to pull [MOCHA] funding or anything else like that,” Belle said, the burden placed on the organization by a controversial exhibit was just too great a risk. “We can make a statement, or we can serve our constituencies,” he said.
In the past, MOCHA has featured work by children of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a WWII exhibit. “Those exhibits did not generate the kinds of passionate responses that this one did,” Belle said.
Abbas also points to those exhibits in questioning MOCHA’s actions. “Why is Palestine different?” he asked. “Children paint what they see in the street. They paint what the Israeli army did. They try to reflect the reality of where they live.”
The Middle East Children’s Alliance received a call from MOCHA on Friday afternoon proposing an alternate exhibit. “They used the terminology ‘modified some pictures,’” Abbas said, which he described as another form of censorship. “We told them ‘Shame on you…it is too late.’”
…
‘Eleanor Levine, a member of the non-violence advocacy group Code Pink, said Friday, “This is not about religion, it is about a very powerful lobby, the Zionist lobby, that exerts a tremendous amount of power. And they are simply not interested in having the Palestinian voice heard.” Levine called the conflict “a great shame and pity,” and said she hopes MOCHA has “the opportunity to show different cultural art and values” to the people of Oakland.’
Pro-Israel lobbying groups claimed that the Gaza exhibit was anti-Israel and fought to kill it. They asserted that the art could not possibly have been created by children.
Museum officials insisted that their abrupt about-face had nothing to do with pressure from the Jewish Federation of the Greater East Bay and other pro-Israel Jewish groups that threatened to withhold funding if the museum went ahead with the exhibit. But these same groups gloated on the Internet about getting the exhibit canceled.
Instead, museum officials asserted that their decision to pull the plug on the exhibit less than two weeks before its scheduled opening last Saturday stemmed from concerns from parents, educators and other community members over the violent war images and their appropriateness for young children.
But past exhibits belie that rationale. In 2009, MOCHA held an exhibit of children’s art from the war in Bosnia and Iraq. It also depicted graphic images created by children who had been witnesses to war and was, as one might expect, difficult to view.
Indeed, the curator for that exhibit, Joan Miro, says she is “appalled and mystified” by MOCHA’s decision to cancel the Gaza exhibit.
The museum’s actions have drawn justifiable condemnations from critics, including progressive Jewish groups who have demanded the museum reverse itself and allow the art work to be shown.
The entire event is troubling that certain individuals have prevented the public from viewing art they don’t want us to see. What’s to stop other organizations from using the same strong-arm tactics to silence opposing viewpoints?
The Middle East Children’s Alliance in Berkeley, which organized the exhibit, showed the artwork Saturday — in the courtyard in front of MOCHA. Museum officials have only themselves to blame for this public relations fiasco.
We understand the enormous pressure the museum faced — including funding threats. But the decision is a violation of MOCHA’s own mission to give a platform to children’s expression from around the world.
Shamefully, pro-Israel groups have long strategized to silence Palestinian voices and those in solidarity. For 23 years, MECA has challenged such censorship and fought to raise the voices of Palestine, especially those of children.
In 1991, when we invited Professor Noam Chomsky for a speaking engagement, 19 professors from
UC Berkeley signed a letter to bookstores selling tickets to the event. The professors threatened to picket their stores, but the owners refused to be censored.
In December 2005, MECA, in collaboration with Alliance Graphics and the Berkeley Arts Center, presented Justice Matters: Artists Consider Palestine, an exhibit displaying the artwork of 14 Palestinian and North American artists. Fourteen rabbis visited Mayor Tom Bates of Berkeley demanding that he cancel the show. They further insisted that the city withdraw funding to the Berkeley Arts Center and to be given the right to inspect any future art exhibit. Despite the rabbis’ objections to the art, the mayor rejected censorship and the show opened to a huge crowd of supporters.
MECA has always respected and loved MOCHA, and continues to support the museum and those who work there. Our support for the museum has not ceased — rather, our anger and our frustration is directed at the board of directors for lacking the courage to withstand bullying and intimidation.
What is so frightening to these pro-Israel forces that they are willing to put millions of dollars into a campaign to shut down protests on campuses, muzzle speakers who advocate for human rights for all, and even silence the voices of children by censoring their art?
Outraged activists spread the story far and wide via listservs, Twitter, Facebook, etc., and MOCHA’s e-mail account and Facebook page (apparently now closed down) were barraged with indignant messages.
‘Since March 2009, various organizations, including Amnesty International,1 Human Rights Watch and the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission2 have produced reports on the entire operation or specific aspects of it. In addition, Israeli human rights organizations, both in joint statements3 and in individual publications such as those by B’Tselem4 and Gisha5, have also related in a critical manner to the IDF’s (Israeli
Defense Forces) actions during the operation. All these publications have arrived at the general conclusion that was expressed in one report:
“Much of the destruction was wanton and resulted from direct attacks on civilian objects as well as indiscriminate attacks that failed to distinguish between legitimate military targets and civilian objects. Such attacks violated fundamental provisions of international humanitarian law, notably the prohibition on direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects (the principle of
distinction), the prohibition on indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks, and the prohibition on collective punishment.”6’
The No-Risk Policy
‘Kasher’s argument is that in an area such as the Gaza Strip in which the IDF does not have effective control the overriding principle guiding the commanders is achieving their military objectives. Next in priority is protecting soldiers’ lives, followed by avoiding injury to enemy civilians.
“Sending a soldier there to fight terrorists is justified, but why should I force him to endanger himself much more than that so that the terrorist’s neighbour isn’t killed? I don’t have an answer for that. From the standpoint of the state of Israel, the neighbour is much less important. I owe the soldier more. If it’s
between the soldier and the terrorist’s neighbour, the priority is the soldier”.25″
The Dahiye Doctrine
Two years later, in the beginning of October 2008, the Commanding Officer of the IDF’s Northern Command, Maj. General Gadi Eisenkott, gave an interview to Yedioth
Ahronoth newspaper, in which he unveiled what he called the “Dahiye Doctrine”:
“What happened in the Dahiye Quarter of Beirut in 2006, will happen in every village from which shots are fired on Israel. We will use disproportionate force against it and we will cause immense damage and destruction. From our point
of view these are not civilian villages but military bases.
This is not a recommendation, this is the plan, and it has already been authorized.”46
Some of the advocates for censorship of the exhibition also revealed an underlying motivation to attack BDS, unstated elsewhere publicly.