The problem is that while the cartoon is designed to empower Palestinian children, it does so through the use of anti-Semitic stereotypes. This is not all together uncharacteristic for the Hamas run TV program: Past episodes of the show, for example, have shown a cute and cuddly rabbit who desires to kill and eat Jews. Yet, unlike previous shows, the message of this cartoon is less than clear: Is Hamas (in its unique way) calling for dialogue with the enemy, or is the organization using dialogue to perpetuate fear and mistrust? Have a look and decide for yourself:

[Below are my comments, along with thoughts from Palestinian and Israeli peace activists Aziz Abu Sarah and Kobi Skolnick.]

Roi Ben-Yehuda: From an Israeli, Jewish and humanistic perspective, this is a disturbing cartoon. The faces of the Jews (who are all settlers) are evil looking: they have angular shapes, scowling eyebrows, and thin mouths. This is in contrast to the rounded facial features of the Palestinian boy, which make him look friendly and unthreatening. Moreover, the film uses some subliminal techniques to carry the anti-Semitic messages home. The opening close-up of the Jewish child, for example, appears (for a second) to have blood spilling from his mouth. While the older brother, with his red eyes and goatee, literally looks like Satan. The physical posture, vocal intonations and actions of the Jewish teacher and father clearly portray them as sinister and diabolical characters. All together, the cartoon depicts the Jews as fearful yet demonic figures who, on the one hand, believe it is necessary to fight against the evil Palestinians, and on the other hand, actually enjoy killing their neighbors. Ironically, this is exactly the type of negative misrepresentation the cartoon criticizes the Jews for originally engaging in vis-à-vis the Palestinians.

However, behind the anti-Semitic caricature of the Jews and the self-righteous image of the Palestinians, I do see a silver lining. Whether intentional or not, the cartoon is teaching Palestinian children that Jewish hatred is a consequence of learned fear, which could be overcome through dialogue (albeit one-sided) and positive experience. This is an important and valuable lesson – all the more so coming from an organization that has vigorously and violently disapproved of dialogue as a type of “normalization.” One can only hope that for the sake of consistency and peace, Palestinian children will grew up and turn a critical eye on the institutions that have spoon-fed them hateful and distorted images of Jews and Israelis.

Aziz Abu Sarah: The cartoon featured in the program starts with a positive message of encounter between an Israeli and a Palestinian child. However, while confronting Israeli stereotypes of Palestinians, the story quickly dissolves into Palestinian stereotypes of Israelis and self-righteous proclamations.

Such videos are aimed at socializing Palestinian children, imprinting a sense of injustice and providing warnings about “the enemy.” This is important because Palestinian children face a reality characterized by violence, death, separation, settlements, and soldiers. Hamas’ programs reflect this existence. Unfortunately, they also perpetuate and feed preexisting notions among Palestinian youth that an Israeli is either a soldiers or a settler. They also reinforce the Palestinian belief that Israeli Jews don’t desire peace but to destroy and kill Palestinians. 

Palestinian children do not need self-aggrandizing messages about Palestinian existence in the face of suffering, and they do not need to internalize stereotypes about the depravity of Israeli Jews. Instead, they need to learn about the faults of both sides and the suffering of both sides. Just as the Palestinian boy in the cartoon tried to communicate his suffering to the Jewish boy, Palestinian children need to learn about Israeli suffering. Israeli children should also learn about Palestinian suffering, but Palestinians must realize that the self-righteous tones of the boy in the video will only hinder communication.

Kobi Skolnick: Watching this video I became sad because the way the adults taught hatred and violence to children in such a manipulative manner. Then, I felt encouraged by the fact that a dialogue was taking place. In addition, there was a hard look at the radical education that some children in both sides of the conflict still receive. Yet, this is my adult’s mind processing it, not that of a Palestinian child.

As I was thinking about cartoon, I flashbacked to my teenage years. A chill went through my bones but I let the images in. I was walking in the streets of Jerusalem with a black thick marker and wrote on the walls “Death to the Arabs” and “Long live Kahana” [an extremist Jewish leader who called for the expulsion of Arabs from historical Israel]. I was a young teenager looking for a strong identity and a sense of meaningfulness. I had no moral problem with Palestinians getting hurt and in fact had participated in such attacks. I had a strong enemy-image of cruel Arabs killing children.

Yet, with time and experience, I had learned to break this image.

In both sides, the extreme communities are creating violent realities that sustain the enemy image of each other. As a result, the young generation is developing destructive moralistic judgments that continue the doctrine of just war. Clearly, Hamas’ manipulation of facts and labeling the Jewish people as bloodthirsty would result in more foot soldiers fighting “the enemy”, but at the same time would provide “the enemy” with more enemies — just a continuation of the vicious cycle of violence and self-fulfilling prophesies.

It is tragic to manipulate young children’s sense of compassion and honesty with self-destructive tendencies. Classifying people promotes violence not compassion. We need to teach children of both sides about the resolution of human conflict through means other than violence.

* Originally published, in shortened form, by France 24’s The Observers.  

The post Hamas Advocating Dialogue Through Children’s Cartoon? Not Exactly. appeared first on Jewcy.

During the Middle Ages, the Inquisition used to "inspire" people to inform on individuals who were secretly Jewish. Today, the Israeli government – in partnership with the Jewish Agency – is getting people to inform on Jews who are not Jewish enough.

In a video that harkens back to the [anachronistic] Zionist notion of shlilatha’galut, the Israeli government and Jewish Agency have called on Israelis to identify "lost children" – i.e. assimilated Jews living in the Diaspora. The purpose of the advert is to send these wayward Jews on a year-long identity strengthening stay in Israel, courtesy of Masa.

The ad asks its viewers "Do you know a young Jew in the Diaspora? Call the Masa project and together we will strengthen his ties to Israel so that he will not be lost to us.

Oy vey, I can already envision mygrandmother (Tata) calling.

You can read more on this topic, including a very funny imaginary phone conversation between MASA and grandmother Tata at Roi Word.

Update (September 8, 2009):

Masa’s North American director sent out the following email yesterday:

Dear Friends,

At its heart, MASA is a partnership between Israelis and Jews from around the world with a common purpose-strengthening the Jewish People by bringing young Jews to Israel. The main goal of a recently launched ad campaign in Israel was to try and engage an often apathetic Israeli population in MASA and involve them in the key goal of bringing larger numbers of young Jews from around the world on long-term Israel programs. The immediate and very strong reaction to this campaign has highlighted the critical need for all Jews, whether living in Israel or outside of Israel, to develop an ongoing dialogue and greater understanding around key areas of sensitivity for Jews in all communities.

While this campaign attempted to motivate the Israeli public to be more involved in this collective enterprise, the images that were chosen touched many raw nerves. Clearly, there was a disconnect around how some of the images and wording – designed to be provocative towards an Israeli public that for too long has been largely disconnected and disaffected from its responsibility towards its fellow Jews – would be received by many Jews outside of Israel. At the same time, there was some misinterpretation on the part of the Israeli press about the actual content of the ads, which also impacted this sense of misunderstanding.

The Jewish Agency and leadership of MASA have made an immediate decision to refocus MASA’s ad campaign in Israel by moving to its next phase, which will no longer include the contentious images that have appeared on Israeli television.

Israel can be a convener and connector for Jews everywhere and MASA intends to challenge Israelis to take an active role in building a stronger Jewish future by helping expose young Jews, ages 18-30, to the "real" Israel for a semester or a year. Through a wide variety of long-term Israel experiences, we can connect the next generation to our people, our Judaism, and our homeland, and realize our shared goals of creating a more vibrant Jewish future and a diverse, welcoming and inclusive community.

I look forward to continue partnering with you to advance our common agenda to bring more and more young adults to Israel in the coming new year.

Sincerely,

Avi Rubel, North American Director, MASA

[via The Fundermentalist]

The post The New Inquisition: A Video Against Jewish Assimilation (UPDATED) appeared first on Jewcy.

The settlers call it a "price tag":  Every time Israeli authorities act against the interest of the settlers, the latter will respond by exacting revenge on nearby Palestinian residence and their property.  Much like Japanese Macaques monkeys who when attacked by a powerful and high-ranking aggressor exact revenge on one of his less powerful family members, the settlers are displacing their frustrations on the Palestinians with the hopes of deterring the Israeli government from taking future actions against them.

But judging by the Bulworthesque response of Prime Minister Olmert, the settlers monkey-like actions have backfired:   

"As a Jew, I’m ashamed of the sights of Jews firing at Arabs in Hebron. I have no other definition for what we saw but a pogrom. We are the sons of a nation which knows what a pogrom is, and I’m saying this after much thought. I have no other way to put it.”

This is not the first time that Olmert has described the actions of settlers in the territories as pogroms. By using the word ‘pogrom’ Olmert joins those who at times see a moral and historical equivalence between violence committed against Jews in the Diaspora, and violence committed by Jews against non-Jews in Israel and the occupied territories. This may seem like a non-issue, but in reality it is an unusual and potent choice of words for a prime minister to use. 

The other interesting disclosure in Olmert’s statement is his admission of shame. Shame is an appropriate response. Shame is an outward directed emotion, it is social and ethical, it means that we feel bad because others see our improper behavior (or those who represent us). But shame needs to be adjoined with another emotion: Guilt. Guilt is internal, it is moral and individualistic, it is our conscience bitchslapping us for actions we know to be wrong. 

We are not guilty and shameful because we pulled the trigger, burned down and smashed people’s property, or cursed and spit in their faces.  No, our guilt is the guilt of the enabler. Our shame is the shame of the idle witness. The hill-top youths may be the out of control monster that Dr. Frankenstein of the Yesha counsel created, yet it is we, everyday Israelis, that supported (directly or indirectly) their experiments and operations. 

Of course shame and guilt have their up side. Aristotle understood shame to be a “quasi virtue”, because there is still a great deal of qualitative difference between the person who acts wrongly and feels shame and one who does not. Likewise, an Ethiopian proverb states: “A man without shame is a man without honor.” To the point that he is sincere, the fact that our Prime Minister is expressing shame is a good thing. It shows that he, and to the extent that Olmert speaks for Israel as a collective, we, care about how we behave and how we are perceived.

One can hope that these feelings don’t just function to make us feel superior to the thugs that perpetuated and supported these crimes, but also wake us from our moral complacency regarding the occupation as a whole.

The post The Shame Is On Us appeared first on Jewcy.

Here is a scenario and question for you: You wake up tomorrow morning and to your utter astonishment your paper’s front page reads: "Religion Ceases to Exist in the Middle East." Will this increase or decrease the chance for peace between Arabs and Jews?

A common charge in the discourse over the Arab-Israeli conflict is that religion plays a central role in exacerbating and perpetuating the conflict. This position has been taken up by a number of atheistic best-selling books. The conclusion being that removing religion from the scene will go a long way in solving the century old conflict.

Others disagree, arguing that since at base the conflict is a product of economic, political, and social forces, the question of religion is irrelevant. Religion, this group says, is an epiphenomenon – born and determined by conditions on the ground. End the state of occupation and alienation, bring an end to the violence, give people bread and dignity – and religion will no longer matter.

Still a third group holds that far from being the source of the problem, and far from being a mere epiphenomenon, religion contains within it the solution to the conflict. Properly understood, this group contends, religion calls us to recognize the sacredness of all humanity. Moreover, the moral claims of religion jolt us out of our individual and group ego-centricism and challenges us to act with compassion towards our fellow human beings.

The question of religion and the Arab-Israeli conflict gets the juices flowing. When I posted my hypothetical scenario and question on Facebook – to groups such as "We Support Israel," "I Support Hassan Nassralah," and "Free Palestine"- I got a number of interesting and amusing responses.

Have a read (and voice your opinion):

"Shalom Roi, The scenario you describe would be the perfect setup for a false "peace" that would merely become "the calm before the storm", and then with every one doing "what’s right in their OWN eyes" outside of moral guidelines, there truly would be hell on earth such as has not been seen since the days of faithful Noach just before the Flood….."

"If there is no more religion in the Middle East then there definitely wouldn’t be any problems between Arabs and Jews .. and that only because Jews will cease to exist .. since Jews refer to people who follow Judaism.. which is a religion and thus doesn’t exist.."

"I do think religion plays a major role,I think the Jerusalem and the settlers issues would be easier to accept for both sides, there would be no groups like Hamas and Islamic jihad, hence much less terrorist attacks…."

"This is my view. The whole conflict is based around the concept of religion. Time and time again you see Jewish settlers and Muslim Palestinians over the news. Religion, if one believes init, is supposed to be peaceful, the whole Palestine/Israel conflict seems to contradict that notion….."

"I think if anything it would cause more violence. These people believe in the religion so much, I think if they found out that it wasn’t real they would probably lash out against their counterparts whom they already hate…."

"In my opinion, I think religion doesn’t play a great role in the conflict. Jews and Muslims lived together under each others rules in Medina with the prophet (pbuh)….."

"The issue here is tolerance, not religion. No matter what you call your creator, if you call it God, Jesus Christ, Allah, Science, Mother Nature, or a host of other names.. the simple fact is that we are all brothers and sisters of the SAME creation. Jews and Arabs weren’t created by different forces. We all have the common brotherhood of humanity and should peacefully work toward achieving more tolerant societies. Neither religion preaches intolerance and hatred yet it [hatred] exists. So I think without those guiding forces a similar conflict would still exist.

"I’m a Christian, but I believe God gave Israel to the Jewish people. Although he took it away at times throughout history, he always returned the Jews to their land, because it is rightfully theirs…."

"The conflict has very little to do with religion anymore- yes Judaism always yearned for a return to Zion"and Jerusalem is a Holy City for the Muslims too. But I think the conflict has moved beyond religion. Its about land, power, racial supremacy and pride."

So Jewcers, what do you think: Could the Middle East use a little less religion?

The post Could the Middle East Use a Little Less Religion? appeared first on Jewcy.

These include:

Defiance: Based on a true story of three Jewish brothers (Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber, and Jamie Bell) who took matters into their own hands and fought back against the Nazis.

The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas: A tale of an unlikely friendship between the son of a high-ranking Nazi official and a young Jewish prison.

Adam Resurrected: The story of a charismatic patient at a survivor’s asylum in Israel during the 1960’s.

The Reader: Based on Bernhard Schlink best-selling novel, the film explores the trail of a woman (Kate Winslet) accused of working as a concentration guard officer*.

Valkyrie: Based on the true story of Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) and the courageous plot to assassinate Hitler. Director Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects, X-Men, and Superman Returns).

As Scott points out in his article, the film industry has had a long-standing fascination with the holocaust. So much so that today we can speak of the Holocaust movie as a genre in the same way we can speak of the Western or the Action Movie. Moreover, Holocaust films are not just any genre, they are the royal road to the academy awards [e.g. Sophie’s Choice (1982), Schindler’s List (1993), Life Is Beautiful (1997), The Pianist (2002), etc.] Therefore it should come as no surprise that Hollywood is issuing five new Holocaust movies during Oscar season.

Yet the union between Hollywood with its proclivity for feel-good stories and the Holocaust with its indictment of humanity has resulted with the latter caving in to the demands of the former. “Hollywood”, Scott writes, “trades in optimism, redemption and healing, and its rendering of even the most appalling realities inevitably converts their dire facts into its own shiny currency.”

Case in point: Schindler’s List. There is no doubt that Spielberg’s movie gave us a very powerful account of the horror of the Krakow ghetto (and it deserved every accolade it got). Yet it did so within the context of a heroic story of redemption and survival. As another journalist has noted, Spielberg made “a movie about World War II in which all the Jews live. The selection is “life”, the Nazi turns out to be the good guy, and human nature is revealed to be sunny and bright.” In other words, instead of leaving the viewer pondering the darkness that lies at the heart of the human soul (the dominant lesson of the Holocaust), the movie leaves the viewer feeling and thinking, in the words of Anne Frank, “in spite of everything … people are really good at heart.”

But if ‘Hollywood Holocaust’ is distorting and oversimplifying the memory of the Nazi era, what is the alternative? Nine-hour French documentaries (How many people actually saw Shoah)? How about movies that drown the viewer in a sea of nihilism? Probably not. One cannot, for example, picture Hollywood doing a film on the life of Polish intellectual and Auschwitz survivor Tadeusz Borowski who came to the conclusion that the world outside of camp was essentially no different than the world inside of camp – a realization that led him to gas himself to death at the age of 28. I simply don’t see Tom Cruise or Daniel Craig lining up for that role.

Hollywood does not do nihilism even if life occasionally does. One can only hope that this new batch of Holocaust-related films were done with some sense of humility – after all, these actors, directors and producers are stepping on ground where it isn’t just angels who fear to tread. The challenge is to be fair and honest to the experience. Stories like Schindler, with their emphases on survival, morality and redemption, should be told. They are an important testimony to how, to quote a Buddhist saying, “the lotus can blossom in the mouth of a dragon.” Nevertheless, I am afraid that when dealing with such dragons as the Holocaust, we can ill-afford to put so much emphases on a lotus. To do so is to transgress the 11th commandment, “Thou Shalt Never Forget.”

* This article originally and incorrectly stated that the Winslet character was Jewish.

The post There is No Business Like Shoah Business appeared first on Jewcy.

Is there any question as to how the conflict would be resolved? Half a bowl of ice-cream for Abbas and half for Livni. Of course, such an approach would seemingly not be in Israel’s immediate interest since she possesses more than half of historic Palestine (the much more developed side as well). However, as has become clear to many across the Israeli political spectrum, if in the immediate future there is no viable solution to the Palestinian-Zionist conflict, Israel’s territorial advantage (along with its demographic baggage) will be her undoing. Thinking over a divided land, I am reminded of the story of King Solomon. As is told, when two prostitutes came to the king with conflicting claims over ownership of a baby, he adjudicated with a stratagem: "Cut the live child in two", he said, "and give half to one and half to the other." Realizing what is at stake, the real mother came forth and pleaded with the king to give the child to the other woman, "only don’t kill the baby." The other woman said, “Cut it in two.” Hearing this, the king immediately returned the child to its rightful mother. Now it is not out-of-bounds to use this story to champion the vision of a one-state solution, or Greater Israel or Greater Palestine. If the baby is a symbol for the land, then the true owner of the land will not compromise by dividing it into parts. On some kind of mystical level, the land needs to be indivisible and whole. One people, one land / two people, one land. Either way, one land it must remain. But there is another reading of the story that could be helpful. It seems to me that the moral of the story is that real and unconditional love sometimes means letting go of something that is of ultimate concern. For the child to survive, the mother had to let go of her claims to him. Likewise, if the people of Israel and Palestine love their land as much as they say they do, then they need to let go of their vision of what Palestine and Israel ought to be – not let go of a vision of Palestine or Israel per say, just the one that is keeping them from realizing peace. Israelis and Palestinians are attached to myths (e.g. undivided Jerusalem, right of return) that given the reality on the ground serve no good. A new schema is in order, one that is based on genuine compromise and fairness, not on the unreasonable and exclusive claims of religion and history.

The post The Ice-Cream Rule And The Arab-Israeli Conflict appeared first on Jewcy.

Unfortunately, the current leadership in Israel is the epitome of mere politicians. Prime-Minister Olmert, for example, is a drunken captain at the helm of a ship headed for an iceberg. An uninspiring power-hungry man mired in corruption and lacking vision, he is leading his country into disaster.

The truth is that people matter. For good or ill, individuals can change the course of history. Recently, the United States has seen what remarkable change the right person can achieve. A tall African-American man did what most thought impossible. No, I am not talking about Barack Obama, but Boston Celtics forward Kevin Garnett.

The NBA star turned around a team that had been in the basement of the league for years, whose uniformly awful under-performances of its talent led some fans to believe the team was cursed. But in just one season, Garnett led the Celtics to a championship via the biggest turnaround in league history. How did he do it? With skills, passion, tenacity, determination, and teamwork. In short, he was a true leader, the sort of individual whose rarity underscores their potential to overcome obstacles that had been thought insuperable.

As strange as it may sound, Kevin Garnett gives me hope that the Arab-Israeli conflict can be solved. But the question is, who is going to be our Kevin Garnett? As things stands today, my money is on Tzipi Livni.

While Livni and I are far from ideological soul mates, her tremendous potential is obvious. A woman who embodies the characteristics of the type of leadership that Israel needs, she is honest, sharp as whip, empathic towards her enemies, has a clear vision for Israel’s future, and has shown the ability to build a consensus to achieve her vision. (For example, in 2005 it was Livni who managed to persuade the divided Israeli parliament to ratify Ariel Sharon's controversial plan to withdraw Israel's settlements from Gaza.)

But Livni's most impressive quality is that she is willing to learn and evolve. Not in the selfish service of staying in power, but in the selfless service of her vision of Israel as a democratic and Jewish state. And to that end, she has the courage to do what she thinks is right even if it means alienating those who are close to her.

Remember, this is a woman who came from a hardcore right-wing family – her father, former member of Irgun and leader in the Likkud Party, has the map of greater Israel engraved on his tombstone – and who now after realizing the futility and danger of annexing historic Israel has dedicated her political career to creating Jewish and Palestinian states.

The former "Herut princess" undoubtedly has set her father spinning in his grave. But that is exactly what we need. Leaders who have the courage to spin the dead for the sake of the living. Even if it means going against the ones they love most. Like Abraham of old, Livni has smashed the idols of her father's home.

Some people have second-guessed Livni’s political prowess — especially after, in light of the Winograd report, she called on Olmert to resign but refused to leave her post in protest. Others have cast doubt on Livni as Prime Minister material due to her lack of known security credentials (it is hard to turn classified service in the Mossad into political advantage).

Much of the criticism leveled at her has a clear sexist overtone, effectively boiling down to: "Livni lacks the testicular fortitude to lead a country like Israel. With threats from Hamas, Hizballah, and Iran we simply cannot leave it all to a woman. Tough times call for manly men (i.e. Netanyahu/Mofaz/Barak). Yes there was Golda but she didn't really count. After all, as Ben-Gurion once remarked, Golda was the only man in his cabinet."

In a similar vein, talking about Livni, a friend of mine once said that Israel can never elect or accept a leader that blinks. I hope he is wrong, because again, that is exactly what we need. Not the My Pet Goat type of blinking, but the type that breaks the reflexive and destructive pattern of unthinking stimulus-response that has characterized Israeli leadership. We need a leader that blinks twice, ten times, a hundred times, before sending off children to kill and die in a war. A leader that in between those blinks thinks about the long-term consequence of their actions – for us and for our enemies.

As I said, Kevin Garnett's leadership of the Celtics gives me hope that the Arab-Israeli conflict can be solved. I didn't mean it glibly. He didn't, and couldn't have brought about his team's epic turnaround single-handedly; rather, he did it by making those around him better. He did it by taking to heart the African concept of Ubuntu, which illustrates how our individual success is bound up with the success of those around us. (Literally: 'Ubuntu' was the 2008 Celtics motto.) Perhaps in the end the ability to inspire excellence from others is the true mark of a great leader.

The challenges of the state Livni is likely to soon assume control of, unlike the challenges of Garnett's league, are anything but a game. The lives of millions of people, present and future, depend on Israel's next premier being a statesperson rather than a mere politician. Given the opportunity to lead, Livni would have to inspire excellence not only from her fellow Knesset members, but also from her Palestinian interlocutors. Which is not a low bar to clear, to say the least.

Abraham Lincoln said, "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." To what degree Livni can rise to the challenge remains to be seen, but she is a talent more prodigious than any her country has been blessed with in a long time, and she turned up at just the time her country needed such a talent.

The post Tzipi Livni: Israel Got Next appeared first on Jewcy.

The injured activist, Eran Cohen, an 18 year-old from Tel-Aviv, has stated that he was there to protest the incarceration of a friend. In the video, Cohen is seen wearing a backpack and screaming in the direction of the soldiers in Hebrew. According to Cohen: "I yelled 'enough with the violence' at them, and then a soldier turned around and fired a rubber bullet into my leg. I was evacuated to Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, where I was examined and operated on to extract the bullet. I was given pain killers and released home." Cohen says he plans on returning and continuing to protest what he sees as the injustice suffered by the Palestinians in Bil'in. "The village’s residents suffer more bullet hits than I have. Compared to what they are going through, my case is nothing."

While it is unknown whether the solider was following orders when he discharged a bullet into Cohen's body, the video captures a very transparent violation of official army regulations. According to the IDF's code of conduct, military action can only be taken against military targets, the use of force must be proportional, and when appropriate, soldiers must provide the wounded with medical care. Moreover, IDF regulations state that rubber bullets must be fired from a distance no closer than 40 meters. As the video shows, Cohen, who did not in any way pose a threat to the soldiers, was standing at a distance of no more than ten meters from the solider who shot him.

Being a solider in the territories is an extremely stressful experience, one you can never fully understand until you lace up those boots . But the response of the solider and his platoon seems inexcusable to me. It is not only that the solider shot the protestor — notice that there is no verbal or gunfire warning (at least not on the recording) — but also the way he did it: with the same ease that one swats away a pesky mosquito.

Moreover, his platoon seems to be totally uninterested. They just keep on walking without even turning their heads. (Eventually Cohen was helped by other protesters). Such indifference is a telling and alarming sign of what soldiers in the occupied territories have become accustomed to. One is left to wonder: If Israeli protesters have it this bad, what do their Palestinian counterpart have to deal with?

People have often argued that if only the Palestinians were to use the method of Gandhi and King, then this whole crises would be over and done with. Paul Wolfowitz, for example, said, "If the Palestinians adopt the ways of Gandhi, they could, in fact, make an enormous change very quickly. I believe the power of individuals demonstrating peacefully is enormous." While I sympathize with the idea of non-violent resistance, when applied to Palestine such thinking tends to ignore or minimize the historical record and the reality on the ground.

The historical record of non-violence in Palestine is discouraging to say the least. The closest that the Palestinians have come to a Gandhi has been Mubarak Awad, the charismatic leader who stressed non-violent non-cooperation with the Israeli occupation. Israel's response to Awad was to expel him from the country in 1988 — a decision that in hindsight was a tragic mistake. The first Intifada, which had the very real potential of being a non-violent uprising, lacked the leadership necessary to mobilize large-scale civil disobedience. After that, the script has pretty much remained the same, with no one of note seriously considering relinquishing the sanctity and logic of armed conflict for the alternative of non-violent resistance. Understandingly, many people have come to the conclusion that it is not in the DNA of either people to respond to conflict in a non-violent manner

When you see videos like Cohen's, videos that are in accord with the testimony of many eyewitness on the ground, you began to wonder if the likes of Gandhi or King would have stood a chance in the occupied territories in the first place. As the Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh once said, if Gandhi was resisting the French instead of the British he would have given up non-violence within a week – presumably because he would be dead. Surely if the IDF’s de facto position (in contrast to its de jure regulations) is to shoot peaceful protestors, Gandhi and King would have had a very tough time getting their movements off the ground. Moreover, a serious Palestinian effort at civil disobedience will most certainly experience vigorous and violent opposition among Palestinians as well. No members of Hamas and other militant groups will allow their power to be challenged without a fight. And as we have seen in the past, Hamas and their ilk has no difficulty gunning down and eliminating opposition.

Finally, the "Gandhi in Palestine" theory also ignores the reality that the Israeli heart, like an egg in boiling water, has become hardened. It's not that the Israeli people are lacking in compassion. It's just that the situation has created more than one wall dividing us from the Palestinians. The only reason we pay attention to this video is because it captures an Israeli solider shooting a fellow Israeli. Were this a Palestinian, we would not have cared. Indeed, it would take a great deal of exposure to lucid raw injustice to weaken our Dershowitzian Super-Egos — those voices inside our heads that have been fine-tuned to explain away and assuage our guilt.

Civil disobedience can only function against a semi-civilized opposition, an opposition that is governed by rule of law, decency, and proportional restraint. Israel needs to figure out if that description represents her.

In order to do so, Israelis must answer a number questions: As long as we occupy, what kind of occupiers are we? Are we an occupation that talks like the British but acts like the French? Or should we aspire to treat those under our control the way we would want to be treated if the situation was reversed? Oh wait, if we did that, would we even be there in the first place?

The post Why Isn’t There a Palestinian Gandhi? Ask the Israeli Protester the IDF Just Shot appeared first on Jewcy.

Your son, the poet Yehuda Amichai, once described you as a land divided into two districts: memory and hope. The residents of each district mingle with each other; they are, Amichai tells us, either returning from a funeral or a wedding.

Contemplating you at sixty I find myself planting my feet in both of your districts of memory and hope — a man simultaneously returning from a funeral and a wedding.

At sixty, you are a wedding of land and idea, a fantastical union over two thousand years in the making. It is no wonder that it took the imagination of a playwright to father your present incarnation into concrete existence. People doubted you all along. They said of your parents (who are also your children) that they are dreamers; that they have no right; and that they are going against the hand of God. But your fathers and mothers replied, "If you will it, it is no dream!" That “history gives us a right.” And that sometimes “miracles need help to materialize.”

Having had you as a constant during all of our lives, it is hard for us to really appreciate how implausible your existence really is. How implausible of you to have maintained an identity throughout your long and deracinating winter of exile. How implausible of you, after two millennia, to have found your way back home. How implausible of you after just a few decades to revive a civilization and create one of the most scientifically, artistically, and intellectually able countries in the world. I look at this giant mountain of implausibility, and I see you in your true glory.

Indeed, you have taught us the virtue of patience, tenacity, and optimism. You have, once again, given us a home. A home that in the coarse voice and words of my grandmother, a woman who survived that terrible night under the European skies, is the only place in the world where the words "dirty Jew" mean a Jew who has not taken a shower. At sixty years young, you are an amazing success story and we are your grateful children.

But grateful does not mean blind. When you shine a light on an object, you are also bound to get its shadow. And there is no escaping the fact that your shadow is Palestine.

Today, dear Israel, you are standing on the back of another people. A people who have become a broken mirror image of yourself. They dream your dream, fear your fears, and suffer your pains. Just like you they drink from the wellspring of their grandmother’s tears and they nourish their souls on their grandfather’s scars. Just like you, they are rooted in holy soil, and they too are inheritors of an unholy land.

It is true that you vowed to "never again" let your children experience homelessness and hell. It is also true that many times you were provoked. But you have wielded your power at great costs. Time and again, your insistence on "just being" has blinded you to your divine and historical purpose: To be a light onto the nations. To carry forward the great wisdom, ethical, and spiritual teachings of your ancestors.

The funeral that your son Amichai spoke of is not just for your fallen sons and daughters. It also for your fallen ideals and morality. No, dear Israel, I do not want you to be a handicapped civilization. Like everyone else you have a right to defend yourself. But today, your feet are planted on someone else’s districts of hope and memory. Could there be a more profoundly un-Jewish place in which to stand?

Your history has taught us that as long as you do not leave Palestine, she will never leave you. The truth of the matter is that the greatest gift that you can give for your birthday is to lend a hand in creating a birthday for the Palestinian state. Don’t settle for just removing yourself, help construct a positive future for your sister nation. I know these are difficult words to comprehend and accept. But with sixty years comes experience and wisdom. I have faith in you. After all, you have overcome more implausible challenges.

With Love, Roi

The post Dear Israel: In Mid-Life, You Can Let Go Of Your Anger appeared first on Jewcy.