Netanyahu's Shameful Words: From Judenrein to Ethnic Cleansing

Just a week ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shared on social media a short video, which on his twitter account was shared under the headline, “No Jews.” In this video, he accuses the Palestinians of supporting ethnic cleansing of the Jews of the West Bank, stating, “...the Palestinian leadership actually demands a Palestinian state with one pre-condition: No Jews. There is a phrase for that, its called ethnic cleansing.”

Palestinian leaders demand a Palestinian state with one precondition: No Jews. There's a phrase for that. https://t.co/u5gfSW1thW

— Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) September 9, 2016

The timing of the video comes after the United States harshly criticized Israel’s recent decision to add 234 living units to existing settlements, stating that the State Department is “particularly troubled by the policy of retroactively approving unauthorized settlement units and outposts that are themselves illegal under Israeli law,” and that “…significant expansion of the settlement enterprise poses a very serious and growing threat to the viability of the two-state solution.”

In retaliation, Netanyahu struck back by addressing an American audience in his video message asking “Would you accept ethnic cleansing in your state? A territory without Jews, without Hispanics, without blacks? Since when is bigotry a foundation for peace.” This was followed by the State department lashing back, stating, “We obviously strongly disagree with the characterization that those who oppose settlement activity or view it as an obstacle to peace are somehow calling for ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank.”

The US State Department has every right to be angry. Netanyahu’s twisting the truth, making Israeli settlers the victims and Palestinians—who are living for the past 49 years under Israeli occupation with no civil rights—the cruel masters, has proven once again that he is an ace in demagoguery. Not to mention the low level he stooped to by accusing the Palestinians of ethnic cleansing, when it is they who were ethnically cleansed from the territories that become Israel in 1948, with over 700,000 not allowed to return to their homes, upon their fleeing and the forced expulsions they endured during Israel’s War of Independence.      

To get the story straight, the Palestinians do not object to have Jews within their borders, rather they are against Israeli settlers remaining within their future state. This should be of no surprise since the settlers have and continue to occupy their land for the last 49 years. In any case, questions regarding citizenship laws of the future Palestinian state seem less burning when one faces the reality that Palestinians do not seem any closer to getting a state today than they were 20 years ago. 

However, it should not just be Palestinians taking offense to Netanyahu’s harsh words, but also the Jews in Israel and internationally as it belittles the history of the Holocaust by  putting forth the false analogy that Palestinians are no different that Nazi Germany, trying to create a territory free of Jews, otherwise known as Judenrein. In fact, Netanyahu himself used this term back in 2009, shocking the German Foreign Minister, who was on an official state visit in Israel, stating that “Judea and Samaria cannot be Judenrein.” 

This of course would not be the first time that Netanyahu has used the Holocaust to gain ground against the Palestinians. Just last year he made the claim that Hitler had got the idea of committing genocide against the Jews from the Palestinian Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini, which even caused the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to state that Germany is solely responsible for the Holocaust and that “we don't see any reason to change our view of history…” 

Ironically, the Israeli radical right in the past has accused the Israeli governments of implementing a plan of Judenrein, such as when it evacuated the Jewish settlements of Gaza in 2005 under the premiership of Ariel Sharon, a government that Netanyahu was a part of. The comparing of the Israeli government by the radical right highlights the danger of comparing one to Nazis, in this case clear incitement that brings back memories of the days before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated.  

This perverse manipulation of history of the Holocaust, be it by Netanyahu, or by the Israeli radical right, in reference to their fellow citizens, needs to be met with strong condemnation. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is bad enough and false analogies by either side only makes things worse. True, it might score Netanyahu a few points among the Islamophobic Donald Trump supporters in the United States, but it also chips away at the sanctity of the Holocaust, and leaves it fair game to be used by others for their own petty political gains.  

Netanyahu's Blame Game: Forget the Nazis, its the Palestinians

For years, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has compared the Iranian regime to that of the Nazis. Earlier of this year, on the Israeli Memorial day for Holocaust Survivors, he tweeted the below tweets, in reference to the US negotiations with Iran, concerning its nuclear program: 

so too does Iran strive to gain control over the region and then spread further, with the explicit intent of obliterating the Jewish state.

— PM of Israel (@IsraeliPM) April 15, 2015

The same day, Netanyahu stated in a speech at Israeli's Holocaust museum, Yad VaShem, the following: "Democracies cannot turn their eyes away from the dictatorships of the world that seek to spread their influence."; and went on to say, "ahead of World War II, the world attempted to appease the Nazis. They wanted quite at any price, and the terrible price did come."

In that speech, Netanyahu was aiming to undermine US-Iranian progress concerning Iran's nuclear program, which was eventually signed in July, marking a major diplomatic success for Obama; true, even if the Islamic Republic of Iran has threatened to annihilate the Jewish state, Netanyahu's comparing the US to the European powers who appeased Hitler, certainly hit a low. 

Well, if you could not get lower, this morning I awoke to the following headline in Haaretz: 

What, did I read this correctly? Did Netanyahu actually just say that the Palestinian Mufti Hajj al-Amin Al-Husseini is the one who convinced Hitler to embark on the mass genocide of Jews? Unfortunately, I did; and even worse he said this just 24-hours before an official visit to Berlin. The exact quote, which was said in a speech to the World Zionist Congress, started off by explaining that the Mufti had a central role in fomenting the Final Solution. Then, Netanyahu explained:    

"He (the Mufti) flew to Berlin...Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews and Hajj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, 'If you expel them, they'll all come here; so what should I do with them, he (Hitler) asks; he (the Mufti) said Burn them!" 

In Israel, and in Europe, Netanyahu's words have been criticized by historians and politicians alike. Germany's Chancellor  Angela Merkel even issued a statement reconfirming Germany's crime against the Jewish people: 

"All Germans know the history of the murderous race mania of the Nazis that led to the break with civilization that was the Holocaust,”…and continues, “this is taught in German schools for good reason, it must never be forgotten. And I see no reason to change our view of history in any way. We know that responsibility for this crime against humanity is German and very much our own."

These words are wrong on so many levels that it is hard to figure out where to start. Historically this is nothing short of a blatant lie, with the mass killing of Jews happening months before their meeting. True, the Palestinian Mufti took refuge in Berlin, supported the Axis powers, and embarked on propaganda campaigns on their behalf. However, he only met with Hitler once, which at the time was reported that "Hitler was sympathetic, but declined to give al-Husayni (Husseini) the public declaration of support that he sought." In short, there is no record of such a conversation even existing!

According to the United States Holocaust Museum, on its webpage about the Mufti, it states, "even after he realized that the Germans would not give him what he sought and intended to use his Muslim recruits without regard to his advice, al-Husayni continued to work with both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany until 1945." Clearly, from these words, we see that the Mufti was not ever considered a major card for the Nazi regime.

In addition, it needs to be noted that Netanyahu's twisting of the historical narrative are a disgrace to the memory of all the Jews killed in the Holocaust, whether it were those who were killed even before Hitler had met with al-Husseini, or those after; not to mention, it being highly offensive to the families of the victims.    

For educators, Netanyahu's statement is no less damning. How are educators suppose to combat conspiracy theories concerning the Holocaust, if the Israeli Prime Minister so nonchalantly  manipulates the simplest of narratives for his own political gains? True, politicizing genocide is not new, however, now Netanyahu has offered a prime example of its disgusting nature.     

While Netanyahu has since issued a clarification, stating, "I had absolutely no intention of absolving Hitler of his diabolical responsibility for the extermination of Europe's Jews," it is clear that his comments have once again uncovered how far he is willing to go to incite hatred towards Palestinians-so much so that he inadvertently cleared Hitler, while blaming a Palestinian as devising the plan to kill Jews. 

Sadly, for the Palestinians who are working towards teaching their society about the Holocaust, their work has become all the harder. Further, for the Palestinians who long gave up on the Prime Minister as simply racist (let us not forget his racist comments directed towards Palestinian citizens of Israel during the last elections), this only reconfirms that it is the Palestinians who do not have a partner for peace.

Perhaps, the only good thing that might come out of this is the massive backlash this has had against Netanyahu. Clearly, most Israelis did not buy this cheap shot of his, and both in Israel and in Europe this will prove to be a major embarrassment. 

Perhaps, in place of passing the buck on Palestinians, Netanyahu should leave history behind for now and recognize how his bad policies are continuing to lead Israel on a mode of self-destruct. 

From Intifada to Intifada

Here is an excerpt of my latest in Today's Zaman (4 March 2013):

Earlier last week, the Israeli media was filled with two contrasting scenarios: one of children and adults dressed up in colorful costumes, celebrating the Jewish holiday of Purim, and the other, of Palestinian protesters clashing with the Israeli military, as news came in of the death of Palestinian prisoner Arafat Jaradat.

While the news programs were filled with members of the Israeli security establishment predicting whether or not Israel was in the face of another Intifada, a Palestinian uprising, perhaps what was needed was a sociologist to explain how most Israelis cannot see the dichotomy between a people in celebration versus one dealing with the daily struggles of occupation, now for over 45 years.

The first Intifada broke out in December 1987 and took most Israelis by surprise. Then, Israel was a much different Israel. Almost 40 years had passed since the Israeli state was established, and 20 years since they had occupied the Palestinian territories. For better or worse, a hierarchy had been set in place where Palestinians were used as cheap labor, and as a result many Israelis and Palestinians had daily relations. Yes, the Palestinians faced discrimination and were denied the right to political representation; however, they also traveled to Tel Aviv and filled the beaches on weekends, and many Israeli Jews filled the markets in the West Bank. However, this ended with the Intifada, which introduced the first stages of separation.

Parallel to the first Intifada, Israeli society was still recovering over the first Lebanon War, a war which showed them that they too were not so innocent; many Israelis declared this a “choice” war and blamed their leaders for what became Israel's Vietnam. If this was not enough, with Israeli archives slowly opening up, such works as Benny Morris' “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem” came to light. These works, authored by a group tagged the “New Historians,” challenged the Israeli state's ethos of defense and led to debates in the society about what really happened in 1948.

To continue reading, here is the link

This Time for Palestine: A Melancholy Victory and a Strong Message to Israel

The UN Vote; Photo from Al-Quds Newspaper website.

Less than an hour ago, Palestine, was recognized by the UN General Assembly as a state. Even if the Palestinians still have a far way to reach statehood, tonight confirmed the urgency in establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza strip. The President of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas, must be congratulated for his strategy of taking practical steps, which has led his people to this day.

The Israeli government has worked hard during the last few days to downplay the significance of tonight’s vote. However, their recent actions just show us how out of touch with reality they have become. Now that the vote is over, Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, cannot escape the fact that the vote for Palestine was a major defeat for a government that did everything possible to grab more land, while stalling the peace process. However, more importantly, the vote for Palestine marks something much more significant, showing the Israelis that the dream of a Greater Israel, was only that –a dream.

Palestinians Celebrating Photo from Al-Quds Newspaper Website

Yes, tonight marks the start of the decolonization of Palestine; not of historical Palestine, but of the West Bank and Gaza strip. Tonight, Israelis need to ask their politicians why for the last 45 years, they have clung onto the idea that Israel could legitimately rule over a mass population, stripped of civil and political rights. Or, ask themselves, why have they opted to ignore the injustices, and turned their backs, perhaps in sheer exhaustion of the conflict.  

I wish I could be optimistic; however, I also fear the future. The work ahead of us will be painful on both sides. Violence can erupt at a moment’s notice, spiraling out of control. Therefore, each side will have to work to do its utmost to work for reconciliation in their own camps, preparing the way for a comprehensive peace agreement. Let us not forget, that it was 65 years ago tonight that Palestine was thrown into a bloody civil war between Arab and Jew, costing each side one percent of their population, and leading to a refugee problem which continues until today.

Lastly, to the skeptics, among them Palestinians (and a minority of  Jews), who support a one-state solution, believing the two peoples should live under one flag, with the principles of a liberal democracy of “one person one vote.” I say the following: let us work towards the two-state solution, and if peace prevails, together we can think of creative solutions, such as two-states no borders, a confederacy, or, yes, a one state solution. In the end, it will be the people on both sides who decide. 

For now, I will take this opportunity, to congratulate Palestine, and the Palestinians. As I watched the UN Vote from my home in Istanbul, I took the time to remember all the demonstrations for Palestine we took part it in, Israelis and Palestinians together, remembering the tears we shed, both from happiness and sadness. Now, a once distant thought of a free Palestine, alongside Israel, seems closer than ever. 

===================================

FOLLOW ME on TWITTER @istanbultelaviv for more on whats happening in Turkey and Israel/Palestine, the uprising in Syria, and the Middle East at large.

Towards a New Beginning: Fatah-Hamas Reconciliation

May 8, 2011

Last week, the PLO and the Hamas has seized the moment of change in the Middle East to reach a new agreement ending over 4 years of a divided Palestinian camp. It appears with President Mubarak, a once staunch opponent of Hamas, no longer in the picture, the President of the Palestinian authority and the leader of Fatah, Mahmud Abbas realized that the time had come to work towards reconciling their differences with Hamas, the Islamic party which seized full control of the Gaza Strip. During the last four years, despite what many harsh words critics have slung at Abbas, he has lead the West Bank into prosperous times and put forth an ambitious plan to call for the establishment of a Palestinian state at the United Nations this upcoming September. In contrast, the Hamas has brought economic despair on the Gaza Strip and a failed policy which lead to the last war with Israel. Furthermore, with Syria currently undergoing political strife and Hamas remaining “neutral,” not throwing their weight behind the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, it seems safe to say that they will lose the support of one of their staunchest allies. Recently, it has been rumored that Hamas is even contemplating on moving their political wing to Qatar; if this is true, this will certainly be a move that will lead Hamas’s leader, Khaled al-Meshal to rethink his strategies. Lastly, while discussing the regional aspects of this, the signing of the reconciliation under Egyptian supervision must have came as a surprise to Turkey and its Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who has invested great efforts in the reconciliation of the two factions.

While I will not go into the details of the deal which will eventually lead to general Palestinian elections in 2012, it could not have come at a better time for the Palestinians and at a worst time for Israel which seems strikingly immobile. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even warned Abbas before the signing that it “was either us or them.” This of course would only fall on deaf ears since every Palestinian understands the dire need to reconcile their differences and stand as one government united. Israel would be wise to continue peace negotiations and realize that this actually provides a window of opportunity to reach a sound agreement. As someone who has no lost love for Hamas (to put it mildly), I understand that a peace agreement in the end will be between two governments and Israel does not have the right to choose who they negotiate with; just like the Palestinians cannot boycott talks just because Netanyahu has in his government right-wing factions that are seen as enemies of the Palestinian cause. Nevertheless, it seems that Netanyahu will use this as yet another reason to stall. During his current tenure as Prime Minister, not like his predecessors, he has not made any real attempt at jump-starting the peace process. One wonders what he is waiting for and how long Netanyahu can continue this charade. With countries lining up to support the recognition of a Palestinian state just a few months away, it seems that Israel is stuck with no real answers. If Prime Minster Netanyahu were serious he would appoint a new Foreign Minister since the current one, Avigdor Lieberman has lost all credibility in the hallways of the United Nations and with US and European diplomats. Time is running out and with a united Palestinian front Israel is being backed into a corner with little room left to maneuver (a fact regardless if you are for or against Netanyahu). Lastly, as I write this, a news article has just come out in Haaretz which reminded me of something I had meant to put in this entry: that this reconciliation could definitely help bring closer the release of Gilad Shalit, who has been held hostage by Hamas for almost five years now. Let us hope that with Fatah and Hamas reconciling their differences that a deal over the release of Shalit and Palestinian prisoners can be reached as soon as possible enabling the release of Shalit before the fifth-year anniversary of his capture which is quickly approaching. Such a deal could be a chance for Hamas to show that they understand the new reality and that if they too can work out a deal that is acceptable to both the Palestinians and the Israelis.

A Day of Solidarity with Hebron and Sheikh Jarrah (Part Two)

On our way back to Jerusalem, I waited anxiously for the demonstration at Sheikh Jarrah. Over the last year (or so), I have been following their struggle on facebook and in the press. My main reason however to go to the Sheikh Jarrah demonstration was that during my last two months, after years of only briefly visiting Jerusalem, I have had a chance to come in touch once again with the city which during the last decade took second place to Tel Aviv. In fact, leaving to the states for my graduate studies in 1995 somehow cut off new ties which I formed with the city; in 1994 one of my final BA paper at Haifa University was on “East” Jerusalem under the Jordanian and Israeli occupation, and I also managed to pull off a successful meeting between students at Al-Quds University and Haifa, during the same year.

Like my trip to Hebron, I cannot help but to feel frustrated also when seeing Jerusalem. Clearly, the Palestinian neighborhoods are under threat from radical Jewish groups who see fit to create “mini-Settlements” within neighborhoods once exclusively Arab. With the same ideology as those in Hebron, they can only do this through a violent hegemonic presence, protected by weapons and walls. Every new Jewish home is quick to wave an Israeli flag in the faces of a people who simply would like to live their normal lives but are faced daily with an onslaught of hatred. This is happening everywhere: the Old City, Silwan, and Sheikh Jarrah, not to mention in the heart of the neighborhoods on the Mount of Olives. This along with home demolitions carried out by the Jerusalem municipality has created a reality where the Palestinian community sees themselves under an imminent threat, in terms of their culture, heritage, and physical being (see my blog entry from March 2010, entitled Home to Israelis and Palestinians, Jerusalem A Shared City, where I briefly focus on Sheikh Jarrah, and on the controversy surrounding the building of the Museum of Tolerance on the grounds of a Muslim Cemetery).

These homes are occupied through Israeli legal channels (not recognized by international law), and with foreign money which purchases the homes at extravagant prices. Legally, some Jews following 1967, who possessed title-deeds of the property from Ottoman and mandate Palestine, successfully reclaimed their property through legal loopholes; obviously Palestinians who were forced out of their home during the 1948 War (or were not allowed to return to them following the war) do not have that luxury. While the tenants were protected for decades as long as the paid the rent, this too has been coming to an end, with families being evicted during the last few years; some cases after the homes have been taken over by force by the new Jewish tenants and owners. One of the latest development was the demolition of the Shepherd Hotel in January of this year, to make way for a Jewish neighborhood within the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood.

It is within this environment the Palestinian-Israeli protest group Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity group emerged. Importantly, their struggle now has expanded to include other neighborhoods in Jerusalem, Bedouin settlements which are losing legal battles, and Arab communities in Lod. The important part linking all of these struggles is the blatant lack of justice dealt to the Palestinian community (within Israel and in the occupied territories) by the Israeli establishment. Below, at the end of this blog entry, I have attached the English version (taken from their webpage) of the Solidarity Sheikh Jarrah’s answers to why the struggle.

During my time at the protest, I could feel the power of the struggle. Not like so many leftist movements in Israel, this movement is much more of a grass-roots movement, which from the beginning has integrated the needs and the participation of the local population. Essentially, they have created a robust and strong voice against the violence of expulsion, and thus created a sincere challenge to the demagoguery of the extreme-right settlers.

Jerusalem is both an Israeli and a Palestinian city, regardless of how the borders will be carved out in the future (if the two sides ever reach an agreement). While countries in the region have successfully erased our memories of the past, with the wiping out of villages and the cleansing of historical documentation, it is important to stop the process while it is taking place. I for one will work to keep the Palestinian heritage alive in Jerusalem, a struggle that is literally losing ground with each passing day.

For a link to photographs from my day in Hebron and Sheikh Jarrah click here

Here is a piece taken from the Solidarity Sheikh Jarrah Webpage concerning why the struggle:

Why is the struggle against settlements and evictions in Sheikh Jarrah so important?

• Because the injustice is crying out and is being perpetrated in our name: Families of refugees from 1948 have been expelled from their homes in 2010 and turned into refugees for a second time, and their houses are in the hands of settlers who instigate violence, protected by the Jerusalem municipality and police.
• Because the construction of a settlement in this location will complete the encirclement of the old city by Jewish enclaves and disrupt any possibility for the division of the city as part of a just political arrangement, as well as the possibility of a shared life together.
• Because we are scared that Jerusalem is going to turn into Hebron, ruled by groups of racist zealots.
• Because the triumph of settlements in Sheikh Jarrah, without the return of the ’48 refugees to their houses, destroys the chance of realising a democratic society. The court ruling in favour of the Nahalat Shimon company is based on title deeds showing Jewish ownership of the land from the Ottoman period; many Palestinians are in possession of similar title deeds, for territories and properties within the Green Line. Democracy demands equality before the law. The situation in which there is one law for Jews and another law for Arabs is intolerable. (“Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for the citizen” Leviticus 24:22)
• Because the arrests carried out at the weekly demonstrations are illegal (as the court determined) and endanger the rule of law and the human rights of all of us in Israel.
• Because in the struggle in Sheikh Jarrah partnership between Arabs and Jews, Palestinians and Israelis is developing – this is the place from which an alternative to the hatred and suspicion, which are imprisoning us all behind walls, might grow.
• Because in Sheikh Jarrah there is a growing group of Israelis who are saying, enough! Enough of the settlements! Enough of the intimidation! Enough of the hatred, the provocation of disputes, the racism! Enough of public apathy! Enough of the long years of cooperation of all the authorities with right-wing, extremist settlers. Enough, to all those who want to destroy the life of us all and trap our future here for the sake of a nationalistic, messianic dream, and prevent any future peace agreement.
  Here is the Link for a reference of where it appears online.
  

Missing Yitzhak Rabin: 15 years since His Assassination

November 5, 2010

This week marks the fifteenth anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Israel has changed a great deal since then and I cannot help long for those times. The first years of Oslo were filled with excitement, optimism, and overall change. There clearly was an alternative to war and there was partner to speak with. In fact, the partner had always been there. I am not talking about Yasser Arafat but rather the Palestinian people. They were always there even if Israel did not want to see them.

A long 15 years have passed and when I watch the nightly Israeli news I am overcome by a feeling of déjà-vu. The stumbling blocks of the years before Rabin, then under Prime Minister Shamir, are back in place. Is the peace process today once again falling victim to the question of freezing the building of settlements? Is the Israeli government once again blocking the entrance of moderate Palestinian politicians into Jerusalem’s city limits? 20 years ago the controversy was over the Orient House and Faisal Husseini; today, it is over whether Prime Minister Fayyad can enter and be present at Palestinian ceremonial events.

A few months ago, in late August I wrote about why I was avoiding writing on the peace process, which once again was about to convene. Why waste my ink! Well, two months have passed and I am happy that I did not waste both my ink and my thoughts. What we see is that it is just more games and more stealing time. It is really hard to make sense out of the current Israeli government. How does a Prime Minister not punish a Foreign Minister that does and says as he wishes? How does a Prime Minister cave into a minority settlement movement? How does a whole generation of Israelis let petty politics of miniscule politicians ruin their future?

Now, the Palestinians have time on their side and let us hope that they will also be able to overcome their differences. The divide between the PLO and Hamas seems irreconcilable. While the West Bank culturally and economically is on the upbeat, Gaza remains under an Israeli blockade and culturally blockaded by Hamas. Of course, the former is much more critical; however, the latter also needs to be mentioned. If they are able to overcome these differences, the time would be right for a serious attempt at unilaterally declaring statehood. This has been done in the past however it seems that the world is more than ever ready to accept such a move. This move might even awaken the Israeli left who lays dormant somewhere in the beautiful upper class neighborhoods of Tel Aviv.

Lastly, the huge loss to the Democratic Party in the mid-term elections has left Barack Obama weaker than ever leaving even less hope for change. What more needs to said. So, once again I have painted a bleak picture. While I did not vote for the Labor party in 1992, it seems like no Israeli leader since Yitzhak Rabin has been willing to take the future in his/hers hands and set an ambitious agenda. As long as there is no real peace, with every passing year the memories of this period will become more painful. In other words, only when there really is peace will me and many others be able to leave Rabin’s memory to the past.