Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Clap!  Clap!  Clap!  Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap!....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/02/04/INGFLNSJQJ1.DTL
Last Sunday in San Francisco, the Anti-Defamation League sponsored
"Finding Our Voice," a conference designed to help Jews recognize and
confront the "new anti-Semitism." For me, it was ironic. Ten days
before, my own voice was silenced by fellow Jews.
I was to give a talk about our Middle East policy to high school
students at the Harker School in San Jose. With one day to go, my
contact there called to say my appearance had been canceled. He was
apologetic and upset. He expected the talk would be intellectually
stimulating and intriguing for students. But, he said, "a certain
community of parents" complained to the headmaster. He added, without
divulging details, that the Jewish Community Relations Council of
Silicon Valley had played a role.
I was raised a Zionist. I went to Israel after high school for six
months to live on a kibbutz. I met my wife there. We returned four
years later thinking we'd spend our lives on a kibbutz, working the
land and living the Zionist dream. Why did the council feel the need
to silence me?
In fact, this was not our first run-in. I have long advocated equal
rights for the Palestinians, as I do for all people. I criticize
Israeli policies. I seem to have crossed the council's line of
acceptable discourse. Because I am a Jew, it is not so easy to smear
me as guilty of this "new anti-Semitism." Instead, hosts like the
Harker School, and others, are intimidated, and open dialogue on
Israel is censored.
In 2005, Marin's Rodef Sholom synagogue caved to the council and
revoked my invitation, unless my talk could be accompanied by a
rebuttal. Roy Mash, a board member, resigned in protest. He asked in
his resignation letter whether "given Judaism's long and deep
tradition of concern for justice and ethics, a Jewish venue is (not)
precisely the setting most appropriate for a speaker like Dr. Beinin?"
I was indeed raised to believe that being Jewish meant being actively
committed to social justice. I moved to Israel expecting to pursue
that ideal. Yet much of what I saw there called this into question.
I tended livestock on Kibbutz Lahav, which was established on the
ruins of three Palestinian villages. The Palestinian inhabitants had
been expelled and, because they are not Jewish, were unable to return.
One day, we needed extra workers to help clean manure from the turkey
cages. The head of the turkey branch said we should not ask for
kibbutz members to do the work because, "This isn't work for Jews.
This is work for Arabushim." "Arabushim" is an extremely derogatory
racial term.
I had participated in the civil rights movement in America, picketing
Woolworth's stores that wouldn't serve African Americans. Yet in
Israel I discovered the same, stark racism. How could this bring peace
between Palestinians and Israelis? While still living in Israel, I
began to speak out for equal rights for Palestinians, as I had done
for blacks in America.
Organizations claiming to represent American Jews engage in a
systematic campaign of defamation, censorship and hate-mongering to
silence criticism of Israeli policies. They hollow the ethical core
out of the Jewish tradition, acting instead as if the highest purpose
of being Jewish is to defend Israel, right or wrong.
No one is spared. New York University Professor Tony Judt also moved
to Israel with notions of justice. Judt learned, as I did, that most
Israelis were "remarkably unconscious of the people who had been
kicked out of the country and were suffering in refugee camps to make
this fantasy possible." In October, the Polish Consulate in New York
canceled a talk by Judt after pressure from the Anti-Defamation League
and the American Jewish Committee.
Even former U.S. presidents are not immune. Jimmy Carter has been the
target of a smear campaign since the release of his latest book,
"Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." Carter's most vociferous critics
have not challenged him on the issues. Rather, they discredit him with
personal attacks, even insinuating that the man who has achieved more
than any other American president in Arab/Israeli peacemaking is anti-
Semitic.
Why discredit, defame and silence those with opposing viewpoints? I
believe it is because the Zionist lobby knows it cannot win based on
facts. An honest discussion can only lead to one conclusion: The
status quo in which Israel declares it alone has rights and intends to
impose its will on the weaker Palestinians, stripping them permanently
of their land, resources and rights, cannot lead to a lasting peace.
We need an open debate and the freedom to discuss uncomfortable facts
and explore the full range of policy options. Only then can we adopt a
foreign policy that serves American interests and one that could
actually bring a just peace to Palestinians and Israelis.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2005843,00.html
No one has the right to speak for British Jews on Israel and Zionism
We will not accept the vilification of those who protest at injustices
carried out in the name of the Jewish people
Brian Klug
Monday February 5, 2007
The Guardian
If there is one thing on which Jews can agree, it is this: it's good
to argue. Jewish culture has thrived on argument - frank, sincere
disagreement - ever since Moses disputed with God. But today an
oppressive and unhealthy atmosphere is leading many Jews to feel
uncertain about speaking out on Israel and Zionism. People are anxious
about contravening an unwritten law on what you can and cannot
discuss, may or may not assert.
Article continues
It is a climate that raises fundamental questions: about freedom of
expression, Jewish identity, representation, and the part that
concerned Jews in Britain can play in assisting Israelis and
Palestinians to find their way to a better future.
As the situation in the Middle East deteriorates yearly, more and more
Jews watch with dismay from afar. Dismay turns to anguish when
innocent civilians - Palestinians and Israelis - suffer injury and
death because of the continuing conflict. Anguish turns to outrage
when the human rights of a population under occupation are repeatedly
violated in the name of the Jewish people.
No one has the authority to speak for the Jewish people. Yet during
Israel's war with Lebanon last summer, Ehud Olmert, the prime
minister, told an American audience: "I believe that this is a war
that is fought by all the Jews." His belief is not based on evidence:
it is an article of faith, a corollary of the doctrine that Israel
represents Jewry as a whole - in Britain included.
This is a fallacy; and, moreover, a dangerous one, since it tars all
Jews with the same brush. Yet this misconception is reinforced here by
those who, claiming to speak for British Jews collectively or allowing
that impression to go unchallenged, only ever reflect one position on
the Middle East. On its own account, the Board of Deputies of British
Jews (which calls itself "the voice of British Jewry") devotes much of
the time and resources of its international division to "the defence
of Israel". When a "solidarity rally" was held in London last July in
the midst of the conflict with Lebanon, it was the board that
organised it.
All of which suggests that British Jewry, speaking with one voice,
stands solidly behind the Israeli government and its military
operations.
Two things are wrong with this suggestion. First, it's false. Jews
were deeply divided over Israel's campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon last
year. Certainly, there were those who shared the sentiment of the
chief rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, who, addressing the rally, said:
"Israel, you make us proud." Others felt roughly the opposite emotion.
Second, the board has no business taking a partisan position on the
Middle East. Let groups such as the Zionist Federation or perhaps the
Israeli embassy organise solidarity rallies. The role of the board is
to promote the welfare of British Jews in all their variety, not to
defend Israel. Similarly, the chief rabbi is entitled, ex officio, to
bring a religious perspective to political matters, but it is not his
role to act as political spokesman for his flock.
Faced with this state of affairs, a group of Jews in Britain has come
together to launch Independent Jewish Voices (IJV). We come from a
variety of backgrounds and walks of life. Some of us are religious,
some not. A number feel a strong attachment to Israel as Jews, others
feel none. We do not all share the same vision for the Middle East. We
are a network of individuals, not a movement or political party.
But we are united by certain fundamental commitments. These are set
out in our launch statement, published today on the Guardian's Comment
is Free website and in advertisements placed in the Jewish Chronicle
and the Times. They include: putting human rights first; giving equal
priority to Palestinians and Israelis in their quest for a peaceful
and secure future; and repudiating all forms of racism aimed at Jews,
Arabs, Muslims or whomever.
We believe that these commitments - not ethnic or group loyalties -
define the limits of legitimate debate. We invite like-minded Jews in
Britain to add their names to the list of IJV signatories.
Jews abroad who are confronted with the same climate are taking
similar steps to make their voices heard. The Alliance of Concerned
Jewish Canadians has been formed to promote "an alternative public
Jewish voice" on Israeli policies. Last July "concerned South African
Jews" appealed to "all who share our commitment to a common humanity"
to call for Israel to stop its bombardment of Lebanon. In the past few
years, Jewish groups speaking out against Israel's violations of human
rights have proliferated, notably in the United States, but especially
in Israel itself.
We are not setting ourselves up as an alternative to the Board of
Deputies or any other body. But we challenge the standard concept of
"the Jewish community" as a collective entity for which the board is
the secular voice and the chief rabbi the religious voice. This system
was developed in another era - though it is being used today as a
template for other minorities. It pictures "the Jewish community" as a
single bloc that, whatever its internal complexity, presents a common
face to the outside world via its ambassadors.
There is an affinity between our initiative and the New Generation
Network, which was launched in the Guardian last November. A diverse
group of Britons questioned the idea that the pie of British society
(or that portion consisting of "minorities") can be divided into neat
ethnic or religious slices: discrete "communities" with authoritative
"leaders". For many of us, this model is suffocating and goes against
the grain of our experience.
Among other things, it places a premium on keeping disagreement "in
the family". For Jews, this ethos is especially stifling if the
subject is Zionism or Israel. Some people, rightly condemning
demonisation of the Jewish state, do not hesitate to demonise fellow
Jews who, when expressing their views on these subjects in public,
cross an invisible line of acceptability. We reject any attempt to
suppress legitimate public debate and we abhor the culture of
vilification.
The slur of "traitor" or "self-hating Jew" is especially noxious. For,
if we feel compelled to protest against injustice to Palestinians,
this is partly because of the lessons of our own history: the Jewish
experience of marginalisation and persecution. Furthermore, when the
language of human rights is spoken, many of us (secular and religious)
hear the voices of those Hebrew prophets, rabbis, writers, activists
and other Jewish figures down the centuries for whom Judaism means
nothing if it does not mean social justice.
So, when we speak out against Israel's occupation of the West Bank and
Gaza, or the bombing of Lebanon, or discrimination against
Palestinians within Israel itself, we are not turning against our
Jewish identity; we are turning to it. Some of us, recalling that
nearly 40 years have passed since Israel's occupation began, hear a
resonance. This was the length of time the Israelites wandered in the
wilderness, near the end of which Moses gave them a directive:
"Justice, justice shall you pursue" (Deuteronomy 16:20). It is a
compass bearing for all humanity, especially when we are trying to
find our way - or help others to find theirs - to a better future.
· Brian Klug is senior research fellow in philosophy at St Benet's
Hall, Oxford, and associate editor of Patterns of Prejudice

that is fought by all the Jews." His belief is not based on evidence
Ne e' necessario che lo siano. Altrimenti non sarebbero stati "beliefs"
ma "facts".
Ma d'altronde nemmeno l'autore puo' parlare "per gli ebrei" stabilendo
cosa sia o meno "essere/comportarsi da ebreo".
-Stefano