Silencing Nakba: efforts to erase the Nakba narrative from Israeli discourse risk backfiring. (image: CJ)

I commissioned the image above to convey visually what I fear currently risks haunting Israelis forever. That is, despite efforts to shun discussions about the “Nakba” – an Arabic term meaning “catastrophe” often used to reference Israel’s process of independence – the narrative simply will not go away. It will continue to creep into Israeli consciousness through the shadows and cracks. Israelis, therefore, should try to understand the perspective as seen by those who commemorate the event, rather than rejecting such narratives wholeheartedly. At the same time, Israelis should feel comfortable enough in their own history to not feel threatened by such declarations.

In general, a diversity of narratives is a good thing. And in all likeliness, the truth lies waiting to be discovered somewhere in the middle. Geographically, if a tree falls somewhere between person A and person B, there is a very good chance that the eyewitness testimony of both individuals will differ. Person A may go so far as to call Person B a liar. B may spend his entire life refuting A’s testimony. Still, each will stand his ground, insisting on sharing his words and memories. That’s okay, and it’s nothing to fear. An honest discussion that includes both individuals may reveal there to be some truth in each’s versions.

Winston Churchill once noted, “History is written by the victors.”  That does not mean those who did not get to claim victory do not have a history to tell. It means theirs has been less told, but not necessarily less valid. One of the most fascinating courses I ever took during my years as an undergraduate student at UCLA was a sociology lecture entitled something like “Re-writing history from the perspective of the minority.” I am sure the actual title was more academic, but essentially that was the point. The course itself was eye-opening, the stories shared by students were engaging. And I am reminded of those lessons today. It is clear that the Arab inhabitants of what is now known as the modern State of Israel witnessed the developments of May 1948 in a way that was different to the Jews. Israelis should now hear them. Continuing to reject their testimonies only hinders Israel and Israelis.

Israeli leaders are managing the present, their public is hoping for a future. But together, the country and its people need to address the past. And in as honest a way as possible, through engagement, interaction and conversation. And respect. And respect! As Israeli sociology student Tom Pessah writes on +972, these truths can be inconvenient. But Israelis should reject attempts to drown out a people’s narrative for the sake of convenience. And by extension, supporters of Palestinian rights (including other Arabs and some media) need to give greater consideration to the Israeli narrative. I will use the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war as an example, which I cited on a number of occasions during my years as a producer at Al Jazeera English. It is true that images of an elderly woman walking through the rubble of her home after it has been shelled by Israeli fighter jets can be compelling. And her story of anguish is a valid one. But so too is that of a young teenage boy in northern Israel who spent his entire summer dodging rockets in a bomb shelter. The pictures may be less exciting, the story less inciting, but the narrative is just as valid. And the long-term impact on both must be considered. Telling the elderly woman’s story does not invalidate the boy’s story. And telling the boy’s story, repeatedly, does not make the elderly woman’s story disappear.

Israel should recognize the diverse narratives, and should protect the rights of people to share them. Freedom of speech does not mean my freedom to say whatever I want; it means my obligation to let you say whatever you want.

And so, I am reminded of a great segment from the 1995 film “The American President,” where actor Michael Douglas defends and defines nationalism by reminding voters what that freedom is really all about. In his case, Douglas’ character – an incumbent president facing a series of mud-slinging from his rival- speaks of America. But the analogy is relevant:

You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the “land of the free”.

Read also:
For Palestinians, the Nakba is not history
Rightists disrupt Nakba ceremony at Tel Aviv University
Why the inconvenient truths of the Nakba must be recognized

The forum is intended to celebrate the rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual, Transgender, Queers and other individuals, often referred to as LGBT.  This year, the Forum’s executive committee chose to honor Israel, with its culture capital Tel Aviv recently listed as the number one gay destination in the world.  The committee invited Israel’s Ambassador to Washington to address the crowd on Saturday night.

Participants dance on a float in Tel Aviv's 2011 Gay Pride parade, amid lots of pink, a color frequently used by the global LGBT community (photo: Atomisch/TomGiebel/flickrcc)

Israel effectively decriminalized homosexuality in 1988 when it removed from its British-inherited penal code a ban on sodomy. Oren highlighted what he felt were Israel’s strong commitments to gay rights. He noted that an Israeli diplomat serving in Europe has received full rights and benefits for his same-sex Israeli partner via the foreign ministry.  He highlighted the military response in disciplining a soldier who harassed a lesbian soldier.  He recalled the gay pride parade that was held in Jerusalem, despite opposition from religious groups.

Oren referenced Israel’s now world-famous delegate to the Eurovision Song Contest, Dana International, a transgender performer whose 1998 song “Viva La Diva” secured Israel its third victory in the competition. An American by birth, Oren also compared gay rights in the U.S. to those in Israel, reminding those attending that as the United Staties was invoking the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy (prohibiting LGBT individuals serving in the military from being open about their sexual identity) under former President Bill Clinton, Israel’s military banned all discrimination based on sexual orientation. Both at the event and in an interview before it, Oren argued that Israel provides asylum for Palestinian LGBTs from the West Bank, and that it houses two Palestinian groups fighting from LGBT equality for Palestinians in Israeli and the Palestinian territories.

+972′s Yossi Gurvitz argues that Oren got his facts wrong.

Oren’s speech was interrupted at one point by a man who stood up and accused Israel of denying rights to non-Israeli/Jewish LGBTs, particularly Palestinians.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The arguments he made echoed more clearly the sentiments conveyed by Katherine Franke.  Franke is the Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law and Director of Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at New York’s Columbia University.  In the days leading to the Forum, Franke posted on the department’s law blog a youtube video explaining her decision to boycott the Forum.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Franke notes:

While it may seem natural for gays to side with Israel, after all they have such good gay rights laws, this support reflects a major weakness of so many human rights movements that tend to prioritize their own struggles without considering the ways in which all forms of discrimination are linked. In Israel/Palestine gay rights and human rights more broadly are necessarily connected to one another, and treating one domestic minority well does not excuse or diminish the immorality of the state’s other rights-abridging policies. Had South Africa enacted good gay rights laws during the Apartheid era no one would have seen that as excusing their treatment of black and colored people. For this reason I have chosen to honor PQBDS’s request that we boycott the Equality Forum.

Franke’s action comes in response to what some have labelled Israel’s “pinkwashing,” a term that has come to embody an alleged policy by Israel to highlight its LGBT rights record in an effort to detract attention away from its treatment of Palestinians.  In particular, activists will say, Israel attempts to convey sympathy for Palestinian LGBTs to highlight its own moral superiority, while ignoring the dire consequences and human rights violations that are tied-up in the military (and civilian) occupation of Palestinian territories.

Rebecca Trachtenberg Alpert, a Reconstructionist Rabbi and Co-Director of the Women’s Studies Program and Assistant Professor of Religion and Women’s Studies at Temple University, also boycotted the event.

In his speech in Philadelphia, Oren respond to the accusations of pinkwashing:

There is a small but voluble group claiming that the freedom and equal rights that Israel grants to the LGBT community is merely an attempt to camouflage our alleged oppression of the Palestinians. But a simple historic fact is that the LGBT rights movement in Israel predated Israel’s capture of the West Bank in 1967. And then even when Palestinian suicide bombers were blowing up our restaurants and buses, and terrorist missiles were pummeling or neighborhoods, still Israel provided shelter for LGBT Palestinians.

Next year, CUNY – a university based in New York – will address the issue at a forum entitled “Homonationlism and Pinkwashing.”  An invitation to the event notes:

The co-opting of some LGBT people by anti-immigrant and in particular anti-Muslim political forces is widespread and growing. Rutgers Professor Jasbir Puar has coined the term “Homonationalism” to define collusion between LGBT people and identification with the nation state, re-enforcement of racial and national boundary, and systems of supremacy ideology no longer interrupted by homophobia. Homonationalism has spread far from its roots in European xenophobia and US militarism to become an increasingly potent tool in the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Haneen Maikey, director of Israeli-based Palestinian LGBT group alQaws, is one of the scheduled speakers at the CUNY conference.  The group’s recurring “Palestinian queer party,” which draws in Palestinians from Israel and the West Bank, takes place every other month in Tel Aviv.

Simon was partially right.  Yes, for many – namely, the wealthy portion of the one-quarter of population that is actually Qataris – life is content thanks to an absurd amount of amenities and luxuries courtesy of global oil prices. But those who do not fall into that category do exist, and for the most part their stories are untold.

Salim (not his real name) is a Lebanese man I met through friends over dinner at the souk one night in 2009. He is gay and has been with his partner – a married Qatari man – for a number of years. (Such extramarital affairs are said to be quite common.)  Salim has lived in Qatar for more than a decade.  And when we met, he revealed that a few years prior to the dinner, he was arrested upon arrival at the airport in Doha just as he was returning from a large party in Western Europe. Salim claims he was held and beaten for three days and repeatedly called names considered derogatory terms for homosexual men. Perhaps by coincidence, though likely not, he said that just days earlier, a male member of the extended Qatari royal family made advances towards him at the party. Salim rejected him, which he claims angered the Qatari man.

Michel (not his real name) is also Lebanese. When I met him in 2008, he was working for Qatar Airways, the national carrier, based in Doha but flying around the world.  He and other airline crew live in dormitories, which include a curfew and constant monitoring of their comings and goings. He told me that his first dorm-mate was evicted from the country when authorities discovered he was HIV-positive. According to Michel, the individual was taken from the government office – where he was told of his deportation – directly to the airport, not even permitted to go “home” and collect his things, which Michel says he ended up shipping to him.

Their stories go unheard.  As will Lucy’s (not her real name), a young Filipina woman working (then, not sure about now) in the canteen of the Al Jazeera English compound. Lucy, at the time, was employed via a subcontractor.  She worked at the Al Jazeera facility six days a week. On the seventh day, she told me, the subcontractor employed her elsewhere.  When I mentioned to the person standing in the canteen queue behind me – one of the highest ranking directors of the channel – that Lucy works non-stop seven days a week, he seemed unbothered. He heard me, but was unresponsive. (Disclaimer: I worked at Al Jazeera English for five years and found the majority of people there to be actively dedicated to the rights of global laborers.)

The less-glitzy streets of Doha, June 2008 (photo: open cage/flickrcc)

Lucy is not alone.  Foreign laborers working in Qatar, more than three-quarters of the people physically residing there, have few-to-no rights. Most (unlike Lucy) have Fridays off, when they are seen congregating in public places. A sign posted at the front entrance of the glitzy shopping center, which  Simon refers to as a sort of “Rodeo Drive,” indicates they are not welcome inside.  Technically, the sign notes that Friday is for “Families-only,” a clear reference excluding the South Asian workers who are in Qatar earning money – remittances – to send back home to their spouses and children.  I, a single caucasian male, was not prevented from entering the center, nor was I harassed while inside.  The foreign laborers are not wealthy, of course, nor are they considered in assessments of national wealth. Hence, the figures referred to by many, including CBS, in which Qataris are the world’s richest people, bear a hint of deception, as the majority of the people in Qatar are not actually counted. It would be like saying that Californians are the richest in America based solely on the incomes of people in Bel Air.

An alley in Souq Waqif, where many Filipino, South Indian and Bangladeshi workers (photo: kate.gardiner/flckr/cc) live, Doha, Qatar, May 2011 (photo:

Then there are those who are not counted by any measures. Hassan (not his real name) and his family (a mother and nine siblings, the father died in a car crash) are “Bidun.” Translating from the Arabic word “without,” Bidun are technically stateless “leftovers” in the Gulf. In neighboring Kuwait, they number more than 100,000. In Qatar, their numbers are much smaller, but their problems and daily struggles in coping with statelessness are just as real. According to Human Rights Watch, “Bidun cannot register for education or health benefits, or legally hold employment.  The government does not register the birth of Bidun children.” For Hassan, this means constantly operating beneath the radar, using roads that do not have checkpoints, ensuring he is home during specific hours of the evening, and avoiding all risks that might result in his arrest or, worse, expulsion. According to Hassan, a Qatari man claiming that he would help the family obtain citizenship documents for a North African country took their money and disappeared, wiping the family of most of their savings and leaving them with no official channels for recourse.

Perhaps most upsetting was the site of a particular roundabout (of which there are many) in Doha where, I was told, Pashtun men are sexually solicited by local Qatari men. An adjacent lot on the corner which overnight serves as a parking facility for large transport trucks reportedly provides the cloak of nighttime darkness and discretion for such activities. I myself did not witness any active solicitation or engagement, but I did see dozens of young, Pashtun men loitering at this particular roundabout, and one told us he had often gone with Arab men who offered him money.

Stories like these are just the tip of the iceberg.  A deeper investigation into life in Qatar, particularly in a report that claims to examine from the inside the country and its growing role, should have explored these and similar narratives. In addition, CBS should have been more educated in its questions – as in, aware of the sectarian, religious, ethnic, tribal tensions and rivalries that exist among the Arab world, of which Qatar is a player with specific interests.  It should have also been more honest about some facts – like Qatar’s preference for promoting advanced education in the physical sciences and not in the liberal arts (presumably because chemists don’t lead revolutions).  And it should now be more apologetic about some obvious omissions – like any reference to the ongoing unrest in Qatar’s neighbor, Bahrain.  After all, Qatar is part of the Saudi-led GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) that sent its troops to quell the Shia Bahraini demonstrators. However, mentioning these things would have likely angered all of the people Simon interviews: the King, the Prime Minister and an adviser to the army (who drives him around).

Which brings me to the my last question.  Where was the voice of criticism?

Speaking in Arlington, Virginia just outside the U.S. capital city, Gingrich announced his departure but fell short of endorsing his previous opponent, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney:

I am asked sometimes – is Mitt Romney conservative enough? And my answer is simple: compared to Barack Obama?  This is not a choice between Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan. This is a choice between Mitt Romney and the most radical, leftist president in American history.

Gingrich helped re-write the book on conservative values nearly twenty years ago, a process that lead to a Republican takeover of the U.S. Congress and a shift that secured him the top position there.  During the campaign, he enjoyed a few high-points, and even delivered a few good punches, and not just always to candidates.  But such peaks and jabs were not enough to keep him on top, as a well-funded Romney team struck hard in a series of negative ads attacking Gingrich and his character.

Gingrich leaves his campaign with more than $4 million in debt, some of which will likely be picked up by mega-rich backers like casino magnate Sheldon Adelson.  Adelson, a close ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and publisher of the free right-wing Israeli daily “Yisrael Hayom,” donated millions of dollars to Gingrich’s campaign via a so-called Super PAC.  It’s estimated that he indirectly gave $15 million to (unsuccessfully) push Gingrich into the White House.  The link between the two explained a rather unusual and arguably unnecessary foreign policy comment made by Gingrich to a Jewish cable television channel, in which he referred to Palestinians as “an invented people.”

Protest sign outside 2012 AIPAC conference shows Gingrich asking, "Palestinians? Invented people (Can I have another $5M Mr. Adelson?)", Washington DC (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

The move was viewed by many as a gross illustration of the influence Super PACs can have on a presidential candidate.  Super PACs are a relatively new phenomenon in U.S. politics, courtesy a 2010 Supreme Court decision which allows “political action committees” (PACs) to donate unlimited amounts of money to causes, so long as they are not coordinating with a named candidate of party.  This means that individuals, unions, and – most importantly by some measures – corporations, can provide endless amounts of funding for a political cycle.  In the case of Gingrich, Super PACs indirectly supporting him were just not as effective (i.e. wealthy) as those supporting his rival, Mitt Romney.

Meanwhile, what should have been a good day for Romney was tarnished by a campaign hiccup when a senior member of the team abruptly announced his resignation the previous night.  Richard Grenell was recently appointed to serve as Romney’s foreign policy spokesman.  He is openly gay.  Many “liberal” conservatives viewed his appointment as a shift in the Republican party’s position on social issues, like gay rights, and the future of social issues under a Romney presidency.  But Romney already had their votes, so there was little gain there.  Many “conservative” conservatives saw this as yet another sign that Romney is just too far from so-called traditional conservative values.  In a statement issued upon his resignation on Tuesday, Grenell, who the Romney camp noted was exceptionally qualified for the post, said that attacks on his personal life and character made it difficult for him to do his job:

….[M]y ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign.

Grenell’s departure is also ill-timed because Wednesday presented a unique opportunity for Romney to state his foreign policy positions, with U.S. President Barack Obama visiting troops in Afghanistan and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attending an economic and strategic dialogue meeting in China.  Instead, other Romney advisors, like Dan Senor – former civilian spokesman for the U.S. military operation in Iraq –  took to the airwaves in a bit of a scramble.

Senor, of course, is a very powerful figure.  Aside from being a Fox News commentator, he is also married to Campbell Brown of CNN and NBC notoriety.  His sister, Wendy Senor, is head of the Jerusalem office for AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel Washington-based lobbying group.  Romney and Netanyahu do not really need anyone bringing them together; they do so just fine on their own.  Indeed, their bond goes back a quarter of a century to the 16th floor of a consulting group’s office.  But still, Senor’s credentials are very “pro-Israel” – he even studied at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem -  and that will only help.  Perhaps more and more appearances on television by Senor will convince Adelson to throw some “indirect” unlimited money to Romney, as well … of course, only after he is done paying-off Gingrich’s debt.

But there are also millions of new voters, many of them college and university students, aged 18-21, who weren’t eligible to vote in the last election.  Come this November, they will be casting their first ballot.  And they are ripe for the picking.  Obama knows he needs them to turn out at polling stations in key states if he is going to win.  And he’s doing his best to appeal to them in their language and style, as he did before.

On Tuesday night, Obama did what he does best: performed.  Speaking before students at the University of North Carolina, who are facing a possible hike in interest rates on their student loans, Obama gave an exclusive interview to late night host Jimmy Fallon.  But Obama didn’t just address the topic of student loan rates in a traditional sense, choosing instead (with Fallon’s assistance) to “slow jam” on the issue.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The topic here is the U.S. Federal Stafford Loan.  The interest rate on the loans is scheduled to double on July 1st from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, unless Congress acts to extend the lower rate.  According to the White House, about 7 million undergraduate students would be affected, raising annual education costs for each an average of $1,000.

According to the Stafford Loan website:

Stafford Loans are federal student loans made available to college and university students to supplement personal and family resources, scholarships, grants, and work-study. Nearly all students are eligible to receive Stafford loans regardless of credit. Stafford loans may be subsidized by the U.S. Government or unsubsidized depending on the student’s need.

Some 15 million Americans are still paying back Stafford Loans (including yours truly).  Two-thirds of those in debt are under the age of 30.  Many choose to delay payment as long as possible, since the money is relatively cheap.  For example, the rates on mortgages – considered by many to have reached an all-time-low – are still often higher than the current rate on Stafford Loans.  So if one has the cash, it is wiser to pay off the mortgage than to pay off the Stafford Loan, in theory.

By most accounts, the education debt – while technically a debt – could be considered to be a healthy one.  It allows young people to go to university and to earn a degree, which effectively allows them to become more employable and thus earn higher salaries in the future.  This system has allowed millions of Americans to better themselves in a way that many believe makes higher education affordable, and reflects the important role a central government can play.

Republican presidential hopeful (and likely candidate) Mitt Romney has also backed the Congressional extension of the low rates, but he has done so vaguely and his views have come out almost as an after-thought.  (Technically, it was a before-thought, as he rushed to make a comment about the loans right as Obama was heading out the door to North Carolina.)  And by all accounts, his positioning on the topic, while in line with Obama’s and thus with most American university students, was not presented in a culturally-hip way that might appeal to students and reassure them.

That continues to be one of Romney’s key problems: many Americans can’t and don’t relate to him.  He is seen as a corporate elitist and a stiff-necked politician.  In recent months, his party (though admittedly not Romney himself) has managed to offend both women and Latino voters, two key demographics that rank right up there with young voters.  Romney’s team, instead, is focusing on appealing to Christian voters, a large and important demographic, but many of whom still question whether Romney himself is actually a Christian.  (Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, known more commonly by the once-derogatory but now widely-used term “Mormon.”)  Half a year from election day, Romney is still trying to convince Christian Americans that he’s just one of them.  It doesn’t help that many conservative Christians are suspicious of the Mormon Church, viewing some of its beliefs as post-Christian and borderline blasphemous. And many liberals mock the Mormon Church all together, as reinforced by the most popular and sold-out show on Broadway for the past year, “The Book of Mormon.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Some of the lyrics read:

I believe that the Lord, God, created the universe.
I believe that He sent His only Son to die for my sins.
And I believe that ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America
I am a Mormon,
And a Mormon just believes…

I believe that Satan has a hold of you
I believe that the Lord, God, has sent me here
And I believe that in 1978, God changed his mind about black people!
You can be a Mormon..
A Mormon who just believes!

I believe that God lives on a planet called Kolob.
I believe that Jesus has his own planet as well.
And I believe that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.
If you believe, the Lord will reveal it.
And you’ll know it’s all true. You’ll just feel it.
You’ll be a Mormon
And, by gosh!
A Mormon just believes!

But humor and pop culture aside, the election will put before Americans two men with two different visions of how this country should be run.  It may take more than a slow jam to turn them on, and more than a musical to turn them off.

On Monday night’s O’Reilly Factor, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly’s guests included a number of voices speaking about the Trayvon Martin case, in which last month a black teenager walking (presumably home) while carrying snacks one night in Florida was shot and killed by an armed community patrol officer.  The man who killed him – George Zimmerman – claims under the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law that the act was committed in self-defense, even though a call to 911 reveals that Zimmerman followed a fleeing Martin despite instructions by emergency agents to not do so (and that a racial slur may have been used when tracking him).  The killing – or more accurately, the decision thus far by police to not arrest Zimmerman – has sparked outrage among many in America’s black community who view the case as symptomatic of the country’s continued institutional racism. As such, it has garnered the attention of America’s media.

Trayvon Martin rally March 21 (photo: Sunset Parkerpix/flickr cc)

Fast-forward to Fox News contributor (and former Emmy-award winning journalist) Bernard (“Bernie”) Goldberg yapping away on the O’Reilly Factor, criticizing the “elite liberal media” for giving too much attention to the case.  His argument is that “black-on-black crime” (which is responsible for most deaths of black Americans) goes under-reported.  Goldberg claims such crimes don’t garner the same outrage from civil rights leaders like the Reverend Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, both of whom have led rallies for the thousands who have descended upon Sanford, Florida in protest of what they see as the police and government’s inaction and injustice.  Though I loathe giving Goldberg any sort of promotion, you can read most of his case – and the argument he made on the show – here on his website.

This should hopefully come as no surprise to anyone, but I’m not a regular Fox News viewer.  Still, sometimes I think it is important to sneak a peek at how “they” think.  Most of what I hear I find laughable.  However, Goldberg’s comments really struck a raw nerve.  Goldberg – in all his chutzpa – juxtaposed the Martin case with that of a black toddler killed in what one can presume was a drive-by shooting involving gangs.  (He also assumes that the shooter must have been black, and refers to it as black-on-black crime.)  In trying to understand why the media focuses so much attention on the Martin case, but no attention on the toddler case, Goldberg forgets one significant difference, namely that the Martin’s case involve an armed representative of the majority shooting to death an unarmed member of the minority.  Black Americans don’t need a white Fox News commentator reminding them that their communities have problems, many of which stem from socio-economic vulnerabilities.  What they need from him is to realize the difference.

The analogy was insulting and reminded me that the majority – errr, correction: the white, male majority – just doesn’t get it.  They don’t get institutional racial injustice.  Goldberg and others like him are so far removed from the narrative that they must only imagine the narrative to be a fantasy, made-up for the sake of convenience (and apparently the enjoyment of the liberal media).

Late last week, U.S. President Barack Obama – America’s first black leader – chimed-in on the Trayvon Martin story.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Did he do so for political reasons?  Unlikely.  Did he think he’d get more votes?  Probably not.  Some 95 percent of Black Americans voted from him in 2008.  Did he think continued silence might backfire?  Perhaps.  Still, whatever the reason, the brief words he spoke touched many people.  Keeping a distance from the story – as was probably right for a person of his stature – he simply said, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”  That’s not a literal statement: Obama doesn’t really think that genetically he and Michelle would have conceived a boy with similar features.  What he was saying was that as a black man growing up in America, he remembers what is was like to be gawked-at in shops as if you were suspicious, he remembers the difficulties in getting a cab late a night, he knows that stories of black men being disproportionally locked-up in American jails, he knows the black American mothers who worry as they send their sons out that some trigger-happy slightly-nervous member-of-the-majority might shoot them.  Trayvon Martin could have been his son – figuratively.  But he could have never been Goldberg’s son because Goldberg doesn’t know these people, he’s never heard them, he repeatedly dismisses their narrative and did so once again.

Bernie Goldberg with former athlete Bob Uecker and other white men (photo: steven_jamesP/flickr cc)

Make no mistake: America is not an integrated utopia that many would have you believe.  It is very ghettoized, with many black Americans still living on the margins of society.  Goldberg is living in one America, these people– Travyon Martin’s family – are living in the other.

When I was black…
I often joke that when I was little, I used to be black.  The truth is, for a few years, growing up, one of my best friends in school was a black kid named Jerome.  I would spend almost every weekend with Jerome and his extend family: cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents.  I would leave at the start of the weekend and come back at the end.  I ate their food, used their showers, spoke up in their arguments, laughed at their jokes. But one day in the park with the whole extended family, while laughing, someone turned to me and said, “You know you’re not black, right?”  I was speechless.  Fine, I didn’t really think I was black.  But I didn’t know I wasn’t, either.  Meaning, I was aware that I looked different than they did, but I hadn’t yet digested the concept of race.  It was foreign to me.  I remember that moment as the loss of some sort of innocence.  That moment, I remember learning race.  And if you can learn race, you can learn racism.

Years later, I worked for one year at the Anti-Defamation League, where a wonderful woman who was in charge of educational programs that brought Los Angeles’ Jewish and black students together once told me why she does what she does.  She said that if racism can be learned, it can also be unlearned.  And the way to do so was through interaction, through recognition.  Admittedly, I guess I have always had that drive for interaction, for recognizing the other.  I grew up in a Jewish household, the grandson of Holocaust survivors.  My mother insisted on avoiding anything German, and thus one family trip across Europe once meant having to drive around Germany so as not to cross through.  Of course, what did I do in high school?  I studied German.  I figured it couldn’t hurt to understand Germans and German culture… in German.   Years later, I drew the same conclusion as an Israeli who went to work at Al Jazeera.  I knew it would be a challenge, but one worth taking if I was every to begin understanding the Arab world… and Arabs.  And in the past two years, I made a similar venture – though perhaps one not as controversial – by working for the Chinese media.  I figure: China is the future, so it’s best to start understanding it sooner than later.

I’ve always had a preference for understanding-from-the-inside that which I don’t understand at all.  I don’t want someone to tell me Germans think that x, y, z.  I want to hear the Germans say it.  I don’t like someone telling me that Arabs believe this and think that.  I want to experience it for myself.  I don’t want people to explain China to me.  I want to sense China from my Chinese colleagues.  Goldberg and his colleagues do none of that.  They judge the world, they judge the black community, they judge the murder of Travyon Martin … all through the comforts of their own shoes.  That is the convenience of majority.

Oddly enough, hours earlier I was at an event that stuck me with a parallel tone.  +972′s Aziz Abu Sarah was moderating a panel at the J Street Conference.  Among the participants were two Palestinian citizens of Israel who, along with Aziz, effectively said to Israelis (and American Jews): you don’t see us, we are an invisible minority to you.  After hearing this discussion and connecting it to my thoughts on Goldberg, I wondered if Israelis don’t react to the injustice of many Palestinians because, like Goldberg, they enjoy the convenience of the majority?  If an armed representative of that majority shots and kills an unarmed member of this minority, do Israelis ignore it because it is not their narrative?   Could Benjamin Netanyahu, who leads all of Israel – including its Palestinian citizens – ever rightly claim that if he had a son, he’d look like a Palestinian Trayvon Martin?  Could any Israeli leader ever do that?

At the moment, they can’t.  Half a century of life as the majority has made most Israelis forget or unaware of the vulnerabilities of life in the minority.   They can’t understand that story any more than Goldberg can understand the Martin family’s narrative, as he illustrated through his dismissive responses on Fox News.  And that, I would argue, for the sake of Israel’s future is their greatest challenge.

Given the events that have transpired over the past 10 months since Netanyahu last spoke at AIPAC – namely, a diplomatic standoff between Israel and the Palestinians which saw the latter bringing to the United Nations a resolution calling for Palestinian statehood; the siege of the Israeli Embassy in Cairo and the subsequent American involvement in securing the safe passage of Israeli diplomats; the ongoing onslaught in neighboring Syria that has resulted and is still resulting in a refugee crisis for Israel’s other neighbors – one might be forgiven for thinking that the Israeli prime minister might use his time at this year’s AIPAC Policy Conference podium to address these issues.  But speaking before some 13,000 American Jews and their allies, who claim to be concerned about Israel and the region, these topics did not even get an honorable mention.  Instead, Netanyahu chose to focus his entire speech on Israel’s perceived threat of Iran.

And the winner for best actor in a political drama is…
It was too be expected.  Even Netanyahu joked about the topic du jour.  And he was naturally at his best: charming, persuasive, or as one AIPAC-goer referred to his speech, “powerful, assertive, inspiring.”  But the depth, the honesty, the humility were all missing.  Instead, Netanyahu used the opportunity to shamelessly beat the war drum.  Onwards.  If only AIPAC had invited as a keynote speaker Iran’s Supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, who has staked his religious supremacy on vowing there’ll never be a nuclear-armed Iran, there might have actual been a genuine discussion.  Instead, anyone not fooled by Netanyahu’s spotlight dance would have recognized this to be a classic “wag the dog” moment.

Fortunately and aptly-timed, the political satire The Daily Show, with host Jon Stewart – himself an American Jew with a loyal following among liberals – aired a pre-recorded segment that included an interview with Riyad Mansour, the “Permanent Observer of Palestine” to the United Nations.  It was broadcast just minutes after Netanyahu’s speech on the cable channel Comedy Central (watch it here if you are unable to play the video):

Netanyahu may not believe in honorable mentions, but I do.  Thank you Jon Stewart for reminding Netanyahu and AIPACers that there is still a stateless Palestinian people.  And they’ll still be there even after you bomb Iran.

**** The full text of Netanyahu’s speech is available HERE.  Note the word “Syrian” is mentioned only once (and it is referenced in regard to Iran), and the word “Palestinian” appears zero times.   Even Obama, in his speech the day before, use the “P” word five times.

On Sunday, the first day of the 2012 Annual Conference, Behrendt attended a breakout session called “The Struggle to Secure Israel on Campus.”  Wayne Firestone, CEO of Hillel (the largest Jewish organization on American campuses) was among the speakers at the session.  Behrendt accused Firestone’s organization of denying membership to her group (which criticizes Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the presence and construction of settlements on that land) while she was a student at the predominantly-Jewish Brandeis University in Boston.  She said she was not allowed to speak about Israel at Hillel.  The event was filmed and broadcast on youtube:

Click here to view the embedded video.

According to the group OccupyAIPAC, last year Firestone “issued controversial guidelines barring Hillel groups from partnering with organizations that support any facet of the BDS [Boycott, Divest, Sanction] movement or that lack a specifically Zionist stance.”  After the incident, Behrendt told OccupyAIPAC:

I felt it was necessary to confront Wayne Firestone, whose condescending guidelines barred my Brandeis University chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace from joining Hillel last spring. Hillel’s guidelines are part of organized efforts to enforce an ideological status quo among young Jews on Israel, but they are completely out of touch with what’s happening among young people.

Disruptions of AIPAC events by activists – even Jewish ones – are nothing new.  However, the outbursts are usually reserved for big headlining events, like the speeches of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.  AIPACers have gotten so used to the interruptions that they now collectively respond by instantly rising in applause to drown out the yelling activist.  At the 2011 Conference, a number of activists who were critical of Israeli policy interrupted Netanyahu’s address before the AIPAC gathering, but were immediately escorted out — in a matter of seconds — by security.  This footage I filmed last year shows one such incident:

Click here to view the embedded video.

The smaller breakout sessions are rarely interrupted, presumably for two reasons.  First, admission to the AIPAC conference is relatively pricey.  A ticket to the 3-day event costs about $400 per person, so if one is going to make a splash, one would likely want to do it in front of as many people as possible and as visibly as possible.  There’s only one chance!  Second, the interruptions at the keynote addresses are so frequent that, as a result, there is an abundance of security on-hand ready to drag the heckler out, much to the amusement of AIPACers.   Im comparing the two clips above, one can note that Behrendt had a much longer window of time to state her case before security arrived.  Even the small number of people in that particular breakout session were caught off-guard by the action.

Sadly, most of the people at AIPAC who saw this incident or, more likely, heard about it from someone else, will completely ignore the point of what Behrendt was saying.  Namely, the American Jewish community is defensive when it comes to tackling the real moral issues facing Israel.  These debates are frequently happening within Israeli societies and, of course, on websites like +972, but most American Jews are made uneasy by outbursts like these.  They find themselves under attack, which, ironically, feeds into the narrative they are being fed.

One may disagree with the tactic used to raise such an issue, but that does not negate the subject or its merits.  As 972′s Ami Kaufman pointed out, missing from President Barack Obama’s speech on Sunday was any real recognition of the more urgent issues facing Israel.  Syria was practically a non-issue, and the word “Palestinian” was only uttered by President Obama five times.  And this isn’t new: Iran has been the top issue on the AIPAC agenda for the last half-decade.  So why are American Jews not demanding these conversations?  Why are they not insisting that these issues be addressed by their leaders?  So long as that continues to happen, activists like Behrendt are vital.  Even if you don’t like they way they are saying it, at some point you have to at least try to listen to what they are saying.

For the Israelis, their backyard has significantly changed.  One year ago, people had just begun uttering the words “Arab Spring” without really knowing what the Summer and Fall would look like.  Egypt had a “devil-we-know” leader, and Syria was a menace – albeit a quiet one – on the other side of the mountains.

Missing from the speeches so far were references to the success of economic sanctions against Iran, as recently stated in a Haaretz interview with American Jewry’s sweetheart, the former US envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, as well as any effort to understand the nuances of Iranian society and policies (like the deeper significance of the Iranian parliamentary elections just a few days earlier).

Barack Obama could make a career out of speaking before AIPAC.   He addressed the gathering four years ago as then-Senator Barack Obama.  He was running for President against Hillary Clinton at the time, a then-favorite amongst American Jews, and had even visited Israel on behalf of his home state of Illinois.  (He has not gone back since, much to the chagrin of many in the pro-Israel camp.  “You were in the neighborhood and you couldn’t stop by?” the Jewish grandmothers would ask.)  When Obama spoke at last year’s AIPAC conference, his tone was slightly more defensive.  His speech came in the midst of a war of rhetoric with the Israeli prime minister over the 1967 borders and whether he said what he said and how he said it.

And of course he spoke again this year, this time as a president seeking re-election.  There may only be a few thousand delegates attending the AIPAC conference, but Obama is acutely aware of the role those people may play in his re-election.  The American population stands at about 300 million people, and Jewish Americans make up about 2 percent of the population.  What’s key is not their vote but rather their monetary power.  President Obama knew that he was speaking not necessarily in front of voters – many of whom come from states where the Democratic candidate will win anyway – but rather in front of key donors.  And in trying to reiterate his support for Israel, his speech read very much like a report card of the last four years, listing practically one-by-one the things he claims he has done on behalf of America’s “strongest ally.”  Speaking in Washington on Sunday, Obama said:

When the Goldstone report unfairly singled out Israel for criticism, we challenged it.  When Israel was isolated in the aftermath of the flotilla incident, we supported them.  When the Durban conference was commemorated, we boycotted it, and we will always reject the notion that Zionism is racism.  When one-sided resolutions are brought up at the Human Rights Council, we oppose them.  When Israeli diplomats feared for their lives in Cairo, we intervened to save them.  When there are efforts to boycott or divest from Israel, we will stand against them.  And whenever an effort is made to de-legitimize the state of Israel, my administration has opposed them.  So there should not be a shred of doubt by now — when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back.

AIPAC is quite a complicated organization to understand.  It is not black-and-white, and the success of the pro-Israel lobby has not always been as guaranteed as some would have you believe.  Thirty years ago, U.S. President Ronald Reagan – a Republican – infuriated supporters of Israel by selling American weapons to Saudi Arabia, officially a sworn enemy of Israel.  He was also the first American president to publically punish Israel for its actions, by endorsing a UN resolution condemning Israel’s attack on Iraq and by freezing military cooperation between the two countries.  The pro-Israel lobby could do nothing to stop him, and yet historically – and rather ironically – Reagan is still trumpeted as a true friend to Israel.

Netanyahu, it is thought, was hoping that President Obama would use very clear words in stating Washington’s position on military action against Iran.  That didn’t happen.  Netanyahu wanted something along the lines of “we are capable and ready to attack you and we will not hesitate to do so.”  Indeed, Obama’s tone was more flexible than the Israeli leader would have wanted had he himself been writing it, with the American president making illusions to a military response, noting – as he has done before – that everything is on the table but not specifically outlining what that “everything” is.

No one is under any illusion that a gathering of Obama and Netanyahu is a love fest.  It is well known that two leaders do not like each other.  Perhaps it is not as it was under Reagan, who made no effort to hide his distaste for then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir in the 1980s.  Still, tensions between Obama and Netanyahu, scheduled to speak last at AIPAC, have been strained for some time, often more publicly than either would have liked.  It doesn’t help that one of Netanyahu’s biggest backers, American billionaire Sheldon Adelson, is partially bankrolling – to the tune of some $15 million – the election campaign of Republican contender Newt Gingrich.  It’s pretty clear Netanyahu wants Obama out.  And it’s safe to say the feeling is mutual.

All of this puts the pro-Israel lobby in an awkward position.  And they are being constantly bombarded with anti-Obama propaganda by pro-war neo-conservatives, like the so-called “Emergency Committee for Israel.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Most attending the conference will tell you that their being pro-Israel is simply an extension of their being pro-American, meaning they believe that promoting Israel’s interests is in Washington’s interests.   Fair enough.  Both leaders represent independent sovereign countries with their own sovereign issues to address.  Naturally, there is often overlap.  Obama re-enforced that shared interest as a reason for cooperation, especially on a big issue like Iran, noting:

No Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction.  And so I understand the profound historical obligation that weighs on the shoulders of Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, and all of Israel’s leaders.  A nuclear-armed Iran is completely counter to Israel’s security interests.  But it is also counter to the national security interests of the United States.

Obama and Netanyahu will meet on Monday morning at the White House.  Obama is confident he’ll win a second term and thus believes this won’t be their last meeting.  But he’s hoping Netanyahu won’t do anything rash to undermine his campaign before November’s vote.  Raising the temperature on Iran – which in turn raises the price at the pump for millions of Americans – can do just that.  So Obama needs Netanyahu’s cooperation.  And vice versa: Netanyahu can’t touch Iran without U.S. backing and, frankly, its assistance.  Washington will have to mediate between Israel and an Arab power, like Saudi Arabia, to provide Israel with air space for any attack on Iran as well as landing space for refueling.  So Netanyahu, too, needs Obama’s cooperation.

And this is where diplomacy kicks in.  Both leaders have their demands to make and both leaders have their favors to ask.

There are few times in which journalists get to say “the politicians done good.”  This is one of them.

First, in the past year, the US Federal Government unveiled the long overdue national memorial honoring the slain American civil rights leader, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. MLK, as he is often called, would have turned 83 years old this past weekend, had he not been gunned down before he celebrated even half of those years.  He preached that the rule of law (as defined by government) is not always right and is not always moral.  And in both cases, it must be challenged and challenged tirelessly.

His weapon was civil disobedience.  Decades later, the same capital city upon which he marched has given his memory a permanent home amidst the memorials of the country’s greatest names, including Jefferson and Lincoln, and just meters away from the national memorial honoring the fallen soldiers of the war in Vietnam which Dr. King so vocally opposed.  This inclusion of King’s legacy into the ranks of America’s most revered icons serves as a rare reminder that this country should applaud those who stand-up, as its pledge of allegiance boasts, to defend “liberty and justice for all.”

Second, an error in the engraved quote at the side of MLK’s bust, will now be corrected.  After the memorial opened, there was a great deal of controversy surrounding the truncation of an MLK quote.  The chosen text was meant to convey King’s humility but in the end actually conveyed a sense of arrogance, and many among his family and supporters were outraged. Determined to get it right, the federal government has just announced that it will fix the stone etching to better reflect King’s legacy.  Again, the message here is that not only should King be honored, but that he should be honored in a way that is fitting.  And for anyone who follows the US government, such a humble admission of error, much less a willingness to correct it, is rare.

Americans annually celebrate Dr. King’s birthday around this time of year.  The 2012 calendar calls for a bank holiday on Monday.  And because the memorial is so new, the day this year is getting lots of extra attention.  And it has once again highlighted King’s messages.  I, an Israeli-American splitting my time between both countries, went to see the memorial first-hand.  It was touching and challenging.

MLK: "It is not enough to say, 'We must not wage war.' It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it. We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but on the positive affirmation of peace." (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

MLK: "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

MLK: "Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies." (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

MLK: "We are determined here in Montgomery to work and fight until justice runs 'down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream'." (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

MLK: "We must come to see that the end we seek is a society at peace with itself, a society that can live with its conscience." (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

MLK: "True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice." (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

MLK: "We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

MLK: "Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

MLK: "I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant." (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

MLK: "Make a career of humanity, commit yourself to the noble struggle for equal rights. You will make a greater person of yourself, a greater nation of your country, and a finer world to live in." (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

MLK: "I oppose the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against it not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and above all with a passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as a moral example of the world." (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

MLK: "If we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective." (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

MLK: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

MLK: "I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for the their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits." (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

A few things came to mind as I walked through the memorial.  First, I immediately wondered, as the lyrics of a Hebrew song ask, “Eifoh yeshnam od anashim k’mo ha’ish hahu?  (“Where are there more people like that man?”)  This tune was sung more than fifteen years ago for the slain Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.  But most Israelis would find it difficult to equate Rabin to Dr. King.  So I ask, where is Israel’s MLK?  And would Israeli society and the system currently in place provide for (and maybe one day applaud) the rising-up of a man or woman who’d say that the rule of law is unjust and immoral and must be challenged with the weapon of civil disobedience?

Second, I found myself noticing that some of King’s texts, etched into the walls of the memorial, directly resonated with the situation in Israel vis-a-vis the country’s own agenda and its agenda with the Palestinians.  And some – allowing for a slight word change here and there – became rather haunting.  Here are a few that immediately popped into my head:

True peace is not merely the absence of violence; it is the presence of justice.

I oppose the occupation in Palestine because I love Israel. I speak out against it not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and above all with a passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as a moral example of the world.

Injustice in Palestine is a threat to justice in Israel. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

I have the chutzpah to believe that Palestinians everywhere can have three meals a day for the their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits.

This year, to help me honor Dr. King’s spirit and memory, I invite our readers to share their own messages… inspired by his.