An academic chapter about the history of Muslim relations with Jews provides a refreshing rejoinder to the tired assumption that Muslim society and culture are fundamentally anti-Semitic. In this post, I am hosting a short comment by the author, explaining his argument.

By Mark R. Cohen

On one of my many trips to Israel, in January 2012, words spoken at the celebration of the founding of the PLO in Ramallah were disseminated far and wide via the Internet by Palestine Media Watch, shocking many in and outside of the country. Introducing the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, one of the officials referred to the “enemy” (Israel) as “apes and pigs,” quoting a famous verse from the Qur’an according to which God, through His prophet Muhammad, censures the “Sabbath breakers” for violating (Jewish) law and condemns them to be transformed into “apes and pigs.” In his own speech, the Mufti quoted an equally famous Islamic hadith: “’The Hour (of Divine Judgment and Resurrection) will not come until you fight the Jews. The Jews will hide behind rocks or trees. Then the rocks or trees will call out: ‘Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him; except for the Gharqad tree, which is the friend of the Jews.’ Therefore it is no wonder that you see Gharqad trees surrounding the Israeli settlements and colonies.” This hadith, with its anti-Semitic overtones, is famously quoted in the Hamas “Platform” as license to kill Jews.

Anti-Semitism in the contemporary Muslim world is real. It pervades the media in the very countries that are most inimical to Israel. It appears in political speeches, in cartoons, in the press and on Middle Eastern radio and television. It resonates all too familiarly with the anti-Semitism that fueled the Holocaust.

For a people who have suffered the consequences of anti-Semitism since the Christian Middle Ages, culminating in the Nazi Holocaust, such expressions of anti-Jewish hatred in the Muslim world, side-by-side with Islam’s version of Holocaust denial, militates against hopes for rapprochement, political or otherwise, with Israel’s Arab neighbors and strengthens politicians’ resolve to resist statehood for the Palestinians.

Where does contemporary Muslim anti-Semitism come from? Does it stem from the Qur’an and other foundational Islamic texts? Is it endemic to Islam? Is it therefore ineradicable? Many, especially Jews, and especially Israeli Jews, believe this to be true.

Or is this...

Israelis are more willing to discuss and accept their country’s role in the Palestinian Nakba – until the historical events are portrayed as the story of the founding of a rival nation, and acknowledging those facts means legitimizing the other side’s fundamental beliefs.

Nakba Day protest May 15, 2012 (Activestills)

In 2008, a fascinating, little-known study asked 500 Israeli Jews about Israel’s behavior throughout the history of the conflict.  The study was conducted by Rafi Nets-Zehngut, at the Teachers College of Columbia University and Daniel Bar-Tal of Tel Aviv University’s School of Education. Bar-Tal is an internationally regarded expert in political psychology. Some of the findings were striking:

• More than six-in-ten said that prior to the arrival of the “Jewish pioneers” in the late 19th century, Palestinians were a majority in the region (“majority,” “vast majority,” or “exclusive inhabitants”).

• A majority, albeit very slim (50.2 percent), said that Jews and Arabs share the blame equally (46 percent) or primarily Jews (4.2 percent) are to blame for the outbreak and continuation of the Israeli-Arab conflict, while 43 percent blamed primarily Palestinians and Arabs.

• Most important for Nakba Day, when asked who was responsible for the “departure” of Palestinian refugees during the 1948 War of Independence, 41 percent chose the traditional Zionist narrative that they left due to fear and exhortations of Arab leaders; but 39 percent chose a response that cited fear and calls of Arab leaders, but also due to expulsion by Jews. Another eight percent cited only expulsion by Jews. That means that nearly half – a 47 percent plurality – accepted the Jewish role in creating Palestinian refugees.

Further, by using the terms “Palestinian” to refer to the pre-state days through 1948, the questions themselves implicitly tested people’s acceptance of the terms of the debate. The fairly standard rate of “don’t knows” indicates that people had little problem with the assumptions in the text of the questions. Also, fewer than one-fifth of Jewish Israelis describe themselves as left wing these days, so a significant portion of those respondents are either center or right wing.

The findings imply a potentially significant shift in Israeli attitudes compared to the past, when the Palestinian refugees were the greatest obstacle of all....

Cyprus and Israel have grown closer in recent months over the massive natural gas discovery that transcends their respective maritime exclusive economic zones. But when it comes to the military occupations in which the two countries have long been embroiled, political friendship has its limits.

Israeli President Shimon Peres with Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades in Jerusalem, May 7, 2013 (Photo: GPO/ Mark Neiman)

Recently-elected president of the Republic of Cyprus (RoC) Nicos Anastasiades, elected in January 2013, spoke at Tel Aviv University’s Faculty of Law Tuesday evening following an official visit that included meetings with both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres. His talk was a full-throated call to nurture the budding friendship it has sparked with Israel despite the recent thaw in Israel’s relationship with RoC’s long-standing nemesis, Turkey.

With Israel and Turkey hopefully on the road to repairing relations, there are sure to be ramifications for international cooperation on the enormous cache of hydrocarbons discovered over the last few years beneath the seas of Cyprus and Israel. Cyprus might be edgy about where Israel’s loyalties lie. Perhaps this is part of the timing of the visit.

Cyprus became the new friend when Israel’s long-term partnership with Turkey was in the doldrums. The Republic of Cyprus was the perfect candidate for a rebound relationship: the country is the heart of a long-running conflict between Greece and Turkey, and between their respective ethnic kin on the island who are pitted against each other: Greek Cypriots in the “south” – the UN and EU member state known as Republic of Cyprus, and Turkish Cypriots in the north, who under the protective patronage of a Turkish military occupation (and in some ways, an economic one) since 1974, declared themselves the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in 1983 – recognized only by Turkey.

Israel and the RoC suddenly found they had at least one very important mutual strategic interest: the exploration, extraction and distribution of natural gas reserves, discovered neatly during the phase Israel-Turkey relations hit a nadir. The new friendship was thus another way for Israel to salt the wound with Turkey, which was already angry over the notion that the spoils of...

A protester shouting slogans at a “SlutWalk” against sexism in Tel Aviv on March 22th, 2012. (photo: Activestills)

For the last 10 days I have not been able to think of the occupation or political mini-dramas of the new government. I read the New York Times every morning, but I can hardly recall the headlines. Even, god help me, the butchery in Syria and now the Israeli involvement seem further from my heart momentarily than a very local story.

It is so local, I wonder if +972 readers would or should care. It is so mundane, based on subtleties and slippery facts, that I wonder how I can possibly allow it rival the importance of towering life or death issues.

It’s simple sexual harassment – not a uniquely Israeli problem. One of the top television news personalities in the country, Emmanuel Rosen, has been accused by a large number of women of harassment over the years and there are rumors of rape. After a lengthy expose in Haaretz on April 26 (Hebrew) aired the claims of about 10 female colleagues, he went on leave of absence from Channel 10. The police began an “examination” which as of Monday turned into a formal “investigation.” Here in Israel it is a major news story making the headlines almost every day since it broke at the end of April.

But there’s nothing simple about it. Rosen’s womanizing personality  is known far and wide even to those like me, who don’t know him personally. Colleagues know him as a skirt-chaser at work too, and in the close circles of the Israeli media cliques, the current accusations don’t seem to surprise anyone – especially women.

Yet the whistle-blowing has been faint. No one went to the police, or (as far as we know to date) raised a formal complaint...

When Israel remembers the Holocaust, why does it think only of Jews?

History has proven time and again that the Jews are not unique for having suffered genocidal policies. The many debates about preventing such tragedies have so far not helped populations that suffered mass killings and expulsions, with intent to destroy them for their national, religious or ethnic identity – even in recent decades. Therefore the politicization of the Armenian genocide in Israel in the context of Israel-Turkey relations, described with great eloquence by Akiva Eldar in al-Monitor, is not only wrong; it calls into question whether Israel is truly committed to “never again” when it comes to people who are not Jews.

In fact, Jews need not look outside their own community to understand the categorical need to universalize the awful lessons of the Holocaust. Eldar points out that one of the greatest advocates of this position was himself a victim:

Tragically, Eldar’s description of the feeling many Knesset members hold towards this question mirrors what I feel in Israeli society:

To the argument that recognition of the Armenian experience threatens very immediate political needs related to Turkey, I hope that Turkish leaders and people see it differently. Remembering horrors suffered by others would say more about Israel’s values than it does about Turkey. Anyone can commit terrible crimes against innocents, Jews included. I wish for a country that rises above its own trauma to recall, support and help victims anywhere.

I can scarcely believe this needs to be said, but apparently it bears repeating: we must acknowledge that all human beings are at risk of falling victims to genocidal acts, or of perpetrating such acts themselves. The same people can be in both positions. To deny this seems to me as awful and dangerous as Holocaust denial itself.

In Boston, the bombings brought out the most generous community spirit among strangers torn apart by violence. In Bethlehem, Israel restricted who could participate in the marathon. But as Gisha’s Sari Bashi writes, dozens of Israeli runners expressed support for letting Gazans participate, emphasizing the hope and purity embodied in the marathon and speaking of their identification with people who challenge their human abilities by doing that amazing thing called ‘running.’

Runners race along the Israeli separation wall as hundreds of Palestinian and international athletes took part in the the inaugural Palestine Marathon which took place in Bethlehem, West Bank, April 21, 2013. Under the title “Right to Movement”, runners had to complete two laps of the same route, as organizers were unable to find a single course of 42 uninterrupted kilometers under Palestinian Authority control.

The first marathon was held in Bethlehem on Sunday, as my colleagues have reported (and photographed, beautifully). The marathon is moment of great personal achievement, but marathons also sometimes become a forum for highlighting other social issues – fundraising for charities and raising awareness of social causes, for example.

This week, the United States weeps as it struggles to maintain the ideal of marathons as a joyous community event, in the face of the horror in Boston. I too was shattered by seeing an event that brings out the most generous community spirit among strangers torn apart by violence. But in Bethlehem, it was inevitable that the personal joy of runners would at best balance out the deep political frustrations that the race inevitably highlighted: competitors ran in the shadow of a great concrete wall, were unable to find an unbroken 42-kilomter (26.2 mile) stretch of land, and 26 runners from Gaza, whose own marathon was recently canceled, were not allowed to participate, because the Defense Ministry would not let them cross to the West Bank.

Here is one act of resistance from Israelis: In response to the latter, Gisha, the Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, appealed to Israelis to appeal to the Defense Ministry directly, to reverse its decision. Perhaps one unintended consequence of the policy was that some Israelis have found a means of identifying with this particular hardship – just one of so many – that Palestinians...

The resignation of the Palestinian Authority’s relatively popular but unsupported Prime Minister Salam Fayyad ends a story of frustration, progress and hope.

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad (Beautiful Faces of Palestine/CC BY NC ND 2.0)

Who killed the prime minister of Palestine? Well, no one killed Salam Fayyad, of course. But the idea of a prime minister of Palestine, the political leader of a someday-democratic state-coming-into being who would lead with cosmopolitan pragmatism, international credibility, and state-building savvy, seems now officially dead. After warnings and false starts, Fayyad has turned in his resignation and it has apparently been accepted by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – according to reports. The resignation was precipitated by a recent financial crisis that has been brewing for months – and years.

Fayyad was appointed prime minister of the Palestinian Authority in 2007 by President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). He hails from neither of the two biggest parties, but from Third Way, a small independent party that failed to make serious gains in the last Palestinian elections in 2006.

His position was thus effective only in the West Bank, as Gaza had already fallen under Hamas rule when he took office (he had previously served as finance minister). Yet within constrained circumstances, he developed a political program coherent enough to be nicknamed “Fayyadism.”

Its main components were outlined in an impressively structured political vision called Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State, released in 2009. It involved a state based on 1967 borders, strengthening the institutions and administration within the West Bank to advance economic growth and political legitimacy, and non-violence. The idea was refreshing: stop waiting for moribund peace negotiations, circumvent the recalcitrant Israeli leadership and start building a state. Clean up Palestinian governance and manage Palestinian life in the West Bank to the greatest extent possible until self-governance became a fact on the ground. It was not only a refreshing notion but a reasonable one: constructing administrative statehood and advancing democratic norms despite lack of status has been the strategy of other de facto, unrecognized entities struggling for statehood such as Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, and others.

But few seemed interested – least of all, Israel. In an...

An interview with a key Hamas figure in al-Monitor published Friday explores a pragmatic potential and a shift in tactics for the movement.

‘Pragmatic’ is certainly the word interviewer Shlomi Eldar, one of Israel’s top television reporters covering Palestinian affairs, wants readers to remember. His subject is Dr. Ghazi Hamad, currently Deputy Foreign Minister of the Hamas leadership in Gaza, heads the “pragmatic wing” of Hamas and the interview is all about the changes of policy, external relations, and possibly even ideology.

Three specific points are worth noting, two internal and one related to Israel:

First, in the context of Palestinian politics, Hamad works to convey institutional legitimacy. He emphasizes that Mashal was re-elected to the head of the political bureau through a participatory political process:

He may have been overstating the “democratic” case – it’s not exactly a popular primary but the top layer of a multi-layered delegate structure – the shura council – that elected Mashal. Still, Hamad clearly wants to convey the legitimacy of the decision-making process and political maturity.

Second, he stresses the commitment to advancing the long-stagnant plan for Hamas-Fatah reconciliation. Hamad discusses some of the mechanics of how this could happen, which indicates a serious effort and also highlights a change from the past.

Should this come to pass, it could help erode Israel’s widely-embraced notion that there is “no partner,” because the Palestinian leadership is too divided to agree or implement an accord.

Finally, with relation to Israel, Hamad states openly that Hamas accepts 1967 borders without recognizing Israel. It’s not the first time Hamas has indicated support for 1967 as the basic borders. Khaled Mashal stated so last November, in a CNN interview on the day of the ceasefire that ended the Pillar of Defense war in Gaza:

But it was an ambiguous time. Just a few weeks later, when the UN held a vote on accepting Palestine based on the 1967 borders as a non-member observer state, Hamas flip-flopped, eventually lending grudging support. A year earlier, when the possibility of a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) also arose, Hamas figures roundly rejected the idea, calling it “nonsense” and a “scam.” The fact that Hamad now explicitly and repeatedly states acceptance of ‘67 lines, to an Israeli interviewer, shows much greater clarity on this policy issue.

But in the same breath Hamas says: “We do not say...

A lengthy Forward article by Nathan Guttman describes the makeover of The Israel Project (TIP) following the replacement of its founder and leader, with erstwhile AIPAC killer-shark Josh Block. The breathless description of his battering-ram personality almost had me swept along – almost.

And when I say swept along, I mean that it is tempting to jump into the ring and do battle – fight fire with fire, stake out the liberal ground in the professional ring of image-peddlers for Israel (IPFI?).

Just what we need.

The Israel Project President and CEO Josh Block (Photo: TIP/CC)

What really grates is the author’s description of Block’s self-image as a defender not merely of Israel, but even more nobly – of the pro-Israel crowd.

So that’s what this is all about? The conversation over Israel has levitated from policy itself (like the occupation, stupid) to the meta-argument over whether Israel’s image is fairly or unfairly portrayed, to the meta-meta (uber-meta? meta squared?) conversation of whether the pro-Israel camp (a flawed euphemism for pro-occupation) is fairly or unfairly portrayed by the liberal camp, and whether those liberals are fairly or unfairly being called anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, Iran-loving and by association, nuclear-destruction-second-Holocaust-of-Israel extra-terrestrials (all but the final moniker is a paraphrase of Block’s quote in the article – but trust me, it’s there by implication).

Although I work on campaigns for a living, in which images and communications are integral to the effort to connect elites with the public, the question of imaging Israel has gone far, far too far.

I dare each camp to say what it really stands for regarding Israel, and while we’re at it, for the Palestinians too – since Israel does in fact control them. Specifically, I dare the other side to stop trying to distract the conversation, along with millions and millions of dollars, by mumbling about meta-meta. I’ll start! Here’s what I stand for: ending the occupation, preserving and salvaging Israel’s democracy, equality and human rights in every society where I can have an influence. That means mainly in Israel, but since I view Israelis and Palestinians as intertwined under any circumstances, I feel somewhat responsible for both.

I dare the pro-Israel camp to say what it stands for. Members of that camp...

New York City is at its spiffiest these days, so much so that sometimes when visiting, especially during these fresh days of spring, I have flashes of being in Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood. A hopeless nostalgic, the Technicolor contrast to the lurking, brooding grime of the city I grew up in sometimes tugs at me.

But such nostalgia is so last decade and cliché to boot. Now I look behind the illusory romanticism of the New York left behind. I recall the fear that reigned in public spaces, the desperation to avoid eye contact in the vain hope that this would protect us from random violence, the sense of brokenness that prevailed and to which everyone simply succumbed.

The truth is that the safer city frees up energy that once went into keeping your head down. Walking through lower Manhattan on a bright, white Easter morning, the grand, improbable miracle of New York leaps off the streets and cannot be ignored even by the best of the cynics. After celebrating Passover last week, I was now headed for Easter dinner with my Jewish brother and Catholic-raised Chinese-American sister-in-law, not to mention my nephew whose main identity at present is his chubby, heart-stopping smile. As a Jewish American Israeli Canadian, I mused over a certain kinship I felt with a fictional 16-year-old Indian boy in The Life of Pi, who happily worships three gods, to the chagrin of local clerics.

****

The East Village is full of hipsters but still has small shops run by Hispanic and Pakistani families, co-existing with artsy theaters, Mexican, Italian, Greek and Japanese restaurants, and a tiny Jewish bakery named “Moishe’s” which is closed on Passover.

Walking south on the Bowery (with a nod of nostalgia to the ghost of CBGB’s) a half-twist leads into the heart of Chinatown. This is a memory that remains stable as per my childhood: sidewalks brimming with a people-crush at 10:30 a.m., an old man reading a Chinese newspaper as he shuffles down the street among them. It is a world unto itself, peppered with other city-dwellers from all reaches of life. But just as the senses are taking all this in, one block westward becomes the heart of Little Italy. Like a stage set magically transformed between acts, the fogged-up shop windows bearing upside-down ducks have been replaced by open sidewalk restaurants celebrating long-gone homelands. The transformation into a...

The crowd in Jerusalem Thursday was a stark reminder that many Israelis simply do not live and breathe politics, the conflict, or other issues that are breathing down Obama’s neck. But the real question was posed by one youngster who on the bus ride back to Tel Aviv kept shaking his head, saying, “I wonder what will come of it.”

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks in Jerusalem (YouTube screenshot)

President Obama gave a master speech at the convention center in Jerusalem Thursday night. Gone was the stammering, glancing-around insecurity he showed in his interview with Israeli Channel 2 prior to the visit, or the cautious pauses on display in his press conference on the first day of the trip.

The president seemed to have branded the event in his mind on one hand as a young person’s moment, wearing his flowing, casual style like a hip jacket – he jogged onto the stage as if stumping in Ohio, practically catching the audience by surprise; on the other hand, his speech seemed designed to plant tiny seeds of big ideas, through the gravitas and sensitivity of his words.

He gave the old standard of America being Israel’s best friend; he joked and he played the “sahbak” – chummy pal – and cracked out some strategically placed words in Hebrew. The reassurance factor could not have been stronger, and when it reached its peak, he turned to the “but.” There was no more caring way to say it: as a friend, tough things need to be said sometimes. He pre-empted rejection by acknowledging that not everyone would like what he had to say and then spent substantial moments humanizing Palestinians (if this sounds colonialist and patronizing to Palestinians, the sad truth is that Israeli society needs it). He described their rights and the constraints on those rights, through daily tribulations. For a moment there, I felt he was bringing the occupation to the Jerusalem convention center. There is much more that could have been said but for an Israeli mainstream audience in the heart of Jerusalem, it was as bold as a U.S. president could be expected to provide.

Did the audience hear it? Did they want to hear it?

The students who gathered in uncharacteristically patient crowds...

An examination of Israeli public opinion toward U.S. President Obama and the two-state solution. The picture isn’t as bleak as the mainstream media might lead you to believe.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama and Israeli ambassador to Washington Michael Oren at Ben Gurion airport, March 20 2013 (photo: Government Press Office)

As President Obama continues his meetings in the region today, making the rounds to Ramallah and then back to Jerusalem, it is useful to keep in mind some trends regarding public opinion. Here are two specific themes that are relevant for this trip – attitudes towards the two-state solution to which he and his main interlocutors are so committed, and attitudes towards him.

Regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Joint Israeli Palestinian Polls by the Truman Institute at Hebrew University show that Israeli and Palestinian public has very little hope for any sort of peace agreement: over 60 percent on both sides do not believe there is a chance of reaching such an agreement at this stage. The full data is available here from the Truman Institute at the Hebrew University.

The survey also tested the “whole package,” by asking respondents separately about specific clauses of an agreement, based mainly on the Clinton/Geneva parameters regarding final borders and territorial exchange, a demilitarized Palestinian state, refugees, security, Jerusalem, and the “end of conflict” clause. Here are the results:

•  Among Israelis, a 56 percent majority supports the plan and 40 percent are opposed – this is almost the same data as the previous year.

•  Among Palestinians, a majority of 53 percent opposes the plan and 46 percent supports it – a significant change from last year, when the population was split, but 50 percent supported it. Apparently somewhere between Operation Pillar of Defense and the UN bid, which hasn’t changed much so far, Palestinians lost some motivation for the two-state plan along the way.

However, another study shows the Israeli public is losing patience with some aspects of the permanent conflict for internal reasons. In an internet survey commissioned by a grassroots movement called “Electing a social budget” just prior to the January elections, respondents were asked about the extent of...

On March 5, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which works with Palestinian refugees, announced it was cancelling its third international marathon in Gaza in mid-April. The race was called off due to the decision of the Hamas leaders in Gaza not to allow women to participate.

The woman in me was deeply relieved at UNRWA’s decision – as a statement to Hamas that such chauvinism cannot be supported by international bodies. The marathon runner in me was crushed, for all those who registered and trained. Roughly one month before, most runners would have been completing their 25-30km training runs – a huge commitment, involving long hours of determination and stamina.

As a political analyst, I was struck by the strange wording of the UNRWA announcement, which referred to the ban on women’s participation by “the authorities.” UNRWA seemed to be consciously avoiding the word “Hamas,” as if not using the name limits Hamas presence in reality. If so, it’s not a great strategy; denying the existence of a group that seeks legitimacy will probably just spur its insistence on recognition.

Further, the response by a Hamas spokesperson quoted in the New York Times was a clear political message:

Hamas thus claims to represent the Palestinian people’s “traditions and customs,” not just their political aspirations. But genuine traditions and customs should not have to be “regulated” by a government, especially if it’s not a government event; the statement is therefore a rather self-conscious assertion, or creation of identity. According to the New York Times, roughly 250 women from Gaza were registered to run who apparently do not subscribe to Hamas’ version of Palestinian customs and traditions, not to mention their families and supporters, or, for that matter, the men who registered knowing women would be participating but were unfazed.

As an activist, I groaned imagining the inevitable right-wing and even some left-wing voices in Israel saying: ‘See? They oppress women.’ The argument will then be used to justify strange and unrelated points: ‘So why do people think Israel is the bad guy? How can the Palestinians be peace partners?’ I only had to think this for it to come true, as I began hearing such comments within hours after the decision.

These arguments are truly dim-witted.  So Palestinian society has leaders who suppress women, and that’s an excuse to give up on resolving the conflict? That...