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...

Protest against prisoner conditions in Israeli jails will not prevent anger and delegitimization of PA law enforcement system for its own violations.

A Palestinian prisoner being held on charges connected to a stabbing died in a Palestinian Authority jail in Jericho on Friday, according to a Jerusalem Post and Ma’an News Agency. The articles report that the Palestinian attorney general ordered and launched an investigation into the death and an autopsy. Palestinian officials have said that Ayman Samarah, 40, was not tortured, but suffered from diabetes and high blood pressure and was taken to a hospital on Friday after being arrested; there are conflicting reports about whether he died in prison or in the hospital and the Post cites Palestinians in Jericho saying he was beaten by other prisoners. Families of prisoners have reportedly held a sit-in near the prison.

The PA law enforcement system has been guilty of human rights violations its treatment of detainees in the past. The practice of arresting people and holding them without charges or trial has become familiar in Israel and Palestine, writes Human Rights Watch – familiar, one might add, for Palestinians. Also in 2008, a 27-year old died in PA custody; the Palestinian Center for Human Rights called for an investigation.

In a recent and highly publicized case, Zakaria Zubeidi – a former militant who turned to non-violent cultural resistance and co-founded the Freedom Theater in Jenin – was arrested last May and held for roughly five months without trial. He spoke of torture, solitary confinement and denial of access to lawyers, and went on a hunger strike to protest his detention before being released on bail last October.

For the time being, the Palestinian judicial system appears to retain some measure of legitimacy among the Palestinian people. When Zubeidi was released, he gave a press conference reiterating his accusations, but he also affirmed his faith in the system.

Is there growing realization within Israeli society that the social, political, moral, and military basis of the occupation is unsustainable? If so, perhaps ‘The Gatekeepers’ need not change people’s minds, so much as express them.

The Gatekeepers (photo: Sony Pictures)

A college professor once taught me that a decaying empire clenches onto power with a chokehold. Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian people may not be an empire, but after nearly forty-six years, it has become a sort of reigning paradigm of Israeli life. The Israeli Left has challenged, but never truly shifted, that paradigm.

In 2009 a particularly right-wing government was established after a particularly nasty war in Gaza, and the sense of urgency among left-wing Israelis increased. Suddenly new movements and parties were established, joint Israeli-Palestinian protest actions became routine, while new, independent media emerged in the cybersphere. Three films released in the last two years opened up highly original avenues of critical inquiry, to international acclaim. Two are currently Academy Award nominees for best documentary: The Gatekeepers and Five Broken Cameras; the third, The Law in These Parts, won a documentary prize at the Sundance Film Festival in 2012.

Together, the films provide a hard-hitting cinematic indictment of the occupation by Israeli filmmakers. Cameras (with Israeli and Palestinian co-directors) shows the Palestinian experience of protesting against the separation wall; The Law in These Parts is a fascinating exploration of how the military (in)justice system was elaborately tailored by some of the country’s best legal minds to legitimize and entrench the occupation. Despite their success abroad, both films remain somewhat remote for mainstream Israelis, for whom Palestinian resistance to Israeli security policy is of little interest, and legal intrigue of the occupation is no great scoop.

The Gatekeepers, directed by Dror Moreh, is poised to have the greatest possible impact on the Israeli public, because it tackles the arena closest to that public’s heart: the security establishment. The film is a candid series of interviews with six former heads of the legendary Shin Bet, Israel’s Internal Security Agency, who criticize the state’s policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians, inlaid with documentation and computer-simulated portrayals of historic events that are part of the Israeli national canon. It is also reportedly going to become a television mini-series on Israel’s state Channel 1.

Israelis...

One simple answer to the question of why elections matter is that I feel part of something when I vote in Israel. Being away for four months, living deep inside the world of other peoples’ conflicts, provided a few more answers.

Israelis voting in the 2013 Knesset elections (photo: Yotam Ronen / Activestills)

For the first time since moving to Israel 15 years ago, I was not in the county on election day yesterday. Since Israel has no absentee voting for regular citizens, I was not able to participate.

Given the wild demonization of the Left over the last few years, some people probably wonder why I even care. My colleagues at +972 Magazine and I regularly face numerous accusations, from being Israel-haters and extremists, to traitors.

Critics on the other side, and some Palestinians, question the legitimacy of elections in Israel in general. The elections yesterday not only didn’t end the occupation, a policy that destroys Israeli democracy, but even if a center-right government emerges it is likely to perpetuate the current policy. In that view, participating in these elections as an exercise in democracy is an act of auto-hypnosis, complicity in a hypocritical sham in order to languish in our privilege.

But I do care. When I received my Israeli identity card in 1997, I took it out for coffee on the busy thoroughfare of Ibn Gabirol Street, named after the 11^th century poet whose literature has been my father’s lifelong subject of study. I put it on the table, and said to my new ID card (silently, so I wouldn’t be taken for mad): “Now we’re in it for good, you and I. I hope we make each other into something better than we would be alone.”

It was young, it was romantic, it was probably even hubris. But one simple answer to the question of why elections matter is that I feel part of something when I vote in Israel.

Being away for four months, living deep inside the world of other peoples’ conflicts, provided a few more answers.

Cyprus, like Israel, has struggled with a tragic conflict for 50 years. Like Israel, the two sides can hardly even agree on the history of the conflict. For...

E1 should be a serious wake-up call for American policymakers, Michael Cohen argues below. If the controversial building project in the West Bank goes forward, he writes, it’s time to start saying what everyone in Washington knows – the two-state solution will die and the U.S. risks supporting a future of apartheid.

By Michael Cohen

If there is one singular, yet frustratingly unattainable idea that has animated the Arab-Israeli peace process for the past two decades it is that of a two-state solution to the conflict – a Zionist and a Palestinian state living next to each other in peace within the confines of the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

It is an aspiration mouthed by all sides in the conflict – by the current Israeli prime minister, the head of the Palestinian Authority and U.S. and European policymakers – even if confidence in the achievement of this long-sought after goal seems more distant than ever, even if the present Israeli government has demonstrated little apparent interest in seeing its realization and even if we are perhaps further away from its realization at any point since Oslo.

The fact that the two-state solution is receding is too rarely uttered. For this reason, the recent announcement by the Israeli government that it intends to ramp up settlement growth in the West Bank, and begin construction planning in the E1 area, which connects Jerusalem to the Israeli settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim, is both so controversial and also so clarifying.

Indeed, reaction to the Israelis government’s announcement has been loud and furious, from the threat of European countries to recall their ambassadors from Tel Aviv to the stern response from Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, one of only nine countries to support Israel in the UN General Assembly during the recent vote on Palestinian statehood at the United Nations. Even the United States has criticized the Netanyahu government and by all accounts gave its European allies a green light to apply diplomatic pressure on Israel.

The reason is not simply because of Israel’s continued flaunting of global public opinion, the spirit of the Oslo agreement and the positions of its allies in the United States and Europe (and also the humiliation of its one legitimate Palestinian ally, President Abbas) but rather because construction in E1 would make it practically impossible for a contiguous and viable Palestinian state with East...

It’s easy to disagree with Israelis about many things. But two new polls show that on key current issues, the public is at least thinking rationally and seeing clearly:

*On Gaza, the majority know that Israel is no better off after the war in Gaza, and that the ceasefire won’t hold.

*On the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the majority supports negotiations, supports the basic outlines of the Arab peace initiative and knows that the Palestinians cannot simply be beaten.

*The majority acknowledges discrimination against Arabs in Israel, and a strong majority believes democracy is either more important than Jewishness of the state, or that they are equally important.

The data here comes from the most recent survey by Shibley Telhami and Steven Kull of the University of Maryland (always an excellent resource) and the Peace Index by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research and Israel Democracy Institute. Both samples were surveyed following the war with Gaza (Telhami and Kull’s research began just hours before the ceasefire began), with 600 respondents in the U. of Maryland poll, and 598 in the Peace Index. Both therefore have just a small sample of Arab respondents.

Gaza. Israelis do believe that the war was justified in light of the results – the Jews (84 percent), with Arabs evenly divided. Forty percent of Jews and one-quarter of Arabs believe Israel’s deterrence power is better than before the war, according to the Peace Index; the remainder think it is the same or weaker (or have no opinion).

But people hold no illusions about having solved any problems: just 19 percent believe that the ceasefire will last more than a year; the majority, 54 percent, believe it will last between a few months up to one year, in the Peace Index. The remainder say it’s only a matter of days or weeks until further fighting.

And just 37 percent believe that the government actually fulfilled its goals (without specifying what those goals were) – with no real difference between Jews and Arabs. Over half of both groups believe that only some or none of the goals were achieved. Only one-quarter (27 percent) in the U. of Maryland survey believes that a military approach can solve the Gaza problem at all.

So why do Israelis justify the war? Mostly because they believe Israel had to respond in self-defense to the rocket fire and this...

While commentators say the vote is merely symbolic, at least for Palestinians and the international community, the vote could be a game-changing  kind of symbol.

Celebration in Ramallah over the Palestinian statehood bid, November 29, 2012 (photo: Activestills)

One week ago, the request to the UN General Assembly to grant Palestine status as a non-member observer state looked like a poor stepchild of the highly anticipated first “UN route” just over one year ago. The buildup to September 2011 was long; yet until about a week ago, it wasn’t even clear whether the current vote would really happen.

The 2011 application for UN membership turned into an anticlimax. This year, the dark-horse diplomacy won: 138 member states voted in favor and the emotional echoes of 1947 were hard to ignore.

But, detractors say, the vote cannot change the Palestinians’ main complaints against Israel: settlement expansion, restrictions on movement, division between Gaza and the West Bank, life under military occupation. Therefore it’s “symbolic,” meaning, meaningless. And it’s true that at present, the vote may mean more in people’s minds than in their daily lives. But when did hearts and minds become insignificant? Consider how the lead-up and the vote itself has already resonated for three major actors: Palestinians (leaders and people); Israel; and the international community. Each of those, of course, contains essential sub-communities – this is just a broad-strokes starting point.

International Reaction

Despite anodyne comments like this New York Times editorial, the international community put on a fairly nail-biting drama leading up to the vote. That the U.S. rejected the bid is no surprise; but France’s support was a powerful victory for the Palestinians. Germany’s decision to abstain, when translated from diplo-speak into English, is a critical shift: given historical constraints on defying the Israeli government, this is a clear sign of support for Palestinian statehood. The UK first rejected the idea, then very nearly found a way to say yes, and settled on abstaining – a very weak no.  Spain’s support for the resolution is also major statement, considering that it breaks Spain’s with its own policy of not recognizing Kosovo. Spain has steadfastly resisted recognizing the latter, despite being one of the last five EU...

As if the heartache over the escalation and its appalling predictability isn’t enough, as if the pain of watching whole communities cower under rockets while planning the next decade of psychotherapy for children isn’t enough, as if fresh Israeli and Palestinian deaths isn’t enough, the IDF sent the following message on its Twitter feed:

Here’s what this poster says: 1. The IDF promotes extra-judicial killing as punishment for crimes committed with no due process (past terror attacks and kidnapping) 2. The IDF thinks that portraying Israel as the Terminator is a GOOD thing, showing fundamental disconnect with the language of modern diplomacy and current political sensibilities about the conflict.  3. The killing is absurdly divorced from the larger picture: the conflict, the Gaza policy, the occupation, actually it landed on us ex nihilo, or from the moon. 4. The whole conflict can be reduced to a big joke: if we present a Hollywood poster, preferably bathed in scary blood red, we’ll win! But personal commentary aside, what the poster is really trying to say is: we had no choice. This was our only option.

I find this an insult to all victims of the conflict and the current escalation.

Soon, there will be the inevitable chorus of voices self-righteously proclaiming why there cannot be negotiations, concessions, end of the conflict or at least end of occupation. I’ve had enough of the smug pride in insisting there’s no other choice but military force. If the escalation is viewed as ex nihilo, big bad terrorists against righteous Rambo, well – they are right.

So, while I usually prefer to concentrate on the future, it’s impossible never to consider what would or could have been. This time I can’t help considering just for a moment an alternate scenario.

Just over one year ago, the Fatah leadership presented its statehood bid to the United Nations. Had Israel not blocked the effort hermetically – forcing America to kill the process by steadfastly viewing statehood as an anti-Israel notion, what might have happened?

We can’t know. But Israel could have realized that Palestinian statehood basically along 1967 parameters was in its national interest. (For the record, I still don’t understand why it didn’t.) While the government would still have rejected the unilateral process through political posturing, Israel could have quietly unblocked...

Anat Hoffman, longtime crusader for the advancement of progressive Judaism in Israel and a tireless activist for the rights of women to partake in religious traditions, was arrested last month while saying the Shma prayer at the Western Wall. Hoffman, the Executive Director of the Israel Religious Action Center and one of the founders of Women of the Wall (and a former Jerusalem City councilwoman) is no stranger to the law: it was the sixth time she has been arrested. Yet she says she has never been charged. When I interviewed her nine days later at a conference in Germany, the 58-year-old still had pink scars on her wrist, a story better than Alice’s Restaurant, and a fighting spirit. 

Anat Hoffman of Women of the Wall (Nshot Ha-Kotel) arrested at the Western Wall, Old City of Jerusalem (photo: Women of the Wall)

What was the back story behind your recent arrest while praying at the women’s section of the Western Wall?

The Wall is totally managed by The Western Wall Heritage Fund, it’s quasi-governmental, but not managed like any NGO that I know. People sit there for decades and according to the NGO Registrar, they’re all Haredi (ultra-orthodox) men.

Rav Shmuel Rabinovich is the head. He decides to enforce the rules of the Kotel (Western Wall). Some he enforces, some he ignores. For example, he enforces modest dress, prohibition of performing religious acts that offend the feelings of others – these are the regulations within the laws of holy places. But he’s completely lax on regulation 7: no begging at the Wall.  it’s plagued with people who are begging, but I’ve never seen a policeman tell anyone to leave.

I can’t distribute a shred of paper at the wall; Chabad distributes parshat hashavua (the weekly Torah portion) regularly, I’m not allowed to bring my own prayer book to the Wall – we have our own … The wall is run like an ultra-orthodox synagogue.

So when women show up on Rosh Hodesh (the new moon), the rabbi knows when I’m coming. The people from his fund go straight to the police and schmooze with them devising a strategy for...