1.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: An alarming new report
shows the infant mortality rate in Gaza has risen for the first time in more
than 50 years. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees found that until now, the number of babies dying before the age of one
has consistently fallen in the past five decades in Gaza.
Meanwhile, the
family of an 18-month Palestinian baby and father killed in an arson attack by
Jewish settlers reportedly will not be entitled to the same government
compensation granted Israeli victims of terror. On Tuesday, the Israeli
newspaper Haaretz reported the Israeli law governing such compensation
applies only to Israeli citizens and residents, as well as West Bank settlers.
Palestinian victims must apply to a special interministerial exceptions
committee under the Israeli Defense Ministry. Earlier this month, thousands of
mourners in the West Bank attended the funeral of the Palestinian father, Saad
Dawabsheh, who succumbed to severe burn injuries just eight days after trying
to save his son, Ali, from the arson attack. This is Taha Dawabsheh, a relative
of the family.
2.
TAHA DAWABSHEH: [translated] First, we
condemn this ugly crime, which happened for the first time in history. People
were sleeping, and the bats of the night came upon them to burn them. A toddler
was killed a week ago, and his father died today. And we hope his mother and
brother, Ahmed, recover in the hospital. We ask the community and all the free
people of the world to help us and stand with us and our people, and we ask for
protection committees for our village against the settlers.
3.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Meanwhile, Jewish and
Palestinian women are holding a hunger strike outside Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu’s residence in Jerusalem to call for a renewal of peace negotiations.
Members of the group Women Wage Peace have been fasting for the past month in
alternating shifts, sitting in an open-air tent and inviting passersby to
discuss how best to wage peace. The group has dubbed their mission Operation
Protective Fast, a twist on Operation Protective Edge, Israel’s military
operation that left 2,200 Palestinians, including 550 children, dead last
summer. On the Israeli side, 73 people were killed, all but six of them
soldiers. The attack destroyed 12,000 homes in Gaza; another 100,000 were
damaged. None of the destroyed homes have been rebuilt so far, due in part to
the ongoing Israeli blockade. Women Wage Peace are urging Israeli cabinet and
Knesset members to prioritize peace talks with Palestinians.
Well, our guest for
the hour suggests the best chance for achieving a lasting peace in
Israel-Palestine lies not in Netanyahu, but the United Nations Security
Council, with the U.S.’s support, presenting both parties with clear terms for
resumed peace talks. In a Democracy Now! special, we spend the hour with
Henry Siegman, the former executive director of the American Jewish Congress,
long described as one of the nation’s “big three” Jewish organizations along
with the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. Siegman was
born in 1930 in Frankfurt, Germany. Three years later, the Nazis came to power.
After fleeing Nazi troops in Belgium, his family eventually moved to the United
States. His father was a leader of the European Zionist movement, pushing for
the creation of a Jewish state. He later became head of the Synagogue Council
of America. After his time at the American Jewish Congress, Siegman became a
senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He now serves as president
of the U.S./Middle East Project.
Amy Goodman spoke to Siegman in May, shortly after he published a piece in The New York
Times called “Give Up on Netanyahu, Go to the United Nations.”
4.
AMY GOODMAN: So, why don’t you start off
by talking about just what you are suggesting President Obama do?
5.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, what I am suggesting
he do, and what many others have suggested, as well, indeed for some time now,
is that he finally act on a truth, that he understood for quite some time
now—namely, that any government that is headed by Netanyahu not only is
disinterested in pursuing a two-state solution, but indeed sees as its primary
mission and goal, policy goal, is to prevent a two-state agreement. And he and
his various governments have acted on the assumption that there is no
occupation, that there may be disputes about how much land Israel has a right
to annex to the state of Israel in the West Bank, but Palestinians do not have
any particular right, certainly not a right greater than Israel has, to any
part of the West Bank. That has been the working assumption of every government
headed by Netanyahu. So for that reason, we have said
for a long time to the president, in various communications and meetings with
the Department of State and other—the White House over the years, [Whatever
that means.] that the peace process, the bilateral talks that have taken place,
are all bound to fail, unless America’s diplomacy is based on a recognition of
this fundamental truth, that left to their own devices, Israelis will
never agree—an Israeli government will never agree to a two-state solution that
is remotely acceptable to the Palestinians. Consequently, it seems clear
that the only way a two-state accord can be reached is if the U.N. Security
Council, a third party—and of course the most reasonable third party to take
the lead is the Security Council, because the various resolutions on a
two-state solution adopted by the Security Council are the foundation of any
peace process.
6.
AMY GOODMAN: In March, newly re-elected
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to walk back his pre-election
vow not to allow a Palestinian state. A day before the election, when asked if
he was ruling out establishing a Palestinian state under his tenure, Netanyahu
replied, quote, “Indeed.” But he later tried to backtrack in an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, after
tremendous international outcry.
7.
PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU:
I haven’t changed my policy. I never retracted my speech in Bar-Ilan University six
years ago calling for a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the
Jewish state. What has changed is the reality. Abu Mazen, the Palestinian
leader, refuses to recognize the Jewish state, has made a pact with Hamas that
calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. And every territory that is
vacated today in the Middle East is taken up by Islamist forces. So—
8.
ANDREA MITCHELL: But they are
saying—
9.
PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU:
We want that to change, so we can realize a vision of real, sustained peace.
And I don’t want a—I don’t want a one-state solution. I want a sustainable,
peaceful two-state solution, but for that, circumstances have to change.
10.
AMY GOODMAN: In the final days of the
campaign, Netanyahu stressed his right-wing positions. He visited the Har Homa
settlement and vowed to ramp up the construction of more settlements in
occupied East Jerusalem. And he unequivocally ruled out allowing a Palestinian
state, reneging on his nominal 2009 endorsement of a two-state solution. On
Election Day, he also railed against Israel’s Arab voters.
11.
PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU:
[translated] Right-wing rule is in danger. Arab voters are streaming in mass to
the polling stations. The left-wing nonprofit organizations are bringing them
in buses. Go out to the polling station, bring your friends and family, and
vote Likud, in order to close the gap between us and the Labor Party. With your
help and God’s help, we will form a national government and protect the state
of Israel.
12.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that was Prime Minister
Netanyahu in his election campaigning. Henry Siegman, on the issue of Arab
voters and on the issue of the two-state solution?
13.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes. Well, one has to
be extremely naïve to have waited for this admission and declaration, proud
declaration, by Netanyahu that he never meant it, that when he embraced the
two-state solution, he was lying, since it was not true. If one had to wait
until then to conclude that he really has never meant to proceed with a
two-state peace accord, for the simple reason that every action taken under by
his government with respect to Palestinians who live past the ‘67 border, every
action he has taken was consistent with Israel’s ultimate permanent control of
all of the territories, beginning with, of course, the settlement project. How
is it conceivable that a government that is serious about reaching a two-state
accord, a viable two-state accord, not just for Israel, but for the
Palestinians, one they could conceivably accept, cuts the ground from under
that state in the most literal sense, by annexing it to the state of Israel? So, if somebody had to wait until he made that statement, I
mean, that’s—for diplomats, that’s rather pathetic. What it really suggests is
that, because they’re not stupid—they may be inept, but they’re not stupid. And they understood, from the beginning,
that they were dealing with a prime minister who had no intention whatever of
yielding Israel’s control. So they had to pretend that they believed that in
order for their diplomacy to go forward. Otherwise, you know, they are
unemployed.
14.
AMY GOODMAN: And his call for Jewish
voters to come out to counter the Arab vote?
15.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes, well, that tells
you something about his commitment to a democratic state of Israel.
16.
AMY GOODMAN: And the fact that he tried
to walk—and the fact that he tried to walk back his statement against a
two-state solution?
17.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes, and he reverted to his
earlier diplomacy, as it were, because this has been his strategy from the very
beginning, to put—he had to balance, on the one hand, his determination never
to yield control over the West Bank with a public posture that enables the
United States at least to pretend that a two-state solution is possible if the
two parties negotiate successfully. And this, he has done wonderfully. So, the
fact that he walked it back is really utterly meaningless.
18.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about Netanyahu’s
formation of a new government and who he has chosen to be his ministers.
19.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Just
to follow up on your previous question, the—he has now come out with a new
ploy, which is—again, so wonderfully consistent with the totally dishonest
approach he has had, from his very first government that he headed—to the issue
of a two-state—ultimate two-state agreement. He has now proposed to the
Palestinians that they sit down and negotiate the borders of the settlements. Now,
on the one hand, that creates the impression that, A, he wants to negotiate—he
wants a peace process—and secondly, he is open to some kind of agreement that
might ultimately lead to a state, without yielding or in any way walking back
his position that there is no ‘67 border, and consequently, there is no reason
why Israel is obliged to withdraw from the territories. Now, I would hope that the Palestinians—quite clearly, they’re not going
to be taken in by this. But it would be interesting if they were to say, “Fine,
it’s a wonderful proposal, but let’s do this in a fair way. Let us also discuss
what we are permitted to do on your side of the ‘67 border, what settlements we
can have there and what the borders of those settlements will be.” And it’s
unfortunate that they have not challenged Netanyahu’s government in that way.
20.
AMY GOODMAN: Why do you think they haven’t?
21.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, I think it’s just
inept. I mean, this whole question of the eptness of Palestinian leadership is
a very sad story—or I should say the ineptness of Palestinian leadership. The fact that they agreed, going back to the Olso
Accords, or even going back to their—this goes back to 1988, their acceptance
of Israel’s legitimacy. One would have thought they would have said, at
least conditionally, “We will be—we’re ready to accept and declare, affirm
Israel’s legitimacy, if Israel is prepared to affirm the legitimacy of a
Palestinian state along the pre-’67 borders.” The fact that they did not do
that and did not even raise the issue of settlements was a massive, massive
blunder, and, I think, prepared—made it possible for Netanyahus, people like
him, to play the game that they’ve played.
22.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Former executive director
of the American Jewish Congress, Henry Siegman. He’s now president of the
U.S./Middle East Project. We’ll air more of Amy Goodman’s interview with him in
a minute. [break] That’s
“Palestinian Heritage” by Naseer Shamma. This is Democracy Now!,
democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Nermeen Shaikh. We
continue our conversation with Henry Siegman, the former executive director of
the American Jewish Congress, long described as one of the nation’s “big three”
Jewish organizations along with the American Jewish Committee and the
Anti-Defamation League. His father was a leader of the European Zionist
movement, pushing for the creation of a Jewish state. Henry Siegman now serves
as president of the U.S./Middle East Project. Amy
Goodman sat down with him in late May.
23.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to the issue of
the ministers that—
24.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Yeah.
25.
AMY GOODMAN: —Prime Minister Netanyahu
has now chosen working with him. Earlier this month, he appointed Knesset member Ayelet Shaked
as his justice minister. During Israel’s summer 2014 attack on Gaza,
she approvingly posted an article on her Facebook page that called for the
destruction of, quote, “the entire Palestinian people, including its elderly
and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its
infrastructure.”
26.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes. Let me give you the
list of appointees, ministerial and deputy ministerial appointees, beginning
with Ayelet Shaked.
All of them—and there is Hotovely, who is now
the deputy minister for the—of the Foreign Ministry. But since there is no
foreign minister, she, in fact, will be running the Foreign Ministry. She
has—the very first thing she did after her appointment was send out
instructions to ambassadors, Israeli ambassadors across the world, to inform
governments to which they have been assigned that the Bible specifically quotes
God granting all of Palestine to the Jews, and consequently, the state of
Israel will retain all of Palestine, because it follows the word of God. That’s
Hotovely.
Then there is Shaked, and you have
just the minute—this is the minister of justice. This is her concept of
justice, how to deal with the Palestinians.
Then there’s Miri Regev, who was appointed the minister of culture.
And her very first public statement in that capacity was that she
just looks forward anxiously to—it’s the term she used—to censor the work of
the artistic community and to prevent them from creating art that insults the
state of Israel. That’s the minister of culture.
Then there’s the minister—the deputy minister of
defense, Eli Dahan. Now, all of these appointments, every single one
of them, is on record as opposing a two-state solution, a lifelong record of
opposition to a two-state solution. And Dahan is the one who thought, along
with his minister, the full minister of defense, both of them thought it’s a
wonderful idea to have Palestinians limited to separate buses, the ones who
live in the West Bank and travel to Israel, and not to permit them to travel in
the same buses that Israeli Jews travel in. So that’s Dahan.
Then he appointed a Silvan Shalom as the
new head of the—the
new chief of peace negotiations, should they resume—again, a person
who is on record as bitterly opposed to a two-state solution. And on and on. He
just—
27.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s talk about Dore Gold, who is the former
Israeli ambassador to the United Nations.
28.
HENRY SIEGMAN: And there’s Dore Gold, exactly,
exactly, who is now the
new director of the Foreign Ministry. And he, too, has a lifelong
record of total opposition to a Palestinian state.
29.
AMY GOODMAN: And extremely hawkish on
Iran.
30.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Yeah, exactly. So, you
know, when you look at that, you look at a government that is made up of people
who are either racists, out-and-out racists, and people who are totally opposed
to a two-state agreement, while at the same time being opposed to granting
Palestinians in the West Bank Israeli citizenship. You somehow can’t avoid this
terrible realization that this state of Israel, that the Jewish people has
prayed for, has supported, has seen as a historic change in the situation of
Jews worldwide, has a government that is a racist government.
On my way down here, I recalled that some
years ago—I think about 15 years ago—the Austrian government formed a new
government that included the head of a right-wing political party, Haider. And
the American Jewish community, as well as every organization in Europe, led a
global campaign to convince governments to boycott that government because of
that one racist and an extreme nationalist, a xenophobe, who was in that
government. And, in fact, Europe, the European Union, decided to boycott him.
Here we have a government that has at
least a half a dozen xenophobes, right-wing nationalists and racists.
31.
AMY GOODMAN: Democracy Now!
recently spoke to John
Dugard, the former U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the
Palestinian territories. He’s
now professor emeritus of international law at the University of Leiden in the
Netherlands. He was born in South Africa. We spoke to him at The
Hague, and he compared Israel to apartheid South Africa.
32.
JOHN DUGARD: I’m a South
African who lived through apartheid. I have no hesitation in saying that Israel’s
crimes are infinitely worse than those committed by the apartheid regime of
South Africa. ... For seven years, I visited the Palestinian territory twice a
year. I also conducted a fact-finding mission after the Operation Cast Lead in
Gaza in 2008, 2009. So I am familiar with the situation, and I am familiar with
the apartheid situation. I was a human rights lawyer in apartheid South Africa.
And I, like virtually every South African who visits the occupied territory,
has a terrible sense of déjà vu. We’ve seen it all before, except that it is
infinitely worse. And what has happened in the West Bank is that the creation
of a settlement enterprise has resulted in a situation that closely resembles that
of apartheid, in which the settlers are the equivalent of white South Africans.
They enjoy superior rights over Palestinians, and they do oppress Palestinians.
So, one does have a system of apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territory.
And I might mention that apartheid is also a crime within the competence of the
International Criminal Court.
33.
AMY GOODMAN: So those are the
words of John Dugard, the former U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the
Palestinian territories, originally from South Africa. Henry Siegman?
34.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, even before he made
the statement, several years ago, an Israeli prime minister said that.
35.
AMY GOODMAN: Who?
36.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Olmert said that.
37.
AMY GOODMAN: Ehud Olmert.
38.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes. He said specifically
that. He said that if we are not prepared to return virtually all, if not
all—and this is a direct quote—”if not all of the territories” beyond the ‘67
border to the Palestinians, and to share Jerusalem, he said, we are not serious
about wanting peace. And he said the consequence of this will be that Israel,
while we can—while we can have disagreements about the border, but if we do not
follow through on what is necessary for a peace accord, we will be seen as an
apartheid state, because we will be an apartheid state. Now, he said that. And
he said this is the great danger, if we delay reaching an agreement with the
Palestinian that gives them a state of their own along the ‘67 borders. And he
said, if we don’t do that, then we may lose the support of American Jews,
because apartheid is something that they cannot accept.
I recall telling
him at the time, “You are right about apartheid, but I’m afraid you probably
are not right about American Jews, because, in fact, apartheid, you don’t have
to wait until there is a majority of Palestinians, when you add the
Palestinians who live—Arab citizens of Israel to the ones in the West Bank and
in Gaza—you don’t have to wait until they are a majority and they are totally
disenfranchised or are second-class citizens. Even as a minority, a minority
that has to live under these conditions, you have apartheid today. It exists
now. It’s not a future danger. And the problem is, if you keep identifying as a
future danger instead of recognizing that it’s a present reality, you will
never reach that future, you will never recognize the truth of the system that
you have there.”
39.
AMY GOODMAN: So what did then-Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert respond to you?
40.
HENRY SIEGMAN: He did not disagree very
violently.
41.
AMY GOODMAN: So, why didn’t something
change then?
42.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, he claims that he—he
said that this is why he has—why he negotiated with Abbas. And he claims—he has
claimed ever since—that if it were not for the war in Gaza, for which he was
also in large part responsible, if it were not for the war in Gaza, those
negotiations would have produced a two-state accord. And Abbas has confirmed
this. He has said—he confirmed what Ehud Olmert has claimed ever since, namely
that they had—that Abbas never walked away from those negotiations. Because
Abbas was accused by the Israeli right to have turned down the most generous
terms ever offered him by Prime Minister Olmert. And he said that this is not
true. Olmert
has said, in fact, he never walked away. What happened was that the Gaza war
interrupted the negotiations, and they never were able to resume it, because at
that point he came under—you may recall, he came under very severe criticism
for some of his dealings with the paper bags filled with cash that were being
handed to him.
43.
AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, can you talk
about what you call the center-left opposition to Netanyahu, the Zionist Union of Yitzhak
Herzog and Tzipi Livni?
44.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, Tzipi Livni and
Herzog can be counted on to spearhead an
opposition, specifically on the issues of Israel’s democratic character, to
oppose efforts that will be undertaken from the word go by this new government.
[This motherfucker’s high.] We talked earlier about Ayelet Shaked. She
declared that her—one of her main missions will be to undermine Israel’s
Supreme Court and its ability to pass judgment on the constitutionality of laws
passed by the Knesset that deprive the minority of its rights. So, I have no
doubt that Herzog and
Tzipi Livni will put up a very good fight and seek to prevent Shaked
from achieving her goal, although there is a great deal of support within the
Israeli Knesset today to do that to the Supreme Court.
But on the issue of
the peace process, they are—the Labor Party and those affiliated with it, the
other parties affiliated with it, are as incapable of reaching a two-state
agreement without outside interference, without the Security Council or the
United States taking a strong position, not very likely, but at least allowing
the United States, allowing the Security Council to define very clear—a very
clear framework for a permanent status agreement and not leave that up to the
parties themselves. Without that, it’s not going to happen, because they have
now—take this last election, this recent election. Despite the fact that
different people, particularly in the media, tried to get a clear statement
from Herzog and Livni about a two-state accord that is based on the ‘67 lines,
they refused to commit the party to that. So, there’s just no way that they
will produce an agreement that is conceivably acceptable to even the most
moderate Palestinian leader without resort to the Security Council.
45.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Henry Siegman, the former
executive director of the American Jewish Congress. We’ll be back with more in
a minute. [break] That was “String Quintet Number 4 in G Minor,”
composed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. This is Democracy Now!,
democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Nermeen Shaikh. We
continue our conversation with Henry Siegman, the former executive director of
the American Jewish Congress. Over the years, Siegman has become a vocal critic
of Israel’s policies in the Occupied Territories and has urged Israel to engage
with Hamas. He has called the Palestinian struggle for a state, quote, “the
mirror image of the Zionist movement” that led to the founding of Israel in
1948. Amy Goodman interviewed Siegman in May right
after he published an op-ed in The New York
Times.
46.
AMY GOODMAN: So lay out, once again, as
you did in The New York Times op-ed
piece, “Give Up on Netanyahu, Go to the United Nations,” what you think the
steps need to be right now.
47.
HENRY SIEGMAN: The steps that need to be
taken first is for the United States to develop a framework terms of reference
for a permanent status agreement, based on the ‘67 lines, the sharing of Jerusalem
and so on. If it is not prepared to do that itself, then it should at least ask
the Security Council to do that. For that—for those terms of reference, either
American terms of reference or Security Council terms of reference are to be
presented to the parties and to say, “We would like you to reach an accord
directly, in direct negotiations, without our interference. But here is a
timeframe, not just terms of reference, but a timeframe within which you much
reach such an agreement. If you can’t, then we, the Security Council, will
resume the process, and we will come up with a formula for the resolution of
each of the permanent status issues that will be obligatory and will have to be
implemented by the parties.” And the Security Council, of course, under Chapter
VII, has the authority to take measures, sanctions, to see that this is
implemented.
48.
AMY GOODMAN: And realistically, do you
see President Obama doing this, in a sense, ceding power to the United Nations?
49.
HENRY SIEGMAN: I cannot tell you that I have
great—I have great expectations that he will do that. I think that he has at
least the possibility—or there exists the possibility, since he, himself, has
called for a reassessment of U.S. policy, of U.S.-Middle East peace policy, of
allowing the Security Council to deal with it.
In this New York Times piece,
I argued that the United States has two commitments that it made to the state
of Israel. One commitment is to have Israel’s back diplomatically, that when
other countries try through diplomacy to press Israel to go to the U.N., or
whatever, to take certain measures, that the U.S. will support the state of
Israel. The other commitment is a security commitment, that the United States
will always do what it takes to protect Israel’s existence, in terms of
supplying it with military hardware, specifically in case it is existentially
threatened with violence from the outside. That’s a commitment that I hope the
U.S. will always adhere to and never abandon and never compromise.
But I pointed out that it can do that
only if it at the same time does what it needs to do to bring about a two-state
solution diplomatically, because if it fails to do that, then its military
support, when Israel is threatened, will be seen by the world as the United
States collaborating with Israel in the oppression and occupation and
disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people. And that is something the U.S.
cannot afford. So, consequently, a condition for the United States meeting its
commitment to Israel’s security is that it must be free to do the right thing
diplomatically.
50.
AMY GOODMAN: I’ve talked about President
Obama, but, of course, now the presidential election is heating up. Do you see
any change in policy coming from the potential or already the declared
presidential candidates, the Democrats or Republicans?
51.
HENRY SIEGMAN: The answer is no. I do not
see it.
52.
AMY GOODMAN: Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state, certainly
involved deeply in the foreign policy the U.S. pushed for Israel and Palestine?
53.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes. Well, I
wish I could believe that she might—she might, in fact, bring about the kind of
a change, but I think that’s an unrealistic expectation. In fact, you will
recall that early in his presidency, when President Obama succeeded partially
in getting Netanyahu to freeze the settlements—as it turned out, in the end,
they produced—they constructed more enlargement of settlements than they had
done before. But at least there was a pro forma freeze. And there were
some question—the Israelis insisted that they have a right to continue building
for the next generation, for kids who were being born, for natural growth.
54.
AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, you said you
don’t hold out hope for American Jews putting pressure on a two-state solution
in Israel and Palestine. But hasn’t American public—American Jewish public
opinion changed significantly even since you were head of the American Jewish
Congress, especially among young Jews and college students?
55.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes, there has been a
change. And that change, with this younger generation,
is exacting a very serious cost, which is to say that these younger people,
many of them, are not joining counter-lobbies that are in a position to
challenge AIPAC and the Jewish establishment that is part of the AIPAC
operation, but they just—they leave the scene. They just disaffiliate. They
just go on to other concerns.
56.
AMY GOODMAN: But when polled, state a
different opinion.
57.
HENRY SIEGMAN: They state a different
opinion. But it doesn’t lead—for most of them, it does not lead. Some of them
have gone to J Street. But J Street, while it has done, considering the
resources at its disposal, I think, a wonderful job, but J Street is in no
position, and I’m afraid will never be in a position, not in the coming decade
or two, to challenge AIPAC. AIPAC has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress and will
continue to have that stranglehold.
58.
AMY GOODMAN: You were the head of two
major Jewish organizations. You were the head of the Synagogue Council of
America, as well as the American Jewish Congress. Your father was a leader in
European Zionism. That is the way you grew up. Why have you changed your position
over time?
59.
HENRY SIEGMAN: I’ve changed my position
basically for two reasons. First, because the Zionism that I was raised with is
essentially the Zionism of the founders. The Zionist movement, from its very inception, was not a right-wing
religious movement, not a religious/nationalistic movement. It was essentially
a secular movement. The founders of the movement were socialists. They were
left-wingers. They were people committed to democracy. Many of the
Zionist founders did not even think in terms of a Jewish state. In fact, as
someone pointed out to me recently, the title of Herzl’s founding document in
German was not “The Jewish State,” but rather, “A State for the Jews,” a state
in which Jews could live and develop their culture. And the assumption was—and
incidentally, what few people are aware of today—is that overwhelmingly the
religious community, the Jewish religious community in Europe and in—such as it
was at the time in the United States, overwhelmingly rejected Zionism because
of its democratic secular character, primarily its secular character.
The Agudat Yisrael was the organization with which I’d say 80 to
90 percent of the Orthodox community in Europe identified with, and it was
bitterly opposed to the Zionist movement and saw it as a heresy, as a Jewish
heresy. I recall going to a school, a yeshiva, where ultimately I received ordination. I went to
that school, and my teachers there regularly referred to the leaders of the
Zionist movement—to
Ben-Gurion, to Chaim Weizmann and the others—whenever they mentioned
their name, they would say, “Yemach shemam vezichram,” “May their name and their
memory be wiped out.” And that is what they said when they referred to Hitler,
as well, “Yemach
shemo vezichro.” That was the Orthodox community at the time.
The Zionism that I identified with
totally rejected that Orthodox Jewish sensibility when it comes to the Zionist
movement. But that Zionism has been wiped out. It is not the—and perhaps even
the memory of its leaders has been wiped out. And the kind of Zionism that
exists today, as a Jew, I rejected completely, the one that’s exemplified by—it’s
my Jewishness that leads me to reject it, to abandon it, to see it as shameful
and as a betrayal of the very best and most important values of my religious
and ethnic identity.
60.
AMY GOODMAN: And what is it that you
reject?
61.
HENRY SIEGMAN: I reject the racism. I
reject the sensibilities that these people, whose names we mentioned in the
program, who are now all ministers, the anti-democratic sensibilities, the
extreme—let me give you one example. Can you
imagine—can you imagine if here in the United States we had two tracks for
citizenship? One track to citizenship would be what our laws are today, but
then there will be a fast track, run by the White House, which would be
running—the White House, under the White House’s jurisdiction, would be running
a conversion program with priests, Catholic priests or Protestant ministers,
and who would give—who would give citizenship on a fast-track basis to people
who convert to Catholicism or to Christianity. The Jewish community
would be outraged. That would be just inconceivable. But that’s the situation
in Israel today. There is a conversion office in the prime minister’s office,
that works with people who want to fast-track their citizenship, but they can
do it only by converting to Judaism. Had you suggested that to the founders of
the Zionist organization in Basel when they first met, everyone would have
walked out through the doors. Who would have accepted that?
62.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, on the issue of the
Israeli military assaults on Gaza, Operation Cast Lead, which is what the Israeli
military called it, the Israeli assault on Gaza, 2008 to ‘09, when President
Obama was first elected, at that time, and then this past summer, what they
called Operation Protective Edge—when you total the number of Palestinians
killed, we’re talking about thousands of them, many of them children. Do you
expect to see another such assault?
63.
HENRY SIEGMAN: It is very difficult for me to say that I can’t imagine that they will
repeat this. But I can’t say—I can’t say that. I must be able to imagine
that they will repeat it, because when this last Gaza war was playing out, and
as you pointed out, over 2,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, were
killed, and something like 500 Palestinian children were wiped out, the vast
majority of Israelis not only supported it, but were critical of Netanyahu when
he decided finally to bring it to an end. That, to me, was the most appalling
thing I ever heard. I thought that there would be a sense of deep relief that
this butchering, this turning of Gaza into a human abattoir, is coming to an
end, even by those who felt it was necessary, but at least thank God it’s
coming to an end. Instead, they turned against Netanyahu for ending
it—Netanyahu, of all people, and the military. So, in light of that, how can
anyone say, “No, it will never happen again”?
64.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Henry Siegman, former
executive director of the American Jewish Congress. His father was a leader of
the European Zionist movement, pushing for the creation of a Jewish state.
Henry Siegman now serves as president of U.S./Middle East Project. Amy Goodman
sat down with him in late May. And that does it for the show. Amy Goodman will
be back on the show tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment