Want to help improve the Michigan Israel Observer? Interested in free books, DVD’s or CD’s for just a few minutes work? Then please help us out and fill out a brief 10 question survey about who you are, what your views are, and what you like and would improve about the journal. Just click the link below.

Click Here to take survey

One lucky survey participant will receive a 25 dollar gift certificate to Borders. Other prizes will be awarded to readers with particularly constructive and useful feedback!

My campus involvements continually force me to reexamine my understanding of the relationship between Judaism and Zionism. Friday night services and dinner at Hillel are probably the most quintessential encounter your average Jewish student at the University of Michigan will have with the organized Jewish community in Ann Arbor. It is no surprise, then, that one of the thirty-nine Hillel affiliated student groups is invited to “sponsor” the evening through meretricious decorations and a short presentation about their group.

The largest pro-Israel student group on campus seized this very opportunity only a few weeks ago. Blue and white ornaments bedizened the otherwise austere basement, where the masses of Jewish students on campus congregate to enjoy a scrumptious Shabbat dinner. A giant Israeli flag was posted in the middle of the room and small Israeli flags lay dispersed across the tables. “Fun facts” about Israel were also placed on the tables for Jewish students to read. Examples ranged from technological (e.g. “did you know that AOL instant messenger was created by Israeli scientists?) to political (e.g. did you know that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East?) half-truths. The leadership of the organization even delivered a somewhat lengthy and seemingly well-prepared ballad, romanticizing the connection between American Jews and the glorious Jewish state. The students who came for an evening of prayer and yummy Kosher food were encouraged to join the effort in safeguarding the status quo position of political and economic power enjoyed by Israelis and loathed by Palestinians.

Asking around, I seemed to be the only student uncomfortable with the Zionist symbols plastered around the fundamentally Jewish function (there is a Jewish commandment to make three Seudot, or meals, on Shabbat). Indeed, for many of my Palestinian peers, the Israeli flag is a symbol of state-sponsored violence, subjugation and occupation. The students I talked to at dinner were utterly oblivious to this reality. But I’m pluralistic. I support the freedom of the other students to express their political viewpoints even at religious events. I simply ask that my political viewpoints be treated with the same respect.

So I met with three Hillel professionals to see if Hillel would sponsor a new student organization called “Jews Against Zionism.” Then I could “sponsor” a Shabbat, post Palestinian flags around the room and warn students of Zionism’s consequences. How would Jewish students on campus react to the intrusion of politics (only this time, politics with which they disagree) into a Shabbat dinner? How would they react to symbols through which they see suicide bombings and a “culture of hatred?”

I guess I will never know. The very Hillel professionals paid to serve the needs and interests of Jewish students on campus informed me that I was misguided. They kindly notified me that Hillel is a Zionist organization and that anti-Zionism has no place in this so-called pluralistic “home away from home” for Jewish students on campus.

Anti-Zionism is all-too-often regarded by the organized Jewish community as anti-Semitism. Just read Alan Dershowitz’s Case for Israel or the recent article by the American Jewish Committee called “’Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism.” So why is it that opposition to Zionism is regarding as opposition to Judaism? Maybe because it is.

As a preface, consider that while the United States has the world’s finest universities and drains brains from the rest of the world, our presidents are predominantly lawyers and businessmen: professionals, not academics. Yet in so-called rogue and terrorist states, the leaders are often highly educated with doctorates and long academic careers. Most notably, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a doctorate in civil engineering. Now, in the wake of increasing violence, the Palestinian Authority has pulled the trigger on a unity government led by another academic, Mohammed Shbeir, who has a doctorate in clinical biology from the University of West Virginia and spent the last 12 years as the head of Islamic University . While it seems that a lifetime in academia would be a moderating influence compared to hectic professional world that demands snap decisions, but we know from our own experiences at the University of Michigan that academics can often be polarizing figures.

With that idea, Shbeir, who has not yet accepted his nomination, was selected by a joint discussion between Abbas and the Hamas leadership. He is generally seen as sympathizing with Hamas, but is not a member of the party. It seems likely that Shbeir is a face being put on by Hamas to soften its hardline image with Western donors without accepting the conditions necessary. This is due to the possibly correct perception that much of the distaste for Hamas in the west comes not from its positions on Israel, but rather the hardline Islamist face, which is a major cause for concern in nations like Britain and France who have large, unhappy Muslim populations. Shbeir may succeed in moderating Hamas’s image without forcing it to back down on policy.

If Shbeir is legitimately interested in leadership, he will have to fight a perception as Haniyeh’s mouthpiece and puppet, cutting a new trail and pushing for further conciliation with Israel. Shbeir’s views are a cipher, but he was acceptable to Abbas, so he must be at least somewhat secular. In striving for his own political legitimacy, perhaps he can give peace a chance.

The President of the University of Pennsylvania, home of our fine sister institution Kedma, takes the lead in this year’s race for most insensitive moment with her actions at a Halloween party hosted at her home for students. President Amy Gutmann decided it would be a good idea to take a photo with a student dressed as a suicide bomber, complete with fake dynamite. I don’t think Gutmann meant to offend, but it seems unlikely that she had no knowledge of her actions, as she claims in the article. Maybe she had a little too much to drink?

My return to the US after spending a month in the Balkans heralded some of the bloodiest carnage in Lebanon. I decided a little praying wouldn’t hurt, so I trekked over to Shul Shabbat morning. During services I was handed the usual flyers, synagogue announcements and service participants. Included this week was (1) an inquisitive list of six talking-points on the Israel-Hezbollah conflict (e.g. Hezbollah hides behind civilians, Israel distributes leaflets to warn civilians before bombing), produced by a prominent local Jewish organization and (2) a postcard with prepaid postage to send to President George W. Bush thanking him for supporting Israel. Asking around, I seemed to be the only one concerned that a sacred place of worship had been converted to a political battleground—not to mention the half truths on the talking-points flyers or the presupposition that I even supported Bush’s policy.

I just assumed the incident was isolated. On my walk home I ran into some family friends, who were quick to remind me that even Palestinians in Israel would rather live in Israel than under the Palestinian Authority. I am still not sure how that was relevant to our discussion. I later checked my email, only to find requests from media watchdog groups to write letters to newspapers to both harangue and obviate biased reporting against Israel. An organization which supports a major Israeli University impelled me to send money to Jewish federations and Israel relief campaigns. A prominent International Jewish assembly urged me to send a message to Kofi Annan reminding him of the Bush administration’s jargon, we need a “sustainable ceasefire.” More talking-points and a list of recommended, “objective” articles followed. My Orthodox Minyan in Ann Arbor and my Conservative Rabbi from West Bloomfield pressed me to stand in solidarity with Israel by attending a rally. Another local Orthodox group suggested that the best way I could support Israel is to wrap phylacteries (t’fillin for those who speak English) and install mezuzot on my doorposts. And if I don’t support Israel, should I crusade across campus deposing of mezuzot? Or perhaps hiding the black boxes and leather straps of my Jewish roommates’ would prove equally disparaging to Israeli foreign policy objectives? I felt violated that my Jewishness predestined my political orientation.

The extent to which Judaism (and consequently my life) is embedded in the pro-Israel political camp has been one painstaking result of this conflict. Of course, the Jewish community has always been as organized and as pro-Israel, I just never noticed it. In short, I do not know if Israeli wartime intentions are just because I do not think anyone in my Jewish community—ethnic or religious, real or in cyberspace—really cares. I think we came to that conclusion a long time ago and we continually figure out how to justify the claim, omitting the inconvenient truths that undermine it. I hereby proclaim neither my support for nor opposition to Israeli actions, but rather that my ability to make a well-informed decision subject to rigorous, impartial evidence has been stripped away from me by my Jewish involvements.

A new event, or lack of event, has shaken up Israel and general Middle East discourse on university campuses. Last Wednesday, September 18th, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current President of Iran, was invited to speak at Columbia University by dean Lisa Anderson. The Iranian President was in New York City speaking at the United Nations. Within one day, the invitation was rescinded. Columbia’s campus erupted in protests: Ahmadinejad has filled his speeches with vehemently anti-Israel as well as anti-US rhetoric and called for the destruction of Israel as well as a denial of the Holocaust.

So does he have the right, or even a place within a University campus, to speak? When asked by Andrew Grossman from the Michigan Daily, I didn’t automatically say no. I am an advocate of free speech and believe that we can learn from hearing the words of those who criticize us. However, Ahmadinejad is not critical in a constructive or academic language. Upon speaking with friends of mine, students as well as professors, from Columbia who were in the heart of the conflict, it became quite clear that Columbia is a forum for academic insight and Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric is simply one of hate.

Bari Weiss, the editor-in-chief of the Columbia Current (another member of the Azure Student Journal Project), wrote an article in the Columbia Spectator in response to the controversy. She called out to her community, “if you are serious about standing up against hate, you will hold Dean Anderson accountable for offering Ahmadinejad a podium.”

So do we, as university students, have anything to learn from his words or should he be completely dismissed?

For me, the word “ceasefire” conjures images of Saigon falling in 1975 after President Nixon’s ceasefire fell apart, or the “ceasefire” in Darfur that is even now falling apart around the UN peacekeepers. The very name suggests that it is a deal arrived at for expediency’s sake, not out of a genuine desire for peace. Too often, a ceasefire will last only as long as it takes for the involved party’s to rearm.

The ceasefire proposal accepted by both Hezbollah and Israel must be seen as a significant blow to Hezbollah. The organization’s simple willingness to accept a ceasefire where it receives no direct concessions suggets a desperate situation for Hezbollah on the ground, much as the steady decrease in rocket fire over the week makes it look like Hezbollah is being rooted out of the area south of the Litani. Barring serious intervention from Iran or Syria, peace should reign along the UN mandated Blue Line for at least the next few months. The bigger question becomes whether this ceasefire can become the roots of a greater peace.

The major coup for Israel is the first article, demanding only that it cease offensive operations, whereas Hezbollah must cease all attacks. This tacitly acknowledges Israel’s security prerogative in the region and places international opinion squarely on Israel’s side. The root for peace comes in articles 2 and 3, requiring Israel to withdraw only as UN forces and Lebanese regulars enter the territory. Obviously, these soldiers are no match for Israeli forces in their ability to clear out Hezbollah, but it will help cool the anger of the average Lebanese at Israeli occupation, perhaps turning it at Hezbollah.

The major worry must be that the Lebanese army will show little interest in disarming Hezbollah and things will return to the status quo ante after the UNIFIL forces withdraw in 2007. It is this decision that in the end decides whether this is a ceasefire or something more.

Since the breakout of the latest crisis in the Middle East, the mainstream media has been at it again with their stream of short debates and/or grilling sessions. Although I find these entertaining, they usually leave me wanting.

That’s way I was pleasantly surprised last night to see this debate on Larry King’s show.

It featured James Zogby, head of the Arab American Institute, and good ol’ Alan Dershowitz, of Harvard Law School and Michigan Israel Observer fame.

Dershowitz hands Zogby a pretty clear defeat. While Zogby dances around the idea of terrorism and Hezbollah’s goals, Dershowitz goes straight at it and completely accepts and acknowledges all the civilian deaths on both sides, but provides the philosophical underpinning that shows Hezbollah is to blame. I wish they would’ve gone on for hours, although Zogby’s patronizing wagging of his head really irritated me–as did his ad hominem about Dershowitz being a lawyer who gets guilty people off the hook.

Reporters and newspapers are not perfect. In their rush to break a story before their competitors, they sometimes fudge facts, take liberties with the truth, and don’t wait for confirmation from a second source. In most situations, the proper response is an apology and a well-publicized correction.

So where are the retractions, the well-publicized corrections, for Qana, for the Reuters photo-doctoring, or for the incredible exaggeration of this morning’s attacks? Reading about 40 deaths this morning made me feel ill, reading that Hezbollah, with Siniora’s complicity, had amplified one death into 40 made me want to vomit. Most shocking though, is that it is almost impossible to find retractions from news outlets that were only too willing to scream the headline. Just once, I would like to see journalistic ethics come before the need to get a scoop.

I don’t expect Hezbollah to stop exaggerating casualty figures. Nor do I expect newspapers to start condemning these exaggerations publicly, although this sort of unrestrained propaganda is sickening and manipulative. All I want is for newspapers to wait, not to report casualty figures based solely on Hezbollah reports, but to wait for independent confirmation. Is that so much to ask?

Looks like Israel is rejecting the terms necessary for an international force to come in and secure southern Lebanon to create a de facto ceasefire zone. Realistically though, what good would an international force do for Israel?

UN Peacekeepers are not, as a rule, allowed to use force. Although the French, who would spearhead any international force are making rumblings about getting their peacekeepers an authorization to use force, nations that donate peacekeepers are rarely interested in seeing them killed. Hezbollah has shown itself more than capable of killing international soldiers and driving them out of Beirut. If Hezbollah starts killing international troops like it did in 1983 the response will likely be similar: condemnation and a full scale withdrawal. UN Peacekeepers are not going to begin search and destroy missions against Hezbollah targets, nor is that their purpose. Putting the force in Lebanon would only serve to increase the already too-high casualties. The French have also made clear that any disarmament of Hezbollah has to come from the Lebanese army, a group either unwilling or uncapable of fulfilling this mandate.

Further complicating the matters are the comments of French Foreign Minister Phillipe Douste-Blazy praising Iran as a stabilizing force in the region. Regardless of ideology, Iran’s actions cannot be seen as stabilizing and if the French foreign ministry allows Iran the sort of influence these comments suggest, the situation will be worse than ever. The starting point for any international force should be that Lebanon needs to be free from all external military influence, not just the Israeli one.

Besides that, there already is a peacekeeping force in Lebanon. The UN Interim Force in Lebanon has proven incapable of disarming Hezbollah or preventing violence in the region. Why should Israel believe that a new force commissioned by the same body would be more effective?

In light of recent events in Israel and Lebanon, it has become exceeding clear that The Michigan Israel Observer needs a medium for current debate. According to our Mission Statement, The Michigan Israel Observer was “founded as a student journal with the objective of providing a fresh forum for intellectually stimulating dialogue on Israel affairs.” Due to the fact that our journal is published just once a semester, issues and events are sometimes overlooked. This blog will help fill in the blanks. As we depend on our readers to produce constructive discussion, we encourage you to post interesting and relevant articles, comments, and thoughts related to Israel, in the “comments” section of the blog. Thank you for your energy and participation!