A HANDFUL OF LETTERS

SUPPORTING PHYLLIS BENNIS:

Are we to believe that when a woman from a Jewish background finds fault with Israel’s indisputable repressive government she is suddenly becomes the enemy of “her people” and an abomination, a kind of anti-Semitic Semite (“Letters to AV,” Artvoice v5n50)? In the days of JFK, Bennis would have been called a profile in courage because she has the courage to speak out against a host of injustices perpetrated, not by the people of Israel—many of whom would agree with the allegations she unflinchingly makes —but by their government and the governments which came before this one. Is it because Bennis is Jewish that the letters, critical of her analysis of this long-lasting Middle Eastern conflict, were written with such disdain, even rage?

Some of the views held by critics of Ms. Bennis are reminiscent of those held by former Israeli leaders. For instance, when Carmi Turchick, one of the many unforgiving Bennis censors, insists that “…Israel is not like every other country, it is more legitimate,” it is obvious that like Golda Meir, in her now famous 1969 statement quoted in the Sunday Times, Turchick believes “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people.” Otherwise, how could Turchick simply ignore the existence of an indigenous Arab people living for centuries in the region? Perhaps, again like Meir, the writer would insist that, “This country [Israel] exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy.” And so one merely pretends that it is legitimate. Is that it?

Surely no one—particularly Phyllis Bennis—would defend an Arab voice claiming that “Jews are the sons of apes…,” but can Israel’s long-lived and cruel treatment of Arabs in Gaza be justified on the grounds that a member of Hamas, perhaps even a chorus of Hamas members, called those of the Jewish faith descendents of apes? Sara Miller, who mentions the objectionable name-calling in her attack on Bennis, needs to understand why, after more than 35 years of brutal occupation, unpleasant metaphors are apt to be bandied about, particularly by persons who have been denied both an identity and—in thousands of cases—a homeland, a people who have been “walled in” by a penal “fence,” dehumanized under the ruthless restrictions of the occupation, and grossly misrepresented in the American and Israeli press.

Then too, one wonders whether or not Ms. Miller is at all critical of prime ministers throughout Israel’s brief existence, those who have shown themselves to be masters at the vicious game of name-calling. Surely the Palestinian who gave birth to the ape anecdote is a piddling amateur as compared to Menachem Begin, who, as quoted in 1982 New Statesman, referred to Palestinians as “beasts walking on two legs.” Yitzhak Shamir became an official Middle Eastern name-caller when he declared that Palestinians “would be crushed like grasshoppers…heads smashed against the walls”; while the simile of a more recent Israeli leader, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, “The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them, the more they want…,” qualifies him as a clever name-caller. And should we keep score here, in order to determine which side is more impressive in their torment of the other? Will that activity encourage a renewal of peace talks in the region? And was it name- calling which prompted Israel to build the brutal controversial wall, which inadvertently, illegally gobbles up rich Palestinian land? Richard Wilkins, another harsh Bennis critic, doesn’t tell us anything about the land that the Palestinians lost as a result of the wall cutting across rich Palestinian land. In fact, he prefers to call the cruel barrier a “security fence,” in spite of the cement structure’s size. Surely he isn’t inclined to be concerned about the power of words when he calls a “wall” a “fence.”

It is a great injustice that a man or woman is no longer allowed to criticize his or her country or center of his or her religious faith without being called a liar or, worse, a traitor. In an essay called “True Muslims Must Never Deny the European Holocaust,” Ibrahim Ramey, director of the Human and Civil Rights Division of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, like Phyllis Bennis, is not afraid to speak out against injustice, no matter where it exists. He states “…denial of full human rights to Palestinians…is deplorable,” but then he lashes out at Iran’s President Ahmedinejad, for trying to build “political arguments…on a platform of racial hatred and the denial of the suffering of the human beings who were victimized by…Hitler’s genocidal rampage through Europe.” Using the language of Arab poets, Ramey cautions, “The cause of freedom must never drink from the well of hatred and racism.”

Fran Weiss

Williamsville

As a lifelong, heartfelt supporter of the Palestinian cause, I was heartened to read your in-depth coverage of the recent visit by the illustrious Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis to the Buffalo area. Like many others interested—and saddened—by the plight of Palestinians under Israel’s military occupation, I too had the privilege of attending Ms. Bennis’s talk at the University of Buffalo this fall, only to be inspired and impressed by the towering advocate for justice that Ms. Bennis is.

For over two decades now, Ms. Bennis has been a tireless and outspoken advocate for Palestinian rights and for an end to the nightmarish occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip that will soon be entering its third decade, and despite, or perhaps even because of US policymaking in the region, shows no sign of coming to an end. What motivates her to speak the ugly truth of the occupation that so many others would like to see conveniently whitewashed is above all a deep-seated desire to see human rights, dignity and above all, justice for all, irrespective of their creed.

Because of her iron hard determination to challenge not only the Israeli military occupation itself but also the conventionally accepted wisdom regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is perhaps unsurprising that Ms. Bennis has come under such scathing criticism from the pro-Israel lobby that would much prefer criticism and condemnation of the occupation to be silenced. The steady stream of letters from Artvoice’s readers condemning the editorial decision to publish her two-part interview in full, which have in some cases even gone to the extent of attacking Ms. Bennis’s personal integrity, is a case in point. One wonders why Ms. Bennis would be so determined in speaking her mind in spite of such attacks, intimidation and sometimes even physical threats.

Perhaps the answer lies in the personal experiences of Ms. Bennis herself. As a Middle East expert who has traveled on a number of occasions to the Occupied Territories and witnessed firsthand the abysmal depths of desperation, distress and sheer human suffering that Palestinians endure on a near daily basis, it is perhaps fair to say that her motivation to speak up in lieu of the oppressed stems from her own firsthand accounts of the realities of the occupation that far too many others would rather choose to ignore.

This, more than anything else, is what makes Ms. Bennis so worthy of support, rather than criticism, appreciation rather than vilification—her raw determination to educate her fellow Americans about a people wronged to this day by their government’s foreign policy.

Suhail Shafi

Buffalo

Jewish critics of Israel like Phyllis Bennis believe in Israel more strongly than its staunchest supporters. We believe that Israel is strong enough to make peace, to end its oppression of Palestinians, and to end the occupation of Palestinian land. We believe there is a point to talking about peace and justice only because Israeli democracy is capable of it.

In contrast, a narrower and more pessimistic view of Israel sees it as only for Jews in a world hostile to Jews. There is of course ample reason for this view, provided daily by taunts from the Iranian president. But if this is the whole story about Israel, then peace is impossible. Then Israel will respond to any perceived or real threat with maximum force, and Israel’s supporters will blame the victims of this violence for their presumed or real anti-Jewish hatred, which they say was the reason for Israel’s existence in the first place.

Both views of Israel exist in the letters to Artvoice responding to Bruce Jackson’s interviews with Bennis. The narrow view is well represented. But some letter writers mix this with a more hopeful view of Israel as multi-ethnic and multi-cultural, as extending at least some rights to its Arab citizens, and as a democracy.

The possibility of peace depends on this more hopeful view. It also depends on Palestinians and Lebanese democracy. In a democracy there is at least a chance that some factions will see the value of peace.

Middle East peace and justice finally depend on a US foreign policy that pushes all the parties past the short-term advantages of conflict, and which provides the conditions for face-saving and trust-building for all parties. This is too much to hope for from the Bush Administration, which is now engaged in its own reckless, futile, and destructive wars, and will not stop others from doing the same. But we have to think of the future after Bush.

I recall an Israeli professor I met recently at an academic conference. He was in despair over Israeli politics because of the hold of the narrow view on Israeli politics. He wanted to move his family to the US. He said only a few suicide bombings would be enough to provoke a political and military reaction, keeping the cycle of violence going. Here in the US, we do not help this Israeli professor’s family by defending the narrow and pessimistic view of Israel.

On one point I disagree with Bennis. The analogy with South African apartheid is not the best analogy for understanding Israeli oppression of Palestinians. A better analogy is between Israel and the United States. We all know that US history is marked by the grave injustices of conquest of Native Americans and Mexico, by slavery and racism, and by the installation of repressive governments throughout the world. But this ugly history is clearly not the whole story of the United States. Critics of US policies judge it against the ideas of freedom and democracy that are also part of US history. Critics believe in these ideas more strongly than those who excuse injustices.

Similarly, critics of Israel have higher hopes and a more realistic understanding of its history than those who unconditionally defend Israel.

Aaron Lercher

Buffalo

And a HANDFUL OF LETTERS

CONDEMNING PHYLLIS BENNIS:

After reading your magazine’s interview with Ms. Phyllis Bennis, I find myself disappointed. While Ms. Bennis apparently holds to her experience as a “journalist,” she fails to offer evidence of a balanced approach to her conclusions and opinions.

I am further disappointed that she is openly willing to use the language of apartheid because it is socially permissible, perhaps “chic,” but not use the language of the Holocaust due to her fear of an open debate on the issue.

Frankly, I am frustrated at the lack of even-handedness in her statements. Since apartheid is the subject that she was willing to discuss, I offer some hard facts to frame the reality on the ground. Assuming that Ms. Bennis’ associations between Israel and apartheid are true, I ask her the following questions:

Why does the “apartheid” State of Israel allow Muslim control of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the most holy site on the globe to the Jews?

Why in the “apartheid” State of Israel, with 20 percent of its population comprised of Arab citizens (or what Ms. Bennis may refer to as “Palestinians”), allow them the same full rights and benefits as every other Israeli citizen?

Why does the “apartheid” State of Israel allow these “Palestinians” to be elected and serve in the Knesset (Israeli Parliament)?

Why does the “apartheid” State of Israel tolerate repeated rocket attacks and homicide bombings and then willingly leave Gaza?

Her references to apartheid are an outright insult to millions of South Africans who suffered through that ugly program of systemic discrimination and abuse. To equate the Israeli/Palestinians relationship with apartheid only serves to mislead others from the truth and trivialize the victims’ losses. Having recently spent a month in Israel on both sides of the fence, I can speak with personal insight to the obvious obstacle to peace. It is not segmented populations of Palestinians unable to travel with ease. It is not education. It is not economic. These are just symptoms of the central problem, which is Israel’s lack of a partner for peace.

I agree that Israel’s policies and tactics are not perfect, but they seem to be the only effective vehicle to police the acts of terrorism being launched by their Palestinian neighbors.

I ask your readers to consider a hypothetical situation for a moment. How do we suppose we would respond in Western New York if the Tuscarora Indians in Niagara County started launching rockets into Niagara Fall, or Lewiston, or Tonawanda because we denied them the right to casinos? Suppose the Oneida Indians decided to solve their land disputes by indoctrinating their sons and daughters to strap on explosive belts and commit homicide bombings in a local mall or pizza place? How should we need to respond then?

The central problem is that the Palestinians people have elected a leadership that is no partner for peace. I close with this proof from an excerpt of the Hamas constitution where they state their goal is “destroying the Zionist entity (Israel) that occupies Palestine (Israel), and establishing Palestine from the sea (Mediterranean) to the river (Jordan River) based on Islamic principles.”

The solution to this conflict is not in the hands of the US, the UN, or the world. It is the choice of the Palestinian people to seek peace by grasping the hand of their partner Israel. Our role is to help them both establish and protect freedom for this and the generations to come.

Matthew Miller

Clarence

Your article on Ms. Bennis is disgraceful. It addresses everything except the facts. The article is another example of the work of a reporter who demonstrates all the qualities of a self-hating Jew.

Robert Berghash

Town of Tonawanda

I was glad to see in the letters addressed to your magazine an overwhelming repudiation of Phyllis Bennis’ ugly screed. However, one basic point seemed to be overlooked. That is: What was this article doing in Artvoice? Aside from its obvious basis in fiction, in what way did it represent a reporting of the creative arts pertinent to Greater Buffalo and Erie County? Or perhaps you thought it was an account of events having an impact on our community or environment? Unless Erie County has suddenly become a haven for haters, or was recently relocated to the Middle East, I fail to see the connection, or the reason to give this scurrilous viewpoint 27 column inches within your pages. Perhaps Artvoice has expanded its mandate to include giving a forum to every crackpot who comes around, as long as they adhere to the radical Left’s agenda? Or maybe it was because you felt there wasn’t enough religious divisiveness within the City of Good Neighbors? Thanks to you, there’s a little more now. I realize it’s lately become fashionable once again to blame the Jews for all the world’s ills—and with an intensity not seen since 1936—but perhaps Artvoice needn’t choose to be the venue. I’m sure Al Qaeda has its own newsletter. I’m disgusted with your choice to align your editorial content with this slanted, biased and one-sided speaker, without any pretense of evenhandedness. Speaking for myself, I won’t be picking up your publication again. You should be ashamed to call yourself Artvoice.

David Kunkel

Town of Tonawanda

THE ALBRIGHT-KNOX ART SALE

The art gallery has said that the mission of the Albright-Knox has always been to collect contemporary art. Charles W. Banta recently stated that “in 1862 the gallery decided not to buy old masters or antiques” but to buy contemporary artists. Both Banta and director Grachos continue to call their decisions “transparent”.

I would like to quote some passages from an Albright-Knox publication, a book entitled 100: The Buffalo Fine Arts Academy 1862-1962.

Gordon Washburn, gallery director in the 1930s, said “‘The major rule that we set for ourselves was to discard the conventional emphasis on representation if favor of a policy that emphasized the acquisition of works of art from those cultures where human expression in art has appeared to have reached its greatest levels.’ With greater foresight the gallery has since concentrated on acquiring modern masterpieces and ancient sculpture…This policy was strengthened by the bequest in 1942 of Chinese bronzes, ceramics, and other objects…

“Emphasis in acquisitions continued to be on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; at the same time it was felt necessary to show that these periods did not develop in a historical vacuum…During this period a number of outstanding pieces of ancient sculpture were purchased: Mesopotamian, Cambodian, Indian, and Chinese.”

This is the history that the gallery had itself approved and published in 1962. Now we find that the gallery elites want to revise history in order to justify the sale and perhaps enhance their image as art “gurus.” Is it in the public interest to allow this disingenuous if not deceitful rational? There clearly was a time when the gallery decided to buy contemporary art, but it was because they couldn’t afford the masters (not a mission policy decision).

On the issue of calling their decisions “transparent”: Why were not the gallery members notified of the move until two days after the Buffalo News article? The answer must be that they knew that there would be no public support so they would have to ram it through as a fait accompli. There is so little public support that the gallery has resorted to asking its board members to write letters.

It’s really sad that both the board and the director are suffering tunnel vision and don’t know the importance of the past: as most of our previous gallery heads saw it, that “these periods did not develop in a historical vacuum.” I think we know where the vacuum is.

Ben Perrone

Buffalo