Max Blumenthal is back! The agit-prop journalist who created the already-seminal YouTube documentary Feeling the Hate in Jerusalem has now released the equally sophisticated sequel, Feeling the Hate in Tel Aviv. The original, which received 400,000 hits on YouTube, depicted American-Jewish teenagers (for some reason described by the filmmakers as Israelis) hurling racist obscenities at Barack Obama during a drunken night out in Jerusalem, and caused a predictable storm about authenticity and the morality of airing one’s dirty laundry in public. Now, it’s Tel Aviv’s turn. 

Blumenthal describes the aim behind the video succinctly: “On May 27th, journalist Jesse Rosenfeld and I set out on the streets of Tel Aviv to probe the political opinions of young local residents.” This was a pre-emptive response to criticism he received from Haaretz journalist Benjamin Hartman, who suggested that the Jerusalem video was “circling the internet at a critical velocity on a mission to humiliate the Jewish people,” before suggesting that he go to Tel Aviv to get a more balanced look at Israeli society.

But ha-ha! “Unbeknownst to Hartman,” Blumenthal writes, “I had already filmed my next segment in Tel Aviv.” And guess what’s in the video? More of the same. They began the day at Tel Aviv University, talking to students who had gathered to protest the ‘Nakba Law’ that proposes criminalizing public commemoration of the losses suffered by the Palestinians in 1948. There they found “a group of students who gathered to heckle their Arab classmates and demand their deportation,” as well as two “genial business students” who expressed support for the Nakba Law. [Even these descriptions, by the way, are exaggerations – watch the video and judge for yourself] Later that night, they covered White Night, where “a group of teenagers launched into a virtually unprompted diatribe against Barack Obama, referring to him as a Nazi, a Muslim, and a “Cushi”, which is Hebrew slang for “nigger.” In the Blumenthalian universe, there is little daylight between Israel’s two leading cities.

It would be naïve to argue that Blumenthal’s video does not in some way reflect authentic trends in Israeli society. There is plenty of evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, that Israel is steadily moving in an openly-racist, authoritarian direction, and I see no problem with discussing this issue openly. Feeling the Hate in Tel Aviv, however, is too real, condemned as inaccurate by the dog that didn’t bark. It is impossible that somebody could spend a serious amount of time interviewing Israelis in Tel Aviv (or indeed any other Israeli town) without finding a single voice expressing more progressive sentiments. Israeli society may be moving to the right, but it is far from monolithic.

Blumenthal’s methods are about as sophisticated as Borat’s or Bruno’s. He picks weak targets: in this case, the English of the Jewish interviewees is never more than passable, in contrast to the Palestinians. As one commenter puts it, he puts “smart, articulate Palestinian students…up against drunk arsim,” comparing this to interviewing an “intelligent, liberal professor from Columbia,” and putting him up against “some white trash from Alabama.” He goes to White Night and manages to interview a single group of drunken teenagers. Was there other footage? Why are we not privy to it? He goes to a Tel Aviv University where feelings are likely to be running high, without providing any context, and grabs the most inarticulate passers-by he can find, including one man who is absurdly described as a ‘Jewish-Druze’ (he has clarified this in a subsequent post, but the original caption demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of Israeli society), reflecting the strange description of the subjects of Feeling the Hate in Jerusalem as Israelis. His methods are cheap.

Doing a serious vox-pop in Tel Aviv is not a complicated task: Spend the entire day going from café to café, neighbourhood to neighbourhood, hummuseria to sushi bar, interview people and then edit it in such a way that accurately reflects the multiplicity of voices that you hear. In this case, there is simply no evidence that Blumenthal has bothered to be this rigorous. And the reasons for this are clear. He has long ago drawn his conclusions about Israeli society, and is now simply gathering the evidence to back it all up, rather than going from evidence to conclusion. This is the work of a propagandist – a deeply unserious approach to a deeply serious problem.

Yes there is “crude racism,” “bellicose nationalism,” and “anti-democratic sentiments” in Israel. But there is a lot more going on as well. Blumenthal is doing a disservice to those who want to gain a fuller picture of Israeli society by refusing (and that can be the only word for it) to depict these complexities and nuances in the film. It is very easy to find what you are looking for, and rather harder to be open to being surprised. Blumenthal tells a story about two Palestinians arrested for speaking Arabic on the bus. I have also heard stories of this nature, but I have also heard people frequently speak Arabic throughout Tel Aviv, and I can honestly say I have never seen anyone encounter any trouble as a result. Does this mean Blumenthal is mistaken? Not necessarily. But he has to acknowledge the limitations of the anecdote as a journalist device.

The same applies to interviewing a handful of people in Tel Aviv and calling it a wrap. Blumenthal has taken a single insight and inflated it into a grand theory of Israeli society, a theory far beyond his basic means of analysis. He may be feeling smug about answering his critics with this latest video, but if he has any pretensions to seriousness he should begin to seriously examine his methods.

“I see [it] as a national duty to prevent the spread of a population that, to say the least, does not love the State of Israel,” Atlas told a conference of the Israel Bar Association, which focused on reforming Israel’s Land Administration.

This is profoundly anti-democratic. All Israeli citizens should have the right to live wherever they want in the country. If they act against the state, they should be prosecuted. 

He continued, “if we go on like we have until now, we will lose the Galilee [i.e. to Jews]. Populations that should not mix are spreading there. I don’t think that it’s appropriate [for them] to live together.”

Always beware those who would tell you who it’s appropriate and not appropriate for you to live with. It is none of their business. And lest you think he merely doesn’t want Jews living with Arabs:

“There is a severe housing crisis among the young ultra-Orthodox couples, and in the general population. I, as an Ultra-Orthodox Jew, don’t think that religious Jews should have to live in the same neighbourhood as secular couples, so as to avoid unnecessary friction. And since some 5,000 to 6,000 religious couples get married each year, a problem arises because they require a certain kind of community life that goes along with their lifestyle.”

Tough. In a democratic country people must learn to live alongside those with different lifestyles. I live in a neighbourhood which is about 30% religious and there are no problems. Here’s an example: Now it’s summer, I go to the laundrette late on Saturday-afternoon. I carry my clothes in a suitcase, the rumbling of the wheels creating an echo in the alleys of the Vineyard. If I do my washing while there are services in synagogue, I take a detour so as not to disturb prayers. But nobody forces me to do so. If I walked past with my suitcase, or talking on my mobile, there would not be a riot. Religious and secular people are quite capable of living side-by-side, and we do not need Mr Atlas to set the bar for integration so low.

It’s ok though. There is a solution: “I plan to market large amounts of land to the Arab population in the Galilee in order to solve their problems, as well as land for secular and religious Jews.”

I did not come to Zion to live in a box; I came here to be an Israeli. The key to saving Israeli democracy is to promote a shared sense of Israeliness among all the different populations in this country. This is no wild fantasy, and is the only way to save the state from the racism and intolerance of our Housing Minister.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has persisted for over 100 years because it is a conflict of right vs right. The establishment of the State of Israel marked the fulfilment of the ceaseless yearnings of millions of Jews for a return to the land from which we were exiled but never forgot, a land that we cried out for every day in our prayers and dreams, a land in which we dreamed of resurrecting our national culture, a land in which we would provide a safe haven for our brothers and sisters suffering from persecution around the world. 

The object of our longings was not empty. The Palestinians were the people of the land when Zionism emerged onto the scene, and with time they developed a sense of national identity of equal validity to ours. Then, however, our histories diverged. The creation of the State of Israel was a moment of supreme joy for the Jewish people, the fulfilment of our dream, the return to Zion. Just three years after the Holocaust, it felt like something akin to a miracle. For the Palestinians, though, it meant the end of their dream, and the destruction of hundreds of longstanding communities. The creation of Israel meant the Jews could finally return to their homeland, but for the Palestinians it meant going into exile.

Today is not the time to play the blame game or to compete over our respective victimhoods. In the future, we will have to sit down and discuss issues of Truth and Reconciliation; today more urgent tasks lay before us. The recent years have been full with failed efforts at peace, efforts which have soon given way to more bloody rounds of fighting in which we have all suffered. Again, I do not want to use this speech to analyze why these efforts have failed. The point is that despite the past we are still in a position to come to a settlement that can provide for the hopes and dreams of both the peoples in this land.

With this in mind, I want to clearly set out my vision for how we might achieve what many say is impossible: a final resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The guiding principle of negotiations must be the right of both peoples to realise their national aspirations in the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This means partitioning the land by establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel. While the precise details of the borders will be decided in negotiations, I envisage that the state will exist in the entirety of the Gaza Strip and in the vast majority of the territory which currently constitutes Judea and Samaria, which is to say the West Bank. The State of Palestine should be a fully sovereign member of the international community, with all the rights and responsibilities that accrue to any other state.

I now wish to lay out my ideas on the Final Status issues:

Over the last forty years, successive Israeli governments have encouraged the building of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. For two reasons: First, Judea and Samaria is the cradle of Jewish civilisation. For those who lived through the heady days of 1967, a war which we entered fearing the State was on the verge of destruction but finished stronger than ever, the return to the heartlands of the Jewish people was experienced like something akin to revelation. By returning to Hebron and Shechem, to Shiloh and Gush Etzion, we thought we were completing the Zionist vision.

Second, the territories we won in 1967 provided us with a strategic depth that we hoped would act as a deterrent against those who wished to destroy us. Given that Israel came under attack before we had even declared independence, these fears were not unreasonable.

It soon became clear, however, that the conquest of territory came at a price. Millions of Palestinian-Arabs now came under our control against our will. At the same time, the perception that we were now occupying another people increased resentment against us and served to strengthen our enemies.

Today this situation is untenable. While I acutely empathise with my fellow Israeli citizens, who dream of living in our sacred places, reality demonstrates that this is no longer possible without threatening the very foundations of the state. While some Israeli communities may remain, it is clear that a contiguous Palestinian state will be impossible without the withdrawal of a large number of settlers. While this will be done with a heavy heart, I am convinced that it is in the greater good of the country, and I ask the Israeli residents of Judea and Samaria to cooperate with whatever decision is taken and to know that we will spare no effort in absorbing them in communities elsewhere in the country.

Jerusalem is sacred to us both. Today it is a multicultural city with residents from the three major monotheistic religions, and it murmurs with a magnificent variety of lifestyles and traditions. If we care about the city, though, we will have to learn to share it. I propose that Jerusalem become the capital for both Israel and Palestine, with precise details on how this will be implemented to be decided in negotiations. While this will be a difficult challenge, the discussions should be guided by the ‘Clinton Parameters’, whereby what is Jewish will remain Jewish, and what is Arab will remain Arab.  Let us make Jerusalem a model city, a flourishing, multicultural metropolis where the ancient and modern intermingle as one, a city that will embody the national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians, and serve as a beacon of hope for the entire world.

As I noted at the start, the establishment of the State of Israel also meant the dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Today there are millions of refugees spread out across the Arab world and beyond. Many of them live in refugee camps in which they are told that a return to their towns and villages is just around the corner, with nothing being done to improve their day-to-day lives. This deceit must end. We must solve the refugee question once and for all.

The return of a substantial number of Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel would go against my guiding principle for negotiations, namely the right of both peoples to realise their national ambitions in the land. A mass influx of Palestinian refugees would mean that the State of Israel would become another Arab state. As a result, we cannot accept anything more than a symbolic number of refugees, although we hold no objection to their absorption in the new State of Palestine, as long as they are offered a fair choice, one that includes third country repatriation. At the same time, we are willing to discuss issues of compensation and responsibility, as long as the Arab world is prepared to discuss the issue of Jewish refugees who were displaced from their homes.

The resources of the land are precious. Despite the attention bestowed upon our small piece of territory, ours is not a land rich in minerals or water. What little there is has to be guarded preciously, so that it does not go to waste. Each state should be responsible for the resources of its own territory, but should also strive to ensure that the other state has the resource it needs to provide for its people. For if our neighbours are not satisfied, then neither are we.

I also offer my hand in peace to the Arab world. There are many issues which divide us, but I believe we can make a brave peace that will lead to an unprecedented era of development and reconciliation in the region. I appreciate the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, and am keen to discuss its details with neighbouring leaders as soon as possible. Together, we can bring peace to our region.

To those who say these ideas are unrealistic, I say that the current reality is unrealistic. The doctrine of the ‘Iron Wall’ has determined much of our policy over the years, often rightly so. But the time has come to acknowledge that it is no longer necessary. We are a strong nation, with a strong army that is capable of defending its people. To those who would mistake our kindness for weakness, we shall know how to respond. After we embark on this process of reconciliation, there will be no turning back. To those who will beat their ploughshares back into swords our answer will be devastating. We shall not yield on our national rights in this land.

Although I am proposing a process which will end in the partition of the country, this does not mean that I am proposing absolute division. With time, I hope that both states will work together to ensure one another’s citizens are able to live free and productive lives, full of opportunity and excitement, each in our own state but cooperating in so many ways, to ensure that the next one hundred years will bring peace upon us all.

This is perhaps our last chance. If we do not grasp it there will be no forgiveness.

I wish you all a good night.

Bilateralism is hardwired into the international consensus for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. UN Resolution 242, still the definitive prescriptive document of the dispute, is driven by the notion of ‘land for peace’. In other words, a unilateral Israeli withdrawal would not solve the problem. It would have to be accompanied by a Palestinian agreement that the conflict is over. This is why all the Hamas talk about a ten-year truce (a ploy to avoid ever having to recognize Israel) is a non-starter. As for the current Israeli government’s rejectionism, it may be less genocidal than that of Hamas, but given the power imbalance, it is far more threatening to hopes of making a deal. At the moment, then, land-for-peace is not on the horizon.

Despite this reality, Obama is already shaping up to be the most activist president yet on Israel-Palestine. He has set out his stall by declaring absolute opposition to all settlement expansion. As a staunch Tel Avivi, my opposition to the settlement movement, whether in Efrat or Yizhar, cannot be overstated. At the same time, though, I think Obama may be making a tactical error by focusing on the settlements when there are other important areas in which to make progress.

As any cursory look over a West Bank hilltop will show you, settlements are demonstrably one of the greatest obstacles to peace between Israelis and Palestinians. If there is to be peace, the territory they take up must not be expanded. The Israeli government will also have to look the country’s citizens in the eyes and tell them that the settlement enterprise has come to an end. ‘Natural growth’ is a lie: recent growth in the settlement population has been far greater than the Israeli average, even when one takes into account that settlers tend to have more children than other Israelis.

The settlement blocs, however, aren’t the greatest obstacle to a peace agreement. Right or wrong, negotiations have frequently come to agreement over some kind of land-swap for the land covered by the blocs (8 per cent of the West Bank). Jerusalem and the Right of Return have been far more contested final-status issues, not to mention disputes surrounding topics such as resources and sovereignty. Why, then, is Obama focusing on the settlements?

Like Hector fiddling with his pupils’ balls in The History Boys, ongoing Israeli settlement expansion provides Obama with a tangible issue through which to demonstrate his seriousness to the Arab world. He has made less effort, for example, at getting Netanyahu to sign up to the two-state solution, and has even told Abbas that Bibi’s reticence is no excuse not to continue negotiations. And besides, even if Bibi were to suddenly declare himself a two-stater, it doesn’t mean he’d be able to meet minimum Palestinian demands.

American pressure on Israel vis-à-vis the settlements has been accompanied by pressure on the Arab world vis-à-vis normalization, although this has been surprisingly underreported in the media. If Obama can get Israel to stop building in the territories, he wants the Arab world to take concrete steps to demonstrate the seriousness of the Arab Peace initiative: El Al planes flying over Arab countries (which would cut the journey to India), Israeli consulates in Arab capitals, perhaps even allowing Israeli tourists in. These are lovely ideas, but Obama is mistaken if he thinks they would capture the Israeli public’s imagination. Most of the country does not seem that desperate (myself excluded) to eat hummus in Damascus.

Obama is using his nearly-unprecedented power to try and make the sides take incremental steps that are achievable even without a dedication to the two-state solution. The problem is that the political realities may still be too delicate for progress to be made, at least without the fall of Netanyahu’s government and the inevitable chaos that would bring. In the meantime, Obama’s is the way forward, and we can only hope that he brings this strategy to bear in other, perhaps more important areas, for example Gaza and Jerusalem. With patience and steadfastness, Obama’s forceful Liberal Incrementalism may yet be the catalyst that brings peace to the Middle East.

According to the Observer, the Palestinian literary festival opening event at the Palestinian National Theatre in East Jerusalem was closed down by the border police. The justification for this stunt was a letter from the Israeli minister of internal security banning the event on the grounds that it was a political gathering connected to the Palestinian Authority.

There is previous for all this. This March, a series of Palestinian cultural events, held to mark the Arab League’s designation of Jerusalem as the capital of Arab culture (Itself obviously a political decision), were also banned. All this was done in order to promote the fiction that Jerusalem is an undivided city under Israeli sovereignty forever and ever amen.

The fiction is clear to those who have eyes to see. Those who speak of an eternally undivided Jerusalem are happy to see the Palestinian sections of the city rot in neglect and ruin. Less and less secular Israelis have any interest in the capital, a reality which is met with bewilderment among those who believe in the absurd and unnecessary myth of the City of Zion, and spend their days fretting that Israeli schoolchildren haven’t been to the Kotel enough.

This absurd denial of reality, which is beginning to manifest itself in the new government’s policy in the Occupied Territories, could yet lead to the unravelling of the state. In the meantime, those in the diaspora who campaign long and hard against a boycott of Israeli culture should be raging with anger at this latest disgrace. Rafiq Husseini, the chief of staff to the Palestinian president, is right when he says, “They [the Israelis] are creating enemies for themselves.”

Sometimes I really wonder if the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Judging by the comments coming out of the mouths of Messrs Netanyahu, Lieberman, and Ya’alon in recent days, the madness is clearly at hand. Is there something in the DNA of the country’s political elites that prevents them from doing something rational? Because it’s now abundantly clear that I can no longer say with any integrity that Israel respects cultural freedom. What, please tell me, is now the difference between us and the boycotters?

This is the fantasy. As usual, the reality is a bit more blurred. On a rhetorical level, it seems as though Obama’s Mid-East policy is decisively different to what has come before. He seems committed to multilateralism, diplomacy, and reaching out to America’s traditional foes. He also understands the importance of resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. In the realm of action, though, there is less to discuss. The activist president at home is still surveying the scene abroad.

The time for talking, however, must surely soon be over. Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu is the second of four key meetings with regional leaders – King Abdullah, President Abbas, and President Mubarak are the other three. Iran and Lebanon are about to go to the polls, the picture is beginning to get clearer. Obama will have to state in no uncertain terms what his policy is.

In the meantime he has to contend with the sphinx that is Benyamin Netanyahu. There are two interpretations of this great political survivor. One depicts him as evolving slowly towards a two-state solution. He may be no great fan of the idea of Palestinian sovereignty, but he sees that getting out of the vast majority of the West Bank is the only way to preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. If only it wasn’t for his extreme right-wing coalition, forced on him by the intransigence of Tzipi Livni! The second interpretation has Bibi down as an obfuscator, a slightly more media-savvy version of Yitzhak Shamir, a man who will do whatever it takes to obstruct progress on the ground, whether by talking the hind legs off a donkey or whipping up hysteria regarding the Iranian threat.

Whichever take of Netanyahu you concur with, one aspect of his politics is clear: the man is in thrall to American power. He understands more than anyone that Israel cannot forgo American support. Given the clear picture of Obama’s politics that one assumes has been painted for him by his neocon advisers, then, this puts him a bind. How can he extricate himself from the puzzle?

Since being elected, he’s tried everything. First ‘economic peace’, then support for the Palestinian security services, then I-won’t-do-anything-unless-you-sort-out-Iran-first – if all else fails try dubious linkage. If anything, it works the other way round. It seems logical that serious progress towards Israeli-Arab peace will undermine Iranian influence, exaggerations of Arab fears regarding the Iranian nuclear project notwithstanding.

Soon we’ll find out if any of this has worked. He still has time though. Obama is sensitive enough to the political reality to tread carefully in these early stages. If he has time to try and convince Iran to abandon their nuclear ambitions (and to persuade Israel not to attack), then he certainly has time to convince Bibi to lead Israel down the only sensible path for its future. In short, don’t expect a dressing-down. In the long run, however, the die seems to have been cast. There is a sea-change in American thinking on the Israel-Palestine issue, and patience is finally beginning to run out. Israel can do it the easy way or the hard way. Right now, it’s Bibi’s choice to make.

Yes, Jew and Arab. I understand that the perpetuation of the conflict means that Israeli-Palestinians aren’t going to be desperate to put on army uniform in the near future. But I do think they should be offered a parallel track of national service. This will have an extremely positive effect on the Israeli-Arab sector. It will enliven communities with the energy of youth, and it will provide a useful track for young Israeli-Arabs before they go into the labour-market.

So I’m gladdened by the news that Israeli-Arab interest in national service is on the rise. Around 1000 Arab teenagers are currently enrolled in national service programs; in 2005-6 there were less than 300. This is a noteworthy achievement, and I hope that the numbers will continue to rise.

They won’t rise, however, if there isn’t more investment in the program. Because of current budget restrictions, the National Service administration has announced that there is no more room. This isn’t the only important program that is threatened by the budget, and it’s still unclear how the negotiations will end. One can only hope that the importance of these grass-roots programs will be recognised, and that the money to support them will be found.

His views will now be analysed like never before. The announcement of his candidacy was greeted with a furor surrounding an article he had written during the US election. In this piece, he seemed to suggest that it would be better for Israeli interests if McCain won. Indeed, some suggested that a victorious McCain might even have appointed Oren as an advisor.

When it became clear that Oren was the front-runner for the position, his comments at a recent speech at Georgetown University, where he is currently a visiting professor, became widely reported. “The only alternative for Israel to save itself as a Jewish state is by unilaterally withdrawing from the West Bank and evacuating most of the settlements,” he said, an unfashionable but sensible assertion of Sharonist principle, albeit without the necessary details.

Needless speculation about the significance of these remarks inevitably followed. Some people cited his words as evidence that Netanyahu isn’t actually opposed to Palestinian statehood; others said it proves Israel has a dastardly plan to abandon the Palestinians to their Bantustans. This speculation is unnecessary because Oren’s job is to represent Israeli policy, not to create it. He will have to do this whether he supports it or not. Such is the lot of the diplomat.

Henry Kissenger famously remarked that Israel has no foreign policy, only a domestic one. People often forget this truism when analyzing the Israeli political scene. The Israeli foreign ministry’s primary function is the dissemination of hasbara. Substantive foreign policy is formed in the PMO and the Defence Ministry. The role of the ambassador is to defend Israel’s policies to foreign audiences. This is true of all states, but in Israel the task is magnified by the country’s unfortunate diplomatic reality. Given this, Jeffrey’s Goldberg’s judgement on Oren’s appointment seems entirely apt, “No one is better qualified to explain America to Israelis an to explain Israel to Americans than Michael.”

Despite all this, some have criticized Oren’s appointment on grounds of his lack of practical diplomatic experience. There may be some truth to this, but I suspect he will be a quick learner. Salai Meridor, his predecessor, quit in acrimonious circumstances when it seemed he was being marginalized in his position, and it will be interesting to see the kind of working relationship Oren establishes with Netanyahu and Lieberman.

We won’t have to wait long to find out – Oren is expected to take a prominent part in Netanyahu’s upcoming visit to the US. In the meantime, it’s worth taking some pride in the fact that an Anglo-Israeli has risen to such high office. Oren will now – ironically or not depending on your perspective – have to relinquish his US citizenship, although I’m sure he won’t mind that. He is undoubtedly the best choice to explain Israel’s position to America, although without a change in Israel’s position, the task might be too difficult, even for Dr Oren.