This piece from Ha'aretz shows amazing vulnerability and readiness to show our common humanity. Can we all build on this attitude? Or do we have to perpetuate the (constant) self-righteous front that we are the aggrieved and offended party and the fault lies entirely with "the other side"?
Apology in Kafr Qasem
By Tom Segev
Ha'aretz -- Wednesday - December 26, 2007
On October 29, 1956, a little after 5 P.M., several dozen Kafr Qasem residents were coming home from work, unaware that a curfew had been declared because of the start of the Sinai Campaign. Border police lined them up and shot them dead: 47 people, Arabs, citizens of Israel.
The monument erected for them also perpetuates the memory of an elderly man who suffered a stroke when he was informed that his son was among those killed, along with the fetus that one of the murdered women was carrying in her womb. People were also wounded. The slaughter was anchored in a contingency plan to expel the village's inhabitants to Jordan.
At first, the authorities tried to suppress the news through the military censor. Shimon Peres, now Israel's president, was the Defense Ministry's director general at the time. Only about a half dozen survivors of the massacre are still alive today. Most of the 18,000 inhabitants of the village were born after the slaughter, about 15 percent of them are related to the victims.
They live with the heritage of the massacre as a key element in their identities. Last week President Peres went to Kafr Qasem - his office said it was to honor the Id al-Adha holiday. He carefully phrased his words on the massacre as part of a statement praising peace: "I have chosen to visit Kafr Qasem, where in the past a very serious event occurred that we greatly regret, and today in practice there is cooperation and a life of peace between Jews and Arabs."
Kafr Qasem Mayor Sami Issa interprets these words as an apology. "'We regret' and 'We apologize' are the same thing," he said. Speaking with local leaders, Peres also used the word apology, according to the president's spokeswoman. Peres is the first sitting president to apologize for the massacre.
Ceremonious apologies for historical injustices and gestures of national reconciliation have become a rather common phenomenon everywhere in recent years, from South Africa to Argentina. To evaluate them correctly we must examine to what degree they express sincere remorse and true recognition of responsibility. We must also examine the extent to which lessons have been learned that have shaped policies on the ground. The Israeli case is not unambiguous.
The Kafr Qasem massacre shocked the country and gave rise to a public debate on basic questions of morality and democracy. Twelve years after the end of World War II this discussion took place against the backdrop of the Holocaust. The murderers were put on public trial. Benjamin Halevi, who was later one of the judges in Adolf Eichmann's trial, asked one of the accused whether he would also justify a Nazi soldier who obeyed orders. The trial gave rise to every Israel Defense Forces soldier's obligation to refuse to obey a "blatantly illegal" order such as one to murder civilians.
However, not long after they were convicted and sentenced to prison, the murderers were released, and a few years later the military government was revoked. The IDF is not doing enough to instill in its soldiers the obligation to refuse to obey a blatantly illegal order; it is acting with determination against conscientious objection.
In the decades since the Kafr Qasem massacre, IDF soldiers have killed thousands of innocent Palestinians, the vast majority of them in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. From time to time they have also killed Arab demonstrators, citizens of Israel.
To this day the Arabs of Israel are not citizens with equal rights, and Israel insists that it does not want to be a state of all its citizens but rather a "Jewish and democratic" state. Government representatives do not participate in the annual memorial service for the Kafr Qasem massacre, but the president's apology is likely to be mentioned one day as a first step toward a historic declaration of reconciliation between the Jews and Palestinians.
Most Israelis still find it hard to acknowledge that they bear historical responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. The Zionist vision is based, among other things, on the assumption that its fulfillment need not cause injustice to anyone: If only the Arabs would relinquish their nationalist yearnings and agree to the fulfillment of our dream, it would be good for everyone, including them.
This historical fiction is very harmful because as long as we convince ourselves that we have no part in the responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian tragedy, we have no real reason to try to correct the injustice. This is the importance of acknowledging our responsibility. When the day comes to publish the historic declaration of reconciliation, it will be possible to remember Peres' Kafr Qasem apology and the main lesson that emerges from it: It does not hurt to ask forgiveness.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/938370.html
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Challenged to be Peace-Makers!
Christianity Today, December, 2007
Courageous Nonviolence
At the first Christmas, the angels proclaimed, 'Peace on earth.' Just-war and pacifist Christians together can make it happen.
Ron Sider
The 20th century was the bloodiest in human history. In Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century, Jonathan Glover estimates that 86,000,000 people died in wars fought from 1900 to 1989. That means 2,500 people every day, or 100 people every hour, for 90 years.
In addition to those killed in war, government-sponsored genocide and mass murder killed approximately 120,000,000 people in the 20th century—perhaps more than 80,000,000 in the two Communist countries of China and the Soviet Union alone, according to R. J. Rummel's Statistics of Democide.
It is ironic, then, that the 20th century also produced numerous and stunningly successful examples of nonviolent victories over injustice and oppression. The best-known campaigns are probably those led by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. King's nonviolent marchers changed American history. (The fact that the police and National Guard sometimes guarded civil-rights marchers does not change the fact that King's movement was overwhelmingly nonviolent.) And Gandhi's nonviolent campaign defeated the British Empire and won India's independence. In contrast to Algeria's violent independence campaign, in which one in every 10 Algerians died, only one in every 400,000 Indians died in India's nonviolent struggle.
One of the most amazing components of Gandhi's campaign was a huge nonviolent "army" (eventually over 50,000) of Muslim Pathans in the northwestern section of India. These are the same people we now know as the Taliban in Afghanistan and along the Pakistan border! Even when the British humiliated them and slaughtered hundreds of them, they remained faithful to Gandhi's nonviolent vision.
There are other examples: In Poland, the nonviolent campaigns of Solidarity, an anti-Communist movement affiliated with the Catholic church, successfully defied and helped defeat the Soviet empire. In the Philippines, a million peaceful demonstrators overthrew the brutal dictatorship of president Ferdinand Marcos. The list of successful 20th century nonviolent campaigns is long.
Considering these successes, one wonders what might happen if the Christian world became serious about exploring the full possibilities of applying nonviolent methods of seeking peace to unjust, violent situations around the world. All Christians claim to believe Jesus when he says, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God" (Matt. 5:9). But we have not made much use of one demonstrably successful way of making peace.
Recently, the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), made famous by the kidnapping of four team members in Iraq in late 2005, have been working to apply the nonviolent techniques of Gandhi and King to conflict situations around the world. At Hebron in the West Bank, a few Jewish settlers live in the midst of the overwhelmingly Palestinian city of Hebron. Taunts, anger, violence, and deaths are frequent.
For 10 years, CPTers have lived in Hebron, seeking to befriend both sides, accompanying those oppressed by violence, sitting in houses threatened with illegal demolition, and walking children to school in neighborhoods where gunfire has too often struck down the wrong targets. CPT teams are defending the rights of native Canadians and Latin American peasants, as well.
The team's work made nightly news when four members were kidnapped by militants in Baghdad. Months later, three were released after the body of Tom Fox was found in the city. Last month marked the second anniversary of that kidnapping. One need not agree with all of CPT's political and theological ideas to conclude that now is the time for the entire Christian community to ask: Could we build on and vastly expand CPT's nonviolent approaches to peacemaking?
Just-war Christians—the vast majority of Christians since the 4th century—have always upheld that war must be a last resort. Before we are to go to war, we must have tried all reasonable nonviolent alternatives. But how can contemporary just-war Christians claim they have tried all reasonable nonviolent alternatives in the face of two hard facts: One, even without much preparation, nonviolent approaches have worked again and again; and two, we have never trained CPT-like teams that could explore the possibilities of nonviolence in a serious, sustained way? In order to engage in a serious, large-scale test of nonviolence, just-war Christians do not have to believe that nonviolence will always prevent war. All they must do is implement their own rule that war must be a last resort.
Pacifists have long claimed they have an alternative to war. But that claim remains empty unless they are willing to risk death, as soldiers do, to stop injustice and bring peace.
The theological commitments of both just-war and pacifist Christians demand that they invest serious time and resources in sustained nonviolent peacemaking. Think of what might have happened before Bosnia or Kosovo exploded in carnage if the Archbishop of Canterbury, top Catholic cardinals (or even the Pope), and leading Orthodox leaders had invited Muslim leaders to join them in leading a few thousand praying, peaceful Christian and Muslim followers into those dangerous places to demand peace.
Christian leaders from all traditions should together issue a call for something that has yet to happen in Christian history: the training and deployment of thousands of CPT-type peacemakers who are committed to using the nonviolent teachings of Gandhi and King, inspired by Jesus, in unjust, violent settings around the world.
I know from personal experience that this kind of nonviolent intervention is dangerous. In the mid-1980s, the U.S. was secretly funding thousands of guerillas (called the Contras) who were killing hundreds of Nicaraguan civilians in their attempt to overthrow the Sandinista government. I opposed the Marxist, repressive tendencies of the Sandinista government, but also rejected U.S. funding of the Contras.
So in early 1985, I joined a team from Witness for Peace that visited a Nicaraguan town under attack by the Contras. As we wound our way down the side of the mountain toward the town, we knew a thousand guerillas in the surrounding hills had their binoculars—and perhaps their guns—trained on us. I was scared but believed God had called me to that moment. We arrived safely and the townsfolk told us they slept peacefully that night, believing the Contras would not attack while a team of praying American Christians was there.
If top global Christian leaders (hopefully joined by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others) led a thousand trained, praying, nonviolent peacemakers into the West Bank, the eyes of the world would be on them. Hundreds of millions would be praying for peace and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians. Massive media coverage would pressure both sides to negotiate. The same would happen if Archbishop Tutu led a few thousand praying African Christians, joined by people from other continents, into Zimbabwe to demand that President Mugabe call fair elections.
If Christians with both just-war and pacifist convictions truly mean what they have been saying for centuries about war and peace, then they have no choice. Nonviolence has worked. It's time to invest large amounts of money and time in serious training and deployment. We cannot know ahead of time what will happen. But we already know that unless we do this, our Christian rhetoric about war will be both hypocritical and dishonest.
It's time to live what we preach.
Ron Sider is the founder and president of Evangelicals for Social Action, and the author of Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (Thomas Nelson, 2005) and The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience (Baker, 2005).
Courageous Nonviolence
At the first Christmas, the angels proclaimed, 'Peace on earth.' Just-war and pacifist Christians together can make it happen.
Ron Sider
The 20th century was the bloodiest in human history. In Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century, Jonathan Glover estimates that 86,000,000 people died in wars fought from 1900 to 1989. That means 2,500 people every day, or 100 people every hour, for 90 years.
In addition to those killed in war, government-sponsored genocide and mass murder killed approximately 120,000,000 people in the 20th century—perhaps more than 80,000,000 in the two Communist countries of China and the Soviet Union alone, according to R. J. Rummel's Statistics of Democide.
It is ironic, then, that the 20th century also produced numerous and stunningly successful examples of nonviolent victories over injustice and oppression. The best-known campaigns are probably those led by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. King's nonviolent marchers changed American history. (The fact that the police and National Guard sometimes guarded civil-rights marchers does not change the fact that King's movement was overwhelmingly nonviolent.) And Gandhi's nonviolent campaign defeated the British Empire and won India's independence. In contrast to Algeria's violent independence campaign, in which one in every 10 Algerians died, only one in every 400,000 Indians died in India's nonviolent struggle.
One of the most amazing components of Gandhi's campaign was a huge nonviolent "army" (eventually over 50,000) of Muslim Pathans in the northwestern section of India. These are the same people we now know as the Taliban in Afghanistan and along the Pakistan border! Even when the British humiliated them and slaughtered hundreds of them, they remained faithful to Gandhi's nonviolent vision.
There are other examples: In Poland, the nonviolent campaigns of Solidarity, an anti-Communist movement affiliated with the Catholic church, successfully defied and helped defeat the Soviet empire. In the Philippines, a million peaceful demonstrators overthrew the brutal dictatorship of president Ferdinand Marcos. The list of successful 20th century nonviolent campaigns is long.
Considering these successes, one wonders what might happen if the Christian world became serious about exploring the full possibilities of applying nonviolent methods of seeking peace to unjust, violent situations around the world. All Christians claim to believe Jesus when he says, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God" (Matt. 5:9). But we have not made much use of one demonstrably successful way of making peace.
Recently, the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), made famous by the kidnapping of four team members in Iraq in late 2005, have been working to apply the nonviolent techniques of Gandhi and King to conflict situations around the world. At Hebron in the West Bank, a few Jewish settlers live in the midst of the overwhelmingly Palestinian city of Hebron. Taunts, anger, violence, and deaths are frequent.
For 10 years, CPTers have lived in Hebron, seeking to befriend both sides, accompanying those oppressed by violence, sitting in houses threatened with illegal demolition, and walking children to school in neighborhoods where gunfire has too often struck down the wrong targets. CPT teams are defending the rights of native Canadians and Latin American peasants, as well.
The team's work made nightly news when four members were kidnapped by militants in Baghdad. Months later, three were released after the body of Tom Fox was found in the city. Last month marked the second anniversary of that kidnapping. One need not agree with all of CPT's political and theological ideas to conclude that now is the time for the entire Christian community to ask: Could we build on and vastly expand CPT's nonviolent approaches to peacemaking?
Just-war Christians—the vast majority of Christians since the 4th century—have always upheld that war must be a last resort. Before we are to go to war, we must have tried all reasonable nonviolent alternatives. But how can contemporary just-war Christians claim they have tried all reasonable nonviolent alternatives in the face of two hard facts: One, even without much preparation, nonviolent approaches have worked again and again; and two, we have never trained CPT-like teams that could explore the possibilities of nonviolence in a serious, sustained way? In order to engage in a serious, large-scale test of nonviolence, just-war Christians do not have to believe that nonviolence will always prevent war. All they must do is implement their own rule that war must be a last resort.
Pacifists have long claimed they have an alternative to war. But that claim remains empty unless they are willing to risk death, as soldiers do, to stop injustice and bring peace.
The theological commitments of both just-war and pacifist Christians demand that they invest serious time and resources in sustained nonviolent peacemaking. Think of what might have happened before Bosnia or Kosovo exploded in carnage if the Archbishop of Canterbury, top Catholic cardinals (or even the Pope), and leading Orthodox leaders had invited Muslim leaders to join them in leading a few thousand praying, peaceful Christian and Muslim followers into those dangerous places to demand peace.
Christian leaders from all traditions should together issue a call for something that has yet to happen in Christian history: the training and deployment of thousands of CPT-type peacemakers who are committed to using the nonviolent teachings of Gandhi and King, inspired by Jesus, in unjust, violent settings around the world.
I know from personal experience that this kind of nonviolent intervention is dangerous. In the mid-1980s, the U.S. was secretly funding thousands of guerillas (called the Contras) who were killing hundreds of Nicaraguan civilians in their attempt to overthrow the Sandinista government. I opposed the Marxist, repressive tendencies of the Sandinista government, but also rejected U.S. funding of the Contras.
So in early 1985, I joined a team from Witness for Peace that visited a Nicaraguan town under attack by the Contras. As we wound our way down the side of the mountain toward the town, we knew a thousand guerillas in the surrounding hills had their binoculars—and perhaps their guns—trained on us. I was scared but believed God had called me to that moment. We arrived safely and the townsfolk told us they slept peacefully that night, believing the Contras would not attack while a team of praying American Christians was there.
If top global Christian leaders (hopefully joined by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others) led a thousand trained, praying, nonviolent peacemakers into the West Bank, the eyes of the world would be on them. Hundreds of millions would be praying for peace and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians. Massive media coverage would pressure both sides to negotiate. The same would happen if Archbishop Tutu led a few thousand praying African Christians, joined by people from other continents, into Zimbabwe to demand that President Mugabe call fair elections.
If Christians with both just-war and pacifist convictions truly mean what they have been saying for centuries about war and peace, then they have no choice. Nonviolence has worked. It's time to invest large amounts of money and time in serious training and deployment. We cannot know ahead of time what will happen. But we already know that unless we do this, our Christian rhetoric about war will be both hypocritical and dishonest.
It's time to live what we preach.
Ron Sider is the founder and president of Evangelicals for Social Action, and the author of Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (Thomas Nelson, 2005) and The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience (Baker, 2005).
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Top Roman Catholic from Palestine gives Christmas Greetings
Brothers and Sisters,I wish you all a Blessed Christmas.
1. “The grace and love of God have appeared to us” (Titus 3, 4).
We joyfully celebrate Christmas, hoping to see better days in our Holy Land, by the grace of God, by our own contribution to bring peace to this land and by sharing in all the sacrifices that it requires. For this reason, at Christmas, we renew our faith in the One in whom we have believed, the Word of God made man, Jesus born in Bethlehem, the Prince of Peace, and the Savior of humankind. He became man in order to bring us back to God our Creator and to let us know that we are not alone, that we are not abandoned to ourselves as we face the numerous challenges of this Holy Land. Because God is with us, we remain hopeful in the midst of all the daily difficulties we experience as a result of the occupation and of the insecurity and deprivations that arise from it.
God is with us, reminding us that the commandment of love, which was given to us by Jesus, born in Bethlehem, still remains valid for the difficult times in which we are living today: our love for one another and for every man and woman. This love consists in seeing the image of God in every human being, of every religion and nationality. It is a love that knows how to forgive and, at the same time, to demand all our rights, especially those given by God to each person and to the entire community, such as the gift of life, of dignity, of freedom, and of the land. A love that requires from every one to care for one another. A love that is dedication and sharing with all who suffer from deprivation and poverty so that the same life, which God has given to all of us, may be lived to the fullest, namely, the “abundant life” that Jesus came to give us.
2. Again this year, we celebrate Christmas still searching for a peace that seems impossible. Nevertheless, we believe that peace is possible. Palestinians and Israelis are capable of living together in peace, each in their own territory, each enjoying their security, their dignity, and their rights. But to attain that peace, it is necessary to believe that Israelis and Palestinians are equal in all things, that they have the same rights and the same duties, and that both parties must adopt the ways of God, which are not the ways of violence, whether they be carried out by the State or by extremists.
The entire region, because of the conflict in the Holy Land, is in turmoil. In Lebanon, in Iraq, as well as here, the forces of evil seem to have been unleashed and to have decided to pursue their course along paths leading to death, exclusion, and domination. Despite all of this, we believe that God has not abandoned us to all these forces of evil. The situation beckons every man and woman of good will to enter into the ways of God in order to establish the reign of good among peoples as well as a sense of and a respect for every human being. We believe that God is good. He is our Creator and Savior, and he has placed his goodness in the heart of every human being. Therefore, everyone is capable of working for good and peace on the earth.
A new peace effort was begun these last few weeks. In order for it to succeed, there must be a firm willingness to make peace. Until now, there has been no peace, simply because there has been no willingness to make it: “Peace, peace! they say, though there is no peace” (Jer 6, 14). The strong party, the one with everything in hand, the one who is imposing occupation on the other, has the obligation to see what is just for everyone and to carry it out courageously. “O God, with your judgment endow the king,” with your justice endow our governments so that they can govern your people with justice (cf. Ps 72).
3. In recent times, there has been some talk about creating "religious " States in this land. But in this land, which is holy for three religions and for two peoples, religious States cannot be established because they would exclude or place in an inferior position the believers of the other religions. A State that would exclude or discriminate against the other religions is not suitable for this land made holy by God for all of humanity.
Political and religious leaders must begin by understanding the universal vocation of this land in which God has brought us together throughout history. They must know that the holiness of this land does not consist in the exclusion of one or the other of the religions, but in the ability of each religion, with all of their differences, to welcome, respect, and love all who inhabit this land.
The holiness and the universal vocation of this land also includes the duty to welcome pilgrims from around the world, those who come for a short visit, and those who come to reside, to pray, to study, or to perform the religious ministry to which the faithful of all religions have a right. For many years, we have been suffering from a problem that has never been solved, that of entry-visas into the country for priests and for religious men and women who, in this land, because of their faith, have duties to perform as well as rights. Every State in this land is not a State like all others because it has special duties stemming from the holiness of the land and from its universal vocation. A State in this land must understand that it must respect and promote the universal vocation of the land with which it has been entrusted and, accordingly, must be open to welcoming all believers of other religions.
4. I pray to God that the grace of Christmas, the grace of the God who is present with us, will enlighten all the leaders of this land. For all our faithful, in all parts of our diocese, may the grace of Christmas renew their faith and help them to live it more fully and to better carry out all their duties in their respective societies.
May you all have a Joyful and Holy Christmas.
+ Michel Sabbah, Patriarch Jerusalem,
December 19, 2007
1. “The grace and love of God have appeared to us” (Titus 3, 4).
We joyfully celebrate Christmas, hoping to see better days in our Holy Land, by the grace of God, by our own contribution to bring peace to this land and by sharing in all the sacrifices that it requires. For this reason, at Christmas, we renew our faith in the One in whom we have believed, the Word of God made man, Jesus born in Bethlehem, the Prince of Peace, and the Savior of humankind. He became man in order to bring us back to God our Creator and to let us know that we are not alone, that we are not abandoned to ourselves as we face the numerous challenges of this Holy Land. Because God is with us, we remain hopeful in the midst of all the daily difficulties we experience as a result of the occupation and of the insecurity and deprivations that arise from it.
God is with us, reminding us that the commandment of love, which was given to us by Jesus, born in Bethlehem, still remains valid for the difficult times in which we are living today: our love for one another and for every man and woman. This love consists in seeing the image of God in every human being, of every religion and nationality. It is a love that knows how to forgive and, at the same time, to demand all our rights, especially those given by God to each person and to the entire community, such as the gift of life, of dignity, of freedom, and of the land. A love that requires from every one to care for one another. A love that is dedication and sharing with all who suffer from deprivation and poverty so that the same life, which God has given to all of us, may be lived to the fullest, namely, the “abundant life” that Jesus came to give us.
2. Again this year, we celebrate Christmas still searching for a peace that seems impossible. Nevertheless, we believe that peace is possible. Palestinians and Israelis are capable of living together in peace, each in their own territory, each enjoying their security, their dignity, and their rights. But to attain that peace, it is necessary to believe that Israelis and Palestinians are equal in all things, that they have the same rights and the same duties, and that both parties must adopt the ways of God, which are not the ways of violence, whether they be carried out by the State or by extremists.
The entire region, because of the conflict in the Holy Land, is in turmoil. In Lebanon, in Iraq, as well as here, the forces of evil seem to have been unleashed and to have decided to pursue their course along paths leading to death, exclusion, and domination. Despite all of this, we believe that God has not abandoned us to all these forces of evil. The situation beckons every man and woman of good will to enter into the ways of God in order to establish the reign of good among peoples as well as a sense of and a respect for every human being. We believe that God is good. He is our Creator and Savior, and he has placed his goodness in the heart of every human being. Therefore, everyone is capable of working for good and peace on the earth.
A new peace effort was begun these last few weeks. In order for it to succeed, there must be a firm willingness to make peace. Until now, there has been no peace, simply because there has been no willingness to make it: “Peace, peace! they say, though there is no peace” (Jer 6, 14). The strong party, the one with everything in hand, the one who is imposing occupation on the other, has the obligation to see what is just for everyone and to carry it out courageously. “O God, with your judgment endow the king,” with your justice endow our governments so that they can govern your people with justice (cf. Ps 72).
3. In recent times, there has been some talk about creating "religious " States in this land. But in this land, which is holy for three religions and for two peoples, religious States cannot be established because they would exclude or place in an inferior position the believers of the other religions. A State that would exclude or discriminate against the other religions is not suitable for this land made holy by God for all of humanity.
Political and religious leaders must begin by understanding the universal vocation of this land in which God has brought us together throughout history. They must know that the holiness of this land does not consist in the exclusion of one or the other of the religions, but in the ability of each religion, with all of their differences, to welcome, respect, and love all who inhabit this land.
The holiness and the universal vocation of this land also includes the duty to welcome pilgrims from around the world, those who come for a short visit, and those who come to reside, to pray, to study, or to perform the religious ministry to which the faithful of all religions have a right. For many years, we have been suffering from a problem that has never been solved, that of entry-visas into the country for priests and for religious men and women who, in this land, because of their faith, have duties to perform as well as rights. Every State in this land is not a State like all others because it has special duties stemming from the holiness of the land and from its universal vocation. A State in this land must understand that it must respect and promote the universal vocation of the land with which it has been entrusted and, accordingly, must be open to welcoming all believers of other religions.
4. I pray to God that the grace of Christmas, the grace of the God who is present with us, will enlighten all the leaders of this land. For all our faithful, in all parts of our diocese, may the grace of Christmas renew their faith and help them to live it more fully and to better carry out all their duties in their respective societies.
May you all have a Joyful and Holy Christmas.
+ Michel Sabbah, Patriarch Jerusalem,
December 19, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
Will the US Step Up?
With thanks to correspondent friend, Don De Young, this piece from the Israeli group, Brit Tzedek, and yours truly, JRK
Largest National Jewish Peace Group Welcomes First Post-Annapolis Peace Talks
Brit Tzedek Calls on U.S. to Move Process Forward, Oppose Actions that Undermine Peace, and Support an Israel-Hamas Ceasefire
CHICAGO - Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, the country’s largest Jewish grassroots peace movement, welcomed the peace talks yesterday in Jerusalem between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, which marked the first direct, high level Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations in seven years.
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met Wednesday to begin talks aimed at reaching a peace agreement by the end of 2008. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas set the target at last month's Mideast peace conference in Annapolis, Md. The negotiations yesterday were led by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and PA negotiator Ahmed Qureia.
Despite the symbolic significance of this meeting, reports note that little progress was made as Qassam rockets fell on southern Israel yesterday, a day after the IDF raid in Gaza, and a week after Israel announced plans for settlement construction in Har Homa. “The events of the past weeks, which have so clearly created obstacles to re-launching peace talks, underscore the critical need for sustained and active U.S. engagement to ensure that both sides abide by their commitments under the Roadmap and avoid taking actions that undermine the peace process,” said Brit Tzedek president Steve Masters.
Late last week, news reports revealed controversial Israeli government plans to build 300 new homes in the East Jerusalem settlement of Har Homa, a settlement built ten years ago as a deliberate provocation to disrupt the progress of peace talks. Brigadier General Yoav Mordechai, the head of the Civil Administration, announced on Tuesday that at present there are hundreds, even thousands, of planned housing units in the West Bank that have building permits and do not need any further government approval before their construction can begin.
“Only two weeks have passed since Prime Minister Olmert pledged to freeze settlement expansion and to negotiate an agreement embracing all of the core issues, including the future of Jerusalem. In light of these solemn commitments, Israel’s plans to expand an East Jerusalem settlement are a slap in the face to the United States and the Palestinian Authority,” said Masters.
“Instead of announcing plans to dismantle an illegal outpost, Israel’s decision to expand its settlement of Har Homa gives ammunition to Palestinian extremist rhetoric that Israel’s true intent is to humiliate President Abbas.”
Brit Tzedek praised U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s strong criticism of the plan to increase settlements. “We are encouraged by Secretary Rice’s principled objection to Israel’s settlement construction plans in East Jerusalem as a sign that the U.S. will remain vigilant in opposing all actions that undermine the Annapolis peace process,” said Masters.
Brit Tzedek also expressed outrage at the firing of 353 missiles and 554 mortar bombs from Gaza at Sderot and the western Negev since Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in mid-June. The firing of over fifteen Qassam missiles just before the talks began precipitated threats from Israeli officials to invade Gaza on the heels of an IDF raid there yesterday during which eight Palestinian militants were killed and many others wounded.
On one promising note, Ahmed Youssef, a senior political advisor to Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, this past week wrote an open letter expressing a desire for dialogue based upon Hamas’ previous offers of a hudna, or long-term ceasefire, with Israel.
“Clearly, the constant barrage of missiles from the Hamas controlled Gaza Strip must be urgently addressed. Yet a heavy military invasion of Gaza by Israel risks a serious escalation of violence that threatens both Palestinian and Israelis lives,” stated Masters. “In order to stop further Qassam rocket attacks on southern Israel and to avoid a full scale military invasion into Gaza, the U.S. should take this opportunity to encourage Israel to reach a ceasefire with Hamas, whether through back-channel talks, a neutral third party, or other means of indirect diplomacy.”
Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace, is a national grassroots organization more than 37,000 strong, that educates and mobilizes American Jews in support of a negotiated two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Brit Tzedek v'Shalom,
The Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace
11 E. Adams Street, Suite 707
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 341-1205Fax: (312) 341-1206
info@btvshalom.orgwww.btvshalom.org
Largest National Jewish Peace Group Welcomes First Post-Annapolis Peace Talks
Brit Tzedek Calls on U.S. to Move Process Forward, Oppose Actions that Undermine Peace, and Support an Israel-Hamas Ceasefire
CHICAGO - Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, the country’s largest Jewish grassroots peace movement, welcomed the peace talks yesterday in Jerusalem between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, which marked the first direct, high level Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations in seven years.
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met Wednesday to begin talks aimed at reaching a peace agreement by the end of 2008. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas set the target at last month's Mideast peace conference in Annapolis, Md. The negotiations yesterday were led by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and PA negotiator Ahmed Qureia.
Despite the symbolic significance of this meeting, reports note that little progress was made as Qassam rockets fell on southern Israel yesterday, a day after the IDF raid in Gaza, and a week after Israel announced plans for settlement construction in Har Homa. “The events of the past weeks, which have so clearly created obstacles to re-launching peace talks, underscore the critical need for sustained and active U.S. engagement to ensure that both sides abide by their commitments under the Roadmap and avoid taking actions that undermine the peace process,” said Brit Tzedek president Steve Masters.
Late last week, news reports revealed controversial Israeli government plans to build 300 new homes in the East Jerusalem settlement of Har Homa, a settlement built ten years ago as a deliberate provocation to disrupt the progress of peace talks. Brigadier General Yoav Mordechai, the head of the Civil Administration, announced on Tuesday that at present there are hundreds, even thousands, of planned housing units in the West Bank that have building permits and do not need any further government approval before their construction can begin.
“Only two weeks have passed since Prime Minister Olmert pledged to freeze settlement expansion and to negotiate an agreement embracing all of the core issues, including the future of Jerusalem. In light of these solemn commitments, Israel’s plans to expand an East Jerusalem settlement are a slap in the face to the United States and the Palestinian Authority,” said Masters.
“Instead of announcing plans to dismantle an illegal outpost, Israel’s decision to expand its settlement of Har Homa gives ammunition to Palestinian extremist rhetoric that Israel’s true intent is to humiliate President Abbas.”
Brit Tzedek praised U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s strong criticism of the plan to increase settlements. “We are encouraged by Secretary Rice’s principled objection to Israel’s settlement construction plans in East Jerusalem as a sign that the U.S. will remain vigilant in opposing all actions that undermine the Annapolis peace process,” said Masters.
Brit Tzedek also expressed outrage at the firing of 353 missiles and 554 mortar bombs from Gaza at Sderot and the western Negev since Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in mid-June. The firing of over fifteen Qassam missiles just before the talks began precipitated threats from Israeli officials to invade Gaza on the heels of an IDF raid there yesterday during which eight Palestinian militants were killed and many others wounded.
On one promising note, Ahmed Youssef, a senior political advisor to Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, this past week wrote an open letter expressing a desire for dialogue based upon Hamas’ previous offers of a hudna, or long-term ceasefire, with Israel.
“Clearly, the constant barrage of missiles from the Hamas controlled Gaza Strip must be urgently addressed. Yet a heavy military invasion of Gaza by Israel risks a serious escalation of violence that threatens both Palestinian and Israelis lives,” stated Masters. “In order to stop further Qassam rocket attacks on southern Israel and to avoid a full scale military invasion into Gaza, the U.S. should take this opportunity to encourage Israel to reach a ceasefire with Hamas, whether through back-channel talks, a neutral third party, or other means of indirect diplomacy.”
Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace, is a national grassroots organization more than 37,000 strong, that educates and mobilizes American Jews in support of a negotiated two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Brit Tzedek v'Shalom,
The Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace
11 E. Adams Street, Suite 707
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 341-1205Fax: (312) 341-1206
info@btvshalom.orgwww.btvshalom.org
Monday, December 3, 2007
The Ecomomist (UK) on Annapolis
The Arab-Israeli summit in Annapolis
Big turnout, small result
Nov 29th 2007 ANNAPOLIS
From The Economist print edition
AP
An agreement on further peace talks, if not much else
THEY almost didn't make it, but in the last hour Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, agreed on a joint statement.
Four months of preliminary talks had failed to produce what Mr Abbas and Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, had hoped to brandish at this week's peace summit in Annapolis: an agreement to predetermine some aspects of the final-status deal that would ultimately create a Palestinian state next to Israel.
In the end, Ms Rice had to settle for less, but the Palestinians and Israelis did agree two things. Final-status talks will begin on December 12th. And the United States will monitor both sides' compliance in the meantime with the “road map” peace plan of 2003, under which Israel is meant to freeze settlement-building in the West Bank while the Palestinian Authority (PA) takes action against militants who attack Israel.
Both these agreements still lack some important detail, however. While teams of negotiators will work continuously to hammer out all the issues of a peace deal—the borders of the Palestinian state, the division of Jerusalem, the fate of 4.5m Palestinian refugees abroad, the sharing of water resources, and so on—nobody has specified whether the starting point will be a blank slate or a previous near-deal such as the informal 2001 Taba agreement negotiated in Egypt. That could make a big difference to how fast things progress. So too could the fact that there will be no American go-between for them.
Likewise, the United States has agreed to supervise both sides' compliance with the road map; a potential win for the Palestinians since in the past Israel has been the de facto arbiter of performance. But it is unclear how, and how strictly, America will actually do this. So far, it has only appointed a general, James Jones, as a security envoy to the PA. Much clearer is that Israel will not make his job easy. An Israeli official says that any impression that Mr Olmert plans a total construction freeze, as the road map stipulates, is a “convenient misperception”.
A more telling measure of Mr Olmert's intentions may be how vigorously he goes after the 100-plus “unauthorised” outposts established by hardline settlers, of which the road map requires him to dismantle around 60. Previous attempts to take even one down have led to violent clashes between the police and settlers, who are regrouping for a showdown after losing their fight to stay in the Gaza Strip in 2005. As for the Palestinians, the American arbitrator will find himself squeezed between the Israeli reading of the road map—that the PA must entirely dismantle terrorist groups before any final-status deal that the two sides reach can go into effect—and the Palestinian one, which is that it need only get the task well under way.
The two sides hope to conclude the final-status deal itself within a year. But given the complexity of the issues and the fragile politics on each side, this looks over-ambitious to some. Mr Olmert will have to keep conceding enough to keep the peace process going, but not so much that it prompts right-wing parties to leave his coalition. They have already started throwing out banana skins, such as a parliamentary bill earlier this month that would make it much harder for Israel to give up any of Jerusalem to the PA. Mr Abbas, for his part, having got much less out of Annapolis than he originally insisted on, is vulnerable to the jibes of Islamist opponents. His security forces have been cracking down with unusual harshness on anti-Annapolis demonstrations in the West Bank this week, something that could cost him precious legitimacy.
A coalition of the fearful
For a conference so thin on content, though, Annapolis was surprisingly thickly attended. Few expected Saudi Arabia to send its foreign minister, but there he was, along with 40 leaders, many from Islamic states without diplomatic ties with Israel. To what extent this is a victory for President George Bush, though, is also not yet clear.
One reason the Arabs showed up, as American officials argue, is because they may share Mr Bush's desire to create a united, mostly Sunni front against mostly Shia extremists led by Iran. Syria's decision to send its deputy foreign minister—less than a full negotiator, but more than just a token presence—in return for a merely token discussion at Annapolis about Syrian-Israeli peace may have signalled that Syria, too, is worried about ending up on the wrong side of the barricades. The show of solidarity certainly produced some alarmed noises from Tehran and fist waving from its Islamist allies, Lebanon's Hizbullah and the Palestinians' Hamas.
Yet the Saudis and others may also have come because they felt they had no choice. It would have been too easy for America to paint them as the cause of Annapolis's failure. With Lebanon fearing more civil conflict as it tries to break a deadlock over the election of a president, Syria's role is crucial; some, indeed, think its invitation to Annapolis is what has prevented Lebanon from exploding already. But Mr Bush offered Syria no concessions, instead giving it a clear rebuke in his speech with a reference to Lebanon's need for an election “free from outside interference and intimidation”,
The question now is whether America can convert the show of support it got at Annapolis into anything more substantial.
Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
Big turnout, small result
Nov 29th 2007 ANNAPOLIS
From The Economist print edition
AP
An agreement on further peace talks, if not much else
THEY almost didn't make it, but in the last hour Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, agreed on a joint statement.
Four months of preliminary talks had failed to produce what Mr Abbas and Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, had hoped to brandish at this week's peace summit in Annapolis: an agreement to predetermine some aspects of the final-status deal that would ultimately create a Palestinian state next to Israel.
In the end, Ms Rice had to settle for less, but the Palestinians and Israelis did agree two things. Final-status talks will begin on December 12th. And the United States will monitor both sides' compliance in the meantime with the “road map” peace plan of 2003, under which Israel is meant to freeze settlement-building in the West Bank while the Palestinian Authority (PA) takes action against militants who attack Israel.
Both these agreements still lack some important detail, however. While teams of negotiators will work continuously to hammer out all the issues of a peace deal—the borders of the Palestinian state, the division of Jerusalem, the fate of 4.5m Palestinian refugees abroad, the sharing of water resources, and so on—nobody has specified whether the starting point will be a blank slate or a previous near-deal such as the informal 2001 Taba agreement negotiated in Egypt. That could make a big difference to how fast things progress. So too could the fact that there will be no American go-between for them.
Likewise, the United States has agreed to supervise both sides' compliance with the road map; a potential win for the Palestinians since in the past Israel has been the de facto arbiter of performance. But it is unclear how, and how strictly, America will actually do this. So far, it has only appointed a general, James Jones, as a security envoy to the PA. Much clearer is that Israel will not make his job easy. An Israeli official says that any impression that Mr Olmert plans a total construction freeze, as the road map stipulates, is a “convenient misperception”.
A more telling measure of Mr Olmert's intentions may be how vigorously he goes after the 100-plus “unauthorised” outposts established by hardline settlers, of which the road map requires him to dismantle around 60. Previous attempts to take even one down have led to violent clashes between the police and settlers, who are regrouping for a showdown after losing their fight to stay in the Gaza Strip in 2005. As for the Palestinians, the American arbitrator will find himself squeezed between the Israeli reading of the road map—that the PA must entirely dismantle terrorist groups before any final-status deal that the two sides reach can go into effect—and the Palestinian one, which is that it need only get the task well under way.
The two sides hope to conclude the final-status deal itself within a year. But given the complexity of the issues and the fragile politics on each side, this looks over-ambitious to some. Mr Olmert will have to keep conceding enough to keep the peace process going, but not so much that it prompts right-wing parties to leave his coalition. They have already started throwing out banana skins, such as a parliamentary bill earlier this month that would make it much harder for Israel to give up any of Jerusalem to the PA. Mr Abbas, for his part, having got much less out of Annapolis than he originally insisted on, is vulnerable to the jibes of Islamist opponents. His security forces have been cracking down with unusual harshness on anti-Annapolis demonstrations in the West Bank this week, something that could cost him precious legitimacy.
A coalition of the fearful
For a conference so thin on content, though, Annapolis was surprisingly thickly attended. Few expected Saudi Arabia to send its foreign minister, but there he was, along with 40 leaders, many from Islamic states without diplomatic ties with Israel. To what extent this is a victory for President George Bush, though, is also not yet clear.
One reason the Arabs showed up, as American officials argue, is because they may share Mr Bush's desire to create a united, mostly Sunni front against mostly Shia extremists led by Iran. Syria's decision to send its deputy foreign minister—less than a full negotiator, but more than just a token presence—in return for a merely token discussion at Annapolis about Syrian-Israeli peace may have signalled that Syria, too, is worried about ending up on the wrong side of the barricades. The show of solidarity certainly produced some alarmed noises from Tehran and fist waving from its Islamist allies, Lebanon's Hizbullah and the Palestinians' Hamas.
Yet the Saudis and others may also have come because they felt they had no choice. It would have been too easy for America to paint them as the cause of Annapolis's failure. With Lebanon fearing more civil conflict as it tries to break a deadlock over the election of a president, Syria's role is crucial; some, indeed, think its invitation to Annapolis is what has prevented Lebanon from exploding already. But Mr Bush offered Syria no concessions, instead giving it a clear rebuke in his speech with a reference to Lebanon's need for an election “free from outside interference and intimidation”,
The question now is whether America can convert the show of support it got at Annapolis into anything more substantial.
Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Does This Prophet Speak Truth?
Demands of a thief
By Gideon Levy
Ha'aretz -- Sunday - November 25, 2007
The public discourse in Israel has momentarily awoken from its slumber. "To give or not to give," that is the Shakespearean question - "to make concessions" or "not to make concessions."
It is good that initial signs of life in the Israeli public have emerged. It was worth going to Annapolis if only for this reason - but this discourse is baseless and distorted. Israel is not being asked "to give" anything to the Palestinians; it is only being asked to return - to return their stolen land and restore their trampled self-respect, along with their fundamental human rights and humanity. This is the primary core issue, the only one worthy of the title, and no one talks about it anymore.
No one is talking about morality anymore. Justice is also an archaic concept, a taboo that has deliberately been erased from all negotiations. Two and a half million people - farmers, merchants, lawyers, drivers, daydreaming teenage girls, love-smitten men, old people, women, children and combatants using violent means for a just cause - have all been living under a brutal boot for 40 years. Meanwhile, in our cafes and living rooms the conversation is over giving or not giving. Lawyers, philosophers, writers, lecturers, intellectuals and rabbis, who are looked upon for basic knowledge about moral precepts, participate in this distorted discourse.
What will they tell their children - after the occupation finally becomes a nightmare of the past - about the period in which they wielded influence? What will they say about their role in this? Israeli students stand at checkpoints as part of their army reserve duty, brutally deciding the fate of people, and then some rush off to lectures on ethics at university, forgetting what they did the previous day and what is being done in their names every single day.
Intellectuals publish petitions, "to make concessions" or "not to make concessions," diverting attention from the core issue. There are stormy debates about corruption - whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is corrupt and how the Supreme Court is being undermined. But there is no discussion of the ultimate question: Isn't the occupation the greatest and most terrible corruption to have taken root here, overshadowing everything else?
Security officials are terrified about what would happen if we removed a checkpoint or released prisoners, like the whites in South Africa who whipped up in a frenzy of fear about the "great slaughter" that would ensue if blacks were granted their rights.
But these are not legitimate questions: The incarceration must be ended and the myriad of political prisoners should be released unconditionally. Just as a thief cannot present demands - neither preconditions nor any other terms - to the owner of the property he has robbed, Israel cannot present demands to the other side as long as the situation remains as it is.
Security? We must defend ourselves by defensive means. Those who do not believe that the only security we will enjoy will come from ending the occupation and from peace can entrench themselves in the army, and behind walls and fences. But we have no right to do what we are doing: Just as no one would conceive of killing the residents of an entire neighborhood, to harass and incarcerate it because of a few criminals living there, there is no justification for abusing an entire people in the name of our security. The question of whether ending the occupation would threaten or strengthen Israel's security is irrelevant. There are not, and cannot be, any preconditions for restoring justice.
No one will discuss this at Annapolis. Even if the real core issues were raised, they would focus on secondary questions - borders, Jerusalem and even refugees. But that would be escaping the main issue. After 40 years, one might have expected that the real core issue would finally be raised for honest and bold discussion: Does Israel have the moral right to continue the occupation? The world should have asked this long ago. The Palestinians should have focused only on this.
And above all, we, who bear the guilt, should have been terribly troubled by the answer to this question.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/927531.html
By Gideon Levy
Ha'aretz -- Sunday - November 25, 2007
The public discourse in Israel has momentarily awoken from its slumber. "To give or not to give," that is the Shakespearean question - "to make concessions" or "not to make concessions."
It is good that initial signs of life in the Israeli public have emerged. It was worth going to Annapolis if only for this reason - but this discourse is baseless and distorted. Israel is not being asked "to give" anything to the Palestinians; it is only being asked to return - to return their stolen land and restore their trampled self-respect, along with their fundamental human rights and humanity. This is the primary core issue, the only one worthy of the title, and no one talks about it anymore.
No one is talking about morality anymore. Justice is also an archaic concept, a taboo that has deliberately been erased from all negotiations. Two and a half million people - farmers, merchants, lawyers, drivers, daydreaming teenage girls, love-smitten men, old people, women, children and combatants using violent means for a just cause - have all been living under a brutal boot for 40 years. Meanwhile, in our cafes and living rooms the conversation is over giving or not giving. Lawyers, philosophers, writers, lecturers, intellectuals and rabbis, who are looked upon for basic knowledge about moral precepts, participate in this distorted discourse.
What will they tell their children - after the occupation finally becomes a nightmare of the past - about the period in which they wielded influence? What will they say about their role in this? Israeli students stand at checkpoints as part of their army reserve duty, brutally deciding the fate of people, and then some rush off to lectures on ethics at university, forgetting what they did the previous day and what is being done in their names every single day.
Intellectuals publish petitions, "to make concessions" or "not to make concessions," diverting attention from the core issue. There are stormy debates about corruption - whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is corrupt and how the Supreme Court is being undermined. But there is no discussion of the ultimate question: Isn't the occupation the greatest and most terrible corruption to have taken root here, overshadowing everything else?
Security officials are terrified about what would happen if we removed a checkpoint or released prisoners, like the whites in South Africa who whipped up in a frenzy of fear about the "great slaughter" that would ensue if blacks were granted their rights.
But these are not legitimate questions: The incarceration must be ended and the myriad of political prisoners should be released unconditionally. Just as a thief cannot present demands - neither preconditions nor any other terms - to the owner of the property he has robbed, Israel cannot present demands to the other side as long as the situation remains as it is.
Security? We must defend ourselves by defensive means. Those who do not believe that the only security we will enjoy will come from ending the occupation and from peace can entrench themselves in the army, and behind walls and fences. But we have no right to do what we are doing: Just as no one would conceive of killing the residents of an entire neighborhood, to harass and incarcerate it because of a few criminals living there, there is no justification for abusing an entire people in the name of our security. The question of whether ending the occupation would threaten or strengthen Israel's security is irrelevant. There are not, and cannot be, any preconditions for restoring justice.
No one will discuss this at Annapolis. Even if the real core issues were raised, they would focus on secondary questions - borders, Jerusalem and even refugees. But that would be escaping the main issue. After 40 years, one might have expected that the real core issue would finally be raised for honest and bold discussion: Does Israel have the moral right to continue the occupation? The world should have asked this long ago. The Palestinians should have focused only on this.
And above all, we, who bear the guilt, should have been terribly troubled by the answer to this question.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/927531.html
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
A Sobering Comment heading toward Annapolis
What do you mean when you say 'no'?
By Gideon Levy
Ha'aretz -- Sunday - November 18, 2007
A festive day for peace: Israel is planning to announce a freeze on construction in the settlements as compensation for refusing to discuss the core issues.
The Palestinians are ecstatic at all the good-will gestures Israel is throwing their way. First came the release of prisoners, now a freeze on construction, and the prime minister has already spoken with the settler leaders and informed them of the decision. They said it was a "difficult meeting," as it always is, winking at each other deviously.
Undoubtedly, Israel wants peace. But a tiny detail seems to have been forgotten: Israel has signed a series of binding agreements to freeze settlement activity, which it never intended to fulfill. Of the 40 years of occupation, only during three has construction been stopped despite all the agreements and promises to do so. There is no reason to believe that Israel will behave differently this time.
Of all Israel's iniquities in the occupied territories - the brutality, the assassinations, the siege, the hunger, the blackouts, the checkpoints and the mass arrests - nothing serves as witness to its real intentions than the settlements. Certainly for the future. Every home built in the territories, every light pole and every road are like a thousand witnesses: Israel does not want peace; Israel wants occupation. Whoever is serious about peace and a Palestinian state does not put up even a shed.
From Oslo through Camp David and on to the road map, Israel has not put an end to the most criminal enterprise in its history. A short memory refresher: In article 7 of the Oslo Accords, Israel promised that "no party would undertake unilateral steps to alter the situation on the ground, prior to the completion of negotiations for the final status." That really made an impression on Israel. During the 10 years that followed, the number of settlers doubled. What about the heroic peace efforts of Ehud Barak as prime minister? During the 18 months of his government, Israel began the construction of 6,045 residential units in the territories.
And why did Israel sign up to the road map two years later? "The government of Israel will freeze all its settlement activities, in accordance with the Mitchell report, except for natural growth in the settlements." And what happened in practice? Accusations that the Palestinians are not implementing the agreements, and a boatload of new settlers. This was also the case in 2005, another major "year of peace": the disengagement. And what did Israel do in its own backyard? Another 12,000 new settlers.
This terrible enterprise, whose purpose is to foil any chance for peace, is also a criminal enterprise. According to Peace Now, based on Civil Administration data that have been kept hidden for years, about 40 percent of the settlements were built on privately owned land of Palestinians helpless to safeguard what is in most cases their sole property that was robbed in broad daylight by an occupying state.
This took place years after the Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that it is illegal to build on private Palestinian land. Indeed, while Israel is debating whether it is a state of laws, whether the prime minister was given a discount for the house on Cremieux Street, and whether we want a powerful Supreme Court, we should remember that what is happening in the territories is the real corruption that engulfs us.
From Oslo through Camp David and on to the road map, Israel has not put an end to the most criminal enterprise in its history. A short memory refresher: In article 7 of the Oslo Accords, Israel promised that "no party would undertake unilateral steps to alter the situation on the ground, prior to the completion of negotiations for the final status." That really made an impression on Israel.
During the 10 years that followed, the number of settlers doubled. What about the heroic peace efforts of Ehud Barak as prime minister? During the 18 months of his government, Israel began the construction of 6,045 residential units in the territories. And why did Israel sign up to the road map two years later? "The government of Israel will freeze all its settlement activities, in accordance with the Mitchell report, except for natural growth in the settlements."
And what happened in practice? Accusations that the Palestinians are not implementing the agreements, and a boatload of new settlers. This was also the case in 2005, another major "year of peace": the disengagement. And what did Israel do in its own backyard? Another 12,000 new settlers. This terrible enterprise, whose purpose is to foil any chance for peace, is also a criminal enterprise.
According to Peace Now, based on Civil Administration data that have been kept hidden for years, about 40 percent of the settlements were built on privately owned land of Palestinians helpless to safeguard what is in most cases their sole property that was robbed in broad daylight by an occupying state. This took place years after the Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that it is illegal to build on private Palestinian land. Indeed, while Israel is debating whether it is a state of laws, whether the prime minister was given a discount for the house on Cremieux Street, and whether we want a powerful Supreme Court, we should remember that what is happening in the territories is the real corruption that engulfs us.
The mountains of excuses, "settlement blocs" and "natural growth," as well as "beyond the fence" and "inside the fence," cannot conceal the naked truth: The enterprise has not ceased for a moment. It will not stop now. The hands of a quarter million settlers are soiled by iniquity and felony, but they are not the true guilty party. That belongs to all Israel's governments, with the exception of Yitzhak Rabin's second government. All of them have a hand in the iniquity.
Nowadays, when Ehud Olmert says no, what does he mean? Is the "no" really "no" - perhaps it is only "maybe but not right now?" In view of past experience, the bitter truth is that Olmert's "no," like all those before it, is more inviting than "yes."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/925054.html
By Gideon Levy
Ha'aretz -- Sunday - November 18, 2007
A festive day for peace: Israel is planning to announce a freeze on construction in the settlements as compensation for refusing to discuss the core issues.
The Palestinians are ecstatic at all the good-will gestures Israel is throwing their way. First came the release of prisoners, now a freeze on construction, and the prime minister has already spoken with the settler leaders and informed them of the decision. They said it was a "difficult meeting," as it always is, winking at each other deviously.
Undoubtedly, Israel wants peace. But a tiny detail seems to have been forgotten: Israel has signed a series of binding agreements to freeze settlement activity, which it never intended to fulfill. Of the 40 years of occupation, only during three has construction been stopped despite all the agreements and promises to do so. There is no reason to believe that Israel will behave differently this time.
Of all Israel's iniquities in the occupied territories - the brutality, the assassinations, the siege, the hunger, the blackouts, the checkpoints and the mass arrests - nothing serves as witness to its real intentions than the settlements. Certainly for the future. Every home built in the territories, every light pole and every road are like a thousand witnesses: Israel does not want peace; Israel wants occupation. Whoever is serious about peace and a Palestinian state does not put up even a shed.
From Oslo through Camp David and on to the road map, Israel has not put an end to the most criminal enterprise in its history. A short memory refresher: In article 7 of the Oslo Accords, Israel promised that "no party would undertake unilateral steps to alter the situation on the ground, prior to the completion of negotiations for the final status." That really made an impression on Israel. During the 10 years that followed, the number of settlers doubled. What about the heroic peace efforts of Ehud Barak as prime minister? During the 18 months of his government, Israel began the construction of 6,045 residential units in the territories.
And why did Israel sign up to the road map two years later? "The government of Israel will freeze all its settlement activities, in accordance with the Mitchell report, except for natural growth in the settlements." And what happened in practice? Accusations that the Palestinians are not implementing the agreements, and a boatload of new settlers. This was also the case in 2005, another major "year of peace": the disengagement. And what did Israel do in its own backyard? Another 12,000 new settlers.
This terrible enterprise, whose purpose is to foil any chance for peace, is also a criminal enterprise. According to Peace Now, based on Civil Administration data that have been kept hidden for years, about 40 percent of the settlements were built on privately owned land of Palestinians helpless to safeguard what is in most cases their sole property that was robbed in broad daylight by an occupying state.
This took place years after the Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that it is illegal to build on private Palestinian land. Indeed, while Israel is debating whether it is a state of laws, whether the prime minister was given a discount for the house on Cremieux Street, and whether we want a powerful Supreme Court, we should remember that what is happening in the territories is the real corruption that engulfs us.
From Oslo through Camp David and on to the road map, Israel has not put an end to the most criminal enterprise in its history. A short memory refresher: In article 7 of the Oslo Accords, Israel promised that "no party would undertake unilateral steps to alter the situation on the ground, prior to the completion of negotiations for the final status." That really made an impression on Israel.
During the 10 years that followed, the number of settlers doubled. What about the heroic peace efforts of Ehud Barak as prime minister? During the 18 months of his government, Israel began the construction of 6,045 residential units in the territories. And why did Israel sign up to the road map two years later? "The government of Israel will freeze all its settlement activities, in accordance with the Mitchell report, except for natural growth in the settlements."
And what happened in practice? Accusations that the Palestinians are not implementing the agreements, and a boatload of new settlers. This was also the case in 2005, another major "year of peace": the disengagement. And what did Israel do in its own backyard? Another 12,000 new settlers. This terrible enterprise, whose purpose is to foil any chance for peace, is also a criminal enterprise.
According to Peace Now, based on Civil Administration data that have been kept hidden for years, about 40 percent of the settlements were built on privately owned land of Palestinians helpless to safeguard what is in most cases their sole property that was robbed in broad daylight by an occupying state. This took place years after the Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that it is illegal to build on private Palestinian land. Indeed, while Israel is debating whether it is a state of laws, whether the prime minister was given a discount for the house on Cremieux Street, and whether we want a powerful Supreme Court, we should remember that what is happening in the territories is the real corruption that engulfs us.
The mountains of excuses, "settlement blocs" and "natural growth," as well as "beyond the fence" and "inside the fence," cannot conceal the naked truth: The enterprise has not ceased for a moment. It will not stop now. The hands of a quarter million settlers are soiled by iniquity and felony, but they are not the true guilty party. That belongs to all Israel's governments, with the exception of Yitzhak Rabin's second government. All of them have a hand in the iniquity.
Nowadays, when Ehud Olmert says no, what does he mean? Is the "no" really "no" - perhaps it is only "maybe but not right now?" In view of past experience, the bitter truth is that Olmert's "no," like all those before it, is more inviting than "yes."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/925054.html
Thursday, November 15, 2007
More from Bishop Tutu
Tutu And St. Thomas
By James M. Wall
In The Christian Century,
Commentary October 30, 2007
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3785
The University of St. Thomas is the largest private institution of higher learning in the state of Minnesota, a school "inspired by Catholic intellectual tradition." Recently, the university found itself in the embarrassing position of having failed to do some basic research; it did not check its sources.
The story behind this development began innocently enough in April, when a staff member from St. Thomas's Justice and Peace Studies program informed his colleagues that he had booked South African archbishop Desmond Tutu for a campus appearance.
Tutu's visit to St. Thomas was to be sponsored in partnership with PeaceJam International, a youth-centered project that brings Nobel laureates to campuses to teach about peace and justice (City Pages, St. Paul, October 3).
The campus was excited at the prospect of bringing Tutu to St. Thomas in the spring of 2008, where he would be the fifth Nobel Prize winner to speak in the PeaceJam series. In an unexpected turn of events, however, the university ordered the event's sponsors to withdraw their invitation to the archbishop. Why this sudden withdrawal? According to the City Pages story, the school was afraid Tutu's presence on campus would "offend local Jews."
City Pages traced the withdrawal to a conversation between Julie Swiler, a spokesperson for the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas, and Doug Hennes, St. Thomas's vice president for university and government relations. Hennes said, "We had heard some things [Archbishop Tutu] said that some people judged to be anti-Semitic and against Israeli policy."To justify his banning of Tutu, St. Thomas's president, Dennis Dease, cited a "speech" that Tutu gave in 2002. "I spoke with Jews for whom I have a great respect," Dease said. "What stung these individuals was not that Archbishop Tutu criticized Israel, but how he did so, and the moral equivalencies that they felt he drew between Israel's policies and those of Nazi Germany, and between Zionism and racism."
The president failed to check his sources—not a very good way to reach a major decision about intellectual dialogue. Many Jews were outraged. More than 2,700 e-mails were sent to the school in response to an appeal from Jewish Voice for Peace, asking the school to reverse its banning of Tutu. Local and national media picked up the story which pitted a Nobel Peace Prize recipient against a Catholic university.
The pressure had its effect. On October 10, President Dease reversed his decision to ban the archbishop and declared, "I made the wrong decision earlier this year not to invite the archbishop. Although well-intentioned, I did not have all of the facts and points of view, but now I do."
"The facts and points of view" which President Dease lacked were easily available in the sermon which Tutu preached in the historic Old South Church in Boston during a 2002 conference on "Ending the Occupation," sponsored by Friends of Sabeel-North America.
The sermon included these words:My heart aches. I say, Why are our memories so short? Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden? . . . This is God's world. For goodness sake, this is God's world! We live in a moral universe. The [South African] apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosovic and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust. . . . Injustice and oppression will never prevail. Those who are powerful have to remember the litmus test that God gives to the powerful: What is your treatment of the poor, the hungry, the voiceless? And on the basis of that, God passes judgment.
Leave it to Time magazine senior editor Tony Karon, a Jewish journalist originally from South Africa, to focus on the absurdity of the claim that there was any anti-Semitism in Tutu's sermon. Karon wrote in his blog Rootless Cosmopolitan October 3:
The utterly charming thing about the Zionist Thought Police is their apparent inability to restrain themselves, even from the very excesses that will prove to be their own undoing. Having asked sane and rational people to believe that Jimmy Carter is a Holocaust denier, the same crew now want us to believe that Archbishop Desmond Tutu is an anti-Semite. . . . This case underlines precisely how absurd the policing of discussion about Israel in the U.S. has become. . . . There are few, if any, more decent, humane, courageous and morally unimpeachable individuals in the world than Bishop Tutu.
President Dease has done the right thing by acknowledging his mistake in banning the archbishop. He has also invited Tutu to participate in a forum on campus which would be cosponsored by the same Jewish organization that influenced the university to ban Tutu in the first place.
By James M. Wall
In The Christian Century,
Commentary October 30, 2007
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3785
The University of St. Thomas is the largest private institution of higher learning in the state of Minnesota, a school "inspired by Catholic intellectual tradition." Recently, the university found itself in the embarrassing position of having failed to do some basic research; it did not check its sources.
The story behind this development began innocently enough in April, when a staff member from St. Thomas's Justice and Peace Studies program informed his colleagues that he had booked South African archbishop Desmond Tutu for a campus appearance.
Tutu's visit to St. Thomas was to be sponsored in partnership with PeaceJam International, a youth-centered project that brings Nobel laureates to campuses to teach about peace and justice (City Pages, St. Paul, October 3).
The campus was excited at the prospect of bringing Tutu to St. Thomas in the spring of 2008, where he would be the fifth Nobel Prize winner to speak in the PeaceJam series. In an unexpected turn of events, however, the university ordered the event's sponsors to withdraw their invitation to the archbishop. Why this sudden withdrawal? According to the City Pages story, the school was afraid Tutu's presence on campus would "offend local Jews."
City Pages traced the withdrawal to a conversation between Julie Swiler, a spokesperson for the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas, and Doug Hennes, St. Thomas's vice president for university and government relations. Hennes said, "We had heard some things [Archbishop Tutu] said that some people judged to be anti-Semitic and against Israeli policy."To justify his banning of Tutu, St. Thomas's president, Dennis Dease, cited a "speech" that Tutu gave in 2002. "I spoke with Jews for whom I have a great respect," Dease said. "What stung these individuals was not that Archbishop Tutu criticized Israel, but how he did so, and the moral equivalencies that they felt he drew between Israel's policies and those of Nazi Germany, and between Zionism and racism."
The president failed to check his sources—not a very good way to reach a major decision about intellectual dialogue. Many Jews were outraged. More than 2,700 e-mails were sent to the school in response to an appeal from Jewish Voice for Peace, asking the school to reverse its banning of Tutu. Local and national media picked up the story which pitted a Nobel Peace Prize recipient against a Catholic university.
The pressure had its effect. On October 10, President Dease reversed his decision to ban the archbishop and declared, "I made the wrong decision earlier this year not to invite the archbishop. Although well-intentioned, I did not have all of the facts and points of view, but now I do."
"The facts and points of view" which President Dease lacked were easily available in the sermon which Tutu preached in the historic Old South Church in Boston during a 2002 conference on "Ending the Occupation," sponsored by Friends of Sabeel-North America.
The sermon included these words:My heart aches. I say, Why are our memories so short? Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden? . . . This is God's world. For goodness sake, this is God's world! We live in a moral universe. The [South African] apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosovic and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust. . . . Injustice and oppression will never prevail. Those who are powerful have to remember the litmus test that God gives to the powerful: What is your treatment of the poor, the hungry, the voiceless? And on the basis of that, God passes judgment.
Leave it to Time magazine senior editor Tony Karon, a Jewish journalist originally from South Africa, to focus on the absurdity of the claim that there was any anti-Semitism in Tutu's sermon. Karon wrote in his blog Rootless Cosmopolitan October 3:
The utterly charming thing about the Zionist Thought Police is their apparent inability to restrain themselves, even from the very excesses that will prove to be their own undoing. Having asked sane and rational people to believe that Jimmy Carter is a Holocaust denier, the same crew now want us to believe that Archbishop Desmond Tutu is an anti-Semite. . . . This case underlines precisely how absurd the policing of discussion about Israel in the U.S. has become. . . . There are few, if any, more decent, humane, courageous and morally unimpeachable individuals in the world than Bishop Tutu.
President Dease has done the right thing by acknowledging his mistake in banning the archbishop. He has also invited Tutu to participate in a forum on campus which would be cosponsored by the same Jewish organization that influenced the university to ban Tutu in the first place.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Christian, Muslim and Jewish Religious Leaders Pledge Unity
Co-Presidents Pledge to Advance Peace in the Holy Land
Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land Pledges to Advance Peace and Reconciliation in the Middle East
—Senior Islamic and Christian religious leaders from Palestine to form groundbreaking Inter-Religious Council—
(NEW YORK, 7 November 2007)—The Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land—led by senior-most Jewish, Christian, and Islamic leaders—pledged to advance peace in the Middle East and dedicated itself to protecting sites holy to each faith tradition.
“We, believers from three religions, have been placed in this land—Jews, Christians, and Muslims. It is our responsibility to find the right way to live together in peace rather than to fight and kill one another,” the Council members said in a communiqué.
The Council began meeting on Monday in Washington, D.C. with American religious leaders and representatives of the U.S. government. “Each religious community should treat the Holy Sites of other faiths in a manner that respects their integrity and independence and avoids any act of desecration, aggression, or harm,” the Council members said.
Three Religions for Peace Co-Presidents are founding members of the Council and were part of the 10-member delegation that met with U.S. officials: Chief Rabbi David Rosen, President of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations; His Beatitude Michel Sabbah, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem; and Sheikh Tayser Rajab al-Tamimi, the Supreme Judge of Sharia Courts in Palestine.
“All of our religions must be irrevocably committed to building a just peace together,” Sheikh Tamimi said. Rabbi Rosen said, “Peace will only come in the Holy Land when the legitimate political and religious aspirations of Jews, Christians, and Muslims are reconciled through honest dialogue and cooperation.”
The work of the Council was facilitated by Rev. Dr. Trond Bakkevig, Middle East Envoy for the Commission on International and Ecumenical Affairs of the Church of Norway. Notable among the Council’s financial supporters is the Government of Norway.
In a separate action on Monday, the senior Palestinian religious leaders agreed to break further ground by establishing a Religions for Peace Inter-Religious Council–Palestine composed of the senior-most Palestinian Islamic and Christian leaders. The religious leaders committed to working together to advance peace through multi-religious cooperation both within Palestine and across its borders.
The Religions for Peace Co-Presidents were united in their conviction that there will be no peace in the Holy Land without multi-religious cooperation.
Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land Pledges to Advance Peace and Reconciliation in the Middle East
—Senior Islamic and Christian religious leaders from Palestine to form groundbreaking Inter-Religious Council—
(NEW YORK, 7 November 2007)—The Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land—led by senior-most Jewish, Christian, and Islamic leaders—pledged to advance peace in the Middle East and dedicated itself to protecting sites holy to each faith tradition.
“We, believers from three religions, have been placed in this land—Jews, Christians, and Muslims. It is our responsibility to find the right way to live together in peace rather than to fight and kill one another,” the Council members said in a communiqué.
The Council began meeting on Monday in Washington, D.C. with American religious leaders and representatives of the U.S. government. “Each religious community should treat the Holy Sites of other faiths in a manner that respects their integrity and independence and avoids any act of desecration, aggression, or harm,” the Council members said.
Three Religions for Peace Co-Presidents are founding members of the Council and were part of the 10-member delegation that met with U.S. officials: Chief Rabbi David Rosen, President of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations; His Beatitude Michel Sabbah, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem; and Sheikh Tayser Rajab al-Tamimi, the Supreme Judge of Sharia Courts in Palestine.
“All of our religions must be irrevocably committed to building a just peace together,” Sheikh Tamimi said. Rabbi Rosen said, “Peace will only come in the Holy Land when the legitimate political and religious aspirations of Jews, Christians, and Muslims are reconciled through honest dialogue and cooperation.”
The work of the Council was facilitated by Rev. Dr. Trond Bakkevig, Middle East Envoy for the Commission on International and Ecumenical Affairs of the Church of Norway. Notable among the Council’s financial supporters is the Government of Norway.
In a separate action on Monday, the senior Palestinian religious leaders agreed to break further ground by establishing a Religions for Peace Inter-Religious Council–Palestine composed of the senior-most Palestinian Islamic and Christian leaders. The religious leaders committed to working together to advance peace through multi-religious cooperation both within Palestine and across its borders.
The Religions for Peace Co-Presidents were united in their conviction that there will be no peace in the Holy Land without multi-religious cooperation.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
The (Real) Root of the Conflict!
Israel's Dilemma in Palestine
A Land With People, For a People with a Plan
By LUDWIG WATZAL
Two rabbis, visiting Palestine in 1897, observed that the land was like a bride, "beautiful, but married to another man". By which they meant that, if a place was to be found for a Jewish "homeland" in Palestine, the indigenous inhabitants had to leave.
Where should the people of Palestine go?
Squaring that circle has been the essence of Israel´s dilemma ever since its establishment and the cause of the Palestinian tragedy that it led to. It has remained insoluble.
Ghada Karmi's new book, Married To Another Man, Israel´s Dilemma in Palestine, (published by Pluto Press, London-Ann Arbor) shows that the major reason for this failure was the original and unresolved Zionist quandary of how to create and maintain a Jewish state in a land inhabited by another people. Zionism was never able to resolve the problem of "the other man".
There are only two ways: Either the "other man" had to be eradicated, or the Jewish state project had to be given up. Israel did not do either. It succeeded in 1948 in expelling and keeping out a large number of Palestinians, but Israel was never able to "cleanse" the land of Palestine entirely. The fundamental mistake of the Zionists was their belief that "the entire land of Palestine was Jewish and the Arab presence in it a resented foreign intrusion".
All in all, the Zionists were "relatively" successful, but for the indigenous owners of the land it was a catastrophe which has been going on until today. "If Israel remains a colonialist state in its character, it will not survive. In the end the region will be stronger than Israel, in the end the indigenous people will be stronger than Israel, " as Akiva Eldar quoted the former Mazpen member Haim Hangebi in the Israeli Daily Haaretz on August 8, 2003. The author concludes: "Zionism´s ethos was not about peaceful co-existence but about colonialism and an exclusivist ideology to be imposed and maintained by force."
Ghada Karmi is a renowned commentator on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a well-known figure on British radio and TV. She was born in Jerusalem, and forced to leave as a child in 1948. She grew up in Britain where she became a physician, academic and writer. Currently, Karmi is a research fellow and lecturer at the Insitute of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter. She has written several books, including In Search of Fatima, which was widely praised.
The Zionist dilemma was perfectly and bluntly expressed by the so-called "post-Zionist" representative and professor, Benny Morris, which led not only to an uproar in the scientific community, but also to a deep disappiontment, because Morris was considered to belong to the "new historians". In this interview with the daily Haaretz and in his article in The Guardian he presented himself as an ardent Zionist. He encapsulates all Zionism´s major elements, its inherent implausibility as a practical enterprise, its arrogance, racism and self-righteousness, and the insurmountable obstacle to it of Palestine´s original population, which refuses to go away. For his colonialist and racist view he was severely critiziced by Baruch Kimmerling and many others who could not understand his attitude.
Morris said incredible things: "A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population." According to him the Zionists made a mistake to have allowed any Palestinans to remain. "If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer of 1948. (...) In other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves (...) in a situation of warfare (...) acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential (...) If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified." Morris concludes, Zionism is faced with two options: perpetual cruelty and repression of others, or the end of the enterprise. These alternatives give the whole enterprise an apocalyptic touch. For the time being, the Israeli security establishment has chosen the "iron wall"-concept which refers to a wall of bayonets.
Ghada Karmi shows in one of her chapters,"The Cost of Israel to the Arabs", that the price they had to pay was horrendous. She holds not only Israel but also the West, especially the United States of America, is responsible for the rejectionist attitude of the Israeli political class. They just did never consider any compromise. In this chapter the author describes the damage that Israel´s creation inflicted on the Arabs, how it has retarded their development and provoked a reactive and dangerous radicalization.
The Arabs are always asked to be realistic and recognise the facts on the ground. "The Arabs were expected to make peace with Israel - and to love it as well." Under the surface Israel has made much progress towards normalisation with the Arab world. The Arab leaders have to conceal that truth from their own populations. Karmi views Western policy in Israel´s case rather strategic than ideological. The installation of the Jewish state as the local agent of Western regional self-interest was an effective way of dividing the Arabs, so as to ensure that they remained dependent and subjugated." Egypt and Jordan are the best examples.
In the Chapter "Why do Jews support Israel?" the author asks "Why did a project, which was, on the face of it, implausible in the first place and inevitably destructive of others, succeed so well? Just as importantly, why did it continue to receive support, despite a clear record of aggression and multiple breaches of international law against its neighbours that ensured its survival - not just as a state but as a disruptive force?" A number of disparate factors account for the unconditional support for Israel: the Holocaust and its associated trauma and guilts, the exigencies of Western regional policy, religious mythology, so-called common values, and Israel as the "only democracy in the Middle East" et cetera.
It is difficult to find a similar phenomenon for a state in the 21st Century that gets away with vast human rights violations, colonial subjugation of another people and a disdain of international law. Not only for the American Jewish community but also for many liberal Jews "Israel had taken on a mythic quality, part-identity, part-religion, and its dissolution, as a Jewish state, became psychologically and emotionally unthinkable. The obverse of this coin was of course a paranoid suspicion and hatred of anyone who threatened Israel in the slightest way." Karmi describes the Zionist desperate attempt to prove an unbroken chain between the Jews of Palestine and those of Europe. "Put like this, the absurditiy of the idea is obvious, but that in fact was the proposition Zionists wanted people to believe in order to justify the Jewish `return` to the ´homeland`." Because the Zionist claim rested on such shaky grounds, Jewish researchers "tried to use genetics as a way of demonstrating a link between European (Ashkenazi) Jews and their supposed Middle Eastern origins by way of finding a common ancestry with Middle Eastern Jews".
The author discusses the relationship between the US and Israel and the dominant influence of the "Israel lobby", especially AIPAC which adopted a right-wing posture, both in its support for the Likud party in Israel and the political right in the US, including the Christian Zionists whose belief system goes like follows: They adhere literally to the Old Testament. Fundamental was the return of the Jews to the land of Israel, which was given them by God through the covenant with Abraham. According to this legacy all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates was granted to the Jews. The Jewish return to Palestine (Israel) was essential as a prelude to Christ´s Second Coming; in that sense, Jews were the instrument by which divine prophecy would be fulfilled. However, they were obliged to convert to Christianity and rebuild the Jewish Temple. Seven years of tribulation would follow, culminating in a holocaust or Armageddon, during which the converted Jews and other godless people would be destroyed. Only then would the Messiah return to redeem mankind and establish the Kingdom of God on earth where he would reign for a thousand years. The converted Jews, restored as God´s Chosen People, would enjoy a privileged status in the world. At the end of all this, they and all the rightous would ascend to heaven in the final `Rapture`. The Jewish role in all this meant: "Jews restored to Israel and converted, leading to the Second Advent, leading to mankind´s redemption."
In chapter four, five and six the author critizices the so-called peace process, Arafat´s destructive final role and Israel´s attempt to revive the Jordanian option. In signing the Oslo agreement, "Arafat legitimized Zionism, the very ideology that had created and still perpetuates the Palestinian tragedy".
The Israeli aim to destroy the Palestinans could not have been better described as in the words of the Israeli sociologist professor Baruch Kimmerling who wrote in his book Politicide that the process of gradual military, political and psychological attrition whose aim was to destroy the Palestinians as an independent people with a coherent political and social existence would make them vanish by their fragmentation and irrelevance. "Forty years of Israeli politicide had done its work on the Palestine question as a national cause. The Palestinians, already in an unenviable position of physical fragmentation after 1948, became politically fragmented with the Israeli occupation."
In her chapter "Solving the Problem", Karmi argues that a two-state solution is out of reach. Consequently, she calls in chapter seven for a one-state solution. "In a single state, no Jewish settler would have to move and no Palestinian would be under occupation." The author thinks that creating a Jewish state was "crazy" at Herzl´s time and even now therefore "creating a unitary state of Israel/Palestine, far less implausible than the Zionist project ever was, should be no less successful".
Refering to Hangebi´s statement that Israel as a "colonial state" cannot survive, Karmi proposes an unthinkable idea: "The best solution to this intractable problem is to turn back the clock before there was any Jewish state and return history as from there." But at the end, she turns back to realism: "The clock will not go back and, although the Jewish state cannot be uncreated, it might be, so to speak, unmade. The reunification of Palestine´s shattered remains in a unitary state for all its inhabitants, old and new, is the only realistic, humane and durable route out of the morass. It is also the only way for the Israeli Jewish community (as opposed to the Israeli state) to survive in the Middle East."
Dr. Ludwig Watzal works as an editor and a journalist in Bonn, Germany. He has written several books on Israel and Palestine. He can be reached at: lwatzal@aol.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/watzal11052007.html
Thoughts from JRK:
Ghada Karmi seems to make a case for the "one state" solution.
I know the one-state solution is politically incorrect right now, as it is completely unacceptable to "the Jews" and many/most Palestinian opinion makers (AFTP for example).
Yet Karmi's argument is compelling, has the ring of truth and shows how the Zionist experiment is doomed to fail (IMO) in the long course of history going forward.
Two states just won't work in the long run, (IMHO). It won't work now, in the short run (no way to carve out a separate Palestinian entity in the light of "facts on the ground") and it surely won't work in the long run (a homogeneous blending of people sharing the same ground is the normal thing; keeping the Palestinians in ghettos, ala blacks in S. Africa and Jews in Poland won't work in the long run).
The Palestinians who persist in living there refuse to be exterminated or ethnically cleansed. Maybe they will become as the Native Americans in the USA in the long run, having to make their peace with an "alien" government authority.
How is it possible for America and Israel to keep the lid of anger in place without a huge explosion?
Maybe surrounding Arab states will become militarily strong enough to expel the Jewish occupiers. (Present and future US pols "won't let that happen", etc., etc)
Is it possible to discuss the underlying issues? Is mutual respect possible? Is resolution/reconciliation possible? Are leaders in place for this? Questions. Answers?
You have your own thoughts after you read this profound piece (with thanks to liaison Doug Dicks, now from Jordan). Thoughts to ponder. Actions to take? JRK
A Land With People, For a People with a Plan
By LUDWIG WATZAL
Two rabbis, visiting Palestine in 1897, observed that the land was like a bride, "beautiful, but married to another man". By which they meant that, if a place was to be found for a Jewish "homeland" in Palestine, the indigenous inhabitants had to leave.
Where should the people of Palestine go?
Squaring that circle has been the essence of Israel´s dilemma ever since its establishment and the cause of the Palestinian tragedy that it led to. It has remained insoluble.
Ghada Karmi's new book, Married To Another Man, Israel´s Dilemma in Palestine, (published by Pluto Press, London-Ann Arbor) shows that the major reason for this failure was the original and unresolved Zionist quandary of how to create and maintain a Jewish state in a land inhabited by another people. Zionism was never able to resolve the problem of "the other man".
There are only two ways: Either the "other man" had to be eradicated, or the Jewish state project had to be given up. Israel did not do either. It succeeded in 1948 in expelling and keeping out a large number of Palestinians, but Israel was never able to "cleanse" the land of Palestine entirely. The fundamental mistake of the Zionists was their belief that "the entire land of Palestine was Jewish and the Arab presence in it a resented foreign intrusion".
All in all, the Zionists were "relatively" successful, but for the indigenous owners of the land it was a catastrophe which has been going on until today. "If Israel remains a colonialist state in its character, it will not survive. In the end the region will be stronger than Israel, in the end the indigenous people will be stronger than Israel, " as Akiva Eldar quoted the former Mazpen member Haim Hangebi in the Israeli Daily Haaretz on August 8, 2003. The author concludes: "Zionism´s ethos was not about peaceful co-existence but about colonialism and an exclusivist ideology to be imposed and maintained by force."
Ghada Karmi is a renowned commentator on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a well-known figure on British radio and TV. She was born in Jerusalem, and forced to leave as a child in 1948. She grew up in Britain where she became a physician, academic and writer. Currently, Karmi is a research fellow and lecturer at the Insitute of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter. She has written several books, including In Search of Fatima, which was widely praised.
The Zionist dilemma was perfectly and bluntly expressed by the so-called "post-Zionist" representative and professor, Benny Morris, which led not only to an uproar in the scientific community, but also to a deep disappiontment, because Morris was considered to belong to the "new historians". In this interview with the daily Haaretz and in his article in The Guardian he presented himself as an ardent Zionist. He encapsulates all Zionism´s major elements, its inherent implausibility as a practical enterprise, its arrogance, racism and self-righteousness, and the insurmountable obstacle to it of Palestine´s original population, which refuses to go away. For his colonialist and racist view he was severely critiziced by Baruch Kimmerling and many others who could not understand his attitude.
Morris said incredible things: "A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population." According to him the Zionists made a mistake to have allowed any Palestinans to remain. "If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer of 1948. (...) In other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves (...) in a situation of warfare (...) acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential (...) If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified." Morris concludes, Zionism is faced with two options: perpetual cruelty and repression of others, or the end of the enterprise. These alternatives give the whole enterprise an apocalyptic touch. For the time being, the Israeli security establishment has chosen the "iron wall"-concept which refers to a wall of bayonets.
Ghada Karmi shows in one of her chapters,"The Cost of Israel to the Arabs", that the price they had to pay was horrendous. She holds not only Israel but also the West, especially the United States of America, is responsible for the rejectionist attitude of the Israeli political class. They just did never consider any compromise. In this chapter the author describes the damage that Israel´s creation inflicted on the Arabs, how it has retarded their development and provoked a reactive and dangerous radicalization.
The Arabs are always asked to be realistic and recognise the facts on the ground. "The Arabs were expected to make peace with Israel - and to love it as well." Under the surface Israel has made much progress towards normalisation with the Arab world. The Arab leaders have to conceal that truth from their own populations. Karmi views Western policy in Israel´s case rather strategic than ideological. The installation of the Jewish state as the local agent of Western regional self-interest was an effective way of dividing the Arabs, so as to ensure that they remained dependent and subjugated." Egypt and Jordan are the best examples.
In the Chapter "Why do Jews support Israel?" the author asks "Why did a project, which was, on the face of it, implausible in the first place and inevitably destructive of others, succeed so well? Just as importantly, why did it continue to receive support, despite a clear record of aggression and multiple breaches of international law against its neighbours that ensured its survival - not just as a state but as a disruptive force?" A number of disparate factors account for the unconditional support for Israel: the Holocaust and its associated trauma and guilts, the exigencies of Western regional policy, religious mythology, so-called common values, and Israel as the "only democracy in the Middle East" et cetera.
It is difficult to find a similar phenomenon for a state in the 21st Century that gets away with vast human rights violations, colonial subjugation of another people and a disdain of international law. Not only for the American Jewish community but also for many liberal Jews "Israel had taken on a mythic quality, part-identity, part-religion, and its dissolution, as a Jewish state, became psychologically and emotionally unthinkable. The obverse of this coin was of course a paranoid suspicion and hatred of anyone who threatened Israel in the slightest way." Karmi describes the Zionist desperate attempt to prove an unbroken chain between the Jews of Palestine and those of Europe. "Put like this, the absurditiy of the idea is obvious, but that in fact was the proposition Zionists wanted people to believe in order to justify the Jewish `return` to the ´homeland`." Because the Zionist claim rested on such shaky grounds, Jewish researchers "tried to use genetics as a way of demonstrating a link between European (Ashkenazi) Jews and their supposed Middle Eastern origins by way of finding a common ancestry with Middle Eastern Jews".
The author discusses the relationship between the US and Israel and the dominant influence of the "Israel lobby", especially AIPAC which adopted a right-wing posture, both in its support for the Likud party in Israel and the political right in the US, including the Christian Zionists whose belief system goes like follows: They adhere literally to the Old Testament. Fundamental was the return of the Jews to the land of Israel, which was given them by God through the covenant with Abraham. According to this legacy all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates was granted to the Jews. The Jewish return to Palestine (Israel) was essential as a prelude to Christ´s Second Coming; in that sense, Jews were the instrument by which divine prophecy would be fulfilled. However, they were obliged to convert to Christianity and rebuild the Jewish Temple. Seven years of tribulation would follow, culminating in a holocaust or Armageddon, during which the converted Jews and other godless people would be destroyed. Only then would the Messiah return to redeem mankind and establish the Kingdom of God on earth where he would reign for a thousand years. The converted Jews, restored as God´s Chosen People, would enjoy a privileged status in the world. At the end of all this, they and all the rightous would ascend to heaven in the final `Rapture`. The Jewish role in all this meant: "Jews restored to Israel and converted, leading to the Second Advent, leading to mankind´s redemption."
In chapter four, five and six the author critizices the so-called peace process, Arafat´s destructive final role and Israel´s attempt to revive the Jordanian option. In signing the Oslo agreement, "Arafat legitimized Zionism, the very ideology that had created and still perpetuates the Palestinian tragedy".
The Israeli aim to destroy the Palestinans could not have been better described as in the words of the Israeli sociologist professor Baruch Kimmerling who wrote in his book Politicide that the process of gradual military, political and psychological attrition whose aim was to destroy the Palestinians as an independent people with a coherent political and social existence would make them vanish by their fragmentation and irrelevance. "Forty years of Israeli politicide had done its work on the Palestine question as a national cause. The Palestinians, already in an unenviable position of physical fragmentation after 1948, became politically fragmented with the Israeli occupation."
In her chapter "Solving the Problem", Karmi argues that a two-state solution is out of reach. Consequently, she calls in chapter seven for a one-state solution. "In a single state, no Jewish settler would have to move and no Palestinian would be under occupation." The author thinks that creating a Jewish state was "crazy" at Herzl´s time and even now therefore "creating a unitary state of Israel/Palestine, far less implausible than the Zionist project ever was, should be no less successful".
Refering to Hangebi´s statement that Israel as a "colonial state" cannot survive, Karmi proposes an unthinkable idea: "The best solution to this intractable problem is to turn back the clock before there was any Jewish state and return history as from there." But at the end, she turns back to realism: "The clock will not go back and, although the Jewish state cannot be uncreated, it might be, so to speak, unmade. The reunification of Palestine´s shattered remains in a unitary state for all its inhabitants, old and new, is the only realistic, humane and durable route out of the morass. It is also the only way for the Israeli Jewish community (as opposed to the Israeli state) to survive in the Middle East."
Dr. Ludwig Watzal works as an editor and a journalist in Bonn, Germany. He has written several books on Israel and Palestine. He can be reached at: lwatzal@aol.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/watzal11052007.html
Thoughts from JRK:
Ghada Karmi seems to make a case for the "one state" solution.
I know the one-state solution is politically incorrect right now, as it is completely unacceptable to "the Jews" and many/most Palestinian opinion makers (AFTP for example).
Yet Karmi's argument is compelling, has the ring of truth and shows how the Zionist experiment is doomed to fail (IMO) in the long course of history going forward.
Two states just won't work in the long run, (IMHO). It won't work now, in the short run (no way to carve out a separate Palestinian entity in the light of "facts on the ground") and it surely won't work in the long run (a homogeneous blending of people sharing the same ground is the normal thing; keeping the Palestinians in ghettos, ala blacks in S. Africa and Jews in Poland won't work in the long run).
The Palestinians who persist in living there refuse to be exterminated or ethnically cleansed. Maybe they will become as the Native Americans in the USA in the long run, having to make their peace with an "alien" government authority.
How is it possible for America and Israel to keep the lid of anger in place without a huge explosion?
Maybe surrounding Arab states will become militarily strong enough to expel the Jewish occupiers. (Present and future US pols "won't let that happen", etc., etc)
Is it possible to discuss the underlying issues? Is mutual respect possible? Is resolution/reconciliation possible? Are leaders in place for this? Questions. Answers?
You have your own thoughts after you read this profound piece (with thanks to liaison Doug Dicks, now from Jordan). Thoughts to ponder. Actions to take? JRK
Friday, November 2, 2007
Both Sides are Human
In Humanity Lies Hope For Peace
By Hilla Medalia
In The Boston Globe,
Opinion November 1, 2007 http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/11/01/in_humanity_lies_hope_fo
DELEGATES FROM Israel and a consortium of Arab states will meet in the United States this month with the hope of devising an agreement - or at least the DNA of an agreement - that will lead to the formation of a Palestinian state and, theoretically, stability in the Middle East. It is the first such US-led summit in years, and regardless of the outcome, it will be a historic event.
History, unfortunately, has not favored success when it comes to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The road to peace is littered with numerous failed plans that have left in their wake a sea of bitter cynicism, and a resignation that this is a road that will forever stretch beyond the horizon. One can't be blamed for believing this summit will be no different.
The cynicism is understandable, but perhaps this is because, in both the United States and Middle East, much of what we know, or what we think we know, about the conflict is filtered through the lens of politics, which is too often framed by zealots and violence.
This leads both sides to assume that the general population of the other shares these extremist beliefs and desires nothing less than their complete subjugation, if not annihilation. At the very least, the average citizen's voice is overwhelmed by the deafening power of extremism. If you set aside the political rhetoric, however, and listen to what the average Israeli or Palestinian truly wants, you'll find that their desires are not so different. Opportunities for such dialogue, unfortunately, are rare.
I grew up in Ramat Hasharon, Israel, no more than 16 miles from Tulkarm, a Palestinian refugee camp, but until three years ago, I had never set foot in one of the camps that are the crux of the hostilities. The closest most Israelis - other than the army - get to Palestinian life is what they see in the media, which focuses almost exclusively on military activity and civil unrest.
I entered one of these camps, Deheisheh, not with a machine gun, but with a camera, to film a documentary about the mothers of two teenage girls: Rachel Levy, an Israeli, and Ayat al-Akhras, a Palestinian who killed Rachel, herself, and another bystander, and injured dozens of others in a suicide bombing several years ago. A neutral Christian Palestinian peace worker had to negotiate my entrance into the camp.
Simply bearing witness to life inside Deheisheh was a remarkable education. I was able to see Palestinians not as a political or military entity, but as ordinary people going through their daily routine - shopping, going to school, coming home from work - albeit in markedly oppressive conditions. The experience was short lived, however, and the political reality of the conflict brought home when we were detained within an hour by the Palestinian Authority and then released back to Israel."
Several weeks later, we arranged a meeting between Rachel's mother, Avigail, and Ayat's mother, Um Samir. Avigail had sought the meeting in an effort to understand why her daughter had become another of the countless victims of the Palestinian terrorist campaign, and what motivated Ayat to feel justified in killing innocent people. The mothers "met" via a videoconference, since a face-to-face meeting had proved impossible.
Their exchange was tense, and understandably, fraught with grief and an array of complex emotions. Both arrived with agendas to uphold and negative assumptions about the other. They could not agree on the morality or immorality of what Ayat had done. But they did understand each other as mothers who were devastated to have lost their daughters.
Most important, after four hours of often circuitous, heated dialogue, neither of them wanted the conversation to end. They stayed as long as the video conference schedule allowed, and then left reluctantly. Regardless of the hostility, they had seen each other in a way that Israelis and Palestinians rarely do - as human beings - and they did not want to let that go. It was too precious.
Herein lies the seed of hope for peace, or perhaps just a seed of hope for hope. When the US, Arab, and Israeli leaders meet at the upcoming summit, they might bear in mind that they are not representing political or military factions, but mothers, daughters, fathers, and sons who yearn to have their humanity recognized.
By Hilla Medalia
In The Boston Globe,
Opinion November 1, 2007 http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/11/01/in_humanity_lies_hope_fo
DELEGATES FROM Israel and a consortium of Arab states will meet in the United States this month with the hope of devising an agreement - or at least the DNA of an agreement - that will lead to the formation of a Palestinian state and, theoretically, stability in the Middle East. It is the first such US-led summit in years, and regardless of the outcome, it will be a historic event.
History, unfortunately, has not favored success when it comes to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The road to peace is littered with numerous failed plans that have left in their wake a sea of bitter cynicism, and a resignation that this is a road that will forever stretch beyond the horizon. One can't be blamed for believing this summit will be no different.
The cynicism is understandable, but perhaps this is because, in both the United States and Middle East, much of what we know, or what we think we know, about the conflict is filtered through the lens of politics, which is too often framed by zealots and violence.
This leads both sides to assume that the general population of the other shares these extremist beliefs and desires nothing less than their complete subjugation, if not annihilation. At the very least, the average citizen's voice is overwhelmed by the deafening power of extremism. If you set aside the political rhetoric, however, and listen to what the average Israeli or Palestinian truly wants, you'll find that their desires are not so different. Opportunities for such dialogue, unfortunately, are rare.
I grew up in Ramat Hasharon, Israel, no more than 16 miles from Tulkarm, a Palestinian refugee camp, but until three years ago, I had never set foot in one of the camps that are the crux of the hostilities. The closest most Israelis - other than the army - get to Palestinian life is what they see in the media, which focuses almost exclusively on military activity and civil unrest.
I entered one of these camps, Deheisheh, not with a machine gun, but with a camera, to film a documentary about the mothers of two teenage girls: Rachel Levy, an Israeli, and Ayat al-Akhras, a Palestinian who killed Rachel, herself, and another bystander, and injured dozens of others in a suicide bombing several years ago. A neutral Christian Palestinian peace worker had to negotiate my entrance into the camp.
Simply bearing witness to life inside Deheisheh was a remarkable education. I was able to see Palestinians not as a political or military entity, but as ordinary people going through their daily routine - shopping, going to school, coming home from work - albeit in markedly oppressive conditions. The experience was short lived, however, and the political reality of the conflict brought home when we were detained within an hour by the Palestinian Authority and then released back to Israel."
Several weeks later, we arranged a meeting between Rachel's mother, Avigail, and Ayat's mother, Um Samir. Avigail had sought the meeting in an effort to understand why her daughter had become another of the countless victims of the Palestinian terrorist campaign, and what motivated Ayat to feel justified in killing innocent people. The mothers "met" via a videoconference, since a face-to-face meeting had proved impossible.
Their exchange was tense, and understandably, fraught with grief and an array of complex emotions. Both arrived with agendas to uphold and negative assumptions about the other. They could not agree on the morality or immorality of what Ayat had done. But they did understand each other as mothers who were devastated to have lost their daughters.
Most important, after four hours of often circuitous, heated dialogue, neither of them wanted the conversation to end. They stayed as long as the video conference schedule allowed, and then left reluctantly. Regardless of the hostility, they had seen each other in a way that Israelis and Palestinians rarely do - as human beings - and they did not want to let that go. It was too precious.
Herein lies the seed of hope for peace, or perhaps just a seed of hope for hope. When the US, Arab, and Israeli leaders meet at the upcoming summit, they might bear in mind that they are not representing political or military factions, but mothers, daughters, fathers, and sons who yearn to have their humanity recognized.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
American Jews for Peace
Below is an open letter from American Jews for Peace, to the US government (signed by 3,800 American Jews) as published in the New York Times, (get this) on July 17, 2002.
This is sad. It is another example of a simple, rather precise outline of how the conflict can be resolved. And this piece is 5 years old! And its from Amerian Jews!
To whose advantage is this conflict allowed to continue? Where is the Israeli and Palestinian and American leadership to get this done?!
Please copy this letter and send it to President Bush and Secretary Rice, as well as all the Jewish Americans you know, asking them to advocate for this position. It was true in 2002. It is still true in 2007!
Peace in the Middle East:
An Open Letter from American Jews to Our Government
In the wake of the recent bloodshed in the Middle East, many Israelis and Palestinians -- and their supporters in the United States -- have reverted to an us-versus-them thinking in which they see themselves as righteous victims and ignore or minimize the injustices they have done, and continue to do, to the other people.
In fact, both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples have suffered great wrongs at the hands of the other, albeit in different and unequal ways; both have legitimate grievances, legitimate fears, and legitimate distrust of the other people's willingness to compromise for the sake of peace.
Though the signers of this letter have a wide range of views about the blame for the present situation, we have a common view of what a solution will have to consist of.
Incremental attempts at building trust have reached an impasse. The only alternative to endless war is a comprehensive settlement based on simple but radical principles:
Israeli and Palestinian lives are equally precious.
The Israeli and Palestinian peoples have equal rights to national self-determination and to live in peace and security.
The Israeli and Palestinian peoples have equal rights to a fair share of the land and resources of historic Palestine.
Fair-minded people throughout the world have long understood with some precision what a tenable solution, respecting these principles, would entail:
Two national states, Israel and Palestine, with equal sovereignty, equal rights and equal responsibilities.
Partition along the pre-1967 border as modified only by minor mutually agreed territorial swaps.
Israeli evacuation of all settlements in the occupied territories except those within the agreed swapped areas.
Palestinian and Arab recognition of Israel and renunciation of any further territorial claims.
Palestinian acceptance of negotiated limitations on the "right of return" in exchange for financial compensation for refugees.
Several years ago, polls showed that majorities of both Israelis and Palestinians were willing to accept a compromise settlement of this kind. Despite the current carnage, that may still be the case; but compromise is difficult when majorities on both sides support provocative military actions that they view as purely defensive, while powerful minorities pursue maximalist territorial aims.
If Israelis and Palestinians are unwilling or unable to negotiate a workable peace, the international community must take the lead in promoting one. This is in the long-term interest not only of Israelis and Palestinians, but also of Americans: recent events have made painfully clear that our own national security is deeply undermined by instability and injustice in the Middle East.
The U.S. bears a special responsibility for the current tragic impasse, by virtue of our massive economic and military support for the Israeli government: $500 per Israeli citizen per year. Our country has an extraordinary leverage on Israeli policy, if only our government would dare to use it. As American Jews who care deeply about the long-term security of Israel, we call on our government to make continued aid conditional on Israeli acceptance of an internationally agreed two-state settlement.
Rejectionists on both sides will of course attack any such settlement. Foreign troops may well be required to enforce it, and they must be prepared to accept casualties. One may nevertheless hope that majorities of both Israelis and Palestinians will realize that an imperfect peace is preferable to endless war.
There is no guarantee that this approach will work; but it is virtually guaranteed that all alternatives will fail.
This is sad. It is another example of a simple, rather precise outline of how the conflict can be resolved. And this piece is 5 years old! And its from Amerian Jews!
To whose advantage is this conflict allowed to continue? Where is the Israeli and Palestinian and American leadership to get this done?!
Please copy this letter and send it to President Bush and Secretary Rice, as well as all the Jewish Americans you know, asking them to advocate for this position. It was true in 2002. It is still true in 2007!
Peace in the Middle East:
An Open Letter from American Jews to Our Government
In the wake of the recent bloodshed in the Middle East, many Israelis and Palestinians -- and their supporters in the United States -- have reverted to an us-versus-them thinking in which they see themselves as righteous victims and ignore or minimize the injustices they have done, and continue to do, to the other people.
In fact, both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples have suffered great wrongs at the hands of the other, albeit in different and unequal ways; both have legitimate grievances, legitimate fears, and legitimate distrust of the other people's willingness to compromise for the sake of peace.
Though the signers of this letter have a wide range of views about the blame for the present situation, we have a common view of what a solution will have to consist of.
Incremental attempts at building trust have reached an impasse. The only alternative to endless war is a comprehensive settlement based on simple but radical principles:
Israeli and Palestinian lives are equally precious.
The Israeli and Palestinian peoples have equal rights to national self-determination and to live in peace and security.
The Israeli and Palestinian peoples have equal rights to a fair share of the land and resources of historic Palestine.
Fair-minded people throughout the world have long understood with some precision what a tenable solution, respecting these principles, would entail:
Two national states, Israel and Palestine, with equal sovereignty, equal rights and equal responsibilities.
Partition along the pre-1967 border as modified only by minor mutually agreed territorial swaps.
Israeli evacuation of all settlements in the occupied territories except those within the agreed swapped areas.
Palestinian and Arab recognition of Israel and renunciation of any further territorial claims.
Palestinian acceptance of negotiated limitations on the "right of return" in exchange for financial compensation for refugees.
Several years ago, polls showed that majorities of both Israelis and Palestinians were willing to accept a compromise settlement of this kind. Despite the current carnage, that may still be the case; but compromise is difficult when majorities on both sides support provocative military actions that they view as purely defensive, while powerful minorities pursue maximalist territorial aims.
If Israelis and Palestinians are unwilling or unable to negotiate a workable peace, the international community must take the lead in promoting one. This is in the long-term interest not only of Israelis and Palestinians, but also of Americans: recent events have made painfully clear that our own national security is deeply undermined by instability and injustice in the Middle East.
The U.S. bears a special responsibility for the current tragic impasse, by virtue of our massive economic and military support for the Israeli government: $500 per Israeli citizen per year. Our country has an extraordinary leverage on Israeli policy, if only our government would dare to use it. As American Jews who care deeply about the long-term security of Israel, we call on our government to make continued aid conditional on Israeli acceptance of an internationally agreed two-state settlement.
Rejectionists on both sides will of course attack any such settlement. Foreign troops may well be required to enforce it, and they must be prepared to accept casualties. One may nevertheless hope that majorities of both Israelis and Palestinians will realize that an imperfect peace is preferable to endless war.
There is no guarantee that this approach will work; but it is virtually guaranteed that all alternatives will fail.
Monday, October 29, 2007
LA Orthodox Rabbi Breaks Taboo!
Orthodox Rabbi Breaks Taboo With Talk Of Dividing Jerusalem
By Tom Tugend
In Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)
October 29, 2007
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/print/20071028rabitab.html
A prominent Orthodox rabbi has broken a taboo by publicly advocating that his community consider a possible division of Jerusalem to achieve a lasting peace with the Palestinians.
Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky of B’nai David Judea wrote in Friday’s Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles that the “worst-case scenario” of returning the Western Wall and the Temple Mount to Arab control would be horrifying and unfathomable to him.
“At the same time, though, to insist that the [Israeli] government not talk about Jerusalem at all (including, the possibility, for example, of Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods) is to insist that Israel come to the negotiating table telling a dishonest story -- a story in which our side has made no mistakes and no miscalculations, a story in which there is no moral ambiguity in the way we have chosen to rule people we conquered, a story in which we don’t owe anything to anyone,” Kanefsky wrote.
The 44-year old rabbi occasionally has startled Orthodox circles with his innovative ideas, but he enjoys wide respect among his peers in other denominations, who elected him to a term as president of the Southern California Board of Rabbis.
Kanefsky predicts that no peace conference will succeed until Israelis and Palestinians accept honest versions of their conflict and admit their mistakes over the past 40 years, including the occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank after the Six-Day War in 1967.
He acknowledges that the slogan “Jerusalem: Israel’s Eternally Undivided Capital” is treated with “biblical reverence by my community," adding that it is "a corollary to the belief in the coming of the Messiah.”
It is because of the unquestioned acceptance of this slogan by the Orthodox, as well as Christian evangelists, that he decided to initiate “a conversation that desperately needs to begin,” Kanefsky wrote.
Within hours of the opinion piece’s publication, reactions began to pour in to the Jewish Journal. Editor-in-Chief Rob Eshman said he received more than 100 letters, e-mails and phone calls about the article, along with a number of op-ed rebuttals.
On Saturday, the Los Angeles Times reported on Kanefsky’s article as the lead story in its California state section, along with local and national reactions.
Predictably, comments in mainstream Orthodox circles were highly critical, while liberal rabbis and peace groups praised Kanefsky’s views and his courage in speaking out.
The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the community’s umbrella organization, is drafting a statement on the article. However, its Web site said “the Orthodox Union is preparing a comprehensive action plan which will call upon members of our community to join on the walls of Jerusalem and become her defenders against those who would divide her.”
Rabbi Pesach Lerner, executive vice president of the National Council of Young Israel, denounced the article, telling the Los Angeles Times that “Rabbi Kanefsky is completely off-base. I think his call for this discussion is ridiculous. It would amount to religious suicide.”
A Conservative Los Angeles rabbi, David Wolpe, also disagreed with Kanefsky’s viewpoint.
“To give up Jerusalem to people who want to destroy your country is an emotional high jump you’d have to be better than an Olympic athlete to vault,” Wolpe said.
However, another prominent Conservative rabbi, Harold Schulweis, applauded Kanefsky’s courage “to touch the third rail, which this is. It is a mark of courage and conscience.”
Reform Rabbi Laura Geller also praised Kanefsky as “a visionary leader” and hoped his article would lead to a thoughtful debate.
By Tom Tugend
In Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)
October 29, 2007
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/print/20071028rabitab.html
A prominent Orthodox rabbi has broken a taboo by publicly advocating that his community consider a possible division of Jerusalem to achieve a lasting peace with the Palestinians.
Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky of B’nai David Judea wrote in Friday’s Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles that the “worst-case scenario” of returning the Western Wall and the Temple Mount to Arab control would be horrifying and unfathomable to him.
“At the same time, though, to insist that the [Israeli] government not talk about Jerusalem at all (including, the possibility, for example, of Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods) is to insist that Israel come to the negotiating table telling a dishonest story -- a story in which our side has made no mistakes and no miscalculations, a story in which there is no moral ambiguity in the way we have chosen to rule people we conquered, a story in which we don’t owe anything to anyone,” Kanefsky wrote.
The 44-year old rabbi occasionally has startled Orthodox circles with his innovative ideas, but he enjoys wide respect among his peers in other denominations, who elected him to a term as president of the Southern California Board of Rabbis.
Kanefsky predicts that no peace conference will succeed until Israelis and Palestinians accept honest versions of their conflict and admit their mistakes over the past 40 years, including the occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank after the Six-Day War in 1967.
He acknowledges that the slogan “Jerusalem: Israel’s Eternally Undivided Capital” is treated with “biblical reverence by my community," adding that it is "a corollary to the belief in the coming of the Messiah.”
It is because of the unquestioned acceptance of this slogan by the Orthodox, as well as Christian evangelists, that he decided to initiate “a conversation that desperately needs to begin,” Kanefsky wrote.
Within hours of the opinion piece’s publication, reactions began to pour in to the Jewish Journal. Editor-in-Chief Rob Eshman said he received more than 100 letters, e-mails and phone calls about the article, along with a number of op-ed rebuttals.
On Saturday, the Los Angeles Times reported on Kanefsky’s article as the lead story in its California state section, along with local and national reactions.
Predictably, comments in mainstream Orthodox circles were highly critical, while liberal rabbis and peace groups praised Kanefsky’s views and his courage in speaking out.
The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the community’s umbrella organization, is drafting a statement on the article. However, its Web site said “the Orthodox Union is preparing a comprehensive action plan which will call upon members of our community to join on the walls of Jerusalem and become her defenders against those who would divide her.”
Rabbi Pesach Lerner, executive vice president of the National Council of Young Israel, denounced the article, telling the Los Angeles Times that “Rabbi Kanefsky is completely off-base. I think his call for this discussion is ridiculous. It would amount to religious suicide.”
A Conservative Los Angeles rabbi, David Wolpe, also disagreed with Kanefsky’s viewpoint.
“To give up Jerusalem to people who want to destroy your country is an emotional high jump you’d have to be better than an Olympic athlete to vault,” Wolpe said.
However, another prominent Conservative rabbi, Harold Schulweis, applauded Kanefsky’s courage “to touch the third rail, which this is. It is a mark of courage and conscience.”
Reform Rabbi Laura Geller also praised Kanefsky as “a visionary leader” and hoped his article would lead to a thoughtful debate.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
God's Dream for Israel/Palestine
By Desmond Tutu
In The Boston Globe , Opinion
October 26, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news
WHENEVER I am asked if I am optimistic about an end to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, I say that I am not. Optimism requires clear signs that things are changing - meaningful words and unambiguous actions that point to real progress. I do not yet hear enough meaningful words, nor do I yet see enough unambiguous deeds to justify optimism.
However, that does not mean I am without hope. I am a Christian. I am constrained by my faith to hope against hope, placing my trust in things as yet unseen. Hope persists in the face of evidence to the contrary, undeterred by setbacks and disappointment. Hoping against hope, then, I do believe that a resolution will be found. It will not be perfect, but it can be just; and if it is just, it will usher in a future of peace.
My hope for peace is not amorphous. It has a shape. It is not the shape of a particular political solution, although there are some political solutions that I believe to be more just than others.
Neither does my hope take the shape of a particular people, although I have pleaded tirelessly for international attention to be paid to the misery of Palestinians, and I have roundly condemned the injustices of certain Israeli policies that compound that misery. Thus I am often accused of siding with Palestinians against Israeli Jews, naively exonerating the one and unfairly demonizing the other.
Nevertheless, I insist that the hope in which I persist is not reducible to politics or identified with a people. It has a more encompassing shape. I like to call it "God's dream."
God has a dream for all his children. It is about a day when all people enjoy fundamental security and live free of fear. It is about a day when all people have a hospitable land in which to establish a future. More than anything else, God's dream is about a day when all people are accorded equal dignity because they are human beings. In God's beautiful dream, no other reason is required.
God's dream begins when we begin to know each other differently, as bearers of a common humanity, not as statistics to be counted, problems to be solved, enemies to be vanquished or animals to be caged. God's dream begins the moment one adversary looks another in the eye and sees himself reflected there.
All things become possible when hearts fixed in mutual contempt begin to grasp a transforming truth; namely, that this person I fear and despise is not an alien, something less than human. This person is very much like me, and enjoys and suffers, loves and fears, wonders, worries, and hopes. Just as I do, this person longs for well-being in a world of peace.
God's dream begins with this mutual recognition - we are not strangers, we are kin. It culminates in the defeat of oppression perpetrated in the name of security, and of violence inflicted in the name of liberation. God's dream routs the cynicism and despair that once cleared the path for hate to have its corrosive way with us, and for ravenous violence to devour everything in sight.
God's dream comes to flower when everyone who claims to be wholly innocent relinquishes that illusion, when everyone who places absolute blame on another renounces that lie, and when differing stories are told at last as one shared story of human aspiration. God's dream ends in healing and reconciliation. Its finest fruit is human wholeness flourishing in a moral universe.
In the meanwhile, between the root of human solidarity and the fruit of human wholeness, there is the hard work of telling the truth.
From my experience in South Africa I know that truth-telling is hard. It has grave consequences for one's life and reputation. It stretches one's faith, tests one's capacity to love, and pushes hope to the limit. At times, the difficulty of this work can make you wonder if people are right about you, that you are a fool.
No one takes up this work on a do-gooder's whim. It is not a choice. One feels compelled into it. Neither is it work for a little while, but rather for a lifetime - and for more than a lifetime. It is a project bigger than any one life. This long view is a source of encouragement and perseverance. The knowledge that the work preceded us and will go on after us is a fountain of deep gladness that no circumstance can alter."
God's dream begins when we begin to know each other differently, as bearers of a common humanity, not as statistics to be counted, problems to be solved, enemies to be vanquished or animals to be caged. God's dream begins the moment one adversary looks another in the eye and sees himself reflected there.
All things become possible when hearts fixed in mutual contempt begin to grasp a transforming truth; namely, that this person I fear and despise is not an alien, something less than human. This person is very much like me, and enjoys and suffers, loves and fears, wonders, worries, and hopes. Just as I do, this person longs for well-being in a world of peace.
God's dream begins with this mutual recognition - we are not strangers, we are kin. It culminates in the defeat of oppression perpetrated in the name of security, and of violence inflicted in the name of liberation. God's dream routs the cynicism and despair that once cleared the path for hate to have its corrosive way with us, and for ravenous violence to devour everything in sight.
God's dream comes to flower when everyone who claims to be wholly innocent relinquishes that illusion, when everyone who places absolute blame on another renounces that lie, and when differing stories are told at last as one shared story of human aspiration. God's dream ends in healing and reconciliation. Its finest fruit is human wholeness flourishing in a moral universe.
In the meanwhile, between the root of human solidarity and the fruit of human wholeness, there is the hard work of telling the truth.
From my experience in South Africa I know that truth-telling is hard. It has grave consequences for one's life and reputation. It stretches one's faith, tests one's capacity to love, and pushes hope to the limit. At times, the difficulty of this work can make you wonder if people are right about you, that you are a fool.
No one takes up this work on a do-gooder's whim. It is not a choice. One feels compelled into it. Neither is it work for a little while, but rather for a lifetime - and for more than a lifetime. It is a project bigger than any one life. This long view is a source of encouragement and perseverance. The knowledge that the work preceded us and will go on after us is a fountain of deep gladness that no circumstance can alter.
\n\u003cp\>Nothing, however, diminishes the fear and trembling that accompany speaking the truth to power in love. An acute awareness of fallibility is a constant companion in this task, but because nothing is more important in the current situation than to speak as truthfully as one can, there can be no shrinking from testifying to what one sees and hears.
What do I see and hear in the Holy Land? Some people cannot move freely from one place to another. A wall separates them from their families and from their incomes. They cannot tend to their gardens at home or to their lessons at school. They are arbitrarily demeaned at checkpoints and unnecessarily beleaguered by capricious applications of bureaucratic red tape. I grieve for the damage being done daily to people's souls and bodies. I have to tell the truth: I am reminded of the yoke of oppression that was once our burden in South Africa.
I see and hear that ancient olive trees are uprooted. Flocks are cut off from their pastures and shepherds. The homes of some people are bulldozed even as new homes for others are illegally constructed on other people's land. I grieve for the land that suffers such violence, the marring of its beauty, the loss of its comforts, the despoiling of its yield. I have to tell the truth: I am reminded of the bitter days of uprooting and despoiling in my own country.
I see and hear that young people believe that it is heroic and pious to kill others by killing themselves. They strap bombs to their torsos to achieve liberation. They do not know that liberation achieved by brutality will defraud in the end. I grieve the waste of their lives and of the lives they take, the loss of personal and communal security they cause, and the lust for revenge that follows their crimes, crowding out all reason and restraint. I have to tell the truth: I am reminded of the explosive anger that inflamed South Africa, too.
Some people are enraged by comparisons between the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and what happened in South Africa. There are differences between the two situations, but a comparison need not be exact in every feature to yield clarity about what is going on. Moreover, for those of us who lived through the dehumanizing horrors of the apartheid era, the comparison seems not only apt, it is also necessary. It is necessary if we are to persevere in our hope that things can change."
Nothing, however, diminishes the fear and trembling that accompany speaking the truth to power in love. An acute awareness of fallibility is a constant companion in this task, but because nothing is more important in the current situation than to speak as truthfully as one can, there can be no shrinking from testifying to what one sees and hears.
What do I see and hear in the Holy Land? Some people cannot move freely from one place to another. A wall separates them from their families and from their incomes. They cannot tend to their gardens at home or to their lessons at school. They are arbitrarily demeaned at checkpoints and unnecessarily beleaguered by capricious applications of bureaucratic red tape. I grieve for the damage being done daily to people's souls and bodies. I have to tell the truth: I am reminded of the yoke of oppression that was once our burden in South Africa.
I see and hear that ancient olive trees are uprooted. Flocks are cut off from their pastures and shepherds. The homes of some people are bulldozed even as new homes for others are illegally constructed on other people's land. I grieve for the land that suffers such violence, the marring of its beauty, the loss of its comforts, the despoiling of its yield. I have to tell the truth: I am reminded of the bitter days of uprooting and despoiling in my own country.
I see and hear that young people believe that it is heroic and pious to kill others by killing themselves. They strap bombs to their torsos to achieve liberation. They do not know that liberation achieved by brutality will defraud in the end. I grieve the waste of their lives and of the lives they take, the loss of personal and communal security they cause, and the lust for revenge that follows their crimes, crowding out all reason and restraint. I have to tell the truth: I am reminded of the explosive anger that inflamed South Africa, too.
Some people are enraged by comparisons between the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and what happened in South Africa. There are differences between the two situations, but a comparison need not be exact in every feature to yield clarity about what is going on. Moreover, for those of us who lived through the dehumanizing horrors of the apartheid era, the comparison seems not only apt, it is also necessary. It is necessary if we are to persevere in our hope that things can change.
Indeed, because of what I experienced in South Africa, I harbor a vast, unreasoning hope for Israel and the Palestinian territories. South Africans, after all, had no reason to suppose that the evil system and the cycles of violence that were sapping the soul of our nation would ever change. There was nothing special or different about South Africans to deserve the appearance of the very thing for which we prayed and worked and suffered so long.
Most South Africans did not believe they would live to see a day of liberation. They did not believe that their children's children would see it. They did not believe that such a day even existed, except in fantasy. But we have seen it. We are living now in the day we longed for.
It is not a cloudless day. The divine arc that bends toward a truly just and whole society has not yet stretched fully across my country's sky like a rainbow of peace. It is not finished, it does not always live up to its promise, it is not perfect - but it is new. A brand new thing, like a dream of God, has come about to replace the old story of mutual hatred and oppression.
I have seen it and heard it, and so to this truth, too, I am compelled to testify - if it can happen in South Africa, it can happen with the Israelis and Palestinians. There is not much reason to be optimistic, but there is every reason to hope.
Indeed, because of what I experienced in South Africa, I harbor a vast, unreasoning hope for Israel and the Palestinian territories. South Africans, after all, had no reason to suppose that the evil system and the cycles of violence that were sapping the soul of our nation would ever change. There was nothing special or different about South Africans to deserve the appearance of the very thing for which we prayed and worked and suffered so long.
Most South Africans did not believe they would live to see a day of liberation. They did not believe that their children's children would see it. They did not believe that such a day even existed, except in fantasy. But we have seen it. We are living now in the day we longed for.
It is not a cloudless day. The divine arc that bends toward a truly just and whole society has not yet stretched fully across my country's sky like a rainbow of peace. It is not finished, it does not always live up to its promise, it is not perfect - but it is new. A brand new thing, like a dream of God, has come about to replace the old story of mutual hatred and oppression.
I have seen it and heard it, and so to this truth, too, I am compelled to testify - if it can happen in South Africa, it can happen with the Israelis and Palestinians. There is not much reason to be optimistic, but there is every reason to hope.
In The Boston Globe , Opinion
October 26, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news
WHENEVER I am asked if I am optimistic about an end to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, I say that I am not. Optimism requires clear signs that things are changing - meaningful words and unambiguous actions that point to real progress. I do not yet hear enough meaningful words, nor do I yet see enough unambiguous deeds to justify optimism.
However, that does not mean I am without hope. I am a Christian. I am constrained by my faith to hope against hope, placing my trust in things as yet unseen. Hope persists in the face of evidence to the contrary, undeterred by setbacks and disappointment. Hoping against hope, then, I do believe that a resolution will be found. It will not be perfect, but it can be just; and if it is just, it will usher in a future of peace.
My hope for peace is not amorphous. It has a shape. It is not the shape of a particular political solution, although there are some political solutions that I believe to be more just than others.
Neither does my hope take the shape of a particular people, although I have pleaded tirelessly for international attention to be paid to the misery of Palestinians, and I have roundly condemned the injustices of certain Israeli policies that compound that misery. Thus I am often accused of siding with Palestinians against Israeli Jews, naively exonerating the one and unfairly demonizing the other.
Nevertheless, I insist that the hope in which I persist is not reducible to politics or identified with a people. It has a more encompassing shape. I like to call it "God's dream."
God has a dream for all his children. It is about a day when all people enjoy fundamental security and live free of fear. It is about a day when all people have a hospitable land in which to establish a future. More than anything else, God's dream is about a day when all people are accorded equal dignity because they are human beings. In God's beautiful dream, no other reason is required.
God's dream begins when we begin to know each other differently, as bearers of a common humanity, not as statistics to be counted, problems to be solved, enemies to be vanquished or animals to be caged. God's dream begins the moment one adversary looks another in the eye and sees himself reflected there.
All things become possible when hearts fixed in mutual contempt begin to grasp a transforming truth; namely, that this person I fear and despise is not an alien, something less than human. This person is very much like me, and enjoys and suffers, loves and fears, wonders, worries, and hopes. Just as I do, this person longs for well-being in a world of peace.
God's dream begins with this mutual recognition - we are not strangers, we are kin. It culminates in the defeat of oppression perpetrated in the name of security, and of violence inflicted in the name of liberation. God's dream routs the cynicism and despair that once cleared the path for hate to have its corrosive way with us, and for ravenous violence to devour everything in sight.
God's dream comes to flower when everyone who claims to be wholly innocent relinquishes that illusion, when everyone who places absolute blame on another renounces that lie, and when differing stories are told at last as one shared story of human aspiration. God's dream ends in healing and reconciliation. Its finest fruit is human wholeness flourishing in a moral universe.
In the meanwhile, between the root of human solidarity and the fruit of human wholeness, there is the hard work of telling the truth.
From my experience in South Africa I know that truth-telling is hard. It has grave consequences for one's life and reputation. It stretches one's faith, tests one's capacity to love, and pushes hope to the limit. At times, the difficulty of this work can make you wonder if people are right about you, that you are a fool.
No one takes up this work on a do-gooder's whim. It is not a choice. One feels compelled into it. Neither is it work for a little while, but rather for a lifetime - and for more than a lifetime. It is a project bigger than any one life. This long view is a source of encouragement and perseverance. The knowledge that the work preceded us and will go on after us is a fountain of deep gladness that no circumstance can alter."
God's dream begins when we begin to know each other differently, as bearers of a common humanity, not as statistics to be counted, problems to be solved, enemies to be vanquished or animals to be caged. God's dream begins the moment one adversary looks another in the eye and sees himself reflected there.
All things become possible when hearts fixed in mutual contempt begin to grasp a transforming truth; namely, that this person I fear and despise is not an alien, something less than human. This person is very much like me, and enjoys and suffers, loves and fears, wonders, worries, and hopes. Just as I do, this person longs for well-being in a world of peace.
God's dream begins with this mutual recognition - we are not strangers, we are kin. It culminates in the defeat of oppression perpetrated in the name of security, and of violence inflicted in the name of liberation. God's dream routs the cynicism and despair that once cleared the path for hate to have its corrosive way with us, and for ravenous violence to devour everything in sight.
God's dream comes to flower when everyone who claims to be wholly innocent relinquishes that illusion, when everyone who places absolute blame on another renounces that lie, and when differing stories are told at last as one shared story of human aspiration. God's dream ends in healing and reconciliation. Its finest fruit is human wholeness flourishing in a moral universe.
In the meanwhile, between the root of human solidarity and the fruit of human wholeness, there is the hard work of telling the truth.
From my experience in South Africa I know that truth-telling is hard. It has grave consequences for one's life and reputation. It stretches one's faith, tests one's capacity to love, and pushes hope to the limit. At times, the difficulty of this work can make you wonder if people are right about you, that you are a fool.
No one takes up this work on a do-gooder's whim. It is not a choice. One feels compelled into it. Neither is it work for a little while, but rather for a lifetime - and for more than a lifetime. It is a project bigger than any one life. This long view is a source of encouragement and perseverance. The knowledge that the work preceded us and will go on after us is a fountain of deep gladness that no circumstance can alter.
\n\u003cp\>Nothing, however, diminishes the fear and trembling that accompany speaking the truth to power in love. An acute awareness of fallibility is a constant companion in this task, but because nothing is more important in the current situation than to speak as truthfully as one can, there can be no shrinking from testifying to what one sees and hears.
What do I see and hear in the Holy Land? Some people cannot move freely from one place to another. A wall separates them from their families and from their incomes. They cannot tend to their gardens at home or to their lessons at school. They are arbitrarily demeaned at checkpoints and unnecessarily beleaguered by capricious applications of bureaucratic red tape. I grieve for the damage being done daily to people's souls and bodies. I have to tell the truth: I am reminded of the yoke of oppression that was once our burden in South Africa.
I see and hear that ancient olive trees are uprooted. Flocks are cut off from their pastures and shepherds. The homes of some people are bulldozed even as new homes for others are illegally constructed on other people's land. I grieve for the land that suffers such violence, the marring of its beauty, the loss of its comforts, the despoiling of its yield. I have to tell the truth: I am reminded of the bitter days of uprooting and despoiling in my own country.
I see and hear that young people believe that it is heroic and pious to kill others by killing themselves. They strap bombs to their torsos to achieve liberation. They do not know that liberation achieved by brutality will defraud in the end. I grieve the waste of their lives and of the lives they take, the loss of personal and communal security they cause, and the lust for revenge that follows their crimes, crowding out all reason and restraint. I have to tell the truth: I am reminded of the explosive anger that inflamed South Africa, too.
Some people are enraged by comparisons between the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and what happened in South Africa. There are differences between the two situations, but a comparison need not be exact in every feature to yield clarity about what is going on. Moreover, for those of us who lived through the dehumanizing horrors of the apartheid era, the comparison seems not only apt, it is also necessary. It is necessary if we are to persevere in our hope that things can change."
Nothing, however, diminishes the fear and trembling that accompany speaking the truth to power in love. An acute awareness of fallibility is a constant companion in this task, but because nothing is more important in the current situation than to speak as truthfully as one can, there can be no shrinking from testifying to what one sees and hears.
What do I see and hear in the Holy Land? Some people cannot move freely from one place to another. A wall separates them from their families and from their incomes. They cannot tend to their gardens at home or to their lessons at school. They are arbitrarily demeaned at checkpoints and unnecessarily beleaguered by capricious applications of bureaucratic red tape. I grieve for the damage being done daily to people's souls and bodies. I have to tell the truth: I am reminded of the yoke of oppression that was once our burden in South Africa.
I see and hear that ancient olive trees are uprooted. Flocks are cut off from their pastures and shepherds. The homes of some people are bulldozed even as new homes for others are illegally constructed on other people's land. I grieve for the land that suffers such violence, the marring of its beauty, the loss of its comforts, the despoiling of its yield. I have to tell the truth: I am reminded of the bitter days of uprooting and despoiling in my own country.
I see and hear that young people believe that it is heroic and pious to kill others by killing themselves. They strap bombs to their torsos to achieve liberation. They do not know that liberation achieved by brutality will defraud in the end. I grieve the waste of their lives and of the lives they take, the loss of personal and communal security they cause, and the lust for revenge that follows their crimes, crowding out all reason and restraint. I have to tell the truth: I am reminded of the explosive anger that inflamed South Africa, too.
Some people are enraged by comparisons between the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and what happened in South Africa. There are differences between the two situations, but a comparison need not be exact in every feature to yield clarity about what is going on. Moreover, for those of us who lived through the dehumanizing horrors of the apartheid era, the comparison seems not only apt, it is also necessary. It is necessary if we are to persevere in our hope that things can change.
Indeed, because of what I experienced in South Africa, I harbor a vast, unreasoning hope for Israel and the Palestinian territories. South Africans, after all, had no reason to suppose that the evil system and the cycles of violence that were sapping the soul of our nation would ever change. There was nothing special or different about South Africans to deserve the appearance of the very thing for which we prayed and worked and suffered so long.
Most South Africans did not believe they would live to see a day of liberation. They did not believe that their children's children would see it. They did not believe that such a day even existed, except in fantasy. But we have seen it. We are living now in the day we longed for.
It is not a cloudless day. The divine arc that bends toward a truly just and whole society has not yet stretched fully across my country's sky like a rainbow of peace. It is not finished, it does not always live up to its promise, it is not perfect - but it is new. A brand new thing, like a dream of God, has come about to replace the old story of mutual hatred and oppression.
I have seen it and heard it, and so to this truth, too, I am compelled to testify - if it can happen in South Africa, it can happen with the Israelis and Palestinians. There is not much reason to be optimistic, but there is every reason to hope.
Indeed, because of what I experienced in South Africa, I harbor a vast, unreasoning hope for Israel and the Palestinian territories. South Africans, after all, had no reason to suppose that the evil system and the cycles of violence that were sapping the soul of our nation would ever change. There was nothing special or different about South Africans to deserve the appearance of the very thing for which we prayed and worked and suffered so long.
Most South Africans did not believe they would live to see a day of liberation. They did not believe that their children's children would see it. They did not believe that such a day even existed, except in fantasy. But we have seen it. We are living now in the day we longed for.
It is not a cloudless day. The divine arc that bends toward a truly just and whole society has not yet stretched fully across my country's sky like a rainbow of peace. It is not finished, it does not always live up to its promise, it is not perfect - but it is new. A brand new thing, like a dream of God, has come about to replace the old story of mutual hatred and oppression.
I have seen it and heard it, and so to this truth, too, I am compelled to testify - if it can happen in South Africa, it can happen with the Israelis and Palestinians. There is not much reason to be optimistic, but there is every reason to hope.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Work at Palestinian Unity
Images That Shock
In The Guardian (United Kingdom),
Special Report October 25, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,2198515,00.html
Occasionally the mask slips and unpalatable truths emerge. The Guardian has filmed rare scenes inside Hamas-controlled Gaza which the various players in the unfolding tragedy of the Middle East would rather we did not see - Hamas beating up Fatah dissenters, Palestinian doctors forced by their Fatah paymasters to go on strike or forfeit their salaries, the militants who log on to Google Earth to search for Israeli targets for their Qassam rockets. The images, now on the Guardian's website, affront our concept of right and wrong, but they serve our understanding of what is going on.
Gaza is a wound that is being left to fester. Fatah, Israel, the US and the international community have different motives for leaving half of the Palestinian people to rot in this prison, but they are all, for the moment, united in their attempt to isolate Hamas. What these films show is not a Gazan population turning against the gunmen who took the enclave over by force in June, but its opposite - the hatred that the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas is incurring among his own people.
The Palestinian schism has been regarded not as an impediment to peace, but an opportunity for it. The brief but brutal civil war between Fatah and Hamas (in which atrocities and human rights abuses were, and still are, being committed by both sides, as a report by Amnesty International on Tuesday showed) provoked a reawakening of interest in Mr Abbas. Funds and prisoners were released, guns and training provided. The theory was that by isolating the one group that refuses to recognise Israel an opportunity was being created to get a deal with the other group that does.
This is not how it is turning out. Expectations for the forthcoming peace conference in Annapolis in Maryland are rapidly being lowered. It is no longer being called a conference, but a meeting and it may now be put back to December. The star guest, Saudi Arabia, looks less, not more likely, to turn up. Mr Abbas wants as much detail as he can extract about the future contours of a Palestinian state. The Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert wants as little detail as possible in the final declaration.
What this situation demands is a strong Palestinian leader, rather than a pliant one. Strength comes from authority and Mr Abbas is in danger of losing his among his own people by tightening the screw on Gaza. One of the few levers the Fatah-controlled emergency government in Ramallah has over what happens in Gaza is paying the wages of government workers. And yet when it pulls those levers, the consequences are disastrous.
Attempting to steer funds away from Hamas's hands is one thing, but paying people on the condition they do not turn up for work just looks like an attempt to stop any government working. As it is, Mr Abbas's writ does not even run the length of the West Bank. If his title of president is to mean anything, it is that he represents all the Palestinian people and not just that part which Israel believes it can deal with. At some point, a deal with Hamas has to be struck and a new power-sharing government created. This task may be distasteful for Fatah, but it cannot be put off indefinitely. Otherwise Mr Abbas becomes the hostage of a process that makes him weaker still.
Time is not on anyone's side. The bitter memories of the second intifada which followed the collapse of Camp David seven years ago are still fresh. But the risk of failure at Annapolis is not just one of spurring another round in the conflict.
The longer the two-state solution stays on the drawing board unbuilt, the less Palestinians will believe in the scheme. This is not about tunnels, land swaps, or the status of Jerusalem, but the concept that a Jewish and a Palestinian state can ever coexist in the same space. If that idea withers, not only do the Palestinians not get the state they deserve, but that part of Israel that believed it would ever live in peace with its neighbours dies too.
In The Guardian (United Kingdom),
Special Report October 25, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,2198515,00.html
Occasionally the mask slips and unpalatable truths emerge. The Guardian has filmed rare scenes inside Hamas-controlled Gaza which the various players in the unfolding tragedy of the Middle East would rather we did not see - Hamas beating up Fatah dissenters, Palestinian doctors forced by their Fatah paymasters to go on strike or forfeit their salaries, the militants who log on to Google Earth to search for Israeli targets for their Qassam rockets. The images, now on the Guardian's website, affront our concept of right and wrong, but they serve our understanding of what is going on.
Gaza is a wound that is being left to fester. Fatah, Israel, the US and the international community have different motives for leaving half of the Palestinian people to rot in this prison, but they are all, for the moment, united in their attempt to isolate Hamas. What these films show is not a Gazan population turning against the gunmen who took the enclave over by force in June, but its opposite - the hatred that the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas is incurring among his own people.
The Palestinian schism has been regarded not as an impediment to peace, but an opportunity for it. The brief but brutal civil war between Fatah and Hamas (in which atrocities and human rights abuses were, and still are, being committed by both sides, as a report by Amnesty International on Tuesday showed) provoked a reawakening of interest in Mr Abbas. Funds and prisoners were released, guns and training provided. The theory was that by isolating the one group that refuses to recognise Israel an opportunity was being created to get a deal with the other group that does.
This is not how it is turning out. Expectations for the forthcoming peace conference in Annapolis in Maryland are rapidly being lowered. It is no longer being called a conference, but a meeting and it may now be put back to December. The star guest, Saudi Arabia, looks less, not more likely, to turn up. Mr Abbas wants as much detail as he can extract about the future contours of a Palestinian state. The Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert wants as little detail as possible in the final declaration.
What this situation demands is a strong Palestinian leader, rather than a pliant one. Strength comes from authority and Mr Abbas is in danger of losing his among his own people by tightening the screw on Gaza. One of the few levers the Fatah-controlled emergency government in Ramallah has over what happens in Gaza is paying the wages of government workers. And yet when it pulls those levers, the consequences are disastrous.
Attempting to steer funds away from Hamas's hands is one thing, but paying people on the condition they do not turn up for work just looks like an attempt to stop any government working. As it is, Mr Abbas's writ does not even run the length of the West Bank. If his title of president is to mean anything, it is that he represents all the Palestinian people and not just that part which Israel believes it can deal with. At some point, a deal with Hamas has to be struck and a new power-sharing government created. This task may be distasteful for Fatah, but it cannot be put off indefinitely. Otherwise Mr Abbas becomes the hostage of a process that makes him weaker still.
Time is not on anyone's side. The bitter memories of the second intifada which followed the collapse of Camp David seven years ago are still fresh. But the risk of failure at Annapolis is not just one of spurring another round in the conflict.
The longer the two-state solution stays on the drawing board unbuilt, the less Palestinians will believe in the scheme. This is not about tunnels, land swaps, or the status of Jerusalem, but the concept that a Jewish and a Palestinian state can ever coexist in the same space. If that idea withers, not only do the Palestinians not get the state they deserve, but that part of Israel that believed it would ever live in peace with its neighbours dies too.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Strength of Israeli Lobby Affirmed
Follow the Leader
The Open Secret About the Israel Lobby
By PAUL FINDLEY
There is an open secret in Washington. I learned it well during my 22-year tenure as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
All members swear to serve the interests of the United States, but there is an unwritten and overwhelming exception: The interests of one small foreign country almost always trump U.S. interests. That nation, of course, is Israel.
Both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue give priority to Israel over America. Those on Capitol Hill are pre-primed to roar approval for Israeli actions whether right or wrong, instead of at least fussing first and then caving. The White House sometimes puts up a modest and ineffective show of resistance before it follows Israel's lead.
In 2002, President Bush publicly ordered Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon to end a bloody, destructive rampage through the Palestinian West Bank. He wilted just as publicly when he received curt word from Sharon that Israeli troops would not withdraw and would continue their military operations. A few days later President Bush invited Sharon to the White House where he saluted him as a "man of peace."
I had similar experiences in the House of Representatives. On several occasions, colleagues told me privately that they admired what I was trying to do in Middle East policy reform but could not risk pro-Israel protest back home by supporting my positions.
The pro-Israel lobby is not one organization orchestrating U.S. Middle East policy from a backroom in Washington. Nor is it entirely Jewish. It consists of scores of groups -- large and small -- that work at various levels. The largest, most professional, and most effective is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Many pro-Israel lobby groups belong to the Christian Right.
The recently released book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," co-authored by distinguished professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, offers hope for constructive change. It details the damage to U.S. national interests caused by the lobby for Israel. These brave professors render a great service to America, but their theme, expressed in a published study paper a year ago, is already under heavy, vitriolic attack.
They are unjustly accused of anti-Semitism, the ultimate instrument of intimidation employed by the lobby. A common problem: Under pressure, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs withdrew an invitation for the authors to speak about their book. Council president Marshall Bouton explained ruefully that the invitation posed "a political problem" and a need "to protect the institution" from those who would be angry if the authors appeared.
I know what it is like to be targeted in this way. In the last years of my long service in Congress, I spoke out, making many of the points now presented in the Mearsheimer-Walt book. In 1980, my opponent charged me with anti-Semitism, and money poured into his campaign fund from every state in the Union. I prevailed that year but two years later lost by a narrow margin. In 1984, Sen. Charles Percy, then chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and an occasional critic of Israel, was defeated. Leaders of the Israel lobby claimed credit for defeating both Percy and me, claims that strengthened lobby influence in the years that followed.
The result is that Members of Congress today loudly reward Israel as it violates international law and peace agreements, lures America into costly wars, and subjects millions of Palestinians under its rule to apartheid-like conditions because they are not Jewish.
It is time to call politicians to account for their undying allegiance to a foreign state. Let the Mearsheimer-Walt book be a clarion that bestirs the American people to political action and finally brings fundamental change to both Capitol Hill and the White House.
Citizen participation in public policy development is a hallmark of our proud democracy. But the pro-Israel groups subvert democracy when they engage in smear campaigns that intimidate and silence critics. America badly needs a civilized discussion of the damaging role of Israel in U.S. policy formulation.
Paul Findley represented Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives for 22 years. He is the author of They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront the Israel Lobby.
http://www.counterpunch.org/findley10162007.html
The Open Secret About the Israel Lobby
By PAUL FINDLEY
There is an open secret in Washington. I learned it well during my 22-year tenure as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
All members swear to serve the interests of the United States, but there is an unwritten and overwhelming exception: The interests of one small foreign country almost always trump U.S. interests. That nation, of course, is Israel.
Both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue give priority to Israel over America. Those on Capitol Hill are pre-primed to roar approval for Israeli actions whether right or wrong, instead of at least fussing first and then caving. The White House sometimes puts up a modest and ineffective show of resistance before it follows Israel's lead.
In 2002, President Bush publicly ordered Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon to end a bloody, destructive rampage through the Palestinian West Bank. He wilted just as publicly when he received curt word from Sharon that Israeli troops would not withdraw and would continue their military operations. A few days later President Bush invited Sharon to the White House where he saluted him as a "man of peace."
I had similar experiences in the House of Representatives. On several occasions, colleagues told me privately that they admired what I was trying to do in Middle East policy reform but could not risk pro-Israel protest back home by supporting my positions.
The pro-Israel lobby is not one organization orchestrating U.S. Middle East policy from a backroom in Washington. Nor is it entirely Jewish. It consists of scores of groups -- large and small -- that work at various levels. The largest, most professional, and most effective is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Many pro-Israel lobby groups belong to the Christian Right.
The recently released book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," co-authored by distinguished professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, offers hope for constructive change. It details the damage to U.S. national interests caused by the lobby for Israel. These brave professors render a great service to America, but their theme, expressed in a published study paper a year ago, is already under heavy, vitriolic attack.
They are unjustly accused of anti-Semitism, the ultimate instrument of intimidation employed by the lobby. A common problem: Under pressure, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs withdrew an invitation for the authors to speak about their book. Council president Marshall Bouton explained ruefully that the invitation posed "a political problem" and a need "to protect the institution" from those who would be angry if the authors appeared.
I know what it is like to be targeted in this way. In the last years of my long service in Congress, I spoke out, making many of the points now presented in the Mearsheimer-Walt book. In 1980, my opponent charged me with anti-Semitism, and money poured into his campaign fund from every state in the Union. I prevailed that year but two years later lost by a narrow margin. In 1984, Sen. Charles Percy, then chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and an occasional critic of Israel, was defeated. Leaders of the Israel lobby claimed credit for defeating both Percy and me, claims that strengthened lobby influence in the years that followed.
The result is that Members of Congress today loudly reward Israel as it violates international law and peace agreements, lures America into costly wars, and subjects millions of Palestinians under its rule to apartheid-like conditions because they are not Jewish.
It is time to call politicians to account for their undying allegiance to a foreign state. Let the Mearsheimer-Walt book be a clarion that bestirs the American people to political action and finally brings fundamental change to both Capitol Hill and the White House.
Citizen participation in public policy development is a hallmark of our proud democracy. But the pro-Israel groups subvert democracy when they engage in smear campaigns that intimidate and silence critics. America badly needs a civilized discussion of the damaging role of Israel in U.S. policy formulation.
Paul Findley represented Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives for 22 years. He is the author of They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront the Israel Lobby.
http://www.counterpunch.org/findley10162007.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)