Dear Friend,
Robert Wright has an idea: Palestinians demonstating to vote in "democratic" Israel. They are living on the land more and more totally occupied by Israel. Why not work to be considered true citizens of the country?
It is, unfortunately, idealistic to think the Palestinians can forget about giving up the "right to their land". Israel is no more likely to give them "a vote" as it is to end their "occupation" of Palestinian land. It will take US initiative in withholding support for Israeli occupation for anything significant to "happen", IMHO. JRK
A One-to-Two-State SolutionRobert Wright
The New York Times (Blog)
September 28, 2010 - 12:00am
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/a-one-to-two-state-solution/?ref...
This week’s bad news from the West Bank — the resumption of settlement construction after a 10-month moratorium, just as a new round of peace talks had gotten underway — didn’t much dampen optimism among seasoned Middle East watchers.
That’s because there wasn’t much optimism to dampen. For the past few years, more and more people who follow these things have been saying that the perennial goal of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks — a two-state solution — will never be reached in any event.
These experts fall into two camps.
The more upbeat, while pessimistic about a two-state solution, hold out hope for a “one-state solution”: Israel gains uncontested possession of the West Bank and Gaza but gives Palestinians who live there the vote, and Israel evolves from a Jewish state into a stable and peaceful secular state.
People in the other camp — the pure, 100-percent pessimists — say that even if such a thing could work, even if a democracy with about as many Arabs as Jews could function, it isn’t going to happen; most Israelis would never admit a large and growing Arab population to the electorate.
But there’s a third possibility that nobody ever talks about. Pursuing a one-state solution could actually lead to a two-state solution. Instead of following the current road map to a Palestinian state, maybe we can get there by detour.
One key to working up enthusiasm for this detour is to get clear on the nature of the roadblock.
It’s common to say that Israel’s intransigence on the settlements issue reflects the growing strength of the right, especially the religious fundamentalists who do much of the settling. But at least as big a problem as the zeal of the radicals is the apathy of the moderates.
A recent Time magazine cover story — “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace” — explained why many Israelis just don’t think a peace deal is all that important: they’ve already got peace. Ever since Israel built its security wall, they’ve been safe from suicide bombers, and homemade rockets from Gaza can’t reach them. They’re prosperous to boot. What’s not to like?
So long as this attitude prevails, the far right will have veto power over policy in the occupied territory. For a peace deal to happen, Israel’s centrists need to get jarred out of their indifference. Someone needs to scare these people.
There’s a way for Palestinians to do that — and not the usual way, with bombs and rockets. Quite the opposite.
If Palestinians want to strike fear into the hearts of Israelis they should (a) give up on violence as a tool of persuasion; (b) give up on the current round of negotiations; and (c) start holding demonstrations in which they ask for only one thing: the right to vote. Their argument would be simple: They live under Israeli rule, and Israel is a democracy, so why aren’t they part of it?
A truly peaceful movement with such elemental aspirations — think of Martin Luther King or Gandhi — would gain immediate international support. In Europe and the United States, leftists would agitate in growing numbers for economic and political pressure on Israel.
In 2002, some Harvard students urged the university to purge investments in Israel from its portfolio, and the president of Harvard, Lawrence Summers, suggested that the disinvestment movement was anti-Semitic. This time there would be a lot more students, and no university president would call them anti-Semitic. All they’d be saying is that if Israel isn’t going to give up the occupied territories — and, let’s face it, the current government isn’t exactly in headlong pursuit of that goal — it should give Arabs living there the same rights it gives Jews living there.
As momentum grew — more Palestinians marching, more international support for them, thus more Palestinians marching, and so on — the complacent Israeli center would get way less complacent. Suddenly facing a choice between a one-state solution and international ostracism, reasonable Israelis would develop a burning attraction to a two-state solution — and a sudden intolerance for religious zealots who stood in the way of it. Before long Israel would be pondering two-state deals more generous than anything that’s been seriously discussed to date.
Obviously, neutralizing Israeli extremists wouldn’t get rid of all obstacles to peace. For one thing, there are the Palestinian extremists. They could sabotage peaceful progress with attention-grabbing violence, and Hamas, in particular, has shown as much. But that problem, which looms large on the current road to peace, would loom smaller on the detour.
For starters, if a peaceful suffrage movement gave Palestinians the vigorous international support they’ve long sought, it would be hard for Hamas to conspicuously oppose it.
Besides, given the Arab birth rate, for Arabs to get the vote would theoretically put them on the path toward effective control of Israel, which is exactly what Hamas says it wants. It would be kind of awkward for Hamas to stand in the way of that.
Of course, once Israel started talking seriously about a two-state deal, Hamas could revert to fierce opposition. But if indeed the deal being discussed was more generous than those discussed in the past, the success of the Palestinian peace movement would be undeniable. Hamas might persist in its obstructionism, but it would have less support than it has now. That’s progress.
Given the ongoing damage done to America’s national security by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it’s in America’s interest for Israelis to feel intensely eager for a two-state deal. And some do.
As for the others: if they really grasped their predicament, they’d be intensely eager as well. The menu of futures for Israel features only three items: (1) two-state solution; (2) one-state solution; (3) something really, really horrible. There’s just no way that the situation will simmer indefinitely without boiling over, whether via nuclear bomb (purchased by terrorists from cash-hungry North Korea, say), or via a tit-for-tat exchange with Hamas or Hezbollah that spins out of control, bringing a devastating regional war, or via some other path to catastrophe.
Sooner or later, something will alert Israel’s unfortunately silent majority to the high price of leaving the Palestinian issue unresolved. The only question is whether by then the price will have already been paid.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Affirm this Letter!
Dear Friend,
Read the enclosed text of the letter sent to our President by the CMEP (Churches for ME Peace). It deserves to be disseminated and supported by you and others.
Written on August 30, it still expresses the hope that the parties will act in the best interests of each other.
It isn't just what they "say" (about settlements, e.g.). It is that the Israelis are actually refraining from adding to the settlements, perhaps even after the September 26 deadline passes (despite what is being reported in the press today).
Israel has been reluctant to add to the settlements ever since the Obama "team" made such a Big Deal out of it this spring; AND because Clinton, Mitchell and Obama are continuing to MAKE a BIG DEAL out of continuing the "freeze" RIGHT NOW.
This letter is gaining support, even among "evangelicals", (Jim Wallis, Lynne Hybels (Willow Creek Church), Gradye Parsons (PC-USA), Wes Granberg-Michaelson (RCA) and Tony Campolo.
There are so many ways for this current series of "negotiations" to "FAIL". We need not enumerate them.
But here is what is needed now: Right thinking. Courage. Moderation. Persistence in the face of serious distractions. Considering what is best for "the other"; not being deterred by the violence and counter violence even now taking place, in Gaza, e.g.
If Abbas can get this "done", it will be a blow to the rejectionists (HAMAS); and Netanyahu will be able to restrain the extremists in his Likud base (the settlers).
There are still many "ifs" that need definition and action. There is risk for our President as well, and a challenge he must face: The Israeli lobby.
We have been quick to criticize Palestinians "violence" and withhold support; we must also be ready to keep criticizing Israeli settlement resumption, and be ready to withhold support for it--something it will be hard for Obama to do politically as well. Yet with our support, he will be able to stand up for what is "right".
President Obama has correctly "framed" the issues: 1) Security for Israel (peace); and 2) Sovereignty for Palestinians (justice). Each demands the other.
There is no peace without justice; there is no justice without "concern for what is best for the other". Persistence in making the right choices, again and again, until we get it right. These times test the character of the American, Israeli and Palestinians soul. We need to grow up. All of us.
Pray and work as if your life depends on it; Pray and hope as if all depends on "God". And you'll get it right. JRK
August 30, 2010
Dear Mr. President,
As leaders of American Christian faith communities deeply concerned with the need to end the long-standing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, we are pleased with the success of your diplomacy in bringing the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of the Palestinian Authority together in Washington September 1-2 to restart direct negotiations aimed at reaching an agreement on final status issues within the coming year. We fully support your goal of ending the occupation that began in 1967 and achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peace with a viable Palestinian state living side by side with Israel in peace and security.
At the same time we have no illusions about the difficulty of the task ahead. Both sides hold deep convictions contrary to those held by the other. Although many issues have been clarified in past negotiations, major compromises by both sides will be needed at considerable political risk and cost. Without your help it seems unlikely that an agreement can be reached. Time is short. If an agreement is not reached within the coming year, it may not be reachable at all.
For that reason we call on you and your negotiating team to continue your vigilant efforts to help the parties find acceptable solutions. We are heartened by the statement of Senator George Mitchell that he will remain closely involved in the negotiations. The U.S. will need to empower both sides to take risks for peace and when necessary to make proposals to bridge remaining differences. The United States must be clear that actions or words by either side in the coming year that undermine confidence in the negotiations, incite disrespect or prejudge the outcome of final status issues will not be tolerated.
In support of this effort, we pledge to maintain and expand our dialogue on this issue with American Jewish and Palestinian communities and to assure them of our steadfast support for achieving the aspirations of both Israel and the Palestinian people for peace and security.
Mr. President, we are praying for you as you seek to bring God's justice and peace to a place torn by walls and weapons. We are convinced that with your vigilant support this dream can be fulfilled, and the lives of Palestinians and Israelis, as well as U.S. national security interests, can be transformed for the better.
Sincerely,
Read the enclosed text of the letter sent to our President by the CMEP (Churches for ME Peace). It deserves to be disseminated and supported by you and others.
Written on August 30, it still expresses the hope that the parties will act in the best interests of each other.
It isn't just what they "say" (about settlements, e.g.). It is that the Israelis are actually refraining from adding to the settlements, perhaps even after the September 26 deadline passes (despite what is being reported in the press today).
Israel has been reluctant to add to the settlements ever since the Obama "team" made such a Big Deal out of it this spring; AND because Clinton, Mitchell and Obama are continuing to MAKE a BIG DEAL out of continuing the "freeze" RIGHT NOW.
This letter is gaining support, even among "evangelicals", (Jim Wallis, Lynne Hybels (Willow Creek Church), Gradye Parsons (PC-USA), Wes Granberg-Michaelson (RCA) and Tony Campolo.
There are so many ways for this current series of "negotiations" to "FAIL". We need not enumerate them.
But here is what is needed now: Right thinking. Courage. Moderation. Persistence in the face of serious distractions. Considering what is best for "the other"; not being deterred by the violence and counter violence even now taking place, in Gaza, e.g.
If Abbas can get this "done", it will be a blow to the rejectionists (HAMAS); and Netanyahu will be able to restrain the extremists in his Likud base (the settlers).
There are still many "ifs" that need definition and action. There is risk for our President as well, and a challenge he must face: The Israeli lobby.
We have been quick to criticize Palestinians "violence" and withhold support; we must also be ready to keep criticizing Israeli settlement resumption, and be ready to withhold support for it--something it will be hard for Obama to do politically as well. Yet with our support, he will be able to stand up for what is "right".
President Obama has correctly "framed" the issues: 1) Security for Israel (peace); and 2) Sovereignty for Palestinians (justice). Each demands the other.
There is no peace without justice; there is no justice without "concern for what is best for the other". Persistence in making the right choices, again and again, until we get it right. These times test the character of the American, Israeli and Palestinians soul. We need to grow up. All of us.
Pray and work as if your life depends on it; Pray and hope as if all depends on "God". And you'll get it right. JRK
August 30, 2010
Dear Mr. President,
As leaders of American Christian faith communities deeply concerned with the need to end the long-standing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, we are pleased with the success of your diplomacy in bringing the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of the Palestinian Authority together in Washington September 1-2 to restart direct negotiations aimed at reaching an agreement on final status issues within the coming year. We fully support your goal of ending the occupation that began in 1967 and achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peace with a viable Palestinian state living side by side with Israel in peace and security.
At the same time we have no illusions about the difficulty of the task ahead. Both sides hold deep convictions contrary to those held by the other. Although many issues have been clarified in past negotiations, major compromises by both sides will be needed at considerable political risk and cost. Without your help it seems unlikely that an agreement can be reached. Time is short. If an agreement is not reached within the coming year, it may not be reachable at all.
For that reason we call on you and your negotiating team to continue your vigilant efforts to help the parties find acceptable solutions. We are heartened by the statement of Senator George Mitchell that he will remain closely involved in the negotiations. The U.S. will need to empower both sides to take risks for peace and when necessary to make proposals to bridge remaining differences. The United States must be clear that actions or words by either side in the coming year that undermine confidence in the negotiations, incite disrespect or prejudge the outcome of final status issues will not be tolerated.
In support of this effort, we pledge to maintain and expand our dialogue on this issue with American Jewish and Palestinian communities and to assure them of our steadfast support for achieving the aspirations of both Israel and the Palestinian people for peace and security.
Mr. President, we are praying for you as you seek to bring God's justice and peace to a place torn by walls and weapons. We are convinced that with your vigilant support this dream can be fulfilled, and the lives of Palestinians and Israelis, as well as U.S. national security interests, can be transformed for the better.
Sincerely,
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
A Hopeful View of the Negotiations
Dear Friend,
Well-known leaders like Gershon Baskin cast the right vision. Will "leaders", the current P.M. and President and their entourage "make it happen" and carry their constituents along with them?
The situation is NOT insoluble. Israeli "security" and Palestinian "sovereignty" are not mutually exclusive. But it will take "work", making room for "the Other". Pray that we may all make room for "the Others" in our midst.
Palestinians are making headway with "infrastructure" and economic viability, inspite of the oppressive atmosphere. What if the creative energies of both peoples could be even more greatly unleashed? Side by side, in cooperation instead of conflict? For this we must fervently hope (and work)! Faithfully yours, JRK
Gershon Baskin
The Jerusalem Post (Opinion)
September 14, 2010 - 12:00am
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=188020
TWO RIGHTS DON'T MAKE IT WRONG
Yes, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is right – why should Israel continue the settlement freeze; after all, everyone knows Gilo will never be Palestinian. Ramot Eshkol will not be part of the Palestinian capital of al-Kuds, nor will Pisgat Ze’ev? Palestinians should understand that there are certain facts that will not be undone. The Jewish Quarter of the Old City and the Western Wall will remain under Israeli sovereignty in any peace agreement; without this, there can be no peace and certainly the Palestinians should realize this by now.
Yes, but Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is also right – why should the Palestinians enter new negotiations while Israel continues to build settlements on land which will become part of the Palestinian state? Haven’t too many Israeli facts already been created on the ground? The last time Netanyahu was prime minister, Har Homa didn’t exist, but now look at it – another Israeli city built on Palestinian land. The whole need to find land to swap comes from the facts that Israel has created, illegally by international law.
YES, BOTH sides are right. Palestinians and Palestinian-supporters will argue that there is no moral equivalent in the above claims. Israel has acted illegally and settlements were explicitly built by some former (and current) politicians to prevent the eventual creation of a Palestinian state.
There are two defining elements of Palestinian identity – the nakba (catastrophe) and dispersal of 1948 and settlements. For 43 years, Palestinians have watched their land get swallowed up as their dream of liberation, freedom and independence has withered with each new home built in the West Bank.
The settlement presence has meant land expropriation, bypass roads, usurping of water reserves, confiscation of natural resources such as stone quarries, and the entire system of controls – fences, roadblocks, barriers, walls and lots of IDF soldiers.
There is no way for any Palestinian to have any sympathy for settlers or settlements.
Their very presence is a daily reminder of their lack of freedom in their own land.
It is equally impossible for settlers, I imagine, to feel any sympathy for the Palestinians. Almost no settler will understand that Palestinians believe they made their most painful compromise already when they accepted the two-state solution within the 1967 borders. Settlers cannot see that when the Palestinian national movement officially accepted the idea of two states in November 1988 it was giving up 78 percent of what it believed to be its birthright – all of the land that was the State of Israel prior to June 5, 1967.
Palestinians sincerely believe that all of Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean legitimately belongs to them (as many Israelis believe that the entire land from the river to the sea belongs to them), and that the creation of the State of Israel was an historic injustice to them as they had nothing to do with the Holocaust. The Palestinians cannot see and accept what I do – that the birth of Israel was a moral imperative and that the Jewish people had the same right as all other peoples to a state of their own in their historic land.
And yes, so do the Palestinians. The creation of a Palestinian state today is a moral imperative for both Jews and Palestinians, and the Jewish people should be the most vocal advocates of the rights of the Palestinian people.
THE CLASH of the rights of these two peoples is the greatest wrong to both of them. The lingering bloody and tragic conflict must come to an end. Those leaders who cling to excuses to foil the chance of finding a way out of this mess are criminally negligent and dangerous.
Those Israeli and Palestinian citizens who encourage their leaders to provoke an early death to the new negotiations are nothing less than traitors to their own people.
There is a way out of this conflict. We are not destined to live by the sword forever. There are solutions to the issues. Israel can be secure and recognized; Jerusalem can be our eternal capital, recognized by all the nations of the world. Israel can be the magnet, the just and model society that will attract more Jews to come here to live. Israel can continue to shine in the field of hi-tech communications, biotech, agrotech and more.
Palestine too can prosper and shine. Palestine can be the first truly democratic Arab state, with the most advanced education system in the Arab region, the highest use of renewable energy, modern technology in industry and agriculture, a new and prospering hi-tech sector rapidly developing in cooperation with Israeli companies. The entrepreneurial spirit which has enabled the Palestinians to survive from one disaster to another can be the fertile ground on which a new economy of Internet-age Palestinians can be built.
We need to let loose the energies in both societies that are locked up by the continued conflict. This is much truer about Palestine than Israel, but in Israel as well, too much energy is improperly invested in the survival mode necessary to sustain us in conflict rather than in the creative mode which is sparked by security and liberation. We must let that energy loose. We can all be so much more than we are today.
This is not romantic kumbaya. Make no mistake, our spirit and our belief in our own abilities is the essence of our life, hope is the fire of our souls and the realization of our most noble dreams is the goal that we must achieve. There are those of us, maybe the majority, who cry woe about the horrible fate that has been bestowed on us. There are those of us who see that real peace is a real possibility and that the enormous amount of energy and money that has gone into fostering conflict can now be diverted to education, health care, science, discovery, the environment, the arts, and not just the fact of our existence.
The rights of both peoples do not have to be mutually negating; they can be mutually sustaining and fulfilling. The only way for that to happen is for us to end the blood feud, recognize each others’ rights to this land and make real peace.
Well-known leaders like Gershon Baskin cast the right vision. Will "leaders", the current P.M. and President and their entourage "make it happen" and carry their constituents along with them?
The situation is NOT insoluble. Israeli "security" and Palestinian "sovereignty" are not mutually exclusive. But it will take "work", making room for "the Other". Pray that we may all make room for "the Others" in our midst.
Palestinians are making headway with "infrastructure" and economic viability, inspite of the oppressive atmosphere. What if the creative energies of both peoples could be even more greatly unleashed? Side by side, in cooperation instead of conflict? For this we must fervently hope (and work)! Faithfully yours, JRK
Gershon Baskin
The Jerusalem Post (Opinion)
September 14, 2010 - 12:00am
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=188020
TWO RIGHTS DON'T MAKE IT WRONG
Yes, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is right – why should Israel continue the settlement freeze; after all, everyone knows Gilo will never be Palestinian. Ramot Eshkol will not be part of the Palestinian capital of al-Kuds, nor will Pisgat Ze’ev? Palestinians should understand that there are certain facts that will not be undone. The Jewish Quarter of the Old City and the Western Wall will remain under Israeli sovereignty in any peace agreement; without this, there can be no peace and certainly the Palestinians should realize this by now.
Yes, but Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is also right – why should the Palestinians enter new negotiations while Israel continues to build settlements on land which will become part of the Palestinian state? Haven’t too many Israeli facts already been created on the ground? The last time Netanyahu was prime minister, Har Homa didn’t exist, but now look at it – another Israeli city built on Palestinian land. The whole need to find land to swap comes from the facts that Israel has created, illegally by international law.
YES, BOTH sides are right. Palestinians and Palestinian-supporters will argue that there is no moral equivalent in the above claims. Israel has acted illegally and settlements were explicitly built by some former (and current) politicians to prevent the eventual creation of a Palestinian state.
There are two defining elements of Palestinian identity – the nakba (catastrophe) and dispersal of 1948 and settlements. For 43 years, Palestinians have watched their land get swallowed up as their dream of liberation, freedom and independence has withered with each new home built in the West Bank.
The settlement presence has meant land expropriation, bypass roads, usurping of water reserves, confiscation of natural resources such as stone quarries, and the entire system of controls – fences, roadblocks, barriers, walls and lots of IDF soldiers.
There is no way for any Palestinian to have any sympathy for settlers or settlements.
Their very presence is a daily reminder of their lack of freedom in their own land.
It is equally impossible for settlers, I imagine, to feel any sympathy for the Palestinians. Almost no settler will understand that Palestinians believe they made their most painful compromise already when they accepted the two-state solution within the 1967 borders. Settlers cannot see that when the Palestinian national movement officially accepted the idea of two states in November 1988 it was giving up 78 percent of what it believed to be its birthright – all of the land that was the State of Israel prior to June 5, 1967.
Palestinians sincerely believe that all of Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean legitimately belongs to them (as many Israelis believe that the entire land from the river to the sea belongs to them), and that the creation of the State of Israel was an historic injustice to them as they had nothing to do with the Holocaust. The Palestinians cannot see and accept what I do – that the birth of Israel was a moral imperative and that the Jewish people had the same right as all other peoples to a state of their own in their historic land.
And yes, so do the Palestinians. The creation of a Palestinian state today is a moral imperative for both Jews and Palestinians, and the Jewish people should be the most vocal advocates of the rights of the Palestinian people.
THE CLASH of the rights of these two peoples is the greatest wrong to both of them. The lingering bloody and tragic conflict must come to an end. Those leaders who cling to excuses to foil the chance of finding a way out of this mess are criminally negligent and dangerous.
Those Israeli and Palestinian citizens who encourage their leaders to provoke an early death to the new negotiations are nothing less than traitors to their own people.
There is a way out of this conflict. We are not destined to live by the sword forever. There are solutions to the issues. Israel can be secure and recognized; Jerusalem can be our eternal capital, recognized by all the nations of the world. Israel can be the magnet, the just and model society that will attract more Jews to come here to live. Israel can continue to shine in the field of hi-tech communications, biotech, agrotech and more.
Palestine too can prosper and shine. Palestine can be the first truly democratic Arab state, with the most advanced education system in the Arab region, the highest use of renewable energy, modern technology in industry and agriculture, a new and prospering hi-tech sector rapidly developing in cooperation with Israeli companies. The entrepreneurial spirit which has enabled the Palestinians to survive from one disaster to another can be the fertile ground on which a new economy of Internet-age Palestinians can be built.
We need to let loose the energies in both societies that are locked up by the continued conflict. This is much truer about Palestine than Israel, but in Israel as well, too much energy is improperly invested in the survival mode necessary to sustain us in conflict rather than in the creative mode which is sparked by security and liberation. We must let that energy loose. We can all be so much more than we are today.
This is not romantic kumbaya. Make no mistake, our spirit and our belief in our own abilities is the essence of our life, hope is the fire of our souls and the realization of our most noble dreams is the goal that we must achieve. There are those of us, maybe the majority, who cry woe about the horrible fate that has been bestowed on us. There are those of us who see that real peace is a real possibility and that the enormous amount of energy and money that has gone into fostering conflict can now be diverted to education, health care, science, discovery, the environment, the arts, and not just the fact of our existence.
The rights of both peoples do not have to be mutually negating; they can be mutually sustaining and fulfilling. The only way for that to happen is for us to end the blood feud, recognize each others’ rights to this land and make real peace.
Monday, September 13, 2010
This Film Casts the Right Vision
Dear Friend,
LITTLE TOWN OF BETHLEHEM is a 77 minute tour through violence to nonviolence, showing the determination of a Palestinian Christian, a Palestinian Muslim and a Jew, to live out Martin Luther King's and Gandhi's vision of nonviolence. Here is the website for the "trailer": www.littletownofbethlehem.org
To find, or organize, a local screening visit www.littletownofbethlehem.org, where trailers and other videos are also available to view, or email imatthews@egmfilms.org.
Sami, Ahmad, Yonatan come from radically different backgrounds in a land of unending war. Yet, against all odds, including some within their Israeli and Palestinian communities, they are able to find common ground. They walk a path of nonviolence struggle in lockstep with Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. For them courage is found not in taking up arms, but setting them down once and for all and extending a hand in peace.
From the award-winning team that brought you End of the Spear (2006) and Miss HIV (2007) comes director Jim Hanon’s latest documentary, Little Town of Bethlehem. Unscripted and unrehearsed, discover the humanity lurking behind an ancient cycle of violence.
Featuring: Sami Awad, Ahmad Al’Azzeh, Yonatan Shapira. Music Produced by: Kirk Whalum. Film Design by: Mike Galloway and Mark Arnold. Produced by: Mart Green. Written, Directed and Filmed by: Jim Hanon. Feature running time: Approximately 77 minutes. This film is rated PG-13, Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13, for some violent and disturbing images.
As an opinion maker, you can schedule this film for your constituency. People with the right mindset will eventually get it done. There is no peace without justice; there is no justice without love. JRK
LITTLE TOWN OF BETHLEHEM is a 77 minute tour through violence to nonviolence, showing the determination of a Palestinian Christian, a Palestinian Muslim and a Jew, to live out Martin Luther King's and Gandhi's vision of nonviolence. Here is the website for the "trailer": www.littletownofbethlehem.org
To find, or organize, a local screening visit www.littletownofbethlehem.org, where trailers and other videos are also available to view, or email imatthews@egmfilms.org.
Sami, Ahmad, Yonatan come from radically different backgrounds in a land of unending war. Yet, against all odds, including some within their Israeli and Palestinian communities, they are able to find common ground. They walk a path of nonviolence struggle in lockstep with Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. For them courage is found not in taking up arms, but setting them down once and for all and extending a hand in peace.
From the award-winning team that brought you End of the Spear (2006) and Miss HIV (2007) comes director Jim Hanon’s latest documentary, Little Town of Bethlehem. Unscripted and unrehearsed, discover the humanity lurking behind an ancient cycle of violence.
Featuring: Sami Awad, Ahmad Al’Azzeh, Yonatan Shapira. Music Produced by: Kirk Whalum. Film Design by: Mike Galloway and Mark Arnold. Produced by: Mart Green. Written, Directed and Filmed by: Jim Hanon. Feature running time: Approximately 77 minutes. This film is rated PG-13, Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13, for some violent and disturbing images.
As an opinion maker, you can schedule this film for your constituency. People with the right mindset will eventually get it done. There is no peace without justice; there is no justice without love. JRK
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Courage to Face Down "Extremists"
Dear Friend,
Occasionally, one comes upon an essay or blog that strikes the right note with penetrating clarity.
Especially these days, when Americans are painting all Muslims as "stealth terrorists" who want to take over America.
Bradley Burston gives us the song. Will any dance to his text and tune?
To "extremists", moderation, "peace", sharing and resolving disputes is weakness and compromise. Yet, true leaders build bridges not walls between groups of people who have been thrown together by history and vision. Read and share, with thanks to the ATFP for digging this out of Haaretz. JRK
A Special Place in Hell / Real men don't talk Mideast peace
Bradley Burston
Haaretz (Blog)
September 6, 2010 - 12:00am
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/a-special-place-in-hell-rea...
There was something wrong with the air here the day President Obama hosted Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. There was a bottom-heavy grip to the heat, the air almost too thick to breathe, as though it had to be forced down, like medicine.
In other places, this freight in the weather is the kind which announces a monsoon, or an earthquake. Not here. Here it was murder that was in the air. It just hadn't happened yet.
The stage had been set for days. Israel's most influential former chief rabbi had ushered in the week with a message about the Palestinians that hinted at expulsion and flirted with genocide.
Soon after, the head of Hamas' political bureau told an interviewer that the upcoming peace talks would come to nothing. "I tell my people that the Palestinian state and Palestinian rights will not be accomplished through this peace process," Khaled Meshal, "but will be accomplished by force, and it will be accomplished by resistance."
The army and the police would later say that there were no special alerts in place for attacks against civilians. As if any were needed.
In fact, none of it was needed. Nor is it ever. Not when there is any threat of peace.
There is something in the air here that militates against peace itself. It is more than mere tribalism, although tribalism is a part. It is more than past experience, although history's lessons have been almost uniform in their bitterness.
What it constitutes is something akin to a religion of its own, rooted in fundamentalism and terrifying focus, not an unusual circumstance in this cradle of monotheism and mania.
Where it comes to peace talks, this new religion has an oddly unifying effect on extremists, whether Jewish, Muslim, or even Born-Again Christian. None may believe in a Holy Land shared by Israeli and Palestinian states, but just to be on the safe side, a number of them are going to make sure that it doesn't happen.
What is all this, really? Much too much of it has nothing to do with ideology, God's promises or promises to God. For Jews and for Palestinians, whom history and tragedy have often and profoundly robbed of the sense and the substance of manhood,
much too much of it has to do with the need to prove oneself a man.
Even at the price of thinking like a 12-year-old boy.
Real men, this religion preaches, don't talk Mideast peace. Real men do not compromise. Real men neither bend nor relinquish, they concede no error, correct no course,
It is a religion whose first tenet is that a peace which does not conform to the vision of the extremist is no peace at all. It is a religion which effectively believes that there can be no peace. My way or the die way.
Thus it is, that Avigdor Lieberman chose a festive pre-Rosh Hashanah gathering of his Yisrael Beiteinu – perhaps the only Israeli political party which looks down on and dislikes native-born Israelis nearly as much as it dislikes and looks down on Arabs – to declare that a U.S.-brokered peace with the Palestinians is "unattainable, not in the course of this year, and not in the course of a generation."
Lieberman and Meshal, Eli Yishai and Mahmoud Zahar, all share more than just this religion of negation. They are bullies. They bully their peoples into believing that compromise is immoral, and that the highest form of courage is the frank pursuit of violence.
On the even of the White House meeting, my Palestinian-American colleague Ray Hanania wrote that peace would depend on real courage from both Netanyahu and Abbas. "Do they have the courage to stand up to the fanatics in their own community and confront the growing anger from the moderates who are pulled apart by violence, failure, and the actions of the other side?" he asked.
Many years ago, a Hasidic figure, now largely forgotten, taught that a human being - a real person, male or female, a mensch - is made with a Gibor (hero) on one shoulder, and a Tzaddik (righteous one) on the other. The first takes initiative, takes responsibility, takes chances, the second taking the long view, the broad view, tempering justice with wisdom.
By tradition, the concept of the Gibor is more complex than its English equivalent. True heroes, the Talmud says, resist, conquer their own passions, for the sake of doing what is truly righteous.
In the end, what in the world are the extremists really after?
They are after your humanity. They are betting that when the smoke clears after the damage caused by settlement expansion and drive-by killings, moderates will have surrendered to apathy, despair, or vengeful rage, and the extremist will then have won.
In the long run, though, the one thing that bullies cannot defeat, is courage.
For this peace to have any chance, two peoples, the Jewish and the Palestinian, here and abroad, must take a stand against their own extremists. To reclaim their own independence. Our independence.
It may well make more sense, in the present reality, to put your money on bloodshed. "I hope that one of my personal rules about the Middle East is proved wrong," Thomas Friedman wrote as the talks neared, "that in this region extremists go all the way and moderates tend to just go away."
In response, my wife wondered aloud why, under this formula, we were still here.
Perhaps its time to call moderates what we, in fact, are. Extremists for peace.
The occupation, the culture of militant Islam, [Burston should have added: "militant Judaism" - JRK] the constant undermining of peace moves, the propaganda that states that killing of civilians is ever justified or that theft of land is somehow legal – all of it is after your humanity.
Resist. They'll only take your soul if you let them.
Occasionally, one comes upon an essay or blog that strikes the right note with penetrating clarity.
Especially these days, when Americans are painting all Muslims as "stealth terrorists" who want to take over America.
Bradley Burston gives us the song. Will any dance to his text and tune?
To "extremists", moderation, "peace", sharing and resolving disputes is weakness and compromise. Yet, true leaders build bridges not walls between groups of people who have been thrown together by history and vision. Read and share, with thanks to the ATFP for digging this out of Haaretz. JRK
A Special Place in Hell / Real men don't talk Mideast peace
Bradley Burston
Haaretz (Blog)
September 6, 2010 - 12:00am
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/a-special-place-in-hell-rea...
There was something wrong with the air here the day President Obama hosted Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. There was a bottom-heavy grip to the heat, the air almost too thick to breathe, as though it had to be forced down, like medicine.
In other places, this freight in the weather is the kind which announces a monsoon, or an earthquake. Not here. Here it was murder that was in the air. It just hadn't happened yet.
The stage had been set for days. Israel's most influential former chief rabbi had ushered in the week with a message about the Palestinians that hinted at expulsion and flirted with genocide.
Soon after, the head of Hamas' political bureau told an interviewer that the upcoming peace talks would come to nothing. "I tell my people that the Palestinian state and Palestinian rights will not be accomplished through this peace process," Khaled Meshal, "but will be accomplished by force, and it will be accomplished by resistance."
The army and the police would later say that there were no special alerts in place for attacks against civilians. As if any were needed.
In fact, none of it was needed. Nor is it ever. Not when there is any threat of peace.
There is something in the air here that militates against peace itself. It is more than mere tribalism, although tribalism is a part. It is more than past experience, although history's lessons have been almost uniform in their bitterness.
What it constitutes is something akin to a religion of its own, rooted in fundamentalism and terrifying focus, not an unusual circumstance in this cradle of monotheism and mania.
Where it comes to peace talks, this new religion has an oddly unifying effect on extremists, whether Jewish, Muslim, or even Born-Again Christian. None may believe in a Holy Land shared by Israeli and Palestinian states, but just to be on the safe side, a number of them are going to make sure that it doesn't happen.
What is all this, really? Much too much of it has nothing to do with ideology, God's promises or promises to God. For Jews and for Palestinians, whom history and tragedy have often and profoundly robbed of the sense and the substance of manhood,
much too much of it has to do with the need to prove oneself a man.
Even at the price of thinking like a 12-year-old boy.
Real men, this religion preaches, don't talk Mideast peace. Real men do not compromise. Real men neither bend nor relinquish, they concede no error, correct no course,
It is a religion whose first tenet is that a peace which does not conform to the vision of the extremist is no peace at all. It is a religion which effectively believes that there can be no peace. My way or the die way.
Thus it is, that Avigdor Lieberman chose a festive pre-Rosh Hashanah gathering of his Yisrael Beiteinu – perhaps the only Israeli political party which looks down on and dislikes native-born Israelis nearly as much as it dislikes and looks down on Arabs – to declare that a U.S.-brokered peace with the Palestinians is "unattainable, not in the course of this year, and not in the course of a generation."
Lieberman and Meshal, Eli Yishai and Mahmoud Zahar, all share more than just this religion of negation. They are bullies. They bully their peoples into believing that compromise is immoral, and that the highest form of courage is the frank pursuit of violence.
On the even of the White House meeting, my Palestinian-American colleague Ray Hanania wrote that peace would depend on real courage from both Netanyahu and Abbas. "Do they have the courage to stand up to the fanatics in their own community and confront the growing anger from the moderates who are pulled apart by violence, failure, and the actions of the other side?" he asked.
Many years ago, a Hasidic figure, now largely forgotten, taught that a human being - a real person, male or female, a mensch - is made with a Gibor (hero) on one shoulder, and a Tzaddik (righteous one) on the other. The first takes initiative, takes responsibility, takes chances, the second taking the long view, the broad view, tempering justice with wisdom.
By tradition, the concept of the Gibor is more complex than its English equivalent. True heroes, the Talmud says, resist, conquer their own passions, for the sake of doing what is truly righteous.
In the end, what in the world are the extremists really after?
They are after your humanity. They are betting that when the smoke clears after the damage caused by settlement expansion and drive-by killings, moderates will have surrendered to apathy, despair, or vengeful rage, and the extremist will then have won.
In the long run, though, the one thing that bullies cannot defeat, is courage.
For this peace to have any chance, two peoples, the Jewish and the Palestinian, here and abroad, must take a stand against their own extremists. To reclaim their own independence. Our independence.
It may well make more sense, in the present reality, to put your money on bloodshed. "I hope that one of my personal rules about the Middle East is proved wrong," Thomas Friedman wrote as the talks neared, "that in this region extremists go all the way and moderates tend to just go away."
In response, my wife wondered aloud why, under this formula, we were still here.
Perhaps its time to call moderates what we, in fact, are. Extremists for peace.
The occupation, the culture of militant Islam, [Burston should have added: "militant Judaism" - JRK] the constant undermining of peace moves, the propaganda that states that killing of civilians is ever justified or that theft of land is somehow legal – all of it is after your humanity.
Resist. They'll only take your soul if you let them.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Political Realism?
Aluf Benn has been an editor-at-large of the "liberal" Haaretz newspaper, and has covered 6 Prime Ministers.
Here is his "take" on the up-coming "negotiations". If you've been following things, it shouldn't take long to scan it (altho it's a bit long). Pray for mutual respect among the leaders of the separate "narratives" and a desire to "get things done". JRK
Netanyahu may be a latter-day Gorbachev
Aluf Benn
Haaretz (Opinion)
August 27, 2010 - 12:00am
http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/week-s-end/netanyahu-may-be-a-latter-day-gorbach...
The opening of the direct talks with the Palestinians again raises the question: Who is Benjamin Netanyahu? Is he our Gorbachev, a great reformer who will end Israeli rule in the territories? A "Nixon who went to China" - a right-winger who disavowed his former approach and changed the balance of power with a brilliant diplomatic stroke? Or is he the "old Bibi" depicted by his rivals, the illusionist who is afraid of daddy Benzion and wife Sara, the uptight leader who flinches from making decisions and passes time by dribbling the ball?
An examination of Netanyahu's declarations and actions in the 17 months that have passed since his return to power lends support to the first option. The current Netanyahu government is the most dovish Israel has seen since Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated. The right-wing leader is displaying far more restraint than his predecessors in using the army and in expanding the settlements. He supports the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel and is now returning to negotiations on a final-status agreement.
Mikhail Gorbachev was elected head of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union in order to salvage an atrophied system. Netanyahu returned to power at the head of a right-wing coalition in order "to preserve the Land of Israel," after Ariel Sharon had "disengaged" from the Gaza Strip and Ehud Olmert planned a further withdrawal from the territories. The first decision he made was to stop the Annapolis process (he called the move a "policy review" ). Gorbachev reexamined the Soviet method and tried to fix it, until it collapsed. Likewise, Netanyahu has found himself at a point he wanted to avoid: negotiations on the "core issues" of Jerusalem, borders and refugees, under the auspices of an American administration striving to end the Israeli occupation in the territories.
But Netanyahu is not being evasive. On the contrary, he is entering the negotiations enthusiastically, after having shaken off the proximity talks the Palestinians forced on him and mustering the support of U.S. President Barack Obama and the Arab League to force direct talks on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Everywhere he goes Netanyahu promises that he is committed to getting an agreement, which implies dividing the country into two states: Israel and Palestine.
Of course, this moderation was effected under pressure, not out of a sudden revelation. Gorbachev and Nixon each also fomented a sea change for lack of choice, after recognizing their own weakness, not because they suddenly adopted their rivals' ideologies. Underlying their shift was an assessment of strategic inferiority.
Domestically, in the absence of competitors, Netanyahu enjoys greater political power than any prime minister in the past generation. But looking outward he fears Israel's growing international isolation and Iran's increasing strength as it draws closer to nuclear capability. The line Netanyahu is pursuing is clear: Israel needs international support, and its relations with the United States take top priority, far more so than right-wing ideology. Whenever Netanyahu encounters a forceful demand by Obama, he obeys.
Understanding the balance
Successful statesmanship involves understanding the balance of power and a readiness to adjust ideology to reality. This was shown by prime ministers from David Ben-Gurion, who withdrew from Sinai immediately after declaring the "third Jewish commonwealth," to Yitzhak Shamir in the Gulf War and the Madrid Conference, and Ariel Sharon, who evacuated the Gaza settlements and disavowed his pronouncement that what goes for Netzarim goes for Tel Aviv, too.
The world media calls Netanyahu's government hard-line, but its right-wing approach is directed toward internal politics. It is reflected in its battle against the political ambitions of Israel's Arab community and left-wing university lecturers. Beyond the separation fence, Netanyahu is behaving like a leftist. In accordance with his character, and as he did in his first term in office, he is using military force sparingly. His responses to cross-border shootings are precise and measured. His entanglement in the Gaza flotilla episode was due to a faulty understanding of the situation, not from an attempt to use excessive force. His testimony before the Turkel Committee, which is investigating that episode, in which he described how the decision to stop the Turkish flotilla was made, showed he gets bored with operational details and does not listen to them. He feels a lot more at home browbeating the United Nations than in divisional exercises or war rooms, and he pays few visits to the Israel Defense Forces. His military curiosity, to the degree that it exists, focuses on strategic air and sea deployment.
His attitude toward the Palestinians is instrumental. Netanyahu is not enchanted by Arab history and culture; the neighbors do not interest him. Nor, contrary to Ariel Sharon, does he hate Arabs. He likes to cross swords with the Palestinians over the historical narrative, to fight for recognition of the Jewish people's deep right to the Land of Israel and Jerusalem. No trust exists between him and Abbas; Netanyahu is entering the negotiations under a cautionary note that there might not be a Palestinian partner.
But practically speaking, the security cooperation with the Palestinian Authority is closer than ever, and the prime minister is working harder than his predecessors did to strengthen the Palestinian economy and to remove checkpoints and roadblocks. As he sees it, the busier the West Bank crossing points are, the less the motivation for terrorist attacks.
Netanyahu built his career on opposing withdrawals and concessions. Even during the last election campaign, he would say in closed meetings that he objected in principle to a Palestinian state. But in his first meeting with Obama as president, in May 2009, he was presented him with a firm demand to stop all construction on the other side of the Green Line, first of all in East Jerusalem. That was the president's "shock and awe" tactic, as recommended by his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
Obama was roundly criticized for taking this approach, on the grounds that it gave the Palestinians high hopes for a coerced agreement and encouraged Abbas to avoid direct talks. But Obama's aggressiveness worked wonders with Netanyahu, who gradually accepted the idea of "two states for two peoples." He froze construction in the settlements for 10 months, quietly stopped the building in East Jerusalem, partially lifted the blockade of Gaza and agreed to an international examination of the flotilla episode (via the presence of foreign observers at the Turkel committee and Israeli participation in the team appointed by the UN secretary general ).
Netanyahu also toned down his pronouncements against Iran and forced his cabinet ministers to be quiet and refrain from making counter-threats against Tehran or responding to foreign reports about the looming Iranian bomb. He has not created an emergency atmosphere in Israel and is keeping the military preparations for a confrontation with Iran low profile (there have been unplanned exceptions, such as the helicopter crash in Romania ). Israel's threats to attack Iran are being made indirectly, through foreign media briefings, such as the recent article by Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic magazine. Senior ministers say the coordination and understanding between Israel and the United States over Iran have grown much tighter in the past year, as is evident from the many meetings between the countries' defense heads.
Understanding power
Netanyahu rose to the country's leadership via the United Nations and television. His role model is Theodor Herzl, the father of political Zionism, who fought for the support of the great powers. As a diplomat, Netanyahu understands and appreciates power, as reflected in the slogan he repeated during the Oslo era: "If they give, they will get." This is also the key to understanding his complex relations with Obama.
When Nixon undertook his historic trip to Beijing, he wrote himself a note listing the interests of the United States and China under three headings: "What they want," "What we want" and "What both sides want." (Even by 1972 Nixon had assessed that China, then barely beyond the Cultural Revolution, would become a superpower. )
It would be interesting to know if Netanyahu writes similar notes before visiting the White House. If so, they might say something like, "The president wants Jewish support in the Congressional elections and then in the presidential elections, to show he advanced a Palestinian state, and to avert a regional war. I want to stay in power, thwart the Iranian nuclear project and extract Israel from its international isolation. Both of us want to strengthen the moderate regimes in the Arab states, block Iran's growing power and preserve Israel as America's ward."
In his last encounter with Obama, on July 7, Netanyahu reached an agreement with the president, who publicly called the meeting "excellent." The result was a transition to direct talks with the Palestinians, which are set to begin Thursday in Washington.
American officials said afterward that the prime minister expressed himself in a new way on the Palestinian question. In diplomacy it's always claimed that the other side made the concessions. (China's prime minister, Zhou En-Lai, told the Politburo that Nixon asked to visit China "like a whore all dressed up and knocking at our back door." )
Maybe Netanya hu showed Obama the map of the agreement that he will present to Abbas and the list of settlements to be evacuated. Or maybe - and this is more likely - he made do with vague comments such as "I was not elected just to sit in my chair - I want to foment change," and gave the Nobel Peace Prize laureate a challenge to move to direct talks.
The opening positions that Netanyahu is presenting in the negotiations on "two states for two nations" focus on three demands: security, meaning the demilitarization of the Palestinian state and the deployment of the Israel Defense Forces in the Jordan Valley, in order to prevent heavy weapons and rockets from entering the West Bank; recognition of Israel as "the state of the Jewish people," which the Palestinians are vehemently refusing to do, and allowing the return of Palestinian refugees only to Palestine, not to Israel; and a declaration of "the end of the conflict," to avert future claims by Arabs in the Negev and Galilee for autonomy or independence.
The Palestinians had hoped Obama would force a final-status settlement on Israel. Netanyahu wants Obama to force an interim settlement on the Palestinians that sets borders and security arrangements, wherein the "clauses of the narrative" - the mutual claims for recognition of the state of the Jewish people and the refugees' right of return - neutralize each other and are cleared from the road. The result would be a Palestinian state within temporary borders.
Also interesting is what Netanyahu is not saying. He does not attach security importance to the settlements and does not visit settlements outside the large blocs. His statements on Jerusalem are ambiguous (he recently declared that the city would not be divided, but did not say it would remain entirely under Israeli sovereignty ). All this is before he has sat down even once for a serious talk with Abbas.
Once Nixon arrived in China, he wrote himself a new note, slightly longer, in which he summed up the purpose of his visit: "A tradeoff between Taiwan and Vietnam." America wanted to leave Vietnam with as little humiliation as possible, and China wanted America to remove its troops from the neighboring island.
In the case of Obama and Netanyahu, the deal can be summed up as "Iran in exchange for the settlements." The tougher the line that Washington takes on the Iranian nuclear project, or the more freedom of action it gives Israel, the more Israel will cede in the West Bank. That is the basis for Netanyahu's policy. He views his supreme goal as the prevention of the "second Holocaust" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is plotting.
Netanyahu needs the talks with the Palestinians in order to breach Israel's international isolation and to strengthen his stance against Iran, and possibly also the legitimacy of a potential future attack. The timetable set for the negotiations - until August 2011 - buys him time and political quiet, after he resolves the crisis that can be expected when the freeze on settlement construction ends.
His abilities as a politician and a diplomat will be put to the test - and he has pretty good cards to play - both with the Palestinians, who want more territory and power in the West Bank, and with his own coalition, which so far has backed his moves. Upon declaring the settlement freeze, Netanyahu promised that when it ends "we will return to the construction policy of previous governments." The two last governments, Sharon's and Olmert's, built only in the settlement blocs - in places where Netanyahu has promised Israel will remain for all time - and blocked development outside the separation fence.
The prime ministers who have entered political processes, from Rabin to Olmert, all went a great deal farther in the talks with the Palestinians than they originally intended. The same pattern will probably repeat itself in Netanyahu's case if the talks continue, as happened to Gorbachev and Nixon. The prime minister understands this and has requested that he be given a chance.
"When you get to be my advanced age, you don't come back to spend time in office. It's not that pleasant anyway," he said last month in New York. "You come back to do something. I'm prepared to do something, and I'm prepared to take risks. I won't take risks with our security, but I'm willing to take political risks."
We'll be watching.
Here is his "take" on the up-coming "negotiations". If you've been following things, it shouldn't take long to scan it (altho it's a bit long). Pray for mutual respect among the leaders of the separate "narratives" and a desire to "get things done". JRK
Netanyahu may be a latter-day Gorbachev
Aluf Benn
Haaretz (Opinion)
August 27, 2010 - 12:00am
http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/week-s-end/netanyahu-may-be-a-latter-day-gorbach...
The opening of the direct talks with the Palestinians again raises the question: Who is Benjamin Netanyahu? Is he our Gorbachev, a great reformer who will end Israeli rule in the territories? A "Nixon who went to China" - a right-winger who disavowed his former approach and changed the balance of power with a brilliant diplomatic stroke? Or is he the "old Bibi" depicted by his rivals, the illusionist who is afraid of daddy Benzion and wife Sara, the uptight leader who flinches from making decisions and passes time by dribbling the ball?
An examination of Netanyahu's declarations and actions in the 17 months that have passed since his return to power lends support to the first option. The current Netanyahu government is the most dovish Israel has seen since Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated. The right-wing leader is displaying far more restraint than his predecessors in using the army and in expanding the settlements. He supports the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel and is now returning to negotiations on a final-status agreement.
Mikhail Gorbachev was elected head of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union in order to salvage an atrophied system. Netanyahu returned to power at the head of a right-wing coalition in order "to preserve the Land of Israel," after Ariel Sharon had "disengaged" from the Gaza Strip and Ehud Olmert planned a further withdrawal from the territories. The first decision he made was to stop the Annapolis process (he called the move a "policy review" ). Gorbachev reexamined the Soviet method and tried to fix it, until it collapsed. Likewise, Netanyahu has found himself at a point he wanted to avoid: negotiations on the "core issues" of Jerusalem, borders and refugees, under the auspices of an American administration striving to end the Israeli occupation in the territories.
But Netanyahu is not being evasive. On the contrary, he is entering the negotiations enthusiastically, after having shaken off the proximity talks the Palestinians forced on him and mustering the support of U.S. President Barack Obama and the Arab League to force direct talks on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Everywhere he goes Netanyahu promises that he is committed to getting an agreement, which implies dividing the country into two states: Israel and Palestine.
Of course, this moderation was effected under pressure, not out of a sudden revelation. Gorbachev and Nixon each also fomented a sea change for lack of choice, after recognizing their own weakness, not because they suddenly adopted their rivals' ideologies. Underlying their shift was an assessment of strategic inferiority.
Domestically, in the absence of competitors, Netanyahu enjoys greater political power than any prime minister in the past generation. But looking outward he fears Israel's growing international isolation and Iran's increasing strength as it draws closer to nuclear capability. The line Netanyahu is pursuing is clear: Israel needs international support, and its relations with the United States take top priority, far more so than right-wing ideology. Whenever Netanyahu encounters a forceful demand by Obama, he obeys.
Understanding the balance
Successful statesmanship involves understanding the balance of power and a readiness to adjust ideology to reality. This was shown by prime ministers from David Ben-Gurion, who withdrew from Sinai immediately after declaring the "third Jewish commonwealth," to Yitzhak Shamir in the Gulf War and the Madrid Conference, and Ariel Sharon, who evacuated the Gaza settlements and disavowed his pronouncement that what goes for Netzarim goes for Tel Aviv, too.
The world media calls Netanyahu's government hard-line, but its right-wing approach is directed toward internal politics. It is reflected in its battle against the political ambitions of Israel's Arab community and left-wing university lecturers. Beyond the separation fence, Netanyahu is behaving like a leftist. In accordance with his character, and as he did in his first term in office, he is using military force sparingly. His responses to cross-border shootings are precise and measured. His entanglement in the Gaza flotilla episode was due to a faulty understanding of the situation, not from an attempt to use excessive force. His testimony before the Turkel Committee, which is investigating that episode, in which he described how the decision to stop the Turkish flotilla was made, showed he gets bored with operational details and does not listen to them. He feels a lot more at home browbeating the United Nations than in divisional exercises or war rooms, and he pays few visits to the Israel Defense Forces. His military curiosity, to the degree that it exists, focuses on strategic air and sea deployment.
His attitude toward the Palestinians is instrumental. Netanyahu is not enchanted by Arab history and culture; the neighbors do not interest him. Nor, contrary to Ariel Sharon, does he hate Arabs. He likes to cross swords with the Palestinians over the historical narrative, to fight for recognition of the Jewish people's deep right to the Land of Israel and Jerusalem. No trust exists between him and Abbas; Netanyahu is entering the negotiations under a cautionary note that there might not be a Palestinian partner.
But practically speaking, the security cooperation with the Palestinian Authority is closer than ever, and the prime minister is working harder than his predecessors did to strengthen the Palestinian economy and to remove checkpoints and roadblocks. As he sees it, the busier the West Bank crossing points are, the less the motivation for terrorist attacks.
Netanyahu built his career on opposing withdrawals and concessions. Even during the last election campaign, he would say in closed meetings that he objected in principle to a Palestinian state. But in his first meeting with Obama as president, in May 2009, he was presented him with a firm demand to stop all construction on the other side of the Green Line, first of all in East Jerusalem. That was the president's "shock and awe" tactic, as recommended by his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
Obama was roundly criticized for taking this approach, on the grounds that it gave the Palestinians high hopes for a coerced agreement and encouraged Abbas to avoid direct talks. But Obama's aggressiveness worked wonders with Netanyahu, who gradually accepted the idea of "two states for two peoples." He froze construction in the settlements for 10 months, quietly stopped the building in East Jerusalem, partially lifted the blockade of Gaza and agreed to an international examination of the flotilla episode (via the presence of foreign observers at the Turkel committee and Israeli participation in the team appointed by the UN secretary general ).
Netanyahu also toned down his pronouncements against Iran and forced his cabinet ministers to be quiet and refrain from making counter-threats against Tehran or responding to foreign reports about the looming Iranian bomb. He has not created an emergency atmosphere in Israel and is keeping the military preparations for a confrontation with Iran low profile (there have been unplanned exceptions, such as the helicopter crash in Romania ). Israel's threats to attack Iran are being made indirectly, through foreign media briefings, such as the recent article by Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic magazine. Senior ministers say the coordination and understanding between Israel and the United States over Iran have grown much tighter in the past year, as is evident from the many meetings between the countries' defense heads.
Understanding power
Netanyahu rose to the country's leadership via the United Nations and television. His role model is Theodor Herzl, the father of political Zionism, who fought for the support of the great powers. As a diplomat, Netanyahu understands and appreciates power, as reflected in the slogan he repeated during the Oslo era: "If they give, they will get." This is also the key to understanding his complex relations with Obama.
When Nixon undertook his historic trip to Beijing, he wrote himself a note listing the interests of the United States and China under three headings: "What they want," "What we want" and "What both sides want." (Even by 1972 Nixon had assessed that China, then barely beyond the Cultural Revolution, would become a superpower. )
It would be interesting to know if Netanyahu writes similar notes before visiting the White House. If so, they might say something like, "The president wants Jewish support in the Congressional elections and then in the presidential elections, to show he advanced a Palestinian state, and to avert a regional war. I want to stay in power, thwart the Iranian nuclear project and extract Israel from its international isolation. Both of us want to strengthen the moderate regimes in the Arab states, block Iran's growing power and preserve Israel as America's ward."
In his last encounter with Obama, on July 7, Netanyahu reached an agreement with the president, who publicly called the meeting "excellent." The result was a transition to direct talks with the Palestinians, which are set to begin Thursday in Washington.
American officials said afterward that the prime minister expressed himself in a new way on the Palestinian question. In diplomacy it's always claimed that the other side made the concessions. (China's prime minister, Zhou En-Lai, told the Politburo that Nixon asked to visit China "like a whore all dressed up and knocking at our back door." )
Maybe Netanya hu showed Obama the map of the agreement that he will present to Abbas and the list of settlements to be evacuated. Or maybe - and this is more likely - he made do with vague comments such as "I was not elected just to sit in my chair - I want to foment change," and gave the Nobel Peace Prize laureate a challenge to move to direct talks.
The opening positions that Netanyahu is presenting in the negotiations on "two states for two nations" focus on three demands: security, meaning the demilitarization of the Palestinian state and the deployment of the Israel Defense Forces in the Jordan Valley, in order to prevent heavy weapons and rockets from entering the West Bank; recognition of Israel as "the state of the Jewish people," which the Palestinians are vehemently refusing to do, and allowing the return of Palestinian refugees only to Palestine, not to Israel; and a declaration of "the end of the conflict," to avert future claims by Arabs in the Negev and Galilee for autonomy or independence.
The Palestinians had hoped Obama would force a final-status settlement on Israel. Netanyahu wants Obama to force an interim settlement on the Palestinians that sets borders and security arrangements, wherein the "clauses of the narrative" - the mutual claims for recognition of the state of the Jewish people and the refugees' right of return - neutralize each other and are cleared from the road. The result would be a Palestinian state within temporary borders.
Also interesting is what Netanyahu is not saying. He does not attach security importance to the settlements and does not visit settlements outside the large blocs. His statements on Jerusalem are ambiguous (he recently declared that the city would not be divided, but did not say it would remain entirely under Israeli sovereignty ). All this is before he has sat down even once for a serious talk with Abbas.
Once Nixon arrived in China, he wrote himself a new note, slightly longer, in which he summed up the purpose of his visit: "A tradeoff between Taiwan and Vietnam." America wanted to leave Vietnam with as little humiliation as possible, and China wanted America to remove its troops from the neighboring island.
In the case of Obama and Netanyahu, the deal can be summed up as "Iran in exchange for the settlements." The tougher the line that Washington takes on the Iranian nuclear project, or the more freedom of action it gives Israel, the more Israel will cede in the West Bank. That is the basis for Netanyahu's policy. He views his supreme goal as the prevention of the "second Holocaust" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is plotting.
Netanyahu needs the talks with the Palestinians in order to breach Israel's international isolation and to strengthen his stance against Iran, and possibly also the legitimacy of a potential future attack. The timetable set for the negotiations - until August 2011 - buys him time and political quiet, after he resolves the crisis that can be expected when the freeze on settlement construction ends.
His abilities as a politician and a diplomat will be put to the test - and he has pretty good cards to play - both with the Palestinians, who want more territory and power in the West Bank, and with his own coalition, which so far has backed his moves. Upon declaring the settlement freeze, Netanyahu promised that when it ends "we will return to the construction policy of previous governments." The two last governments, Sharon's and Olmert's, built only in the settlement blocs - in places where Netanyahu has promised Israel will remain for all time - and blocked development outside the separation fence.
The prime ministers who have entered political processes, from Rabin to Olmert, all went a great deal farther in the talks with the Palestinians than they originally intended. The same pattern will probably repeat itself in Netanyahu's case if the talks continue, as happened to Gorbachev and Nixon. The prime minister understands this and has requested that he be given a chance.
"When you get to be my advanced age, you don't come back to spend time in office. It's not that pleasant anyway," he said last month in New York. "You come back to do something. I'm prepared to do something, and I'm prepared to take risks. I won't take risks with our security, but I'm willing to take political risks."
We'll be watching.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
As Important as Negotiations
Dear Friend,
Treating "The Other" with mutual respect is the ingredient that makes co-habitation on "the land" possible.
Scan this very relevant blog entry by Anshel Pfeffer. And pray for the up-coming "negotiations", that they be conducted in the spirit of mutual respect. JRK
Anshel Pfeffer
Haaretz
August 20, 2010 - 12:00am
http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/anglo-file/anshel-pfeffer-it-s-all-too-easy-for-...
This week I published in Haaretz the story of a small group of reserve soldiers who last month, while on active duty in the Jordan Valley, decided to make a small modification to their routine: They replaced the standard collection of curt phrases in basic Arabic - used by generations of IDF soldiers to order Palestinian civilians to stop, open their car door, present documents and identify themselves - with the more pleasant greetings and respectful, traditional blessings of which Arabic is so full.
Upon trying out this new lexicon at the checkpoint where they were stationed, "the transformation was immediate," one of the officers said. "They responded in kind and there was not one moment of tension or disturbance throughout the three weeks we were there."
"This wasn't superficial," another reservist told me. "We meant it and also made sure that we were not pointing our guns in their direction and made eye contact when speaking to them."
Changing the checkpoint dialect was the brainchild of poet, social worker and reservist Eliaz Cohen. "I wanted to use language as a means of seeing the other side as equal human beings, not just as potential security risks," he explained. "Basically, the opposite of what the army taught me to do."
This week's report generated a lively online discussion between supporters and opponents of the idea. The detractors on both sides of the political spectrum were predictable. Right-wingers saw the initiative as dangerously naive and a dereliction of the soldiers' duty to be suspicious at all times. Those on the left said the reservists were merely "sanitizing" the occupation; they argued that speaking politely was pointless, as the soldiers were participating in a much larger crime - denying Palestinian civilians their right to travel freely through their country.
A few also noted that Cohen himself is a settler from Kfar Etzion. If he really wants to see the Palestinians as fellow human beings, they said, he and his friends should leave the West Bank.
Ironically, on the very day Haaretz published my item about the polite reservists, another story on IDF soldiers' attitude toward Palestinian civilians broke and enjoyed much wider prominence, both nationally and internationally - the report on 21-year-old Eden Abergil's photos from her army days, which she posted on her Facebook profile. In two of the former soldier's images, she is seen smiling while standing next to arrested Palestinian suspects, their wrists bound and eyes covered. What better proof that IDF soldiers do not see Palestinians as human beings?
As so often happens, the debate was hijacked to irrelevant realms. Some commentators, rather egregiously, compared Abergil to Lynndie England, the diminutive American soldier who was photographed sexually abusing and torturing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison. But in that case, a clear crime had been committed and the perpetrators identified and punished. The U.S. Army could thereafter claim that it had rooted out the source of evil.
The Israel Defense Forces would love to do the same, and indeed its spokesmen said that Abergil's actions do not reflect upon the rest of the soldiers and are in fundamental opposition to the ethics and values of the IDF. It was all too easy for Israeli human rights groups to call the IDF's bluff, publishing photos similar to and even worse than those of Abergil, taken by soldiers over the many years of occupation.
And indeed how could it have been otherwise? Forty-three years of ruling another people have produced generations of Israelis incapable of seeing their neighbors as human beings. This is just as much a matter of psychology and basic values as politics.
In this context, the fact that Eliaz Cohen is a settler is quite relevant. His reserve-duty initiative was an extension of his wider activity in the Yerushalom group of young (ish ) settlers who are trying to foster more neighborly relations between Jews and Palestinians in the West Bank. This group is working to help both sides learn each other's language and customs and to create an environment, and perhaps one day a political solution, in which both sides can feel they "belong" to the land rather than "own" it.
Whether or not the members of this group are naive or wrongheaded, I suspect that despite being religious and living beyond the Green Line, they share more values with liberal strands of the Israeli public and Judaism than they do with their next-door neighbors with whom they pray at the local settlement synagogue.
We are rapidly entering a period in which the old political and religious labels which used to demarcate the ideological divides in Israel are devoid of any real meaning. Instead, Israelis and Jews can be better defined today by the way they relate to the "other," by their connection with the "outside" and their feelings toward the goyim.
Treating "The Other" with mutual respect is the ingredient that makes co-habitation on "the land" possible.
Scan this very relevant blog entry by Anshel Pfeffer. And pray for the up-coming "negotiations", that they be conducted in the spirit of mutual respect. JRK
Anshel Pfeffer
Haaretz
August 20, 2010 - 12:00am
http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/anglo-file/anshel-pfeffer-it-s-all-too-easy-for-...
This week I published in Haaretz the story of a small group of reserve soldiers who last month, while on active duty in the Jordan Valley, decided to make a small modification to their routine: They replaced the standard collection of curt phrases in basic Arabic - used by generations of IDF soldiers to order Palestinian civilians to stop, open their car door, present documents and identify themselves - with the more pleasant greetings and respectful, traditional blessings of which Arabic is so full.
Upon trying out this new lexicon at the checkpoint where they were stationed, "the transformation was immediate," one of the officers said. "They responded in kind and there was not one moment of tension or disturbance throughout the three weeks we were there."
"This wasn't superficial," another reservist told me. "We meant it and also made sure that we were not pointing our guns in their direction and made eye contact when speaking to them."
Changing the checkpoint dialect was the brainchild of poet, social worker and reservist Eliaz Cohen. "I wanted to use language as a means of seeing the other side as equal human beings, not just as potential security risks," he explained. "Basically, the opposite of what the army taught me to do."
This week's report generated a lively online discussion between supporters and opponents of the idea. The detractors on both sides of the political spectrum were predictable. Right-wingers saw the initiative as dangerously naive and a dereliction of the soldiers' duty to be suspicious at all times. Those on the left said the reservists were merely "sanitizing" the occupation; they argued that speaking politely was pointless, as the soldiers were participating in a much larger crime - denying Palestinian civilians their right to travel freely through their country.
A few also noted that Cohen himself is a settler from Kfar Etzion. If he really wants to see the Palestinians as fellow human beings, they said, he and his friends should leave the West Bank.
Ironically, on the very day Haaretz published my item about the polite reservists, another story on IDF soldiers' attitude toward Palestinian civilians broke and enjoyed much wider prominence, both nationally and internationally - the report on 21-year-old Eden Abergil's photos from her army days, which she posted on her Facebook profile. In two of the former soldier's images, she is seen smiling while standing next to arrested Palestinian suspects, their wrists bound and eyes covered. What better proof that IDF soldiers do not see Palestinians as human beings?
As so often happens, the debate was hijacked to irrelevant realms. Some commentators, rather egregiously, compared Abergil to Lynndie England, the diminutive American soldier who was photographed sexually abusing and torturing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison. But in that case, a clear crime had been committed and the perpetrators identified and punished. The U.S. Army could thereafter claim that it had rooted out the source of evil.
The Israel Defense Forces would love to do the same, and indeed its spokesmen said that Abergil's actions do not reflect upon the rest of the soldiers and are in fundamental opposition to the ethics and values of the IDF. It was all too easy for Israeli human rights groups to call the IDF's bluff, publishing photos similar to and even worse than those of Abergil, taken by soldiers over the many years of occupation.
And indeed how could it have been otherwise? Forty-three years of ruling another people have produced generations of Israelis incapable of seeing their neighbors as human beings. This is just as much a matter of psychology and basic values as politics.
In this context, the fact that Eliaz Cohen is a settler is quite relevant. His reserve-duty initiative was an extension of his wider activity in the Yerushalom group of young (ish ) settlers who are trying to foster more neighborly relations between Jews and Palestinians in the West Bank. This group is working to help both sides learn each other's language and customs and to create an environment, and perhaps one day a political solution, in which both sides can feel they "belong" to the land rather than "own" it.
Whether or not the members of this group are naive or wrongheaded, I suspect that despite being religious and living beyond the Green Line, they share more values with liberal strands of the Israeli public and Judaism than they do with their next-door neighbors with whom they pray at the local settlement synagogue.
We are rapidly entering a period in which the old political and religious labels which used to demarcate the ideological divides in Israel are devoid of any real meaning. Instead, Israelis and Jews can be better defined today by the way they relate to the "other," by their connection with the "outside" and their feelings toward the goyim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)