The Drama and the Farce

The Drama and the Farce
The Waldorf-Astoria Summit

By URI AVNERY

NO POINT denying it: in the first round of the match between Barack Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu, Obama was beaten.

Obama had demanded a freeze of all settlement activity, including East Jerusalem, as a condition for convening a tripartite summit meeting, in the wake of which accelerated peace negotiations were to start, leading to peace between two states – Israel and Palestine.

In the words of the ancient proverb, a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Netanyahu has tripped Obama on his first step. The President of the United States has stumbled.

* * *

THE THREEFOLD summit did indeed take place. But instead of a shining achievement for the new American administration, we witnessed a humbling demonstration of weakness. After Obama was compelled to give up his demand for a settlement freeze, the meeting no longer had any content.

True, Mahmoud Abbas did come, after all. He was dragged there against his will. The poor man was unable to refuse the invitation from Obama, his only support. But he will pay a heavy price for this flight: the Palestinians, and the entire Arab world, have seen his weakness. And Obama, who had started his term with a ringing speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, now looks like a broken reed.

The Israeli peace movement has been dealt another painful blow. It had pinned its hopes on the steadfastness of the American president. Obama’s victory and the settlement freeze were to show the Israeli public that the refusal policy of Netanyahu was leading to disaster.

But Netanyahu has won, and in a big way. Not only did he survive, not only has he shown that he is no “sucker” (a word he uses all the time), he has proven to his people – and to the public at large – that there is nothing to fear: Obama is nothing but a paper tiger. The settlements can go on expanding without hindrance. Any negotiations that start, if they start at all, can go on until the coming of the Messiah. Nothing will come out of them.

For Netanyahu, the threat of peace has passed. At least for the time being.

* * *

IT IS difficult to understand how Obama allowed himself to get into this embarrassing situation.

Machiavelli taught that one should not challenge a lion unless one is able to kill him. And Netanyahu is not even a lion, just a fox.

Why did Obama insist on the settlement freeze – in itself a very reasonable demand – if he was unable to stand his ground? Or, in other words, if he was unable to impose it on Netanyahu?

Before entering into such a campaign, a statesman must weigh up the array of forces: What power is at my disposal? What forces are confronting me? How determined is the other side? What means am I ready to employ? How far am I prepared to go in using my power?

Obama has a host of able advisors, headed by Rahm Emanuel, whose Israeli origins (and name) were supposed to give him special insights. George Mitchell, a hard-nosed and experienced diplomat, was supposed to provide sober assessments. How did they all fail?

Logic would say that Obama, before entering the fray, should have decided which instruments of pressure to employ. The arsenal is inexhaustible – from a threat by the US not to shield the Israeli government with its veto in the Security Council, to delaying the next shipment of arms. In 1992 James Baker, George Bush Sr’s Secretary of State, threatened to withhold American guarantees for Israel’s loans abroad. That was enough to drag even Yitzhak Shamir to the Madrid conference.

It seems that Obama was either unable or unwilling to exert such pressures, even secretly, even behind the scenes. This week he allowed the American navy to conduct major joint war-games with the Israeli Air Force.

Some people hoped that Obama would use the Goldstone report to exert pressure on Netanyahu. Just one hint that the US might not use its veto in the Security Council would have sown panic in Jerusalem. Instead, Washington published a statement on the report, dutifully toeing the Israeli propaganda line.

True, it is hard for the US to condemn war crimes that are so similar to those committed by its own soldiers. If Israeli commanders are put on trial in The Hague, American generals may be next in line. Until now, only the losers in wars were indicted. What will the world come to if those who remain in office are also accused?

* * *

THE INESCAPABLE conclusion is that Obama’s defeat is the outcome of a faulty assessment of the situation. His advisors, who are considered seasoned politicians, were wrong about the forces involved.

That has happened already in the crucial health insurance debate. The opposition is far stronger than anticipated by Obama’s people. In order to get out of this mess somehow, Obama needs the support of every senator and congressman he can lay his hands on. That automatically strengthens the position of the pro-Israel lobby, which already has immense influence in Congress.

The last thing that Obama needs at this moment is a declaration of war by AIPAC and Co. Netanyahu, an expert on domestic American politics, scented Obama’s weakness and exploited it.

Obama could do nothing but gnash his teeth and fold up.

That debacle is especially painful at this precise point in time. The impression is rapidly gaining ground that he is indeed an inspiring speaker with an uplifting message, but a weak politician, unable to turn his vision into reality. If this view of him firms up, it may cast a shadow over his whole term.

* * *

BUT IS Netanyahu’s policy wise from the Israeli point of view?

This may well turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.

Obama will not disappear. He has three and a half years in office before him, and thereafter perhaps four more. That’s a lot of time to plan revenge for someone hurt and humiliated at a delicate moment, at the beginning of his term of office.

One cannot know, of course, what is happening in the depths of Obama’s heart and in the back of his mind. He is an introvert who keeps his cards close to his chest. His many years as a young black man in the United States have probably taught him to keep his feelings to himself.

He may draw the conclusion, in the footsteps of all his predecessors since Dwight Eisenhower (except Father Bush during Baker’s short stint as hatchet man): Don’t Mess With Israel. With the help of its partners and servants in the US, it can cause grievous harm to any President.

But he may also draw the opposite conclusion: Wait for the right opportunity, when your standing in the domestic arena is solid, and pay Netanyahu back with interest. If that happens, Netanyahu’s air of victory may turn out to be premature.

* * *

IF I were asked for advice (not to worry, it won’t happen), I would tell him:

The forging of Israeli-Palestinian peace would mean a historic turnabout, a reversal of a 120 year old trend. That is not an easy operation, not to be undertaken lightly. It is not a matter for diplomats and secretaries. It demands a determined leader with a stout heart and a steady hand. If one is not ready for it, one should not even start.

An American President who wants to undertake such a role must formulate a clear and detailed peace plan, with a strict timetable, and be prepared to invest all his resources and all his political capital in its realization. Among other things, he must be ready to confront, face to face, the powerful pro-Israel lobby.

This will not succeed unless public opinion in Israel, Palestine, the Arab world, the United States and the whole world is thoroughly prepared well in advance. It will not succeed without an effective Israeli peace movement, without strong support from US public opinion, especially Jewish-American opinion, without a strong Palestinian leadership and without Arab unity.

At the appropriate moment, the President of the United States must come to Jerusalem and address the Israeli public from the Knesset rostrum, like Anwar Sadat and President Jimmy Carter before him, as well as the Palestinian parliament, like President Bill Clinton.

I don’t know if Obama is the man. Some in the peace camp have already given up on him, which effectively means that they have despaired of peace as such. I am not ready for this. One battle rarely decides a war, and one mistake does not foretell the future. A lost battle can steel the loser, a mistake can teach a valuable lesson.

* * *

IN ONE of his essays, Karl Marx said that when history repeats itself: The first time it is as tragedy, the second time it is as farce.

The 2000 threefold summit meeting at Camp David was high drama. Many hopes were pinned on it, success seemed to be within reach, but in the end it collapsed, with the participants blaming each other.

The 2009 Waldorf-Astoria summit was the farce.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.



http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery09232009.html

Pessimism is Rampant

Dear Friend,
Israel is winning with Obama with same-old, same old rhetoric, talky, talky, talky gamesmanship. Yes, we'll negotiate, yes, we'll talk with the Palestinians. So now, embracing the "no preconditions" stipulation, means that freezing settlements can be abandoned and be part of the "negotiations" to be started "by the end of October".
Meanwhile Bibi Netanyahu and his foreign minister Avignon Lieberman boast to the Israeli media that their hard stance with the US administration got the job done (mocking the President and scorning his insistence on freezing settlements, which are a symbol of Palestinian disenfranchisement).
With Israel continuing to be in the driver's seat, there really is nothing for the two conflicting parties to talk about and the status quo continues (which Obama swears is unacceptable). What is missing here? Who is perpetuating the status quo?
Meanwhile, responsible religious persons are joining to support the intentions of the Obama administration to pursue real changes. Here is the letter almost all of the mainline churches, Islamic and Jewish organizations have signed and sent to our President: (JRK)

Religious, ethnic leaders back Obama Middle East efforts
By Eric Fingerhut · September 22, 2009

http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/09/22/1008059/religious-ethnic-leaders-back-obama-middle-east-efforts

Leaders of a variety of religious and ethnic organizations signed on to a letter supporting President Obama's efforts to achieve a comprehensive Middle East peace.

"This is a moment of great opportunity and urgency," says the letter. "After decades of tragic conflict, many Israelis and Palestinians despair of the possibility of peace. While the international community and majorities of the Israeli and Palestinian people are committed to a two-state solution as the best option for achieving peace and security, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

"Both sides must take steps to move the process forward, and we support the President's efforts to end Israeli settlement growth and to halt Palestinian violence and incitement. It is now time to move to the next stage of diplomacy and to address the tough issues that must be resolved to bring this conflict to an end," it continues.

Among the Jewish signatories are Jewish Reconstructionist Federation president Robert Barkin, J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami, Americans for Peace Now president and CEO Debra DeLee and two former presidents of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, Charles Kroloff and Peter Knobel. Also signing were Archbishop Emeritus of Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Churches for Middle East Peace executive director Warren Clark, National Association of Evangelicals executive committee member Pastor Joel Hunter, Muslim Public Affairs Council executive director Salam al-Marayati and Arab American Institute president James Zogby.

The full letter is after the jump:

Letter in Support of a Comprehensive Middle East Peace:
An American National Interest Imperative

We come from varied ethnic backgrounds and religious faiths that are diverse. We are Democrats and Republicans. We are veterans of war and of the struggle for peace. Together, we are all Americans.

We find common cause in supporting strong U.S. leadership to achieve a negotiated, sustainable resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - a fundamental American interest that crosses racial, ethnic and religious lines.

We support President Obama's determination to provide sustained, hands-on diplomatic leadership to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to an end through the creation of two viable, secure and independent states living side by side in peace and security.

The President has made resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a top priority since his very first day in office, and we commend his leadership. We applaud the vision the President has laid out for peace in the Middle East and the challenge he has laid down to all of us to help work for peace and a more positive future for the people of the region and the world.

This is a moment of great opportunity and urgency. After decades of tragic conflict, many Israelis and Palestinians despair of the possibility of peace. While the international community and majorities of the Israeli and Palestinian people are committed to a two-state solution as the best option for achieving peace and security, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

We express our support for U.S. leadership to chart a path to a better future and to the following principles:

We support both Israel's right to exist in security and the right of the Palestinian people to a viable, sovereign and secure state of their own.

A peace agreement will need to fulfill UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and resolve critical issues of importance to the parties including refugees, borders, Jerusalem, settlements, and security.

The Israelis and Palestinians, however, have not - on their own - been able to reach agreement. After nearly two decades of negotiations, we believe bold American leadership can help Israelis and Palestinians make the difficult decisions necessary to achieve lasting peace and hold the parties to account should they fail to honor their commitments.

We support the sense of real urgency that the President brings to the issue and his determination to reach a negotiated resolution to the conflict during his first term in office.

At the appropriate time, we will support the Administration if it decides to present proposals for a just and equitable solution that provides dignity, security and sovereignty for both peoples.

Finally, we believe a peace agreement should be comprehensive - encompassing Syria and Lebanon as well as normalization of relations between Israel and the countries of the Arab world. We support the idea of a comprehensive regional peace that builds on the Arab Peace Initiative, with its offer of recognition and normalization of relations between Israel and all Arab nations in exchange for resolution of all outstanding issues.

Both sides must take steps to move the process forward, and we support the President's efforts to end Israeli settlement growth and to halt Palestinian violence and incitement. It is now time to move to the next stage of diplomacy and to address the tough issues that must be resolved to bring this conflict to an end.

There are many who will attempt to block the path to peace. They may believe that the status quo favors their interests or that time is on their side. The President should know that we understand the status quo is unsustainable and time is of the essence. We will stand with him as he promotes a fair and just resolution to this long-standing conflict and asks all parties to make the difficult but ultimately necessary compromises for peace.

We pledge to work with the President, to forge the path to peace and security for the Middle East. We also pledge to work with those in both societies who seek peace, justice, and security, and to stand up for those who hope for a better future for themselves and for the generations that follow.

Rick Warren on Christians Muslims to Work Together

Rick Warren works "outside the box" as a Christian leader. He's on the right road, IMHO. For Muslims and Christians to "work in action together" seems unrealistic and superficial, as serious theological differences make it difficult if not impossible to make such actions long-lasting. Yet. Still, the call to respect each other seems to me to be true and needed. What do you think? JRK

Rick Warren calls on Muslims and Christians to work together
Saddleback pastor urges Islamic Society convention to form an interfaith coalition to combat prejudice.
BY JESSICA TERRELL
The Orange County Register


WASHINGTON – Speaking to a crowd of nearly 8,000 Muslims at the Islamic Society of North America's annual convention in Washington D.C., Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren called on Muslims and Christians to form an interfaith coalition to combat prejudice and stereotypes.

While Fourth of July revelers staked out seats to watch fireworks at the nearby Capitol Building, Warren addressed convention-goers – some of them from Orange County Muslim student associations – about the need for mutual respect.

"Tolerance is not enough," Warren said. "People don't want to be tolerated, they want to be respected, they want to be listened to. They want to be valued."

Armed with four ideas for action, Warren called on Muslims and Christians to work together to create respect, restore civility to civilization, promote peace and tackle major world problems.


"I am not interested in interfaith dialogue, I am interested in interfaith projects," Warren said. "Talk is very cheap."

The evangelical minister and bestselling author has played an increasingly prominent role in public forums. Saddleback, which Warren founded in 1980, has five campuses in Orange County and is one of the largest churches in the country.

In 2008, he hosted a presidential candidate forum with Sen. John McCain and then-Sen. Barack Obama. His Lake Forest church also hosted then-Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2008.

Warren acknowledged that he was likely to receive criticism for addressing the Islamic convention. He declined to give any interviews about his appearance at the convention, according to a spokesperson. But in a blog last week the pastor addressed criticism he receives for speaking at non-Christian events.

"Every time I speak to any non-Christian group, I get criticized by well-meaning believers who don't really understand how much Jesus loves lost people," Warren wrote in the blog. "They are more concerned with their own perceived purity than the salvation of those Jesus died for."

Warren also listed his speaking engagement at the convention, in case people wanted to pray for the event.

Organizers of the convention were likely to get criticism for inviting him to speak as well, Warren said.

A popular minister whose churches minister to an estimated 20,000 people every week, Warren is not new to criticism. He supported the passage of Proposition 8 in the November election and gay rights protesters demonstrated outside his church after the gay marriage ban passed.

It was Warren's support of Proposition 8 that fueled much of the controversy over his invitation to participate in the inauguration. Many gay rights activists were vocal in their opposition to then-President-elect Obama's choice.

However Warren was praised for steering clear of controversy on inauguration day and delivering what was deemed a conciliatory and inclusive prayer.

"You can disagree with someone without hating them, without being afraid of them," Warren said.


Some are taking Warren's participation Saturday as a sign of Islam becoming more accepted in America, according to a recent article on the event by the Associated Press.

ISNA President Ingrid Mattson discussed the diversity of Islam, and Muslims' changing place in American society.

Many Muslims were relieved to be recognized in President Obama's inaugural address as being an important part of the fabric of American diversity, she said.

Mattson said she admired Warren's dedication to his community. Warren emphasized that governments cannot solve all the worlds problems, and emphasized the success of his interfaith work improving healthcare in Africa.

"I think what he said was fantastic," said Shiran Elkoshairi of the Adams Center Mosque in Virginia. "Historically, that (interfaith co-operation) was the way things got done, but we have forgotten that over time."

Elkoshairi said he especially liked how Warren said that love is a verb, an action rather than an emotion.

"I am commanded to love and I am commanded to respect everybody," Warren said.

Contact the writer: jterrell@ocregister.com or (202) 628-6381

Responses to the Jeff Halper Post!

Dear Friend,
New "freinds" John and Joyce Petro give a thoughtful response to my (yesterday's) post from Jeff Halper. It is worth reading. And I'm including my response. Peace. Justice. Love. JRK

John:

You have some very good points. Let us add a couple of comments.

First of all, we definitely went to Israel and Palestine with a very pro-Palestinian bias. To our surprise, Palestinian leaders we met, like Naim Ateek. Sabeel, and Mitri Raheb, Lutheran Christmas Church, strongly cautioned us from taking too strong of a pro-Palestinian stance. We must be open to the fears and views of the Jewish people. They emphasized to us time and time again, that the main hope was to build bridges with firm anchors on both sides, or on all three sides if you view Palestinians divided between Christian and Muslims.

Secondly, we must accept the fact that the Jews do have legitimate concerns. They have good reason to fear that many, if not most Palestinians, still wish to push them into the sea. Although the Palestinian are for the most part, innocent victims of the oppression they must endure, they, too, must make major concessions.

This all being said, the Zionist agenda to dispossess the Palestinians of their land is totally unacceptable. Peace, just peace, will come slowly and only when rational leaders on all sides work for peacemaking in the true sense of the word. The preferred solution would be one state, but for the time being this would be unacceptable to the Jews, since this would mean that Israel would no longer [be] a Jewish state.

I will say that the mild economic boycott related to withdrawing funds from companies supporting Israel expansionist goals may be beginning to work. The Swedish company that is installing the light rail through East Jerusalem has withdrawn its participation, bringing to halt the construction of the light rail. The company was losing too many big contracts elsewhere, particularly in Europe. Even Caterpillar is beginning to respond to the pressure. However, Motorola still is fully involved by providing the hardware and software to keep the Israeli war machine going. The Presbyterians led the way with this and took a lot of flack in the process. I wish I had more detailed information about the things that I mentioned above, since I am primarily passing on second-hand reports given me by a Muslim friend.
John and Joyce Petro


Dear John and Joyce,
Thank you sincerely for your cautionary words.

Well spoken. Jeff Halper is only one part of the puzzle. But I think the Jeff Blankfort piece I sent out earlier was even more inflammatory. I was hesitant for a long while before sending his post along.

There are legitimate Israeli fears. But their fears are the fears of the tyrant, who fears his subjects will rebel and overthrow her tyranny and callous disregard for the dignity of the subjects they seek to dominate.

If only Obama's admin could begin uses the power of the purse just a little bit more. It is politically suicidal I know, we all know, but it is one piece of the puzzle. European companies getting the message is good. BDS might be impossible politically right now, I understand that.

Are you guys going to be in Ft Thomas for the IPMN meeting (Oct 22-24?) Hope to meet you there.

The pendulum swinging from Israeli oppression to Pal oppression is real, and even likely, given the realities of power politics as practiced in today's world. Even inevitable. Which makes Israeli "fears" very substantial indeed. As always, strong leaders are required to hold back the influence of "extremists". A just peace is our goal, with mutual dignity extended to fellow human beings along the "Way".

Let's stay in touch. JRK

Ending the Matrix of Control, Jeff Halper

Jeff Halper is against confiscating Palestinian land and demolishing their homes. Here is the conclusion to a careful assessment of where we are now, in the light of the Mitchell plan in re "settlements": JRK

Put simply, any plan, proposal or initiative for peace in Israel-Palestine must be filtered through the following set of critical questions:

Will this plan really end the occupation, or is it merely a subtle cover for control?

Does this plan offer a just and sustainable peace or merely an imposed and false quiet?

Does this plan offer a Palestinian state that is territorially, politically and economically viable, or merely a prison-state?

Does this plan genuinely and justly address the refugee issue? And does this plan offer regional security and development?

While one may glean optimism from the fact that a US president finally comprehends the need for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, even if solely for the sake of US interests, it is difficult to be optimistic over the prospects of such a peace. No matter what the plan, Israel will neither cooperate nor negotiate in good faith. A solution will have to be imposed, if not overtly, then in ways that make Israel’s continued hold on the Occupied Territories too costly to sustain. Simply withholding Israel’s privileged access to American military technology and markets, for example, would have that effect.

Any attempt to pressure Israel, however, will run into a familiar obstacle: Congress, Israel’s trump card in its encounters with the administration. In the case of Obama, Israeli leaders know well that his own party has always been far more “pro-Israel” than the Republicans. Already his loss of momentum after the Cairo address (perhaps related to his difficulties over his health care plan) has emboldened the temporarily cowed AIPAC. In early August, the vaunted lobby produced a letter signed by 71 senators from both parties -- led by Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Jim Risch (R-ID) -- telling the president to lay off Israel and place more pressures on the Arab states to “normalize” relations with Israel. Obama had already, in his comments introducing Mitchell as special envoy and subsequently, called for “normalization” simultaneous with Israeli moves to lessen the burdens of occupation, in contravention of the 2002 Arab League peace plan, which proposed that the Arab states establish ties with Israel after withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines.

Now AIPAC and its backers in Congress want the administration to push for “normalization” before any Israeli overtures whatsoever. The Netanyahu government has played its part, as well. In August, its ministers, standing on the strategically crucial site of “E-1” between Jerusalem and the settlement of Ma’ale Adumim, vowed that Israel would continue building settlements anywhere it pleases. On September 7, Israel announced it was beginning work on 500 new apartments in Pisgat Ze’ev and 455 in other West Bank locales. These actions essentially tell Obama to go to hell mere weeks before he is projected to launch his peace initiative. The US replied with an expression of “regret.”

Any plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace that has a hope of succeeding requires both an effective marketing strategy and a level of assertiveness as yet unseen in a US president, excepting, perhaps, Dwight Eisenhower and Jimmy Carter. Obama’s only hope of breaking through the wall of Israeli and Democratic Party resistance is to articulate an approach to peace based on clear and accepted principles anchored in human rights and justice and then framed in terms of US interests. A cold, calculating assessment of US interests would certainly push Obama in this direction. Time will tell, though the limp response to the new settlement construction does not bode well.

In the meantime, growing opposition to the occupation on the part of the international grassroots is making it increasingly difficult for governments to support Israeli policies. The movement targeting Israel for boycott, divestment and sanctions gains strength by the day, as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict begins to assume the dimensions of the anti-apartheid struggle. But the Palestinians, exhausted and suffering as they may be, possess a trump card of their own. They are the gatekeepers. Until the majority of Palestinians, and not merely political leaders, declare that the conflict is over, the conflict is not over. Until most Palestinians believe it is time to normalize relations with Israel, there will be no normalization. Israel cannot “win” -- though it believes it can, which is why it presses ahead to complete the matrix and foreclose the possibility of a viable Palestinian state.

The failure of yet another peace initiative will only galvanize international efforts to achieve justice for the Palestinians. Only this time the demand is likely to be for a single binational state, the only alternative that fits the single-state, binational reality that Israel itself has forged in its futile attempt to impose an apartheid regime.

On Rationalizing the Dispossession of Palestinians

Jeff Blankfort is an American Jew, radio talk show host in S. California. He takes after Uri Avnery, who himself is liberal in his criticism of his country, Israel. But Uri pulls back from endorsing the BDS movement (boycott, divestment and sanctions). It takes courage these days to be critical of Israel and those who support the status quo over there. At least skim this trenchant piece. JRK

On Rationalizing Israel’s Dispossession of the Palestinians
by Jeff Blankfort / September 5th, 2009

Hello Uri,

I have just read your response to critics of your opposition to boycotting Israel and, having long ago realized the limits of your activism and worldview, it held no surprises. You have quite clearly invested too much time and energy over the years in rationalizing Israel’s dispossession of the Palestinians from their homeland to acknowledge the injustice that was not only inherent but required for Israel’s creation. The passage of time does not erase that injustice no matter how many times you or others invoke the Nazi holocaust. The die for establishing a Jewish state displacing the Palestinians from their homes and villages was cast well before Hitler came to power so that issue should have no place in this argument.

The arguments against establishing a Jewish state in Palestine raised by anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jews going back to the early years of the last century were well known and all have been proved correct. So it should not be a matter of surprise that Israel’s legitimacy has not been accepted by the Palestinians and the other peoples of the region. It was advertised by Zionists worldwide as a colonial settler enterprise with pride, in fact, until such terminology fell out of favor. That it was established at a time when the rest of the world was engaged in a period of decolonization was even a further guarantee of its rejection and had it not been for the influence of its supporters in the US and Europe and the arms that flowed from that support, Israel, like French Algeria, would have become another episode in history. (And it is noteworthy that it was Israel’s support for the French against the Algerian resistance that led to France being Israel’s chief supplier of weaponry until 1967).

You are also well aware that to maintain Israel as the Sparta of the Middle East, the “Pro-Israel Lobby” has long held the US Congress in thrall, strangling what little is left of American democracy. Do you not recall writing how one president after another tried to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict and how each one was forced by The Lobby to retire from the field defeated? And with each defeat, the theft of Palestinian land and the growth of the settlements continued. Who has paid the price for that?

As you have already assumed, I am against the existence of the state of Israel or a Jewish state by any other name which is based on the notion that a Jew from anywhere in the world has more of a right to live in what most of the world knew and accepted as Palestine than a Palestinian Arab who was born there or her or his family members. If that is not both immoral and racist, we need new definitions for those words. And yet you, apparently, do not find it so and reject the opinions of those who do. (The notion that Israel or any country can be a homeland for a person not born there and who cannot trace a single relative that was born there is but another example of how Zionists have twisted the language to justify the unjust.)

You desperation for an argument against the idea of a single state becomes apparent when you write that the French and the Germans did not agree to live together. Do you really believe there is any comparison to be made between the two situations. Are the French sitting on German land or vice versa?

I continue to be mystified at your continuing efforts to separate the settlers from those Jews living within the Green Line as if the majority of those in Israel proper are not as responsible for electing a series of professional killers as their prime ministers year after year, all of whom have expanded the settlements. There hasn’t been a single poll of Israeli Jews that I have seen going back to 1988, in the early days of the first intifada, where half of those polled did not call for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. How many settlers were there in 1988?

In your wonderful democracy, every able bodied Jewish man or woman, with the exception of the chassdim, has served as an occupier in the West Bank or Gaza for the past 42 years. Are they not culpable? Yesterday, I watched on Al-Jazeera as Israeli soldiers fired waves of tear gas and some smelly green liquid on non-violent Palestinians who were marching to demonstrate against the steel fence that cuts through their land at Ni’ilin and who then began targeting the Al-Jazeera reporter. Are we expected to embrace these young thugs wearing an Israeli uniform? Are those who hate them to be condemned and not the thugs and those who sent them there?

You repeatedly use the word “peace” but not once do you use the word “justice.” And that is what separates you and your fellow Zionists from the Palestinians and those who genuinely support them. The occupation bothers your conscience, your sense of identity as an Israeli, but how much does it affect your life? Ending the occupation no matter how it is arranged will bring you peace of mind and time to finish your memoirs. Now, try if you can,and imagine yourself as a Palestinian who has been under an Israeli jackboot all of his or her life. Would you be simply looking for peace, an absence of that Israeli jackboot, or would you be seeking and demanding justice?

Your conclusion expresses your confusion. You write that you want “Israel to be a state belonging to all its citizens, without distinction of ethnic origin, gender,religion or language; with completely equal rights for all,” yet you assume there will be a “Hebrew-speaking majority” that will allow its “Arab-speaking citizens… to cherish their close ties with their Palestinian brothers and sisters…” If there is no distinction between one citizen and another, Jewish or Arab, how can you assume that the majority will continue to be Hebrew-speaking (or are you allowing for the possibility that Israel’s Palestinian Arab population which already is largely bi-lingual will become the majority at which point Israel will no longer be a Jewish state?). If that is so, perhaps there is hope for you yet.

Jeff Blankfort

Words Games Continue. Isr is "in", Pal is "out"

Here we go again. Will the Obama administration advance over the "deeply regret" phase popularized by Dubya? Where is courage? How long do we play games and hide behind "words" that are meaningless? Our paper Tiger has no bite. Is is time for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions? As in a beginning stage. Even to make public that the US is THINKING about BDS? JRK

Israeli plan for settlement building angers US
By STEVEN GUTKIN, Associated Press Writer Steven Gutkin, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM – Israel said Friday it will construct hundreds of new housing units in West Bank settlements before any slowdown in building, an announcement that drew harsh criticism from Washington, which demands a complete settlement freeze as a prelude to renewing Mideast peace talks.

Israeli officials painted the move as a concession to the U.S. demand because it might bring a temporary halt to other construction. But since it would also mean building the new units and finishing some 2,500 others now under construction, it looked more like defiance than acquiescence.

Israel's proposal also does not include any freeze in building in east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians hope to make their future capital.

The Obama administration's response did not mince words.

"We regret the reports of Israel's plans to approve additional settlement construction," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement Friday. "As the president has said before, the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement expansion and we urge that it stop."