Dear Friend,
Usually, I give you articles from others. This one is from me. I'm mad. Really mad. Read on. March 13, 2011, John R. Kleinheksel Sr.
The Insanity of Endless Tit for Tat
John R. Kleinheksel Sr. March 13, 2011
The world is now learning about the latest insane actions/reactions in Israel/Palestine. Here’s the latest headline from the Associated Press:
Israel OKs settlement construction after attack
By AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press
JERUSALEM – Israel said Sunday it has approved building hundreds of settler homes after five members of an Israeli family — including three children — were knifed to death as they slept in a West Bank settlement over the weekend.
For those who care about human life and property, the latest atrocity and the tit for tat escalation in hostilities is maddening.
Where are the leaders who see and understand what is going on there and desire to put a stop to the violence against persons and property? Right-minded people must condemn the Palestinian desire to wreak vengeance on Israelis who violate their people and property. And right-minded people must condemn the Israelis’ desire to wreak vengeance on Palestinians by continuing to violate their people and property!!!
Why do we continue to aggravate and kill each other? When will each back off and make conciliatory actions that show the other side cares about atrocities and is doing something to make real changes for the better?
What is really insane to me is that at least the Palestinian Authority (PA) has categorically denounced this form of violence by fellow Palestinians. It achieves no good end whatsoever. But no one in the present Israeli leadership is disavowing the advancing of the settlement project, which inflames the violence. What insanity is this?
I remember attending a conference in Athens, Ohio as an undergraduate when Martin Luther King Jr. addressed us. I will never forget when he argued that Caucasian society cannot use the results of prejudicial treatment as an argument for its continuance. What he meant was that blacks who were separated from their wives and children in the earliest years of slavery, rebelled, committing serious atrocities over the decades, violating “civil” standards of decency and order. Dr King insisted the solution was not to continue to pile on the inequities, but to rectify systemic roots of dislocation and egregious forms of inequality, instead of seeking vengeance on the persons who were aggrieved. Civil rights legislation began in earnest following his assassination (and the assassination of Jack and Robert Kennedy) and has truly made a huge difference in the United States, even though inequalities and injustices persist decades later.
That situation applies now in Israel/Palestine. But instead of changing the root causes of violence against themselves, the Israelis establishment is reinforcing the systemic sources of the violence against themselves. Does this make sense? What will it take to begin a different “way” of dealing with “violence”? This is a clear and present illustration of insanity, the absence of reason to address causes of violence.
It’s like saying, “You will always stay in the back of the bus”! Or, “You will never be able to buy a home in our neighborhoods”! Or, “You will never be admitted to our schools”! Or, “You will never get THAT job”!
And religion is a contributing cause, make no mistake. This horrific violence perpetrated against an Israeli family was done in a leading religiously motivated settlement, where rabbis claim it is “God’s” intention that Israelis (and no one else) have the right to settle the land.
Where are the Muslim and Jewish leaders who are committed to the “common good” among the immigrants (Israelis) and previous occupants of the land (Muslims and Christians)? What will it take to sit down and reason with one another and accept mediation from a Third Party that both sides can trust?
God, when will this insanity end????
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
SABEEL Conference Declaration
Dear Friend,
We are in constant touch with SABEEL, our Palestinian Christian friends, who met in Bethlehem, 23 - 28 February.
Below is the statement they make known to the world. Read and send to your friends who care about what's happening over there and how the US should be more proactive. JRK
To Our Friends and All People of Conscience
As the margins of Empire began to crumble in the Arab world, Sabeel's Eighth International Conference convened in Bethlehem inside the prison walls of imperial rule. We, the participants,300 people from 15 countries, met from 23rd to 28th February, 2011, to discuss “Challenging Empire: God, Faithfulness and Resistance,” surrounded by the unavoidable and cruel effects of empire's rule on the Palestinian people and their land.
We heard how Jesus resisted the arrogance, violence and repression of Empire and became a model for us when he drove out the money changers and confirmed the people's independence from Caesar. Jesus helps us overcome fear and stand in solidarity against Empire. We must follow his example and pray for his courage to resist imperial power, aligning ourselves with the poorest and most oppressed.
We met the victims of Empire in refugee camps, at check-points and in their homes, where they courageously persist in the face of unrelenting oppression. We saw them resist the theft of their homes, fields and water, challenging us to confront Empire in our own countries and in the Holy Land.
We support the Kairos Palestine document and encourage all Christians to read it and act on it. Confronting the root causes of the conflict, this document urges all Christians and people of conscience to help end the military occupation that deprives Palestinians of their rights and condemns both peoples, Israelis and Palestinians, to a distortion of their humanity. We see boycott and divestment as non-violent tools for justice, peace and security for all. We say to the churches: come and see. You will know the facts and the people of this land, Palestinians and Israelis alike.
Our word to the international community is to stop the double standards, and insist on the enforcement of international law and U.N. resolutions regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict.
As we depart this conference we hold the United States responsible for the obstacles it has placed in the path of peace, including its veto of a U.N. resolution that condemned Israeli settlement building in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to U.S. policy stating that settlements are illegal.
We will carry all that we have seen and learned here to our homes and families, our churches and governments, along with the challenges we have accepted for ourselves and our communities.
Bethlehem, Palestine
28 February, 2011
www.kairospalestine.ps
We are in constant touch with SABEEL, our Palestinian Christian friends, who met in Bethlehem, 23 - 28 February.
Below is the statement they make known to the world. Read and send to your friends who care about what's happening over there and how the US should be more proactive. JRK
To Our Friends and All People of Conscience
As the margins of Empire began to crumble in the Arab world, Sabeel's Eighth International Conference convened in Bethlehem inside the prison walls of imperial rule. We, the participants,300 people from 15 countries, met from 23rd to 28th February, 2011, to discuss “Challenging Empire: God, Faithfulness and Resistance,” surrounded by the unavoidable and cruel effects of empire's rule on the Palestinian people and their land.
We heard how Jesus resisted the arrogance, violence and repression of Empire and became a model for us when he drove out the money changers and confirmed the people's independence from Caesar. Jesus helps us overcome fear and stand in solidarity against Empire. We must follow his example and pray for his courage to resist imperial power, aligning ourselves with the poorest and most oppressed.
We met the victims of Empire in refugee camps, at check-points and in their homes, where they courageously persist in the face of unrelenting oppression. We saw them resist the theft of their homes, fields and water, challenging us to confront Empire in our own countries and in the Holy Land.
We support the Kairos Palestine document and encourage all Christians to read it and act on it. Confronting the root causes of the conflict, this document urges all Christians and people of conscience to help end the military occupation that deprives Palestinians of their rights and condemns both peoples, Israelis and Palestinians, to a distortion of their humanity. We see boycott and divestment as non-violent tools for justice, peace and security for all. We say to the churches: come and see. You will know the facts and the people of this land, Palestinians and Israelis alike.
Our word to the international community is to stop the double standards, and insist on the enforcement of international law and U.N. resolutions regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict.
As we depart this conference we hold the United States responsible for the obstacles it has placed in the path of peace, including its veto of a U.N. resolution that condemned Israeli settlement building in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to U.S. policy stating that settlements are illegal.
We will carry all that we have seen and learned here to our homes and families, our churches and governments, along with the challenges we have accepted for ourselves and our communities.
Bethlehem, Palestine
28 February, 2011
www.kairospalestine.ps
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Restating the Two-State Solution
My friend Saliba Sarsar, takes exception to the Sari Nussbaum piece and publishes this article in the Higher Education Chronicle.
He restates the need for the "two-state" solution, even though that "way" has not made any progress for at least 6 decades now (it was proposed by a special UN commission before Israel unilaterally declared it independence in 1948).
Each "side" says it wants to "negotiate", but it just never happens. Both sides argue their case in public, using the popular media to press their case; never to sit down and talk with each other. There is bad faith. Neither side trusts the other to really converse about the nitty-gritty.
So, here is the politically correct view once again, admirably stated by my collaborator and good friend, Prof. Sarsar. JRK
A Way Forward for Israelis and Palestinians
Saliba Sarsar
The Chronicle of Higher Education (Opinion)
March 6, 2011 - 12:00am
http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/126561/
"Is This Man Dangerous?" asks the headline on the cover of Haim Watzman's article on how the maverick Sari Nusseibeh is challenging Middle East orthodoxies (The Chronicle Review, February 4). The answer is a definite no. As a philosopher president (of Al-Quds University), he regularly floats ideas to question assumptions and authority, to think outside the box, in order to educate and to transform reality.
With all due respect, Nusseibeh's idea of having Israel give the Palestinians on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip civil but not political rights as an interim route to peace between Palestinians and Israelis is not the way forward. It evades the central issue, prolongs the painful status quo, and postpones the inevitable.
As Hussein Ibish and I have argued in our book Principles and Pragmatism (American Task Force on Palestine, 2006), the facts are clear. First, Israel ruling millions of Palestinians who are not citizens of Israel or any other state and large amounts of Palestinian territory beyond the internationally recognized boundaries of Israel is completely untenable. Second, plans demanding complete Israeli/Jewish or Palestinian/Muslim rule over the whole of historical Palestine generate continued conflict and violence without apparent resolution, since neither side can seriously hope for any sort of comprehensive military solution. Third, utopian visions of a single, democratic state in which Israelis and Palestinians both set aside their national identities in favor of an as-yet-undefined umbrella identity in some sort of joint or binational state may be appealing in their own way, but do not constitute a practical path to ending the conflict.
In our real world, which is only a slight approximation of the ideal world of the philosopher king, a doable and just solution consists of Israel and Palestine—two sovereign states—living side by side in security, peace, and prosperity. As the American Task Force on Palestine has repeatedly stated, this solution, with a Palestine built on democracy, pluralism, defensive defense, and neutrality, is in the best national interest of all concerned, including the United States, Palestine, and Israel. It is the responsibility of the United States in particular and the other members of the Middle East Quartet in general to push hard for the resumption and sustenance of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. What is agreed upon, however, remains the prerogative of the parties themselves.
Sari Nusseibeh should not despair. He must continue to use his voice and touch to bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict for the two nations—Israelis and Palestinians—and three religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—that share Jerusalem.
Saliba Sarsar
Professor of Political Science
Associate Vice President for Global Initiatives
Monmouth University
Monmouth, N.J.
He restates the need for the "two-state" solution, even though that "way" has not made any progress for at least 6 decades now (it was proposed by a special UN commission before Israel unilaterally declared it independence in 1948).
Each "side" says it wants to "negotiate", but it just never happens. Both sides argue their case in public, using the popular media to press their case; never to sit down and talk with each other. There is bad faith. Neither side trusts the other to really converse about the nitty-gritty.
So, here is the politically correct view once again, admirably stated by my collaborator and good friend, Prof. Sarsar. JRK
A Way Forward for Israelis and Palestinians
Saliba Sarsar
The Chronicle of Higher Education (Opinion)
March 6, 2011 - 12:00am
http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/126561/
"Is This Man Dangerous?" asks the headline on the cover of Haim Watzman's article on how the maverick Sari Nusseibeh is challenging Middle East orthodoxies (The Chronicle Review, February 4). The answer is a definite no. As a philosopher president (of Al-Quds University), he regularly floats ideas to question assumptions and authority, to think outside the box, in order to educate and to transform reality.
With all due respect, Nusseibeh's idea of having Israel give the Palestinians on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip civil but not political rights as an interim route to peace between Palestinians and Israelis is not the way forward. It evades the central issue, prolongs the painful status quo, and postpones the inevitable.
As Hussein Ibish and I have argued in our book Principles and Pragmatism (American Task Force on Palestine, 2006), the facts are clear. First, Israel ruling millions of Palestinians who are not citizens of Israel or any other state and large amounts of Palestinian territory beyond the internationally recognized boundaries of Israel is completely untenable. Second, plans demanding complete Israeli/Jewish or Palestinian/Muslim rule over the whole of historical Palestine generate continued conflict and violence without apparent resolution, since neither side can seriously hope for any sort of comprehensive military solution. Third, utopian visions of a single, democratic state in which Israelis and Palestinians both set aside their national identities in favor of an as-yet-undefined umbrella identity in some sort of joint or binational state may be appealing in their own way, but do not constitute a practical path to ending the conflict.
In our real world, which is only a slight approximation of the ideal world of the philosopher king, a doable and just solution consists of Israel and Palestine—two sovereign states—living side by side in security, peace, and prosperity. As the American Task Force on Palestine has repeatedly stated, this solution, with a Palestine built on democracy, pluralism, defensive defense, and neutrality, is in the best national interest of all concerned, including the United States, Palestine, and Israel. It is the responsibility of the United States in particular and the other members of the Middle East Quartet in general to push hard for the resumption and sustenance of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. What is agreed upon, however, remains the prerogative of the parties themselves.
Sari Nusseibeh should not despair. He must continue to use his voice and touch to bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict for the two nations—Israelis and Palestinians—and three religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—that share Jerusalem.
Saliba Sarsar
Professor of Political Science
Associate Vice President for Global Initiatives
Monmouth University
Monmouth, N.J.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Aid to Israel Should NOT Escape Budgetary Ax
MJ Rosenberg is at it again, politically incorrect advice. This from the Huffington Post (with thanks to Noushin Framke, for bringing it to our attention. The complete article follows. JRK
Once upon a time, Social Security was considered the "third rail" of American politics. The "third rail" is the train track that carries the high-voltage power; touching it means instant death.
The "third rail" metaphor has for decades been applied to Social Security, a government program so popular with the American public that proposing any changes in it would mean political death to the politician.
No more. Although Social Security is as popular as ever, politicians routinely propose changes in the program -- including privatization and means testing. While the proposals usually go nowhere, and rightly so, the politicians who support them live to fight another day. Today, with those massive deficits and the astronomical national debt, not even Social Security is sacrosanct.
Few, if any, government programs are.
But U.S. aid to Israel is. In fact, the $3 billion Israel aid package is the new third rail of American politics: touch it and die. It is also the one program which liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans and tea partiers all agree should not sustain even a dollar in cuts.
Actually, that is something of a misstatement. These various parties and factions do not agree that the $3 billion Israel aid package is sacred. They just say that they do because a powerful lobby, AIPAC, makes clear to them that touching the aid package will mean big trouble for them in the next election.
It no longer comes as much of a surprise that the average Democrat and Republican rules Israel aid cuts off the table -- while supporting cuts in programs like Head Start, which educates poor children, or WIC, which provides nutrition assistance to disadvantaged women and their infants.
It is not a surprise because everyone knows that the Democratic and Republican campaign finance committees warn their members of the dire consequences that might ensue if they dare to stand up to the lobby.
That is why even the most liberal members of Congress never point out the absurdity of supporting full funding of military aid to Israel while cutting vital domestic programs. (In fact, the only members of Congress who have suggested that Israel share some of the sacrifice are Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) who would pretty much cut every program in the budget, including Israel aid.)
But the two Pauls, all by themselves, were enough to send a scare to AIPAC so that it immediately got to work to make sure that other like-minded Republicans (the "cut everything" caucus) did not go off and follow them in the name of, say, logic and consistency.
AIPAC was most concerned about the Republican first-termers, most of whom were elected with the support of tea partiers, extreme fiscal conservatives who tend not to favor any exemptions from the budget ax.
Almost immediately, AIPAC produced a letter for the Republican first-termers to sign in which they pledged that, no matter what else they cut, Israel would be exempt. And almost immediately, 65 of the 87 Republican freshmen signed on. (More signed on later). Among the signatories are some of the most vehement supporters of cutting virtually every domestic program. These are people who support cutting jobs in their own districts and proudly point to their devotion to the principle that shared sacrifice means everyone.
But not Israel.
The AIPAC letter seems to recognize that virtually every other program is sustaining cuts. It refers to "runaway spending and trillion dollar deficits." It even concedes that "tough choices must be made to control federal spending" and that "we must do a better job of prioritizing appropriations." (Those priorities can be seen in this list of draconian budget cuts the freshmen support.)
But then this: "Therefore, as this Congress considers the upcoming Continuing Resolution, we strongly urge you [the House leadership] to include America's full $3 billion commitment for Fiscal Year 2011 under the ten-year Us-Israel Memorandum of Understanding."
And that is where fiscal hawks become the most docile of doves: when it comes to Israel.
This is not to say that the United States should eliminate military aid to Israel. Much of the aid package can be justified on the grounds that Israel is an ally, one that still has enemies bent on its destruction. But how can anyone justify picking this one program out of the entire federal budget and saying, without discussion, that it merits full funding, without scrutiny, while virtually every other program is cut?
The simple fact is that both the United States and Israel would be better off if we attached strings to our aid (as we do with other foreign assistance programs). For instance, we might say that for every dollar Israel spends on expanding settlements, we will subtract one dollar from the aid package. Or we can put the whole package on hold until Israel agrees to freeze settlements, thereby enabling negotiations with the Palestinians to resume. Or we can simply examine the aid budget, item by item, to make sure that each program in it supports U.S. policy goals. (Do those U.S.-provided cluster bombs that are still exploding in Lebanon serve our interests?)
But we do none of that. Israel prepares a shopping list and Congressional appropriators provide the goods. Shop 'till you drop.
This is wrong. Congress should treat the Israel aid package the same way it deals with programs that benefit Americans. Those who support it should be forced to defend it, line by line.
But the sad fact is that special interests like AIPAC, the Chamber of Commerce and the Club for Growth intimidate Congress into exempting their favorite projects even from discussion. Aid to Israel will not even be discussed this year, except to the extent that Members of Congress inform AIPAC of their utter devotion to keeping the money flowing.
If only infants, working Americans, and the poor were somebody's special interest. Maybe then, someday, they too could intimidate Congress. As the old Jewish expression goes: We should all live so long.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters
Once upon a time, Social Security was considered the "third rail" of American politics. The "third rail" is the train track that carries the high-voltage power; touching it means instant death.
The "third rail" metaphor has for decades been applied to Social Security, a government program so popular with the American public that proposing any changes in it would mean political death to the politician.
No more. Although Social Security is as popular as ever, politicians routinely propose changes in the program -- including privatization and means testing. While the proposals usually go nowhere, and rightly so, the politicians who support them live to fight another day. Today, with those massive deficits and the astronomical national debt, not even Social Security is sacrosanct.
Few, if any, government programs are.
But U.S. aid to Israel is. In fact, the $3 billion Israel aid package is the new third rail of American politics: touch it and die. It is also the one program which liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans and tea partiers all agree should not sustain even a dollar in cuts.
Actually, that is something of a misstatement. These various parties and factions do not agree that the $3 billion Israel aid package is sacred. They just say that they do because a powerful lobby, AIPAC, makes clear to them that touching the aid package will mean big trouble for them in the next election.
It no longer comes as much of a surprise that the average Democrat and Republican rules Israel aid cuts off the table -- while supporting cuts in programs like Head Start, which educates poor children, or WIC, which provides nutrition assistance to disadvantaged women and their infants.
It is not a surprise because everyone knows that the Democratic and Republican campaign finance committees warn their members of the dire consequences that might ensue if they dare to stand up to the lobby.
That is why even the most liberal members of Congress never point out the absurdity of supporting full funding of military aid to Israel while cutting vital domestic programs. (In fact, the only members of Congress who have suggested that Israel share some of the sacrifice are Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) who would pretty much cut every program in the budget, including Israel aid.)
But the two Pauls, all by themselves, were enough to send a scare to AIPAC so that it immediately got to work to make sure that other like-minded Republicans (the "cut everything" caucus) did not go off and follow them in the name of, say, logic and consistency.
AIPAC was most concerned about the Republican first-termers, most of whom were elected with the support of tea partiers, extreme fiscal conservatives who tend not to favor any exemptions from the budget ax.
Almost immediately, AIPAC produced a letter for the Republican first-termers to sign in which they pledged that, no matter what else they cut, Israel would be exempt. And almost immediately, 65 of the 87 Republican freshmen signed on. (More signed on later). Among the signatories are some of the most vehement supporters of cutting virtually every domestic program. These are people who support cutting jobs in their own districts and proudly point to their devotion to the principle that shared sacrifice means everyone.
But not Israel.
The AIPAC letter seems to recognize that virtually every other program is sustaining cuts. It refers to "runaway spending and trillion dollar deficits." It even concedes that "tough choices must be made to control federal spending" and that "we must do a better job of prioritizing appropriations." (Those priorities can be seen in this list of draconian budget cuts the freshmen support.)
But then this: "Therefore, as this Congress considers the upcoming Continuing Resolution, we strongly urge you [the House leadership] to include America's full $3 billion commitment for Fiscal Year 2011 under the ten-year Us-Israel Memorandum of Understanding."
And that is where fiscal hawks become the most docile of doves: when it comes to Israel.
This is not to say that the United States should eliminate military aid to Israel. Much of the aid package can be justified on the grounds that Israel is an ally, one that still has enemies bent on its destruction. But how can anyone justify picking this one program out of the entire federal budget and saying, without discussion, that it merits full funding, without scrutiny, while virtually every other program is cut?
The simple fact is that both the United States and Israel would be better off if we attached strings to our aid (as we do with other foreign assistance programs). For instance, we might say that for every dollar Israel spends on expanding settlements, we will subtract one dollar from the aid package. Or we can put the whole package on hold until Israel agrees to freeze settlements, thereby enabling negotiations with the Palestinians to resume. Or we can simply examine the aid budget, item by item, to make sure that each program in it supports U.S. policy goals. (Do those U.S.-provided cluster bombs that are still exploding in Lebanon serve our interests?)
But we do none of that. Israel prepares a shopping list and Congressional appropriators provide the goods. Shop 'till you drop.
This is wrong. Congress should treat the Israel aid package the same way it deals with programs that benefit Americans. Those who support it should be forced to defend it, line by line.
But the sad fact is that special interests like AIPAC, the Chamber of Commerce and the Club for Growth intimidate Congress into exempting their favorite projects even from discussion. Aid to Israel will not even be discussed this year, except to the extent that Members of Congress inform AIPAC of their utter devotion to keeping the money flowing.
If only infants, working Americans, and the poor were somebody's special interest. Maybe then, someday, they too could intimidate Congress. As the old Jewish expression goes: We should all live so long.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Gershon Baskin from J Street
Dear Friend of Israelis and Palestinians,
Gershon Baskin loves Israel. He has been attending the J Street conference in D.C. over the weekend.
Read the following report from him, addressed to all American Jews and his country's citizens in Israel.
It is compelling. It is heart-wrenching. It is overdue.
Arab Palestinians have a long way to go. Their leadership is corrupted, now lacking credibility, having resigned. There is no unity between Fatah and Hamas. They are in rags and tatters. Fayyad is trying to put an economic prosperity zone together centered in Ramallah. Israel holds all the cards. The peace process is as dead as a tree in winter.
Israel is not willing to take risks for peace because they have convinced themselves there is an implacable "hatred" by all Arabs, deep in their hearts, toward everything Jewish. That this has been going on for time immemorial, that is has nothing to do with their treatment of Arab Palestinians. They discount the centuries that Muslims and Jews lived side by side for decades, in peace and harmony, accommodating to each other's differences and convictions.
So there is no good reason ever to have to deal in good faith with any Arabs. You can't trust them.
Ah, but that may be changing. The dead trees of winter don't remain dead. They start sprouting buds and want to break out of winter's grip.
Are there opportunities to be in genuine dialogue with the enemies of Israel? The Shadow knows. Read on. Pass it on. JRK
Encountering Peace: Learning from J Street
Gershon Baskin
The Jerusalem Post (Editorial)
February 28, 2011 - 12:00am
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=210245
I am writing from Washington DC, where I’m attending the second annual conference of J Street, together with more than 2,000 American Jews from all walks of life, four MKs from Kadima and one from Labor.
There are a number of other Israelis representing various peace and human-rights organizations.
The opening evening was dedicated to honoring heroes of peace and courage who most Israelis would not know. Each of them received a standing ovation. One of them was Peter Beinart – author, journalist and Jewish philosopher who, in June 2010, wrote an essay in the New York Review of Books, “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment,” that now serves as the manifesto for liberal American Jews, and provides them with a voice against accusations that they have abandoned their Jewish identity and affinity for Israel because they are critical of the policies of its government.
Another was Sara Benninga, a young Israeli who, growing up in west Jerusalem, was not particularly engaged in any political activity until Israel decided to remove several Palestinians from their home in Sheikh Jarrah, a few kilometers away. The blatant injustice was the claim that the original Jewish owners from prior to 1948 had the right to reclaim their property, while the Palestinians who had been removed from their homes inside Israel in 1948 had no right to reclaim their property.
This act of injustice touched the soul of Benninga and hundreds of others, who decided to raise their voices, and have done so every Friday afternoon for the past two years in Sheikh Jarrah, and now in Silwan and in other locations. Benninga and many others have been arrested several times, and face trial on charges of illegal gatherings and trespassing.
The third was Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish from Gaza, who is better known to the public. His three daughters and one niece were killed by tanks shells in their own home during Operation Cast Lead. The shelling was an error by the IDF. Abuelaish, a physician who also worked at Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer, has now dedicated his life to preserving the memory of his daughters by seeking justice, not revenge. His translation of seeking justice is to bring peace.
It is hard to imagine these three heroes being awarded such an honor within Israel. The first two would likely be considered “self-hating Jews.” Many Israelis would be glad to see Benninga and her friends (this writer amongst them) behind bars for treason. Abuelaish received wide exposure in Israel immediately after his daughters were killed. It was later reported that he decided to emigrate to Canada. I spoke with him after the ceremony, and heard a man with a burning desire to reach out to Israelis and make them understand that we must put an end to the conflict.
ON SATURDAY I attended a demonstration of several hundred American Arabs in front of the White House calling for freedom, democracy and liberation from dictators. The various communities took the megaphone in turn, shouting out: “Free Libya!” “Free Bahrain!” “Free Yemen!” “Free Syria!” and one young Palestinian woman with one small Palestinian flag shouting “Free Palestine!” It was fascinating to watch these people with their nations’ flags chanting “the people united will never be defeated,” each one of them with deep concern about their loved ones facing the violence of despots who refuse to give up their thrones.
How sad that the men in the White House have supported those despots and tyrants over the years, defending stability and oil rather than human rights, democracy and justice.
I raise my voice in support of the three heroes of the J Street conference, and with the heroes of the Middle East from Tunisia to Egypt to Libya to Bahrain, Syria and Yemen.
Their struggle for freedom, human rights and dignity is my struggle. Abuelaish called it the struggle for human values.
They want what I want, and what most Israelis want. We would not want to live without human dignity and justice.
What could be more appropriate for us as Jews than to celebrate people in the region standing up against oppression and for freedom? When the Palestinians ultimately take to the streets (because the revolutions throughout the region will not stop at the gates of the West Bank and Gaza), I hope they will also use the power of nonviolence. If they do, I and many others will be on the front lines with them, liberating them from our occupation, and liberating us from occupying them.
I felt at home in the J Street conference. The passion of expression there emanated from a deep sense of Jewish identity and a love of Israel. The criticism against the government – and the policies of most governments since 1967 – came from a sense of deep pain, concern and fear that Israel is becoming the kind of state they will no longer be able to support. As that happens, a piece of their soul is being destroyed.
I can only ask myself, why aren’t all Jews here? What don’t all Israelis support the principles of J Street? Why can’t we bring 2,000 Israelis together for an intensive three-day seminar focused on justice, democr acy, peace and security? We have a lot to learn from J Street.
The writer is co-CEO of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (www.ipcri.org), and is in the process of founding the Center for Israeli Progress (http://israeli-progress.org).
Gershon Baskin loves Israel. He has been attending the J Street conference in D.C. over the weekend.
Read the following report from him, addressed to all American Jews and his country's citizens in Israel.
It is compelling. It is heart-wrenching. It is overdue.
Arab Palestinians have a long way to go. Their leadership is corrupted, now lacking credibility, having resigned. There is no unity between Fatah and Hamas. They are in rags and tatters. Fayyad is trying to put an economic prosperity zone together centered in Ramallah. Israel holds all the cards. The peace process is as dead as a tree in winter.
Israel is not willing to take risks for peace because they have convinced themselves there is an implacable "hatred" by all Arabs, deep in their hearts, toward everything Jewish. That this has been going on for time immemorial, that is has nothing to do with their treatment of Arab Palestinians. They discount the centuries that Muslims and Jews lived side by side for decades, in peace and harmony, accommodating to each other's differences and convictions.
So there is no good reason ever to have to deal in good faith with any Arabs. You can't trust them.
Ah, but that may be changing. The dead trees of winter don't remain dead. They start sprouting buds and want to break out of winter's grip.
Are there opportunities to be in genuine dialogue with the enemies of Israel? The Shadow knows. Read on. Pass it on. JRK
Encountering Peace: Learning from J Street
Gershon Baskin
The Jerusalem Post (Editorial)
February 28, 2011 - 12:00am
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=210245
I am writing from Washington DC, where I’m attending the second annual conference of J Street, together with more than 2,000 American Jews from all walks of life, four MKs from Kadima and one from Labor.
There are a number of other Israelis representing various peace and human-rights organizations.
The opening evening was dedicated to honoring heroes of peace and courage who most Israelis would not know. Each of them received a standing ovation. One of them was Peter Beinart – author, journalist and Jewish philosopher who, in June 2010, wrote an essay in the New York Review of Books, “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment,” that now serves as the manifesto for liberal American Jews, and provides them with a voice against accusations that they have abandoned their Jewish identity and affinity for Israel because they are critical of the policies of its government.
Another was Sara Benninga, a young Israeli who, growing up in west Jerusalem, was not particularly engaged in any political activity until Israel decided to remove several Palestinians from their home in Sheikh Jarrah, a few kilometers away. The blatant injustice was the claim that the original Jewish owners from prior to 1948 had the right to reclaim their property, while the Palestinians who had been removed from their homes inside Israel in 1948 had no right to reclaim their property.
This act of injustice touched the soul of Benninga and hundreds of others, who decided to raise their voices, and have done so every Friday afternoon for the past two years in Sheikh Jarrah, and now in Silwan and in other locations. Benninga and many others have been arrested several times, and face trial on charges of illegal gatherings and trespassing.
The third was Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish from Gaza, who is better known to the public. His three daughters and one niece were killed by tanks shells in their own home during Operation Cast Lead. The shelling was an error by the IDF. Abuelaish, a physician who also worked at Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer, has now dedicated his life to preserving the memory of his daughters by seeking justice, not revenge. His translation of seeking justice is to bring peace.
It is hard to imagine these three heroes being awarded such an honor within Israel. The first two would likely be considered “self-hating Jews.” Many Israelis would be glad to see Benninga and her friends (this writer amongst them) behind bars for treason. Abuelaish received wide exposure in Israel immediately after his daughters were killed. It was later reported that he decided to emigrate to Canada. I spoke with him after the ceremony, and heard a man with a burning desire to reach out to Israelis and make them understand that we must put an end to the conflict.
ON SATURDAY I attended a demonstration of several hundred American Arabs in front of the White House calling for freedom, democracy and liberation from dictators. The various communities took the megaphone in turn, shouting out: “Free Libya!” “Free Bahrain!” “Free Yemen!” “Free Syria!” and one young Palestinian woman with one small Palestinian flag shouting “Free Palestine!” It was fascinating to watch these people with their nations’ flags chanting “the people united will never be defeated,” each one of them with deep concern about their loved ones facing the violence of despots who refuse to give up their thrones.
How sad that the men in the White House have supported those despots and tyrants over the years, defending stability and oil rather than human rights, democracy and justice.
I raise my voice in support of the three heroes of the J Street conference, and with the heroes of the Middle East from Tunisia to Egypt to Libya to Bahrain, Syria and Yemen.
Their struggle for freedom, human rights and dignity is my struggle. Abuelaish called it the struggle for human values.
They want what I want, and what most Israelis want. We would not want to live without human dignity and justice.
What could be more appropriate for us as Jews than to celebrate people in the region standing up against oppression and for freedom? When the Palestinians ultimately take to the streets (because the revolutions throughout the region will not stop at the gates of the West Bank and Gaza), I hope they will also use the power of nonviolence. If they do, I and many others will be on the front lines with them, liberating them from our occupation, and liberating us from occupying them.
I felt at home in the J Street conference. The passion of expression there emanated from a deep sense of Jewish identity and a love of Israel. The criticism against the government – and the policies of most governments since 1967 – came from a sense of deep pain, concern and fear that Israel is becoming the kind of state they will no longer be able to support. As that happens, a piece of their soul is being destroyed.
I can only ask myself, why aren’t all Jews here? What don’t all Israelis support the principles of J Street? Why can’t we bring 2,000 Israelis together for an intensive three-day seminar focused on justice, democr acy, peace and security? We have a lot to learn from J Street.
The writer is co-CEO of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (www.ipcri.org), and is in the process of founding the Center for Israeli Progress (http://israeli-progress.org).
Friday, February 25, 2011
Mazin Qumsiyeh and Israeli/Palestinian "RULE"
Dear Friend,
FPI - Holland group should plan to trip to GR Monday and/or Tuesday March 14 and 15 to hear Mazin Qumsiyeh.
A well respected professor in the US, he moved back to Palestine to join with forces seeking Palestinian empowerment. He previously taught in Tennesee, but is now teaching in Bethlehem and at Bier Zeit in the West Bank.
Monday, March 14, at 7:00 p.m., Calvin College is sponsoring his appearance at the Calvin College Chapel.
Tuesday, March 15, at 5:45, he will speak at the Micah Center (Hope Ref. Church in GR).
Tuesday, March 15, at 7:00, he will speak at Raybrook Center
Professor Qumsiyeh has written a book, POPULAR RESISTANCE IN PALESTINE: a History of Hope and Empowerment, which summarizes and analyzes over 130 years of history.
What is happening in Isr/Pal is a classic case of confrontation between the forces of those who through the centuries have argued that to "conquer" a land and people gives you the right to settle and rule it as you see fit, only grudgingly giving rights to the conquered people; and the conquered people seeking their own rule on land now "occupied" by the conqueror. It is made more unique because it is historically true that Jews were living on that land 2000 years ago, under Roman occupation, seeking their own "right to rule" and then dispersed for centuries among all the countries of the known world, now wanting to re-congregate back there once again.
The situation in Israel is further compounded by a more and more vocal religious establishment claiming that "GOD" has given the right to rule all the land to the racial/ethnic descendants of Abraham and Sarah, not sharing rule with any of the conquered people. (The original Zionist ideal was secular, but religious forces now make Israel a quasi religious/racial/ethnic NATION STATE to die for.
It is to be known as a "Jewish Democracy", a democracy for Jews, whom "God" has finally restored to "Their Land" after 2000 years of exile, with staunch support from supposedly millions of "Christian" Zionists in the US of A.
And what is more, this rule has received the unflinching support of the world's greatest democracy, the US of A, while at the same time decrying the "Theocracy" of Iran and would-be fanatics who want to rule the world in the name of "ALLAH".
Most of the developed democracies are consistently opposed to the colonization of "conquered" territory in Palestine and are opposed to "settlements" in that conquered territory. The US is at best, ambivalent about it; at worst, it supports Israel's claim to all the territory (as seen by our veto of the UN Security Council effort to declare Israeli settlements "illegal" according to international norms).
Our FPI - Holland/Zeeland/South Haven group (40 on the list) has a chance to interact with Professor Qumsiyeh on Monday and/or Tuesday, March 14, 15. Mark it on your calendar NOW and plan on attending. Unfortunately, I will still be in Texas at the Tex/Mex border where we are wintering as usual. JRK
FPI - Holland group should plan to trip to GR Monday and/or Tuesday March 14 and 15 to hear Mazin Qumsiyeh.
A well respected professor in the US, he moved back to Palestine to join with forces seeking Palestinian empowerment. He previously taught in Tennesee, but is now teaching in Bethlehem and at Bier Zeit in the West Bank.
Monday, March 14, at 7:00 p.m., Calvin College is sponsoring his appearance at the Calvin College Chapel.
Tuesday, March 15, at 5:45, he will speak at the Micah Center (Hope Ref. Church in GR).
Tuesday, March 15, at 7:00, he will speak at Raybrook Center
Professor Qumsiyeh has written a book, POPULAR RESISTANCE IN PALESTINE: a History of Hope and Empowerment, which summarizes and analyzes over 130 years of history.
What is happening in Isr/Pal is a classic case of confrontation between the forces of those who through the centuries have argued that to "conquer" a land and people gives you the right to settle and rule it as you see fit, only grudgingly giving rights to the conquered people; and the conquered people seeking their own rule on land now "occupied" by the conqueror. It is made more unique because it is historically true that Jews were living on that land 2000 years ago, under Roman occupation, seeking their own "right to rule" and then dispersed for centuries among all the countries of the known world, now wanting to re-congregate back there once again.
The situation in Israel is further compounded by a more and more vocal religious establishment claiming that "GOD" has given the right to rule all the land to the racial/ethnic descendants of Abraham and Sarah, not sharing rule with any of the conquered people. (The original Zionist ideal was secular, but religious forces now make Israel a quasi religious/racial/ethnic NATION STATE to die for.
It is to be known as a "Jewish Democracy", a democracy for Jews, whom "God" has finally restored to "Their Land" after 2000 years of exile, with staunch support from supposedly millions of "Christian" Zionists in the US of A.
And what is more, this rule has received the unflinching support of the world's greatest democracy, the US of A, while at the same time decrying the "Theocracy" of Iran and would-be fanatics who want to rule the world in the name of "ALLAH".
Most of the developed democracies are consistently opposed to the colonization of "conquered" territory in Palestine and are opposed to "settlements" in that conquered territory. The US is at best, ambivalent about it; at worst, it supports Israel's claim to all the territory (as seen by our veto of the UN Security Council effort to declare Israeli settlements "illegal" according to international norms).
Our FPI - Holland/Zeeland/South Haven group (40 on the list) has a chance to interact with Professor Qumsiyeh on Monday and/or Tuesday, March 14, 15. Mark it on your calendar NOW and plan on attending. Unfortunately, I will still be in Texas at the Tex/Mex border where we are wintering as usual. JRK
Friday, February 18, 2011
What I Think of the US Veto of the UN Security Council "Draft" Resolution
Statement on the USA Veto of a UN Security Council Draft Declaring the Israeli Settlement “Illegal” on West Bank Territory. February 18, 2011
John R. Kleinheksel Sr.
The Palestinians refused to let the US off the hook. It wanted the US to vote our convictions about Israeli settlements or prove to be hypocritical. We chose to be hypocritical, saying we were opposed to the settlements, but not allowing the UN Security Council to “intervene with binding resolutions on issues [the US] feels belongs to direct peace talks” (Reuters report). As though only the US can be involved with efforts to bring about “negotiations” between the parties, not the UN. Not the UN? How can you keep the UN from becoming involved in an issue that has festered for 62 years?
The truth of the matter is that the “negotiations” have been a sham. Whenever the Israelis and Palestinians “negotiate”, the Israelis concede nothing and the Palestinians are expected to concede everything: 1) such as, stop opposing Israeli confiscation of land for more settlements; 2) stop resistance to the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes; 3) go on record declaring the legitimacy of Israeli efforts to take over the whole of the land as a “Jewish democracy” (while accusing the Palestinians of wanting to “drive them into the sea”).
US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said the draft “risks hardening the position of both sides” but in fact it only hardens the Israeli position that it need do nothing different in dealing with the Palestinians. It need only do more of the same. Give nothing. Concede nothing. Keep pressing for meaningless “negotiations” (talk, talk, talk) while continuing to build “facts on the ground” and the Palestinians come away empty handed.
The US wants it both ways. We want to support Israel and the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for dignity, their own land (statehood). Guess what? We just may have to stand against Israel policies that are preventing Palestinians from attaining their goals. But we can’t do it. The political implications are too daunting. We may no longer be a “friend of Israel”. The President might lose his job come 2012. And that would not be acceptable now would it? Who is in charge of US Middle East foreign policy, the United States or Israel? It should now be clear to any with eyes wide open.
Ending the settlement activity is not a “precondition” for talks, as Israel insists. Ending settlement activity would be a sign of a “good faith” environment where talks could get down to business and make the moves required for a “two-state” solution. Israel wants a “one-state” solution where she is making all the decisions and Palestinians make none to their advantage.
The settlements ARE “illegal under international law” as the binding resolution would declare. The US was not able to put it its vote where its mouth is. It was sad day for US policy in the Middle East.
John R. Kleinheksel Sr.
The Palestinians refused to let the US off the hook. It wanted the US to vote our convictions about Israeli settlements or prove to be hypocritical. We chose to be hypocritical, saying we were opposed to the settlements, but not allowing the UN Security Council to “intervene with binding resolutions on issues [the US] feels belongs to direct peace talks” (Reuters report). As though only the US can be involved with efforts to bring about “negotiations” between the parties, not the UN. Not the UN? How can you keep the UN from becoming involved in an issue that has festered for 62 years?
The truth of the matter is that the “negotiations” have been a sham. Whenever the Israelis and Palestinians “negotiate”, the Israelis concede nothing and the Palestinians are expected to concede everything: 1) such as, stop opposing Israeli confiscation of land for more settlements; 2) stop resistance to the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes; 3) go on record declaring the legitimacy of Israeli efforts to take over the whole of the land as a “Jewish democracy” (while accusing the Palestinians of wanting to “drive them into the sea”).
US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said the draft “risks hardening the position of both sides” but in fact it only hardens the Israeli position that it need do nothing different in dealing with the Palestinians. It need only do more of the same. Give nothing. Concede nothing. Keep pressing for meaningless “negotiations” (talk, talk, talk) while continuing to build “facts on the ground” and the Palestinians come away empty handed.
The US wants it both ways. We want to support Israel and the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for dignity, their own land (statehood). Guess what? We just may have to stand against Israel policies that are preventing Palestinians from attaining their goals. But we can’t do it. The political implications are too daunting. We may no longer be a “friend of Israel”. The President might lose his job come 2012. And that would not be acceptable now would it? Who is in charge of US Middle East foreign policy, the United States or Israel? It should now be clear to any with eyes wide open.
Ending the settlement activity is not a “precondition” for talks, as Israel insists. Ending settlement activity would be a sign of a “good faith” environment where talks could get down to business and make the moves required for a “two-state” solution. Israel wants a “one-state” solution where she is making all the decisions and Palestinians make none to their advantage.
The settlements ARE “illegal under international law” as the binding resolution would declare. The US was not able to put it its vote where its mouth is. It was sad day for US policy in the Middle East.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)