Ribbi Ammiel Hirsch reports on a Jewish, Muslim and Christian groups of religious leaders from NYC who spent five days in all parts of Isr/Pal. Here is his report. 1) The present status quo is not sustainable jumps out at you.
2) The need to bring hope to a situation that is hopeless.
3) We must turn enemies into friends, is the call of religious leaders
Turning Enemies Into Friends in Israel and the Palestinian Territories
Posted: 01/25/2012 4:38 pm on Huff Post
In early January, 15 senior rabbis, ministers and imams traveled together to Israel and the Palestinian territories. We are from among New York City's leading religious institutions. Collectively, our houses of worship are home to tens of thousands of prominent New Yorkers.
Anyone who appreciates the hectic schedules and unique demands upon congregational clergy realizes that it is no small matter to bring 15 spiritual leaders together for five days. So why did we leave our congregations for a week? Why did our congregants insist that we go and even pay for our mission?
In the post 9/11 world, religious rapprochement is no longer a luxury; it is a necessity. To ignore dialogue is to invite destruction. If we do not find ways to live together in dignity we will die together in agony. Religious moderates must build new bridges of coexistence or religious extremists will burn the last bridges of peace.
Our presence in the Middle East was intended to broadcast that we can live together, work together, travel together, dream together and build together. In a world awash in religious conflict, we wish to model a different way: the way of coexistence, respect and peace.
It was a tough trip. We did not paper over our differences. We visited the heart of the conflict. There were moments of despair. We met with presidents, prime ministers, members of parliament and mayors on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide. We met with priests, imams and rabbis. We met with journalists, academics, students, villagers and farmers.
Daily headlines do not begin to tell the story. None of the people we met -- not one -- believed that the Middle East is closer to peace today than ten years ago. If this is the truth, we need to hear it. Progress rests upon the solid rock of reality, not the shifting sands of fantasy.
Despite it all, many of us returned to New York guardedly optimistic. None of the people we met -- not one -- felt that the status quo was sustainable. Everyone understood that a way must be found to break out of the suffocating reality. There is broad agreement that the present is not working and that a new future must be forged.
People of faith have a unique role to play. Both Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad urged us to engage. Both of them emphasized that religion could be a source of enormous support as the politicians seek a political solution. We can help to create a context that is conducive to peace.
Religion specializes in hope. We are good at articulating our common humanity and giving voice to the better angels of our nature. We were also cautioned that if we do not step up the forces of religious intolerance will continue to drag the rest of us towards war. Our era has placed a sacred obligation on the forces and figures of religious moderation to speak out and act out.
There are many good people working to build bridges. In Haifa we met Christians, Muslims and Jews who have built a true house of coexistence. In Tel Aviv we met doctors, nurses and hospital staff who treated illness without regard to race, religion or creed. Even on the Gaza border, in Israeli towns that were fired upon in a barrage of missiles, there were people who were reaching out to the other side.
Peace is made piece by piece, from the bottom up. Progress is advanced day by day, person by person, each laboring in their own corner of the universe, connecting with others who together create an irresistible force. We should connect with those people and strengthen their hand. This daily labor is heroic work.
Jewish sages ask: Who is a hero? They respond: He who turns an enemy into a friend.
This is our task: person by person to help turn enemies into friends.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Musalaha Get at the Issues
Dear Friend,
Our friend Salim Munayer works directly with Muslim, Jewish and Christian persons, to get at the underlying issues that wound and divide people in Israel/Palestine. Read his latest post and sense how real change is coming at the grass roots level. Thank you God for Salim and Musalaha. John Kleinheksel
A report on our Muslim-Christian women’s groups
We often share with you regarding our work between Palestinian Christians and Israeli Messianic Jews. But we have another area of work where we focus on bridge-building initiatives between Muslims, Christians, and Jews. In Romans 12, Paul calls us to live at peace with everyone. Our role as the salt of the earth requires us to reach out to our community and deal with the prejudice, offense and mending of relationships between us and others. Many times when the relationship between Muslims and Christians is highlighted in the news, we hear about clashes and conflict. In turn, we sometimes react with fear and suspicion of the other. In the face of religious and ethnic conflict, we often turn inward instead of turning outward and making overtures toward the other side.
Cardinal Francis Arinze addressed the issue of Christian-Muslim relations in an important talk given at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in Georgetown University nearly 15 years ago. He emphasized that over half of the world’s population is either Christian or Muslim, and that a good relationship between the two matters not only to Christians and Muslims, but also the rest of the world. In short, he gave several guidelines for desirable relations between these two religious communities: 1) through better knowledge of the other, 2) acceptance of the other and respect for differences, 3) actual engagement in dialogue, 4) joint witness to shared values, and 5) joint promotion of peace.
He then detailed several obstacles and challenges: 1) the weight of the past, 2) lack of self-criticism, 3)manipulation of religion by politics, 4) religious fanaticism or extremism, 5) different approaches to human rights and especially to religious freedom, and reciprocity. Finally, he discussed some ways of meeting the challenges through: 1) healing of historical memories, 2) learning to exercise self-criticism, 3) liberating religion from political manipulation, 4) facing the phenomenon of religious extremism and 5) promoting religious freedom, 6) promotion of development and justice, 7) more attention to the spiritual dimension, 8) and joint concern over the use of the earth’s resources.
While Cardinal Arinze’s talk was addressing the global Christian and Muslim communities and we are working with a very specific and local group of participants, we have nevertheless found Cardinal Arinze’s talk instructive in our bridge-building initiatives. In this short report, we would like to share our recent observations of positive relationship-building encounters in recent meetings in Bethlehem between 25 Muslim and Christian women.
We met in the context of growing religious tension in the Israeli and Palestinian communities, and these women openly and candidly shared their perceptions of the other side. We observed that it was easier for the women to list the obstacles and challenges than it was for them to articulate the importance of having a good relationship between the two communities.
The women discussed the following obstacles and challenges:
· Mixed marriage – The Christian community of Bethlehem sees the marriage of Muslims and Christians in Bethlehem as very threatening to their small, minority community. Many Palestinian Christian men study overseas for a number of years, and some Christian women have begun to marry Muslim men. The Christian community sees Muslim men pursuing their women, but when there are instances of Christian men seeking to marry Muslim women, the Muslim reaction to this is much harsher than the Christian reaction to the opposite.
· Religious prejudice – Oftentimes Christians are not accepted to Muslim institutions (whether for work or for charity), while Christians are open to accepting Muslims into their charities and schools (but not as staff). Also, there is a new phenomenon where Christians in Bethlehem prefer to buy only from Christian vendors, and Muslims only from Muslim vendors.
· Exhibiting religious identity aggressively – Due to increased religious radicalism, people are beginning to show off their religious identity to the point that they are making the other side uncomfortable. For example, some Christian shops have so many crosses and icons hung up that Muslims feel that they are entering a church, not a store. Likewise, many Muslim shops are increasingly being decorated with verses from the Quran. Also, many Muslim women are dressing more conservatively as an outward expression of their religiosity.
· Outside propaganda – Religious channels on TV often broadcast Muslim and Christian shows from outside of the country that bring a message of intolerance, degrade the other religion, and often provide misinformation. This has a detrimental effect on the relationship of the local communities.
· Rise of Islamic political parties – In the past, national parties would bring both Christians and Muslims together. Now, religious parties are becoming increasingly prevalent, which results in excluding members of the community.
· Discrimination in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – The women discussed who the Israeli army favors more as evidenced in the number of permits Christians and Muslims receive. Some of the women wondered if this is a strategy of “divide and rule” or if this is the result of one side’s collaboration with Israel, a very serious accusation in Palestinian society. This affects the relationship between these two religious communities in Bethlehem.
· Historical narrative – Both sides emphasized the most hurtful parts of their narrative, which often exclude the other side. The Muslim women focused on the Crusades and colonization while the Christians focused on Arab expansion and various massacres, such as the Armenian massacre.
· Lack of information – Both sides lack knowledge and information of the other, as is seen in their understanding of one another’s religion and history.
In the beginning the women focused on how they hurt one another. When they began exploring their commonalities, they found that there are many areas where they can work with each other. Muslims and Christians in Bethlehem have many similar life challenges and can support each other if they have a relationship with one another. The women saw the need to strengthen the areas of commonality between them, readily acknowledging their responsibility toward their neighbors, and noted that it is important not to let outside sources influence their relationship.
What we gleaned from this meeting is that we have made progress in relationship building and communication, but there are still areas for growth and further discussion. We found the meeting to be promising as the women openly communicated with one another and listened to each side voice their perceptions. We were able to address some of Cardinal Arinze’s guidelines for desirable relations through beginning to get to know one another better, beginning to engage in dialogue, and realizing our shared life situation. The women renewed their commitment to meeting together as they realized their communication empowers them to be agents of change in their society, and helps them build bridges within their communities.
When faced with ethnic or religious conflict, we should engage with one another, listen to each other, and respectfully learn to make room for each other even when we do not agree on everything. We see this all the time in our reconciliation initiatives between believers, and many of these same principles hold true in our bridge-building initiatives between other segments of society. We are on a journey of reconciliation, and this journey is made with little steps in the right direction.
By Salim J. Munayer, PhD
Musalaha Director
Our friend Salim Munayer works directly with Muslim, Jewish and Christian persons, to get at the underlying issues that wound and divide people in Israel/Palestine. Read his latest post and sense how real change is coming at the grass roots level. Thank you God for Salim and Musalaha. John Kleinheksel
A report on our Muslim-Christian women’s groups
We often share with you regarding our work between Palestinian Christians and Israeli Messianic Jews. But we have another area of work where we focus on bridge-building initiatives between Muslims, Christians, and Jews. In Romans 12, Paul calls us to live at peace with everyone. Our role as the salt of the earth requires us to reach out to our community and deal with the prejudice, offense and mending of relationships between us and others. Many times when the relationship between Muslims and Christians is highlighted in the news, we hear about clashes and conflict. In turn, we sometimes react with fear and suspicion of the other. In the face of religious and ethnic conflict, we often turn inward instead of turning outward and making overtures toward the other side.
Cardinal Francis Arinze addressed the issue of Christian-Muslim relations in an important talk given at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in Georgetown University nearly 15 years ago. He emphasized that over half of the world’s population is either Christian or Muslim, and that a good relationship between the two matters not only to Christians and Muslims, but also the rest of the world. In short, he gave several guidelines for desirable relations between these two religious communities: 1) through better knowledge of the other, 2) acceptance of the other and respect for differences, 3) actual engagement in dialogue, 4) joint witness to shared values, and 5) joint promotion of peace.
He then detailed several obstacles and challenges: 1) the weight of the past, 2) lack of self-criticism, 3)manipulation of religion by politics, 4) religious fanaticism or extremism, 5) different approaches to human rights and especially to religious freedom, and reciprocity. Finally, he discussed some ways of meeting the challenges through: 1) healing of historical memories, 2) learning to exercise self-criticism, 3) liberating religion from political manipulation, 4) facing the phenomenon of religious extremism and 5) promoting religious freedom, 6) promotion of development and justice, 7) more attention to the spiritual dimension, 8) and joint concern over the use of the earth’s resources.
While Cardinal Arinze’s talk was addressing the global Christian and Muslim communities and we are working with a very specific and local group of participants, we have nevertheless found Cardinal Arinze’s talk instructive in our bridge-building initiatives. In this short report, we would like to share our recent observations of positive relationship-building encounters in recent meetings in Bethlehem between 25 Muslim and Christian women.
We met in the context of growing religious tension in the Israeli and Palestinian communities, and these women openly and candidly shared their perceptions of the other side. We observed that it was easier for the women to list the obstacles and challenges than it was for them to articulate the importance of having a good relationship between the two communities.
The women discussed the following obstacles and challenges:
· Mixed marriage – The Christian community of Bethlehem sees the marriage of Muslims and Christians in Bethlehem as very threatening to their small, minority community. Many Palestinian Christian men study overseas for a number of years, and some Christian women have begun to marry Muslim men. The Christian community sees Muslim men pursuing their women, but when there are instances of Christian men seeking to marry Muslim women, the Muslim reaction to this is much harsher than the Christian reaction to the opposite.
· Religious prejudice – Oftentimes Christians are not accepted to Muslim institutions (whether for work or for charity), while Christians are open to accepting Muslims into their charities and schools (but not as staff). Also, there is a new phenomenon where Christians in Bethlehem prefer to buy only from Christian vendors, and Muslims only from Muslim vendors.
· Exhibiting religious identity aggressively – Due to increased religious radicalism, people are beginning to show off their religious identity to the point that they are making the other side uncomfortable. For example, some Christian shops have so many crosses and icons hung up that Muslims feel that they are entering a church, not a store. Likewise, many Muslim shops are increasingly being decorated with verses from the Quran. Also, many Muslim women are dressing more conservatively as an outward expression of their religiosity.
· Outside propaganda – Religious channels on TV often broadcast Muslim and Christian shows from outside of the country that bring a message of intolerance, degrade the other religion, and often provide misinformation. This has a detrimental effect on the relationship of the local communities.
· Rise of Islamic political parties – In the past, national parties would bring both Christians and Muslims together. Now, religious parties are becoming increasingly prevalent, which results in excluding members of the community.
· Discrimination in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – The women discussed who the Israeli army favors more as evidenced in the number of permits Christians and Muslims receive. Some of the women wondered if this is a strategy of “divide and rule” or if this is the result of one side’s collaboration with Israel, a very serious accusation in Palestinian society. This affects the relationship between these two religious communities in Bethlehem.
· Historical narrative – Both sides emphasized the most hurtful parts of their narrative, which often exclude the other side. The Muslim women focused on the Crusades and colonization while the Christians focused on Arab expansion and various massacres, such as the Armenian massacre.
· Lack of information – Both sides lack knowledge and information of the other, as is seen in their understanding of one another’s religion and history.
In the beginning the women focused on how they hurt one another. When they began exploring their commonalities, they found that there are many areas where they can work with each other. Muslims and Christians in Bethlehem have many similar life challenges and can support each other if they have a relationship with one another. The women saw the need to strengthen the areas of commonality between them, readily acknowledging their responsibility toward their neighbors, and noted that it is important not to let outside sources influence their relationship.
What we gleaned from this meeting is that we have made progress in relationship building and communication, but there are still areas for growth and further discussion. We found the meeting to be promising as the women openly communicated with one another and listened to each side voice their perceptions. We were able to address some of Cardinal Arinze’s guidelines for desirable relations through beginning to get to know one another better, beginning to engage in dialogue, and realizing our shared life situation. The women renewed their commitment to meeting together as they realized their communication empowers them to be agents of change in their society, and helps them build bridges within their communities.
When faced with ethnic or religious conflict, we should engage with one another, listen to each other, and respectfully learn to make room for each other even when we do not agree on everything. We see this all the time in our reconciliation initiatives between believers, and many of these same principles hold true in our bridge-building initiatives between other segments of society. We are on a journey of reconciliation, and this journey is made with little steps in the right direction.
By Salim J. Munayer, PhD
Musalaha Director
Friday, January 6, 2012
The Case For Sanctions (Minus the US)
Dear Friend,
Good Jew that he is, Henry Siegman strips away the illusion that Israel ever intends to give up the Occupied Territories if only the Palestinians will "recognize" the Jewish state (as they did as early as 1988).
He further strips away the illusion that the US would use its influence to get Israel to fulfill its promise to give up the Occupied Territories, thus abiding by international standards (no sign of this even under President Obama).
Since the Occupation continues unabated and the present conversations between the parties are in no way a reopening of the "peace process", Mr. Siegman comes to this startling conclusion:"I)nternational sanctions fairly applied to both parties for illegal and predatory behavior are no longer inconceivable" (last paragraph).
It is now clear that more and more UN Security Council members are willing to stand apart from and even agaisnt the US and consider boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions (BDS) against the Israeli state. Instead of being on the side of justice for the oppressed, the US is siding with the oppressors, to the wonderment and even disgust of the "international community" the US supposedly leads. The narratives continue to compete. As usual, the Israeli narrative prevails against a growing tide of disapproval, frustration, and impatience.
The Israeli lobby will be pressuring the United Methodist's National gathering and the PCUSA General Assembly this summer to desist from any talk of BDS. My own view is that the time has clearly come for us to begin talking in earnest about applying nonviolent BDS to the present untenable, unsustainable situation in Israel/Palestine. Unfortunately, we can't expect the US to lead any of these efforts for the present (as we reluctantly did viz a viz the S. African regime in the 1980s). Yours truly, JRK
The National Interest
January 6, 2012
The Mideast Peace Process in 2011: Hopes and Disillusionment
By Henry Siegman
This past December, four European countries—the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Portugal, all members of the UN Security Council—harshly faulted Israel for its violation of international law and the rights of the Palestinian people by continuing the expansion of illegal settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Israel’s intemperate response to that criticism exposed for all to see the moral and political obtuseness of its settlement policy, telling these European countries to mind their own business instead of interfering in Israel’s“internal” affairs.
The Israeli notion that the Occupied Territories beyond the 1967 border are “internal,”allowing Israeli governments to do with them as they please without regard for the rights of the Palestinian people or for international law, has not just “complicated” the peace process,as the United States and other governments have often put it. It has turned the peace process into a farce, for it exposes the strategic choice of Israel’s current and previous governments of territory over peace, and leaves no doubt that the goal of Israel’s settlement project is the prevention of Palestinian statehood.
Mostly ignored or forgotten is the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ran on a Likud party platform that explicitly opposed Palestinian statehood; later, after he made his speech claiming to have been converted to acceptance of a two-state solution, key members of his government established the “Entire Land of Israel” parliamentary caucus whose official goal is the prevention of a Palestinian state anywhere in the West Bank. It is the largest of the Knesset’s many caucuses. There is no record of Netanyahu ever having criticized this caucus or having ordered members of his government to leave it.
Even as Netanyahu proclaims how desperately he wishes to renew peace talks with President Mahmoud Abbas, his government distributed hateful and defamatory accusations against Abbas, describing him as a “radical” who glorifies and perpetuates violence and terrorism—this of the man who not only publicly opposed the violence of the second intifada but whose collaboration with Israeli security forces put an end to violence and terrorism in the West Bank. A “circular note” issued to foreign governments by Israel’s Foreign Ministry in October 2011 reaches the “inescapable” conclusion that “no agreement will ever be possible [with the Palestinians] as long as Mahmoud Abbas leads the Palestinian Authority.”
In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September, President Obama asserted that Palestinians can achieve statehood only through direct negotiations with Israel,effectively subjecting the Palestinian right to national self-determination to Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman’s veto. If Netanyahu and his government choose to present Abbas terms for an agreement that no Palestinian leader could conceivably accept—which, by insisting on Israel’s annexation of all of Arab East Jerusalem is exactly what they have done—they will be able to keep the West Bank and its population under permanent subjugation.
Before demanding that Palestinians return to bilateral talks with Israel, and certainly before punishing Palestinians for refusing to do so, President Obama had an obligation to answer a simple question: What would he have done if Palestinians acceded to his demand and resumed bilateral talks, but continued to encounter Netanyahu’s refusal to negotiate territorial issues from the 1967 border, or to limit changes in that border to territorial swaps? Would he then have allowed the Security Council to address Israel’s rejection without resorting to a veto? His September speech left little doubt about the answer to that question.
So as 2011 ended, the Middle East peace process became history. Despite the U.S.administration’s rhetorical objections to Israel’s settlements and its equally rhetorical support of Palestinian statehood, Obama’s rejection of international intervention and his insistence that a Palestinian state can come about only as the result of a bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreement sent a clear message to Netanyahu’s government. For all practical purposes, a Palestinian state is no longer on America’s political horizon.
But for this very reason, 2011 was the year in which the international community, including America’s most important European allies, realized the groundlessness of their long-standing belief that the United States is uniquely positioned to leverage its unprecedented support for Israel into pressure to accept a just and balanced peace accord. The international community now sees that the United States is uniquely preventing an agreement, repeatedly using its Security Council vote, or the threat of a veto, to shield Israel from international pressure that might have changed its cost-benefit calculations.
It is this new awareness of an intolerable American bias that provoked four European members of the Security Council to drop the pretense that their governments believe Netanyahu is committed to a two-state solution. Following a closed meeting of the Security Council at which its members received a briefing on Israel’s newly announced construction plans, which would effectively exclude a Palestinian state from any part of East Jerusalem,and therefore rule out a two-state solution, these key European governments described Israel’s continued territorial confiscations as sending “a devastating message” about Israel’s intentions. One senior European official who did not wish to be identified said, “We don’t know where this government is leading Israel to, or what its position is regarding the peace process.” That is diplomatic-speak for “We know where this government is leading Israel and what its position regarding the peace process is, and it can no longer count on our complicity.” India, Brazil and South Africa also condemned Israel’s behavior, as did Russia’s UN envoy.
As long as the peace process was based on the illusion that Israel was always ready to return the Occupied Territories in exchange for Palestinian and Arab recognition, and that America would use its leverage to bring Israel into line if it failed to do so, there was no chance that the peace process could lead to a two-state solution. Now that Netanyahu and Obama have put an end to these two illusions, international sanctions fairly applied to both parties for illegal and predatory behavior are no longer inconceivable. If such intervention were now pursued by an international community no longer willing to accept an American Middle East peace policy that is hostage to its Israel lobby, a Palestinian state living in peace alongside an Israel reconciled to its internationally recognized borders may yet be achievable.
Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project, is a non-resident research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Source:www.bit.ly/yIsuaD
Good Jew that he is, Henry Siegman strips away the illusion that Israel ever intends to give up the Occupied Territories if only the Palestinians will "recognize" the Jewish state (as they did as early as 1988).
He further strips away the illusion that the US would use its influence to get Israel to fulfill its promise to give up the Occupied Territories, thus abiding by international standards (no sign of this even under President Obama).
Since the Occupation continues unabated and the present conversations between the parties are in no way a reopening of the "peace process", Mr. Siegman comes to this startling conclusion:"I)nternational sanctions fairly applied to both parties for illegal and predatory behavior are no longer inconceivable" (last paragraph).
It is now clear that more and more UN Security Council members are willing to stand apart from and even agaisnt the US and consider boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions (BDS) against the Israeli state. Instead of being on the side of justice for the oppressed, the US is siding with the oppressors, to the wonderment and even disgust of the "international community" the US supposedly leads. The narratives continue to compete. As usual, the Israeli narrative prevails against a growing tide of disapproval, frustration, and impatience.
The Israeli lobby will be pressuring the United Methodist's National gathering and the PCUSA General Assembly this summer to desist from any talk of BDS. My own view is that the time has clearly come for us to begin talking in earnest about applying nonviolent BDS to the present untenable, unsustainable situation in Israel/Palestine. Unfortunately, we can't expect the US to lead any of these efforts for the present (as we reluctantly did viz a viz the S. African regime in the 1980s). Yours truly, JRK
The National Interest
January 6, 2012
The Mideast Peace Process in 2011: Hopes and Disillusionment
By Henry Siegman
This past December, four European countries—the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Portugal, all members of the UN Security Council—harshly faulted Israel for its violation of international law and the rights of the Palestinian people by continuing the expansion of illegal settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Israel’s intemperate response to that criticism exposed for all to see the moral and political obtuseness of its settlement policy, telling these European countries to mind their own business instead of interfering in Israel’s“internal” affairs.
The Israeli notion that the Occupied Territories beyond the 1967 border are “internal,”allowing Israeli governments to do with them as they please without regard for the rights of the Palestinian people or for international law, has not just “complicated” the peace process,as the United States and other governments have often put it. It has turned the peace process into a farce, for it exposes the strategic choice of Israel’s current and previous governments of territory over peace, and leaves no doubt that the goal of Israel’s settlement project is the prevention of Palestinian statehood.
Mostly ignored or forgotten is the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ran on a Likud party platform that explicitly opposed Palestinian statehood; later, after he made his speech claiming to have been converted to acceptance of a two-state solution, key members of his government established the “Entire Land of Israel” parliamentary caucus whose official goal is the prevention of a Palestinian state anywhere in the West Bank. It is the largest of the Knesset’s many caucuses. There is no record of Netanyahu ever having criticized this caucus or having ordered members of his government to leave it.
Even as Netanyahu proclaims how desperately he wishes to renew peace talks with President Mahmoud Abbas, his government distributed hateful and defamatory accusations against Abbas, describing him as a “radical” who glorifies and perpetuates violence and terrorism—this of the man who not only publicly opposed the violence of the second intifada but whose collaboration with Israeli security forces put an end to violence and terrorism in the West Bank. A “circular note” issued to foreign governments by Israel’s Foreign Ministry in October 2011 reaches the “inescapable” conclusion that “no agreement will ever be possible [with the Palestinians] as long as Mahmoud Abbas leads the Palestinian Authority.”
In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September, President Obama asserted that Palestinians can achieve statehood only through direct negotiations with Israel,effectively subjecting the Palestinian right to national self-determination to Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman’s veto. If Netanyahu and his government choose to present Abbas terms for an agreement that no Palestinian leader could conceivably accept—which, by insisting on Israel’s annexation of all of Arab East Jerusalem is exactly what they have done—they will be able to keep the West Bank and its population under permanent subjugation.
Before demanding that Palestinians return to bilateral talks with Israel, and certainly before punishing Palestinians for refusing to do so, President Obama had an obligation to answer a simple question: What would he have done if Palestinians acceded to his demand and resumed bilateral talks, but continued to encounter Netanyahu’s refusal to negotiate territorial issues from the 1967 border, or to limit changes in that border to territorial swaps? Would he then have allowed the Security Council to address Israel’s rejection without resorting to a veto? His September speech left little doubt about the answer to that question.
So as 2011 ended, the Middle East peace process became history. Despite the U.S.administration’s rhetorical objections to Israel’s settlements and its equally rhetorical support of Palestinian statehood, Obama’s rejection of international intervention and his insistence that a Palestinian state can come about only as the result of a bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreement sent a clear message to Netanyahu’s government. For all practical purposes, a Palestinian state is no longer on America’s political horizon.
But for this very reason, 2011 was the year in which the international community, including America’s most important European allies, realized the groundlessness of their long-standing belief that the United States is uniquely positioned to leverage its unprecedented support for Israel into pressure to accept a just and balanced peace accord. The international community now sees that the United States is uniquely preventing an agreement, repeatedly using its Security Council vote, or the threat of a veto, to shield Israel from international pressure that might have changed its cost-benefit calculations.
It is this new awareness of an intolerable American bias that provoked four European members of the Security Council to drop the pretense that their governments believe Netanyahu is committed to a two-state solution. Following a closed meeting of the Security Council at which its members received a briefing on Israel’s newly announced construction plans, which would effectively exclude a Palestinian state from any part of East Jerusalem,and therefore rule out a two-state solution, these key European governments described Israel’s continued territorial confiscations as sending “a devastating message” about Israel’s intentions. One senior European official who did not wish to be identified said, “We don’t know where this government is leading Israel to, or what its position is regarding the peace process.” That is diplomatic-speak for “We know where this government is leading Israel and what its position regarding the peace process is, and it can no longer count on our complicity.” India, Brazil and South Africa also condemned Israel’s behavior, as did Russia’s UN envoy.
As long as the peace process was based on the illusion that Israel was always ready to return the Occupied Territories in exchange for Palestinian and Arab recognition, and that America would use its leverage to bring Israel into line if it failed to do so, there was no chance that the peace process could lead to a two-state solution. Now that Netanyahu and Obama have put an end to these two illusions, international sanctions fairly applied to both parties for illegal and predatory behavior are no longer inconceivable. If such intervention were now pursued by an international community no longer willing to accept an American Middle East peace policy that is hostage to its Israel lobby, a Palestinian state living in peace alongside an Israel reconciled to its internationally recognized borders may yet be achievable.
Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project, is a non-resident research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Source:www.bit.ly/yIsuaD
Saturday, December 31, 2011
A Prayer for the New Year
Dear Friend of peace with justice,
Of the scores of articles I've read during the last week, this Xmas homily by the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem is the truest, most noteworthy.
Read it and prophet from its insights, building them into actions in the New Year. At least scan sentences that I have highlighted. Thank you for your readership and semper fi: always remain faithful to the unfinished task. JRK
“A child is born to us, a son is given to us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonderful-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.” Is, 9, 5
"Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace
to those on whom his favor rests.” (Lk 2:14)
President Abu Mazen, Ladies and Gentlemen members of the Government,
H.E. Nasser Judeh, Jordan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs representing King Abdullah of Jordan,
Excellencies, Ambassadors, and Consuls,
Fellow representatives of the various churches,
Dear brothers and sisters, sons and daughters of the Holy Land:
From the Church of the Nativity, close to the Holy Grotto where the Virgin Mary swaddled her son and laid him in a manger, I greet you all, the faithful here present, the viewers, our brothers and sisters of the Diaspora, especially those whom I have met recently. I extend a special greeting to President Mahmoud Abbas and congratulate him in his unfaltering efforts to achieve a just peace in the Middle East, a main thrust of which is the creation of a Palestinian State. I recognize his collaborative efforts with His Majesty, King Abdullah of Jordan who expressed his great concern for Jerusalem, its holy places and especially its inhabitants.
Dear brothers and sisters,
The song of the angels in the sky above Bethlehem more than two thousand years ago still echoes: “Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth” (Lk 2:14). This hymn, with its celestial aura fascinates and instructs us.
Glory to God and peace on earth. The glory of God and the peace of the world are inseparable being bound together by cause and effect. If we glorify God, we shall enjoy his peace. If we glorify ourselves, we shall be denied this peace. Indeed, the glory and adoration of God is a duty and a debt we owe. God promises his peace to those who adore him in spirit and in truth. What reassures us is that God never fails in his promises.
It is true that God does not need us to extol him in order to grow in his majesty, or our praises to perfect his glory. We grow and become better people through our humility before his infinite greatness. The Lord is glorious in himself, his glory coming from his innermost being and from creation, the work of his hands. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the firmament proclaims the works of his hands. Day unto day pours forth speech; night unto night whispers knowledge.” (Ps 19: 2-3).
Our faiths – Muslim, Jew and Christian – are as one in saying that the adoration of God is a fundamental duty of love: “Give to the Lord, you sons of God, give to the Lord glory and might; give to the Lord the glory due his name. Bow down before the Lord’s holy splendor!” (Ps 29:1-2).
We may be proud, for among all the continents and countries of the world, God chose Palestine, our beloved land, to be the homeland of the Saviour, the awaited Messiah, who is his Word and the substance of his glory. And so, we are duty-bound to follow the host of angels in forever repeating: “Glory to God in the highest”. Glory to Him, “for the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.” (Titus 2:11). Indeed, it appeared a few footsteps away from this holy place where we are gathered this evening.
Of the long awaited Christ, the prophets foretold, “The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him … but he shall judge the poor with justice, and decide fairly for the lands afflicted.” (Is 11:2,4). The good news also concerns enemies: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; one nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again.”(Is 2:4)
Dear faithful, we do not want Christmas to be a subjective and purely emotional sweet memory of an event from a distant past. No, because Christ lives among us, he lives by his resurrection, in his sacraments and in his message: a message of love, of justice and of peace for all peoples, all individuals and all families, a peace that we need more than ever.
Our region is undergoing radical changes that affect our present and our future. We cannot stand by as mere spectators. We, the spiritual leaders and those who hold in their hands the destiny of peoples, must do everything in our power to protect our people, to work for their survival, and to realise their aspirations. We are one with our people, for their suffering and their hopes are our own.
We, who live in the Holy Land, in Palestine, Israel, Jordan and Cyprus hope that the celebration of Christmas may put an end to the culture of violence and death, and that it may inspire a solution to national and international divisions. History teaches us that the will of the people, with their aspirations to peace and freedom, is stronger than the power of injustice. Furthermore, the power of the Almighty is stronger than evil. For this reason, we hope that with the grace of God and with the support of people of goodwill, the physical and psychological walls that men build around themselves may disappear. God wants bridges that unite rather than walls that separate that which God has united. Dear brothers and sisters let us tear down the walls of our hearts in order to tear down walls of concrete!
The Palestinians have recently turned to the United Nations in the hope of finding a just solution to the conflict with the intention of living in peace and in safety with their neighbours. They have been asked to re-engage in a failed peace process. This process has left a bitter taste of broken promises and of mistrust.
Brothers and sisters, at this time of Christmas and by the power of the Prince of Peace, whose incarnation we celebrate, we raise our voices to God, crying out to him in our need. We ask for peace and nothing but peace.
- We ask for peace for the Palestinian people and for the Israeli people.
- We ask for peace, stability and security for the entire Middle East so that our children and their children may live their childhood in innocence, in a healthy environment where they may play together without fear or complex.
- We ask that the road travelled by our ancestors – the Magi and the shepherds – to Bethlehem should remain open, without barriers or hindrance, open to the pilgrims of the whole world, including the Arab world. They will be welcome. Together we shall pray and sing: “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men on whom his favour rests”. (Lk 2:14)
- And on this holy night, the children of the Holy Land, fellow citizens of the Infant Jesus, beg us: “Let us grow up as normal children, grant us the time to play in the squares and market places of our towns and villages far from political intrigue.”
However, praying for peace is not enough. Good intentions and fine speeches do not suffice. Let us seek peace with all our strength. Peace is given to men of goodwill. It does not come about without true and courageous builders of peace, ready to sacrifice themselves in so noble a cause. Peace is received and granted at the same time.
Let us listen to the voice of Jesus: “Fear not, I am with you.”(Is 41:10) “Lord, if you are with us, who can be against us?”(Rm 8:31)
Yes, in accordance with your word, Lord, we cast our nets and we recognize that Christmas is a day of celebration.
- According to your word, we invite all to rejoice with us.
- According to your word, we light up the Christmas tree in our churches and in our homes as a sign of hope and of joy. Nothing can take away our hope: neither fear, nor threats, nor the arrogance of men.
O Child of Bethlehem, in this New Year, we place in your hands this troubled Middle East and, above all, our youth full of legitimate aspirations, who are frustrated by the economic and political situation, and in search of a better future. We implore you to grant their wishes and fill their hearts with courage and wisdom together with a spirit of responsibility.
From this church, we express our gratitude and the promise of our prayers to all those who have contributed to peace and justice, to all our friends who have shared our hopes and fears for the Arab revolutions. On this night, we pray for all the world leaders and those who govern us, that they may have wisdom, insight and a spirit of selflessness towards their countrymen. We pray for the return of calm and reconciliation in Syria, in Egypt, in Iraq and in North Africa.
From this church on this holy night, we call on the faithful and the pilgrims to unite with us in prayer for Jerusalem. As its name indicates, it is the city of peace. Its vocation is to bring together believers from all over the world, the sons of Abraham, in one single family. It is the Holy City, the city of prayer. Millions of pilgrims come to pray for peace and reconciliation. We pray that we may receive both and “have them more abundantly.” (Jn 10:10)
From this holy place, I call upon all our brothers and sisters throughout the world. The world is suffering from a lack of charity and human kindness. Our wish for the year is that: “We should love one another as God has loved us and that we may be reconciled with one another as God has reconciled us in Christ”(Ep 4:32) This reconciliation allows us to recognize the image of Christ in others.
May the Peace of the Child of Bethlehem and the song of the angels of heaven “that surpasses all understanding fill your hearts and minds” (Phil 4:7) now and for all the days of your life.
† Fouad Twal
Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
Of the scores of articles I've read during the last week, this Xmas homily by the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem is the truest, most noteworthy.
Read it and prophet from its insights, building them into actions in the New Year. At least scan sentences that I have highlighted. Thank you for your readership and semper fi: always remain faithful to the unfinished task. JRK
“A child is born to us, a son is given to us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonderful-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.” Is, 9, 5
"Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace
to those on whom his favor rests.” (Lk 2:14)
President Abu Mazen, Ladies and Gentlemen members of the Government,
H.E. Nasser Judeh, Jordan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs representing King Abdullah of Jordan,
Excellencies, Ambassadors, and Consuls,
Fellow representatives of the various churches,
Dear brothers and sisters, sons and daughters of the Holy Land:
From the Church of the Nativity, close to the Holy Grotto where the Virgin Mary swaddled her son and laid him in a manger, I greet you all, the faithful here present, the viewers, our brothers and sisters of the Diaspora, especially those whom I have met recently. I extend a special greeting to President Mahmoud Abbas and congratulate him in his unfaltering efforts to achieve a just peace in the Middle East, a main thrust of which is the creation of a Palestinian State. I recognize his collaborative efforts with His Majesty, King Abdullah of Jordan who expressed his great concern for Jerusalem, its holy places and especially its inhabitants.
Dear brothers and sisters,
The song of the angels in the sky above Bethlehem more than two thousand years ago still echoes: “Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth” (Lk 2:14). This hymn, with its celestial aura fascinates and instructs us.
Glory to God and peace on earth. The glory of God and the peace of the world are inseparable being bound together by cause and effect. If we glorify God, we shall enjoy his peace. If we glorify ourselves, we shall be denied this peace. Indeed, the glory and adoration of God is a duty and a debt we owe. God promises his peace to those who adore him in spirit and in truth. What reassures us is that God never fails in his promises.
It is true that God does not need us to extol him in order to grow in his majesty, or our praises to perfect his glory. We grow and become better people through our humility before his infinite greatness. The Lord is glorious in himself, his glory coming from his innermost being and from creation, the work of his hands. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the firmament proclaims the works of his hands. Day unto day pours forth speech; night unto night whispers knowledge.” (Ps 19: 2-3).
Our faiths – Muslim, Jew and Christian – are as one in saying that the adoration of God is a fundamental duty of love: “Give to the Lord, you sons of God, give to the Lord glory and might; give to the Lord the glory due his name. Bow down before the Lord’s holy splendor!” (Ps 29:1-2).
We may be proud, for among all the continents and countries of the world, God chose Palestine, our beloved land, to be the homeland of the Saviour, the awaited Messiah, who is his Word and the substance of his glory. And so, we are duty-bound to follow the host of angels in forever repeating: “Glory to God in the highest”. Glory to Him, “for the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.” (Titus 2:11). Indeed, it appeared a few footsteps away from this holy place where we are gathered this evening.
Of the long awaited Christ, the prophets foretold, “The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him … but he shall judge the poor with justice, and decide fairly for the lands afflicted.” (Is 11:2,4). The good news also concerns enemies: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; one nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again.”(Is 2:4)
Dear faithful, we do not want Christmas to be a subjective and purely emotional sweet memory of an event from a distant past. No, because Christ lives among us, he lives by his resurrection, in his sacraments and in his message: a message of love, of justice and of peace for all peoples, all individuals and all families, a peace that we need more than ever.
Our region is undergoing radical changes that affect our present and our future. We cannot stand by as mere spectators. We, the spiritual leaders and those who hold in their hands the destiny of peoples, must do everything in our power to protect our people, to work for their survival, and to realise their aspirations. We are one with our people, for their suffering and their hopes are our own.
We, who live in the Holy Land, in Palestine, Israel, Jordan and Cyprus hope that the celebration of Christmas may put an end to the culture of violence and death, and that it may inspire a solution to national and international divisions. History teaches us that the will of the people, with their aspirations to peace and freedom, is stronger than the power of injustice. Furthermore, the power of the Almighty is stronger than evil. For this reason, we hope that with the grace of God and with the support of people of goodwill, the physical and psychological walls that men build around themselves may disappear. God wants bridges that unite rather than walls that separate that which God has united. Dear brothers and sisters let us tear down the walls of our hearts in order to tear down walls of concrete!
The Palestinians have recently turned to the United Nations in the hope of finding a just solution to the conflict with the intention of living in peace and in safety with their neighbours. They have been asked to re-engage in a failed peace process. This process has left a bitter taste of broken promises and of mistrust.
Brothers and sisters, at this time of Christmas and by the power of the Prince of Peace, whose incarnation we celebrate, we raise our voices to God, crying out to him in our need. We ask for peace and nothing but peace.
- We ask for peace for the Palestinian people and for the Israeli people.
- We ask for peace, stability and security for the entire Middle East so that our children and their children may live their childhood in innocence, in a healthy environment where they may play together without fear or complex.
- We ask that the road travelled by our ancestors – the Magi and the shepherds – to Bethlehem should remain open, without barriers or hindrance, open to the pilgrims of the whole world, including the Arab world. They will be welcome. Together we shall pray and sing: “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men on whom his favour rests”. (Lk 2:14)
- And on this holy night, the children of the Holy Land, fellow citizens of the Infant Jesus, beg us: “Let us grow up as normal children, grant us the time to play in the squares and market places of our towns and villages far from political intrigue.”
However, praying for peace is not enough. Good intentions and fine speeches do not suffice. Let us seek peace with all our strength. Peace is given to men of goodwill. It does not come about without true and courageous builders of peace, ready to sacrifice themselves in so noble a cause. Peace is received and granted at the same time.
Let us listen to the voice of Jesus: “Fear not, I am with you.”(Is 41:10) “Lord, if you are with us, who can be against us?”(Rm 8:31)
Yes, in accordance with your word, Lord, we cast our nets and we recognize that Christmas is a day of celebration.
- According to your word, we invite all to rejoice with us.
- According to your word, we light up the Christmas tree in our churches and in our homes as a sign of hope and of joy. Nothing can take away our hope: neither fear, nor threats, nor the arrogance of men.
O Child of Bethlehem, in this New Year, we place in your hands this troubled Middle East and, above all, our youth full of legitimate aspirations, who are frustrated by the economic and political situation, and in search of a better future. We implore you to grant their wishes and fill their hearts with courage and wisdom together with a spirit of responsibility.
From this church, we express our gratitude and the promise of our prayers to all those who have contributed to peace and justice, to all our friends who have shared our hopes and fears for the Arab revolutions. On this night, we pray for all the world leaders and those who govern us, that they may have wisdom, insight and a spirit of selflessness towards their countrymen. We pray for the return of calm and reconciliation in Syria, in Egypt, in Iraq and in North Africa.
From this church on this holy night, we call on the faithful and the pilgrims to unite with us in prayer for Jerusalem. As its name indicates, it is the city of peace. Its vocation is to bring together believers from all over the world, the sons of Abraham, in one single family. It is the Holy City, the city of prayer. Millions of pilgrims come to pray for peace and reconciliation. We pray that we may receive both and “have them more abundantly.” (Jn 10:10)
From this holy place, I call upon all our brothers and sisters throughout the world. The world is suffering from a lack of charity and human kindness. Our wish for the year is that: “We should love one another as God has loved us and that we may be reconciled with one another as God has reconciled us in Christ”(Ep 4:32) This reconciliation allows us to recognize the image of Christ in others.
May the Peace of the Child of Bethlehem and the song of the angels of heaven “that surpasses all understanding fill your hearts and minds” (Phil 4:7) now and for all the days of your life.
† Fouad Twal
Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
Friday, December 16, 2011
Former Senator John Sununu Speaks Out
Dear Friend,
John Sununu adds to our discussion of Newt Gingrich's comments in re the Palestinians and the Israelis.
The former Republican Senator from New Hampshire is a Palestinian Christian. Please read it and prophet. JRK
Gingrich's lie reveals his bigotry
John. E. Sununu
The Boston Globe (Opinion)
December 16, 2011
When bigots speak, their words have purpose. They intentionally choose phrases that inflame, denigrate, and marginalize other races, religions, or nationalities. They employ distortions and stereotypes to bolster false arguments. Which brings us to Newt Gingrich, who in an interview last week derided “an invented Palestinian people.’’ His comments were a calculated — but demonstrably false — slander, designed to curry favor with a constituency for which he cares by insulting one for which he does not.
With one callous statement he dismissed the plight of 4 million people and their desire for self-determination. Questioned about the controversial statement during a debate on Monday, he piled falsehood upon falsehood. The word “Palestinian,’’ he asserted, “did not become a common term until after 1977.’’ In denying the legitimacy of Palestinians’ identity, Gingrich’s only purpose was to deny any justification for a two-state solution for Middle East peace. If Palestinians are invented, the implication goes, so too must be their objection to the status quo.
During the debate, Gingrich claimed to “stand for the truth,’’ but that apparently does not require telling the truth. His statements are a complete fabrication. Documents prepared by the Arab Office in Jerusalem during the 1930s and ’40s refer frequently to “Palestinian Arabs,’’ “Palestinian Citizens,’’ and the potential formation of a “Palestinian State.’’ The 1973 CIA Atlas of Middle East Issues speaks of “Palestinians’’ and “Palestinian Refugees.’’
Contrary to Gingrich’s insinuation, Palestine is a real place found on maps of all kinds, created by people of all races, for hundreds of years; and the people living there have long been identified with it. The Official 1931 Census of Palestine, conducted under British auspices, counted 850,000 Palestinian Arabs - both Muslim and Christian - and 175,000 Jews. Gingrich noted that the Ottomans once ruled the region, as if that justified his statements. But the Ottoman Empire included Syria and much of the Balkans. Are they invented people too?
The egregiousness of Gingrich’s statement isn’t simply in its inaccuracy, but in its objective. It implies that the claims of Palestinians must also be invented — rights to land, to sovereignty, to self-governance. On Monday he asserted, “A right to return is based on a historically false story.’’ Although the right to reclaim or receive compensation for lost property is a question for Israeli-Palestinian negotiation, the historical facts are quite simple. And again, Gingrich has them wrong.
According to the CIA Atlas, the fighting that followed Israel’s declaration of statehood in 1948 displaced 750,000 Palestinian Arabs. Several hundred thousand more were displaced in 1967. Israelis and Palestinians have struggled to find a path to a peaceful resolution since. My point here is not to litigate this struggle, but to recognize that the conflict is real, the people are real, and the grievances are real on both sides: Israel’s unquestionable right to security, and Palestinians’ right to self-rule.
My grandfather was born in Boston, but grew up in Jerusalem as a happy, well-educated Palestinian. As a Christian, he attended the French School and frequented the city’s historic YMCA. He returned to America in the 1930s and settled in New York. In 1948 the fighting forced his parents and cousins to leave their Jerusalem homes. They were never able to return; their houses were on the “wrong’’ side of the armistice line. Their property was taken, though today my cousins’ home looks the same as it did in photos from the 1930s. My great-grandparents lived out their lives in Lebanon. Does Gingrich consider the Lebanese an invented people too?
Gingrich is intelligent, which makes his bigotry all the more dangerous. He employs it not for self-satisfaction, but for political ends. His statements are wrong in fact — and contradict more than 40 years of bipartisan US policy. They reflect a cavalier attitude toward diplomacy, and send the message to allies in Europe and the Middle East that we are inconsistent and unreliable. They were designed to marginalize, not explain; and will be used by extremists on both sides to discourage reconciliation and compromise.
Language can be a wonderful and powerful tool — all the more reason for political leaders to use it thoughtfully and with care. Gingrich’s disgraceful behavior addressing such a difficult and sensitive issue demonstrates that he cannot be trusted to use words carefully. Why should anyone trust him with more?
John E. Sununu, a regular Globe contributor, is a former US senator from New Hampshire. He has not endorsed a presidential candidate. His father, the former New Hampshire governor John H. Sununu, has endorsed Mitt Romney.
--
John
jandskleinheksel@gmail.com
John Sununu adds to our discussion of Newt Gingrich's comments in re the Palestinians and the Israelis.
The former Republican Senator from New Hampshire is a Palestinian Christian. Please read it and prophet. JRK
Gingrich's lie reveals his bigotry
John. E. Sununu
The Boston Globe (Opinion)
December 16, 2011
When bigots speak, their words have purpose. They intentionally choose phrases that inflame, denigrate, and marginalize other races, religions, or nationalities. They employ distortions and stereotypes to bolster false arguments. Which brings us to Newt Gingrich, who in an interview last week derided “an invented Palestinian people.’’ His comments were a calculated — but demonstrably false — slander, designed to curry favor with a constituency for which he cares by insulting one for which he does not.
With one callous statement he dismissed the plight of 4 million people and their desire for self-determination. Questioned about the controversial statement during a debate on Monday, he piled falsehood upon falsehood. The word “Palestinian,’’ he asserted, “did not become a common term until after 1977.’’ In denying the legitimacy of Palestinians’ identity, Gingrich’s only purpose was to deny any justification for a two-state solution for Middle East peace. If Palestinians are invented, the implication goes, so too must be their objection to the status quo.
During the debate, Gingrich claimed to “stand for the truth,’’ but that apparently does not require telling the truth. His statements are a complete fabrication. Documents prepared by the Arab Office in Jerusalem during the 1930s and ’40s refer frequently to “Palestinian Arabs,’’ “Palestinian Citizens,’’ and the potential formation of a “Palestinian State.’’ The 1973 CIA Atlas of Middle East Issues speaks of “Palestinians’’ and “Palestinian Refugees.’’
Contrary to Gingrich’s insinuation, Palestine is a real place found on maps of all kinds, created by people of all races, for hundreds of years; and the people living there have long been identified with it. The Official 1931 Census of Palestine, conducted under British auspices, counted 850,000 Palestinian Arabs - both Muslim and Christian - and 175,000 Jews. Gingrich noted that the Ottomans once ruled the region, as if that justified his statements. But the Ottoman Empire included Syria and much of the Balkans. Are they invented people too?
The egregiousness of Gingrich’s statement isn’t simply in its inaccuracy, but in its objective. It implies that the claims of Palestinians must also be invented — rights to land, to sovereignty, to self-governance. On Monday he asserted, “A right to return is based on a historically false story.’’ Although the right to reclaim or receive compensation for lost property is a question for Israeli-Palestinian negotiation, the historical facts are quite simple. And again, Gingrich has them wrong.
According to the CIA Atlas, the fighting that followed Israel’s declaration of statehood in 1948 displaced 750,000 Palestinian Arabs. Several hundred thousand more were displaced in 1967. Israelis and Palestinians have struggled to find a path to a peaceful resolution since. My point here is not to litigate this struggle, but to recognize that the conflict is real, the people are real, and the grievances are real on both sides: Israel’s unquestionable right to security, and Palestinians’ right to self-rule.
My grandfather was born in Boston, but grew up in Jerusalem as a happy, well-educated Palestinian. As a Christian, he attended the French School and frequented the city’s historic YMCA. He returned to America in the 1930s and settled in New York. In 1948 the fighting forced his parents and cousins to leave their Jerusalem homes. They were never able to return; their houses were on the “wrong’’ side of the armistice line. Their property was taken, though today my cousins’ home looks the same as it did in photos from the 1930s. My great-grandparents lived out their lives in Lebanon. Does Gingrich consider the Lebanese an invented people too?
Gingrich is intelligent, which makes his bigotry all the more dangerous. He employs it not for self-satisfaction, but for political ends. His statements are wrong in fact — and contradict more than 40 years of bipartisan US policy. They reflect a cavalier attitude toward diplomacy, and send the message to allies in Europe and the Middle East that we are inconsistent and unreliable. They were designed to marginalize, not explain; and will be used by extremists on both sides to discourage reconciliation and compromise.
Language can be a wonderful and powerful tool — all the more reason for political leaders to use it thoughtfully and with care. Gingrich’s disgraceful behavior addressing such a difficult and sensitive issue demonstrates that he cannot be trusted to use words carefully. Why should anyone trust him with more?
John E. Sununu, a regular Globe contributor, is a former US senator from New Hampshire. He has not endorsed a presidential candidate. His father, the former New Hampshire governor John H. Sununu, has endorsed Mitt Romney.
--
John
jandskleinheksel@gmail.com
Sunday, December 4, 2011
The Myth of "Resuming Negotiations"
The Myth of “Resuming Negotiations”
By John Kleinheksel Sr, FPI, (Friends of Palestinians and Israelis)
I The Current State of Affairs
The current strategy to get both sides to the negotiating table (in the present cultural environment) won’t work. And here’s why. The Israeli/Jewish state doesn’t believe in negotiations. They are wedded to the belief that all of the land belongs to Jews and must not be shared with the “Other”. Hard as it may be, it is this cultural constant that has to be changed.
The Western press keeps repeating that the HAMAS charter calls for the dismantling of the Zionist/Israeli state. What is not widely known is that the platform/charter of the present Likud administration refuses to consider the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state.
The Likud Party Charter states:
a. The Jordan River will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.
b. Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem.
c. The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan River.
d. The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
Ariel Sharon did “give up” Gaza, but it is so controlled by fences and checkpoints, it’s a virtual prison.
As Stephen Sizer says in his blog: The recent Palestinian UN bid and (the) Palestinian acceptance to UNESCO has once again put the “Peace Process” front and center. Listening to Netanyahu and the U.S. Administration, getting the Israelis and Palestinians “back to the negotiating table” is the utmost priority for a lasting peace deal. Although Netanyahu plays the part, the details of his party platform need to be taken into account as a “peace partner” to show the reality behind the circus. So, while Netanyahu wants no pre-conditions from the Palestinians going into “negotiations” his party charter and ideology say otherwise.
Amos Schocken, the publisher of Haaretz (a progressive voice in Israel), wrote an editorial on November 25, 2011. He makes the case that all recent Israeli leaders are basically following the principles of the Gush Emunim, a religious movement that claims God decrees all of the land for the Jewish state. Here is his shocking expose:
The strategy that follows from the ideology of Gush Emunim is clear and simple: It perceives of the Six-Day War as the continuation of the War of Independence [1948], both in terms of seizure of territory, and in its impact on the Palestinian population. According to this strategy, the occupation boundaries of the Six-Day War are the borders that Israel must set for itself. And with regard to the Palestinians living in that territory - those who did not flee or were not expelled - they must be subjected to a policy that will encourage their flight, eventuate in their expulsion, deprive them of their rights, and bring about a situation in which those who remain will not be even second-class citizens, and their fate will be of interest to no one. They will be like the Palestinian refugees of the War of Independence; that is their desired status. As for those who are not refugees, an attempt should be made to turn them into "absentees" [to better dispossess them]. Unlike the Palestinians who remained in Israel after the War of Independence, the Palestinians in the territories should not receive Israeli citizenship, owing to their large number, but then this, too, should be of interest to no one.
The ideology of Gush Emunim springs from religious, not political motivations. It holds that Israel is for the Jews, and it is not only the Palestinians in the territories who are irrelevant: Israel's Palestinian citizens are also exposed to discrimination with regard to their civil rights and the revocation of their citizenship.
There are competing religious-based fundamentalisms at work in Israel/Palestine. They are seemingly mutually exclusive, i.e., they can’t both be fully implemented. Israel rejects Islamic fundamentalism (whether by Hamas or Iran), yet fails to admit its own religion-inspired fundamentalism.
II Where We Go from Here
So what should American Christians (who have their own brands of fundamentalism) do to work for mutual respect and the rights of all people there?
A good place to start is with the Christians (and Muslims) who have suffered under the occupation for decades and decades. What are they saying? What are they asking? For this we turn to the Kairos Palestine document, composed by Christians in 2009, addressed to themselves, to Muslims, Israelis, Americans and people of other nations.
In a section on “resistance” (4.2), the Kairos document says, we must resist evil of whatever kind. Love is seeing the face of God in every human being. Every person is my brother or my sister. However, seeing the face of God in everyone does not mean accepting evil or aggression on their part. Rather, this love seeks to correct the evil and stop the aggression (4.2.1).
When we review the history of the nations, we see many wars and much resistance to war by war, to violence by violence. The Palestinian people have gone the way of the peoples, particularly in the first stages of its struggle with the Israeli occupation. However, it also engaged in peaceful struggle, especially during the first Intifada. We recognize that all peoples must find a new way in their relations with each other and the resolution of their conflicts. The ways of force must give way to the ways of justice (4.2.2). [Resistance] must find human ways that engage the humanity of the enemy. Seeing the image of God in the face of the enemy means taking up positions in the light of this vision of active resistance to stop the injustices. . . (Kairos Palestine, 4.2.3).
Christians call Muslims to reject fanaticism and extremism (5.4.1). The call to Jews? Even though we have fought one another in the recent past . . . we are able to love and live together. We can organize our political life, with all its complexity, according to the logic of this love and its power (5.4.2).
To the world, Palestinian Christians say: We condemn all forms of racism, whether religious or ethnic, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia . . . . We call on you to [speak the truth] with regard to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land. . . .[and we] see boycotts and disinvestment as tools of nonviolence. . . . (6.3).
Even progressive Jews like Rabbi Michael Lerner (Tikkun) argue a new consciousness is needed to avoid the exclusive blaming of one side or the other. In his recent book, Embracing Israel/Palestine, he makes the case that both Jews and Palestinians suffer from a societal form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. A generation of healers is needed to deal with societal PTSD:
On the one hand, we need a massive campaign of consciousness-raising to challenge the dominant worldview that people care only for themselves and will never be there for each other . . . . On the other hand, we need individual and small group interventions to help people, one by one, overcome the depression and splitting that keep people trapped in self-and-other-destructive patterns of behavior. On this level, the first thing we need to do is created circumstances in which people can feel safe to talk freely about the traumas that they’ve experienced to someone who will help them feel safe and genuinely heard and who will acknowledge their pain (p. 277).
Rabbi Lerner even supports what he calls a “softer version” of the BDS movement (boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions). This softer version supports the right of Israel to exist, yet urges people not to buy from companies that produce consumer goods in the West Bank settlements or produce weapons or other equipment for the Israeli military to use in the West Bank and Gaza (p. 328).
One of the final sections of his book deals with questions and answers. Question: Don’t the Palestinians really want to destroy the State of Israel? Aren’t they just using the camouflage of a ‘peace process’ to build up their military strength until they get the chance to do this? Answer: There are now, and will continue to be . . . a significant minority of people in each community that aspires to see the full elimination of the other side. But maximalist fantasies have typically yielded to new realities in the Middle East. If the majority of Palestinians and Israelis are living in their own secure states with democratic and human-rights-observing governments and with economies providing a decent standard of living for everyone, those troubling aspirations to destroy the Other will become more like the Jewish prayer books’ call for the restoration of animal sacrifices on the grounds of the Jews’ ancient Temple—not yet given up, but nevertheless not likely to be made the cornerstone of any but a small and manageable fringe (p. 379).
III Countering Gush Emunim Ideology in the US Congress and the White House
All Christians of an anti-Fundamentalist bent should join forces to counter the pernicious influence of religious fundamentalism whether in Palestine, Israel or America. When we listen further to Amos Schocken, we understand how deeply the Gush Emunim ideology has wormed its way into American politics, the “religious right” and the US House and Senate. This is especially true in the Republican Party but is also true of the Democrats and our President. Here is the continuation of Mr. Schocken’s op-ed:
Since the Six-Day War, there has been no other group in Israel with the ideological resilience of Gush Emunim, and it is not surprising that many politicians have viewed that ideology as a means for realizing personal political ambitions . . . .(among them, Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu).
This ideology views the creation of an Israeli apartheid regime as a necessary tool for its realization . . . .
This ideology has enjoyed immense success in the United States, of all places. President George H.W. Bush was able to block financial guarantees to Israel because of the settlements established by the government of Yitzhak Shamir . . . .Now, though, candidates for the Republican Party's presidential nomination are competing among themselves over which of them supports Israel and the occupation more forcefully. Any of them who adopt the approach of the first President Bush will likely put an end to their candidacy.
Whatever the reason for this state of affairs - the large number of evangelicals affiliated with the Republican party, the problematic nature of the West's relations with Islam, or the power of the Jewish lobby, which is totally addicted to the Gush Emunim ideology - the result is clear: It is not easy, and may be impossible, for an American president to adopt an activist policy against Israeli apartheid.
Friends, we have work to do. Work to change the culture and environment. We will be vulnerable to “the “other”. We will engage “enemies”, and be open to self-criticism and the view-points of other participants. Healing and peace will not come until we admit hurts we have caused and that we have experienced.
We will blunt the influence of the Jewish and American “religious right” that almost totally permeates the current culture and discourse in both Israel and America right now. Here are resources, people and groups seeking genuine change:
Read the novel, Mornings in Jenin, Susan Abulhawa, does for Palestinians what The Kite Runner did for Afghanistan
Read the book, Kairos for Palestine, Rifat Odeh Kassis (Badayl/Alternatives Press), www.kairospalestine.ps
Check regularly with Mark Braverman, American Jewish activist who supports land rights and peaceful co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians, www.markbraverman.org
Read, Embracing Israel/Palestine: a Strategy to Heal and Transform the Middle East, Rabbi Michael Lerner, (North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA) www.tikkun.org
Peace Now (The American chapter of Peace Now) www.peacenow.org.il
Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org
Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) www.cmep.org
Holy Land Trust (Sami Awad in Bethlehem) www.holylandtrust.org
Gush Shalom (Uri Avnery and Adam Keller) www.gushshalom.org
The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), Jeff Halper, www.ichahd.org
The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), www.isna.net/interfaith
Challenging Christian Zionism, www.christianzionism.org
The Israeli/Palestinian Mission Network, www.israelpalestinianmissionnetwork.org
By John Kleinheksel Sr, FPI, (Friends of Palestinians and Israelis)
I The Current State of Affairs
The current strategy to get both sides to the negotiating table (in the present cultural environment) won’t work. And here’s why. The Israeli/Jewish state doesn’t believe in negotiations. They are wedded to the belief that all of the land belongs to Jews and must not be shared with the “Other”. Hard as it may be, it is this cultural constant that has to be changed.
The Western press keeps repeating that the HAMAS charter calls for the dismantling of the Zionist/Israeli state. What is not widely known is that the platform/charter of the present Likud administration refuses to consider the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state.
The Likud Party Charter states:
a. The Jordan River will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.
b. Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem.
c. The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan River.
d. The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
Ariel Sharon did “give up” Gaza, but it is so controlled by fences and checkpoints, it’s a virtual prison.
As Stephen Sizer says in his blog: The recent Palestinian UN bid and (the) Palestinian acceptance to UNESCO has once again put the “Peace Process” front and center. Listening to Netanyahu and the U.S. Administration, getting the Israelis and Palestinians “back to the negotiating table” is the utmost priority for a lasting peace deal. Although Netanyahu plays the part, the details of his party platform need to be taken into account as a “peace partner” to show the reality behind the circus. So, while Netanyahu wants no pre-conditions from the Palestinians going into “negotiations” his party charter and ideology say otherwise.
Amos Schocken, the publisher of Haaretz (a progressive voice in Israel), wrote an editorial on November 25, 2011. He makes the case that all recent Israeli leaders are basically following the principles of the Gush Emunim, a religious movement that claims God decrees all of the land for the Jewish state. Here is his shocking expose:
The strategy that follows from the ideology of Gush Emunim is clear and simple: It perceives of the Six-Day War as the continuation of the War of Independence [1948], both in terms of seizure of territory, and in its impact on the Palestinian population. According to this strategy, the occupation boundaries of the Six-Day War are the borders that Israel must set for itself. And with regard to the Palestinians living in that territory - those who did not flee or were not expelled - they must be subjected to a policy that will encourage their flight, eventuate in their expulsion, deprive them of their rights, and bring about a situation in which those who remain will not be even second-class citizens, and their fate will be of interest to no one. They will be like the Palestinian refugees of the War of Independence; that is their desired status. As for those who are not refugees, an attempt should be made to turn them into "absentees" [to better dispossess them]. Unlike the Palestinians who remained in Israel after the War of Independence, the Palestinians in the territories should not receive Israeli citizenship, owing to their large number, but then this, too, should be of interest to no one.
The ideology of Gush Emunim springs from religious, not political motivations. It holds that Israel is for the Jews, and it is not only the Palestinians in the territories who are irrelevant: Israel's Palestinian citizens are also exposed to discrimination with regard to their civil rights and the revocation of their citizenship.
There are competing religious-based fundamentalisms at work in Israel/Palestine. They are seemingly mutually exclusive, i.e., they can’t both be fully implemented. Israel rejects Islamic fundamentalism (whether by Hamas or Iran), yet fails to admit its own religion-inspired fundamentalism.
II Where We Go from Here
So what should American Christians (who have their own brands of fundamentalism) do to work for mutual respect and the rights of all people there?
A good place to start is with the Christians (and Muslims) who have suffered under the occupation for decades and decades. What are they saying? What are they asking? For this we turn to the Kairos Palestine document, composed by Christians in 2009, addressed to themselves, to Muslims, Israelis, Americans and people of other nations.
In a section on “resistance” (4.2), the Kairos document says, we must resist evil of whatever kind. Love is seeing the face of God in every human being. Every person is my brother or my sister. However, seeing the face of God in everyone does not mean accepting evil or aggression on their part. Rather, this love seeks to correct the evil and stop the aggression (4.2.1).
When we review the history of the nations, we see many wars and much resistance to war by war, to violence by violence. The Palestinian people have gone the way of the peoples, particularly in the first stages of its struggle with the Israeli occupation. However, it also engaged in peaceful struggle, especially during the first Intifada. We recognize that all peoples must find a new way in their relations with each other and the resolution of their conflicts. The ways of force must give way to the ways of justice (4.2.2). [Resistance] must find human ways that engage the humanity of the enemy. Seeing the image of God in the face of the enemy means taking up positions in the light of this vision of active resistance to stop the injustices. . . (Kairos Palestine, 4.2.3).
Christians call Muslims to reject fanaticism and extremism (5.4.1). The call to Jews? Even though we have fought one another in the recent past . . . we are able to love and live together. We can organize our political life, with all its complexity, according to the logic of this love and its power (5.4.2).
To the world, Palestinian Christians say: We condemn all forms of racism, whether religious or ethnic, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia . . . . We call on you to [speak the truth] with regard to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land. . . .[and we] see boycotts and disinvestment as tools of nonviolence. . . . (6.3).
Even progressive Jews like Rabbi Michael Lerner (Tikkun) argue a new consciousness is needed to avoid the exclusive blaming of one side or the other. In his recent book, Embracing Israel/Palestine, he makes the case that both Jews and Palestinians suffer from a societal form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. A generation of healers is needed to deal with societal PTSD:
On the one hand, we need a massive campaign of consciousness-raising to challenge the dominant worldview that people care only for themselves and will never be there for each other . . . . On the other hand, we need individual and small group interventions to help people, one by one, overcome the depression and splitting that keep people trapped in self-and-other-destructive patterns of behavior. On this level, the first thing we need to do is created circumstances in which people can feel safe to talk freely about the traumas that they’ve experienced to someone who will help them feel safe and genuinely heard and who will acknowledge their pain (p. 277).
Rabbi Lerner even supports what he calls a “softer version” of the BDS movement (boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions). This softer version supports the right of Israel to exist, yet urges people not to buy from companies that produce consumer goods in the West Bank settlements or produce weapons or other equipment for the Israeli military to use in the West Bank and Gaza (p. 328).
One of the final sections of his book deals with questions and answers. Question: Don’t the Palestinians really want to destroy the State of Israel? Aren’t they just using the camouflage of a ‘peace process’ to build up their military strength until they get the chance to do this? Answer: There are now, and will continue to be . . . a significant minority of people in each community that aspires to see the full elimination of the other side. But maximalist fantasies have typically yielded to new realities in the Middle East. If the majority of Palestinians and Israelis are living in their own secure states with democratic and human-rights-observing governments and with economies providing a decent standard of living for everyone, those troubling aspirations to destroy the Other will become more like the Jewish prayer books’ call for the restoration of animal sacrifices on the grounds of the Jews’ ancient Temple—not yet given up, but nevertheless not likely to be made the cornerstone of any but a small and manageable fringe (p. 379).
III Countering Gush Emunim Ideology in the US Congress and the White House
All Christians of an anti-Fundamentalist bent should join forces to counter the pernicious influence of religious fundamentalism whether in Palestine, Israel or America. When we listen further to Amos Schocken, we understand how deeply the Gush Emunim ideology has wormed its way into American politics, the “religious right” and the US House and Senate. This is especially true in the Republican Party but is also true of the Democrats and our President. Here is the continuation of Mr. Schocken’s op-ed:
Since the Six-Day War, there has been no other group in Israel with the ideological resilience of Gush Emunim, and it is not surprising that many politicians have viewed that ideology as a means for realizing personal political ambitions . . . .(among them, Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu).
This ideology views the creation of an Israeli apartheid regime as a necessary tool for its realization . . . .
This ideology has enjoyed immense success in the United States, of all places. President George H.W. Bush was able to block financial guarantees to Israel because of the settlements established by the government of Yitzhak Shamir . . . .Now, though, candidates for the Republican Party's presidential nomination are competing among themselves over which of them supports Israel and the occupation more forcefully. Any of them who adopt the approach of the first President Bush will likely put an end to their candidacy.
Whatever the reason for this state of affairs - the large number of evangelicals affiliated with the Republican party, the problematic nature of the West's relations with Islam, or the power of the Jewish lobby, which is totally addicted to the Gush Emunim ideology - the result is clear: It is not easy, and may be impossible, for an American president to adopt an activist policy against Israeli apartheid.
Friends, we have work to do. Work to change the culture and environment. We will be vulnerable to “the “other”. We will engage “enemies”, and be open to self-criticism and the view-points of other participants. Healing and peace will not come until we admit hurts we have caused and that we have experienced.
We will blunt the influence of the Jewish and American “religious right” that almost totally permeates the current culture and discourse in both Israel and America right now. Here are resources, people and groups seeking genuine change:
Read the novel, Mornings in Jenin, Susan Abulhawa, does for Palestinians what The Kite Runner did for Afghanistan
Read the book, Kairos for Palestine, Rifat Odeh Kassis (Badayl/Alternatives Press), www.kairospalestine.ps
Check regularly with Mark Braverman, American Jewish activist who supports land rights and peaceful co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians, www.markbraverman.org
Read, Embracing Israel/Palestine: a Strategy to Heal and Transform the Middle East, Rabbi Michael Lerner, (North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA) www.tikkun.org
Peace Now (The American chapter of Peace Now) www.peacenow.org.il
Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org
Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) www.cmep.org
Holy Land Trust (Sami Awad in Bethlehem) www.holylandtrust.org
Gush Shalom (Uri Avnery and Adam Keller) www.gushshalom.org
The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), Jeff Halper, www.ichahd.org
The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), www.isna.net/interfaith
Challenging Christian Zionism, www.christianzionism.org
The Israeli/Palestinian Mission Network, www.israelpalestinianmissionnetwork.org
Monday, November 28, 2011
Fatah/HAMAS reconcilation efforts must suceed
Dear Friend,
It is really very important that Hamas be brought into the fold of the PLO. The following article (Karl Vick in TIME magazine), suggests that Hamas may be moderating its position of vowing violent opposition to the Israeli state. Israel will continue to argue that Hamas has not and will not change, but wants to "destroy" Israel.
As long as the Palestinians are divided between two factions, no significant "negotiations" can take place. Hamas (Gaza authority) must be party to any agreement, or it will not be worth the paper it's printed on.
Israel boosted Hamas by finally agreeing to terms for the release of Gilad Shalit, the captive Israeli soldier.
Read on. By the way, EMBRACING ISRAEL/PALESTINE, the new book by Rabbi Michael Lerner, is a must read. From his base in psychology, and his ministry in Jerusalem for many years, Mr. Lerner shows a correspondence between PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) and the Israeli (Holocaust) psyche, and that internal healing and transformation must take place for any true dealing with "the other" to happen. More on this book later. JRK
Hamas Edges Closer to the Mainstream: Agreeing
to Noviolence, Opening the Door to Recognizing Israel
Monday, November 28, 2011
By Karl Vick
The leaders of the two biggest Palestinian parties met in Cairo on Thanksgiving, and just going by the
headlines afterward, you'd have thought nothing had happened. "Palestinians talk unity, no sign of progress,"
said Reuters. AP: "Palestinian rivals talk, but fail to resolve rifts." But read the stories, and it becomes clear
that a great deal is going on, with immense implications for the future of peace talks with Israel.
Israel's government dismissed the meeting with a wave of the terrorist card. Hamas is regarded by the West
and Israel as first and foremost a terrorist organization, and so Mark Regev, who speaks for prime minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, framed the reconciliation as something that can only contaminate the pacifist
credentials of Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah party chief widely known as Abu
Mazen:"The closer Abu Mazen gets to Hamas," Regev said, "the farther he moves away from peace."
But what if Abbas is holding still, and Hamas is moving closer to Abbas? That's what's been happening, from
nearly all appearances, for the last two or three years, and everything coming out of the Cairo meeting points
in the same direction. The head of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, and Abbas spoke for two hours, Abbas in the big
chair, Meshaal on the couch with two others. Afterwards both met the cameras smiling. "There are no
differences between us now," Abbas said. Mashaal went with: "We have opened a new page of partnership."
And on whose terms? Hamas stands for resistance, its formal name being the Islamic Resistance Movement.
But in the Gaza Strip where it governs, Hamas has largely enforced a truce with Israel since January 2009.
And in Cairo it signed a paper committing itself to "popular resistance" against the Israeli occupation of
Palestinian territories. That's "popular" in contrast to "violent" or "military" resistance. We're talking marches
here. Chanting and signs, not booby traps or suicide bombs.
"Every people has the right to fight against occupation in every way, with weapons or otherwise. But at the
moment, we want to cooperate with the popular resistance," Meshaal told AFP. "We believe in armed
resistance but popular resistance is a program which is common to all the factions."
What's going on here? For one thing, Abbas appears to have coaxed his party's militant rival into his fold.
""This is my assessment," says Omar Shaban, the Gaza economist and civil society leader who runs
Pal-Think, a think tank. "Abu Mazen has succeeded in bringing them one step closer to his program. I think
the election will be the real test for the whole process."
And how. Hamas and Fatah, factions that four years ago were engaged in civil war as Hamas's militia drove
Fatah's militia out of Gaza, now live in fear not of each other, but of the Palestinian people. The Arab Spring
has transformed the political dynamic -- something Meshaal said out loud to AFP. Both Fatah and Hamas
know they are disappointments to the people. The least they can do is stop fighting each other, the foremost
demand of the public, and the reason both leaders emerged from their closed meeting saying, in so many
words, "Look! Look! We really are reconciling! Just as we promised!" If Hamas needed any extra incentive,
it's available in the excruciating collapse of Syria, where Meshaal keeps his office. If Fatah needed any extra
incentive, it's available in the UN Security Council report on the application for Palestinian statehood, which
noted that the applicant, Abbas' Palestinian Authority, does not even control the Gaza Strip, surely a
minimum requirement of sovereignty.
Actual reunification of the West Bank and Gaza will come with the unity government of technocrats the two
factions promised in May, when their reconciliation was formally declared. That placeholder government still
has yet to be announced -- placeholder, that is, pending spring 2012 elections that produce a new legislature
and president -- but at last there's evidence of progress. The point of conflict had been who would serve as
prime minister. Fatah insisted on Salam Fayyad, a favorite of the West and a technocrat's technocrat who
has held the job on the West Bank for four years. Hamas wanted Fayyad out. A couple of week ago, after
months of stalemate, he agreed to go. But neither side is rushing him because he remains the West's trusted
conduit for hundreds of millions in foreign aid. That aid covers the salaries of government workers both in the
West Bank and Gaza -- where Fatah continues to pay 70,000 employees even though Hamas controls the
government. The PA has by far the biggest payroll in the Palestinian territories, a donor economy if ever there
was one. And however they may differ on Fayyad, both Fatah and Hamas want to see people get paid,
because, again, who do they fear most?
Quite possibly biggest news out of Cairo was deep in the fine print: Efforts are under way to bring Hamas into
the PLO, or Palestine Liberation Organization, the umbrella for all Palestinian factions. The PLO is the one
"brand" that still resonates with ordinary Palestinians, and Hamas has wanted to join it since at least 2005. If
Hamas finally gets in, the implications would appear to be immense. It would mean agreeing to the positions
and agreements the PLO has already made. This includes recognizing Israel, and renouncing terror -- two
things Hamas has never been willing to do. "Yes, when they are in they have to agree to the political program
of the PLO," says Shaban. "This will take time." But should it occur, it would complete Hamas' move toward
the center, and open the door to the international recognition craved by many in the organization.
The biggest question out of Cairo was what the PLO will look like in a few months. An effort to "reform" the
body was announced along with the move to bring Hamas on board. The first meeting was set for Dec. 22.
Reform is something Palestinian analysts call overdue, citing the elderly -- some say "sclerotic" --
composition of the PLO's executive committee. But it makes for yet one more piece to watch on a chess
board where the pieces are moving as quickly as events. The meeting, after all, was in Cairo.
Click here for more Reports and Commentary
To view this article online, please go to:
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/11/27/hamas-edges-closer-to-the-mainstream-agreeing-to-nonviolence
-opening-the-door-to-recognizing-israel/?xid=gonewsedit
http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/32133/pid/895/displaytype/raw
It is really very important that Hamas be brought into the fold of the PLO. The following article (Karl Vick in TIME magazine), suggests that Hamas may be moderating its position of vowing violent opposition to the Israeli state. Israel will continue to argue that Hamas has not and will not change, but wants to "destroy" Israel.
As long as the Palestinians are divided between two factions, no significant "negotiations" can take place. Hamas (Gaza authority) must be party to any agreement, or it will not be worth the paper it's printed on.
Israel boosted Hamas by finally agreeing to terms for the release of Gilad Shalit, the captive Israeli soldier.
Read on. By the way, EMBRACING ISRAEL/PALESTINE, the new book by Rabbi Michael Lerner, is a must read. From his base in psychology, and his ministry in Jerusalem for many years, Mr. Lerner shows a correspondence between PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) and the Israeli (Holocaust) psyche, and that internal healing and transformation must take place for any true dealing with "the other" to happen. More on this book later. JRK
Hamas Edges Closer to the Mainstream: Agreeing
to Noviolence, Opening the Door to Recognizing Israel
Monday, November 28, 2011
By Karl Vick
The leaders of the two biggest Palestinian parties met in Cairo on Thanksgiving, and just going by the
headlines afterward, you'd have thought nothing had happened. "Palestinians talk unity, no sign of progress,"
said Reuters. AP: "Palestinian rivals talk, but fail to resolve rifts." But read the stories, and it becomes clear
that a great deal is going on, with immense implications for the future of peace talks with Israel.
Israel's government dismissed the meeting with a wave of the terrorist card. Hamas is regarded by the West
and Israel as first and foremost a terrorist organization, and so Mark Regev, who speaks for prime minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, framed the reconciliation as something that can only contaminate the pacifist
credentials of Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah party chief widely known as Abu
Mazen:"The closer Abu Mazen gets to Hamas," Regev said, "the farther he moves away from peace."
But what if Abbas is holding still, and Hamas is moving closer to Abbas? That's what's been happening, from
nearly all appearances, for the last two or three years, and everything coming out of the Cairo meeting points
in the same direction. The head of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, and Abbas spoke for two hours, Abbas in the big
chair, Meshaal on the couch with two others. Afterwards both met the cameras smiling. "There are no
differences between us now," Abbas said. Mashaal went with: "We have opened a new page of partnership."
And on whose terms? Hamas stands for resistance, its formal name being the Islamic Resistance Movement.
But in the Gaza Strip where it governs, Hamas has largely enforced a truce with Israel since January 2009.
And in Cairo it signed a paper committing itself to "popular resistance" against the Israeli occupation of
Palestinian territories. That's "popular" in contrast to "violent" or "military" resistance. We're talking marches
here. Chanting and signs, not booby traps or suicide bombs.
"Every people has the right to fight against occupation in every way, with weapons or otherwise. But at the
moment, we want to cooperate with the popular resistance," Meshaal told AFP. "We believe in armed
resistance but popular resistance is a program which is common to all the factions."
What's going on here? For one thing, Abbas appears to have coaxed his party's militant rival into his fold.
""This is my assessment," says Omar Shaban, the Gaza economist and civil society leader who runs
Pal-Think, a think tank. "Abu Mazen has succeeded in bringing them one step closer to his program. I think
the election will be the real test for the whole process."
And how. Hamas and Fatah, factions that four years ago were engaged in civil war as Hamas's militia drove
Fatah's militia out of Gaza, now live in fear not of each other, but of the Palestinian people. The Arab Spring
has transformed the political dynamic -- something Meshaal said out loud to AFP. Both Fatah and Hamas
know they are disappointments to the people. The least they can do is stop fighting each other, the foremost
demand of the public, and the reason both leaders emerged from their closed meeting saying, in so many
words, "Look! Look! We really are reconciling! Just as we promised!" If Hamas needed any extra incentive,
it's available in the excruciating collapse of Syria, where Meshaal keeps his office. If Fatah needed any extra
incentive, it's available in the UN Security Council report on the application for Palestinian statehood, which
noted that the applicant, Abbas' Palestinian Authority, does not even control the Gaza Strip, surely a
minimum requirement of sovereignty.
Actual reunification of the West Bank and Gaza will come with the unity government of technocrats the two
factions promised in May, when their reconciliation was formally declared. That placeholder government still
has yet to be announced -- placeholder, that is, pending spring 2012 elections that produce a new legislature
and president -- but at last there's evidence of progress. The point of conflict had been who would serve as
prime minister. Fatah insisted on Salam Fayyad, a favorite of the West and a technocrat's technocrat who
has held the job on the West Bank for four years. Hamas wanted Fayyad out. A couple of week ago, after
months of stalemate, he agreed to go. But neither side is rushing him because he remains the West's trusted
conduit for hundreds of millions in foreign aid. That aid covers the salaries of government workers both in the
West Bank and Gaza -- where Fatah continues to pay 70,000 employees even though Hamas controls the
government. The PA has by far the biggest payroll in the Palestinian territories, a donor economy if ever there
was one. And however they may differ on Fayyad, both Fatah and Hamas want to see people get paid,
because, again, who do they fear most?
Quite possibly biggest news out of Cairo was deep in the fine print: Efforts are under way to bring Hamas into
the PLO, or Palestine Liberation Organization, the umbrella for all Palestinian factions. The PLO is the one
"brand" that still resonates with ordinary Palestinians, and Hamas has wanted to join it since at least 2005. If
Hamas finally gets in, the implications would appear to be immense. It would mean agreeing to the positions
and agreements the PLO has already made. This includes recognizing Israel, and renouncing terror -- two
things Hamas has never been willing to do. "Yes, when they are in they have to agree to the political program
of the PLO," says Shaban. "This will take time." But should it occur, it would complete Hamas' move toward
the center, and open the door to the international recognition craved by many in the organization.
The biggest question out of Cairo was what the PLO will look like in a few months. An effort to "reform" the
body was announced along with the move to bring Hamas on board. The first meeting was set for Dec. 22.
Reform is something Palestinian analysts call overdue, citing the elderly -- some say "sclerotic" --
composition of the PLO's executive committee. But it makes for yet one more piece to watch on a chess
board where the pieces are moving as quickly as events. The meeting, after all, was in Cairo.
Click here for more Reports and Commentary
To view this article online, please go to:
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/11/27/hamas-edges-closer-to-the-mainstream-agreeing-to-nonviolence
-opening-the-door-to-recognizing-israel/?xid=gonewsedit
http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/32133/pid/895/displaytype/raw
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)