Dear Friend,
The Ground is Shaking! The battle is being joined. Now it's the Chuck Hegel appointment as the (projected) new head of the Defense Department. All the Israeli heavy-weights (there and here in the US) are lining up against former the former Senator (from Nebraska) mostly because he is not lock-step in favor of any and everything coming out of Jerusalem and AIPAC. Watch this one carefully. Our colleague James Wall is going to tackle this again. Go to his blog, "Wallwritings" for an introductory commentary on this issue.
Hopefully this preferred appointment by our President will go through, indicating a shift in the official stance of our US government toward a more balanced approach.
In addition to this, you have this amazing story. The State Department accused Israel on Tuesday of engaging in a "pattern of provocative action" that runs counter to statements from Israeli leaders that they are committed to peace. Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said "We are deeply "disappointed that Israel insists on continuing this pattern of provocative action. These repeated announcements and plans of new construction run counter to the cause of peace. Israel’s leaders continually say that they support a path towards a two-state solution, yet these actions only put that goal further at risk" [Haaretz, Tuesday, Dec. 18).
At least the US must be consistent. Israel thinks it can be "for" the Two State and proceed with settlements. The US knows better. Enlarging the settlements (especially in E-1) destroys the Two State "solution". Up until this recent State department salvo, we have paid lip service to the Two State idea and tacitly supported Israeli settlement expansion.
You can't have it both ways.
I'm sending you once again, a three-column "VISIONS" sheet that gives the three main visions competing in Isr/Pal right now. Many of us have moved away from the Two-State issue (it's deader than a dinosaur), and are embracing the vision of One State, Pluralistic, and Democratic. We are practicing boycotts, (of Israeli products from Palestinian land), divestment (in companies profiting from the Occupation) and sanctions [BDS] (by our government against Israelis OR Palestinians who by their actions are not leading their people to an equitable solution. The goals must be compensating for confiscated land, allow reasonable "right of return", granting full citizenship rights to Palestinians who live there, and a greater role in governance from the bottom up.
As I am soon to write to a Muslim friend in Kalamazoo, the world has moved on from the UN idea of "two states living side by side in peace and security" of 1947. The One State "solution" will be no easier than the Two State. It will require building trust after decades of betrayal and bloodshed. Moderates must weigh in against extremism on both sides to marginalize them, instead of giving them control of the agenda. More and more people will have to build bridges to each other instead of walls. Nonviolent advocacy against the Occupation will have to increase. More and more people will have to practice BDS (as above) to bring about changes to the current apartheid-like rule of Israeli governments since 1948.
Let me add one other thing. I am not an adversary of those who sincerely wish to work for the "Two-State" solution. The key issue for me is: liberty and justice for all, not just Jews in the State of Israel. Peace . . . justice. . . love, At the High Holy Days. John Kleinheksel
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Can We Talk About "Zionism? In Public?
It’s time for the media to talk about Zionism
by Philip Weiss on December 4, 2012 147
Last week, New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan characterized me as "the anti-Zionist Jewish-American journalist who writes about the Middle East." That's my reputation; I can't take exception to her words. But when Sullivan quoted Jeffrey Goldberg, she did not say he was Jewish or a Zionist--or that he had once emigrated to Israel because he believed that America was unsafe for Jews, and served as an officer in Israel's army before coming back here and recommending Israel's militant policy toward Arabs to America.
Sullivan's double standard is indefensible, but it is typical of a standard of censorship in our journalism. American media are not talking to their readers about Zionism. They are not even attempting to describe the ideology that is at the heart of the problem in Israel and Palestine. The media are honest with their audiences about other movements of a religious character, from evangelism to opposition to stem-cell research to radical Islam. So they should be honest with them about Zionism.
Zionism is a 115-year-old movement inside Jewish life that says there is a need for a Jewish state in Palestine because Jews are unsafe in the west and Jews have a biblical connection to Palestine. Some people say that this is too complicated a concept to explain to Americans. (Norman Finkelstein joked that Zionism might as well be a hairspray and it’s irrelevant to the discussion at the New School in October). I don’t think so. Beliefs are very important; and Americans have a right to know why so many American Jews believe in the need for Israel at a time when this concept is warping our foreign policy.
It's not enough for a reporter to say that someone is pro-Israel. Zionism draws on a person's worldview and has a religious character, it supplies meaning to his or her life. It is often a core understanding that drives that person's positions in other areas (see Neoconservatism). And it is deeply enmeshed in the official Jewish community.
I believe the media have refused to explore the Zionist issue because it would involve a lot of squeamish self-interrogation on the part of Jews. Imagine Ted Koppel having a panel where Wolf Blitzer, Robert Siegel, David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, Richard Engel and Ed Rendell would have to explain what Zionism means to them. The acknowledgment of Jewish prominence in the Establishment, and of the power of Zionism, would make a lot of Jews uncomfortable, so the conversation is verboten.
But so long as these beliefs are not examined, and Israel and its supporters continue to play such a large role in our policymaking, the silence is bad for Jews. It allows people who are justifiably angry over our foreign policy to believe that all Jews support Israel, or suspect that we disguise our dual loyalty with misleading prescriptions about American security. It allows Zionists to seek cover for our country's blind support for Israel by stating that there is no difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism-- when there is absolutely a difference. See Jewish Voice for Peace. See Hannah Arendt. See Judith Butler.
And it allows Jews to avoid very important historical/existential questions that we really ought to be asking publicly, and urgently answering: Do I feel unsafe in America or Europe? If I feel unsafe in America what am I doing here? (A theme of Shlomo Sand's new book.) If I feel safe do I need Israel? Do I believe in the need for a Jewish state? At what price? Who is Israel making unsafe in my name?
I think all Jews should be openly debating these matters; but they won't till the belief question is raised by the mainstream media. There are signs that the ice is melting. Last week Andrew Sullivan, an influence leader if anyone is, published a mini-essay (attacking the liberal Zionist Spencer Ackerman's dream of a laser war) in which he stated that Zionism is another hurtful 20th century "ism" that has run its course, and modern political reality is inconsistent with the goal of a Jewish-majority state. Ethan Bronner (a reputed liberal Zionist who seems to understand that Zionism has lost its way) boldly gave Rami Khouri space on the front page of the New York Times during the Gaza assault to attack Zionism. On NPR Jim Fallows said bravely that there has always been a tension between Israel’s creation as a Jewish state and a democracy; you really can’t be both, he was suggesting.
As Fallows and Sullivan seem to know (and Matt Yglesias and David Remnick will surely come to profess some day, and Jonathan Cook knew years ago, and the late Ibrahim Abu-Lughod knew when he was a teenager in Jaffa) the contradiction between democracy and Jewish nationalism has been inherent in the Zionist project from the start, but has always been described as a tension rather than a contradiction so as to make Zionists and their friends feel better about their undertaking. The Nakba of 1948 continues today with the ethnic cleansing of Area C on the West Bank and the pulverizing of Gaza. But liberal Zionists have given themselves permission to dither about the destruction of Palestinian rights by calling this longstanding contradiction a tension that will be resolved when there is a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish-majority state. As if tomorrow Palestinians will gain their rights in the context of an expansionist Jewish state. As if Oslo is a more meaningful political paradigm than the Likud Party, which draws deeply on Zionist ideology and grows more rightwing by the minute.
Zionism came out of the real condition of Jews in Europe in the late 19th and 20th centuries. I can well imagine being a Zionist at other periods of Jewish history. I would have been a Zionist if I had been in Kafka’s circle in Prague in the 19-teens with the rise of anti-Semitism. I would have been a Zionist if I had been born into the family of my mother’s best friend in Berlin in the 1930s.
But I was born in America, in the 20th century. In my lifetime Zionism has been a dangerous ideology for Palestinians and for the wider Middle East. Zionism has endorsed the Iron Wall strategy of militancy on Israel’s ever-moving borders. Zionism has created a Sparta, just as Hannah Arendt predicted that it would in 1948 when she saw that Israel was born in war, and saw the purging of Palestinian refugees from the Jewish state to be.
I consider myself a liberal anti-Zionist, or a non-Zionist (because the label is less confrontational to the Zionists I am trying to wean from their mistaken belief). I like liberal traditions of personal freedom in the United States, including the tradition of tolerance of religious and ideological claims I find preposterous. These liberal principles have guaranteed my freedom as a minority in the U.S. and granted me a darn good life, including jobs in the First Amendment business and marriage to someone who is not Jewish—a marriage that could not take place in Israel where there is no civil marriage.
I am an anti-Zionist because I reject the entire religious nationalist program: I don’t see a need for a Jewish state, I don’t see Jerusalem as my home any more than Kenya, where my people came from before the temple period. I don’t subscribe to the racial theory of the Jewish people. I take America at its word. I don’t like political separation of people on an ethnic basis and first class citizenship granted to one over the other; and I see the current militant and totalitarian aspects of Israeli society as flowing from a belief system, Zionism, the way that Soviet oppressions grew out of the Politburo's interpretation of Communism.
I oppose Zionism, too, because the Israel lobby plays such a hurtful role in our foreign policy, and the Israel lobby is inherent in Zionism as it has evolved. From the beginning Zionism depended on the support of imperial powers. Herzl turned to the Kaiser and the Sultan, Weizmann turned to the British Prime Minister, Ben Gurion turned to the American president. "We became part of what is perhaps the most effective lobbying and fund-raising effort in the history of democracy," Alan Dershowitz said. Yes, and that lobby helped generate the conditions of 9/11, the Iraq War, the murders of Robert Kennedy and Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan, and the hysteria about Iran.
The sooner we have this conversation, the greater diversity we will see in the Jewish community and American foreign policy. We can transform the special relationship and isolate Israel for human rights violations and pressure it to transform itself.
When we have this conversation, liberal Zionists will be pressed to decide what they believe in more, liberalism or Zionism. Leading writers like Matthew Yglesias, Eric Alterman, Richard Wolffe, Peter Beinart and Spencer Ackerman, who have kept their liberal and Jewish nationalist dishes spinning forever in the air alongside one another without having to deal with the fait accompli of that ideology—the cruel joke that Oslo has been for the Palestinians, the prison that is Gaza-- will have to come down on the democracy side or the Jewish state side. And I am sure many will come down on the democracy side. I am sure that many will answer as I have, and say that they prefer a society where minorities have equal rights to one in which one group is privileged over another.
But we should not give them cover. We must have a real and open conversation in the American Jewish community for all to see. Are you a Zionist, and why? Do you feel unsafe in America? And what sort of unsafety have your beliefs created in a foreign land?
by Philip Weiss on December 4, 2012 147
Last week, New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan characterized me as "the anti-Zionist Jewish-American journalist who writes about the Middle East." That's my reputation; I can't take exception to her words. But when Sullivan quoted Jeffrey Goldberg, she did not say he was Jewish or a Zionist--or that he had once emigrated to Israel because he believed that America was unsafe for Jews, and served as an officer in Israel's army before coming back here and recommending Israel's militant policy toward Arabs to America.
Sullivan's double standard is indefensible, but it is typical of a standard of censorship in our journalism. American media are not talking to their readers about Zionism. They are not even attempting to describe the ideology that is at the heart of the problem in Israel and Palestine. The media are honest with their audiences about other movements of a religious character, from evangelism to opposition to stem-cell research to radical Islam. So they should be honest with them about Zionism.
Zionism is a 115-year-old movement inside Jewish life that says there is a need for a Jewish state in Palestine because Jews are unsafe in the west and Jews have a biblical connection to Palestine. Some people say that this is too complicated a concept to explain to Americans. (Norman Finkelstein joked that Zionism might as well be a hairspray and it’s irrelevant to the discussion at the New School in October). I don’t think so. Beliefs are very important; and Americans have a right to know why so many American Jews believe in the need for Israel at a time when this concept is warping our foreign policy.
It's not enough for a reporter to say that someone is pro-Israel. Zionism draws on a person's worldview and has a religious character, it supplies meaning to his or her life. It is often a core understanding that drives that person's positions in other areas (see Neoconservatism). And it is deeply enmeshed in the official Jewish community.
I believe the media have refused to explore the Zionist issue because it would involve a lot of squeamish self-interrogation on the part of Jews. Imagine Ted Koppel having a panel where Wolf Blitzer, Robert Siegel, David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, Richard Engel and Ed Rendell would have to explain what Zionism means to them. The acknowledgment of Jewish prominence in the Establishment, and of the power of Zionism, would make a lot of Jews uncomfortable, so the conversation is verboten.
But so long as these beliefs are not examined, and Israel and its supporters continue to play such a large role in our policymaking, the silence is bad for Jews. It allows people who are justifiably angry over our foreign policy to believe that all Jews support Israel, or suspect that we disguise our dual loyalty with misleading prescriptions about American security. It allows Zionists to seek cover for our country's blind support for Israel by stating that there is no difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism-- when there is absolutely a difference. See Jewish Voice for Peace. See Hannah Arendt. See Judith Butler.
And it allows Jews to avoid very important historical/existential questions that we really ought to be asking publicly, and urgently answering: Do I feel unsafe in America or Europe? If I feel unsafe in America what am I doing here? (A theme of Shlomo Sand's new book.) If I feel safe do I need Israel? Do I believe in the need for a Jewish state? At what price? Who is Israel making unsafe in my name?
I think all Jews should be openly debating these matters; but they won't till the belief question is raised by the mainstream media. There are signs that the ice is melting. Last week Andrew Sullivan, an influence leader if anyone is, published a mini-essay (attacking the liberal Zionist Spencer Ackerman's dream of a laser war) in which he stated that Zionism is another hurtful 20th century "ism" that has run its course, and modern political reality is inconsistent with the goal of a Jewish-majority state. Ethan Bronner (a reputed liberal Zionist who seems to understand that Zionism has lost its way) boldly gave Rami Khouri space on the front page of the New York Times during the Gaza assault to attack Zionism. On NPR Jim Fallows said bravely that there has always been a tension between Israel’s creation as a Jewish state and a democracy; you really can’t be both, he was suggesting.
As Fallows and Sullivan seem to know (and Matt Yglesias and David Remnick will surely come to profess some day, and Jonathan Cook knew years ago, and the late Ibrahim Abu-Lughod knew when he was a teenager in Jaffa) the contradiction between democracy and Jewish nationalism has been inherent in the Zionist project from the start, but has always been described as a tension rather than a contradiction so as to make Zionists and their friends feel better about their undertaking. The Nakba of 1948 continues today with the ethnic cleansing of Area C on the West Bank and the pulverizing of Gaza. But liberal Zionists have given themselves permission to dither about the destruction of Palestinian rights by calling this longstanding contradiction a tension that will be resolved when there is a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish-majority state. As if tomorrow Palestinians will gain their rights in the context of an expansionist Jewish state. As if Oslo is a more meaningful political paradigm than the Likud Party, which draws deeply on Zionist ideology and grows more rightwing by the minute.
Zionism came out of the real condition of Jews in Europe in the late 19th and 20th centuries. I can well imagine being a Zionist at other periods of Jewish history. I would have been a Zionist if I had been in Kafka’s circle in Prague in the 19-teens with the rise of anti-Semitism. I would have been a Zionist if I had been born into the family of my mother’s best friend in Berlin in the 1930s.
But I was born in America, in the 20th century. In my lifetime Zionism has been a dangerous ideology for Palestinians and for the wider Middle East. Zionism has endorsed the Iron Wall strategy of militancy on Israel’s ever-moving borders. Zionism has created a Sparta, just as Hannah Arendt predicted that it would in 1948 when she saw that Israel was born in war, and saw the purging of Palestinian refugees from the Jewish state to be.
I consider myself a liberal anti-Zionist, or a non-Zionist (because the label is less confrontational to the Zionists I am trying to wean from their mistaken belief). I like liberal traditions of personal freedom in the United States, including the tradition of tolerance of religious and ideological claims I find preposterous. These liberal principles have guaranteed my freedom as a minority in the U.S. and granted me a darn good life, including jobs in the First Amendment business and marriage to someone who is not Jewish—a marriage that could not take place in Israel where there is no civil marriage.
I am an anti-Zionist because I reject the entire religious nationalist program: I don’t see a need for a Jewish state, I don’t see Jerusalem as my home any more than Kenya, where my people came from before the temple period. I don’t subscribe to the racial theory of the Jewish people. I take America at its word. I don’t like political separation of people on an ethnic basis and first class citizenship granted to one over the other; and I see the current militant and totalitarian aspects of Israeli society as flowing from a belief system, Zionism, the way that Soviet oppressions grew out of the Politburo's interpretation of Communism.
I oppose Zionism, too, because the Israel lobby plays such a hurtful role in our foreign policy, and the Israel lobby is inherent in Zionism as it has evolved. From the beginning Zionism depended on the support of imperial powers. Herzl turned to the Kaiser and the Sultan, Weizmann turned to the British Prime Minister, Ben Gurion turned to the American president. "We became part of what is perhaps the most effective lobbying and fund-raising effort in the history of democracy," Alan Dershowitz said. Yes, and that lobby helped generate the conditions of 9/11, the Iraq War, the murders of Robert Kennedy and Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan, and the hysteria about Iran.
The sooner we have this conversation, the greater diversity we will see in the Jewish community and American foreign policy. We can transform the special relationship and isolate Israel for human rights violations and pressure it to transform itself.
When we have this conversation, liberal Zionists will be pressed to decide what they believe in more, liberalism or Zionism. Leading writers like Matthew Yglesias, Eric Alterman, Richard Wolffe, Peter Beinart and Spencer Ackerman, who have kept their liberal and Jewish nationalist dishes spinning forever in the air alongside one another without having to deal with the fait accompli of that ideology—the cruel joke that Oslo has been for the Palestinians, the prison that is Gaza-- will have to come down on the democracy side or the Jewish state side. And I am sure many will come down on the democracy side. I am sure that many will answer as I have, and say that they prefer a society where minorities have equal rights to one in which one group is privileged over another.
But we should not give them cover. We must have a real and open conversation in the American Jewish community for all to see. Are you a Zionist, and why? Do you feel unsafe in America? And what sort of unsafety have your beliefs created in a foreign land?
Monday, November 26, 2012
Support Palestinian Statehood
Dear Friend,
The NY Times op-ed by Yossi Beilin, (below), makes sense. He was one of the architects of the original Oslo agreement in 1993.
For Israel NOT to support this bid shows the Likud government's disdain for the Two State outcome between the two peoples.
When it continues to oppose even an observer status for Palestinians in the UN, it means Israel will eventually be seen as One State, obligated to give full rights to All Residents. Is this what the Likud government wants? I don't think so.
To give no support to the Fatah-led Palestinians is to further embolden HAMAS in Gaza as the only true change agents for Palestinians. I don't think Israel wants to do that either. The US at least, needs to support the nonviolent Mahmud Abbas and his bid for non-observer status in the UN.
This might even show the US is willing to open up a little "day light" between Israel and the US.
And we should WANT reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, not their continued division. We urge their reconcilation. Hopefully, Hamas (in Gaza) will have learned a thing or two from the new Egyptian government about pragmatism. Hamas needs to give up its intransigence in "not recognizing" Israel. Hamas and Fatah (Gaza authority and West Bank authority) need to agree to deal with Israel as One Entity, not two. As long as Hamas and Fatah are divided, Israel has a good excuse in not dealing with Palestinian claims as one people. JRK
November 25, 2012
Support Palestinian Statehood
By YOSSI BEILIN
TEL AVIV
THE cease-fire that ended the latest round of violence between Israel and the Palestinians has enhanced the popularity of the militant group Hamas. This extremist organization has become the only interlocutor for the Arab world, for the West and, indirectly, for Israel. But Hamas refuses to recognize Israel’s existence or to negotiate with Israelis. Meanwhile, the pragmatic Palestinian Authority, led by Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party, is rapidly losing legitimacy and Israel’s recent strikes on Gaza will only weaken it further. Negotiating with Hamas may secure a lull, but Hamas cannot be a partner for peace.
If the world wants to express support for the Palestinian party that recognizes Israel, seeks to avoid violence, and genuinely wishes to reach a peace agreement in which a Palestinian state exists alongside — not instead of — Israel, it will have its chance later this week when Mr. Abbas makes his bid for recognition of Palestinian statehood before the United Nations. If American and Israeli opposition to a Palestinian bid continues, it could serve as a mortal blow to Mr. Abbas, and end up being a prize that enhances the power and legitimacy of Hamas.
It is paradoxical that Israel’s current government is so vehemently opposed to Mr. Abbas’s bid for recognition. After all, it was 65 years ago this week, on Nov. 29, 1947, that the Palestinians and their friends in the Arab world expressly rejected United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, which recognized the need to establish a Jewish state alongside an Arab state in the former British Mandate territory of Palestine.
Now, the Palestinians are admitting their mistake and asking the same assembly to recognize a state of Palestine alongside Israel, and requesting that the boundaries of their state be determined as a result of negotiations with Israel. Meanwhile, Israel’s right-wing parties — which in 1993 rejected the Oslo Accords that envisaged Israeli withdrawal from parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the establishment of Palestinian autonomy in those areas — are now using, and abusing, that same agreement to prevent Palestinian statehood.
This week’s request wouldn’t be taking place if both sides had abided by the Oslo Accords’ original time frame, if Israel’s peacemaking prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, hadn’t been assassinated in 1995, and if we’d reached a permanent agreement by May 1999, as initially envisioned.
Since Rabin’s assassination, there has been little progress toward ending the conflict. No proper negotiations have taken place for four years. And because Mr. Abbas has committed to the principles of nonviolence, diplomatic means, like the statehood bid, are his only way of putting Palestinians back on the global agenda. In retaliation, the Israeli Foreign Ministry is now threatening to nullify the Oslo Accords, if the world recognizes a Palestinian state. This is preposterous.
The Oslo Accords have allowed Israel’s right-wing government to hide behind an interim agreement that, for almost 20 years, has permitted Israel to continue the expansion of settlements in the West Bank; to rid itself of the responsibility of day-to-day management in the Occupied Territories; to save itself the costs of occupation (as donor countries are financing the Palestinian budget); and to benefit from cooperation with Palestinian security forces. There is no chance that Israel will nullify the accords.
The claim that Palestinians are violating the Oslo agreement by presenting their proposal to the General Assembly is completely unfounded. The topic of Palestinian statehood was never one of the five issues (Jerusalem’s status, the fate of refugees, security arrangements, borders and settlements) that were considered “final status” issues in the 1993 Oslo accord. The Palestinians chose not to mention the issue of a state, as they saw self-determination as a basic right for their people; and it was convenient back then for Israel not to address the topic.
Moreover, Mr. Abbas has clarified that if the General Assembly decides to recognize a Palestinian state, he would agree to negotiations with Israel’s government without preconditions, a move that is in both America’s and Israel’s interests. The only difference is that these negotiations would take place between two internationally recognized states.
President Obama and Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, should think twice before rejecting Mr. Abbas’s request. Blocking his bid for statehood will only empower extremists further.
There is no reason for the United States to oppose Mr. Abbas’s move, pressure the Palestinians not to raise this issue, or threaten to freeze their budget.
And Israel has no reason to wage a diplomatic war against the Palestinian appeal. Rather, Mr. Netanyahu should be the first to recognize a Palestinian state and Mr. Obama the last to prevent it.
Yossi Beilin, an architect of the Oslo Accords, has served as Israel’s deputy foreign minister and minister of justice.
The NY Times op-ed by Yossi Beilin, (below), makes sense. He was one of the architects of the original Oslo agreement in 1993.
For Israel NOT to support this bid shows the Likud government's disdain for the Two State outcome between the two peoples.
When it continues to oppose even an observer status for Palestinians in the UN, it means Israel will eventually be seen as One State, obligated to give full rights to All Residents. Is this what the Likud government wants? I don't think so.
To give no support to the Fatah-led Palestinians is to further embolden HAMAS in Gaza as the only true change agents for Palestinians. I don't think Israel wants to do that either. The US at least, needs to support the nonviolent Mahmud Abbas and his bid for non-observer status in the UN.
This might even show the US is willing to open up a little "day light" between Israel and the US.
And we should WANT reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, not their continued division. We urge their reconcilation. Hopefully, Hamas (in Gaza) will have learned a thing or two from the new Egyptian government about pragmatism. Hamas needs to give up its intransigence in "not recognizing" Israel. Hamas and Fatah (Gaza authority and West Bank authority) need to agree to deal with Israel as One Entity, not two. As long as Hamas and Fatah are divided, Israel has a good excuse in not dealing with Palestinian claims as one people. JRK
November 25, 2012
Support Palestinian Statehood
By YOSSI BEILIN
TEL AVIV
THE cease-fire that ended the latest round of violence between Israel and the Palestinians has enhanced the popularity of the militant group Hamas. This extremist organization has become the only interlocutor for the Arab world, for the West and, indirectly, for Israel. But Hamas refuses to recognize Israel’s existence or to negotiate with Israelis. Meanwhile, the pragmatic Palestinian Authority, led by Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party, is rapidly losing legitimacy and Israel’s recent strikes on Gaza will only weaken it further. Negotiating with Hamas may secure a lull, but Hamas cannot be a partner for peace.
If the world wants to express support for the Palestinian party that recognizes Israel, seeks to avoid violence, and genuinely wishes to reach a peace agreement in which a Palestinian state exists alongside — not instead of — Israel, it will have its chance later this week when Mr. Abbas makes his bid for recognition of Palestinian statehood before the United Nations. If American and Israeli opposition to a Palestinian bid continues, it could serve as a mortal blow to Mr. Abbas, and end up being a prize that enhances the power and legitimacy of Hamas.
It is paradoxical that Israel’s current government is so vehemently opposed to Mr. Abbas’s bid for recognition. After all, it was 65 years ago this week, on Nov. 29, 1947, that the Palestinians and their friends in the Arab world expressly rejected United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, which recognized the need to establish a Jewish state alongside an Arab state in the former British Mandate territory of Palestine.
Now, the Palestinians are admitting their mistake and asking the same assembly to recognize a state of Palestine alongside Israel, and requesting that the boundaries of their state be determined as a result of negotiations with Israel. Meanwhile, Israel’s right-wing parties — which in 1993 rejected the Oslo Accords that envisaged Israeli withdrawal from parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the establishment of Palestinian autonomy in those areas — are now using, and abusing, that same agreement to prevent Palestinian statehood.
This week’s request wouldn’t be taking place if both sides had abided by the Oslo Accords’ original time frame, if Israel’s peacemaking prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, hadn’t been assassinated in 1995, and if we’d reached a permanent agreement by May 1999, as initially envisioned.
Since Rabin’s assassination, there has been little progress toward ending the conflict. No proper negotiations have taken place for four years. And because Mr. Abbas has committed to the principles of nonviolence, diplomatic means, like the statehood bid, are his only way of putting Palestinians back on the global agenda. In retaliation, the Israeli Foreign Ministry is now threatening to nullify the Oslo Accords, if the world recognizes a Palestinian state. This is preposterous.
The Oslo Accords have allowed Israel’s right-wing government to hide behind an interim agreement that, for almost 20 years, has permitted Israel to continue the expansion of settlements in the West Bank; to rid itself of the responsibility of day-to-day management in the Occupied Territories; to save itself the costs of occupation (as donor countries are financing the Palestinian budget); and to benefit from cooperation with Palestinian security forces. There is no chance that Israel will nullify the accords.
The claim that Palestinians are violating the Oslo agreement by presenting their proposal to the General Assembly is completely unfounded. The topic of Palestinian statehood was never one of the five issues (Jerusalem’s status, the fate of refugees, security arrangements, borders and settlements) that were considered “final status” issues in the 1993 Oslo accord. The Palestinians chose not to mention the issue of a state, as they saw self-determination as a basic right for their people; and it was convenient back then for Israel not to address the topic.
Moreover, Mr. Abbas has clarified that if the General Assembly decides to recognize a Palestinian state, he would agree to negotiations with Israel’s government without preconditions, a move that is in both America’s and Israel’s interests. The only difference is that these negotiations would take place between two internationally recognized states.
President Obama and Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, should think twice before rejecting Mr. Abbas’s request. Blocking his bid for statehood will only empower extremists further.
There is no reason for the United States to oppose Mr. Abbas’s move, pressure the Palestinians not to raise this issue, or threaten to freeze their budget.
And Israel has no reason to wage a diplomatic war against the Palestinian appeal. Rather, Mr. Netanyahu should be the first to recognize a Palestinian state and Mr. Obama the last to prevent it.
Yossi Beilin, an architect of the Oslo Accords, has served as Israel’s deputy foreign minister and minister of justice.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Crossing to The Other Side
Dear Friend,
The HASP class (on Isr/Pal) is going well. We're uncovering the existing realities and those seeking to create new realities.
Just today I received (and am passing on to you here), an encouraging word from Michael Fox, an intern with Salim Munayer of MUSALAHA. MUSALAHA is about bringing understanding and reconciliation between israelis and Palestinians, often not a very high priority in Isr/Pal these days (how much better to insist on the Status Quo, which is going nowhere).
Read on. Respectfully yours, JRK for FPI
This past month has been a blessing with travels and activities here at Musalaha. Just a few weeks ago, some of our Israeli and Palestinian young adults headed to north for camping on the Sea of Galilee.
“For the evening devotional, Ronit, our young adult’s coordinator shared from Mark 4:35-41.In the passage, Jesus was looking out at the Sea of Galilee near Tiberius, the exact same place where we were gathered together.Jesus gathered his close disciples on a boat, and told them “Let’s go to the other side.” (Mark 4:35, NIV) She pointed out that although the lake is small (with this “other side” easily visible from the shore), at the time of Jesus it created and represented a cultural boundary.Jesus and his followers were on the Jewish side, but in crossing over, they would have come to Gadara, a Greek city. Thus, in calling the disciplines on a journey across the lake, Jesus in his Jewishness was moving into a territory outside his ethnic comfort zone. In the next chapter, we see why he was going – to bring an act of healing to a man possessed by demons.The disciples would have been deeply reluctant to leave what was familiar to them, and come to a cultural context they did not relate to, to a group of people they knew only as foreigners and enemies.
As their boat journeyed across this boundary, Jesus and his disciples encountered a storm.This was related to ways in which boundary crossing often creates storms. It is often uncomfortable and frightening.When we try to reach out to the “other,” we will frequently encounter obstacles, potential for misunderstanding, as the process of reconciling with someone gets out of our control. We began this lesson with a discussion of prejudicial thoughts the Israelis and Palestinians direct against each other, making us think concretely about all the “storms” that can arise when we try to engage in the simple act of forming a relationship with someone we have been conditioned to think of as an “enemy.”
As the storm raged, his fearful disciples waked Jesus up. He responded, first with frustration, and then by speaking “peace” over the waves. In the same way, all the tensions and “storms” that arise from boundary crossing can be overcome as we are empowered by a sense of inner peace, a “rest and confidence” that comes from him, and has the ability to conquer fear.
Although I have only been in this region a brief time, I have observed firsthand many experiences in which reconciliation is badly needed, ways in which both the government and the societies work create a system of segregation that maintains a status quo of mutual hatred and mistrust, and makes it difficult for people from different sides to interact with each other. Thus, I found deep encouragement in this reminder to have hope as I am seeking to follow Christ. The fruits of work for reconciliation may not be easy, but because I have Yeshua (Jesus) with me in the storms that arise, I can have the freedom from fear needed to work for God’s heart for reconciliation.
By Michael Fox
Musalaha Intern
The HASP class (on Isr/Pal) is going well. We're uncovering the existing realities and those seeking to create new realities.
Just today I received (and am passing on to you here), an encouraging word from Michael Fox, an intern with Salim Munayer of MUSALAHA. MUSALAHA is about bringing understanding and reconciliation between israelis and Palestinians, often not a very high priority in Isr/Pal these days (how much better to insist on the Status Quo, which is going nowhere).
Read on. Respectfully yours, JRK for FPI
This past month has been a blessing with travels and activities here at Musalaha. Just a few weeks ago, some of our Israeli and Palestinian young adults headed to north for camping on the Sea of Galilee.
“For the evening devotional, Ronit, our young adult’s coordinator shared from Mark 4:35-41.In the passage, Jesus was looking out at the Sea of Galilee near Tiberius, the exact same place where we were gathered together.Jesus gathered his close disciples on a boat, and told them “Let’s go to the other side.” (Mark 4:35, NIV) She pointed out that although the lake is small (with this “other side” easily visible from the shore), at the time of Jesus it created and represented a cultural boundary.Jesus and his followers were on the Jewish side, but in crossing over, they would have come to Gadara, a Greek city. Thus, in calling the disciplines on a journey across the lake, Jesus in his Jewishness was moving into a territory outside his ethnic comfort zone. In the next chapter, we see why he was going – to bring an act of healing to a man possessed by demons.The disciples would have been deeply reluctant to leave what was familiar to them, and come to a cultural context they did not relate to, to a group of people they knew only as foreigners and enemies.
As their boat journeyed across this boundary, Jesus and his disciples encountered a storm.This was related to ways in which boundary crossing often creates storms. It is often uncomfortable and frightening.When we try to reach out to the “other,” we will frequently encounter obstacles, potential for misunderstanding, as the process of reconciling with someone gets out of our control. We began this lesson with a discussion of prejudicial thoughts the Israelis and Palestinians direct against each other, making us think concretely about all the “storms” that can arise when we try to engage in the simple act of forming a relationship with someone we have been conditioned to think of as an “enemy.”
As the storm raged, his fearful disciples waked Jesus up. He responded, first with frustration, and then by speaking “peace” over the waves. In the same way, all the tensions and “storms” that arise from boundary crossing can be overcome as we are empowered by a sense of inner peace, a “rest and confidence” that comes from him, and has the ability to conquer fear.
Although I have only been in this region a brief time, I have observed firsthand many experiences in which reconciliation is badly needed, ways in which both the government and the societies work create a system of segregation that maintains a status quo of mutual hatred and mistrust, and makes it difficult for people from different sides to interact with each other. Thus, I found deep encouragement in this reminder to have hope as I am seeking to follow Christ. The fruits of work for reconciliation may not be easy, but because I have Yeshua (Jesus) with me in the storms that arise, I can have the freedom from fear needed to work for God’s heart for reconciliation.
By Michael Fox
Musalaha Intern
Monday, October 29, 2012
Kairos USA Applauds Letter Initiative!
Dear Friend of Palestinians and Israelis,
I'm ramping up for take-off this Wednesday at HASP. Sixty-three (63) persons (college and university professionals from the Holland, MI area) are enrolled in the class on Kairos USA (an American Christian response to Palestinian Christians' call for help)
It is not hard to see why Kairos USA, and the Isr/Pal Mission Network (I/PMN - PCUSA) are excited by the actions of the 15 heads of (mainline) denominations to call US military assistance to Israel to account. I applaud their efforts as well, and desire many to join them in writing our congress men and women, to change the culture in Washington, D.C. I'd like to think that US lock-step support of any and everything Israel wishes to do in the occupied territories will end. Criticism of Israel will have to be permitted. The automatic accusation that it is "Anti-Semitic" will not hold up any longer.
KUSA seeks to mobilize ecumenical and evangelical Christians to take decisive actions to End the Occupation of Palestinian land, and the abuses attendant to that Occupation.
Below, is an assessment by Rami Kouri, held in high regard by long-time observers and activists in Isr/Pal, an editor of the Daily Star in Beirut, Lebanon.
Ethical Activism Amid Politics as Usual
by Rami G. Khouri
BOSTON -- Two very different ways for the United States to deal with Arabs and Israelis were on show last week in the United States. The contrast was stunning between the televised debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in which “I Love Israel more than You Love Israel” was the background theme song that permeated most discussions of issues, and a letter to Congress by 15 American religious leaders asking for aid to Israel to be assessed according to law-based human rights standards that Washington applies around the world.
The tilt towards Israeli views at the top of American politics is nothing new, and therefore is not surprising or even meaningful; it is the way politics works in Washington, where Israel usually can expect 90 percent or more of Congress to blindly support it, regardless of the morality, legality or consequences of Israel’s actions. The letter by the 15 church leaders is new, however, and therefore significant, because it reflects a growing recent trend to demand that the American government, churches and others treat Israel like they treat other nations, rather than allow Israel to live by a separate set of rules.
The 15 religious leaders represent many major faith groups in the U.S., including Presbyterians, Evangelical Lutherans, United Methodists, the National Council of Churches, the American Friends Service Committee, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Orthodox Peace Fellowship, American Baptist Churches, United Church of Christ, and others.
They stress their evenhanded commitment “to support both Israelis and Palestinians in their desire to live in peace and well-being,” and state that,
“[I]t is our moral responsibility to question the continuation of unconditional U.S. financial assistance to the government of Israel. Realizing a just and lasting peace will require this accountability, as continued U.S. military assistance to Israel -- offered without conditions or accountability -- will only serve to sustain the status quo and Israel’s military occupation of the Palestinian territories. We request, therefore, that Congress hold Israel accountable to these standards by making the disbursement of U.S. military assistance to Israel contingent on the Israeli government’s compliance with applicable U.S. laws and policies…” particularly in the realm of human rights issues and the use of American-supplied weapons.
Holding Israelis and Palestinians alike responsible for the prolonged violence in the region, the church leaders state that “unconditional U.S. military assistance to Israel has contributed to deteriorating conditions in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories which threaten to lead the region further away from the realization of a just peace. Furthermore, such aid sustains the conflict and undermines the long-term security interests of both Israelis and Palestinians.”
They ask for an immediate investigation into possible violations by Israel of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act and the U.S. Arms Export Control Act, which prohibit assistance to any country which engages in a consistent pattern of human rights violations and limit the use of U.S. weapons to “internal security” or “legitimate self-defense.”
They urge Congress to hold hearings to examine Israel’s compliance, and request regular reporting on compliance and the withholding of military aid for non-compliance. They base this call in part on the 2011 U.S. State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices which details widespread Israeli human rights violations committed against Palestinian civilians, many of which involve the misuse of U.S.-supplied weapons (including separate and unequal legal systems for Palestinians and settlers, confiscation of Palestinian land and natural resources for the benefit of settlers, and violence by settlers against Palestinians).
The letter and the position of the churches it reflects are significant for several reasons. The most important is that this approach brings together American values, laws and foreign policy positions in a manner that the U.S. government itself often fails to do. Its call for a review of foreign aid policies on the basis of American legal requirements is a position that most Americans would support. It also clearly affirms that Israelis and Palestinians alike should have the same rights to peace, security and well-being, pre-empting the usual Israeli outcry that such demands for legal compliance by Israel are acts of reflexive anti-Semitism or some other twisted view.
These three elements demand that American foreign policy reflect American legal and ethical principles. They are also driven by concerns at the grassroots by ordinary American men and women who dislike how the pro-Israeli tilt in Washington has disfigured the integrity of faith-based values and legal dictates in the United States. This combination of ethics, law and activism, which are anchored in mainstream America, causes real problems for the pro-Israel lobbies and associated political thugs in Washington whose intimidating impact centers on politicians in the capital who often value incumbency over legality or morality. That is how politicians behave. But now, in response to the excesses of that process, we have a refreshing example of how faith leaders behave to redress the ethical imbalances that define American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large of The Daily Star , and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon. You can follow him @ramikhouri.
Copyright © 2012 Rami G. Khouri -- distributed by Agence Global
I'm ramping up for take-off this Wednesday at HASP. Sixty-three (63) persons (college and university professionals from the Holland, MI area) are enrolled in the class on Kairos USA (an American Christian response to Palestinian Christians' call for help)
It is not hard to see why Kairos USA, and the Isr/Pal Mission Network (I/PMN - PCUSA) are excited by the actions of the 15 heads of (mainline) denominations to call US military assistance to Israel to account. I applaud their efforts as well, and desire many to join them in writing our congress men and women, to change the culture in Washington, D.C. I'd like to think that US lock-step support of any and everything Israel wishes to do in the occupied territories will end. Criticism of Israel will have to be permitted. The automatic accusation that it is "Anti-Semitic" will not hold up any longer.
KUSA seeks to mobilize ecumenical and evangelical Christians to take decisive actions to End the Occupation of Palestinian land, and the abuses attendant to that Occupation.
Below, is an assessment by Rami Kouri, held in high regard by long-time observers and activists in Isr/Pal, an editor of the Daily Star in Beirut, Lebanon.
Ethical Activism Amid Politics as Usual
by Rami G. Khouri
BOSTON -- Two very different ways for the United States to deal with Arabs and Israelis were on show last week in the United States. The contrast was stunning between the televised debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in which “I Love Israel more than You Love Israel” was the background theme song that permeated most discussions of issues, and a letter to Congress by 15 American religious leaders asking for aid to Israel to be assessed according to law-based human rights standards that Washington applies around the world.
The tilt towards Israeli views at the top of American politics is nothing new, and therefore is not surprising or even meaningful; it is the way politics works in Washington, where Israel usually can expect 90 percent or more of Congress to blindly support it, regardless of the morality, legality or consequences of Israel’s actions. The letter by the 15 church leaders is new, however, and therefore significant, because it reflects a growing recent trend to demand that the American government, churches and others treat Israel like they treat other nations, rather than allow Israel to live by a separate set of rules.
The 15 religious leaders represent many major faith groups in the U.S., including Presbyterians, Evangelical Lutherans, United Methodists, the National Council of Churches, the American Friends Service Committee, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Orthodox Peace Fellowship, American Baptist Churches, United Church of Christ, and others.
They stress their evenhanded commitment “to support both Israelis and Palestinians in their desire to live in peace and well-being,” and state that,
“[I]t is our moral responsibility to question the continuation of unconditional U.S. financial assistance to the government of Israel. Realizing a just and lasting peace will require this accountability, as continued U.S. military assistance to Israel -- offered without conditions or accountability -- will only serve to sustain the status quo and Israel’s military occupation of the Palestinian territories. We request, therefore, that Congress hold Israel accountable to these standards by making the disbursement of U.S. military assistance to Israel contingent on the Israeli government’s compliance with applicable U.S. laws and policies…” particularly in the realm of human rights issues and the use of American-supplied weapons.
Holding Israelis and Palestinians alike responsible for the prolonged violence in the region, the church leaders state that “unconditional U.S. military assistance to Israel has contributed to deteriorating conditions in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories which threaten to lead the region further away from the realization of a just peace. Furthermore, such aid sustains the conflict and undermines the long-term security interests of both Israelis and Palestinians.”
They ask for an immediate investigation into possible violations by Israel of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act and the U.S. Arms Export Control Act, which prohibit assistance to any country which engages in a consistent pattern of human rights violations and limit the use of U.S. weapons to “internal security” or “legitimate self-defense.”
They urge Congress to hold hearings to examine Israel’s compliance, and request regular reporting on compliance and the withholding of military aid for non-compliance. They base this call in part on the 2011 U.S. State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices which details widespread Israeli human rights violations committed against Palestinian civilians, many of which involve the misuse of U.S.-supplied weapons (including separate and unequal legal systems for Palestinians and settlers, confiscation of Palestinian land and natural resources for the benefit of settlers, and violence by settlers against Palestinians).
The letter and the position of the churches it reflects are significant for several reasons. The most important is that this approach brings together American values, laws and foreign policy positions in a manner that the U.S. government itself often fails to do. Its call for a review of foreign aid policies on the basis of American legal requirements is a position that most Americans would support. It also clearly affirms that Israelis and Palestinians alike should have the same rights to peace, security and well-being, pre-empting the usual Israeli outcry that such demands for legal compliance by Israel are acts of reflexive anti-Semitism or some other twisted view.
These three elements demand that American foreign policy reflect American legal and ethical principles. They are also driven by concerns at the grassroots by ordinary American men and women who dislike how the pro-Israeli tilt in Washington has disfigured the integrity of faith-based values and legal dictates in the United States. This combination of ethics, law and activism, which are anchored in mainstream America, causes real problems for the pro-Israel lobbies and associated political thugs in Washington whose intimidating impact centers on politicians in the capital who often value incumbency over legality or morality. That is how politicians behave. But now, in response to the excesses of that process, we have a refreshing example of how faith leaders behave to redress the ethical imbalances that define American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large of The Daily Star , and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon. You can follow him @ramikhouri.
Copyright © 2012 Rami G. Khouri -- distributed by Agence Global
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Content with the Status Quo
Dear Friend,
Many have sent me the results of the poll showing Israeli distaste for living alongside of Palestinians. Americans are not exempt from prejudice.
It reminds the US of the prejudice many of us have against living alongside of African Americans or folks who are not "like us". It's a civil rights struggle in Isr/Pal, much like we've gone through in the US (and are still going through).
Well, here is a first hand account of what it feels like and how MITT ROMNEY AND BARACK OBAMA are ignoring it (They may not be able to "solve" it, but at least they need to confront it, it seems to me),
BTW, I was notified that 63 persons are enrolled in my upcoming class on Kairos USA in the Hope Academy of Senior Professionals, (HASP) starting next Wednesday. Be in prayer for all of us, for open minds and willing spirits. JRK
Obama and Romney need to confront, solve Israeli-Palestinian divisions
Ibrahim Abu Ta'a
The Hill (Blog)
October 22, 2012 - 12:00am
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/263343-obama-and-romney-ne...
I was born and raised in Jerusalem. Most of my work colleagues are Jewish, and despite the growing tension between Jews and Palestinians in Israel, years of working together have made us quite close. I speak Hebrew fluently, as well as my native Arabic, and I have always engaged my Jewish acquaintances with the same openness and respect I would give to anyone else.
At the annual employee appreciation party for the upscale Jerusalem hotel where I work as an accounts representative, one of my Jewish colleagues, a good friend, had too much to drink. She asked another co-worker and me to give her a ride home. When we arrived at the apartment she shares with her family, she assured us that she would be able to continue on her own. But when she exited the car, she promptly lost her balance. As we got out to help her, a group of nine Israeli-Jewish teenagers approached us and asked what was going on. We responded in Hebrew that everything was fine so they began to walk away. With a look of concern, my friend turned to speak to me. “Ibrahim,” she said, less quietly than intended, “leave them be.”
Today I know that if my name had been Avraham, and not Ibrahim, I would not have been attacked that night several weeks ago. Ibrahim is the Arabic version for the Bible’s Avraham. Nowadays, however, instead of hearing the slight variation in pronunciation, people hear Palestinian, or Jewish. And, within seconds after my friend uttered my name, I felt the pressure of a hand grab my shoulder, as eight other men joined in pummeling my body. One of my attackers struck my left leg with a heavy iron rod, shattering the bone and sending me to the ground. I remember trying to protect my face, while I faded in and out of consciousness.
I had nine pins and one metal plate surgically embedded into my leg to help it become whole again. During the period I was hospitalized, my mother visited me as often as she could. I needed and wanted her to be with me, yet a deep sense of fear engulfed me every time I knew she would come to the hospital. Would my mother be attacked? Would others hurt her simply because she is Palestinian?
This fear is new to me. One month ago I would have told my younger sisters to make as many Jewish friends as possible, to understand and experience the lives of others and to share their own lives. But I love them and I care about their safety, and I can no longer encourage them to be anything but cautious.
Israel’s political leadership speaks about Palestinians as an unfortunate demographic reality, at best, and a military threat at worst. Several recent, highly visible attacks against Palestinians, including my own, have resulted in criminal investigations and indictments, though many do not. The situation is worse in the West Bank, where almost 90 percent of cases involving Jewish settler violence against Palestinians are dropped without prosecution. Settlers move between the West Bank, Israel, and West Jerusalem with ease; we shall soon see whether West Bank impunity does too.
Those who attacked me are victims of this environment. I cannot hate them. They need rehabilitation, not punishment, and the same is true of our shared society.
I am now physically recovering. I will eventually return to my job and work side-by-side with my Palestinian and Israeli-Jewish colleagues. I realize now, however, that we are facing a much greater threat than fear of what happened to me weeks ago, and what could happen again. The threat emanates from the power of hatred, incitement, and the intolerance that is permeating Israeli society at a rapid pace.
Public statements issued by Israeli officials affirming that attacks on Palestinians qualify as terrorism are not enough. As long as Palestinians, the indigenous people of the land, continue to be cast as intruders, often by politicians and religious leaders, the number and severity of attacks will increase. The leaders of Jewish-Israeli society, and those outside of Israel who influence them, must recognize, appreciate, and affirm that we Palestinians are here to stay and not going anywhere. This land is big enough for all of us provided equal rights are extended to all.
The American presidential candidates, however, appear oblivious to the discrimination Palestinians face and the dual system of law -- what some are now calling Israeli apartheid -- that exists here. President Obama and Gov. Romney are willing to talk about Iran and Israel, but are content to put Palestinians, our rights, and our freedom, on the back burner. They talk about Egypt, Libya, and Syria and how to liberate them, but overlook that our oppression by Israel is one of the central problems gripping the Middle East today. The candidates should discuss the Israeli occupation and colonization of our land at this week's foreign policy debate in Boca Raton.
Many have sent me the results of the poll showing Israeli distaste for living alongside of Palestinians. Americans are not exempt from prejudice.
It reminds the US of the prejudice many of us have against living alongside of African Americans or folks who are not "like us". It's a civil rights struggle in Isr/Pal, much like we've gone through in the US (and are still going through).
Well, here is a first hand account of what it feels like and how MITT ROMNEY AND BARACK OBAMA are ignoring it (They may not be able to "solve" it, but at least they need to confront it, it seems to me),
BTW, I was notified that 63 persons are enrolled in my upcoming class on Kairos USA in the Hope Academy of Senior Professionals, (HASP) starting next Wednesday. Be in prayer for all of us, for open minds and willing spirits. JRK
Obama and Romney need to confront, solve Israeli-Palestinian divisions
Ibrahim Abu Ta'a
The Hill (Blog)
October 22, 2012 - 12:00am
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/263343-obama-and-romney-ne...
I was born and raised in Jerusalem. Most of my work colleagues are Jewish, and despite the growing tension between Jews and Palestinians in Israel, years of working together have made us quite close. I speak Hebrew fluently, as well as my native Arabic, and I have always engaged my Jewish acquaintances with the same openness and respect I would give to anyone else.
At the annual employee appreciation party for the upscale Jerusalem hotel where I work as an accounts representative, one of my Jewish colleagues, a good friend, had too much to drink. She asked another co-worker and me to give her a ride home. When we arrived at the apartment she shares with her family, she assured us that she would be able to continue on her own. But when she exited the car, she promptly lost her balance. As we got out to help her, a group of nine Israeli-Jewish teenagers approached us and asked what was going on. We responded in Hebrew that everything was fine so they began to walk away. With a look of concern, my friend turned to speak to me. “Ibrahim,” she said, less quietly than intended, “leave them be.”
Today I know that if my name had been Avraham, and not Ibrahim, I would not have been attacked that night several weeks ago. Ibrahim is the Arabic version for the Bible’s Avraham. Nowadays, however, instead of hearing the slight variation in pronunciation, people hear Palestinian, or Jewish. And, within seconds after my friend uttered my name, I felt the pressure of a hand grab my shoulder, as eight other men joined in pummeling my body. One of my attackers struck my left leg with a heavy iron rod, shattering the bone and sending me to the ground. I remember trying to protect my face, while I faded in and out of consciousness.
I had nine pins and one metal plate surgically embedded into my leg to help it become whole again. During the period I was hospitalized, my mother visited me as often as she could. I needed and wanted her to be with me, yet a deep sense of fear engulfed me every time I knew she would come to the hospital. Would my mother be attacked? Would others hurt her simply because she is Palestinian?
This fear is new to me. One month ago I would have told my younger sisters to make as many Jewish friends as possible, to understand and experience the lives of others and to share their own lives. But I love them and I care about their safety, and I can no longer encourage them to be anything but cautious.
Israel’s political leadership speaks about Palestinians as an unfortunate demographic reality, at best, and a military threat at worst. Several recent, highly visible attacks against Palestinians, including my own, have resulted in criminal investigations and indictments, though many do not. The situation is worse in the West Bank, where almost 90 percent of cases involving Jewish settler violence against Palestinians are dropped without prosecution. Settlers move between the West Bank, Israel, and West Jerusalem with ease; we shall soon see whether West Bank impunity does too.
Those who attacked me are victims of this environment. I cannot hate them. They need rehabilitation, not punishment, and the same is true of our shared society.
I am now physically recovering. I will eventually return to my job and work side-by-side with my Palestinian and Israeli-Jewish colleagues. I realize now, however, that we are facing a much greater threat than fear of what happened to me weeks ago, and what could happen again. The threat emanates from the power of hatred, incitement, and the intolerance that is permeating Israeli society at a rapid pace.
Public statements issued by Israeli officials affirming that attacks on Palestinians qualify as terrorism are not enough. As long as Palestinians, the indigenous people of the land, continue to be cast as intruders, often by politicians and religious leaders, the number and severity of attacks will increase. The leaders of Jewish-Israeli society, and those outside of Israel who influence them, must recognize, appreciate, and affirm that we Palestinians are here to stay and not going anywhere. This land is big enough for all of us provided equal rights are extended to all.
The American presidential candidates, however, appear oblivious to the discrimination Palestinians face and the dual system of law -- what some are now calling Israeli apartheid -- that exists here. President Obama and Gov. Romney are willing to talk about Iran and Israel, but are content to put Palestinians, our rights, and our freedom, on the back burner. They talk about Egypt, Libya, and Syria and how to liberate them, but overlook that our oppression by Israel is one of the central problems gripping the Middle East today. The candidates should discuss the Israeli occupation and colonization of our land at this week's foreign policy debate in Boca Raton.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
The Binational Reality (Two Peoples living on the same land!)
Hello Dear Friend,
The following editorial by the leading progressive newspaper in Israel spells out the folly of ignoring the demographic realities in the land:
There is now a slight P majority, making Israel all the more a minority nation, occupying others' territory. The editorial puts its finger exactly on the problem. (See Highlight)
The movement for "Equal Rights" for all residents in Isr/Pal is picking up steam all over the world. There is momentum building that will sweep the Status Quo away. Forces are building to "End the Occupation".
Yes, there is controversy about it. Many groups in Isr and here in the US are upset about the request by a group from CMEP (Christians for Middle East Peace), to "investigate" if Israel is misusing US military aid, not abiding by US law.
Binational reality
Haaretz (Editorial)
October 17, 2012 - 12:00am
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/binational-reality-1.470453
With the start of the election campaign, the major parties are displaying a worrying tendency to put social, economic and security issues at the top of the agenda while evading the diplomatic issue at the root of Israel's democratic identity.
As Akiva Eldar reported yesterday, according to official figures, around 5.9 million Jews and 6.1 million non-Jews live between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Thus, from the international community's point of view, there is a non-Jewish majority under Israel's control and responsibility. The unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip did not sever the enclave from its Israeli umbilical cord; in the absence of another sovereignty, international law sees Israel as the sovereign in Gaza. The Oslo Accords define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as one political entity.
In June last year, the Jewish People Policy Institute presented the forecast by demographer Sergio DellaPergola that a Palestinian majority can be expected within a few years between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. In response, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he had no interest in the demographic balance between the river and sea. "I am interested in there being a solid Jewish majority in the State of Israel, within its borders as they will be defined," he said.
But Netanyahu's refusal to resume talks with the Palestinians based on the 1967 borders and land swaps, and his support for the settlement enterprise have thwarted the attempt to define Israel's borders. The loss of faith in Israel's willingness to realize a two-state solution amplifies the Palestinian voices in the territories that want the struggle against the occupation turned into a struggle for equal political rights between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.
Under the current prime minister, who vehemently demands that the Palestinian leaders recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, a binational reality has developed in the territories under Israel's control. We should expect this grave failure to stand at the center of the election campaign.
With great folly, the Labor Party under Shelly Yacimovich has relegated this existential issue to the sidelines of the political debate. She shares responsibility for the Israeli public's loss of faith in peace and the perpetuation of the discriminatory and disastrous binational reality.
The following editorial by the leading progressive newspaper in Israel spells out the folly of ignoring the demographic realities in the land:
There is now a slight P majority, making Israel all the more a minority nation, occupying others' territory. The editorial puts its finger exactly on the problem. (See Highlight)
The movement for "Equal Rights" for all residents in Isr/Pal is picking up steam all over the world. There is momentum building that will sweep the Status Quo away. Forces are building to "End the Occupation".
Yes, there is controversy about it. Many groups in Isr and here in the US are upset about the request by a group from CMEP (Christians for Middle East Peace), to "investigate" if Israel is misusing US military aid, not abiding by US law.
Binational reality
Haaretz (Editorial)
October 17, 2012 - 12:00am
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/binational-reality-1.470453
With the start of the election campaign, the major parties are displaying a worrying tendency to put social, economic and security issues at the top of the agenda while evading the diplomatic issue at the root of Israel's democratic identity.
As Akiva Eldar reported yesterday, according to official figures, around 5.9 million Jews and 6.1 million non-Jews live between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Thus, from the international community's point of view, there is a non-Jewish majority under Israel's control and responsibility. The unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip did not sever the enclave from its Israeli umbilical cord; in the absence of another sovereignty, international law sees Israel as the sovereign in Gaza. The Oslo Accords define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as one political entity.
In June last year, the Jewish People Policy Institute presented the forecast by demographer Sergio DellaPergola that a Palestinian majority can be expected within a few years between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. In response, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he had no interest in the demographic balance between the river and sea. "I am interested in there being a solid Jewish majority in the State of Israel, within its borders as they will be defined," he said.
But Netanyahu's refusal to resume talks with the Palestinians based on the 1967 borders and land swaps, and his support for the settlement enterprise have thwarted the attempt to define Israel's borders. The loss of faith in Israel's willingness to realize a two-state solution amplifies the Palestinian voices in the territories that want the struggle against the occupation turned into a struggle for equal political rights between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.
Under the current prime minister, who vehemently demands that the Palestinian leaders recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, a binational reality has developed in the territories under Israel's control. We should expect this grave failure to stand at the center of the election campaign.
With great folly, the Labor Party under Shelly Yacimovich has relegated this existential issue to the sidelines of the political debate. She shares responsibility for the Israeli public's loss of faith in peace and the perpetuation of the discriminatory and disastrous binational reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)