Dear Friend,
Please be part of the US groundswell of OPPOSITION to a military "strike" against Syria! Read or scan the articles that have been assembled in this PCUSA mailing I'm forwarding to you (PCUSA responds to Syria). Middle East followers of Jesus are uniformly AGAINST unilateral US military intervention in this civil war!
Here is the relevant material from the Presbyterian Church Office of Public Witness:
from the Washington Office of Public Witness
The U.S. Congress is expected to vote early next week on authorization of military force against Syria. While the use of chemical weapons should be unequivocally condemned, regardless of who perpetrated the attack, it is also the case that many states have helped fuel the armed conflict in Syria by sending weapons to the region. Instead of exacerbating the conflict with military strikes, the United States should seek an international agreement on an arms embargo and back dialogue that alone can end the horrific violence.
As Christians we are called to be disciples of peace.
Contact your Senators and Representative today to oppose U.S. military action against Syria. Tell them to:
1.Vote against an authorization of military force against Syria. U.S. military action would mean the U.S. government is taking sides in a civil war, would cause further destruction, and would push the Syrian people further into relentless civil war.
2.Support an alternative response to the conflict through vigorous peace negotiations among the Syrian government, rebel groups and civil society; provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Syria fleeing the conflict; and work through the United Nations and the International Criminal Court to bring those responsible for use of chemical weapons to justice.
We must use extreme caution in implementing policies that might escalate the conflict. Limited engagement is never truly limited and any military option the President might choose will result in the deaths of more Syrians, including innocent civilians.
Please urge your members of congress to have the courage shown by other strong leaders in the past to hold off on military action and renew the efforts for a diplomatic solution. We must work with the United Nations and other governments to contain the violence, restore stability in the region, provide humanitarian assistance, and encourage the building of an inclusive society in Syria that protects the rights of all its citizens.
It is only through nonviolent means that we can hope for radical change that leads to a just peace.
JRK again: Deeper US military involvement in Syria would perhaps spread to our region (I/P). There is no international backing for this unilateral move by the US. There will be unintended consequences, fighting violence with more violence, using extremism only inflames extremists (not tame them, as asserted by Sec. Kerry!)
There is no good outcome for this action. There are other ways to do the right thing. JRK for FPI
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Monday, August 12, 2013
A Sculpture for our Time. 5th report from the Ground
Dear Friend,
The next round in the "talks" is scheduled for this Wednesday, in Jerusalem.
Here are my thoughts. Thanks for your interest in our region. Stay informed. Inform others in your world.
A Sculpture for our Time: (5th Report from the Ground)
August 12, 2013, John R. Kleinheksel Sr.
Some time ago, Sharon and I visited the Art Institute in Chicago. In the Roger McCormick Memorial Center we found “The Solitude of the Soul”, a huge sculpture by Lorado Taft (1860-1936).
Four figures in his sculpture are only partly freed from the marble. They are either side by side or back to back. The figures are holding hands or draped over each other, yet not looking at each other.
An official interpretation, given at the sculpture, is that even though we can be physically close, it is still possible to be emotionally disconnected. “The thought is the eternally present fact that however closely we may be thrown together by circumstances. . . . we are unknown to each other”.
Beginning again this Wednesday, representatives of the Palestinian and Israeli leadership will be physically close, but emotionally disconnected. Israelis still fear Palestinians will never accept them in the region while Palestinians suspect that Israelis want to dominate all of the land. Each is frozen in the marble, draped over each other, but not looking each other in the eye.
One of the deeply held hopes of the Palestinians is that Israelis acknowledge their responsibility for creating the refugee problem and all that goes with it. One of the deeply held expectations of the Israelis is that Palestinians acknowledge their responsibility for terrorizing Israeli civilians with reprisal attacks filling them with security fears. Israel is in denial and Palestinians are running out of patience.
There is evidence the Palestinians have officially stopped campaigns of violence, even in the Hamas- governed prison camp of Gaza, though an occasional rogue rocket heads toward Sedorot settlement. There is no evidence that Israel has officially stopped its campaign to dominate the whole country. On the contrary, the alienation of affection is more acute especially now as Israel has, on Sunday, August 11, published bids on the construction of about 1200 housing units in seven different settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, on land Palestinians previously lived on, on which they want to establish their own State. And this development, just three days before the start-up of official “negotiations”, this time in Jerusalem.
As the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on August 9, 2013, three Israeli leaders have disagreed with the Housing Department decision.
Finance Minister Yair Lapid on Sunday slammed the decision . . . saying that solutions to the housing crisis must be implemented in "desirable" areas and under the authority of the government's housing cabinet.
"Using resources intended for middle class housing in order to prove a useless defiant point to the Americans and throw a stick into the wheels of peace negotiations is wrong and ineffective for the process," Lapid said [and he is the leader of one of the parties making up the ruling coalition].
Meretz chairwoman Zahava Gal-On also lambasted the decision as a "roadside bomb rigged by the Israeli government to destroy the peace process before it has even begun. A deal with the Palestinians will not be reached as long as construction in the settlements continues.” The only way to achieve a peace accord, she added, is based on the pre-1967 cease-fire lines with land swaps and the partition of Jerusalem.
Opposition leader Shelly Yacimovich denounced the decision as “violently damaging” any international credit Israel has received for agreeing to resume peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
"Netanyahu has to decide what government he is leading – a government seeking a peace agreement or one seeking to prevent any possibility of such deal," said Yacimovich, who chairs the Labor Party. Such announcement is like "sticking a finger in the eyes of the United States, Europe, Palestinians and the majority of Israelis who want peace,” she said.
It's all pretty transparent. The Prime Minister (Mr. Netanyahu) is trying to keep both the left and right of his shaky coalition happy. Yes, we'll "talk", but we will continue to colonize ALL the land!
This is why so many of us are so deeply skeptical that underlying attitudes and behaviors have not changed enough to bring about a “new day” between the Israelis and Palestinians. Palestinians are sick of crumbs from the master’s table. Israelis are upset that the “international community” does not recognize that ancient dictum: “To the victors go the spoils”. That community wants to hold the parties to the “partition” idea of 1947/48: That is, one part for Israelis and another part (equal and autonomous) for the Palestinians. This is the old fashioned notion for which Kerry/Obama are carrying the torch. As Jonathan Cook in Nazareth puts it, (I paraphrase) these talks have as much chance of success as a snowflake in hell.
There are systemic issues to be resolved that better one-on-one relationships will not solve. But systemic issues will not be resolved until real people realize what other real people are feeling and experiencing. There are at least two peoples frozen in that gigantic marble slab. What is hidden and obscure needs to be brought out. Look me in the eye. Let me tell you what it feels like. I want to be free. Free of fear. Free to be. The Artist is still at work. Thank God for that! Faithfully yours, JRK
--
John for FPI ()
There is no PEACE without JUSTICE; there is no justice without LOVE.
The next round in the "talks" is scheduled for this Wednesday, in Jerusalem.
Here are my thoughts. Thanks for your interest in our region. Stay informed. Inform others in your world.
A Sculpture for our Time: (5th Report from the Ground)
August 12, 2013, John R. Kleinheksel Sr.
Some time ago, Sharon and I visited the Art Institute in Chicago. In the Roger McCormick Memorial Center we found “The Solitude of the Soul”, a huge sculpture by Lorado Taft (1860-1936).
Four figures in his sculpture are only partly freed from the marble. They are either side by side or back to back. The figures are holding hands or draped over each other, yet not looking at each other.
An official interpretation, given at the sculpture, is that even though we can be physically close, it is still possible to be emotionally disconnected. “The thought is the eternally present fact that however closely we may be thrown together by circumstances. . . . we are unknown to each other”.
Beginning again this Wednesday, representatives of the Palestinian and Israeli leadership will be physically close, but emotionally disconnected. Israelis still fear Palestinians will never accept them in the region while Palestinians suspect that Israelis want to dominate all of the land. Each is frozen in the marble, draped over each other, but not looking each other in the eye.
One of the deeply held hopes of the Palestinians is that Israelis acknowledge their responsibility for creating the refugee problem and all that goes with it. One of the deeply held expectations of the Israelis is that Palestinians acknowledge their responsibility for terrorizing Israeli civilians with reprisal attacks filling them with security fears. Israel is in denial and Palestinians are running out of patience.
There is evidence the Palestinians have officially stopped campaigns of violence, even in the Hamas- governed prison camp of Gaza, though an occasional rogue rocket heads toward Sedorot settlement. There is no evidence that Israel has officially stopped its campaign to dominate the whole country. On the contrary, the alienation of affection is more acute especially now as Israel has, on Sunday, August 11, published bids on the construction of about 1200 housing units in seven different settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, on land Palestinians previously lived on, on which they want to establish their own State. And this development, just three days before the start-up of official “negotiations”, this time in Jerusalem.
As the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on August 9, 2013, three Israeli leaders have disagreed with the Housing Department decision.
Finance Minister Yair Lapid on Sunday slammed the decision . . . saying that solutions to the housing crisis must be implemented in "desirable" areas and under the authority of the government's housing cabinet.
"Using resources intended for middle class housing in order to prove a useless defiant point to the Americans and throw a stick into the wheels of peace negotiations is wrong and ineffective for the process," Lapid said [and he is the leader of one of the parties making up the ruling coalition].
Meretz chairwoman Zahava Gal-On also lambasted the decision as a "roadside bomb rigged by the Israeli government to destroy the peace process before it has even begun. A deal with the Palestinians will not be reached as long as construction in the settlements continues.” The only way to achieve a peace accord, she added, is based on the pre-1967 cease-fire lines with land swaps and the partition of Jerusalem.
Opposition leader Shelly Yacimovich denounced the decision as “violently damaging” any international credit Israel has received for agreeing to resume peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
"Netanyahu has to decide what government he is leading – a government seeking a peace agreement or one seeking to prevent any possibility of such deal," said Yacimovich, who chairs the Labor Party. Such announcement is like "sticking a finger in the eyes of the United States, Europe, Palestinians and the majority of Israelis who want peace,” she said.
It's all pretty transparent. The Prime Minister (Mr. Netanyahu) is trying to keep both the left and right of his shaky coalition happy. Yes, we'll "talk", but we will continue to colonize ALL the land!
This is why so many of us are so deeply skeptical that underlying attitudes and behaviors have not changed enough to bring about a “new day” between the Israelis and Palestinians. Palestinians are sick of crumbs from the master’s table. Israelis are upset that the “international community” does not recognize that ancient dictum: “To the victors go the spoils”. That community wants to hold the parties to the “partition” idea of 1947/48: That is, one part for Israelis and another part (equal and autonomous) for the Palestinians. This is the old fashioned notion for which Kerry/Obama are carrying the torch. As Jonathan Cook in Nazareth puts it, (I paraphrase) these talks have as much chance of success as a snowflake in hell.
There are systemic issues to be resolved that better one-on-one relationships will not solve. But systemic issues will not be resolved until real people realize what other real people are feeling and experiencing. There are at least two peoples frozen in that gigantic marble slab. What is hidden and obscure needs to be brought out. Look me in the eye. Let me tell you what it feels like. I want to be free. Free of fear. Free to be. The Artist is still at work. Thank God for that! Faithfully yours, JRK
--
John for FPI (
There is no PEACE without JUSTICE; there is no justice without LOVE.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
"Talks" Resume. 4th Report from the Ground
Dear Friend,
With the next step in "talks" upcoming, I want to give you my latest "Report from the Ground", my visit to I/P from June 15-30, 2013. JRK
4th Report “from the ground”
Talks between Palestinian and Israeli “negotiators” will resume again soon, this time in Israel. The assumption is that the “Two State” solution is still possible. Within nine months we should begin to see whether a viable, autonomous, identifiable Palestinian State can be carved from the land Israel has gobbled up for itself, with borders and “land swaps” to everyone’s satisfaction.
A friend “on the ground” sent me this op-ed that appeared in Haaretz, a leading newspaper in Israel on August 4, 2013. Below is the main gist of it.
We can’t lose a democracy we never had (by Tsafi Saar)
The illusion of democracy in Israel is just one of the many illusions that we Israelis have been educated to believe.
For Israel's entire 65-year existence it has not been a democratic state. From its founding until 1966 Israel imposed martial law on the Arab communities in its territory. Since the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 until today, Israel has ruled over millions of Palestinian inhabitants in these territories – an occupied population with its basic freedoms and rights abrogated.
There has been an illusion of democracy here, or alternatively, a democracy for Jews only. . . .
These are bothersome thoughts. Is it possible that everything we were raised on, or at least most of it, is mistaken? What is the significance of this? And does asking these questions undermine the fact of our existence of here? If our existence here must be based on a strong fist, on pushing out others, on nationalism, chauvinism and militarism, then the answer is yes. But is this really the case?
In the history of Zionism there were other options besides that of Ben-Gurion-style force. For example, the path shown by professors Zvi Ben-Dor Benite and Moshe Behar in their recently published book "Modern Middle Eastern Jewish Thought: Writings on Identity, Politics, and Culture." Jewish intellectuals of Middle Eastern origin at the beginning of the 20th century warned against adopting a European arrogance to the land's inhabitants and called for respectful dialogue with them. But their words fell on deaf ears. The Brit Shalom faction of Hugo Bergmann and Gershom Scholem also proposed another way in the 1930s that was not accepted. [One could add that General Peled argued that the “victory” of 1967 would be a good opportunity for Israel to grant Palestinians their own State. That idea too, was rejected ---JRK]
The state established here was not, despite its pretensions, "the sole democracy in the Middle East." It appears that the first condition for really fixing this situation, if that is still possible, is the recognition that we did not lose democracy now. It never resided here.
Source: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.539584
The Zionism practiced by founder Ben Gurion and his successors was based on dispossessing the native people of the land, trampling on their rights and human dignity. This is the reality that must be addressed by Israelis before any substantive changes can take place.
I finally met a long-time email correspondent, Deb Reich (No More Enemies, Amazon, 2011). She met four of us in the Study Tour group in a Tel Aviv restaurant, just before we returned to the US on June 28, 2013. As an American-born Israeli Jew, she openly wonders whether the father of Zionism Theodore Herzl ever foresaw the transformation of large Arab population centers into open air prisons where upwards of 3.5 million ordinary men, women and children are warehoused indefinitely in a precarious parody of normal life, while too many jailers—ordinary Israeli Jews—carry on, expressing themselves as eternal victims.
Herzl surely never foresaw that the eventual price to be paid, for transforming Jews from downtrodden residents of ghettoes surrounded by hostile gentiles, would include creating ghettoes for gentiles-surrounded by hostile Jews (ibid, p. 117).
When she is repeatedly asked why she is not willing to point out “sins on the Palestinian side”, she responds, I say that, as an Israeli Jew, I am not responsible for their sins, only for ours (Ibid, p. 119).
Then, on p. 126 she expresses her sincere hope: I would hope that Jewish Israelis and Jews around the world will be able to see that they are making the same kind of mistake about the current meaning and future potential of the Zionist movement. Because it grew from an unsustainable premise (A land without people for a people without a land), the Zionist enterprise was destined to face a hard choice somewhere down the line: reinvent itself, or crash and burn. I am one of those who would like to see it reinvent itself and, necessarily, rename itself as well, in some generous and creative way that brings the cousins back into the family.
It appears as though Prime Minister Netanyahu is beginning to see the “handwriting on the wall” (to borrow a phrase from the Hebrew bible, the book of Daniel, chapter 5. The reality of the EU (European Union) withholding aid to the settlements in Palestinians territory has gotten his attention. (Israel is retaliating by withholding EU aid to Gaza, already being strangled with and Israeli blockade). Whether he (and his Likud party and the present ruling coalition) can confess to grievous offenses done to the native people is another matter. The Palestinians want the facts to speak for themselves. Kerry and Obama are aware of what needs to be done. The Israelis have been paying lip service to the Two State solution, but with no heart, head, hands or feet. Do we dare to hope that the US will be determined to hold both parties’ feet to the fire? What “pressure” the US might bring to bear during these “talks” remains to be seen.
Israel is caught between a rock and a hard place. Absent a viable Palestinian State, the only alternative is a bi-national State with Palestinians gaining more citizenship rights (which will threaten the Jewish character of the present Israeli State). Bibi surely doesn’t want that. What will he (and Israel) do?
Especially since 1967, we have written them a blank check to be filled in as they see fit. Will that ever change? We will learn soon enough. Faithfully yours, John Kleinheksel, FPI, (Friends of Palestinians and Israelis) www.friendsofPalestiniansandIsraelis.blogspot.com.
There is no PEACE without JUSTICE; there is no justice without LOVE.
With the next step in "talks" upcoming, I want to give you my latest "Report from the Ground", my visit to I/P from June 15-30, 2013. JRK
4th Report “from the ground”
Talks between Palestinian and Israeli “negotiators” will resume again soon, this time in Israel. The assumption is that the “Two State” solution is still possible. Within nine months we should begin to see whether a viable, autonomous, identifiable Palestinian State can be carved from the land Israel has gobbled up for itself, with borders and “land swaps” to everyone’s satisfaction.
A friend “on the ground” sent me this op-ed that appeared in Haaretz, a leading newspaper in Israel on August 4, 2013. Below is the main gist of it.
We can’t lose a democracy we never had (by Tsafi Saar)
The illusion of democracy in Israel is just one of the many illusions that we Israelis have been educated to believe.
For Israel's entire 65-year existence it has not been a democratic state. From its founding until 1966 Israel imposed martial law on the Arab communities in its territory. Since the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 until today, Israel has ruled over millions of Palestinian inhabitants in these territories – an occupied population with its basic freedoms and rights abrogated.
There has been an illusion of democracy here, or alternatively, a democracy for Jews only. . . .
These are bothersome thoughts. Is it possible that everything we were raised on, or at least most of it, is mistaken? What is the significance of this? And does asking these questions undermine the fact of our existence of here? If our existence here must be based on a strong fist, on pushing out others, on nationalism, chauvinism and militarism, then the answer is yes. But is this really the case?
In the history of Zionism there were other options besides that of Ben-Gurion-style force. For example, the path shown by professors Zvi Ben-Dor Benite and Moshe Behar in their recently published book "Modern Middle Eastern Jewish Thought: Writings on Identity, Politics, and Culture." Jewish intellectuals of Middle Eastern origin at the beginning of the 20th century warned against adopting a European arrogance to the land's inhabitants and called for respectful dialogue with them. But their words fell on deaf ears. The Brit Shalom faction of Hugo Bergmann and Gershom Scholem also proposed another way in the 1930s that was not accepted. [One could add that General Peled argued that the “victory” of 1967 would be a good opportunity for Israel to grant Palestinians their own State. That idea too, was rejected ---JRK]
The state established here was not, despite its pretensions, "the sole democracy in the Middle East." It appears that the first condition for really fixing this situation, if that is still possible, is the recognition that we did not lose democracy now. It never resided here.
Source: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.539584
The Zionism practiced by founder Ben Gurion and his successors was based on dispossessing the native people of the land, trampling on their rights and human dignity. This is the reality that must be addressed by Israelis before any substantive changes can take place.
I finally met a long-time email correspondent, Deb Reich (No More Enemies, Amazon, 2011). She met four of us in the Study Tour group in a Tel Aviv restaurant, just before we returned to the US on June 28, 2013. As an American-born Israeli Jew, she openly wonders whether the father of Zionism Theodore Herzl ever foresaw the transformation of large Arab population centers into open air prisons where upwards of 3.5 million ordinary men, women and children are warehoused indefinitely in a precarious parody of normal life, while too many jailers—ordinary Israeli Jews—carry on, expressing themselves as eternal victims.
Herzl surely never foresaw that the eventual price to be paid, for transforming Jews from downtrodden residents of ghettoes surrounded by hostile gentiles, would include creating ghettoes for gentiles-surrounded by hostile Jews (ibid, p. 117).
When she is repeatedly asked why she is not willing to point out “sins on the Palestinian side”, she responds, I say that, as an Israeli Jew, I am not responsible for their sins, only for ours (Ibid, p. 119).
Then, on p. 126 she expresses her sincere hope: I would hope that Jewish Israelis and Jews around the world will be able to see that they are making the same kind of mistake about the current meaning and future potential of the Zionist movement. Because it grew from an unsustainable premise (A land without people for a people without a land), the Zionist enterprise was destined to face a hard choice somewhere down the line: reinvent itself, or crash and burn. I am one of those who would like to see it reinvent itself and, necessarily, rename itself as well, in some generous and creative way that brings the cousins back into the family.
It appears as though Prime Minister Netanyahu is beginning to see the “handwriting on the wall” (to borrow a phrase from the Hebrew bible, the book of Daniel, chapter 5. The reality of the EU (European Union) withholding aid to the settlements in Palestinians territory has gotten his attention. (Israel is retaliating by withholding EU aid to Gaza, already being strangled with and Israeli blockade). Whether he (and his Likud party and the present ruling coalition) can confess to grievous offenses done to the native people is another matter. The Palestinians want the facts to speak for themselves. Kerry and Obama are aware of what needs to be done. The Israelis have been paying lip service to the Two State solution, but with no heart, head, hands or feet. Do we dare to hope that the US will be determined to hold both parties’ feet to the fire? What “pressure” the US might bring to bear during these “talks” remains to be seen.
Israel is caught between a rock and a hard place. Absent a viable Palestinian State, the only alternative is a bi-national State with Palestinians gaining more citizenship rights (which will threaten the Jewish character of the present Israeli State). Bibi surely doesn’t want that. What will he (and Israel) do?
Especially since 1967, we have written them a blank check to be filled in as they see fit. Will that ever change? We will learn soon enough. Faithfully yours, John Kleinheksel, FPI, (Friends of Palestinians and Israelis) www.friendsofPalestiniansandIsraelis.blogspot.com.
There is no PEACE without JUSTICE; there is no justice without LOVE.
Friday, August 2, 2013
Will "Talks" Lead Anywhere?
"History is not made by cynics."
Dear Friend of Palestinians and Israelis (FPI),
I'm forwarding a "forward-looking" update by our friends in the "Churches for Middle East Peace" (CMEP). At least scan through the brief synopses of the articles that are linked in this post.
It is significantly more upbeat (hopeful) than the history of the "peace talks" deserves. Whether there is enough trust built up to deal with the (true) underlying issues is doubtful. (Facts could be cited, overflowing with bitterness on both sides).
The CMEP is not exactly on the cutting edge of reflection/action for our region, but it aspires, under Warren Clark, to be alert to trends.
The unhurried meeting of the main disputants over at least the next nine months is significant. No doubt about that. But whether it will lead to an independent Palestinian State (Ending the Occupation of land that the International community sees as Palestinian) is truly problematic, given the convictions of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Likud party platform. Likud's desire to keep its settlement-happy coalition in place is (perhaps) the deciding factor, unless Likud taps into (promised) Labor support to form a new coalition.
There is so much that is not known at this point in the process. It is hard to be hopeful. Why now? Why is Israel even doing this "talking"? There is one overriding factor. The Prime Minister (and Likud) fear a multi-cultural, bi-national State (with full citizenship for Palestinians) even more than they detest a Palestinian State side by side with Israel. The sticking points will be "security" for Israel and the "Right of Return" and definable borders between the two peoples.
Many argue that Israel is decidedly past the point of a viable Two State solution and will only want to "manage the conflict" rather than give the Palestinians what is their due: justice, compensation, their own capital in Jerusalem, etc., etc.
Friends, keep following developments in the mainline media and remember that the major news media is still slanted toward security for Israel rather than justice for Palestinians.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Churches for Middle East Peace
Date: Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 3:38 PM
Subject: [CMEP Bulletin] "History is not made by cynics."
Dear Friend of Palestinians and Israelis (FPI),
I'm forwarding a "forward-looking" update by our friends in the "Churches for Middle East Peace" (CMEP). At least scan through the brief synopses of the articles that are linked in this post.
It is significantly more upbeat (hopeful) than the history of the "peace talks" deserves. Whether there is enough trust built up to deal with the (true) underlying issues is doubtful. (Facts could be cited, overflowing with bitterness on both sides).
The CMEP is not exactly on the cutting edge of reflection/action for our region, but it aspires, under Warren Clark, to be alert to trends.
The unhurried meeting of the main disputants over at least the next nine months is significant. No doubt about that. But whether it will lead to an independent Palestinian State (Ending the Occupation of land that the International community sees as Palestinian) is truly problematic, given the convictions of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Likud party platform. Likud's desire to keep its settlement-happy coalition in place is (perhaps) the deciding factor, unless Likud taps into (promised) Labor support to form a new coalition.
There is so much that is not known at this point in the process. It is hard to be hopeful. Why now? Why is Israel even doing this "talking"? There is one overriding factor. The Prime Minister (and Likud) fear a multi-cultural, bi-national State (with full citizenship for Palestinians) even more than they detest a Palestinian State side by side with Israel. The sticking points will be "security" for Israel and the "Right of Return" and definable borders between the two peoples.
Many argue that Israel is decidedly past the point of a viable Two State solution and will only want to "manage the conflict" rather than give the Palestinians what is their due: justice, compensation, their own capital in Jerusalem, etc., etc.
Friends, keep following developments in the mainline media and remember that the major news media is still slanted toward security for Israel rather than justice for Palestinians.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Churches for Middle East Peace
Date: Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 3:38 PM
Subject: [CMEP Bulletin] "History is not made by cynics."
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
3rd Report from the Ground
Dear Friend,
Are We Closer to Real Engagement?
A Third Report from the Ground, by John Kleinheksel Sr.
Secretary of State John Kerry is working hard to get the two parties to sit down and talk. There is skepticism and cynicism on all sides. Will Israelis and Palestinians truly interact, hear each other’s grievances, address them honestly and take steps to resolve the issues?
Let’s put it this way: Has the ground been prepared? Have life-giving seeds taken root that can bear fruit for peace? Are life-giving structures ready to take the place of death-dealing realities? What will bring about changes in personal relationships and institutional dysfunction/disease?
Upon my return from another exposure to a variety of spokespersons from both sides, I’ve been plunged into reflective meditation about our region and how we can “move forward” toward resolution of basic issues.
I have made no secret of my profound discouragement when I reflect, yet I was encouraged when the New York Times (July 13, 2013) published a great article by Rina Castelnuovo about the “Parents Circle-Families Forum”. Entitled “Bereaved”, she writes:
They are Palestinians, and they are Israelis. They have lost their sisters and brothers and children, lost them in terrorist attacks, clashes, suicide bombings and military service.
They understand that the only way to break down the barriers and come out of their darkness is by recognizing one another.
They are dreaming of reconciliation . . . .
They say it is critical to learn the other side’s narrative, because the only hope for ending the bloody struggle is through empathy and reconciliation.
In sharing the pain of bereavement, many have bonded and work closely together. Reconciliation with the enemy has become the purpose of their lives in the name of their dead.
After more than 30 years of photographing war and funerals, I find hope in meeting the bereaved families and witnessing their reconciliation process. If they can do this, everybody else should.
I attended their meetings, reconciliation sessions and activities. They devote much of their time to lecturing both Israeli and Palestinian youth about the sanctity of life. By appearing together at high schools and in public venues, they are living proof that there is another way. There are many activities to nurture their friendships: tours, field trips, cultural events. But forgiving is not forgetting (some refuse to use “forgiving” in their vocabulary.)
Many of the parents talk about the difficult progression to reconcile and befriend the enemy, and their own commitment is tested over and over again when they face hostility from their own people, or their own family members.
Bushra Awad, a 48-year-old Palestinian from the West Bank village of Beit Ummar, lost her 17-year-old son, Mahmoud, during a protest against Israeli soldiers in 2008. He was a high school student . . . . [After Mahmoud was buried] I wanted so much to go out and take revenge for my son. I wanted to go out and kill any Israeli. I’m a mother; I did not know I possessed such feelings of wanting to take somebody’s life. I was so full of pain and hate . . . .
I knew I had to do something, anything that would save my other children from a similar fate. But how? Then a friend, a woman who lost her family member in same circumstances, invited me to a meeting in her home with other bereaved. She told me there would be Israeli mothers present as well. I would not hear any of that; she was inviting me to meet my enemies! Those who caused us such great pain.
For two years, she kept inviting me, telling me it was important for our children, it was important to save more lives. I decided to go but I would not look at the Israelis or shake their hands, I would just listen. There I met an Israeli mother. She showed me a picture of her dead son; I showed her a picture of my son Mahmoud. We both cried for our loss.
Ever since that meeting, I’m part of the circle of bereaved mothers. We share a pain, and we share a hope to end the bloody cycle and maybe one day our leaders will negotiate peace . . . .
Then Ms. Castelnuovo tells about Ben Kir, a 65 year old Israeli from Ashkelon, who lost his 22 year old daughter Yael, in a Palestinian suicide bombing in 2003. Here is part of his story:
I could not stop crying for days, and I was so full of anger that I could explode. I was angry at the Palestinians for killing my child. I was angry at the army for not preventing the attack. I was angry at the leaders for not reaching a deal. And I wanted revenge.
I started planning it into particulars. I was lying in bed for days planning my revenge. I thought it was either revenge or I die; there was no meaning to my life any longer.
I was fantasizing how I would walk over to the construction site near my house where Palestinians were working and shoot them.
I was planning it in such detail that I even knew what clothes I would wear to do the killings. The more I planned, the more I realized that, while achieving my revenge, my acts would bring more death to my people.
The families of the dead workers would surely seek revenge on Israelis, the army would retaliate in Gaza, and the circle of death would never end.
Desperation overcame me because I also realized I was only thinking of myself and my immense pain. I thought there was no other way, that I should just die.
In those awful days I received a pile of condolence letters which I hardly looked at, I was so immersed in my grief, anger and quest for vengeance. But I read this one, from a woman named Hagit, a bereaved mother.
I called her and we cried a lot. She invited me to a gathering of bereaved Israelis and Palestinians.
I hung the phone up on her.
But then, I just went. I did not know why, I went. I sat and listened to some 60 people, Israelis and Palestinians, and I was not alone in my grief any longer.
Those wonderful people gave me a reason to go on living. I realized that the Palestinian stories and my story are no different. Our tears taste the same; our blood is the same color. I feel more comfortable with a bereaved Palestinian then with a regular Israeli citizen. We know what loss is, the shadow of our dead following us every day, every moment of our lives. But I’m not a walking dead any longer.
I live for a cause, and this is what I am saying in every lecture. Whether Israelis or Palestinians, revenge is not an answer. It will only bring more and more death. It is not easy to open up your wounds and expose yourself in front of so many people every day, but I believe today that only through mass reconciliation can we make peace one day . . . .
What can we learn from bereaved families? Can we apply these lessons to the larger society?
The unjust death of a family member triggers pain and outrage. If anger seethes long enough without being harnessed, it leads to revenge and the cycle of violence spirals downward.
These parents have gone through purging fire, refining them to arrive at the essence of human existence: making room for each other; ending the spirit of revenge; sharing common pain, even with the enemy; and sincerely seeking reconciliation.
There have been many Israeli and Palestinian deaths. Both peoples have suffered. It is hard to face the truth about actions that have brought outrage: 1) doing violence to Palestinian villagers and villages; 2) doing violence to Israeli buses, restaurants and schools in retaliation.
It takes “grace” to admit we are all flawed human beings in need of undeserved favor. Yet, the world does not look with favor on those who mourn. To be vulnerable and subject to criticism is to be weak. And we want to be seen as “strong” and in charge. Never admit you might have been in the wrong!
As you read these words, the “basis” for talks between the parties is being “formalized”. Each side has its precious shibboleths (settlements are OK; there is no Occupation) and historic positions to defend and protect (restitution is a must; and the right of return). Each side wants to avoid betrayal (again)!
Can we break out of predetermined “roles” that we are expected to play?
Can’t we just sit down and talk about what’s bothering us? Please . . . .
Will the parties truly interact? Can we be frank with each other?
My devotions today included Jesus’ Parable of the Soils (Mark 4:1-20). I wondered what kind of soil we have in I/P now? Is it “good soil”? Do life-giving seeds have a chance to take root, be free of distracting weeds and bear fruit for the flourishing of all the people in that tortured land? Or are hearts hard, ears closed, hands clenched into fists, and feet paralyzed?
Bushra Awad and Ben Kfir and the bereaved parents are working on it. Simple people, not the walking dead, but the wounded living, who steer clear of detours, distractions and dead ends and lead us forward toward a hopeful future for everyone, Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Are We Closer to Real Engagement?
A Third Report from the Ground, by John Kleinheksel Sr.
Secretary of State John Kerry is working hard to get the two parties to sit down and talk. There is skepticism and cynicism on all sides. Will Israelis and Palestinians truly interact, hear each other’s grievances, address them honestly and take steps to resolve the issues?
Let’s put it this way: Has the ground been prepared? Have life-giving seeds taken root that can bear fruit for peace? Are life-giving structures ready to take the place of death-dealing realities? What will bring about changes in personal relationships and institutional dysfunction/disease?
Upon my return from another exposure to a variety of spokespersons from both sides, I’ve been plunged into reflective meditation about our region and how we can “move forward” toward resolution of basic issues.
I have made no secret of my profound discouragement when I reflect, yet I was encouraged when the New York Times (July 13, 2013) published a great article by Rina Castelnuovo about the “Parents Circle-Families Forum”. Entitled “Bereaved”, she writes:
They are Palestinians, and they are Israelis. They have lost their sisters and brothers and children, lost them in terrorist attacks, clashes, suicide bombings and military service.
They understand that the only way to break down the barriers and come out of their darkness is by recognizing one another.
They are dreaming of reconciliation . . . .
They say it is critical to learn the other side’s narrative, because the only hope for ending the bloody struggle is through empathy and reconciliation.
In sharing the pain of bereavement, many have bonded and work closely together. Reconciliation with the enemy has become the purpose of their lives in the name of their dead.
After more than 30 years of photographing war and funerals, I find hope in meeting the bereaved families and witnessing their reconciliation process. If they can do this, everybody else should.
I attended their meetings, reconciliation sessions and activities. They devote much of their time to lecturing both Israeli and Palestinian youth about the sanctity of life. By appearing together at high schools and in public venues, they are living proof that there is another way. There are many activities to nurture their friendships: tours, field trips, cultural events. But forgiving is not forgetting (some refuse to use “forgiving” in their vocabulary.)
Many of the parents talk about the difficult progression to reconcile and befriend the enemy, and their own commitment is tested over and over again when they face hostility from their own people, or their own family members.
Bushra Awad, a 48-year-old Palestinian from the West Bank village of Beit Ummar, lost her 17-year-old son, Mahmoud, during a protest against Israeli soldiers in 2008. He was a high school student . . . . [After Mahmoud was buried] I wanted so much to go out and take revenge for my son. I wanted to go out and kill any Israeli. I’m a mother; I did not know I possessed such feelings of wanting to take somebody’s life. I was so full of pain and hate . . . .
I knew I had to do something, anything that would save my other children from a similar fate. But how? Then a friend, a woman who lost her family member in same circumstances, invited me to a meeting in her home with other bereaved. She told me there would be Israeli mothers present as well. I would not hear any of that; she was inviting me to meet my enemies! Those who caused us such great pain.
For two years, she kept inviting me, telling me it was important for our children, it was important to save more lives. I decided to go but I would not look at the Israelis or shake their hands, I would just listen. There I met an Israeli mother. She showed me a picture of her dead son; I showed her a picture of my son Mahmoud. We both cried for our loss.
Ever since that meeting, I’m part of the circle of bereaved mothers. We share a pain, and we share a hope to end the bloody cycle and maybe one day our leaders will negotiate peace . . . .
Then Ms. Castelnuovo tells about Ben Kir, a 65 year old Israeli from Ashkelon, who lost his 22 year old daughter Yael, in a Palestinian suicide bombing in 2003. Here is part of his story:
I could not stop crying for days, and I was so full of anger that I could explode. I was angry at the Palestinians for killing my child. I was angry at the army for not preventing the attack. I was angry at the leaders for not reaching a deal. And I wanted revenge.
I started planning it into particulars. I was lying in bed for days planning my revenge. I thought it was either revenge or I die; there was no meaning to my life any longer.
I was fantasizing how I would walk over to the construction site near my house where Palestinians were working and shoot them.
I was planning it in such detail that I even knew what clothes I would wear to do the killings. The more I planned, the more I realized that, while achieving my revenge, my acts would bring more death to my people.
The families of the dead workers would surely seek revenge on Israelis, the army would retaliate in Gaza, and the circle of death would never end.
Desperation overcame me because I also realized I was only thinking of myself and my immense pain. I thought there was no other way, that I should just die.
In those awful days I received a pile of condolence letters which I hardly looked at, I was so immersed in my grief, anger and quest for vengeance. But I read this one, from a woman named Hagit, a bereaved mother.
I called her and we cried a lot. She invited me to a gathering of bereaved Israelis and Palestinians.
I hung the phone up on her.
But then, I just went. I did not know why, I went. I sat and listened to some 60 people, Israelis and Palestinians, and I was not alone in my grief any longer.
Those wonderful people gave me a reason to go on living. I realized that the Palestinian stories and my story are no different. Our tears taste the same; our blood is the same color. I feel more comfortable with a bereaved Palestinian then with a regular Israeli citizen. We know what loss is, the shadow of our dead following us every day, every moment of our lives. But I’m not a walking dead any longer.
I live for a cause, and this is what I am saying in every lecture. Whether Israelis or Palestinians, revenge is not an answer. It will only bring more and more death. It is not easy to open up your wounds and expose yourself in front of so many people every day, but I believe today that only through mass reconciliation can we make peace one day . . . .
What can we learn from bereaved families? Can we apply these lessons to the larger society?
The unjust death of a family member triggers pain and outrage. If anger seethes long enough without being harnessed, it leads to revenge and the cycle of violence spirals downward.
These parents have gone through purging fire, refining them to arrive at the essence of human existence: making room for each other; ending the spirit of revenge; sharing common pain, even with the enemy; and sincerely seeking reconciliation.
There have been many Israeli and Palestinian deaths. Both peoples have suffered. It is hard to face the truth about actions that have brought outrage: 1) doing violence to Palestinian villagers and villages; 2) doing violence to Israeli buses, restaurants and schools in retaliation.
It takes “grace” to admit we are all flawed human beings in need of undeserved favor. Yet, the world does not look with favor on those who mourn. To be vulnerable and subject to criticism is to be weak. And we want to be seen as “strong” and in charge. Never admit you might have been in the wrong!
As you read these words, the “basis” for talks between the parties is being “formalized”. Each side has its precious shibboleths (settlements are OK; there is no Occupation) and historic positions to defend and protect (restitution is a must; and the right of return). Each side wants to avoid betrayal (again)!
Can we break out of predetermined “roles” that we are expected to play?
Can’t we just sit down and talk about what’s bothering us? Please . . . .
Will the parties truly interact? Can we be frank with each other?
My devotions today included Jesus’ Parable of the Soils (Mark 4:1-20). I wondered what kind of soil we have in I/P now? Is it “good soil”? Do life-giving seeds have a chance to take root, be free of distracting weeds and bear fruit for the flourishing of all the people in that tortured land? Or are hearts hard, ears closed, hands clenched into fists, and feet paralyzed?
Bushra Awad and Ben Kfir and the bereaved parents are working on it. Simple people, not the walking dead, but the wounded living, who steer clear of detours, distractions and dead ends and lead us forward toward a hopeful future for everyone, Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Friday, July 12, 2013
Second Report, Study Tour, 6/13
How Long? A 2nd Report (from the Ground)
John Kleinheksel Sr., 12 July, 2013
I must say I am profoundly disheartened as I reflect on the plight of Palestinians as the Israeli State continues to branch out in that part of Planet Earth.
In a follow-up inquiry to a spokesman for the Israeli/Zionist State, I was directed to a recent article in The Forward by Aharon Barak (who was President of the Israeli Supreme Court, 1995-2006). In it, Mr. Barak accents “the centrality of the State of Israel and its Jewish character” and appeals to the Declaration of Independence, and urges his fellow Jews to “defend the dignity and freedom of every person within it, whether Jewish or not.” He urges Israel to be Jewish and democratic at the same time. But is that really what the Declaration says?
So I found and studied the full English translation of the Declaration of Independence, signed the night of May 14, 15, 1948, during a time of great unrest by the Arab majority. The Declaration “proclaims the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called Israel . . . [which]
• will be open to the immigration of Jews from all countries in their dispersion
• will promote the development of the country for the benefit of all (ital mine) its inhabitants
• will be based on the precepts of liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew prophets
• will uphold the full social and political equality of all (ital mine) its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex [gender]
Then this statement: “In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to return to the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, with full and equal citizenship (ital mine) . . .”
On its face, the newly declared State of Israel invited Arab Palestinians to become “full and equal” citizens of this new enterprise! It’s like saying, “We Jews from all over the world invite you to help us build the Jewish State as full and equal citizens!” In fact, to this day, about 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab Palestinian. But “full and equal citizens” they are not. They are subject to a different set of laws. They remain to this day, second class citizens of the State. Furthermore, their loyalty to the Jewish State is suspect by Jews and their loyalty to the Palestinian cause is suspect by stateless Palestinians. When will this promise, set forth so eloquently and clearly in the Declaration of Independence, be realized? Is the Knesset working on it, or moving in the opposite direction?
The vast majority of Arab Palestinians were made to feel unwelcome when over 400 of their villages were destroyed in the war of independence of 1948 (to say nothing of the massacre of 600 villagers at Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948, which served as a lesson to Arabs, to get out or face the deadly consequences). The refugee problem remains to be adjudicated, including their “right of return”. Historically, the State of Israel has sought to disenfranchise the people of the land and block every effort by the Palestinians to establish their own State. In addition, especially since the “successful” war of 1967, it has done everything possible to settle all parts of the country, confiscating Palestinian land, demolishing their homes, uprooting their olive orchards, restricting their water rights and controlling movements between their villages and orchards. The result has been restricting the Arabs to smaller and smaller disconnected enclaves with no hope of forming their own State.
Israel, with the full support of the United States, seems content to “manage” any Palestinian discontent (insurrection). It tolerates no dissent (violent or nonviolent) against its occupation of historic Palestinian land. Those who raise their heads too high are either incarcerated (7,000 minimum in Israeli prisons), or assassinated (non-judicially). Israel fully intends to harass them out of the land if they will not be “pacified”. Those are the choices. Because of their great fear of reprisals (“terror”), Israeli leaders refuse to sit down and discuss the underlying issues with Palestinian leaders. Yet, many Palestinians are not leaving. They are staying, insisting on “justice” for their cause.
The lack of trust is deep-seated in both parties to the “conflict”. Furthermore, the “security fence” is heightening the separation of the two peoples, intensifying walls of suspicion, distrust, misunderstanding and dislike.
I’m reminded of the verse cited by the great Catholic activist Dorothy Day. She applies it to the divide between African Americans and US Caucasians, but can as easily apply to Israelis and Palestinians.
THE COLD WITHIN
Six humans trapped by circumstance in black and bitter cold;
each held so close a stick of wood, (or so the story's told).
Their dying fire needed logs. The first one held hers back;
for on the faces ‘round the fire, she noticed one was black.
The next man looking 'cross the way saw not one from his church;
he couldn't bring himself to give the fire his stick of birch.
The third one sat in tattered clothes and gave his coat a hitch;
why should his log be put to use to warm the idle rich?
The rich man just sat back and thought of wealth he had in store;
and how to keep what he had earned from the lazy, shiftless poor.
The black man's face bespoke revenge as fire passed from his sight;
for what he saw in his wood stick was how to spite the white.
The last one of this forlorn group did naught except for gain.
To give only to those who gave was how he played the game.
The logs held tight in Death's still hands was proof of human sin;
they didn't die from cold without; they died from cold within.
Here is Dorothy Day’s own commentary on this text: "Whenever I groan within myself and think how hard it is to keep writing about love in these times of tension and strife which may, at any moment, become for us all a time of terror, I think to myself: What else is the world interested in? What else do we all want, each one of us, except to love and be loved, in our families, in our work, in all our relationships? God is Love. Love casts out fear. Even the most ardent revolutionist, seeking to change the world, to overturn the tables of the money changers, is trying to make a world where it is easier for people to love, to stand in that relationship to each other.
"It is when we love the most intensely and most humanly that we can recognize how tepid our love for others is. The keenness and intensity of love brings with it suffering, of course, but joy too, because it is a foretaste of heaven. When you love people, you see all the good in them, all the Christ in them. God sees Christ, His Son, in us. And so we should see Christ in others, and nothing else, and love them. There can never be enough of it" (from, Dorothy Day: Selected Writings, ed. Robert Ellsberg (Orbis Books, 1992).
Is Jesus, as embodied by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., able to come alive in this impossible situation in Israel/Palestine? Even if your tradition does not see the love of Jesus of Nazareth, can you see “love for the neighbor” in your own tradition and begin to practice it more?
We met with Jeff Halper, head of ICAHD (Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions). He keeps track of Palestinian home demolitions and has thought about the conflict intensely over many years. He has a thoughtful proposal (www.icahdusa.org) but at a minimum lists the following principles to be followed:
1. A just peace and the process leading up to it must conform to human rights, international law and UN resolutions.
2. Regardless of whether there should or should not have been an Israel, two peoples now reside in Palestine-Israel and a just peace must be based on that bi-national reality.
3. A just peace requires an acceptance of the Palestinian refugees’ right of return.
4. A just peace must be economically viable, with all the country’s inhabitants enjoying equal access to the country’s resources and economic institutions.
Even with Secretary Kerry’s recent initiative, we are a long way from a “solution”. In this high stakes card game, Israel, with US support, holds all the high cards and can seemingly trump any efforts by the Palestinians and their supporters for “full and equal” status, despite what the Declaration of Independence promises. And that is very sad. Justice delayed is justice denied.
How long?
John Kleinheksel Sr., 12 July, 2013
I must say I am profoundly disheartened as I reflect on the plight of Palestinians as the Israeli State continues to branch out in that part of Planet Earth.
In a follow-up inquiry to a spokesman for the Israeli/Zionist State, I was directed to a recent article in The Forward by Aharon Barak (who was President of the Israeli Supreme Court, 1995-2006). In it, Mr. Barak accents “the centrality of the State of Israel and its Jewish character” and appeals to the Declaration of Independence, and urges his fellow Jews to “defend the dignity and freedom of every person within it, whether Jewish or not.” He urges Israel to be Jewish and democratic at the same time. But is that really what the Declaration says?
So I found and studied the full English translation of the Declaration of Independence, signed the night of May 14, 15, 1948, during a time of great unrest by the Arab majority. The Declaration “proclaims the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called Israel . . . [which]
• will be open to the immigration of Jews from all countries in their dispersion
• will promote the development of the country for the benefit of all (ital mine) its inhabitants
• will be based on the precepts of liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew prophets
• will uphold the full social and political equality of all (ital mine) its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex [gender]
Then this statement: “In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to return to the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, with full and equal citizenship (ital mine) . . .”
On its face, the newly declared State of Israel invited Arab Palestinians to become “full and equal” citizens of this new enterprise! It’s like saying, “We Jews from all over the world invite you to help us build the Jewish State as full and equal citizens!” In fact, to this day, about 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab Palestinian. But “full and equal citizens” they are not. They are subject to a different set of laws. They remain to this day, second class citizens of the State. Furthermore, their loyalty to the Jewish State is suspect by Jews and their loyalty to the Palestinian cause is suspect by stateless Palestinians. When will this promise, set forth so eloquently and clearly in the Declaration of Independence, be realized? Is the Knesset working on it, or moving in the opposite direction?
The vast majority of Arab Palestinians were made to feel unwelcome when over 400 of their villages were destroyed in the war of independence of 1948 (to say nothing of the massacre of 600 villagers at Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948, which served as a lesson to Arabs, to get out or face the deadly consequences). The refugee problem remains to be adjudicated, including their “right of return”. Historically, the State of Israel has sought to disenfranchise the people of the land and block every effort by the Palestinians to establish their own State. In addition, especially since the “successful” war of 1967, it has done everything possible to settle all parts of the country, confiscating Palestinian land, demolishing their homes, uprooting their olive orchards, restricting their water rights and controlling movements between their villages and orchards. The result has been restricting the Arabs to smaller and smaller disconnected enclaves with no hope of forming their own State.
Israel, with the full support of the United States, seems content to “manage” any Palestinian discontent (insurrection). It tolerates no dissent (violent or nonviolent) against its occupation of historic Palestinian land. Those who raise their heads too high are either incarcerated (7,000 minimum in Israeli prisons), or assassinated (non-judicially). Israel fully intends to harass them out of the land if they will not be “pacified”. Those are the choices. Because of their great fear of reprisals (“terror”), Israeli leaders refuse to sit down and discuss the underlying issues with Palestinian leaders. Yet, many Palestinians are not leaving. They are staying, insisting on “justice” for their cause.
The lack of trust is deep-seated in both parties to the “conflict”. Furthermore, the “security fence” is heightening the separation of the two peoples, intensifying walls of suspicion, distrust, misunderstanding and dislike.
I’m reminded of the verse cited by the great Catholic activist Dorothy Day. She applies it to the divide between African Americans and US Caucasians, but can as easily apply to Israelis and Palestinians.
THE COLD WITHIN
Six humans trapped by circumstance in black and bitter cold;
each held so close a stick of wood, (or so the story's told).
Their dying fire needed logs. The first one held hers back;
for on the faces ‘round the fire, she noticed one was black.
The next man looking 'cross the way saw not one from his church;
he couldn't bring himself to give the fire his stick of birch.
The third one sat in tattered clothes and gave his coat a hitch;
why should his log be put to use to warm the idle rich?
The rich man just sat back and thought of wealth he had in store;
and how to keep what he had earned from the lazy, shiftless poor.
The black man's face bespoke revenge as fire passed from his sight;
for what he saw in his wood stick was how to spite the white.
The last one of this forlorn group did naught except for gain.
To give only to those who gave was how he played the game.
The logs held tight in Death's still hands was proof of human sin;
they didn't die from cold without; they died from cold within.
Here is Dorothy Day’s own commentary on this text: "Whenever I groan within myself and think how hard it is to keep writing about love in these times of tension and strife which may, at any moment, become for us all a time of terror, I think to myself: What else is the world interested in? What else do we all want, each one of us, except to love and be loved, in our families, in our work, in all our relationships? God is Love. Love casts out fear. Even the most ardent revolutionist, seeking to change the world, to overturn the tables of the money changers, is trying to make a world where it is easier for people to love, to stand in that relationship to each other.
"It is when we love the most intensely and most humanly that we can recognize how tepid our love for others is. The keenness and intensity of love brings with it suffering, of course, but joy too, because it is a foretaste of heaven. When you love people, you see all the good in them, all the Christ in them. God sees Christ, His Son, in us. And so we should see Christ in others, and nothing else, and love them. There can never be enough of it" (from, Dorothy Day: Selected Writings, ed. Robert Ellsberg (Orbis Books, 1992).
Is Jesus, as embodied by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., able to come alive in this impossible situation in Israel/Palestine? Even if your tradition does not see the love of Jesus of Nazareth, can you see “love for the neighbor” in your own tradition and begin to practice it more?
We met with Jeff Halper, head of ICAHD (Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions). He keeps track of Palestinian home demolitions and has thought about the conflict intensely over many years. He has a thoughtful proposal (www.icahdusa.org) but at a minimum lists the following principles to be followed:
1. A just peace and the process leading up to it must conform to human rights, international law and UN resolutions.
2. Regardless of whether there should or should not have been an Israel, two peoples now reside in Palestine-Israel and a just peace must be based on that bi-national reality.
3. A just peace requires an acceptance of the Palestinian refugees’ right of return.
4. A just peace must be economically viable, with all the country’s inhabitants enjoying equal access to the country’s resources and economic institutions.
Even with Secretary Kerry’s recent initiative, we are a long way from a “solution”. In this high stakes card game, Israel, with US support, holds all the high cards and can seemingly trump any efforts by the Palestinians and their supporters for “full and equal” status, despite what the Declaration of Independence promises. And that is very sad. Justice delayed is justice denied.
How long?
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
First Report Study Tour, 6/13
Dear Friend,
I'm back in the US after two weeks in I/P. Our group of 16 is processing who we've met and what we've learned.
The July 1 NY Times ("Mideast Chaos Grows as US Focuses on Israel") questions Sec. Kerry's seeming priority of getting the two sides together for substantive talks. (Of course we can't ignore the chaos in both Egypt and Syria).
We did encounter a lack of urgency even among some Israelis and Palestinians. Modern Tel Aviv bustles with no Palestinians in sight. Yet, new leaders, the young Turks among the Palestinians, demand systemic changes and desire renewed efforts toward the Two State solution.
We found that the overriding issue among Israelis is security. Among the Palestinians the issue is justice. This morning I was reminded of an unforgettable story from Henri Nouwen's book Lifesigns (Doubleday, pp. 110, 111). Know that I'm taking great liberty in adapting it to our region.
Once there was a people who looked at "their" country and said to each other, “How will we have enough when the Native people demand their own State?”
So they started hoarding the Native's land, water, homes and freedom of movement.
The Native people protested, “You have more than you need. What is more, you are taking what is legitimately ours”
The First Staters replied, “No, no, we need to have these reserves in case things go bad and our lives are threatened.”
But the Natives said, “We are dying now. We can’t wait any longer. You keep treating us as illegitimate terrorists.”
Then the fearful First Staters became even more afraid of attack. So they said, “Let’s build walls so ‘other’s’ can’t take from us.”
The walls became so high they couldn’t see the ‘others’ anymore, and their fears increased.
“Our enemies may get stronger and tear down our walls. We need guided missiles so that ‘they’ won’t dare even come close to us.”
But instead of feeling safer and more secure, they found themselves trapped in the prison they had built with their own fear.
This story illumines the dilemma between the Israelis and Palestinians. Fear builds walls. Love builds bridges. Fear hides our vulnerabilities. Love admits our wounds. The image of God in you and the image of God in me wants respect on a deep level. How big is "family"? And who is my "neighbor"? Fear and threats are obstacles. Trust building actions lead the way to deeper engagement. Trust has to be earned. Is there enough trust between us? Can neighbors believe in the good intentions of the other side?
Pray for gifted leaders who are in touch with their extreme elements, yet press forward to stake out common ground with "the enemy", so we can live side by side, respecting the boundaries/borders that give us both legitimacy.
I'm back in the US after two weeks in I/P. Our group of 16 is processing who we've met and what we've learned.
The July 1 NY Times ("Mideast Chaos Grows as US Focuses on Israel") questions Sec. Kerry's seeming priority of getting the two sides together for substantive talks. (Of course we can't ignore the chaos in both Egypt and Syria).
We did encounter a lack of urgency even among some Israelis and Palestinians. Modern Tel Aviv bustles with no Palestinians in sight. Yet, new leaders, the young Turks among the Palestinians, demand systemic changes and desire renewed efforts toward the Two State solution.
We found that the overriding issue among Israelis is security. Among the Palestinians the issue is justice. This morning I was reminded of an unforgettable story from Henri Nouwen's book Lifesigns (Doubleday, pp. 110, 111). Know that I'm taking great liberty in adapting it to our region.
Once there was a people who looked at "their" country and said to each other, “How will we have enough when the Native people demand their own State?”
So they started hoarding the Native's land, water, homes and freedom of movement.
The Native people protested, “You have more than you need. What is more, you are taking what is legitimately ours”
The First Staters replied, “No, no, we need to have these reserves in case things go bad and our lives are threatened.”
But the Natives said, “We are dying now. We can’t wait any longer. You keep treating us as illegitimate terrorists.”
Then the fearful First Staters became even more afraid of attack. So they said, “Let’s build walls so ‘other’s’ can’t take from us.”
The walls became so high they couldn’t see the ‘others’ anymore, and their fears increased.
“Our enemies may get stronger and tear down our walls. We need guided missiles so that ‘they’ won’t dare even come close to us.”
But instead of feeling safer and more secure, they found themselves trapped in the prison they had built with their own fear.
This story illumines the dilemma between the Israelis and Palestinians. Fear builds walls. Love builds bridges. Fear hides our vulnerabilities. Love admits our wounds. The image of God in you and the image of God in me wants respect on a deep level. How big is "family"? And who is my "neighbor"? Fear and threats are obstacles. Trust building actions lead the way to deeper engagement. Trust has to be earned. Is there enough trust between us? Can neighbors believe in the good intentions of the other side?
Pray for gifted leaders who are in touch with their extreme elements, yet press forward to stake out common ground with "the enemy", so we can live side by side, respecting the boundaries/borders that give us both legitimacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)