Dear Friend,
Arab and Israeli "extremists" work to derail meaningful conversation to end the stalemate. Below is a "letter" from a Palestinian general practitioner, who wants to say something to President Obama. Thanks to TIKKUN for bringing his blog to our attention.
It is no longer acceptable that people on one side scream "Death to Arabs" and from the other, "Death to Israel".
At least one Israeli has expressed his contempt for the "good" doctor (in the comments section), but the doctor's words go to the heart of the issues that need to be addressed and resolved. I hope you agree and continue to act and pray, pray and act. JRK
An Open Letter to Presideent Barak Obama
April, 6, 2009
Dear President Obama,
In approaching the task of addressing you directly about a personal issue, I feel daunted by the abyss that separates the two of us in status and power. I am a retired public health physician, attempting to maintain a hold on his sanity and physical health by puttering around his garden in a Palestinian village in Galilee. You are the president of the nation most of humanity envies and desires to join, burdened with the task of saving the world from economic and political chaos and now from nuclear war.
Yet I find enough shared experiences between us to embolden me to speak to you as an equal in humanity if in no other regard. Like you, I am a product of Hawaii, where I attended university at the time your late parents did, and of Harvard, where we both received our professional training. I subsequently returned to my village and worked among my people to treat their illnesses and improve their wellbeing physically, mentally and socially with varying degrees of success and frustration. Unlike you, I came up fast against the glass ceiling set very low for Palestinian citizens of Israel like me. I have written a book of memoirs (see last below) that documents my professional struggle over three and a half decades. It would be a great honor for me if you were to read it as part of your education on the issues of my community and of our potential as a bridge for peace in the Middle East.
Now to the subject of my message, Mr. President: The newly-elected prime minister of Israel, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, and his foreign minister, Mr. Avigdor Lieberman, plan evict me from my home and to take away my garden. These two persons and their fellow ministers were democratically elected to their positions and will use ‘democratic’ means at their disposal to legitimize my disenfranchisement as have previous Israeli governments done in the past. The difference is that the current leaders are explicit and aggressive about disadvantaging me based on my ethnicity. They have devised a way to blame me for my victimhood. They intend to ask me to sign an oath of allegiance to Israel as a Jewish state, a state that defines itself as exclusive of me and my people.
Democracy, Mr. President, may be the best political system, but, alas, it is no guarantee of justice and equality when it is abused to give unrestricted power to an exclusivist majority. My community, citizens of Israel since its establishment, makes up a fifth of the country’s population but owns a constantly shrinking share of the land that currently stands at 3% of the total. Our towns and villages receive 3-5% of municipal budgetary allocations. Our infants and children die at over twice the level of our Jewish co-citizens -- and the relative ratio is rising of late. Our two communities continue to live in racially segregated residential areas often separated by walls and barbwire. Mr. President, I am not writing of the West Bank or Gaza but of neighborhoods in ‘mixed cities’ within the Green line.
You are the lead protector and promoter of true democracy in the world. As such, I call on you, Mr. President, to stand up to such corrupting practices presented to the world under the guise of sound democratic principles.
And as a fellow human being, I ask you, Mr. President, to put yourself momentarily in my position and consider how I should react to the racially-based transfer designs of these politicians. Here, in the person of Avigdor Lieberman, is another presumably equal co-citizen of Israel who calls openly for my disqualification from our shared citizenship because I want to be equal to him under the laws of our common country. He insists on having me step down from our presumed common stand of equality and kowtow openly to his privileged status as the son of a certain race and religion. Would you do that, Mr. President, were it to be demanded from you by a fellow American citizen, be he Anglo-Saxon, Hispanic or Asian immigrant, or even a Native American?
As an alternative, Mr. Lieberman wants me transferred out of the country though I have lived on land I inherited legally from forefathers who almost surely have better claim to descent from the ancient Hebrews than his. And mind you, Mr. President, my residence in the home he wants me evicted from predates the establishment of the state he wants to appropriate as his, and his alone, while he is a recent immigrant from Moldova. Would you, Mr. President, take a loyalty oath confirming your second-class status?
Mr. Lieberman’s best-case scenario for tolerating my existence in his vicinity is to have the homes of the likes of me re-zoned into one of the Bantustans he envisions, to be created and run by remote control from behind an ethnic separation wall. Would you succumb gracefully, without protest, to such a scheme, Mr. President?
You have to understand, sir, that I speak here of life-and-death issues for me and my family. Mr. Lieberman, Israel’s Foreign Minister, attained his impressive status through an openly racist election campaign that featured mass rallies at which calls of “Death to Arabs” were standard. Would you trust such a man with your future in the international arena, Mr. President? I surely hope not: but the majority of Israeli citizens seem to have done exactly that.
That is where I sense danger, sir; in the assigning of my fellow countrymen of responsibility for our common future to fascist and untrustworthy representatives. Past injustices, and those were many and massive against my people, were never so clearly foretold as the ones the current Israeli government threatens to perpetrate against me, my family, my village and my people. It is with this clearly articulated plan of my transfer in mind that I call on you to use the undeniable prestige of your office to stop such plans from being implemented. I ask you, sir, to reassure me that you will never permit such schemes to be on any agenda discussed in the presence of representatives of the United States of America. I need that in order to be able to sleep, Mr. President.
With my best wishes for a peaceful and happy Easter for you and your family and for all of humanity, I remain,
Sincerely,
Hatim Kanaaneh , MD , MPH
Author of 'A Doctor in Galilee : the Life and Struggle of a Palestinian in Israel ', Pluto Press, 2008
Active Blog: http://a-doctor-in-galilee.blogspot.com/
Friday, May 15, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Arab Christians in Palestine/Near East
Dear Friend,
An article on Arab "Christian" presence in the "Near East" in light of the Pope's visit there now. JRK
Christian Arabs and 'peace and justice'
By Daoud Kuttab
The Jordan Times - Sunday, May 10, 2009
The visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Jordan and Palestine is a perfect opportunity to review and declare the role of Christian Arabs in the peace process.
To begin with, it is important for all to know that Arabs have been in Palestine and Jordan before Islam and Christianity. References to the word “Arab” and its derivatives are mentioned hundreds of times in the Old and New Testaments. The Biblical figure of Job is said to be Arab and Arabs were among the many attending the sermon on the day of Pentecost by St. Peter when 3,000 (among them Arabs) became Christians. Acts 2 refers to Arabs having heard the sermon in their own tongue.
Arab Christians have, therefore, been an integral part of Palestine and the Middle East region since at least the Day of Pentecost. The role of Arab Christians in modern Arab nationalism was best reflected in George Habib Antonius’ book “The Arab Awakening”. Antonius (1891-1941) was one of the first historians of Arab nationalism. Born of Lebanese-Egyptian parentage and a Christian (Greek Orthodox) Arab, he served in the British Mandate of Palestine. His 1938 book “The Arab Awakening” was written as Palestine was slipping from Arab control.
Antonius traced Arab nationalism to the reign of Mehmet Ali Pasha in Egypt. He argued that Arab nationalism was a product of the West, especially of Protestant missionaries from Britain and the United States. He saw the role of the American University of Beirut (originally the Syrian Protestant College) as central to this development.
The number of Arab Christians vary. Wikipedia states that Christians today make up 9.2 per cent of the population of the Near East. In Lebanon, they now number around 39 per cent of the population, in Syria about 10 to 15 per cent. In Palestine before the creation of Israel estimates range up to as much as 40 per cent, but mass emigration has slashed the number still present to 3.8 per cent.
Israeli Arab Christians constitute 2.1 per cent (or roughly 10 per cent of the Arab population). In Egypt, they constitute between 9 and 16 per cent of the population (the government figures put them at 6 per cent).
Around two-thirds of North and South American and Australian Arabs are Christian, particularly from Lebanon, but also from Palestine and Syria.
While the number of Christian Palestinians in Jerusalem and the occupied territories has dwindled over the years, they are still a key component of the Palestinian and Arab peoples of the region. Activists blame violence, occupation and uncertainty, coupled with opportunities (or lack thereof) for work and emigration, as the main reason for the flight of Christian Palestinians to the Americas, Australia and Europe.
While the world looks at the Arab-Israeli conflict from an Arab-Israeli point of view, or a Jewish-Islamic one, the role and contribution of Arab Christians cannot and need not be ignored.
Unlike followers of the Jewish and Muslim faiths, Christians have no religious attachment to physical locations. Scholars refer to the response of Jesus to the Samaritan woman’s question about whether to worship in Jerusalem or in the Sumerian mountains. Jesus replied to her: “Neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
Christian Arabs, however, believe that a lasting resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must both address the national aspirations of the Palestinians (of which they are part) and provide for the spiritual needs of the faithful, including Christians.
In this regard, Palestinian Christians are perhaps angriest with a radical but effective group of Christians who try to give Biblical support and legitimacy for the Israeli aggression against Palestinians. An entire industry that has been well endowed has cropped up in the West, attempting to hijack the Christian theological debate in favour of what is now referred to as Christian Zionism.
Right-wing governments in Israel and the US seem to be natural feeding grounds for these fundamentalists. Palestinian Christians have forcefully rejected this position and some established evangelical voices have also come up to debunk these myths and insist on the need for justice as an integral part of any peaceful resolution in the region.
The visit of the Pontiff has stirred plenty of interest in the contributions Christians can make to the peace process. Israel’s attempts to ban the Aida refugees in Bethlehem from erecting the stand for the visiting Pope by the 28-foot-high wall is perhaps the most glaring worry the Israeli occupiers have about the visit of the Pontiff. They fear precisely what Arab Christians insist on: that a truly Christian position on the Israeli-Arab conflict will not be merely satisfied with a call for peace, but will necessarily also include a call for justicefor Palestinians.
“Peace and justice” is the message of people of faith from the entire world, and is certainly the focus for Arab Christians.
The writer is director of media NGO Community Media Network in Jordan and Palestine. He comes from a Palestinian Christian family that traces its ancestry in Jerusalem 600 years. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times.
http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=16528
An article on Arab "Christian" presence in the "Near East" in light of the Pope's visit there now. JRK
Christian Arabs and 'peace and justice'
By Daoud Kuttab
The Jordan Times - Sunday, May 10, 2009
The visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Jordan and Palestine is a perfect opportunity to review and declare the role of Christian Arabs in the peace process.
To begin with, it is important for all to know that Arabs have been in Palestine and Jordan before Islam and Christianity. References to the word “Arab” and its derivatives are mentioned hundreds of times in the Old and New Testaments. The Biblical figure of Job is said to be Arab and Arabs were among the many attending the sermon on the day of Pentecost by St. Peter when 3,000 (among them Arabs) became Christians. Acts 2 refers to Arabs having heard the sermon in their own tongue.
Arab Christians have, therefore, been an integral part of Palestine and the Middle East region since at least the Day of Pentecost. The role of Arab Christians in modern Arab nationalism was best reflected in George Habib Antonius’ book “The Arab Awakening”. Antonius (1891-1941) was one of the first historians of Arab nationalism. Born of Lebanese-Egyptian parentage and a Christian (Greek Orthodox) Arab, he served in the British Mandate of Palestine. His 1938 book “The Arab Awakening” was written as Palestine was slipping from Arab control.
Antonius traced Arab nationalism to the reign of Mehmet Ali Pasha in Egypt. He argued that Arab nationalism was a product of the West, especially of Protestant missionaries from Britain and the United States. He saw the role of the American University of Beirut (originally the Syrian Protestant College) as central to this development.
The number of Arab Christians vary. Wikipedia states that Christians today make up 9.2 per cent of the population of the Near East. In Lebanon, they now number around 39 per cent of the population, in Syria about 10 to 15 per cent. In Palestine before the creation of Israel estimates range up to as much as 40 per cent, but mass emigration has slashed the number still present to 3.8 per cent.
Israeli Arab Christians constitute 2.1 per cent (or roughly 10 per cent of the Arab population). In Egypt, they constitute between 9 and 16 per cent of the population (the government figures put them at 6 per cent).
Around two-thirds of North and South American and Australian Arabs are Christian, particularly from Lebanon, but also from Palestine and Syria.
While the number of Christian Palestinians in Jerusalem and the occupied territories has dwindled over the years, they are still a key component of the Palestinian and Arab peoples of the region. Activists blame violence, occupation and uncertainty, coupled with opportunities (or lack thereof) for work and emigration, as the main reason for the flight of Christian Palestinians to the Americas, Australia and Europe.
While the world looks at the Arab-Israeli conflict from an Arab-Israeli point of view, or a Jewish-Islamic one, the role and contribution of Arab Christians cannot and need not be ignored.
Unlike followers of the Jewish and Muslim faiths, Christians have no religious attachment to physical locations. Scholars refer to the response of Jesus to the Samaritan woman’s question about whether to worship in Jerusalem or in the Sumerian mountains. Jesus replied to her: “Neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
Christian Arabs, however, believe that a lasting resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must both address the national aspirations of the Palestinians (of which they are part) and provide for the spiritual needs of the faithful, including Christians.
In this regard, Palestinian Christians are perhaps angriest with a radical but effective group of Christians who try to give Biblical support and legitimacy for the Israeli aggression against Palestinians. An entire industry that has been well endowed has cropped up in the West, attempting to hijack the Christian theological debate in favour of what is now referred to as Christian Zionism.
Right-wing governments in Israel and the US seem to be natural feeding grounds for these fundamentalists. Palestinian Christians have forcefully rejected this position and some established evangelical voices have also come up to debunk these myths and insist on the need for justice as an integral part of any peaceful resolution in the region.
The visit of the Pontiff has stirred plenty of interest in the contributions Christians can make to the peace process. Israel’s attempts to ban the Aida refugees in Bethlehem from erecting the stand for the visiting Pope by the 28-foot-high wall is perhaps the most glaring worry the Israeli occupiers have about the visit of the Pontiff. They fear precisely what Arab Christians insist on: that a truly Christian position on the Israeli-Arab conflict will not be merely satisfied with a call for peace, but will necessarily also include a call for justicefor Palestinians.
“Peace and justice” is the message of people of faith from the entire world, and is certainly the focus for Arab Christians.
The writer is director of media NGO Community Media Network in Jordan and Palestine. He comes from a Palestinian Christian family that traces its ancestry in Jerusalem 600 years. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times.
http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=16528
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Listening to BOTH Narratives
Dear Friend,
Hopefully, more Americans will begin to realize there are TWO narratives driving the conflict in Israel/Palestine. Thanks to the Christian Science Monitor for this sensitive article that tells how the two peoples of the land are trying to walk in each other's shoes.
from the April 29, 2009 edition
- http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0429/p06s14-wome.html
In Israel, Jews and Arabs aim to bridge 'independence' and 'catastrophe' narratives
As the Jewish state celebrates Independence Day on Wednesday, a small but growing band comes together to share experiences.
By Ilene R. Prusher | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Bet Oren, Israel
It happens every year around this time: Israelis celebrate the founding of their state in 1948 while Palestinians solemnly mark the same period in history they call the Catastrophe, and never the twain shall meet.
Except, that is, when people insist that they do. On this hilltop not far from Haifa, Israelis and Palestinians are gathering for a two-day event that incorporates both narratives under the banner of "Together in Pain, Together in Hope." A program marking both Haatzmaoot and Nakba – "independence" and "catastrophe," respectively – aims to expose participants to the experience of the other while not denigrating one's own. For some, this is one small route to the elusive Middle East peace that many of their compatriots see as passé.
Another round of Fatah-Hamas unity talks ended fruitlessly Tuesday in Cairo, with Palestinians still unable to reach consensus on how to respond to international demands for peace negotiations. On the Israeli side, the rise of a new center-right government that has not affirmed its commitment to a two-state solution. This diplomatic stalemate has resulted in a dominant perception among Israelis and Palestinians that things are only going worse. The least one can do, many feel, is to spend these emotionally charged days with others who think like them.
While Jews and Arabs at this joint event don't claim to be the majority, they do appear to be growing in number – from 40 when the gathering started in 2003 to 230 participants this year, not including scores of latecomers who had to be turned away for lack of space. What's also noticeable, both the organizers and returnees note, is that the event is continually drawing new faces, including more "mainstream" people and not just year-round specialists in peace and coexistence work.
"I felt after this last war in Gaza, I couldn't just celebrate Independence Day as usual, so I was glad to find another framework entirely," says Beni Gassenbauer, a dentist who lives in Jerusalem and immigrated to Israel from France 30 years ago. "I didn't see myself staying in Jerusalem and having a party as if nothing has happened."
Still, the idea of sharing the most important secular holidays in the Israeli calendar – Tuesday was Memorial Day, honoring war veterans and victims of terrorism, and Wednesday is Independence Day – with Palestinians commemorating the Nakba (officially celebrated May 13 this year) was one he felt he'd do better to keep from his family.
"My family is very right-wing, and we find it harder and harder to speak about politics," Dr. Gassenbauer says. "I didn't tell my father I was coming here."
Nadia Mahmoud Giol, who grew up in a small Arab village in the Galilee and now lives in Upper Nazareth, has come back to the gathering for a second year. Last year's experience so moved her that she convinced a few other Palestinian friends to come. Others told her she was wasting her time.
"I heard reactions from Arab friends saying, 'the Jews don't believe the truth, they don't believe in our Nakba,' and I say, 'You haven't met them to talk about it,' " Mrs. Giol explains. "People says it's nonsense, these gatherings – you're just talking. But I don't think so; I think it's crucial. And I think being here has an effect, in that you affect the people around you when you go home. As for me, I'm trying to bring up my children to know both sides of the story."
Take my shoes, and stand in them
At the event, participants hear not just "sides" of the story, but real, personal tales. The crowd listened to two witnesses to the 1948 war. Issa Dhabit, 10 years old when the war broke out, talked about the fearful experience of Israeli soldiers taking over his town of his Ramle, and his family's dispersion around the globe. Polish-born Selina Ortner-Shatil told a harrowing story of surviving the Holocaust and making it to pre-state Palestine, only to lose her beloved husband of 10 months in the war for Israel's independence.
Afterward, they were among the many who lit candles dedicated to fallen relatives, recent victims of the conflict, and people slain in the cause of peace – from Israel's Yitzhak Rabin to Egypt's Anwar Sadat.
Yair Boimel, a historian from Haifa University, gave an overview of the 1948 war and told the rapt crowd – which was 80 percent Jewish and 20 percent Palestinian, reflecting Israel's demographics – that the majority of Palestinians who left in that year were expelled, as opposed to having fled. This point, made by a cadre of Israelis academics known as the "new historians," is considered crucial by many, because the traditional Israeli explanation is that most of the local inhabitants left of their own accord, encouraged by invading Arab armies.
It might seem like splitting hairs, but here yesterday's issues impact tomorrow's peace talks. Should Israel offer Palestinians compensation as part of a comprehensive peace deal? Should Palestinians have their demand for a "right of return" recognized?
Rare eye-to-eye conversations
Just last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Washington's Middle East peace envoy, George Mitchell, that peace with the Palestinians will come only if they recognize Israel's existence as a Jewish state. Translation: Only if Palestinians give up the demand for a right of return for refugees from 1948. Israel's controversial foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has extended his definition of the Israel-Palestinian conflict by saying that it must include a solution to the tensions over Israeli Arabs, who have increasingly come to identify as Palestinians.
Eyeing Israel's Arab minority as a demographic threat, Lieberman suggested that a peace deal should include a land swap, in which areas of Israel with a high concentrations of Arabs close to the West Bank be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority.
Lieberman's meteoric rise makes it clear that this week's joint event has relevance even though its participants don't include Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Most Palestinians from those areas can no longer obtain permits to enter Israel. But even if they could, the conditions for such a meeting is are not ripe, says Michal Talya, the founder and organizer for the annual gathering.
"I think coming to an event like this takes a level of inner awareness and an ability to step out of your national identity and see beyond," says Ms. Talya. Their reality of living under Israeli occupation makes it almost impossible to have the kind of eye-to-eye conversations that happen here.
"Jewish Israelis feel threatened by Palestinians, and I'm talking about just the Palestinians inside Israel. So the idea is to come together on these two days, the time when we're at the height of feeling far away from each other, and to try to heal the wounds."
Some Palestinians who came in previous years, she acknowledged with some sadness, found it harder to come this time around, given the events of the past year. "Hope seems to be shrinking, so instead of destroying, we're trying to build."
Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links
Hopefully, more Americans will begin to realize there are TWO narratives driving the conflict in Israel/Palestine. Thanks to the Christian Science Monitor for this sensitive article that tells how the two peoples of the land are trying to walk in each other's shoes.
from the April 29, 2009 edition
- http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0429/p06s14-wome.html
In Israel, Jews and Arabs aim to bridge 'independence' and 'catastrophe' narratives
As the Jewish state celebrates Independence Day on Wednesday, a small but growing band comes together to share experiences.
By Ilene R. Prusher | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Bet Oren, Israel
It happens every year around this time: Israelis celebrate the founding of their state in 1948 while Palestinians solemnly mark the same period in history they call the Catastrophe, and never the twain shall meet.
Except, that is, when people insist that they do. On this hilltop not far from Haifa, Israelis and Palestinians are gathering for a two-day event that incorporates both narratives under the banner of "Together in Pain, Together in Hope." A program marking both Haatzmaoot and Nakba – "independence" and "catastrophe," respectively – aims to expose participants to the experience of the other while not denigrating one's own. For some, this is one small route to the elusive Middle East peace that many of their compatriots see as passé.
Another round of Fatah-Hamas unity talks ended fruitlessly Tuesday in Cairo, with Palestinians still unable to reach consensus on how to respond to international demands for peace negotiations. On the Israeli side, the rise of a new center-right government that has not affirmed its commitment to a two-state solution. This diplomatic stalemate has resulted in a dominant perception among Israelis and Palestinians that things are only going worse. The least one can do, many feel, is to spend these emotionally charged days with others who think like them.
While Jews and Arabs at this joint event don't claim to be the majority, they do appear to be growing in number – from 40 when the gathering started in 2003 to 230 participants this year, not including scores of latecomers who had to be turned away for lack of space. What's also noticeable, both the organizers and returnees note, is that the event is continually drawing new faces, including more "mainstream" people and not just year-round specialists in peace and coexistence work.
"I felt after this last war in Gaza, I couldn't just celebrate Independence Day as usual, so I was glad to find another framework entirely," says Beni Gassenbauer, a dentist who lives in Jerusalem and immigrated to Israel from France 30 years ago. "I didn't see myself staying in Jerusalem and having a party as if nothing has happened."
Still, the idea of sharing the most important secular holidays in the Israeli calendar – Tuesday was Memorial Day, honoring war veterans and victims of terrorism, and Wednesday is Independence Day – with Palestinians commemorating the Nakba (officially celebrated May 13 this year) was one he felt he'd do better to keep from his family.
"My family is very right-wing, and we find it harder and harder to speak about politics," Dr. Gassenbauer says. "I didn't tell my father I was coming here."
Nadia Mahmoud Giol, who grew up in a small Arab village in the Galilee and now lives in Upper Nazareth, has come back to the gathering for a second year. Last year's experience so moved her that she convinced a few other Palestinian friends to come. Others told her she was wasting her time.
"I heard reactions from Arab friends saying, 'the Jews don't believe the truth, they don't believe in our Nakba,' and I say, 'You haven't met them to talk about it,' " Mrs. Giol explains. "People says it's nonsense, these gatherings – you're just talking. But I don't think so; I think it's crucial. And I think being here has an effect, in that you affect the people around you when you go home. As for me, I'm trying to bring up my children to know both sides of the story."
Take my shoes, and stand in them
At the event, participants hear not just "sides" of the story, but real, personal tales. The crowd listened to two witnesses to the 1948 war. Issa Dhabit, 10 years old when the war broke out, talked about the fearful experience of Israeli soldiers taking over his town of his Ramle, and his family's dispersion around the globe. Polish-born Selina Ortner-Shatil told a harrowing story of surviving the Holocaust and making it to pre-state Palestine, only to lose her beloved husband of 10 months in the war for Israel's independence.
Afterward, they were among the many who lit candles dedicated to fallen relatives, recent victims of the conflict, and people slain in the cause of peace – from Israel's Yitzhak Rabin to Egypt's Anwar Sadat.
Yair Boimel, a historian from Haifa University, gave an overview of the 1948 war and told the rapt crowd – which was 80 percent Jewish and 20 percent Palestinian, reflecting Israel's demographics – that the majority of Palestinians who left in that year were expelled, as opposed to having fled. This point, made by a cadre of Israelis academics known as the "new historians," is considered crucial by many, because the traditional Israeli explanation is that most of the local inhabitants left of their own accord, encouraged by invading Arab armies.
It might seem like splitting hairs, but here yesterday's issues impact tomorrow's peace talks. Should Israel offer Palestinians compensation as part of a comprehensive peace deal? Should Palestinians have their demand for a "right of return" recognized?
Rare eye-to-eye conversations
Just last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Washington's Middle East peace envoy, George Mitchell, that peace with the Palestinians will come only if they recognize Israel's existence as a Jewish state. Translation: Only if Palestinians give up the demand for a right of return for refugees from 1948. Israel's controversial foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has extended his definition of the Israel-Palestinian conflict by saying that it must include a solution to the tensions over Israeli Arabs, who have increasingly come to identify as Palestinians.
Eyeing Israel's Arab minority as a demographic threat, Lieberman suggested that a peace deal should include a land swap, in which areas of Israel with a high concentrations of Arabs close to the West Bank be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority.
Lieberman's meteoric rise makes it clear that this week's joint event has relevance even though its participants don't include Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Most Palestinians from those areas can no longer obtain permits to enter Israel. But even if they could, the conditions for such a meeting is are not ripe, says Michal Talya, the founder and organizer for the annual gathering.
"I think coming to an event like this takes a level of inner awareness and an ability to step out of your national identity and see beyond," says Ms. Talya. Their reality of living under Israeli occupation makes it almost impossible to have the kind of eye-to-eye conversations that happen here.
"Jewish Israelis feel threatened by Palestinians, and I'm talking about just the Palestinians inside Israel. So the idea is to come together on these two days, the time when we're at the height of feeling far away from each other, and to try to heal the wounds."
Some Palestinians who came in previous years, she acknowledged with some sadness, found it harder to come this time around, given the events of the past year. "Hope seems to be shrinking, so instead of destroying, we're trying to build."
Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links
Friday, May 1, 2009
Time for Deeds, Not Words
Gideon Levy, well-known voice in the wilderness, urges an end to "Word Games", with hopes that our President won't get dragged into the long-lasting posturing so typical of Israeli leadership as they thumb their noses at US and International strictures against settlement expansion on Palestinian territory.
(I'm trying, intentionally, to lighten up on the number of articles I send you, hoping to bring more hopeful "signs of the in-breaking kingdom" from people on the ground, who've been there recently and report people-to-people exchanges that defy "enemy combatant" characterizations, so typical of the secular press). Peace, reconciliation (Without justice there will be no peace; without love, there will be no justice -- JRK)
Word games
The only recognition that is needed now is Israel's recognition of the Palestinians as human beings.
By Gideon Levy
Ha'aretz -- Thursday - April 23, 2009
Lord have mercy: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has relinquished for the moment his demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as "a Jewish state" as a condition for negotiations. He has deigned to postpone the demand until future stages. Listen up, world: Perhaps, just perhaps, Netanyahu will also see fit to utter the forbidden phrase "two states for two peoples."
The slogan of yesterday's illegitimate radical left will be heard publicly in Washington from the mouth of Israel's most right-wing prime minister ever, and everyone will sing the praises of the historic turnaround. The diplomatic process will again take wing and the expectations will soar. Peace is just around the corner.
Once again the diplomatic arena has become a playground of words. This will be said and that will be declared and the other will be proclaimed. This is a guarantee of another foregone failure.
Whether or not Netanyahu says two states, nothing will change. The Americans will rejoice, the Europeans will be thrilled, the Israeli right will wax wrathful, commentators will again write with pathos about how the dream of the greater land of Israel has been shelved - and the occupation will flourish.
The Jewish settlements in the territories will also continue to metastasize. After all, most Israelis, and at least two prime ministers and two leaders of the opposition, already said yes to the formula for peace long ago, and nothing has happened.
No less contemptible are the word games over the desired recognition of Israel: For a generation now we have been amusing ourselves with them. The silly game should have ended 16 years ago, and we are still at it. In September of 1993, Yasser Arafat promised prime minister Yitzhak Rabin that the Palestine Liberation Organization would recognize Israel; three years later, in April 1996, the Palestinian National Council convened and ratified the recognition.
The barrage of words demanding a change in the charter should have stopped right away, but the Israeli longing for recognition was not satisfied. Two years later, in December 1998, U.S. president Bill Clinton went all the way to Gaza and there, at a formal session of the Palestinian National Council, no less than 12 terrible clauses were deleted from the Palestinian Charter (phooey on it) and along with them, another 16 sub-clauses.
Huge rejoicing. Council member Jawad al-Tibi from Gaza said that he had voted with his feet, not only his hand. At that time the prime minister was none other than Netanyahu, the same Netanyahu who is again trying to squeeze out another unnecessary recognition. After the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state there will no doubt come the demand to recognize Saturday as its day of rest, and after that perhaps also a demand for Palestinian recognition of the law prohibiting the display of leaven during Passover.
But we aren't talking about having fun here, rather about fateful issues. Only those who want to prevent progress are engaging in these vanities of recognition, and only a country with especially limp self-confidence needs recognition of its national character at all.
Is it conceivable that France would demand recognition as a French state? Or Italy as an Italian state? And from whom are we demanding the recognition? From those who have been groaning under the boots of the occupation for more than 40 years now.
In the meantime, one begins to fear that another promising American president, perhaps the most promising of all, is about to fall into the honey trap of words and formulas. This president should be told now is not a time for words. Their time has passed. No more peace plan and - heavens forefend - not another outline; not negotiations, not a formula and not a summit.
All the plans are in a drawer, waiting for their day. Now is the time for deeds.
The only recognition that is needed now is Israel's recognition of the Palestinians as human beings. If this is obtained, all the rest will be relatively easy. The day will come when Israelis and Palestinians will not understand how they shed blood for so many years and why, but this day is further off than ever.
Now the time has come for the test of actions. Instead of wasting precious time on formulas, we need to take steps. Instead of dithering over verbiage, we need to make changes on the ground.
Twenty evacuated settlements are worth more than a thousand peace formulas, and 2,000 released prisoners will move the sides forward more than 10,000 words.
If only Israel agrees to implement what it has agreed to, from the release of prisoners to a freeze on settlements, it will be possible to come to the Palestinians with demands.
To paraphrase David Ben-Gurion, it is necessary to tell the president of the United States now that it doesn't matter what the Jews say, it matters what they do.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080106.html
(I'm trying, intentionally, to lighten up on the number of articles I send you, hoping to bring more hopeful "signs of the in-breaking kingdom" from people on the ground, who've been there recently and report people-to-people exchanges that defy "enemy combatant" characterizations, so typical of the secular press). Peace, reconciliation (Without justice there will be no peace; without love, there will be no justice -- JRK)
Word games
The only recognition that is needed now is Israel's recognition of the Palestinians as human beings.
By Gideon Levy
Ha'aretz -- Thursday - April 23, 2009
Lord have mercy: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has relinquished for the moment his demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as "a Jewish state" as a condition for negotiations. He has deigned to postpone the demand until future stages. Listen up, world: Perhaps, just perhaps, Netanyahu will also see fit to utter the forbidden phrase "two states for two peoples."
The slogan of yesterday's illegitimate radical left will be heard publicly in Washington from the mouth of Israel's most right-wing prime minister ever, and everyone will sing the praises of the historic turnaround. The diplomatic process will again take wing and the expectations will soar. Peace is just around the corner.
Once again the diplomatic arena has become a playground of words. This will be said and that will be declared and the other will be proclaimed. This is a guarantee of another foregone failure.
Whether or not Netanyahu says two states, nothing will change. The Americans will rejoice, the Europeans will be thrilled, the Israeli right will wax wrathful, commentators will again write with pathos about how the dream of the greater land of Israel has been shelved - and the occupation will flourish.
The Jewish settlements in the territories will also continue to metastasize. After all, most Israelis, and at least two prime ministers and two leaders of the opposition, already said yes to the formula for peace long ago, and nothing has happened.
No less contemptible are the word games over the desired recognition of Israel: For a generation now we have been amusing ourselves with them. The silly game should have ended 16 years ago, and we are still at it. In September of 1993, Yasser Arafat promised prime minister Yitzhak Rabin that the Palestine Liberation Organization would recognize Israel; three years later, in April 1996, the Palestinian National Council convened and ratified the recognition.
The barrage of words demanding a change in the charter should have stopped right away, but the Israeli longing for recognition was not satisfied. Two years later, in December 1998, U.S. president Bill Clinton went all the way to Gaza and there, at a formal session of the Palestinian National Council, no less than 12 terrible clauses were deleted from the Palestinian Charter (phooey on it) and along with them, another 16 sub-clauses.
Huge rejoicing. Council member Jawad al-Tibi from Gaza said that he had voted with his feet, not only his hand. At that time the prime minister was none other than Netanyahu, the same Netanyahu who is again trying to squeeze out another unnecessary recognition. After the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state there will no doubt come the demand to recognize Saturday as its day of rest, and after that perhaps also a demand for Palestinian recognition of the law prohibiting the display of leaven during Passover.
But we aren't talking about having fun here, rather about fateful issues. Only those who want to prevent progress are engaging in these vanities of recognition, and only a country with especially limp self-confidence needs recognition of its national character at all.
Is it conceivable that France would demand recognition as a French state? Or Italy as an Italian state? And from whom are we demanding the recognition? From those who have been groaning under the boots of the occupation for more than 40 years now.
In the meantime, one begins to fear that another promising American president, perhaps the most promising of all, is about to fall into the honey trap of words and formulas. This president should be told now is not a time for words. Their time has passed. No more peace plan and - heavens forefend - not another outline; not negotiations, not a formula and not a summit.
All the plans are in a drawer, waiting for their day. Now is the time for deeds.
The only recognition that is needed now is Israel's recognition of the Palestinians as human beings. If this is obtained, all the rest will be relatively easy. The day will come when Israelis and Palestinians will not understand how they shed blood for so many years and why, but this day is further off than ever.
Now the time has come for the test of actions. Instead of wasting precious time on formulas, we need to take steps. Instead of dithering over verbiage, we need to make changes on the ground.
Twenty evacuated settlements are worth more than a thousand peace formulas, and 2,000 released prisoners will move the sides forward more than 10,000 words.
If only Israel agrees to implement what it has agreed to, from the release of prisoners to a freeze on settlements, it will be possible to come to the Palestinians with demands.
To paraphrase David Ben-Gurion, it is necessary to tell the president of the United States now that it doesn't matter what the Jews say, it matters what they do.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080106.html
Monday, April 13, 2009
Uri Avnery Speaks (complicated) Truth
Dear Friend,
Here is the last half of a recent editorial from Uri Avnery, Israeli poet and prophet, who agonizes over the complex clash between (early) Zionist idealism and the "people of the land" (Arabs). He seeks to live in the center of the contradictions that (somehow) need to be reconciled, integrated, given their rightful place in the scheme of things over there. God help us in this endeavor. JRK
IN 1948, the songs of the War of Independence joined the pioneer songs. Regarding them, too, not a few among us suffer from cognitive dissonance. On the one side – what we felt then. On the other – the truth as we know it now.
For the fighters – as for the entire Yishuv [new Israeli society] – it was, quite simply, an existential war. The slogan was “There is No Alternative”, and all of us believed in it completely. We were fighting with our backs to the wall, the lives of our families hanging in the balance. The enemy was all around us. We believed that we, the few, the very few, almost without arms, were standing up against a sea of Arabs. In the first half of the war, the Arab fighters (known to us as “the gangs”) indeed dominated all the roads, and in the second half, the regular Arab armies approached the centers of the Hebrew population, surrounding Hebrew Jerusalem and coming close to Tel-Aviv. The Yishuv lost 6000 young people out of a population of some 635 thousand. Whole year-groups were decimated. Innumerable heroic acts were performed.
The idealism of the fighters found its expression in the songs. Most of them are imbued with faith in victory, and, of course, total conviction of the justness of our cause. We did not leave Arabs behind our lines, nor did the Arabs leave any Jews behind theirs. It looked in those circumstances like a simple military necessity. The fighters did not think then about “ethnic cleansing” – a term not yet invented.
We had no understanding about the real balance of power between us and the other side. The Arabs looked to us like a huge force. We did not know that the Palestinians were quarreling with each other, unable to unite and to create a country-wide defense force, that they had a severe shortage of modern arms. Later, when the Arab armies joined the fray, we did not know that they were unable to cooperate with each other, that it was more important for them to compete with each other than to defeat us.
Today, a growing number of Israelis have started to understand the full significance of the “Nakba”, the great tragedy of the Palestinian people and all the individuals who lost their homes and most of their homeland. But the songs come and remind us of what we felt at the time, when the things happened. An abyss yawns between the emotional reality of those days and the historical truth as we know it now.
Some see the entire 1948 war as a conspiracy of the Zionist leadership which intended right from the beginning to expel the Palestinians from the country in order to turn it into a Jewish State. According to this view, the soldiers of 1948 were war criminals who implemented a vicious policy, much as the pioneers of the preceding generation were land robbers, knights of ethnic cleansing by expulsion and expropriation.
They are strengthened in this view by today’s settlers, who are driving the Palestinians from what remains of their land. By their actions they blacken the pioneer past. Religious fanatics and fascist hooligans, who claim to be the heirs of the pioneers, obliterate the real intentions of that generation
HOW CAN one overcome the contradiction between the intentions and emotions of the actors and their many magnificent achievements in building a new nation, and the dark side of their actions and the consequences?
How to sing about the hopes and dreams of our youth and at the same time admit to the terrible injustice of many of our actions? Sing with full heart the pioneer songs and the 1948 war songs (one of which I wrote, of which I am far from proud), without denying the terrible tragedy we imposed on the Palestinian people?
Barack Obama told the Turkish people this week that they must come to grips with the massacre of the Armenians committed by their fathers, while at the same time reminding the Americans that they must confront the genocide of the Native Americans and the black slavery exploited by their own forefathers.
I believe we can do this regarding the catastrophe that we have caused the Palestinians. I am convinced that this is important, indeed essential, for our own national mental health, as well as a first step toward eventual reconciliation. We must acknowledge and recognize the consequences of our deeds and repair what can be repaired – without rejecting our past and the songs that express the innocence of our youth.
We must live with this contradiction, because it is the truth of our lives.
permlink: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1239519715/
www.gush-shalom.org
www.friendsofpalestiniansandisraelis.blogspot.com
Here is the last half of a recent editorial from Uri Avnery, Israeli poet and prophet, who agonizes over the complex clash between (early) Zionist idealism and the "people of the land" (Arabs). He seeks to live in the center of the contradictions that (somehow) need to be reconciled, integrated, given their rightful place in the scheme of things over there. God help us in this endeavor. JRK
IN 1948, the songs of the War of Independence joined the pioneer songs. Regarding them, too, not a few among us suffer from cognitive dissonance. On the one side – what we felt then. On the other – the truth as we know it now.
For the fighters – as for the entire Yishuv [new Israeli society] – it was, quite simply, an existential war. The slogan was “There is No Alternative”, and all of us believed in it completely. We were fighting with our backs to the wall, the lives of our families hanging in the balance. The enemy was all around us. We believed that we, the few, the very few, almost without arms, were standing up against a sea of Arabs. In the first half of the war, the Arab fighters (known to us as “the gangs”) indeed dominated all the roads, and in the second half, the regular Arab armies approached the centers of the Hebrew population, surrounding Hebrew Jerusalem and coming close to Tel-Aviv. The Yishuv lost 6000 young people out of a population of some 635 thousand. Whole year-groups were decimated. Innumerable heroic acts were performed.
The idealism of the fighters found its expression in the songs. Most of them are imbued with faith in victory, and, of course, total conviction of the justness of our cause. We did not leave Arabs behind our lines, nor did the Arabs leave any Jews behind theirs. It looked in those circumstances like a simple military necessity. The fighters did not think then about “ethnic cleansing” – a term not yet invented.
We had no understanding about the real balance of power between us and the other side. The Arabs looked to us like a huge force. We did not know that the Palestinians were quarreling with each other, unable to unite and to create a country-wide defense force, that they had a severe shortage of modern arms. Later, when the Arab armies joined the fray, we did not know that they were unable to cooperate with each other, that it was more important for them to compete with each other than to defeat us.
Today, a growing number of Israelis have started to understand the full significance of the “Nakba”, the great tragedy of the Palestinian people and all the individuals who lost their homes and most of their homeland. But the songs come and remind us of what we felt at the time, when the things happened. An abyss yawns between the emotional reality of those days and the historical truth as we know it now.
Some see the entire 1948 war as a conspiracy of the Zionist leadership which intended right from the beginning to expel the Palestinians from the country in order to turn it into a Jewish State. According to this view, the soldiers of 1948 were war criminals who implemented a vicious policy, much as the pioneers of the preceding generation were land robbers, knights of ethnic cleansing by expulsion and expropriation.
They are strengthened in this view by today’s settlers, who are driving the Palestinians from what remains of their land. By their actions they blacken the pioneer past. Religious fanatics and fascist hooligans, who claim to be the heirs of the pioneers, obliterate the real intentions of that generation
HOW CAN one overcome the contradiction between the intentions and emotions of the actors and their many magnificent achievements in building a new nation, and the dark side of their actions and the consequences?
How to sing about the hopes and dreams of our youth and at the same time admit to the terrible injustice of many of our actions? Sing with full heart the pioneer songs and the 1948 war songs (one of which I wrote, of which I am far from proud), without denying the terrible tragedy we imposed on the Palestinian people?
Barack Obama told the Turkish people this week that they must come to grips with the massacre of the Armenians committed by their fathers, while at the same time reminding the Americans that they must confront the genocide of the Native Americans and the black slavery exploited by their own forefathers.
I believe we can do this regarding the catastrophe that we have caused the Palestinians. I am convinced that this is important, indeed essential, for our own national mental health, as well as a first step toward eventual reconciliation. We must acknowledge and recognize the consequences of our deeds and repair what can be repaired – without rejecting our past and the songs that express the innocence of our youth.
We must live with this contradiction, because it is the truth of our lives.
permlink: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1239519715/
www.gush-shalom.org
www.friendsofpalestiniansandisraelis.blogspot.com
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Netanyahu Agrees to Extremists' Demands!
Dear Friend,
Early indications confirm "Bibi", the new Israeli P.M. is talking out of both sides of his mouth. To forge his right-wing coalition, he agreed to settler (extremists') demands to confiscate more Palestinian land and create a road that will link setttlements at the expense of a contiguous Palestinian state (see Haaretz editorial below); AND, saying he is committed to "peace" with Palestinians (and compatibility with President Obama's goal of a freeze on "settlements").
Netanyahu CANNOT have it BOTH WAYS. But this is the Orwellian double-speak characteristic of Israeli governments especially since the 1967 military conquest of the West Bank and Gaza (and Golan Heights).
Will the Obama administration call him on this, right away, or will it be the same old, same old, as under Bush II? Does anyone in the US government dare to oppose Israeli actions on the ground? Anyone at all? [Not if they want to be re-elected!]. JRK
Leave East Jerusalem alone
Media Outlet:
Haaretz
Article Type:
Editorial
Date:
March 31, 2009
Source Link(s):
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1075105.html [1]
On the eve of the new government's swearing-in, right-wing elements in the new coalition and among the settlers are preparing to heighten Israeli control in East Jerusalem. In the coalition negotiations, Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu was forced to promise to carry out the large (E1) plan to create Jewish urban contiguity between Ma'aleh Adumim and the capital. The plan, which calls for building 3,500 residential units, was suspended a number of years ago due to pressure from the American administration, which feared it would be an obstacle to creating a territorially contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank.
Settlers' associations that have gained purchase in the Holy Basin near the Old City are increasing their pressure on the political system. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, who was supported by these groups in his election campaign, was under pressure from them to demolish dozens of homes in the village of Silwan to reduce the Palestinian population in the area. Were it not for the intelligent decision by the municipality's legal adviser, Yossi Havilio, to freeze a plan to build 230 residential units in the Kidmat Zion neighborhood, in the heart of Abu Dis, we would soon be witness to Har Homa, the sequel. It can be assumed that the Ateret Cohanim activists who were behind the establishment of the Jewish neighborhood in Abu Dis will lobby their loyalists in the government and the municipality to revive the project.
Netanyahu's declaration that his government will renew the negotiations with the Palestinians is at odds with unilateral measures in Jerusalem, whose status is one of the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian agenda. Just as Israel is obligated to freezing building in the West Bank settlements as long as there is no agreement on the permanent borders, so too must it avoid creating new facts on the ground in and around East Jerusalem.
It can be hoped that Netanyahu, who says that he has "changed," learned his lesson from his bull in a china shop behavior in Jerusalem during his first premiership. Opening the Western Wall Tunnel and building the Har Homa neighborhood confirmed the fears of the Palestinians and of the Arab states with regard to the right-wing government.
Barack Obama's administration asked Israel not to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and let Netanyahu know that the United States is monitoring Israel's moves in the city and expects it to avoid controversial ones. Netanyahu must listen to this message.
Early indications confirm "Bibi", the new Israeli P.M. is talking out of both sides of his mouth. To forge his right-wing coalition, he agreed to settler (extremists') demands to confiscate more Palestinian land and create a road that will link setttlements at the expense of a contiguous Palestinian state (see Haaretz editorial below); AND, saying he is committed to "peace" with Palestinians (and compatibility with President Obama's goal of a freeze on "settlements").
Netanyahu CANNOT have it BOTH WAYS. But this is the Orwellian double-speak characteristic of Israeli governments especially since the 1967 military conquest of the West Bank and Gaza (and Golan Heights).
Will the Obama administration call him on this, right away, or will it be the same old, same old, as under Bush II? Does anyone in the US government dare to oppose Israeli actions on the ground? Anyone at all? [Not if they want to be re-elected!]. JRK
Leave East Jerusalem alone
Media Outlet:
Haaretz
Article Type:
Editorial
Date:
March 31, 2009
Source Link(s):
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1075105.html [1]
On the eve of the new government's swearing-in, right-wing elements in the new coalition and among the settlers are preparing to heighten Israeli control in East Jerusalem. In the coalition negotiations, Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu was forced to promise to carry out the large (E1) plan to create Jewish urban contiguity between Ma'aleh Adumim and the capital. The plan, which calls for building 3,500 residential units, was suspended a number of years ago due to pressure from the American administration, which feared it would be an obstacle to creating a territorially contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank.
Settlers' associations that have gained purchase in the Holy Basin near the Old City are increasing their pressure on the political system. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, who was supported by these groups in his election campaign, was under pressure from them to demolish dozens of homes in the village of Silwan to reduce the Palestinian population in the area. Were it not for the intelligent decision by the municipality's legal adviser, Yossi Havilio, to freeze a plan to build 230 residential units in the Kidmat Zion neighborhood, in the heart of Abu Dis, we would soon be witness to Har Homa, the sequel. It can be assumed that the Ateret Cohanim activists who were behind the establishment of the Jewish neighborhood in Abu Dis will lobby their loyalists in the government and the municipality to revive the project.
Netanyahu's declaration that his government will renew the negotiations with the Palestinians is at odds with unilateral measures in Jerusalem, whose status is one of the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian agenda. Just as Israel is obligated to freezing building in the West Bank settlements as long as there is no agreement on the permanent borders, so too must it avoid creating new facts on the ground in and around East Jerusalem.
It can be hoped that Netanyahu, who says that he has "changed," learned his lesson from his bull in a china shop behavior in Jerusalem during his first premiership. Opening the Western Wall Tunnel and building the Har Homa neighborhood confirmed the fears of the Palestinians and of the Arab states with regard to the right-wing government.
Barack Obama's administration asked Israel not to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and let Netanyahu know that the United States is monitoring Israel's moves in the city and expects it to avoid controversial ones. Netanyahu must listen to this message.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Can We Talk Honestly About Israel?
Published on The American Task Force on Palestine (http://www.americantaskforce.org)
The Lobby Falters
John Mearsheimer
London Review of Books
Opinion
March 26, 2009
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n06/mear01_.html [1]
Many people in Washington were surprised when the Obama administration tapped Charles Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council, the body that oversees the production of National Intelligence Estimates: Freeman had a distinguished 30-year career as a diplomat and Defense Department official, but he has publicly criticised Israeli policy and America’s special relationship with Israel, saying, for example, in a speech in 2005, that ‘as long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected.’ Words like these are rarely spoken in public in Washington, and anyone who does use them is almost certain not to get a high-level government position. But Admiral Dennis Blair, the new director of national intelligence, greatly admires Freeman: just the sort of person, he thought, to revitalise the intelligence community, which had been very politicised in the Bush years.
Predictably alarmed, the Israel lobby launched a smear campaign against Freeman, hoping that he would either quit or be fired by Obama. The opening salvo came in a blog posting by Steven Rosen, a former official of Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, now under indictment for passing secrets to Israel. Freeman’s views of the Middle East, he said, ‘are what you would expect in the Saudi Foreign Ministry, with which he maintains an extremely close relationship’. Prominent pro-Israel journalists such as Jonathan Chait and Martin Peretz of the New Republic, and Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, quickly joined the fray and Freeman was hammered in publications that consistently defend Israel, such as the National Review, the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard.
The real heat, however, came from Congress, where Aipac (which describes itself as ‘America’s Pro-Israel Lobby’) wields enormous power. All the Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee came out against Freeman, as did key Senate Democrats such as Joseph Lieberman and Charles Schumer. ‘I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him,’ Schumer said, ‘and I am glad they did the right thing.’ It was the same story in the House, where the charge was led by Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Steve Israel, who pushed Blair to initiate a formal investigation of Freeman’s finances. In the end, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, declared the Freeman appointment ‘beyond the pale’. Freeman might have survived this onslaught had the White House stood by him. But Barack Obama’s pandering to the Israel lobby during the campaign and his silence during the Gaza War show that this is one opponent he is not willing to challenge. True to form, he remained silent and Freeman had little choice but to withdraw.
The lobby has since gone to great lengths to deny its role in Freeman’s resignation. The Aipac spokesman Josh Block said his organisation ‘took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it’. The Washington Post, whose editorial page is run by Fred Hiatt, a man staunchly committed to the special relationship, ran an editorial which claimed that blaming the lobby for Freeman’s resignation was something dreamed up by ‘Mr Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists’.
In fact, there is abundant evidence that Aipac and other hardline supporters of Israel were deeply involved in the campaign. Block admitted that he had spoken to reporters and bloggers about Freeman and provided them with information, always on the understanding that his comments would not be attributed to him or to Aipac. Jonathan Chait, who denied that Israel was at the root of the controversy before Freeman was toppled, wrote afterwards: ‘Of course I recognise that the Israel lobby is powerful and was a key element in the pushback against Freeman, and that it is not always a force for good.’ Daniel Pipes, who runs the Middle East Forum, where Steven Rosen now works, quickly sent out an email newsletter boasting about Rosen’s role in bringing Freeman down.
On 12 March, the day the Washington Post ran its editorial railing against anyone who suggested that the Israel lobby had helped topple Freeman, the paper also published a front-page story describing the central role that the lobby had played in the affair. There was also a comment piece by the veteran journalist David Broder, which opened with the words: ‘The Obama administration has just suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the lobbyists the president vowed to keep in their place.’
Freeman’s critics maintain that his views on Israel were not his only problem. He is said to have especially close – maybe even improper – ties to Saudi Arabia, where he previously served as American ambassador. The charge hasn’t stuck, however, because there is no evidence for it. Israel’s supporters also said that he had made insensitive remarks about what happened to the Chinese protesters at Tiananmen Square, but that charge, which his defenders contest, only came up because Freeman’s pro-Israel critics were looking for any argument they could muster to damage his reputation.
Why does the lobby care so much about one appointment to an important, but not top leadership position? Here’s one reason: Freeman would have been responsible for the production of National Intelligence Estimates. Israel and its American supporters were outraged when the National Intelligence Council concluded in November 2007 that Iran was not building nuclear weapons, and they have worked assiduously to undermine that report ever since. The lobby wants to make sure that the next estimate of Iran’s nuclear capabilities reaches the opposite conclusion, and that would have been much less likely to happen with Freeman in charge. Better to have someone vetted by Aipac running the show.
An even more important reason for the lobby to drive Freeman out of his job is the weakness of the case for America’s present policy towards Israel, which makes it imperative to silence or marginalise anyone who criticises the special relationship. If Freeman hadn’t been punished, others would see that one could talk critically about Israel and still have a successful career in Washington. And once you get an open and free-wheeling discussion about Israel, the special relationship will be in serious trouble.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the Freeman affair was that the mainstream media paid it little attention – the New York Times, for example, did not run a single story dealing with Freeman until the day after he stepped down – while a fierce battle over the appointment took place in the blogosphere. Freeman’s opponents used the internet to their advantage; that is where Rosen launched the campaign. But something happened there that would never have happened in the mainstream media: the lobby faced real opposition. Indeed, a vigorous, well-informed and highly regarded array of bloggers defended Freeman at every turn and would probably have carried the day had Congress not tipped the scales against them. In short, the internet enabled a serious debate in the United States about an issue involving Israel. The lobby has never had much trouble keeping the New York Times and the Washington Post in line, but it has few ways to silence critics on the internet.
When pro-Israel forces clashed with a major political figure in the past, that person usually backed off. Jimmy Carter, who was smeared by the lobby after he published Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, was the first prominent American to stand his ground and fight back. The lobby has been unable to silence him, and it is not for lack of trying. Freeman is following in Carter’s footsteps, but with sharper elbows. After stepping down, he issued a blistering denunciation of ‘unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country’ whose aim is ‘to prevent any view other than its own from being aired’. ‘There is,’ he continued, ‘a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government.’
Freeman’s remarkable statement has shot all around the world and been read by countless individuals. This isn’t good for the lobby, which would have preferred to kill Freeman’s appointment without leaving any fingerprints. But Freeman will continue to speak out about Israel and the lobby, and maybe some of his natural allies inside the Beltway will eventually join him. Slowly but steadily, space is being opened up in the United States to talk honestly about Israel.
The Lobby Falters
John Mearsheimer
London Review of Books
Opinion
March 26, 2009
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n06/mear01_.html [1]
Many people in Washington were surprised when the Obama administration tapped Charles Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council, the body that oversees the production of National Intelligence Estimates: Freeman had a distinguished 30-year career as a diplomat and Defense Department official, but he has publicly criticised Israeli policy and America’s special relationship with Israel, saying, for example, in a speech in 2005, that ‘as long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected.’ Words like these are rarely spoken in public in Washington, and anyone who does use them is almost certain not to get a high-level government position. But Admiral Dennis Blair, the new director of national intelligence, greatly admires Freeman: just the sort of person, he thought, to revitalise the intelligence community, which had been very politicised in the Bush years.
Predictably alarmed, the Israel lobby launched a smear campaign against Freeman, hoping that he would either quit or be fired by Obama. The opening salvo came in a blog posting by Steven Rosen, a former official of Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, now under indictment for passing secrets to Israel. Freeman’s views of the Middle East, he said, ‘are what you would expect in the Saudi Foreign Ministry, with which he maintains an extremely close relationship’. Prominent pro-Israel journalists such as Jonathan Chait and Martin Peretz of the New Republic, and Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, quickly joined the fray and Freeman was hammered in publications that consistently defend Israel, such as the National Review, the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard.
The real heat, however, came from Congress, where Aipac (which describes itself as ‘America’s Pro-Israel Lobby’) wields enormous power. All the Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee came out against Freeman, as did key Senate Democrats such as Joseph Lieberman and Charles Schumer. ‘I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him,’ Schumer said, ‘and I am glad they did the right thing.’ It was the same story in the House, where the charge was led by Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Steve Israel, who pushed Blair to initiate a formal investigation of Freeman’s finances. In the end, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, declared the Freeman appointment ‘beyond the pale’. Freeman might have survived this onslaught had the White House stood by him. But Barack Obama’s pandering to the Israel lobby during the campaign and his silence during the Gaza War show that this is one opponent he is not willing to challenge. True to form, he remained silent and Freeman had little choice but to withdraw.
The lobby has since gone to great lengths to deny its role in Freeman’s resignation. The Aipac spokesman Josh Block said his organisation ‘took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it’. The Washington Post, whose editorial page is run by Fred Hiatt, a man staunchly committed to the special relationship, ran an editorial which claimed that blaming the lobby for Freeman’s resignation was something dreamed up by ‘Mr Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists’.
In fact, there is abundant evidence that Aipac and other hardline supporters of Israel were deeply involved in the campaign. Block admitted that he had spoken to reporters and bloggers about Freeman and provided them with information, always on the understanding that his comments would not be attributed to him or to Aipac. Jonathan Chait, who denied that Israel was at the root of the controversy before Freeman was toppled, wrote afterwards: ‘Of course I recognise that the Israel lobby is powerful and was a key element in the pushback against Freeman, and that it is not always a force for good.’ Daniel Pipes, who runs the Middle East Forum, where Steven Rosen now works, quickly sent out an email newsletter boasting about Rosen’s role in bringing Freeman down.
On 12 March, the day the Washington Post ran its editorial railing against anyone who suggested that the Israel lobby had helped topple Freeman, the paper also published a front-page story describing the central role that the lobby had played in the affair. There was also a comment piece by the veteran journalist David Broder, which opened with the words: ‘The Obama administration has just suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the lobbyists the president vowed to keep in their place.’
Freeman’s critics maintain that his views on Israel were not his only problem. He is said to have especially close – maybe even improper – ties to Saudi Arabia, where he previously served as American ambassador. The charge hasn’t stuck, however, because there is no evidence for it. Israel’s supporters also said that he had made insensitive remarks about what happened to the Chinese protesters at Tiananmen Square, but that charge, which his defenders contest, only came up because Freeman’s pro-Israel critics were looking for any argument they could muster to damage his reputation.
Why does the lobby care so much about one appointment to an important, but not top leadership position? Here’s one reason: Freeman would have been responsible for the production of National Intelligence Estimates. Israel and its American supporters were outraged when the National Intelligence Council concluded in November 2007 that Iran was not building nuclear weapons, and they have worked assiduously to undermine that report ever since. The lobby wants to make sure that the next estimate of Iran’s nuclear capabilities reaches the opposite conclusion, and that would have been much less likely to happen with Freeman in charge. Better to have someone vetted by Aipac running the show.
An even more important reason for the lobby to drive Freeman out of his job is the weakness of the case for America’s present policy towards Israel, which makes it imperative to silence or marginalise anyone who criticises the special relationship. If Freeman hadn’t been punished, others would see that one could talk critically about Israel and still have a successful career in Washington. And once you get an open and free-wheeling discussion about Israel, the special relationship will be in serious trouble.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the Freeman affair was that the mainstream media paid it little attention – the New York Times, for example, did not run a single story dealing with Freeman until the day after he stepped down – while a fierce battle over the appointment took place in the blogosphere. Freeman’s opponents used the internet to their advantage; that is where Rosen launched the campaign. But something happened there that would never have happened in the mainstream media: the lobby faced real opposition. Indeed, a vigorous, well-informed and highly regarded array of bloggers defended Freeman at every turn and would probably have carried the day had Congress not tipped the scales against them. In short, the internet enabled a serious debate in the United States about an issue involving Israel. The lobby has never had much trouble keeping the New York Times and the Washington Post in line, but it has few ways to silence critics on the internet.
When pro-Israel forces clashed with a major political figure in the past, that person usually backed off. Jimmy Carter, who was smeared by the lobby after he published Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, was the first prominent American to stand his ground and fight back. The lobby has been unable to silence him, and it is not for lack of trying. Freeman is following in Carter’s footsteps, but with sharper elbows. After stepping down, he issued a blistering denunciation of ‘unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country’ whose aim is ‘to prevent any view other than its own from being aired’. ‘There is,’ he continued, ‘a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government.’
Freeman’s remarkable statement has shot all around the world and been read by countless individuals. This isn’t good for the lobby, which would have preferred to kill Freeman’s appointment without leaving any fingerprints. But Freeman will continue to speak out about Israel and the lobby, and maybe some of his natural allies inside the Beltway will eventually join him. Slowly but steadily, space is being opened up in the United States to talk honestly about Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)