And Who Wouldn't?
If YOU had to live with conditions like they have lived under, especially since 1948?
"Friend" Marlin (Sally) Vis have just returned from our region with this tale of the success of our friends, the Israelis, in getting Palestinian Christians (and Muslims) to leave land they covet for themselves and themselves alone.
Pray for conversion, a change of heart to allow "The Other" entrance and presence in "The Land" so coveted by both Jews and Palestinians. Thank you Marlin, for sharing yourself and your vision a "Shared Isr/Pal". JRK
Dear Friends and Family:
"It never gets better here." This from a close friend and partner in mission and ministry - a Palestinian Christian named Sami. Sami lives in Bethlehem. He has a wife and two children. Sami works tirelessly to train other Palestinians in the art of nonviolent resistance to the stifling occupation that overshadows all else in this land of bright sunshine and resurrection hope. Sami introduced me to dozens of Palestinian Christian children - middle school and high school. When asked what they hoped for in the future, almost without exception, they answered the same: "We hope to leave this awful place."
This awful place! This is the Land of Jesus, the land of their ancestors. Why would they call this place awful?
And why do they want to leave? "Don't you love this land?"
"Of course we love our homeland. But we have no freedom here. We have no future."
Where will they go? They'll come here, just as my grandparents did, and maybe yours as well. They'll go to Canada or one of the Latin American countries. And this region's loss will be the gain for whatever place receives them. They are bright and beautiful and committed to working hard to earn their own way. They speak English and Arabic and Hebrew and French too. They are leaders in their communities and will be again when they settle in your community or mine.
This want to leave their homeland is not a want born out of disconnect of place, but rather, a longing to have before them a playing field that is level, or at least not so uphill as to be an impossible climb. They want a chance to shine, and shine they will, these sons and daughters of the early church fathers and mothers - Just not here in the land of Jesus. They will not shine here, and that is a shameful fact of life in this Holy Land.
Please continue to pray for Sally and me as we seek to do whatever we can to assist those like Sami who work to keep the Palestinian Christian youth in the land of Jesus. If they leave, then who will represent Jesus in this place of conflict? Who will be the church here, if not these young shining lights? It is a crisis and Sally and I are committed to doing what we can to help.
Help us help them. Urge your church to support us financially. Travel with us to the Land of Jesus. Check out our brochure for 2011. Consider a Christian Peacemaker Delegation pilgrimage. We are hoping to conduct one of these every year. We just finished our first. Check out our blog for details.
Pray for us and for the Palestinian Christians who keep trying when trying is so hard to do. Young friends of ours have started a church in East Jerusalem. Sally and I support them in many ways and they are doing a brave, good work, reaching out to the Palestinian community and having success. We are so proud of them. Two of them are our regular bus drivers.
We are well, back in Zeeland after two months in Jerusalem. Our ministry grows and grows. We are overwhelmed with the possibilities that lay before us, and therefore, before all of us together. Because we are the church! We are together in this and in everything else that grows the Kingdom.
And we thank you. And we love you. And we pray for you as you pray for us. We invite you to join us in Jerusalem. You will be blessed and you will be a blessing! We promise.
Love and blessings
marlin and sally vis
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
The Essence of the Problem
Friends,
Kai Bird, in the Saturday, NY TIMES, gives us an illustration of the Essence of the Problem in Isr/Pal. Read it and weep. Read it and alert others in your world. JRK
Who Lives in Sheik Jarrah?
By KAI BIRD
AS a boy, I lived in Sheik Jarrah, a wealthy Arab neighborhood in East Jerusalem. Annexed by Israel in 1967 and now the subject of a conflict over property claims, my former home has come to symbolize everything that has gone wrong between the Israelis and Palestinians over the last six decades.
Despite talk of a slowdown in Israeli construction in East Jerusalem, Nir Barkat, Jerusalem’s mayor, toured Washington earlier this week and told officials that the expansion into Arab neighborhoods is going ahead at full speed.
As a result, “The battle line in Israel’s war of survival as a Jewish and democratic state now runs through the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem,” writes David Landau, the former editor of the Israeli daily Haaretz. “Is that the line, at last, where Israel’s decline will be halted?” I hope so.
My family lived in Israel from 1956 to 1958, when my father, an American diplomat, was stationed in East Jerusalem. We lived in the Palestinian sector, but every day I crossed through Mandelbaum Gate, the one checkpoint in the divided city, to attend school in an Israeli neighborhood. I thus had the rare privilege of seeing both sides.
At the time Sheik Jarrah was a sleepy suburb, a half-mile north of Damascus Gate. One of my playmates was Dani Bahar, the son of a Muslim Palestinian and a Jewish-German refugee from Nazi Europe. Before the establishment of Israel in 1948, such interfaith marriages were uncommon, but accepted. Another neighbor was Katy Antonius, the widow of George Antonius, an Arab historian who argued that Palestine should become a binational, secular state.
The Sheik Jarrah of my youth is gone; Mandelbaum Gate was razed by Israeli bulldozers right after the Six-Day War in 1967 that united Jerusalem. But the city remains virtually divided. Few Jewish Israelis venture into Sheik Jarrah and the other largely Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, and few Palestinians go to the “New City.”
Today East Jerusalem exudes the palpable feel of a city occupied by a foreign power. And it is, to an extent — although much of the world doesn’t recognize Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to halt the construction of new housing units for Jewish Israelis in the Arab neighborhoods. “Jerusalem is not a settlement,” he recently told an audience in Washington.
Not all Israelis agree with this policy. For over a year, hundreds, sometimes thousands, of Israelis and Palestinians have been gathering in Sheik Jarrah on Fridays to protest the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes. Israeli courts have deemed these nonviolent demonstrations to be legal, but this has not stopped the police from arresting protesters.
In a cruel historical twist, nearly all of the Palestinians evicted from their homes in Sheik Jarrah in the last year-and-a-half were originally expelled in 1948 from their homes in the West Jerusalem neighborhood of Talbieh. In the wake of the Six-Day War, Israeli courts ruled that some of the houses these Palestinian refugees have lived in since 1948 are actually legally owned by Jewish Israelis, who have claims dating from before Israel’s founding.
The Palestinians have stubbornly refused to pay any rent to these “absentee” Israeli landlords for nearly 43 years; until recently, their presence was nevertheless tolerated. But under Mr. Netanyahu, a concerted effort has been made to evict these Palestinians and replace them with Israelis.
This poses an interesting question. If Jewish Israelis can claim property in East Jerusalem based on land deeds that predate 1948, why can’t Palestinians with similar deeds reclaim their homes in West Jerusalem?
I have in mind the Kalbians, our neighbors in Sheik Jarrah. Until 1948, Dr. Vicken Kalbian and his family lived in a handsome Jerusalem-stone house on Balfour Street in Talbieh. In the spring, the Haganah, the Zionist militia, sent trucks mounted with loudspeakers through the streets of Talbieh, demanding that all Arab residents leave. The Kalbians decided it might be prudent to comply, but they thought they’d be back in a few weeks.
Nineteen years later, after the Six-Day war, the Kalbians returned to 4 Balfour Street and knocked on the door. A stranger answered. “He was a Jewish Turk,” Dr. Kalbian said, “who had come to Israel in 1948.” The man claimed he had bought the house from the “authorities.”
That year the Kalbians took their property deed to a lawyer who determined that their house was indeed registered with the Israeli Department of Absentee Property. Under Israeli law, they learned, due compensation could have been paid to them — but only if they had not fled to countries then considered “hostile,” like Jordan. Because in 1948 they had ended up in Jordanian-controlled Sheik Jarrah, the Kalbians could neither reclaim their home nor be compensated for their loss.
The Kalbians eventually emigrated to America, but their moral claim to the house on Balfour Street is as strong as any of the deeds held by Israelis to property in Sheik Jarrah.
If Israel wishes to remain largely Jewish and democratic, then it must soon withdraw from all of the occupied territories and negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. And if not, it should at least let the Kalbians go home again.
Kai Bird is the author of “Crossing Mandelbaum Gate: Coming of Age Between the Arabs and Israelis, 1956-1978.”
Kai Bird, in the Saturday, NY TIMES, gives us an illustration of the Essence of the Problem in Isr/Pal. Read it and weep. Read it and alert others in your world. JRK
Who Lives in Sheik Jarrah?
By KAI BIRD
AS a boy, I lived in Sheik Jarrah, a wealthy Arab neighborhood in East Jerusalem. Annexed by Israel in 1967 and now the subject of a conflict over property claims, my former home has come to symbolize everything that has gone wrong between the Israelis and Palestinians over the last six decades.
Despite talk of a slowdown in Israeli construction in East Jerusalem, Nir Barkat, Jerusalem’s mayor, toured Washington earlier this week and told officials that the expansion into Arab neighborhoods is going ahead at full speed.
As a result, “The battle line in Israel’s war of survival as a Jewish and democratic state now runs through the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem,” writes David Landau, the former editor of the Israeli daily Haaretz. “Is that the line, at last, where Israel’s decline will be halted?” I hope so.
My family lived in Israel from 1956 to 1958, when my father, an American diplomat, was stationed in East Jerusalem. We lived in the Palestinian sector, but every day I crossed through Mandelbaum Gate, the one checkpoint in the divided city, to attend school in an Israeli neighborhood. I thus had the rare privilege of seeing both sides.
At the time Sheik Jarrah was a sleepy suburb, a half-mile north of Damascus Gate. One of my playmates was Dani Bahar, the son of a Muslim Palestinian and a Jewish-German refugee from Nazi Europe. Before the establishment of Israel in 1948, such interfaith marriages were uncommon, but accepted. Another neighbor was Katy Antonius, the widow of George Antonius, an Arab historian who argued that Palestine should become a binational, secular state.
The Sheik Jarrah of my youth is gone; Mandelbaum Gate was razed by Israeli bulldozers right after the Six-Day War in 1967 that united Jerusalem. But the city remains virtually divided. Few Jewish Israelis venture into Sheik Jarrah and the other largely Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, and few Palestinians go to the “New City.”
Today East Jerusalem exudes the palpable feel of a city occupied by a foreign power. And it is, to an extent — although much of the world doesn’t recognize Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to halt the construction of new housing units for Jewish Israelis in the Arab neighborhoods. “Jerusalem is not a settlement,” he recently told an audience in Washington.
Not all Israelis agree with this policy. For over a year, hundreds, sometimes thousands, of Israelis and Palestinians have been gathering in Sheik Jarrah on Fridays to protest the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes. Israeli courts have deemed these nonviolent demonstrations to be legal, but this has not stopped the police from arresting protesters.
In a cruel historical twist, nearly all of the Palestinians evicted from their homes in Sheik Jarrah in the last year-and-a-half were originally expelled in 1948 from their homes in the West Jerusalem neighborhood of Talbieh. In the wake of the Six-Day War, Israeli courts ruled that some of the houses these Palestinian refugees have lived in since 1948 are actually legally owned by Jewish Israelis, who have claims dating from before Israel’s founding.
The Palestinians have stubbornly refused to pay any rent to these “absentee” Israeli landlords for nearly 43 years; until recently, their presence was nevertheless tolerated. But under Mr. Netanyahu, a concerted effort has been made to evict these Palestinians and replace them with Israelis.
This poses an interesting question. If Jewish Israelis can claim property in East Jerusalem based on land deeds that predate 1948, why can’t Palestinians with similar deeds reclaim their homes in West Jerusalem?
I have in mind the Kalbians, our neighbors in Sheik Jarrah. Until 1948, Dr. Vicken Kalbian and his family lived in a handsome Jerusalem-stone house on Balfour Street in Talbieh. In the spring, the Haganah, the Zionist militia, sent trucks mounted with loudspeakers through the streets of Talbieh, demanding that all Arab residents leave. The Kalbians decided it might be prudent to comply, but they thought they’d be back in a few weeks.
Nineteen years later, after the Six-Day war, the Kalbians returned to 4 Balfour Street and knocked on the door. A stranger answered. “He was a Jewish Turk,” Dr. Kalbian said, “who had come to Israel in 1948.” The man claimed he had bought the house from the “authorities.”
That year the Kalbians took their property deed to a lawyer who determined that their house was indeed registered with the Israeli Department of Absentee Property. Under Israeli law, they learned, due compensation could have been paid to them — but only if they had not fled to countries then considered “hostile,” like Jordan. Because in 1948 they had ended up in Jordanian-controlled Sheik Jarrah, the Kalbians could neither reclaim their home nor be compensated for their loss.
The Kalbians eventually emigrated to America, but their moral claim to the house on Balfour Street is as strong as any of the deeds held by Israelis to property in Sheik Jarrah.
If Israel wishes to remain largely Jewish and democratic, then it must soon withdraw from all of the occupied territories and negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. And if not, it should at least let the Kalbians go home again.
Kai Bird is the author of “Crossing Mandelbaum Gate: Coming of Age Between the Arabs and Israelis, 1956-1978.”
Friday, April 23, 2010
When Fellowship is Taboo
We know it is not "easy", caring about "the Other, the Enemy". Salim Munayer is director of a "reconcilation" ministry in Isr/Pal and has powerful insight into the "truth" about relationships. Read it and profit from this prophet. JRK
Fellowship: Breaking the Taboo
Reconciliation is not just one thing, it is many. However, if reconciliation does not include fellowship with people on the other side, people that we consider our enemy, then it is nothing. Fellowship is the fruit of reconciliation, its essence, and an unmistakable symbol of its power and ability to affect lives.
On the road toward reconciliation, there are many challenges to overcome. Among Israeli-Palestinian believers living in the conflict, these include differences in language, culture, theology, and the physical segregation of our communities. Over the years at Musalaha, we have developed a forum for people from both sides to meet each other, establish relationships, and discuss their differences in the context of friendship. This forum has proven to be beneficial and fruitful, as many participants in Musalaha activities have remained committed to the process of reconciliation and to the friendships they have established. But, in spite of the success we have seen, we are also very aware of the external factors which influence and can prevent this process, such as the political situation, wars, and violence. As the conflict and discussions about the conflict intensify, dividing lines are made clearer, and fellowship becomes taboo.
People on both sides bear the burden of pressure to prove their loyalty to their own ethnic or national group. Recently, the theological and political debate has been heating up, and a new dynamic has developed within the body of the Messiah: inner-group pressure to avoid meeting with people from the other side. This pressure has been felt by both Israeli and Palestinian believers, telling them to avoid fellowship with each other, to refrain from the exchange of ideas, and to restrict their meetings to only those who agree with their specific political or theological opinions. In the words of Miroslav Volf, “there is far too much dishonesty in the single-minded search for truth, too much injustice in the uncompromising struggle for justice.”[1] This pressure seems to be on the rise in recent weeks and months, and can take the form of personal discussions, or emails and letters. Either way the pressure is the same: we are not to meet with the other side, we are to stay within the bounds of our own group.
In this atmosphere of internal group pressure, two biblical examples come to mind. The first is found in the book of Acts, when Peter is staying in Jaffa, and receives a vision from God. He sees a sheet filled with unclean animals descend from the sky, and is told to kill and eat them. After Peter objects, claiming that he has never eaten anything unclean, the voice of God speaks clearly, telling him that what God has cleansed must not be called unclean. After this Peter is summoned to meet with Cornelius, a Roman centurion in Caesarea. When Peter meets with Cornelius, he explained, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” (Acts 10:29) When Peter returns to Jerusalem, the brethren had already heard of his meeting with Cornelius, and of his preaching to the non-Jews. Therefore, when they met with him, they challenged him, saying “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!” (Acts 11:3) This was unheard of and was considered sinful. Peter was forced to explain himself, and told them of his vision from God.
This story has received much theological treatment, most of it focusing on the issue of purity, and the dynamic of clean vs. unclean. Commentators usually point to the fact that Cornelius was uncircumcised and not Jewish, in order to explain why the brethren in Jerusalem had such a strongly negative reaction to Peter’s meeting with him. While this was certainly part of the reason for their reaction, it fails to recognize another fact: the fact that Cornelius was the enemy. As a Roman centurion, Cornelius was the enemy in that he represented an oppressive military occupation that was resented and feared among Peter’s people. Cornelius embodied the military might of Rome as much as its pagan gods, therefore Peter’s meeting with him was not only a spiritual, but a political betrayal of his people. Furthermore, to go to the house of Cornelius in Caesarea (named after Caesar, ruler of Rome), the seat of Roman military and political power, and share a meal with the enemy was, in the eyes of the brethren from Jerusalem, the height of treason.
The second story is found in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, when Peter and Paul came to Antioch. In order to understand this story, it is important to remember that the early followers of Jesus were deeply involved in a debate over a very controversial issue: what was to be done with the new, non-Jewish believers in the Messiah? Paul’s ideas on this issue were not accepted by everyone in the church. Rifts were developing and the situation was tense, not unlike the situation we face today.
In this story, Paul explains how he had to rebuke Peter for hypocrisy. For while Peter had no problem sitting and eating with the non-Jews, and having fellowship with his new brothers and sisters as long as the brethren from Jerusalem did not know about it, as soon as they arrived, he “withdrew and separated himself,” from their company. (Galatians 2:11-13) Why was Paul critical of Peter? Because he gave in to the inner group pressure he felt to exclude those who are different, the outsider, the other. Also, as a leader, Peter’s actions had an influence on others as well, since people were watching him to see which side he would take in the debate. As a result of Peter’s weakness, “the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.” (Galatians 2:14) The fact that Peter, of all people, should be guilty of this hypocrisy, when he was the one who had personally seen God’s vision, should tell us something about the difficulty of standing up for one’s convictions, and about the strength of inner group pressure.
The problem with the brethren from Jerusalem was not their zealous adherence to the arduous standards of the Law, nor was it the fact that they disagreed with Peter and Paul theologically. The problem was that they allowed their disagreement to interfere with their fellowship. It is no sin to disagree on theological or political grounds. These disagreements will occur no matter how we may strive towards uniformity of belief. In fact, they represent the plurality of humankind’s understanding of God’s incomprehensible nature, each perspective adding richness and texture to the collective vision. However, as soon as we permit these differences and disagreements to stand in the way of fellowship, we are in opposition to God’s will and His commandment, to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If there was ever any ambiguity concerning who our neighbor is, Jesus made it clear in His parable of the Good Samaritan. It is the outsider, the other, the enemy.
It is no surprise that both of these stories revolve around the issue of eating with people considered as outsiders. In the days of Peter and Paul, fellowship was symbolized by eating together, the act of sharing a meal with others. This is why Jesus chose a meal to remind us of the sacrifice He made on the cross. “Take, eat” He said, for “this is my body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” This is why He chose a meal to unify us all as one body, saying “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” Fellowship is a sacred act, and if we neglect it there will be consequences. “For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you.” (I Corinthians 11: 29-30)
When we allow something to stand in the way of our fellowship, we become susceptible to the sickness of hate and anger, which is contagious and easily spread. The only way to check the spread of this disease is to return to fellowship through God’s love. To return to reconciliation. It is not an easy path to follow. It is far easier to surround ourselves with those who agree with us, those who will not challenge us. But this is not what God has called us to. Take the example of Peter. He slid back into his comfort zone so quickly, and had to learn the same lesson a second time. This is because reconciliation is a process, a slow process, but one that is our sacred duty as believers of the Messiah. We are commanded to break the taboo of meeting with, and of loving the other through fellowship.
Salim J. Munayer
Musalaha Director
Evan Thomas
Musalaha Chairman of the Board
Edited by Joshua Korn
Musalaha Publications Manager
[1] Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, Abingdon Press, 1996, p. 29
Fellowship: Breaking the Taboo
Reconciliation is not just one thing, it is many. However, if reconciliation does not include fellowship with people on the other side, people that we consider our enemy, then it is nothing. Fellowship is the fruit of reconciliation, its essence, and an unmistakable symbol of its power and ability to affect lives.
On the road toward reconciliation, there are many challenges to overcome. Among Israeli-Palestinian believers living in the conflict, these include differences in language, culture, theology, and the physical segregation of our communities. Over the years at Musalaha, we have developed a forum for people from both sides to meet each other, establish relationships, and discuss their differences in the context of friendship. This forum has proven to be beneficial and fruitful, as many participants in Musalaha activities have remained committed to the process of reconciliation and to the friendships they have established. But, in spite of the success we have seen, we are also very aware of the external factors which influence and can prevent this process, such as the political situation, wars, and violence. As the conflict and discussions about the conflict intensify, dividing lines are made clearer, and fellowship becomes taboo.
People on both sides bear the burden of pressure to prove their loyalty to their own ethnic or national group. Recently, the theological and political debate has been heating up, and a new dynamic has developed within the body of the Messiah: inner-group pressure to avoid meeting with people from the other side. This pressure has been felt by both Israeli and Palestinian believers, telling them to avoid fellowship with each other, to refrain from the exchange of ideas, and to restrict their meetings to only those who agree with their specific political or theological opinions. In the words of Miroslav Volf, “there is far too much dishonesty in the single-minded search for truth, too much injustice in the uncompromising struggle for justice.”[1] This pressure seems to be on the rise in recent weeks and months, and can take the form of personal discussions, or emails and letters. Either way the pressure is the same: we are not to meet with the other side, we are to stay within the bounds of our own group.
In this atmosphere of internal group pressure, two biblical examples come to mind. The first is found in the book of Acts, when Peter is staying in Jaffa, and receives a vision from God. He sees a sheet filled with unclean animals descend from the sky, and is told to kill and eat them. After Peter objects, claiming that he has never eaten anything unclean, the voice of God speaks clearly, telling him that what God has cleansed must not be called unclean. After this Peter is summoned to meet with Cornelius, a Roman centurion in Caesarea. When Peter meets with Cornelius, he explained, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” (Acts 10:29) When Peter returns to Jerusalem, the brethren had already heard of his meeting with Cornelius, and of his preaching to the non-Jews. Therefore, when they met with him, they challenged him, saying “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!” (Acts 11:3) This was unheard of and was considered sinful. Peter was forced to explain himself, and told them of his vision from God.
This story has received much theological treatment, most of it focusing on the issue of purity, and the dynamic of clean vs. unclean. Commentators usually point to the fact that Cornelius was uncircumcised and not Jewish, in order to explain why the brethren in Jerusalem had such a strongly negative reaction to Peter’s meeting with him. While this was certainly part of the reason for their reaction, it fails to recognize another fact: the fact that Cornelius was the enemy. As a Roman centurion, Cornelius was the enemy in that he represented an oppressive military occupation that was resented and feared among Peter’s people. Cornelius embodied the military might of Rome as much as its pagan gods, therefore Peter’s meeting with him was not only a spiritual, but a political betrayal of his people. Furthermore, to go to the house of Cornelius in Caesarea (named after Caesar, ruler of Rome), the seat of Roman military and political power, and share a meal with the enemy was, in the eyes of the brethren from Jerusalem, the height of treason.
The second story is found in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, when Peter and Paul came to Antioch. In order to understand this story, it is important to remember that the early followers of Jesus were deeply involved in a debate over a very controversial issue: what was to be done with the new, non-Jewish believers in the Messiah? Paul’s ideas on this issue were not accepted by everyone in the church. Rifts were developing and the situation was tense, not unlike the situation we face today.
In this story, Paul explains how he had to rebuke Peter for hypocrisy. For while Peter had no problem sitting and eating with the non-Jews, and having fellowship with his new brothers and sisters as long as the brethren from Jerusalem did not know about it, as soon as they arrived, he “withdrew and separated himself,” from their company. (Galatians 2:11-13) Why was Paul critical of Peter? Because he gave in to the inner group pressure he felt to exclude those who are different, the outsider, the other. Also, as a leader, Peter’s actions had an influence on others as well, since people were watching him to see which side he would take in the debate. As a result of Peter’s weakness, “the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.” (Galatians 2:14) The fact that Peter, of all people, should be guilty of this hypocrisy, when he was the one who had personally seen God’s vision, should tell us something about the difficulty of standing up for one’s convictions, and about the strength of inner group pressure.
The problem with the brethren from Jerusalem was not their zealous adherence to the arduous standards of the Law, nor was it the fact that they disagreed with Peter and Paul theologically. The problem was that they allowed their disagreement to interfere with their fellowship. It is no sin to disagree on theological or political grounds. These disagreements will occur no matter how we may strive towards uniformity of belief. In fact, they represent the plurality of humankind’s understanding of God’s incomprehensible nature, each perspective adding richness and texture to the collective vision. However, as soon as we permit these differences and disagreements to stand in the way of fellowship, we are in opposition to God’s will and His commandment, to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If there was ever any ambiguity concerning who our neighbor is, Jesus made it clear in His parable of the Good Samaritan. It is the outsider, the other, the enemy.
It is no surprise that both of these stories revolve around the issue of eating with people considered as outsiders. In the days of Peter and Paul, fellowship was symbolized by eating together, the act of sharing a meal with others. This is why Jesus chose a meal to remind us of the sacrifice He made on the cross. “Take, eat” He said, for “this is my body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” This is why He chose a meal to unify us all as one body, saying “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” Fellowship is a sacred act, and if we neglect it there will be consequences. “For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you.” (I Corinthians 11: 29-30)
When we allow something to stand in the way of our fellowship, we become susceptible to the sickness of hate and anger, which is contagious and easily spread. The only way to check the spread of this disease is to return to fellowship through God’s love. To return to reconciliation. It is not an easy path to follow. It is far easier to surround ourselves with those who agree with us, those who will not challenge us. But this is not what God has called us to. Take the example of Peter. He slid back into his comfort zone so quickly, and had to learn the same lesson a second time. This is because reconciliation is a process, a slow process, but one that is our sacred duty as believers of the Messiah. We are commanded to break the taboo of meeting with, and of loving the other through fellowship.
Salim J. Munayer
Musalaha Director
Evan Thomas
Musalaha Chairman of the Board
Edited by Joshua Korn
Musalaha Publications Manager
[1] Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, Abingdon Press, 1996, p. 29
Friday, April 16, 2010
Team Obama on Isr/Pal, Requirements for "Peace"
Dear Friend,
Secretary Hilliary Clinton has articulated the latest version of the Team Obama position on Israel/Palestine.
I'm summarizing it, giving you the last (and most important) part. She spoke last night (April 15), at the dedication of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace in Washington D.C.
After reviewing aspects of the tortuous path, especially condemning HAMAS (Gaza) and praising the FATAH steps (West Bank), she details what the Obama administration is expecting of the Palestinians; and then the Israelis; and the Arab states. Discern for yourselves whether we have reason to HOPE that underlying issues can be addressed and resolved according to the wishes of the majority populations of both peoples.
If time is a problem for you, scan the bold print for highlights. JRK (with thanks to the ATFP (American Task Force on Palestine).
The PLO has emerged as a credible partner for peace. It has rejected violence, improved security, made progress on combating incitement, and accepted Israel’s right to exist.
The Palestinian Authority’s two-year plan envisions a state that is based on pluralism, equality, religious tolerance, and the rule of law, created through a negotiated settlement with Israel, and capable of meeting the needs of its citizens and supporting a lasting peace with Israel. And under the leadership of President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, the PA is addressing a history of corruption and building transparent and accountable institutions that can provide the necessary foundation for that future state. The United States has partnered with the PA to improve the effectiveness of its security forces. Reforms have increased public confidence in the courts -- last year they handled 67 percent more cases than in 2008. The PA is building schools and hospitals and training teachers and medical staff, and even developing a national health insurance program.
Sound fiscal policies, support from the international community – including hundreds of millions of dollars this year alone from the United States – and improving security and rule of law have led to significant economic growth. More and more Palestinians in the West Bank are finding jobs, starting businesses, and lifting themselves and their families out of poverty and the economic stagnation that resulted from the Intifada. The number of new business licenses issued in the West Bank in the fourth quarter of 2009 was 50 percent higher than the same period in 2008. And three new venture capital funds are set to launch this spring with the support of American, Arab, and European investors.
Considerable work remains. The PA must redouble its efforts to put an end to incitement and violence, crack down on corruption, and ingrain a culture of peace and tolerance among Palestinians. The leadership should refrain from using international organizations, particularly the United Nations, as platforms for inflammatory rhetoric. And we strongly encourage President Abbas and his government to join negotiations with Israel. Israelis must see, too, that pursuing the path of progress and diplomacy can and will lead to peace and security. But there is no doubt that, so far, the progress we are seeing in the West Bank is positive and encouraging.
Last year I visited a classroom in Ramallah where Palestinian students were learning English through a U.S.-sponsored program that has taught thousands of Palestinian young people. They were studying Women’s History Month and Sally Ride, the first woman astronaut and a personal hero of mine. The students, especially the girls, were captivated by her story. When asked for a single word to describe Sally and her accomplishment, one student responded: “hopeful.”
Today hope is stirring in the West Bank because of strong leadership and hard work. People are seeing a difference in their daily lives. And parents can imagine a future for their children that holds more than conflict and humiliation.
But this progress is tenuous. Without increased support from the international community, including from the Arab states, without larger, steadier, and more predictable financial support, the Palestinian Authority’s efforts to build institutions and spur growth will run out of steam. If the PA cannot overcome corruption and smuggling, development will fall short. And if it fails to control violence, the progress will slow to a halt.
Sustaining and extending positive development also requires Israel to be a responsible partner. The Netanyahu Government has lifted roadblocks and eased movement throughout the West Bank. These are encouraging moves that will improve quality of life, but Israel can and should do more to support the Palestinian Authority’s efforts to build credible institutions and deliver results to their people. Both sides would benefit from a real partnership that fosters long-term growth and opportunity.
Ultimately the fate of these efforts hinges on the peace process. In contrast to Hamas, the Palestinian Authority has staked its credibility on a path of peaceful coexistence. Even more than economic opportunities, Palestinians yearn for a state to call their own, for the dignity that all people deserve, and the right to chart their own destiny. If Mahmoud Abbas cannot deliver on these aspirations, his support will fade and Palestinians will turn to alternatives – including Hamas. And that way leads only to more conflict.
Vindicating the Path of Peace
For Israel, that means accepting that concrete steps toward peace – both through the peace process and in the bottom-up institutions building I have described – are the best weapons against Hamas and other extremists. Prime Minister Netanyahu has embraced the vision of the two-state solution. But easing up on access and movement in the West Bank, in response to credible Palestinian security performance, is not sufficient to prove to the Palestinians that this embrace is sincere. We encourage Israel to continue building momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity, and addressing the humanitarian needs in Gaza. And it should refrain from unilateral statements and actions, including in East Jerusalem, that could undermine trust or risk prejudicing the outcome of talks.
Israel has worked hard in recent years to improve security, and, along with the increased capacity and commitment of Palestinian security forces, the number of suicide bombings has – thankfully – dropped significantly. As a result, however, some have come to believe that Israelis, protected by walls and buoyed by a dynamic economy, can avoid the hard choices that peace requires.
But that would mean continuing an impasse that carries tragic human costs, denies Palestinians their legitimate aspirations, and threatens Israel’s long term future as a secure and democratic Jewish state. Israelis and Palestinians alike must confront the reality that the status quo has not produced long-term security or served their interests, and accept their share of responsibility for reaching a comprehensive peace that will benefit both sides.
So too must the Arab states, who worry about the destabilizing impact of extremists like Hamas but don’t do enough to bolster the efforts of the Palestinian Authority. It is in their interest to advance the Arab Peace Initiative with action, not just rhetoric, and make it easier for the Palestinians to pursue negotiations and achieve an agreement. If the Arab Peace Initiative is indeed the genuine offer it appears to be, we should not face threats by certain Arab states that it will be "taken off the table" each time there is a setback. We look forward to a deeper conversation about implementing the Initiative and the concrete results it would bring to the people of the region. And we are encouraged by the work of a number of NGO’s and civil society groups, including some who are represented here, to articulate a more complete vision of the benefits of peace.
For our part, the United States understands the need to support the reforms of the Palestinian Authority and continue efforts to restart substantive negotiations. We know that we cannot force a solution. The parties themselves must resolve their differences. But, we believe that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree to an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the ‘67 lines, with agreed swaps, and Israel’s goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israel’s security requirements.
This path is not easy. It will require all parties, including Israel, to make difficult but necessary choices. And it will take bold leadership. We have seen it before – old adversaries like Sadat and Begin extending the hand of peace because they knew it would make their people stronger – and it is called for once again today.
Reflecting on one of his many conversations with Egyptian President Mubarak, Danny Abraham observed that, “There is no question that… many of the leading figures in the Arab world know what benefits a full peace with Israel will bring to their countries, but they also know that in the prevailing political climate it is dangerous to state such a truth.”
Changing that climate will require mobilizing a broad constituency for peace that can provide a political counterweight to the forces of division and destruction. There is an ever-more pressing imperative to make the case for peace clearly and publicly. And the most compelling arguments will be the results people – Israelis, Palestinians, all the people of the region – see in their daily lives.
In Leah Rabin’s book, she writes about the thoughts that preoccupied her husband during his last day. He wondered how deep support for peace ran among his people. In the quiet moments around their kitchen tables or in coffee shops and busy markets, did they believe in peace? Because Rabin understood that agreements between leaders are the beginning, not the end. Whether peace takes hold depends upon it becoming a habit of the heart. In order for it to be real, people have to learn to live and work and go to school together. Peace must grow in our homes and in our communities. It must to be nurtured between and among human beings, and then passed on to our children.
Today, as Danny Abraham likes to say, peace is possible in the Middle East. The way forward is clear. All it requires is the political will – from the leaders, the people, and the partners – to choose peace, and to turn the promise of a safer, more secure, and more stable future into reality.
Secretary Hilliary Clinton has articulated the latest version of the Team Obama position on Israel/Palestine.
I'm summarizing it, giving you the last (and most important) part. She spoke last night (April 15), at the dedication of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace in Washington D.C.
After reviewing aspects of the tortuous path, especially condemning HAMAS (Gaza) and praising the FATAH steps (West Bank), she details what the Obama administration is expecting of the Palestinians; and then the Israelis; and the Arab states. Discern for yourselves whether we have reason to HOPE that underlying issues can be addressed and resolved according to the wishes of the majority populations of both peoples.
If time is a problem for you, scan the bold print for highlights. JRK (with thanks to the ATFP (American Task Force on Palestine).
The PLO has emerged as a credible partner for peace. It has rejected violence, improved security, made progress on combating incitement, and accepted Israel’s right to exist.
The Palestinian Authority’s two-year plan envisions a state that is based on pluralism, equality, religious tolerance, and the rule of law, created through a negotiated settlement with Israel, and capable of meeting the needs of its citizens and supporting a lasting peace with Israel. And under the leadership of President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, the PA is addressing a history of corruption and building transparent and accountable institutions that can provide the necessary foundation for that future state. The United States has partnered with the PA to improve the effectiveness of its security forces. Reforms have increased public confidence in the courts -- last year they handled 67 percent more cases than in 2008. The PA is building schools and hospitals and training teachers and medical staff, and even developing a national health insurance program.
Sound fiscal policies, support from the international community – including hundreds of millions of dollars this year alone from the United States – and improving security and rule of law have led to significant economic growth. More and more Palestinians in the West Bank are finding jobs, starting businesses, and lifting themselves and their families out of poverty and the economic stagnation that resulted from the Intifada. The number of new business licenses issued in the West Bank in the fourth quarter of 2009 was 50 percent higher than the same period in 2008. And three new venture capital funds are set to launch this spring with the support of American, Arab, and European investors.
Considerable work remains. The PA must redouble its efforts to put an end to incitement and violence, crack down on corruption, and ingrain a culture of peace and tolerance among Palestinians. The leadership should refrain from using international organizations, particularly the United Nations, as platforms for inflammatory rhetoric. And we strongly encourage President Abbas and his government to join negotiations with Israel. Israelis must see, too, that pursuing the path of progress and diplomacy can and will lead to peace and security. But there is no doubt that, so far, the progress we are seeing in the West Bank is positive and encouraging.
Last year I visited a classroom in Ramallah where Palestinian students were learning English through a U.S.-sponsored program that has taught thousands of Palestinian young people. They were studying Women’s History Month and Sally Ride, the first woman astronaut and a personal hero of mine. The students, especially the girls, were captivated by her story. When asked for a single word to describe Sally and her accomplishment, one student responded: “hopeful.”
Today hope is stirring in the West Bank because of strong leadership and hard work. People are seeing a difference in their daily lives. And parents can imagine a future for their children that holds more than conflict and humiliation.
But this progress is tenuous. Without increased support from the international community, including from the Arab states, without larger, steadier, and more predictable financial support, the Palestinian Authority’s efforts to build institutions and spur growth will run out of steam. If the PA cannot overcome corruption and smuggling, development will fall short. And if it fails to control violence, the progress will slow to a halt.
Sustaining and extending positive development also requires Israel to be a responsible partner. The Netanyahu Government has lifted roadblocks and eased movement throughout the West Bank. These are encouraging moves that will improve quality of life, but Israel can and should do more to support the Palestinian Authority’s efforts to build credible institutions and deliver results to their people. Both sides would benefit from a real partnership that fosters long-term growth and opportunity.
Ultimately the fate of these efforts hinges on the peace process. In contrast to Hamas, the Palestinian Authority has staked its credibility on a path of peaceful coexistence. Even more than economic opportunities, Palestinians yearn for a state to call their own, for the dignity that all people deserve, and the right to chart their own destiny. If Mahmoud Abbas cannot deliver on these aspirations, his support will fade and Palestinians will turn to alternatives – including Hamas. And that way leads only to more conflict.
Vindicating the Path of Peace
For Israel, that means accepting that concrete steps toward peace – both through the peace process and in the bottom-up institutions building I have described – are the best weapons against Hamas and other extremists. Prime Minister Netanyahu has embraced the vision of the two-state solution. But easing up on access and movement in the West Bank, in response to credible Palestinian security performance, is not sufficient to prove to the Palestinians that this embrace is sincere. We encourage Israel to continue building momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity, and addressing the humanitarian needs in Gaza. And it should refrain from unilateral statements and actions, including in East Jerusalem, that could undermine trust or risk prejudicing the outcome of talks.
Israel has worked hard in recent years to improve security, and, along with the increased capacity and commitment of Palestinian security forces, the number of suicide bombings has – thankfully – dropped significantly. As a result, however, some have come to believe that Israelis, protected by walls and buoyed by a dynamic economy, can avoid the hard choices that peace requires.
But that would mean continuing an impasse that carries tragic human costs, denies Palestinians their legitimate aspirations, and threatens Israel’s long term future as a secure and democratic Jewish state. Israelis and Palestinians alike must confront the reality that the status quo has not produced long-term security or served their interests, and accept their share of responsibility for reaching a comprehensive peace that will benefit both sides.
So too must the Arab states, who worry about the destabilizing impact of extremists like Hamas but don’t do enough to bolster the efforts of the Palestinian Authority. It is in their interest to advance the Arab Peace Initiative with action, not just rhetoric, and make it easier for the Palestinians to pursue negotiations and achieve an agreement. If the Arab Peace Initiative is indeed the genuine offer it appears to be, we should not face threats by certain Arab states that it will be "taken off the table" each time there is a setback. We look forward to a deeper conversation about implementing the Initiative and the concrete results it would bring to the people of the region. And we are encouraged by the work of a number of NGO’s and civil society groups, including some who are represented here, to articulate a more complete vision of the benefits of peace.
For our part, the United States understands the need to support the reforms of the Palestinian Authority and continue efforts to restart substantive negotiations. We know that we cannot force a solution. The parties themselves must resolve their differences. But, we believe that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree to an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the ‘67 lines, with agreed swaps, and Israel’s goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israel’s security requirements.
This path is not easy. It will require all parties, including Israel, to make difficult but necessary choices. And it will take bold leadership. We have seen it before – old adversaries like Sadat and Begin extending the hand of peace because they knew it would make their people stronger – and it is called for once again today.
Reflecting on one of his many conversations with Egyptian President Mubarak, Danny Abraham observed that, “There is no question that… many of the leading figures in the Arab world know what benefits a full peace with Israel will bring to their countries, but they also know that in the prevailing political climate it is dangerous to state such a truth.”
Changing that climate will require mobilizing a broad constituency for peace that can provide a political counterweight to the forces of division and destruction. There is an ever-more pressing imperative to make the case for peace clearly and publicly. And the most compelling arguments will be the results people – Israelis, Palestinians, all the people of the region – see in their daily lives.
In Leah Rabin’s book, she writes about the thoughts that preoccupied her husband during his last day. He wondered how deep support for peace ran among his people. In the quiet moments around their kitchen tables or in coffee shops and busy markets, did they believe in peace? Because Rabin understood that agreements between leaders are the beginning, not the end. Whether peace takes hold depends upon it becoming a habit of the heart. In order for it to be real, people have to learn to live and work and go to school together. Peace must grow in our homes and in our communities. It must to be nurtured between and among human beings, and then passed on to our children.
Today, as Danny Abraham likes to say, peace is possible in the Middle East. The way forward is clear. All it requires is the political will – from the leaders, the people, and the partners – to choose peace, and to turn the promise of a safer, more secure, and more stable future into reality.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
When "Nonviolent" is considered "Violet"
Some doubt Ethan Bronner's ability to be "objective". [The NY Times reporter has a son in the IDF (Israeli Defense Force)].
Yet in this attached article, he shows how "nonviolent" efforts are considered "violent" by the IDF, who want to "crack down" on dissent of any kind. There is ambivalence in the military about how to treat "nonviolent" means of resistance. Just as there is ambivalence among Palestinians about how to resist.
That is, the Palestinians are still terribly hampered by division as well (Hamas in Gaza, and Fatah in the "West Bank").
Forces at work point to a "bi-national" state (made up of Palestinians and Israelis), even though it is still politically correct to call for a "Two-state" solution. Weather "One state" or "Two-states", the need for treating each other with mutual respect, attending honestly to "grievances" and sincere efforts at "reconciliation" are still paramount and will finally determine the outcome.
Be in prayer for our "friends" Tom and Sharon A. and Marlin and Sally V., who fly to Israel this week to join the CPT for a time (Christian Peacemaker Teams).
Here is the NY Times article: JRK
April 6, 2010
Palestinians Try a Less Violent Path to Resistance
By ETHAN BRONNER
RAMALLAH, West Bank — Senior Palestinian leaders — men who once commanded militias — are joining unarmed protest marches against Israeli policies and are being arrested. Goods produced in Israeli settlements have been burned in public demonstrations. The Palestinian prime minister has entered West Bank areas officially off limits to his authority, to plant trees and declare the land part of a future state.
Something is stirring in the West Bank. With both diplomacy and armed struggle out of favor for having failed to end the Israeli occupation, the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, joined by the business community, is trying to forge a third way: to rouse popular passions while avoiding violence. The idea, as Fatah struggles to revitalize its leadership, is to build a virtual state and body politic through acts of popular resistance.
“It is all about self-empowerment,” said Hasan Abu-Libdeh, the Palestinian economy minister, referring to a campaign to end the purchase of settlers’ goods and the employment of Palestinians by settlers and their industries. “We want ordinary people to feel like stockholders in the process of building a state.”
The new approach still remains small scale while American-led efforts to revive peace talks are stalled. But street interviews showed that people were aware and supportive of its potential to bring pressure on Israel but dubious about its ultimate effectiveness.
Billboards have sprung up as part of a campaign against buying settlers’ goods, featuring a pointed finger and the slogan “Your conscience, your choice.” The Palestinian Ministry of Communications has just banned the sale of Israeli cellphone cards because Israeli signals are relayed from towers inside settlements. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is spending more time out of his business suits and in neglected villages opening projects related to sewage, electricity and education and calling for “sumud,” or steadfastness.
“Steadfastness must be translated from a slogan to acts and facts on the ground,” he told a crowd late last month in a village called Izbet al-Tabib near the city of Qalqilya, an area where Israel’s separation barrier makes access to land extremely difficult for farmers. Before planting trees, Mr. Fayyad told about 1,000 people gathered to hear him, “This is our real project, to establish our presence on our land and keep our people on it.”
Nonviolence has never caught on here, and Israel’s military says the new approach is hardly nonviolent. But the current set of campaigns is trying to incorporate peaceful pressure in limited ways. Rajmohan Gandhi, grandson of the Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi, just visited Bilin, a Palestinian village with a weekly protest march. Next week, Martin Luther King III is scheduled to speak here at a conference on nonviolence.
On Palm Sunday, the Israeli police arrested 15 Palestinians in Bethlehem who were protesting the difficulty of getting to Jerusalem because of a security closing. Abbas Zaki, a senior official in the Palestine Liberation Organization, was arrested, prompting demonstrations the next day. Some Palestinians are also rejecting V.I.P. cards handed out by Israelis allowing them to pass quickly through checkpoints.
Palestinian political analysts say it is too early to assess the prospects of the nonviolent approach. Generally, they say, given the division between Hamas, the rulers of Gaza, and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority here, nothing is likely to change without a political shakeup and unified leadership. Still, they say, popular resistance, combined with institution-building and international appeals, is gaining notice among Palestinians.
“Fatah is living through a crisis of vision,” said Mahdi Abdul Hadi, chairman of the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs in Jerusalem. “How can they combine being a liberation movement with being a governing party? This is one way. The idea is to awaken national pride and fulfill the people’s anxiety and passion. Of course, Hamas and armed resistance still remain a real option for many.”
Khalil Shikaki, who runs the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah, said: “The society is split. The public believes that Israel responds to suffering, not to nonviolent resistance. But there is also not much interest in violence now. Our surveys show support for armed resistance at 47 percent in March. In essence, the public feels trapped between failed diplomacy and failed armed struggle.”
Israeli military authorities have not decided how to react. They allow Mr. Fayyad some activity in the areas officially off limits to him, but on occasion they have torn down what he has built. They reject the term nonviolent for the recent demonstrations because the marches usually include stone-throwing and attempts to damage the separation barrier. Troops have responded with stun grenades, rubber bullets, tear gas and arrests. And the military has declared that Bilin will be a closed area every Friday for six months to halt the weekly marches there.
“We respect Salam Fayyad,” one military official said, speaking under the army’s rules of anonymity. “But we don’t want him to engage in incitement. Burning goods is incitement. Destroying the fence is incitement and is not nonviolent. They are walking a thin line.”
One reason a violent uprising remains unlikely for now, Palestinian analysts say, is that in the two years that Mr. Fayyad’s security forces and ministries have been functioning, daily life inside West Bank cities and their surroundings has taken on much greater safety and normality.
The police and the courts are functioning again after the intifada of 2000 that led to many deaths on both sides. Traffic tickets are now routinely handed out. Personal checks, long shunned, are increasingly in use.
Of course, the presence of Israeli forces outside the cities and at checkpoints, the existence of the barrier and continued building inside Israeli settlements send most Palestinians into despair and make them doubt that a sovereign state can be built.
One effort to increase a sense of hope is a new push to ban goods made in the settlements, symbols of occupation. A $2 million project called the Karama National Empowerment Fund, jointly financed by Palestinian businesses and the government, aims to spread the message through ads and public events.
Mr. Abu-Libdeh, the economy minister, said a law was likely to go into effect soon barring the purchase of settlers’ goods, a trade worth at least $200 million a year. Efforts to end Palestinian employment in settlements will not carry penalties, he said, because the government does not offer unemployment insurance and it is unclear whether the 30,000 Palestinians who work in settlements could find new jobs.
Palestinian industrialists have financed the settlers’ goods ban partly because they hope to replace the goods with their own. They do not single out other Israeli goods, which are protected under trade agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.
Mr. Fayyad, the prime minister, a political independent, said his notion was to build the makings of a state by 2011.
“It’s about putting facts on the ground,” he said in an interview. “The occupation is not transitional so we need to make sure our people stick around. If we create services, it gives people a sense of possibility. I feel we are on a path that is very appealing both domestically and internationally. The whole world knows this occupation has to end.”
Yet in this attached article, he shows how "nonviolent" efforts are considered "violent" by the IDF, who want to "crack down" on dissent of any kind. There is ambivalence in the military about how to treat "nonviolent" means of resistance. Just as there is ambivalence among Palestinians about how to resist.
That is, the Palestinians are still terribly hampered by division as well (Hamas in Gaza, and Fatah in the "West Bank").
Forces at work point to a "bi-national" state (made up of Palestinians and Israelis), even though it is still politically correct to call for a "Two-state" solution. Weather "One state" or "Two-states", the need for treating each other with mutual respect, attending honestly to "grievances" and sincere efforts at "reconciliation" are still paramount and will finally determine the outcome.
Be in prayer for our "friends" Tom and Sharon A. and Marlin and Sally V., who fly to Israel this week to join the CPT for a time (Christian Peacemaker Teams).
Here is the NY Times article: JRK
April 6, 2010
Palestinians Try a Less Violent Path to Resistance
By ETHAN BRONNER
RAMALLAH, West Bank — Senior Palestinian leaders — men who once commanded militias — are joining unarmed protest marches against Israeli policies and are being arrested. Goods produced in Israeli settlements have been burned in public demonstrations. The Palestinian prime minister has entered West Bank areas officially off limits to his authority, to plant trees and declare the land part of a future state.
Something is stirring in the West Bank. With both diplomacy and armed struggle out of favor for having failed to end the Israeli occupation, the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, joined by the business community, is trying to forge a third way: to rouse popular passions while avoiding violence. The idea, as Fatah struggles to revitalize its leadership, is to build a virtual state and body politic through acts of popular resistance.
“It is all about self-empowerment,” said Hasan Abu-Libdeh, the Palestinian economy minister, referring to a campaign to end the purchase of settlers’ goods and the employment of Palestinians by settlers and their industries. “We want ordinary people to feel like stockholders in the process of building a state.”
The new approach still remains small scale while American-led efforts to revive peace talks are stalled. But street interviews showed that people were aware and supportive of its potential to bring pressure on Israel but dubious about its ultimate effectiveness.
Billboards have sprung up as part of a campaign against buying settlers’ goods, featuring a pointed finger and the slogan “Your conscience, your choice.” The Palestinian Ministry of Communications has just banned the sale of Israeli cellphone cards because Israeli signals are relayed from towers inside settlements. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is spending more time out of his business suits and in neglected villages opening projects related to sewage, electricity and education and calling for “sumud,” or steadfastness.
“Steadfastness must be translated from a slogan to acts and facts on the ground,” he told a crowd late last month in a village called Izbet al-Tabib near the city of Qalqilya, an area where Israel’s separation barrier makes access to land extremely difficult for farmers. Before planting trees, Mr. Fayyad told about 1,000 people gathered to hear him, “This is our real project, to establish our presence on our land and keep our people on it.”
Nonviolence has never caught on here, and Israel’s military says the new approach is hardly nonviolent. But the current set of campaigns is trying to incorporate peaceful pressure in limited ways. Rajmohan Gandhi, grandson of the Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi, just visited Bilin, a Palestinian village with a weekly protest march. Next week, Martin Luther King III is scheduled to speak here at a conference on nonviolence.
On Palm Sunday, the Israeli police arrested 15 Palestinians in Bethlehem who were protesting the difficulty of getting to Jerusalem because of a security closing. Abbas Zaki, a senior official in the Palestine Liberation Organization, was arrested, prompting demonstrations the next day. Some Palestinians are also rejecting V.I.P. cards handed out by Israelis allowing them to pass quickly through checkpoints.
Palestinian political analysts say it is too early to assess the prospects of the nonviolent approach. Generally, they say, given the division between Hamas, the rulers of Gaza, and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority here, nothing is likely to change without a political shakeup and unified leadership. Still, they say, popular resistance, combined with institution-building and international appeals, is gaining notice among Palestinians.
“Fatah is living through a crisis of vision,” said Mahdi Abdul Hadi, chairman of the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs in Jerusalem. “How can they combine being a liberation movement with being a governing party? This is one way. The idea is to awaken national pride and fulfill the people’s anxiety and passion. Of course, Hamas and armed resistance still remain a real option for many.”
Khalil Shikaki, who runs the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah, said: “The society is split. The public believes that Israel responds to suffering, not to nonviolent resistance. But there is also not much interest in violence now. Our surveys show support for armed resistance at 47 percent in March. In essence, the public feels trapped between failed diplomacy and failed armed struggle.”
Israeli military authorities have not decided how to react. They allow Mr. Fayyad some activity in the areas officially off limits to him, but on occasion they have torn down what he has built. They reject the term nonviolent for the recent demonstrations because the marches usually include stone-throwing and attempts to damage the separation barrier. Troops have responded with stun grenades, rubber bullets, tear gas and arrests. And the military has declared that Bilin will be a closed area every Friday for six months to halt the weekly marches there.
“We respect Salam Fayyad,” one military official said, speaking under the army’s rules of anonymity. “But we don’t want him to engage in incitement. Burning goods is incitement. Destroying the fence is incitement and is not nonviolent. They are walking a thin line.”
One reason a violent uprising remains unlikely for now, Palestinian analysts say, is that in the two years that Mr. Fayyad’s security forces and ministries have been functioning, daily life inside West Bank cities and their surroundings has taken on much greater safety and normality.
The police and the courts are functioning again after the intifada of 2000 that led to many deaths on both sides. Traffic tickets are now routinely handed out. Personal checks, long shunned, are increasingly in use.
Of course, the presence of Israeli forces outside the cities and at checkpoints, the existence of the barrier and continued building inside Israeli settlements send most Palestinians into despair and make them doubt that a sovereign state can be built.
One effort to increase a sense of hope is a new push to ban goods made in the settlements, symbols of occupation. A $2 million project called the Karama National Empowerment Fund, jointly financed by Palestinian businesses and the government, aims to spread the message through ads and public events.
Mr. Abu-Libdeh, the economy minister, said a law was likely to go into effect soon barring the purchase of settlers’ goods, a trade worth at least $200 million a year. Efforts to end Palestinian employment in settlements will not carry penalties, he said, because the government does not offer unemployment insurance and it is unclear whether the 30,000 Palestinians who work in settlements could find new jobs.
Palestinian industrialists have financed the settlers’ goods ban partly because they hope to replace the goods with their own. They do not single out other Israeli goods, which are protected under trade agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.
Mr. Fayyad, the prime minister, a political independent, said his notion was to build the makings of a state by 2011.
“It’s about putting facts on the ground,” he said in an interview. “The occupation is not transitional so we need to make sure our people stick around. If we create services, it gives people a sense of possibility. I feel we are on a path that is very appealing both domestically and internationally. The whole world knows this occupation has to end.”
Thursday, March 25, 2010
A Breath of Fresh Wind is Blowing. Do you Feel IT?
People are wondering what really happened between Obama and Netanyahu at their secretive meeting when "Bibe" was in the US to address AIPAC. We know there were two meetings, the first for 90 minutes; then one later in the evening. What happened between the two leaders? Word is leaking out. Time will tell.
Is it possible that Obama is finally getting "tough" with our "ally"? How does "Jason" know this? What are his sources?
Time will tell. Bibi is under pressure to come up with something other than "stock, formulaic" answers that are NO ANSWERS to "making progress" on ending the occupation and the disrespect of the Palestinians.
The article itself reports Israeli angst over the apparent US shift to the European point of view (a Palestinian "state" in area pre-1967).
I doubt there was any intentional effort to "humiliate" the Israeli P.M. although that is how it must have felt, at least to several/many Israeli journalist upon his return to Israel.
There is the usual excessive paranoia about how "Israel is all alone in the world, having now been abandoned by the US". Israeli victimhood never seems to die. They are always the underdog, the weakest player in the ME, surrounded by foes, fighting for their survival. Their fear knows no end. The bravado is wearing thinner and thinner. They may actually have to DO SOMETHING about the changing dynamics.
Pray that our President will keep walking this particular path and withstand the coming barrage of criticism that we are "abandoning" Israel.
What we ARE finally abandoning is the constant pandering to the Israeli plan of doing NOTHING to accommodate the ligitimate aspirations of the Palestinians in their midst JRK (With thanks to Noushin Framke and the I/PMN/PCUSA for finding this).
Obama 'humiliated' Netanyahu at meeting
JASON KOUTSOUKIS HERALD CORRESPONDENT [Sydney Morning Herald, Australia]
March 26, 2010
JERUSALEM: The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, returned to Israel last night after an apparently disastrous meeting with the US President, Barack Obama, in Washington.
According to leaked accounts reported in the Israeli media, Mr Obama humiliated Mr Netanyahu by leaving the meeting early.
''I'm going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls,'' Mr Obama reportedly said, adding that Mr Netanyahu should consult his aides about goodwill gestures Israel was prepared to make towards the Palestinians before renewed peace talks. '''I'm still around,'' he said. ''Let me know if there is anything new.''
The talks were shrouded in an unusual news blackout, with no statement issued after the meeting and no official photographs released. US officials said the two met alone for about 90 minutes. Mr Netanyahu then huddled with staff separately for 90 minutes before requesting a second meeting with Mr Obama.
When the President returned, Mr Netanyahu is said to have made a counter-offer which Mr Obama did not accept.
In an Israeli TV interview before leaving for Israel, Mr Netanyahu said he had made progress in his meeting with Mr Obama. "I think we are finding the golden mean between the traditional policy of all the Israeli governments, and our desire to find a way to renew the peace process. I think we made progress today.". . . .
One congressman who met Mr Netanyahu after his White House meeting said: ''It was awful. Netanyahu looked excessively concerned and upset. He waved around those pages, eager to persuade us that because of the complicated approval process for issuing construction permits in Jerusalem, one could never know in advance when a decision would be published on the issue.''
Writing in the Israeli Maariv, columnist Ben Caspit said there was no humiliation exercise the Americans did not try on Mr Netanyahu. ''Bibi received in the White House the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea,'' Caspit wrote.
Yedioth Ahronoth said the White House ambushed Mr Netanyahu. ''Everything was scrupulously planned, most likely, and the Israeli Premier, perhaps the most sought-after personage in the Oval Office in the past two decades, was received like the last of the wazirs from Lower Senegal.''
The consensus among Israeli commentators is that the US will continue to exert more pressure on Israel to move swiftly towards the creation of a Palestinian state.
''The US is abandoning us and effectively turning into Europe,'' Caspit wrote. ''From now on, we are completely alone. The entire world, from one end to another, talks about a Palestinian state inside territory similar to 1967.''
''Obama wants to know whether Netanyahu is there. In explicit words, in writing, not with hints, not with a 'maybe,' not with a 'yes, but'. A simple question that requires a simple answer.''
US and Israeli officials are working on a document dubbed ''the blueprint,'' which covers all issues, including Jerusalem, that need to be resolved to let talks go forward.
Mr Netanyahu will try to sell it to his cabinet while the US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, will take it to Arab and Palestinian officials for approval.--
Is it possible that Obama is finally getting "tough" with our "ally"? How does "Jason" know this? What are his sources?
Time will tell. Bibi is under pressure to come up with something other than "stock, formulaic" answers that are NO ANSWERS to "making progress" on ending the occupation and the disrespect of the Palestinians.
The article itself reports Israeli angst over the apparent US shift to the European point of view (a Palestinian "state" in area pre-1967).
I doubt there was any intentional effort to "humiliate" the Israeli P.M. although that is how it must have felt, at least to several/many Israeli journalist upon his return to Israel.
There is the usual excessive paranoia about how "Israel is all alone in the world, having now been abandoned by the US". Israeli victimhood never seems to die. They are always the underdog, the weakest player in the ME, surrounded by foes, fighting for their survival. Their fear knows no end. The bravado is wearing thinner and thinner. They may actually have to DO SOMETHING about the changing dynamics.
Pray that our President will keep walking this particular path and withstand the coming barrage of criticism that we are "abandoning" Israel.
What we ARE finally abandoning is the constant pandering to the Israeli plan of doing NOTHING to accommodate the ligitimate aspirations of the Palestinians in their midst JRK (With thanks to Noushin Framke and the I/PMN/PCUSA for finding this).
Obama 'humiliated' Netanyahu at meeting
JASON KOUTSOUKIS HERALD CORRESPONDENT [Sydney Morning Herald, Australia]
March 26, 2010
JERUSALEM: The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, returned to Israel last night after an apparently disastrous meeting with the US President, Barack Obama, in Washington.
According to leaked accounts reported in the Israeli media, Mr Obama humiliated Mr Netanyahu by leaving the meeting early.
''I'm going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls,'' Mr Obama reportedly said, adding that Mr Netanyahu should consult his aides about goodwill gestures Israel was prepared to make towards the Palestinians before renewed peace talks. '''I'm still around,'' he said. ''Let me know if there is anything new.''
The talks were shrouded in an unusual news blackout, with no statement issued after the meeting and no official photographs released. US officials said the two met alone for about 90 minutes. Mr Netanyahu then huddled with staff separately for 90 minutes before requesting a second meeting with Mr Obama.
When the President returned, Mr Netanyahu is said to have made a counter-offer which Mr Obama did not accept.
In an Israeli TV interview before leaving for Israel, Mr Netanyahu said he had made progress in his meeting with Mr Obama. "I think we are finding the golden mean between the traditional policy of all the Israeli governments, and our desire to find a way to renew the peace process. I think we made progress today.". . . .
One congressman who met Mr Netanyahu after his White House meeting said: ''It was awful. Netanyahu looked excessively concerned and upset. He waved around those pages, eager to persuade us that because of the complicated approval process for issuing construction permits in Jerusalem, one could never know in advance when a decision would be published on the issue.''
Writing in the Israeli Maariv, columnist Ben Caspit said there was no humiliation exercise the Americans did not try on Mr Netanyahu. ''Bibi received in the White House the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea,'' Caspit wrote.
Yedioth Ahronoth said the White House ambushed Mr Netanyahu. ''Everything was scrupulously planned, most likely, and the Israeli Premier, perhaps the most sought-after personage in the Oval Office in the past two decades, was received like the last of the wazirs from Lower Senegal.''
The consensus among Israeli commentators is that the US will continue to exert more pressure on Israel to move swiftly towards the creation of a Palestinian state.
''The US is abandoning us and effectively turning into Europe,'' Caspit wrote. ''From now on, we are completely alone. The entire world, from one end to another, talks about a Palestinian state inside territory similar to 1967.''
''Obama wants to know whether Netanyahu is there. In explicit words, in writing, not with hints, not with a 'maybe,' not with a 'yes, but'. A simple question that requires a simple answer.''
US and Israeli officials are working on a document dubbed ''the blueprint,'' which covers all issues, including Jerusalem, that need to be resolved to let talks go forward.
Mr Netanyahu will try to sell it to his cabinet while the US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, will take it to Arab and Palestinian officials for approval.--
Monday, March 22, 2010
Gen. Petraeus Draws a Line in the Sand
What if Israel's "security" issues are not identical with the America's "security" issues?
Gen. Petraeus, son of a Dutch immigrant to the US, had the audacity to raise this issue publicly. The Obama team may just be listening, giving them courage to face down AIPAC insistence that our security needs are identical with Israel's.
AIPAC (meeting this week in D.C.) can hardly risk being looked at as working against American security issues.
Read what Israeli activist Uri Avnery has to say about this, giving us an historical perspective.
President Obama, take courage. Work for justice and redress of long-standing indignities to Palestinian "natives" of the land. Work to End the Occupation. Stop the settlements. Make the parties sit down and actually talk about resolving the real issues! JRK
Uri Avnery
20.03.10
The Doomsday Weapon
IT IS already a commonplace to say that people who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat their mistakes.
Some 1942 years ago, the Jews in the province called Palaestina launched a revolt against the Roman Empire. In retrospect, this looks like an act of madness. Palestine was a small and insignificant part of the world-wide empire which had just won a crushing victory against the rival power – the Parthian Empire (Persia) – and put down a major rebellion in Britain. What chances could the Jewish revolt have?
God knows what was going on in the mind of the "Zealots". They eliminated the moderate leaders, who warned against provoking the empire, and gained sway over the Jewish population of the country. They relied on God. Perhaps they also relied on the Jews in Rome and believed that their influence over the Senate would restrain the Emperor, Nero. Perhaps they had heard that Nero was weak and about to fall.
We know how it ended: after three years, the rebels were crushed, Jerusalem fell and the temple was burned down. The last of the Zealots committed suicide in Masada.
The Zionists did indeed try to learn from history. They acted in a rational way, did not provoke the great powers, endeavored in every situation to attain what was possible. They accepted compromises, and every compromise served them as a basis for the next surge forward. They cleverly utilized the radical stance of their adversaries and gained the sympathy of the whole world.
But since the beginning of the occupation, their mind has become clouded. The cult of Masada has become dominant. Divine promises once again start to play a role in public discourse. Large parts of the public are following the new zealots.
The next phase is also repeating itself: the leaders of Israel are starting a rebellion against the new Rome.
WHAT BEGAN as an insult to the Vice President of the United States is developing into something far bigger. The mouse has given birth to an elephant.
Lately, the ultra-right government in Jerusalem has started to treat President Barack Obama with thinly veiled contempt. The fears that arose in Jerusalem at the beginning of his term have dissipated. Obama looks to them like a paper black panther. He gave up his demand for a real settlement freeze. Every time he was spat on, he remarked that it was raining.
Yet now, ostensibly quite suddenly, the measure is full. Obama, his Vice President and his senior assistants condemn the Netanyahu government with growing severity. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has submitted an ultimatum: Netanyahu must stop all settlement activity, East Jerusalem included; he must agree to negotiate about all core problems of the conflict, including East Jerusalem, and more.
The surprise was complete. Obama, it seems, has crossed the Rubicon, much as the Egyptian army had crossed the Suez Canal in 1973. Netanyahu gave the order to mobilize all the reserves in America and to move forward all the diplomatic tanks. All Jewish organizations in the US were commanded to join the campaign. AIPAC blew the shofar and ordered its soldiers, the Senators and Congressmen, to storm the White House.
It seems that the decisive battle has been joined. The Israeli leaders were certain that Obama would be defeated.
And then an unusual noise was heard: the sound of the doomsday weapon.
THE MAN who decided to activate it was a foe of a new kind.
David Petraeus is the most popular officer of the United States army. The four-star general, son of a Dutch sea captain who went to America when his country was overrun by the Nazis, stood out from early childhood. In West Point he was a "distinguished cadet", in Army Command and General Staff College he was No. 1. As a combat commander, he reaped plaudits. He wrote his doctoral thesis (on the lessons of Vietnam) at Princeton and served as an assistant professor for international relations in the US Military Academy.
He made his mark in Iraq, when he commanded the forces in Mosul, the most problematical city in the country. He concluded that in order to vanquish the enemies of the US he must win over the hearts of the civilian population, acquire local allies and spend more money than ammunition. The locals called him King David. His success was considered so outstanding that his methods were adopted as the official doctrine of the American army.
His star rose rapidly. He was appointed commander of the coalition forces in Iraq and soon became the chief of the Central Command of the US army, which covers the whole Middle East , except Israel and Palestine (which "belong" to the American command in Europe).
When such a person raises his voice, the American people listen. As a respected military thinker, he has no rivals.
THIS WEEK, Petraeus conveyed an unequivocal message: after reviewing the problems in his AOR (Area Of Responsibility) – which includes, among others, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and Yemen – he turned to what he called the "root causes of instability" in the region. The list was topped by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In his report to the Armed Services Committee he stated: "The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR…The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas."
Not content with that, Petraeus sent his officers to present his conclusions to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In other words: Israeli-Palestinian peace is not a private matter between the two parties, but a supreme national interest of the USA. That means that the US must give up its one-sided support for the Israeli government and impose the two-state solution.
The argument as such is not new. Several experts have said more or less the same in the past. (Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, I wrote in a similar vein and prophesied that the US would change its policy. It did not happen then.) But now this is being stated in an official document written by the responsible American commander.
The Netanyahu government immediately went into damage-limitation mode. Its spokespersons declared that Petraeus represents a narrow military approach, that he doesn’t understand political matters, that his reasoning is faulty. But it is not this that made people in Jerusalem break out into cold sweat.
AS IS well known, the pro-Israel lobby dominates the American political system without limits – almost. Every American politician and senior official is mortally afraid of it. The slightest deviation from the strict AIPAC line is tantamount to political suicide.
But in the armor of this political Goliath there is a chink. Like Achilles’ heel, the immense might of the pro-Israel lobby has a vulnerable point that, when touched, can neutralize its power.
It was illustrated by the Jonathan Pollard affair. This American-Jewish employee of a sensitive intelligence agency spied for Israel. Israelis consider him a national hero, a Jew who did his duty to his people. But for the US intelligence community, he is a traitor who endangered the lives of many American agents. Not satisfied with a routine penalty, it induced the court to impose a life sentence. Since then, all American presidents have refused the requests of successive Israeli governments to commute the sentence. No president dared to confront his intelligence chiefs in this matter.
But the most significant side of this affair is reminiscent of the famous words of Sherlock Holmes about the dogs that did not bark. AIPAC did not bark. The entire American Jewish community fell silent. Almost nobody raised their voice for poor Pollard.
Why? Because most American Jews are ready to do anything – just anything – for the government of Israel. With one exception: they will not do anything that appears to hurt the security of the United States. When the flag of security is hoisted, the Jews, like all Americans, snap to attention and salute. The Damocles sword of suspicion of disloyalty hangs above their heads. For them, this is the ultimate nightmare: to be accused of putting the security of Israel ahead of the security of the US. Therefore it is important for them to repeat endlessly the mantra that the interests of Israel and the US are identical.
And now comes the most important general of the US Army and says that this is not so. The policy of the present Israeli government is endangering the lives of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
FOR NOW, this is being said only as a side remark, in a military document that has not been widely aired. But the sword has been drawn from its scabbard – and American Jews have started to tremble at the distant rumble of an approaching earthquake.
This week, Netanyahu’s brother-in-law has used our own doomsday weapon. He declared that Obama is an "anti-Semite". The official newspaper of the Shas party has asserted that Obama is really a Muslim. They represent the radical right and its allies, who argue in speech and in writing that "Hussein" Obama is a Jew-hating black who must be beaten in the coming congressional elections and in the next presidential ones.
(Yet an important poll in Israel published yesterday shows that the Israeli public is far from convinced by these insinuations: the vast majority believes that Obama’s treatment of Israel is fair. Indeed, Obama got higher marks than Netanyahu.)
If Obama decides to fight back and activate his doomsday weapon – the accusation that Israel puts the lives of American servicemen at risk – this would have catastrophic consequences for Israel.
For the time being, this is only a shot across the bow – a warning shot fired by a warship in order to induce another vessel to follow its instructions. The warning is clear. Even if the present crisis is somehow damped down, it will inevitably flare up again and again as long as the present coalition in Israel stays in power.
When the movie "Hurt Locker" won its awards, the entire American public was united in its concern about the lives of its soldiers in the Middle East. If this public becomes convinced that Israel is sticking a knife in their back, it will be a disaster for Netanyahu. And not just for him.
Gen. Petraeus, son of a Dutch immigrant to the US, had the audacity to raise this issue publicly. The Obama team may just be listening, giving them courage to face down AIPAC insistence that our security needs are identical with Israel's.
AIPAC (meeting this week in D.C.) can hardly risk being looked at as working against American security issues.
Read what Israeli activist Uri Avnery has to say about this, giving us an historical perspective.
President Obama, take courage. Work for justice and redress of long-standing indignities to Palestinian "natives" of the land. Work to End the Occupation. Stop the settlements. Make the parties sit down and actually talk about resolving the real issues! JRK
Uri Avnery
20.03.10
The Doomsday Weapon
IT IS already a commonplace to say that people who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat their mistakes.
Some 1942 years ago, the Jews in the province called Palaestina launched a revolt against the Roman Empire. In retrospect, this looks like an act of madness. Palestine was a small and insignificant part of the world-wide empire which had just won a crushing victory against the rival power – the Parthian Empire (Persia) – and put down a major rebellion in Britain. What chances could the Jewish revolt have?
God knows what was going on in the mind of the "Zealots". They eliminated the moderate leaders, who warned against provoking the empire, and gained sway over the Jewish population of the country. They relied on God. Perhaps they also relied on the Jews in Rome and believed that their influence over the Senate would restrain the Emperor, Nero. Perhaps they had heard that Nero was weak and about to fall.
We know how it ended: after three years, the rebels were crushed, Jerusalem fell and the temple was burned down. The last of the Zealots committed suicide in Masada.
The Zionists did indeed try to learn from history. They acted in a rational way, did not provoke the great powers, endeavored in every situation to attain what was possible. They accepted compromises, and every compromise served them as a basis for the next surge forward. They cleverly utilized the radical stance of their adversaries and gained the sympathy of the whole world.
But since the beginning of the occupation, their mind has become clouded. The cult of Masada has become dominant. Divine promises once again start to play a role in public discourse. Large parts of the public are following the new zealots.
The next phase is also repeating itself: the leaders of Israel are starting a rebellion against the new Rome.
WHAT BEGAN as an insult to the Vice President of the United States is developing into something far bigger. The mouse has given birth to an elephant.
Lately, the ultra-right government in Jerusalem has started to treat President Barack Obama with thinly veiled contempt. The fears that arose in Jerusalem at the beginning of his term have dissipated. Obama looks to them like a paper black panther. He gave up his demand for a real settlement freeze. Every time he was spat on, he remarked that it was raining.
Yet now, ostensibly quite suddenly, the measure is full. Obama, his Vice President and his senior assistants condemn the Netanyahu government with growing severity. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has submitted an ultimatum: Netanyahu must stop all settlement activity, East Jerusalem included; he must agree to negotiate about all core problems of the conflict, including East Jerusalem, and more.
The surprise was complete. Obama, it seems, has crossed the Rubicon, much as the Egyptian army had crossed the Suez Canal in 1973. Netanyahu gave the order to mobilize all the reserves in America and to move forward all the diplomatic tanks. All Jewish organizations in the US were commanded to join the campaign. AIPAC blew the shofar and ordered its soldiers, the Senators and Congressmen, to storm the White House.
It seems that the decisive battle has been joined. The Israeli leaders were certain that Obama would be defeated.
And then an unusual noise was heard: the sound of the doomsday weapon.
THE MAN who decided to activate it was a foe of a new kind.
David Petraeus is the most popular officer of the United States army. The four-star general, son of a Dutch sea captain who went to America when his country was overrun by the Nazis, stood out from early childhood. In West Point he was a "distinguished cadet", in Army Command and General Staff College he was No. 1. As a combat commander, he reaped plaudits. He wrote his doctoral thesis (on the lessons of Vietnam) at Princeton and served as an assistant professor for international relations in the US Military Academy.
He made his mark in Iraq, when he commanded the forces in Mosul, the most problematical city in the country. He concluded that in order to vanquish the enemies of the US he must win over the hearts of the civilian population, acquire local allies and spend more money than ammunition. The locals called him King David. His success was considered so outstanding that his methods were adopted as the official doctrine of the American army.
His star rose rapidly. He was appointed commander of the coalition forces in Iraq and soon became the chief of the Central Command of the US army, which covers the whole Middle East , except Israel and Palestine (which "belong" to the American command in Europe).
When such a person raises his voice, the American people listen. As a respected military thinker, he has no rivals.
THIS WEEK, Petraeus conveyed an unequivocal message: after reviewing the problems in his AOR (Area Of Responsibility) – which includes, among others, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and Yemen – he turned to what he called the "root causes of instability" in the region. The list was topped by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In his report to the Armed Services Committee he stated: "The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR…The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas."
Not content with that, Petraeus sent his officers to present his conclusions to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In other words: Israeli-Palestinian peace is not a private matter between the two parties, but a supreme national interest of the USA. That means that the US must give up its one-sided support for the Israeli government and impose the two-state solution.
The argument as such is not new. Several experts have said more or less the same in the past. (Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, I wrote in a similar vein and prophesied that the US would change its policy. It did not happen then.) But now this is being stated in an official document written by the responsible American commander.
The Netanyahu government immediately went into damage-limitation mode. Its spokespersons declared that Petraeus represents a narrow military approach, that he doesn’t understand political matters, that his reasoning is faulty. But it is not this that made people in Jerusalem break out into cold sweat.
AS IS well known, the pro-Israel lobby dominates the American political system without limits – almost. Every American politician and senior official is mortally afraid of it. The slightest deviation from the strict AIPAC line is tantamount to political suicide.
But in the armor of this political Goliath there is a chink. Like Achilles’ heel, the immense might of the pro-Israel lobby has a vulnerable point that, when touched, can neutralize its power.
It was illustrated by the Jonathan Pollard affair. This American-Jewish employee of a sensitive intelligence agency spied for Israel. Israelis consider him a national hero, a Jew who did his duty to his people. But for the US intelligence community, he is a traitor who endangered the lives of many American agents. Not satisfied with a routine penalty, it induced the court to impose a life sentence. Since then, all American presidents have refused the requests of successive Israeli governments to commute the sentence. No president dared to confront his intelligence chiefs in this matter.
But the most significant side of this affair is reminiscent of the famous words of Sherlock Holmes about the dogs that did not bark. AIPAC did not bark. The entire American Jewish community fell silent. Almost nobody raised their voice for poor Pollard.
Why? Because most American Jews are ready to do anything – just anything – for the government of Israel. With one exception: they will not do anything that appears to hurt the security of the United States. When the flag of security is hoisted, the Jews, like all Americans, snap to attention and salute. The Damocles sword of suspicion of disloyalty hangs above their heads. For them, this is the ultimate nightmare: to be accused of putting the security of Israel ahead of the security of the US. Therefore it is important for them to repeat endlessly the mantra that the interests of Israel and the US are identical.
And now comes the most important general of the US Army and says that this is not so. The policy of the present Israeli government is endangering the lives of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
FOR NOW, this is being said only as a side remark, in a military document that has not been widely aired. But the sword has been drawn from its scabbard – and American Jews have started to tremble at the distant rumble of an approaching earthquake.
This week, Netanyahu’s brother-in-law has used our own doomsday weapon. He declared that Obama is an "anti-Semite". The official newspaper of the Shas party has asserted that Obama is really a Muslim. They represent the radical right and its allies, who argue in speech and in writing that "Hussein" Obama is a Jew-hating black who must be beaten in the coming congressional elections and in the next presidential ones.
(Yet an important poll in Israel published yesterday shows that the Israeli public is far from convinced by these insinuations: the vast majority believes that Obama’s treatment of Israel is fair. Indeed, Obama got higher marks than Netanyahu.)
If Obama decides to fight back and activate his doomsday weapon – the accusation that Israel puts the lives of American servicemen at risk – this would have catastrophic consequences for Israel.
For the time being, this is only a shot across the bow – a warning shot fired by a warship in order to induce another vessel to follow its instructions. The warning is clear. Even if the present crisis is somehow damped down, it will inevitably flare up again and again as long as the present coalition in Israel stays in power.
When the movie "Hurt Locker" won its awards, the entire American public was united in its concern about the lives of its soldiers in the Middle East. If this public becomes convinced that Israel is sticking a knife in their back, it will be a disaster for Netanyahu. And not just for him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)