A Turning Point in Israel's History?
Talking With Jeff Halper About the Future of Palestine
By GABRIEL HERSHMAN
http://www.counterpunch.org/hershman03222011.html
The West Bank would empty of settlers overnight if they were asked to choose between American and Israeli citizenship, says activist Jeff Halper, a powerful exponent of the Israeli government's moral bankruptcy.
Mention the S.H.I.T list - the Masada 2000 Kahanists' "Self-Hating Israel-Threatening" Jews list - that mysteriously sprang up several years ago and Jeff Halper, founder and co-ordinator of the Jerusalem-based Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) beams with pride. He says the compilers have done a great job.
Like others on the Israeli Left, and indeed Jews everywhere critical of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians, to be a S.H.I.T is an honour. Not that Halper would agree with the appellation, of course. He identifies himself as a "cultural Zionist", but he thinks those included are upstanding citizens.
To Halper and others like him, the fanatical zealots behind the list use the anti-Semitic label to ward off any barbs aimed by gentiles at Israel. So it's only natural that they would brand Jews like him - and to name but a few - veteran Haaretz journalists Gideon Levy and Amira Hass - as self-hating Jews.
Not that Halper is your standard lefty; he surprises me by being able to discern anti-Semitism behind the most fervent American Christian Zionists. He's also got a good nose for sussing out a Jew-hating gentile fascist masquerading as a left-wing anti-Zionist ex-Jew. Or borderline anti-Semitism in a far-left, pro-Palestinian former British MP. No prizes for guessing who!
Self-fulfilling prophesy?
The discourse surrounding Israel and anti-Semitism is like an endless shaggy dog story. The Right says the world is against us, the Jews are the eternal victims of attempts by racist Europeans or fanaticised Arabs to hound us into the sea or gas chambers. Get out of Europe, say the European Nazis. Get out of Palestine, says Helen Thomas. So, you see, we're not wanted anywhere!
The Left says Israel has perpetuated anti-Semitism - yes, indeed the world is against us, but that's because Israel has flouted international resolutions, persisted in its illegal occupation and persuaded the more extreme elements of international Jewry to finance its agenda. But we only need Jewish nationalism because of anti-Semitism, says the Right, so we need our own state and screw the rest.
Back to the S.H.I.T list. Halper, 64, a diminutive but well built bearded bear of a man has obviously done some investigations. He is passionate about the damage done to Palestinians but seems unfazed at his own prominence on the list. His own thumb nail portrait is particularly colourful. "This American-born anti-Israel agitator concerns himself and ICAHD only incidentally with house demolition. Their primary concern is the demolition of Israel," says the site, which charmingly refers to him as a "sick, self-hating kike". This for a man who emigrated to Israel more than 30 years ago. Actually, in the flesh, Halper comes across as an engaging and delightful kind of Jewish Santa. Warm-hearted but not especially sensitive about himself, Halper, a child of the civil rights movement, is now the veteran of countless attempts to salvage Palestinian homes, sit-ins and arrests.
Halper, slightly tongue-in-cheek, is at pains to praise the research.
"We use that list. If I want a research list of 5000 critical people, it's great," he says, while quibbling with the inclusion of some, like former US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk. For Halper, it seems, to be a S.H.I.T (in this context) is a compliment.
So who bears the credit for this work of scholarship, some of which carries not only a potted history of the "worst" S.H.I.Ts but also some imaginative imagery? Some, for example, have close-ups of cavities, no doubt in an attempt to show that it's not only the bearer's gums that are diseased.
"I'm sure there was somebody in Boston because the Boston people have in-depth profiles about their families," says Halper from his office in central Jerusalem. "There's a right-wing group - called Camera - with Alan Dershowitz on its board, based in Boston. They carry a picture of me, sometimes it's just a name, but the Boston people have extensive biographies attached to their names."
Israel-haters, Jew-haters and Armageddon-lovers.
In Israel - and indeed the world at large - the term "the Left" has now become synonymous with hostility to Israel and its actions. The far Left, in particular, is anti-colonialist, anti-American, anti-nationalist and anti the "Zionist entity", viewing it as a client state of evil big brother capitalist America. But, as Halper points out, in the US the Republican Party is traditionally the most hostile to Israel.
"Jews don't vote Republican. George HW Bush, together with (former secretary of state) James Baker, withheld 10 billion dollars of oil guarantees. George W Bush, on the other hand, was a born again Christian and 100 degrees different fom his father on Israel. The whole rise of the neo-cons and the Christian Right in the US - the likes of Mike Huckabee and Pat Robertson - came after Bush the father. Bush Senior was the old Republican right-wing, like Nixon and Goldwater. You can be critical of Israel for different reasons. The Christian Zionists are anti-Semites; they don't like Jews but they think that Israel has to be strong and get into a war for Armageddon to come. So they use Israel. They're not pro-Israel, but pro the Messiah coming and they need Israel for that. That's what motivates them, not love of Jews."
No other country in the world has such a complex dynamic surrounding it as Israel as Halper's (undeniably) accurate appraisal of Israel's weird coalition of friends and foes attests to.
"You can be critical of Israel and not be anti-Semitic. You can be critical of Israel and anti-Semitic - like Pat Buchanan, you can be NOT critical of Israel and be anti-Semitic, you can be Jewish and anti-Semitic." Halper cites a former friend of his - Paul Eisen. To which list I quickly suggest Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shamir. We also discuss another category becoming increasingly recognisable in Europe at least, the pro-Israel Christian philo-semites, right-wing white nationalists, formerly harsh critics of Israel who, fearful of the "Muslim threat" to Europe, have shifted to backing Israel.
Bantustan or bust
Halper returns to more traditional ground when discussing Gaza and the West Bank. He is a vitriolic critic of all Israeli governments, past and present.
"Gaza is the largest prison in the world," says Halper. "Israel has developed what we call the matrix of control and you can clearly trace the development of these polices."
For Halper the situation in the West Bank is part of a carefully planned design.
"When Ariel Sharon became head of a ministerial committee on the settlements, in 1977,(former prime minister) Menachem Begin charged him with making 'Judea and Samaria' (they never called it the West Bank) Jewish. He was told to do it in such a way that forecloses the possibility of a Palestinian state. I don't call it a prison, the West Bank; I call it a bantustan. It's the same problem as existed in South Africa - how do you create a white democracy with a black majority? How do you create a Jewish democracy with a Palestinian majority? You take out areas A and B and the settlement blocs and put in the line of the 'security wall' and you have left a Palestinian bantustan."
Halper says that the recent leaks clearly show that Benyamin Netanyahu is looking for a collaborator in this - his "bantustan" version of the two-state solution. Alternatively, says Halper, the official Israeli policy is simply the status quo. "Israel believes it can do what South Africa couldn't; it can keep this thing going indefinitely because nobody can touch Israel."
Halper thinks, however, that a gulf is opening up between Europe and the US on Israel. Even Washington could soon be reviewing its options. Israel may have bi-partisan support in Congress but the price for supporting Israel, Halper concludes, is simply becoming too high.
"This isn't a localised debate. This impacts on the international system. James Baker (former Secretary of State) once called it the epicentre of the alienation between the entire Muslim world and the West. General Petraeus even said in the Senate that we can't get anywhere in Afghanistan because we're so identified with the Israeli occupation. Either Obama says to Congress - 'this policy is really killing us' or - perhaps more likely - it would be very hard for the US to stay away if every country recognised a Palestininan state. Then Israel really would be an occupying power."
Will it happen? Halper says that Abu Mazen should declare an independent Palestinian state.
"Either it will happen or the whole Palestinian Authority will collapse in the next few months. I don't see another year of the Palestinian Authority the way it is. Perhaps Abu Mazen will resign. If that happens there's no more pretence at a peace process; Israel would have to re-occupy the whole area, including Gaza, because you can't allow Hamas to fill that vacuum. That would force the hand of the international community. The level of violence would inflame the entire Muslim world and then the international community would act, with or without the US."
Halper believes that time could have run out for the two-state solution. Personally, he has no problem with a one-state bi-national solution. Just as many Afrikaners stayed in South Africa, so many Jews, he believes, would stay in Israel.
"I'm what you call a cultural Zionist and I like the idea of Hebrew language and literature. I have supported the two-state solution, but at some point your opinions or views have to be grounded in something. Proponents of a two-state solution have to address the question - is it still really possible? Is Israel capable of being pushed back to its '67 borders?"
Halper does not believe the theory that hostility in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is mutual or that the conflict has any symmetry. He demurs when I talk of "distrust" between both sides standing in the way of a one-state solution.
"Israel is the occupying power. Palestinians have supported a two-state solution since 1988. They don't have that animosity towards us. They're ready to give us 78 per cent of their country. The animosity is in one direction."
Halper cites a dark night in Gaza as proof that what Israelis are told bears little relation to the truth and that Palestinians and Israels could indeed live side by side in a secular, bi-national state.
"I was in Gaza two years ago, coming in on an aid boat (one of the first); Clare Short was on one. We actually got two boats in, because from the third sailing onwards the boats were blocked. I was in Gaza City on a night as black as coal (because of a power cut) sitting having coffee, surrounded by thousands of Palestinians. I was talking in Hebrew. You know what they were saying to me - 'how do we get out of this mess'? The Palestinian attitude is all this is just so silly."
Zionists or opportunists?
When I mention that international Jewish opinion would never countenance the end of the Jewish state, Halper is dismissive.
"But 75 per cent of Jews never came. Whenever Jews had a choice, they didn't come here. The Jews after apartheid went to the US and Australia; Jews in Argentina went to Mexico. When the Soviet Union collapsed, many of them went to the US and then to Germany. Zionism was never meant to be just a refuge; it was meant to be a more positive nationalism. It said this is the heart of our civilisation. We're coming home. One of the key elements of Zionism was the negation of exile. The idea is that you are in exile. You might think you (I'm currently a resident of Sofia, Bulgaria) are in a diaspora but you're in exile. Your Jewish life is ephemeral. Your true identity is Israeli, so forget being Jewish and become Israeli, only then are you part of your people because the Jews, according to Zionist thinking, are a nation. But 90 to 95 per cent of Jews rejected that and chose instead to preserve their own nationality."
Halper cites a funny conversation with a Jewish family in Beverly Hills. The people in question referred to Israel as "a refuge" if they "needed somewhere to go". According to Halper, "the woman in Beverly Hills, who says I want a place to go IF I leave America is not a Zionist. If she were truly a Zionist, she would define herself nationally not as an American, but as an Israeli. She would be here in Israel".
Zionism, says Halper, doesn't necessarily equate to a state anyway, hence he does not believe that a one-state solution is collective Jewish suicide.
"It was only in 1942 that the idea of a Jewish state was formalised. Between 1897 (the first Zionist conference) and 1942, they weren't talking about a state; they were talking about a homeland. That was the idea. Only later did the idea of a state come into being. The state was not the core of the Zionist idea. The core of the Zionist dream was to come back and revive our national history."
A turning point in Israel's history, according to Halper, has come.
"The Zionism of armies and might - of Ben-Gurion - has exhausted itself. That leads me, together with the facts on the ground, to favour a bi-national democratic state. I'm not into this demography thing."
In any case, he does not believe that millions of Palestinian refugees would return to Israel if allowed to do so. He thinks that no more than 10 per cent of Palestinians would actually come back - mostly old people.
Halper doesn't hold the one-state solution to be ideal or even a better answer to the two-state solution. "Bi-national states are not happy by and large, but I've come to the conclusion that the two-state solution is gone."
Not in our name
Halper says Israel does not speak for many Jews in the US. It's unpopular, particularly with liberal Jewry.
"Jews in general have a big problem with Israel. If I were a Jew abroad I'd be really pissed off with Israel because Israel is doing all this stuff in your name. A total of 25,000 Palestinian homes have been demolished in the name of the Jewish people...I have a friend who says 70 per cent of American Jews are not connected to the mainstream organised Jewish community. They're into Seinfeld, not the synagogue. Eighty per cent of Jews voted for Obama. The other 20 per cent - professional Jewish activists who support AIPAC and the rest - are well organised and very influential, so they have a disproportionate voice."
Halper relates figures showing that 30 to 40 per cent of funding for the Republican Party comes from Jews. The right-wing Jewish activists, it seems, are good at promoting their cause and advancing their chosen candidates. He cites Mike Huckabee, perhaps the Republican Party's 2012 presidential candidate, who recently laid the foundation stone for a new settlement on the Mount of Olives.
Halper believes that the Pentagon is one of Israel's strongest backers - "Noam Chomsky (perhaps the most prominent S.H.I.T) called Israel America's largest aircraft carrier" - but again Halper thinks a sea change in US policy is inevitable.
"During the war on terror it made sense to support Israel but now, with Obama reaching out to the Muslim world, more Americans realise they must shift. So the pro-Israel stand contradicts even the interests of the military. But in the Pentagon, which is pro-Israel, you find the defence contractors. If you cut back on military aid, it costs jobs."
Jews, believes Halper, are not the "victims" in this conflict and for Israel to present itself as such is disingenuous.
"You can't present yourself as victims but be the fourth largest nuclear power in the world. There's a book called the Iron Wall (by Vladimir Jabotinsky) about the whole history of Arab-Jewish relations. It relates how, after the 1967 Six-Day War, defence minister Ezra Weizman was sent to Washington to get new arms from President Lyndon Johnson. So he comes to then Prime Minister Levi Eshkol. 'What do I say? We've always presented ourselves as victims, yet we beat the whole Arab world in six days!' And Eshkol said - 'present us as poor little Samson' - in other words how do you put together the fact that we're super-strong but we're victims and you should still support us? It's that mixed message that's problematic for Israel."
Racism against Arabs, according to Halper, underpins Israel's hardline stance, just as the Holocaust is used to exploit fear of the "other". "Israeli Jews have always been told until today by ther leaders that the Arabs (because they never use the word 'Palestinians') are our permanent enemies - period - and peace is impossible, not because of us but because of them. That's an article of faith, whether you are on the Right or Left. It certainly doesn't lead to a two-state solution, because why would you give to your enemies the belly of your country?"
He quotes former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's unshakable dictum: "Arabs are Arabs, Jews are Jews and the sea is the sea". In other words, there is an irrevokable chasm between the two sides.
That kind of immutable thinking is just what Halper opposes.
"We're in favour of keeping this conflict political because if it's political, there's a solution. Once you start to say 'they are the problem', then you're mystifying things. That's racist and it leads to genocide, because then the only solution is the final solution. It's a very dangerous thing."
He thinks racism against Arabs, presenting the other side as the "problem', or imputing to Arabs a tendency not to value human life (as historian Benny Morris has done) is part of "colonial, racist dicourse", citing the same rhetoric that dehumanised blacks in South Africa.
Military men
Halper sounds so reasonable, and presents most Palestinians as willing partners to peace - ready to give up 78 per cent of historic Palestine to co-exist with Israel - so what, I ask, explains Israel's intransigence and the dwindling influence of the Left? Halper believes the clue lies in C Wright Mills' concept of a "crackpot realist". Israel's leaders are all military people; they see every solution through a militaristic mindset.
"So they have an authority when they speak which leaders in the UK lack. Who's more of a realist than a military guy who's been shot 10 times? The military is admittedly one important component - and I admit that security is legitimate - but if you view everything based on that, then you develop tunnel vision," says Halper. "Basically, when a former general like Ehud Barak, says that Israel has no partner for peace, then people believe him and retreat into the timeworn 'world is against us' mindset."
To hear Halper, cynicism and opportunism are the hallmarks of successive Israeli governments and most settlers in the West Bank.
"I've met every prime minister, barring Netanyahu, from Right and Left. We always had one question: where are you going with this, ruling over four million Palestinians, building settlements and demolishing houses? What's your end game? We never got an answer." He adds that his organisation has built 170 homes in the last 14 years as political acts of resistance.
He thinks that Israeli policy is simply to wear the Palestinians down - again citing Jabotinsky - to make them "despair" of ever having their own state, so that - in the present context at least - they reluctantly come to accept a bantustan.
"Most West Bank settlers are American. That's the thing. Many Israelis know this is unsustainable and so they have their 'escape' passports. So most settlers have duel nationality. If the US government forced them to choose between their two passports, the West Bank would empty out and the settlers would go back to New York. Novelist Amos Oz (another S.H.I.T lister) once said - 'Will the last one out of the airport, please turn off the light?"
Jeff Halper is most definitely NOT turning off the light. He believes that Jews do have a place in Israel but his is one of the most powerful voices for a change in direction. Until that happens he has no problem with being a S.H.I.T. He's in good company, after all.
Gabriel Hershman is Senior Editor of Sofia Echo Media in Bulgaria. He can be reached at: gabrielhershman@hotmail.com.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
Bradley Burston Lament
A Funeral for the State of Israel
Bradley Burston
Haaretz (Blog)
March 17, 2011 - 12:00am
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/a-funeral-for-the-state-of-...
All this week I've resisted putting something terrible into words.
All this week I've been wondering why the Jerusalem burial ceremony for Ruth and Udi Fogel, their infant daughter Hadas and their two small sons Yoav and Elad, seemed so much like a funeral for the State of Israel itself.
What was the meaning of this funeral, and of the monstrous crime of slaughtering a lovely young family in its sleep? For the religious right, it seemed to be saying: This is what you can expect, now and forever, over and again, until the Messiah comes to put an end to this unbearable, unextinguished anguish.
For the rest of us, it seemed to be saying, if possible, something even worse:
This is exactly what you can expect. This is your future. An endless procession of killings and escalation and enmity and settlement and condemnation and heartbreak and no negotiations and a broken Jewish people and no compromise and more settlement and a shattered Judaism, until the day that a vote is taken and the Palestinians are more numerous than we, and the flag which is based on the prayer shawl and the Shield of David is pulled down for the last time.
For years now, and especially over the last decade, the adults on both sides have made children into legitimate targets. And now we, the adults on both sides, have made slain children into legitimate tools - for incitement, for escalation, for the production of more deaths of the innocent and the defenseless.
The length of this unbearable week, the Fogel family has been all but forgotten in the welter of uses that have been made of them, polemic, political, personal. No one felt this, nor expressed this, more powerfully than Motti Fogel, Udi's younger brother, whose quiet words at the funeral struck chords deeper than did the agenda-ridden speechmaking of the high and mighty.
“All the slogans about Torah and settlement, the Land of Israel and the people of Israel are attempts to forget the simple and pain-torn fact: you are dead. You are dead, and no slogan will bring you back.
"You are not a symbol or a national event. Your life was a purpose in and of itself, and it should be forbidden for your terrible death to turn your life into some sort of tool."
We are not the same people that we were before these murders. On both sides, the killing of children leaves terrible scars. The scars tempt us to feel the deaths of our own children and somehow process or deny or legitimize or excuse away the deaths on the side of our neighbor. Our enemy. Even worse, in some respects, than an eye for an eye, is the state to which we have descended – a blind eye for a blind eye.
If there is any meaning at all to this week and to this tragedy, it is this: No child is an enemy. No child.
If there is any hope in this, it may be in the words of a Palestinian shopkeeper in Nablus, the city a few miles north of the Fogels’ home in Itamar, a city Israelis have long feared as a center of some of the bitterest of their enemies.
"They were people who were at home, sleeping, in their place of safety," the merchant said of the Fogels, out loud, on television. "Just like that – to come in and kill them with a knife? Where is your heart? Where is your sense of mercy? Where is your humanity? Where? This is simply – this man has no heart. He has nothing. Whoever did this is an animal."
If there is any lesson in this, it is that the children of Itamar, of Nablus, of Jerusalem, of Rafah, of Tel Aviv, deserve better from us. We can choose to believe that the Gaza child throwing candies to celebrate the murders represents the will of the Palestinian people as a whole, just as Palestinians can decide that the Jewish child in the Sheikh Jarrah settlement who will on Sunday night sing Purim songs celebrating Baruch Goldstein, represents the will of the Jewish people as a whole.
Or we can choose to believe that all of us, Palestinian and Jew, are nothing more or less than human beings, loving, caring and, yes, mortally imperfect. And that most of us, on both sides, are people who, despite everything - despite their grief and their rage and their one-sided, blind-eye narrative and their truly unjust history and the guaranteed injustice of any possible solution – actually want the same thing: a future for their children in an independent country living alongside and at peace with the people who are now their enemy.
For every child. Both sides. For every child.
Bradley Burston
Haaretz (Blog)
March 17, 2011 - 12:00am
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/a-funeral-for-the-state-of-...
All this week I've resisted putting something terrible into words.
All this week I've been wondering why the Jerusalem burial ceremony for Ruth and Udi Fogel, their infant daughter Hadas and their two small sons Yoav and Elad, seemed so much like a funeral for the State of Israel itself.
What was the meaning of this funeral, and of the monstrous crime of slaughtering a lovely young family in its sleep? For the religious right, it seemed to be saying: This is what you can expect, now and forever, over and again, until the Messiah comes to put an end to this unbearable, unextinguished anguish.
For the rest of us, it seemed to be saying, if possible, something even worse:
This is exactly what you can expect. This is your future. An endless procession of killings and escalation and enmity and settlement and condemnation and heartbreak and no negotiations and a broken Jewish people and no compromise and more settlement and a shattered Judaism, until the day that a vote is taken and the Palestinians are more numerous than we, and the flag which is based on the prayer shawl and the Shield of David is pulled down for the last time.
For years now, and especially over the last decade, the adults on both sides have made children into legitimate targets. And now we, the adults on both sides, have made slain children into legitimate tools - for incitement, for escalation, for the production of more deaths of the innocent and the defenseless.
The length of this unbearable week, the Fogel family has been all but forgotten in the welter of uses that have been made of them, polemic, political, personal. No one felt this, nor expressed this, more powerfully than Motti Fogel, Udi's younger brother, whose quiet words at the funeral struck chords deeper than did the agenda-ridden speechmaking of the high and mighty.
“All the slogans about Torah and settlement, the Land of Israel and the people of Israel are attempts to forget the simple and pain-torn fact: you are dead. You are dead, and no slogan will bring you back.
"You are not a symbol or a national event. Your life was a purpose in and of itself, and it should be forbidden for your terrible death to turn your life into some sort of tool."
We are not the same people that we were before these murders. On both sides, the killing of children leaves terrible scars. The scars tempt us to feel the deaths of our own children and somehow process or deny or legitimize or excuse away the deaths on the side of our neighbor. Our enemy. Even worse, in some respects, than an eye for an eye, is the state to which we have descended – a blind eye for a blind eye.
If there is any meaning at all to this week and to this tragedy, it is this: No child is an enemy. No child.
If there is any hope in this, it may be in the words of a Palestinian shopkeeper in Nablus, the city a few miles north of the Fogels’ home in Itamar, a city Israelis have long feared as a center of some of the bitterest of their enemies.
"They were people who were at home, sleeping, in their place of safety," the merchant said of the Fogels, out loud, on television. "Just like that – to come in and kill them with a knife? Where is your heart? Where is your sense of mercy? Where is your humanity? Where? This is simply – this man has no heart. He has nothing. Whoever did this is an animal."
If there is any lesson in this, it is that the children of Itamar, of Nablus, of Jerusalem, of Rafah, of Tel Aviv, deserve better from us. We can choose to believe that the Gaza child throwing candies to celebrate the murders represents the will of the Palestinian people as a whole, just as Palestinians can decide that the Jewish child in the Sheikh Jarrah settlement who will on Sunday night sing Purim songs celebrating Baruch Goldstein, represents the will of the Jewish people as a whole.
Or we can choose to believe that all of us, Palestinian and Jew, are nothing more or less than human beings, loving, caring and, yes, mortally imperfect. And that most of us, on both sides, are people who, despite everything - despite their grief and their rage and their one-sided, blind-eye narrative and their truly unjust history and the guaranteed injustice of any possible solution – actually want the same thing: a future for their children in an independent country living alongside and at peace with the people who are now their enemy.
For every child. Both sides. For every child.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
The Latest Insanities
Dear Friend,
Usually, I give you articles from others. This one is from me. I'm mad. Really mad. Read on. March 13, 2011, John R. Kleinheksel Sr.
The Insanity of Endless Tit for Tat
John R. Kleinheksel Sr. March 13, 2011
The world is now learning about the latest insane actions/reactions in Israel/Palestine. Here’s the latest headline from the Associated Press:
Israel OKs settlement construction after attack
By AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press
JERUSALEM – Israel said Sunday it has approved building hundreds of settler homes after five members of an Israeli family — including three children — were knifed to death as they slept in a West Bank settlement over the weekend.
For those who care about human life and property, the latest atrocity and the tit for tat escalation in hostilities is maddening.
Where are the leaders who see and understand what is going on there and desire to put a stop to the violence against persons and property? Right-minded people must condemn the Palestinian desire to wreak vengeance on Israelis who violate their people and property. And right-minded people must condemn the Israelis’ desire to wreak vengeance on Palestinians by continuing to violate their people and property!!!
Why do we continue to aggravate and kill each other? When will each back off and make conciliatory actions that show the other side cares about atrocities and is doing something to make real changes for the better?
What is really insane to me is that at least the Palestinian Authority (PA) has categorically denounced this form of violence by fellow Palestinians. It achieves no good end whatsoever. But no one in the present Israeli leadership is disavowing the advancing of the settlement project, which inflames the violence. What insanity is this?
I remember attending a conference in Athens, Ohio as an undergraduate when Martin Luther King Jr. addressed us. I will never forget when he argued that Caucasian society cannot use the results of prejudicial treatment as an argument for its continuance. What he meant was that blacks who were separated from their wives and children in the earliest years of slavery, rebelled, committing serious atrocities over the decades, violating “civil” standards of decency and order. Dr King insisted the solution was not to continue to pile on the inequities, but to rectify systemic roots of dislocation and egregious forms of inequality, instead of seeking vengeance on the persons who were aggrieved. Civil rights legislation began in earnest following his assassination (and the assassination of Jack and Robert Kennedy) and has truly made a huge difference in the United States, even though inequalities and injustices persist decades later.
That situation applies now in Israel/Palestine. But instead of changing the root causes of violence against themselves, the Israelis establishment is reinforcing the systemic sources of the violence against themselves. Does this make sense? What will it take to begin a different “way” of dealing with “violence”? This is a clear and present illustration of insanity, the absence of reason to address causes of violence.
It’s like saying, “You will always stay in the back of the bus”! Or, “You will never be able to buy a home in our neighborhoods”! Or, “You will never be admitted to our schools”! Or, “You will never get THAT job”!
And religion is a contributing cause, make no mistake. This horrific violence perpetrated against an Israeli family was done in a leading religiously motivated settlement, where rabbis claim it is “God’s” intention that Israelis (and no one else) have the right to settle the land.
Where are the Muslim and Jewish leaders who are committed to the “common good” among the immigrants (Israelis) and previous occupants of the land (Muslims and Christians)? What will it take to sit down and reason with one another and accept mediation from a Third Party that both sides can trust?
God, when will this insanity end????
Usually, I give you articles from others. This one is from me. I'm mad. Really mad. Read on. March 13, 2011, John R. Kleinheksel Sr.
The Insanity of Endless Tit for Tat
John R. Kleinheksel Sr. March 13, 2011
The world is now learning about the latest insane actions/reactions in Israel/Palestine. Here’s the latest headline from the Associated Press:
Israel OKs settlement construction after attack
By AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press
JERUSALEM – Israel said Sunday it has approved building hundreds of settler homes after five members of an Israeli family — including three children — were knifed to death as they slept in a West Bank settlement over the weekend.
For those who care about human life and property, the latest atrocity and the tit for tat escalation in hostilities is maddening.
Where are the leaders who see and understand what is going on there and desire to put a stop to the violence against persons and property? Right-minded people must condemn the Palestinian desire to wreak vengeance on Israelis who violate their people and property. And right-minded people must condemn the Israelis’ desire to wreak vengeance on Palestinians by continuing to violate their people and property!!!
Why do we continue to aggravate and kill each other? When will each back off and make conciliatory actions that show the other side cares about atrocities and is doing something to make real changes for the better?
What is really insane to me is that at least the Palestinian Authority (PA) has categorically denounced this form of violence by fellow Palestinians. It achieves no good end whatsoever. But no one in the present Israeli leadership is disavowing the advancing of the settlement project, which inflames the violence. What insanity is this?
I remember attending a conference in Athens, Ohio as an undergraduate when Martin Luther King Jr. addressed us. I will never forget when he argued that Caucasian society cannot use the results of prejudicial treatment as an argument for its continuance. What he meant was that blacks who were separated from their wives and children in the earliest years of slavery, rebelled, committing serious atrocities over the decades, violating “civil” standards of decency and order. Dr King insisted the solution was not to continue to pile on the inequities, but to rectify systemic roots of dislocation and egregious forms of inequality, instead of seeking vengeance on the persons who were aggrieved. Civil rights legislation began in earnest following his assassination (and the assassination of Jack and Robert Kennedy) and has truly made a huge difference in the United States, even though inequalities and injustices persist decades later.
That situation applies now in Israel/Palestine. But instead of changing the root causes of violence against themselves, the Israelis establishment is reinforcing the systemic sources of the violence against themselves. Does this make sense? What will it take to begin a different “way” of dealing with “violence”? This is a clear and present illustration of insanity, the absence of reason to address causes of violence.
It’s like saying, “You will always stay in the back of the bus”! Or, “You will never be able to buy a home in our neighborhoods”! Or, “You will never be admitted to our schools”! Or, “You will never get THAT job”!
And religion is a contributing cause, make no mistake. This horrific violence perpetrated against an Israeli family was done in a leading religiously motivated settlement, where rabbis claim it is “God’s” intention that Israelis (and no one else) have the right to settle the land.
Where are the Muslim and Jewish leaders who are committed to the “common good” among the immigrants (Israelis) and previous occupants of the land (Muslims and Christians)? What will it take to sit down and reason with one another and accept mediation from a Third Party that both sides can trust?
God, when will this insanity end????
Friday, March 11, 2011
SABEEL Conference Declaration
Dear Friend,
We are in constant touch with SABEEL, our Palestinian Christian friends, who met in Bethlehem, 23 - 28 February.
Below is the statement they make known to the world. Read and send to your friends who care about what's happening over there and how the US should be more proactive. JRK
To Our Friends and All People of Conscience
As the margins of Empire began to crumble in the Arab world, Sabeel's Eighth International Conference convened in Bethlehem inside the prison walls of imperial rule. We, the participants,300 people from 15 countries, met from 23rd to 28th February, 2011, to discuss “Challenging Empire: God, Faithfulness and Resistance,” surrounded by the unavoidable and cruel effects of empire's rule on the Palestinian people and their land.
We heard how Jesus resisted the arrogance, violence and repression of Empire and became a model for us when he drove out the money changers and confirmed the people's independence from Caesar. Jesus helps us overcome fear and stand in solidarity against Empire. We must follow his example and pray for his courage to resist imperial power, aligning ourselves with the poorest and most oppressed.
We met the victims of Empire in refugee camps, at check-points and in their homes, where they courageously persist in the face of unrelenting oppression. We saw them resist the theft of their homes, fields and water, challenging us to confront Empire in our own countries and in the Holy Land.
We support the Kairos Palestine document and encourage all Christians to read it and act on it. Confronting the root causes of the conflict, this document urges all Christians and people of conscience to help end the military occupation that deprives Palestinians of their rights and condemns both peoples, Israelis and Palestinians, to a distortion of their humanity. We see boycott and divestment as non-violent tools for justice, peace and security for all. We say to the churches: come and see. You will know the facts and the people of this land, Palestinians and Israelis alike.
Our word to the international community is to stop the double standards, and insist on the enforcement of international law and U.N. resolutions regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict.
As we depart this conference we hold the United States responsible for the obstacles it has placed in the path of peace, including its veto of a U.N. resolution that condemned Israeli settlement building in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to U.S. policy stating that settlements are illegal.
We will carry all that we have seen and learned here to our homes and families, our churches and governments, along with the challenges we have accepted for ourselves and our communities.
Bethlehem, Palestine
28 February, 2011
www.kairospalestine.ps
We are in constant touch with SABEEL, our Palestinian Christian friends, who met in Bethlehem, 23 - 28 February.
Below is the statement they make known to the world. Read and send to your friends who care about what's happening over there and how the US should be more proactive. JRK
To Our Friends and All People of Conscience
As the margins of Empire began to crumble in the Arab world, Sabeel's Eighth International Conference convened in Bethlehem inside the prison walls of imperial rule. We, the participants,300 people from 15 countries, met from 23rd to 28th February, 2011, to discuss “Challenging Empire: God, Faithfulness and Resistance,” surrounded by the unavoidable and cruel effects of empire's rule on the Palestinian people and their land.
We heard how Jesus resisted the arrogance, violence and repression of Empire and became a model for us when he drove out the money changers and confirmed the people's independence from Caesar. Jesus helps us overcome fear and stand in solidarity against Empire. We must follow his example and pray for his courage to resist imperial power, aligning ourselves with the poorest and most oppressed.
We met the victims of Empire in refugee camps, at check-points and in their homes, where they courageously persist in the face of unrelenting oppression. We saw them resist the theft of their homes, fields and water, challenging us to confront Empire in our own countries and in the Holy Land.
We support the Kairos Palestine document and encourage all Christians to read it and act on it. Confronting the root causes of the conflict, this document urges all Christians and people of conscience to help end the military occupation that deprives Palestinians of their rights and condemns both peoples, Israelis and Palestinians, to a distortion of their humanity. We see boycott and divestment as non-violent tools for justice, peace and security for all. We say to the churches: come and see. You will know the facts and the people of this land, Palestinians and Israelis alike.
Our word to the international community is to stop the double standards, and insist on the enforcement of international law and U.N. resolutions regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict.
As we depart this conference we hold the United States responsible for the obstacles it has placed in the path of peace, including its veto of a U.N. resolution that condemned Israeli settlement building in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to U.S. policy stating that settlements are illegal.
We will carry all that we have seen and learned here to our homes and families, our churches and governments, along with the challenges we have accepted for ourselves and our communities.
Bethlehem, Palestine
28 February, 2011
www.kairospalestine.ps
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Restating the Two-State Solution
My friend Saliba Sarsar, takes exception to the Sari Nussbaum piece and publishes this article in the Higher Education Chronicle.
He restates the need for the "two-state" solution, even though that "way" has not made any progress for at least 6 decades now (it was proposed by a special UN commission before Israel unilaterally declared it independence in 1948).
Each "side" says it wants to "negotiate", but it just never happens. Both sides argue their case in public, using the popular media to press their case; never to sit down and talk with each other. There is bad faith. Neither side trusts the other to really converse about the nitty-gritty.
So, here is the politically correct view once again, admirably stated by my collaborator and good friend, Prof. Sarsar. JRK
A Way Forward for Israelis and Palestinians
Saliba Sarsar
The Chronicle of Higher Education (Opinion)
March 6, 2011 - 12:00am
http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/126561/
"Is This Man Dangerous?" asks the headline on the cover of Haim Watzman's article on how the maverick Sari Nusseibeh is challenging Middle East orthodoxies (The Chronicle Review, February 4). The answer is a definite no. As a philosopher president (of Al-Quds University), he regularly floats ideas to question assumptions and authority, to think outside the box, in order to educate and to transform reality.
With all due respect, Nusseibeh's idea of having Israel give the Palestinians on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip civil but not political rights as an interim route to peace between Palestinians and Israelis is not the way forward. It evades the central issue, prolongs the painful status quo, and postpones the inevitable.
As Hussein Ibish and I have argued in our book Principles and Pragmatism (American Task Force on Palestine, 2006), the facts are clear. First, Israel ruling millions of Palestinians who are not citizens of Israel or any other state and large amounts of Palestinian territory beyond the internationally recognized boundaries of Israel is completely untenable. Second, plans demanding complete Israeli/Jewish or Palestinian/Muslim rule over the whole of historical Palestine generate continued conflict and violence without apparent resolution, since neither side can seriously hope for any sort of comprehensive military solution. Third, utopian visions of a single, democratic state in which Israelis and Palestinians both set aside their national identities in favor of an as-yet-undefined umbrella identity in some sort of joint or binational state may be appealing in their own way, but do not constitute a practical path to ending the conflict.
In our real world, which is only a slight approximation of the ideal world of the philosopher king, a doable and just solution consists of Israel and Palestine—two sovereign states—living side by side in security, peace, and prosperity. As the American Task Force on Palestine has repeatedly stated, this solution, with a Palestine built on democracy, pluralism, defensive defense, and neutrality, is in the best national interest of all concerned, including the United States, Palestine, and Israel. It is the responsibility of the United States in particular and the other members of the Middle East Quartet in general to push hard for the resumption and sustenance of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. What is agreed upon, however, remains the prerogative of the parties themselves.
Sari Nusseibeh should not despair. He must continue to use his voice and touch to bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict for the two nations—Israelis and Palestinians—and three religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—that share Jerusalem.
Saliba Sarsar
Professor of Political Science
Associate Vice President for Global Initiatives
Monmouth University
Monmouth, N.J.
He restates the need for the "two-state" solution, even though that "way" has not made any progress for at least 6 decades now (it was proposed by a special UN commission before Israel unilaterally declared it independence in 1948).
Each "side" says it wants to "negotiate", but it just never happens. Both sides argue their case in public, using the popular media to press their case; never to sit down and talk with each other. There is bad faith. Neither side trusts the other to really converse about the nitty-gritty.
So, here is the politically correct view once again, admirably stated by my collaborator and good friend, Prof. Sarsar. JRK
A Way Forward for Israelis and Palestinians
Saliba Sarsar
The Chronicle of Higher Education (Opinion)
March 6, 2011 - 12:00am
http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/126561/
"Is This Man Dangerous?" asks the headline on the cover of Haim Watzman's article on how the maverick Sari Nusseibeh is challenging Middle East orthodoxies (The Chronicle Review, February 4). The answer is a definite no. As a philosopher president (of Al-Quds University), he regularly floats ideas to question assumptions and authority, to think outside the box, in order to educate and to transform reality.
With all due respect, Nusseibeh's idea of having Israel give the Palestinians on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip civil but not political rights as an interim route to peace between Palestinians and Israelis is not the way forward. It evades the central issue, prolongs the painful status quo, and postpones the inevitable.
As Hussein Ibish and I have argued in our book Principles and Pragmatism (American Task Force on Palestine, 2006), the facts are clear. First, Israel ruling millions of Palestinians who are not citizens of Israel or any other state and large amounts of Palestinian territory beyond the internationally recognized boundaries of Israel is completely untenable. Second, plans demanding complete Israeli/Jewish or Palestinian/Muslim rule over the whole of historical Palestine generate continued conflict and violence without apparent resolution, since neither side can seriously hope for any sort of comprehensive military solution. Third, utopian visions of a single, democratic state in which Israelis and Palestinians both set aside their national identities in favor of an as-yet-undefined umbrella identity in some sort of joint or binational state may be appealing in their own way, but do not constitute a practical path to ending the conflict.
In our real world, which is only a slight approximation of the ideal world of the philosopher king, a doable and just solution consists of Israel and Palestine—two sovereign states—living side by side in security, peace, and prosperity. As the American Task Force on Palestine has repeatedly stated, this solution, with a Palestine built on democracy, pluralism, defensive defense, and neutrality, is in the best national interest of all concerned, including the United States, Palestine, and Israel. It is the responsibility of the United States in particular and the other members of the Middle East Quartet in general to push hard for the resumption and sustenance of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. What is agreed upon, however, remains the prerogative of the parties themselves.
Sari Nusseibeh should not despair. He must continue to use his voice and touch to bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict for the two nations—Israelis and Palestinians—and three religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—that share Jerusalem.
Saliba Sarsar
Professor of Political Science
Associate Vice President for Global Initiatives
Monmouth University
Monmouth, N.J.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Aid to Israel Should NOT Escape Budgetary Ax
MJ Rosenberg is at it again, politically incorrect advice. This from the Huffington Post (with thanks to Noushin Framke, for bringing it to our attention. The complete article follows. JRK
Once upon a time, Social Security was considered the "third rail" of American politics. The "third rail" is the train track that carries the high-voltage power; touching it means instant death.
The "third rail" metaphor has for decades been applied to Social Security, a government program so popular with the American public that proposing any changes in it would mean political death to the politician.
No more. Although Social Security is as popular as ever, politicians routinely propose changes in the program -- including privatization and means testing. While the proposals usually go nowhere, and rightly so, the politicians who support them live to fight another day. Today, with those massive deficits and the astronomical national debt, not even Social Security is sacrosanct.
Few, if any, government programs are.
But U.S. aid to Israel is. In fact, the $3 billion Israel aid package is the new third rail of American politics: touch it and die. It is also the one program which liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans and tea partiers all agree should not sustain even a dollar in cuts.
Actually, that is something of a misstatement. These various parties and factions do not agree that the $3 billion Israel aid package is sacred. They just say that they do because a powerful lobby, AIPAC, makes clear to them that touching the aid package will mean big trouble for them in the next election.
It no longer comes as much of a surprise that the average Democrat and Republican rules Israel aid cuts off the table -- while supporting cuts in programs like Head Start, which educates poor children, or WIC, which provides nutrition assistance to disadvantaged women and their infants.
It is not a surprise because everyone knows that the Democratic and Republican campaign finance committees warn their members of the dire consequences that might ensue if they dare to stand up to the lobby.
That is why even the most liberal members of Congress never point out the absurdity of supporting full funding of military aid to Israel while cutting vital domestic programs. (In fact, the only members of Congress who have suggested that Israel share some of the sacrifice are Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) who would pretty much cut every program in the budget, including Israel aid.)
But the two Pauls, all by themselves, were enough to send a scare to AIPAC so that it immediately got to work to make sure that other like-minded Republicans (the "cut everything" caucus) did not go off and follow them in the name of, say, logic and consistency.
AIPAC was most concerned about the Republican first-termers, most of whom were elected with the support of tea partiers, extreme fiscal conservatives who tend not to favor any exemptions from the budget ax.
Almost immediately, AIPAC produced a letter for the Republican first-termers to sign in which they pledged that, no matter what else they cut, Israel would be exempt. And almost immediately, 65 of the 87 Republican freshmen signed on. (More signed on later). Among the signatories are some of the most vehement supporters of cutting virtually every domestic program. These are people who support cutting jobs in their own districts and proudly point to their devotion to the principle that shared sacrifice means everyone.
But not Israel.
The AIPAC letter seems to recognize that virtually every other program is sustaining cuts. It refers to "runaway spending and trillion dollar deficits." It even concedes that "tough choices must be made to control federal spending" and that "we must do a better job of prioritizing appropriations." (Those priorities can be seen in this list of draconian budget cuts the freshmen support.)
But then this: "Therefore, as this Congress considers the upcoming Continuing Resolution, we strongly urge you [the House leadership] to include America's full $3 billion commitment for Fiscal Year 2011 under the ten-year Us-Israel Memorandum of Understanding."
And that is where fiscal hawks become the most docile of doves: when it comes to Israel.
This is not to say that the United States should eliminate military aid to Israel. Much of the aid package can be justified on the grounds that Israel is an ally, one that still has enemies bent on its destruction. But how can anyone justify picking this one program out of the entire federal budget and saying, without discussion, that it merits full funding, without scrutiny, while virtually every other program is cut?
The simple fact is that both the United States and Israel would be better off if we attached strings to our aid (as we do with other foreign assistance programs). For instance, we might say that for every dollar Israel spends on expanding settlements, we will subtract one dollar from the aid package. Or we can put the whole package on hold until Israel agrees to freeze settlements, thereby enabling negotiations with the Palestinians to resume. Or we can simply examine the aid budget, item by item, to make sure that each program in it supports U.S. policy goals. (Do those U.S.-provided cluster bombs that are still exploding in Lebanon serve our interests?)
But we do none of that. Israel prepares a shopping list and Congressional appropriators provide the goods. Shop 'till you drop.
This is wrong. Congress should treat the Israel aid package the same way it deals with programs that benefit Americans. Those who support it should be forced to defend it, line by line.
But the sad fact is that special interests like AIPAC, the Chamber of Commerce and the Club for Growth intimidate Congress into exempting their favorite projects even from discussion. Aid to Israel will not even be discussed this year, except to the extent that Members of Congress inform AIPAC of their utter devotion to keeping the money flowing.
If only infants, working Americans, and the poor were somebody's special interest. Maybe then, someday, they too could intimidate Congress. As the old Jewish expression goes: We should all live so long.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters
Once upon a time, Social Security was considered the "third rail" of American politics. The "third rail" is the train track that carries the high-voltage power; touching it means instant death.
The "third rail" metaphor has for decades been applied to Social Security, a government program so popular with the American public that proposing any changes in it would mean political death to the politician.
No more. Although Social Security is as popular as ever, politicians routinely propose changes in the program -- including privatization and means testing. While the proposals usually go nowhere, and rightly so, the politicians who support them live to fight another day. Today, with those massive deficits and the astronomical national debt, not even Social Security is sacrosanct.
Few, if any, government programs are.
But U.S. aid to Israel is. In fact, the $3 billion Israel aid package is the new third rail of American politics: touch it and die. It is also the one program which liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans and tea partiers all agree should not sustain even a dollar in cuts.
Actually, that is something of a misstatement. These various parties and factions do not agree that the $3 billion Israel aid package is sacred. They just say that they do because a powerful lobby, AIPAC, makes clear to them that touching the aid package will mean big trouble for them in the next election.
It no longer comes as much of a surprise that the average Democrat and Republican rules Israel aid cuts off the table -- while supporting cuts in programs like Head Start, which educates poor children, or WIC, which provides nutrition assistance to disadvantaged women and their infants.
It is not a surprise because everyone knows that the Democratic and Republican campaign finance committees warn their members of the dire consequences that might ensue if they dare to stand up to the lobby.
That is why even the most liberal members of Congress never point out the absurdity of supporting full funding of military aid to Israel while cutting vital domestic programs. (In fact, the only members of Congress who have suggested that Israel share some of the sacrifice are Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) who would pretty much cut every program in the budget, including Israel aid.)
But the two Pauls, all by themselves, were enough to send a scare to AIPAC so that it immediately got to work to make sure that other like-minded Republicans (the "cut everything" caucus) did not go off and follow them in the name of, say, logic and consistency.
AIPAC was most concerned about the Republican first-termers, most of whom were elected with the support of tea partiers, extreme fiscal conservatives who tend not to favor any exemptions from the budget ax.
Almost immediately, AIPAC produced a letter for the Republican first-termers to sign in which they pledged that, no matter what else they cut, Israel would be exempt. And almost immediately, 65 of the 87 Republican freshmen signed on. (More signed on later). Among the signatories are some of the most vehement supporters of cutting virtually every domestic program. These are people who support cutting jobs in their own districts and proudly point to their devotion to the principle that shared sacrifice means everyone.
But not Israel.
The AIPAC letter seems to recognize that virtually every other program is sustaining cuts. It refers to "runaway spending and trillion dollar deficits." It even concedes that "tough choices must be made to control federal spending" and that "we must do a better job of prioritizing appropriations." (Those priorities can be seen in this list of draconian budget cuts the freshmen support.)
But then this: "Therefore, as this Congress considers the upcoming Continuing Resolution, we strongly urge you [the House leadership] to include America's full $3 billion commitment for Fiscal Year 2011 under the ten-year Us-Israel Memorandum of Understanding."
And that is where fiscal hawks become the most docile of doves: when it comes to Israel.
This is not to say that the United States should eliminate military aid to Israel. Much of the aid package can be justified on the grounds that Israel is an ally, one that still has enemies bent on its destruction. But how can anyone justify picking this one program out of the entire federal budget and saying, without discussion, that it merits full funding, without scrutiny, while virtually every other program is cut?
The simple fact is that both the United States and Israel would be better off if we attached strings to our aid (as we do with other foreign assistance programs). For instance, we might say that for every dollar Israel spends on expanding settlements, we will subtract one dollar from the aid package. Or we can put the whole package on hold until Israel agrees to freeze settlements, thereby enabling negotiations with the Palestinians to resume. Or we can simply examine the aid budget, item by item, to make sure that each program in it supports U.S. policy goals. (Do those U.S.-provided cluster bombs that are still exploding in Lebanon serve our interests?)
But we do none of that. Israel prepares a shopping list and Congressional appropriators provide the goods. Shop 'till you drop.
This is wrong. Congress should treat the Israel aid package the same way it deals with programs that benefit Americans. Those who support it should be forced to defend it, line by line.
But the sad fact is that special interests like AIPAC, the Chamber of Commerce and the Club for Growth intimidate Congress into exempting their favorite projects even from discussion. Aid to Israel will not even be discussed this year, except to the extent that Members of Congress inform AIPAC of their utter devotion to keeping the money flowing.
If only infants, working Americans, and the poor were somebody's special interest. Maybe then, someday, they too could intimidate Congress. As the old Jewish expression goes: We should all live so long.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Gershon Baskin from J Street
Dear Friend of Israelis and Palestinians,
Gershon Baskin loves Israel. He has been attending the J Street conference in D.C. over the weekend.
Read the following report from him, addressed to all American Jews and his country's citizens in Israel.
It is compelling. It is heart-wrenching. It is overdue.
Arab Palestinians have a long way to go. Their leadership is corrupted, now lacking credibility, having resigned. There is no unity between Fatah and Hamas. They are in rags and tatters. Fayyad is trying to put an economic prosperity zone together centered in Ramallah. Israel holds all the cards. The peace process is as dead as a tree in winter.
Israel is not willing to take risks for peace because they have convinced themselves there is an implacable "hatred" by all Arabs, deep in their hearts, toward everything Jewish. That this has been going on for time immemorial, that is has nothing to do with their treatment of Arab Palestinians. They discount the centuries that Muslims and Jews lived side by side for decades, in peace and harmony, accommodating to each other's differences and convictions.
So there is no good reason ever to have to deal in good faith with any Arabs. You can't trust them.
Ah, but that may be changing. The dead trees of winter don't remain dead. They start sprouting buds and want to break out of winter's grip.
Are there opportunities to be in genuine dialogue with the enemies of Israel? The Shadow knows. Read on. Pass it on. JRK
Encountering Peace: Learning from J Street
Gershon Baskin
The Jerusalem Post (Editorial)
February 28, 2011 - 12:00am
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=210245
I am writing from Washington DC, where I’m attending the second annual conference of J Street, together with more than 2,000 American Jews from all walks of life, four MKs from Kadima and one from Labor.
There are a number of other Israelis representing various peace and human-rights organizations.
The opening evening was dedicated to honoring heroes of peace and courage who most Israelis would not know. Each of them received a standing ovation. One of them was Peter Beinart – author, journalist and Jewish philosopher who, in June 2010, wrote an essay in the New York Review of Books, “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment,” that now serves as the manifesto for liberal American Jews, and provides them with a voice against accusations that they have abandoned their Jewish identity and affinity for Israel because they are critical of the policies of its government.
Another was Sara Benninga, a young Israeli who, growing up in west Jerusalem, was not particularly engaged in any political activity until Israel decided to remove several Palestinians from their home in Sheikh Jarrah, a few kilometers away. The blatant injustice was the claim that the original Jewish owners from prior to 1948 had the right to reclaim their property, while the Palestinians who had been removed from their homes inside Israel in 1948 had no right to reclaim their property.
This act of injustice touched the soul of Benninga and hundreds of others, who decided to raise their voices, and have done so every Friday afternoon for the past two years in Sheikh Jarrah, and now in Silwan and in other locations. Benninga and many others have been arrested several times, and face trial on charges of illegal gatherings and trespassing.
The third was Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish from Gaza, who is better known to the public. His three daughters and one niece were killed by tanks shells in their own home during Operation Cast Lead. The shelling was an error by the IDF. Abuelaish, a physician who also worked at Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer, has now dedicated his life to preserving the memory of his daughters by seeking justice, not revenge. His translation of seeking justice is to bring peace.
It is hard to imagine these three heroes being awarded such an honor within Israel. The first two would likely be considered “self-hating Jews.” Many Israelis would be glad to see Benninga and her friends (this writer amongst them) behind bars for treason. Abuelaish received wide exposure in Israel immediately after his daughters were killed. It was later reported that he decided to emigrate to Canada. I spoke with him after the ceremony, and heard a man with a burning desire to reach out to Israelis and make them understand that we must put an end to the conflict.
ON SATURDAY I attended a demonstration of several hundred American Arabs in front of the White House calling for freedom, democracy and liberation from dictators. The various communities took the megaphone in turn, shouting out: “Free Libya!” “Free Bahrain!” “Free Yemen!” “Free Syria!” and one young Palestinian woman with one small Palestinian flag shouting “Free Palestine!” It was fascinating to watch these people with their nations’ flags chanting “the people united will never be defeated,” each one of them with deep concern about their loved ones facing the violence of despots who refuse to give up their thrones.
How sad that the men in the White House have supported those despots and tyrants over the years, defending stability and oil rather than human rights, democracy and justice.
I raise my voice in support of the three heroes of the J Street conference, and with the heroes of the Middle East from Tunisia to Egypt to Libya to Bahrain, Syria and Yemen.
Their struggle for freedom, human rights and dignity is my struggle. Abuelaish called it the struggle for human values.
They want what I want, and what most Israelis want. We would not want to live without human dignity and justice.
What could be more appropriate for us as Jews than to celebrate people in the region standing up against oppression and for freedom? When the Palestinians ultimately take to the streets (because the revolutions throughout the region will not stop at the gates of the West Bank and Gaza), I hope they will also use the power of nonviolence. If they do, I and many others will be on the front lines with them, liberating them from our occupation, and liberating us from occupying them.
I felt at home in the J Street conference. The passion of expression there emanated from a deep sense of Jewish identity and a love of Israel. The criticism against the government – and the policies of most governments since 1967 – came from a sense of deep pain, concern and fear that Israel is becoming the kind of state they will no longer be able to support. As that happens, a piece of their soul is being destroyed.
I can only ask myself, why aren’t all Jews here? What don’t all Israelis support the principles of J Street? Why can’t we bring 2,000 Israelis together for an intensive three-day seminar focused on justice, democr acy, peace and security? We have a lot to learn from J Street.
The writer is co-CEO of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (www.ipcri.org), and is in the process of founding the Center for Israeli Progress (http://israeli-progress.org).
Gershon Baskin loves Israel. He has been attending the J Street conference in D.C. over the weekend.
Read the following report from him, addressed to all American Jews and his country's citizens in Israel.
It is compelling. It is heart-wrenching. It is overdue.
Arab Palestinians have a long way to go. Their leadership is corrupted, now lacking credibility, having resigned. There is no unity between Fatah and Hamas. They are in rags and tatters. Fayyad is trying to put an economic prosperity zone together centered in Ramallah. Israel holds all the cards. The peace process is as dead as a tree in winter.
Israel is not willing to take risks for peace because they have convinced themselves there is an implacable "hatred" by all Arabs, deep in their hearts, toward everything Jewish. That this has been going on for time immemorial, that is has nothing to do with their treatment of Arab Palestinians. They discount the centuries that Muslims and Jews lived side by side for decades, in peace and harmony, accommodating to each other's differences and convictions.
So there is no good reason ever to have to deal in good faith with any Arabs. You can't trust them.
Ah, but that may be changing. The dead trees of winter don't remain dead. They start sprouting buds and want to break out of winter's grip.
Are there opportunities to be in genuine dialogue with the enemies of Israel? The Shadow knows. Read on. Pass it on. JRK
Encountering Peace: Learning from J Street
Gershon Baskin
The Jerusalem Post (Editorial)
February 28, 2011 - 12:00am
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=210245
I am writing from Washington DC, where I’m attending the second annual conference of J Street, together with more than 2,000 American Jews from all walks of life, four MKs from Kadima and one from Labor.
There are a number of other Israelis representing various peace and human-rights organizations.
The opening evening was dedicated to honoring heroes of peace and courage who most Israelis would not know. Each of them received a standing ovation. One of them was Peter Beinart – author, journalist and Jewish philosopher who, in June 2010, wrote an essay in the New York Review of Books, “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment,” that now serves as the manifesto for liberal American Jews, and provides them with a voice against accusations that they have abandoned their Jewish identity and affinity for Israel because they are critical of the policies of its government.
Another was Sara Benninga, a young Israeli who, growing up in west Jerusalem, was not particularly engaged in any political activity until Israel decided to remove several Palestinians from their home in Sheikh Jarrah, a few kilometers away. The blatant injustice was the claim that the original Jewish owners from prior to 1948 had the right to reclaim their property, while the Palestinians who had been removed from their homes inside Israel in 1948 had no right to reclaim their property.
This act of injustice touched the soul of Benninga and hundreds of others, who decided to raise their voices, and have done so every Friday afternoon for the past two years in Sheikh Jarrah, and now in Silwan and in other locations. Benninga and many others have been arrested several times, and face trial on charges of illegal gatherings and trespassing.
The third was Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish from Gaza, who is better known to the public. His three daughters and one niece were killed by tanks shells in their own home during Operation Cast Lead. The shelling was an error by the IDF. Abuelaish, a physician who also worked at Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer, has now dedicated his life to preserving the memory of his daughters by seeking justice, not revenge. His translation of seeking justice is to bring peace.
It is hard to imagine these three heroes being awarded such an honor within Israel. The first two would likely be considered “self-hating Jews.” Many Israelis would be glad to see Benninga and her friends (this writer amongst them) behind bars for treason. Abuelaish received wide exposure in Israel immediately after his daughters were killed. It was later reported that he decided to emigrate to Canada. I spoke with him after the ceremony, and heard a man with a burning desire to reach out to Israelis and make them understand that we must put an end to the conflict.
ON SATURDAY I attended a demonstration of several hundred American Arabs in front of the White House calling for freedom, democracy and liberation from dictators. The various communities took the megaphone in turn, shouting out: “Free Libya!” “Free Bahrain!” “Free Yemen!” “Free Syria!” and one young Palestinian woman with one small Palestinian flag shouting “Free Palestine!” It was fascinating to watch these people with their nations’ flags chanting “the people united will never be defeated,” each one of them with deep concern about their loved ones facing the violence of despots who refuse to give up their thrones.
How sad that the men in the White House have supported those despots and tyrants over the years, defending stability and oil rather than human rights, democracy and justice.
I raise my voice in support of the three heroes of the J Street conference, and with the heroes of the Middle East from Tunisia to Egypt to Libya to Bahrain, Syria and Yemen.
Their struggle for freedom, human rights and dignity is my struggle. Abuelaish called it the struggle for human values.
They want what I want, and what most Israelis want. We would not want to live without human dignity and justice.
What could be more appropriate for us as Jews than to celebrate people in the region standing up against oppression and for freedom? When the Palestinians ultimately take to the streets (because the revolutions throughout the region will not stop at the gates of the West Bank and Gaza), I hope they will also use the power of nonviolence. If they do, I and many others will be on the front lines with them, liberating them from our occupation, and liberating us from occupying them.
I felt at home in the J Street conference. The passion of expression there emanated from a deep sense of Jewish identity and a love of Israel. The criticism against the government – and the policies of most governments since 1967 – came from a sense of deep pain, concern and fear that Israel is becoming the kind of state they will no longer be able to support. As that happens, a piece of their soul is being destroyed.
I can only ask myself, why aren’t all Jews here? What don’t all Israelis support the principles of J Street? Why can’t we bring 2,000 Israelis together for an intensive three-day seminar focused on justice, democr acy, peace and security? We have a lot to learn from J Street.
The writer is co-CEO of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (www.ipcri.org), and is in the process of founding the Center for Israeli Progress (http://israeli-progress.org).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)