Dear Friend
Relations between Arab Palestinians and Israelis has suffered because of missteps in US Middle East policies since 9/11.
Sojourners' Jim Wallis strikes the right drum in his assessment, part of which I want to make sure you read. JRK
10 Years After 9/11: The Good and the Bad
. . . .And in those first days following 9/11, America, not the terrorists, had the high ground. The world did not identify with those who cruelly and murderously decided to take innocent lives in response to their grievances -- both real and imagined. Instead, the world identified with a suffering America -- even the front cover of the French newspaper Le Monde ran the headline, "We are all Americans now."
But it was Washington's response that I was most worried about. Within a short period of time, the official reaction to terrorism would simply be defined as war -- a decade of it -- resulting in many more innocent casualties than on September 11, 2001. In response to America's own suffering, many others in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world would now suffer --all in the name of our war on terrorism. The opportunity for deeper understanding, reflection, and redirection would elude us as we sought to erase our vulnerability with the need to demonstrate our superior force and power. This was done quite easily in the early days of both our new wars. But now, we see that the longest series of wars in American history has failed to resolve or reverse the causes of the violence that struck us, or to make us safer. They just made it all worse.
The world expected and would have supported a focused and sustained effort to pursue and bring this small band of criminals to justice. But these last 10 years of manipulated and corrupted intelligence, endless war, practices and policies of torture, secret armies of assassination, global violations of human rights, indiscriminate violence with countless civilian casualties, and trillions of dollars wasted caused America to lose the high ground long ago. The arrogance of American power was our only response to the both the brutality and complexity of terrorism. Perhaps, this arrogance is most recently and brazenly exhibited in former Vice-President Dick Cheney's new book tour, where he boasts of having absolutely no regrets for any of the momentous decisions he took part in. These are decisions which have made the world an even more divided, polarized, dehumanized, and dangerous place -- 10 years after September 11, 2001.
But, fortunately, the official and failed response of Washington to the terrible tragedy of 9/11 has not been the only reponse. A new generation of Christians has asked how Jesus would respond to these same events. Many of them would agree with what Methodist Bishop Will Willimon recently said in the evangelical magazine Christianity Today: "American Christians may look back upon our response to 9/11 as our greatest Christological defeat … when our people felt vulnerable, they reached for the flag instead of the cross." As many of those who have grown up in the decade since 9/11 confront the conflicts of their world, they are reaching for different things than their government. They are forging alternative responses to issues of injustice and violence, and rejecting the terrorism and war sequence of Washington's twisted and failed moral logic.
And despite the hateful diatribes of fundamentalist leaders in all our religious traditions, other pastors have decided to love their neighbors, and even their enemies in response to Jesus' call. Their stories are slowly being told, from American neighborhoods where Muslims have moved in, to conflict areas around the world where faith is being used for bridge building and healing, instead of more revenge killings. Christian leaders are sharing meals, fasting, and prayer with Muslim leaders. Some have defended each other's congregations and homes in the face of heated threats and rhetoric. While differences between faith traditions are not being glossed over, the nature of a loving and reconciling God is being courageously affirmed across religious lines. In all of this, we are saying that government responses need not define our own.
Last weekend, my son Luke just turned 13 years old, and my son Jack is now eight years old. They both understand what Christianity and Islam are and are not. In their classrooms, they have friends who are Muslim. The other day, my son Jack, who missed the events of 9/11, heard a disparaging remark on television about Islam and quickly retorted, "That's not true, there is a Muslim boy in my class, and he is not like that at all." Luke and I recently watched the National Geographic special, which described the events of the day that we remember this week. It helped him to put the pieces in place from his memories of 9/11 as a three-year-old. I was struck with how he looks at the world with more sympathy than fear, and how strongly he feels about war's inability to solve any of the problems and conflicts between people.
Last year, the actions of extremists marred the commemoration of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and ignited international violence. This year, many interfaith services will mark the 10th anniversary. Sojourners is co-sponsoring a press conference with the World Evangelical Alliance on Friday, September 9, which will overlook Ground Zero in New York City. Global Evangelical leaders will be calling for peace and unity, and we will say that while religion has historically been the cause of conflict, it can also serve as a solution. We will give examples of Christians and Muslims living together peacefully, even in the most conflicted parts of the world, and call for Christians to be good neighbors to the Muslim community. As we gather in our houses of worship this Sunday, September 11, many pastors will remind their parishioners of two fundamental truths: We must not be overcome by evil, but rather overcome evil with good, and "they will know we are Christians by our love."
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
The Correct Spirit for Isr/Pal
Dear Friend,
Here is the right spirit that should characterize Muslim/Jewish/Christian relationships. Despite our severe differences, we have love for God and others in common. JRK
A Tennessee Church Welcomes its Muslim Neighbors
by Bob Smietana 08-19-2011
Rev. Steve Stone was just trying to be a good neighbor.
Two years ago, the pastor of Heartsong Church in Cordova, Tennessee, on the outskirts of Memphis, learned that a local mosque had bought property right across the street from the church. So he decided some Southern hospitality was in order.
A few days later, a sign appeared in front of the church. “Heartsong Church welcomes Memphis Islamic Center to the neighborhood,” it read.
That small act of kindness was the start of an unlikely friendship between the two congregations, one that made headlines around the world. Members of the mosque and church have shared meals together, worked at a homeless shelter, and become friends over the past two years. When Stone learned that his Muslim friends needed a place to pray for Ramadan because their building wasn’t ready, he opened up the doors of the church and let them hold Ramadan prayers there.
Critics said that Stone was a heretic for allowing people of another faith to pray in his church building. He says he’s just doing what Jesus taught him to do. “Jesus told us to love our neighbors,” Stone told Sojourners. “These people are actually neighbors.”
The friendship between Heartsong and the Memphis Islamic Center comes at a time when Muslim-Christian relations have been testy. In communities from New York to California, from Wisconsin to Tennessee, proposed mosques have run into angry, organized opposition.
Here is the right spirit that should characterize Muslim/Jewish/Christian relationships. Despite our severe differences, we have love for God and others in common. JRK
A Tennessee Church Welcomes its Muslim Neighbors
by Bob Smietana 08-19-2011
Rev. Steve Stone was just trying to be a good neighbor.
Two years ago, the pastor of Heartsong Church in Cordova, Tennessee, on the outskirts of Memphis, learned that a local mosque had bought property right across the street from the church. So he decided some Southern hospitality was in order.
A few days later, a sign appeared in front of the church. “Heartsong Church welcomes Memphis Islamic Center to the neighborhood,” it read.
That small act of kindness was the start of an unlikely friendship between the two congregations, one that made headlines around the world. Members of the mosque and church have shared meals together, worked at a homeless shelter, and become friends over the past two years. When Stone learned that his Muslim friends needed a place to pray for Ramadan because their building wasn’t ready, he opened up the doors of the church and let them hold Ramadan prayers there.
Critics said that Stone was a heretic for allowing people of another faith to pray in his church building. He says he’s just doing what Jesus taught him to do. “Jesus told us to love our neighbors,” Stone told Sojourners. “These people are actually neighbors.”
The friendship between Heartsong and the Memphis Islamic Center comes at a time when Muslim-Christian relations have been testy. In communities from New York to California, from Wisconsin to Tennessee, proposed mosques have run into angry, organized opposition.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Isaelis are People too! Tx to Brad Burston!
Terror, racism, and the idea that Israelis are people too
Bradley Burston
Haaretz (Opinion)
August 22, 2011 - 12:00am
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/terror-racism-and-the-idea-...
In the aftermath of a terror operation in which gunmen attacked several fronts in southern Israel, killing eight people and wounding dozens more, try this sentence on for size: "Israelis are people, too."
What’s your first reaction? If you've been around this block before, it may well be something akin to suspicion. It is, after all, a sentence with an ax to grind. Why else would anyone need to say something like that at all?
Here's one reason: You can bet that terrible things are about to happen, with Gaza being the imminent target of Israeli retaliation. The next step will be a ritual bifurcation of sympathy, either exclusively for Israeli victims of the Thursday attacks, or exclusively for the Gazans to follow.
There will even be scorn for those who suggest that innocent victims are innocent victims no matter who they are – an observation which will quickly be written off by some (at the bottom of this article) as mendacious moral equivalence, or willful ignorance of the obvious malice and evildoing of one side – take your pick – toward the other.
Which brings us back to that statement, simpleminded as it may sound, alleging that Israelis are people, too. It came to mind because at the time I heard about the attacks, I happened to be reading an article on racism in Israel by Palestinian author and activist Omar Barghouti, a driving force behind the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.
Referring to a Hebrew University professor's study of racist attitudes in Israeli education, to be published in Britain this month, Barghouti wrote: "This insightful research by respected Israeli scholar Nurit Peled-Elhanan will confirm what Palestinian researchers have always known: Israel's prevailing culture of racism, fundamentalism, support for war crimes, and apartheid against Palestinians is mainly a product of an educational system that indoctrinates Jewish-Israeli students with militant colonial values and extreme racism that turn them into 'monsters' once in uniform."
Barghouti concludes that "more BDS is needed to end Israeli occupation, colonialism and apartheid. Other than the obvious benefits to indigenous Palestinians," he writes on Mondoweiss.net, "an end to this system of oppression may well transform most Israelis from colonial 'monsters' into normal humans."
Barghouti's use of the word monster, taken from remarks by Peled-Elchanan quoted in The Guardian ("People ask how can these nice Jewish boys and girls become monsters once they put on a uniform.") sheds light on a question which bears further examination.
All but obscured in the endless debate over whether criticism of Israel constitutes anti-Semitism – a debate now tearing a hole in the leadership of the American Jewish Committee – is a little-discussed but no less significant companion issue: When opposition to Israeli policies crosses the line into hatred and dark stereotyping of Israelis as a whole, does this not constitute racism?
Do those who hate Israel and what it does, which is certainly their right, also enjoy a moral exemption that allows bigotry against Israelis as Israelis?
It seems to me that people who justly fight racism have a responsibility not to practice it. It is all too natural a matter, especially in this part of the world, for anger over hated policies to boil over into racism against an entire people.
We've seen what that does. We've seen what that enables. We're about to see it again. By the time these words see print, more innocent people are going to die. They are not the enemy, faceless, merciless, heartless and monstrous.
They are people, too.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Re-stating FPI Intentions
FPI Position Paper, August 9, 2011
John R. Kleinheksel Sr.
A direct challenge to my apparent commitment to the “One-State” position has led to a fresh reassessment of what I and “Friends of Palestinians and Israelis” are all about The introduction to a post on August 6, 2011 by Sam Bahour was titled: “Two-States is Dead; Long Live One State”. One of my good friends took heated exception. This statement addresses that question. I’m sorry now I got carried away by a sudden burst of ardor for the One-State position. One State (secular and democratic); Two states (side by side in peace and security); Three states, four states: Right now, these are political games being played. I don’t want to go there.
The deeper issue (for me) is how we treat each “other”, whether with dignity, each person having the right to exist on the face of the land in freedom and equality; or with fear, distrust, and hostility, using previous offenses as ammunition to fence “the other” off. That is the underlying issue. Every essay, link, article, book review, anecdote that appears from now on in FPI will and must encourage people to treat each person with dignity instead of like dirt: Palestinians treating Israelis as persons on a valid journey to authentic existence; Israelis treating Palestinians as persons on a valid journey to self-determination. No more, no less. This is a battle for hearts and minds that is a real battle. Without winning here, there will be neither a One-State nor a Two-State solution. If all we “see” is a thief or a “terrorist”, there will be neither security nor peace.
Now I know that systemic injustice must be adjudicated. Segregated lunch counters and busses needed to be outlawed in the US and personal relationships were affected because of those systemic changes. That too, is an important battle to be waged in the struggle for “equality” (and J Street, the American Task Force on Palestine, the Obama administration and many others are still working hard to make the “Two-State” solution happen). If that is their battle, so be it. Others are working for a one-state solution with freedom and equality for all. On the surface, it is a longer reach. From before 1948, Jewish leaders have feared losing the “Jewish” character of their homeland because of demographic trends. Can this be solved? It MUST and can be solved, to the satisfaction of all parties that make up “the land”. But not without treating grievances with a listening ear and heart, reaching understanding and wisdom.
It’s been a neighborhood brawl especially since the 1920s when each tribe tried to accommodate one another and failed, again and again, building competing “narratives” that served as bludgeons against the validity of the “other’s” existence, dignity and rights.
FPI joins forces with Israeli and Palestinian persons and entities that are shifting the paradigm from competition (warfare) to cooperation (reconciliation). This is the human dimension that is concomitant with any political solution. Looking each other in the eye. Getting to know one another. Seeing each other as fellow human beings with hopes and dreams. Walking in each other’s shoes. Learning each other’s stories. Laughing and crying together. Seeing things about ourselves that are hard to admit publically, because of ridicule, misrepresentation and rejection by “extremists”. And being public about it anyway.
Perhaps you can understand why the stark egalitarian appeal of the One-State position (living together equally), swept me away the other day. Forgive me. It is of course, “impossible”; for now. Of course, the Two-State solution is impossible as well. Who is holding the high cards?
Don’t you think I know how “impossible” this is politically for those who dreamed of a “Jewish homeland” in the late 1800s: the Zionist dream (secular, by the way) of a homeland “of our own” taking historical form among other nations in the world? How do we give up that dream? How do we modify that dream to accommodate the people we find in the land? How successful has the experiment been, especially since 1967 when we occupied huge swaths of land the international community declared was meant for “the other” people living there? And in 1948, driving out the native inhabitants and forcing them into refugee status or to be second-class citizens in a country no longer their own?
I will speak for myself. I need to do a better job of getting to know more Israelis and Palestinians who are sick and tired of the adversarial stereotypes being perpetuated. I want to redouble efforts to make friends with “the other” who also have dreams, dignity, disappointments and heartache and let you know about persons who are making a difference. Be they Jewish, Muslim or Christian, Druze or whoever.
I really like Eugene Peterson’s translation of Psalm 51:8. The older translation goes something like “a sacrifice acceptable to God is a contrite heart; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise”. Peterson says it better: Heart-shattered lives ready for love/don’t for a moment escape God’s notice.
I’m always looking for those little cracks in armor-plated facades that admit to being human and vulnerable; cracks that drop tears of empathy, joy and sadness when in each other’s presence. FPI is dedicated to finding those stories of brothers and sisters in the human family who find a peace the rest of the world neither seeks nor understands. This is the heart of any religion worth practicing.
I will always lift up The Parents Circle (www.theparentscircle.com), Musalaha (Salim Munayer), SABEEL, (Naim Ateek); No More Enemies (Deb Reich); Holy Land Trust (Sami Awad); Christians for Middle East Peace (CMEP); Mark Braverman (www.markbraverman.org) and many others who are breaking new ground in personal relationships.
John R. Kleinheksel Sr.
A direct challenge to my apparent commitment to the “One-State” position has led to a fresh reassessment of what I and “Friends of Palestinians and Israelis” are all about The introduction to a post on August 6, 2011 by Sam Bahour was titled: “Two-States is Dead; Long Live One State”. One of my good friends took heated exception. This statement addresses that question. I’m sorry now I got carried away by a sudden burst of ardor for the One-State position. One State (secular and democratic); Two states (side by side in peace and security); Three states, four states: Right now, these are political games being played. I don’t want to go there.
The deeper issue (for me) is how we treat each “other”, whether with dignity, each person having the right to exist on the face of the land in freedom and equality; or with fear, distrust, and hostility, using previous offenses as ammunition to fence “the other” off. That is the underlying issue. Every essay, link, article, book review, anecdote that appears from now on in FPI will and must encourage people to treat each person with dignity instead of like dirt: Palestinians treating Israelis as persons on a valid journey to authentic existence; Israelis treating Palestinians as persons on a valid journey to self-determination. No more, no less. This is a battle for hearts and minds that is a real battle. Without winning here, there will be neither a One-State nor a Two-State solution. If all we “see” is a thief or a “terrorist”, there will be neither security nor peace.
Now I know that systemic injustice must be adjudicated. Segregated lunch counters and busses needed to be outlawed in the US and personal relationships were affected because of those systemic changes. That too, is an important battle to be waged in the struggle for “equality” (and J Street, the American Task Force on Palestine, the Obama administration and many others are still working hard to make the “Two-State” solution happen). If that is their battle, so be it. Others are working for a one-state solution with freedom and equality for all. On the surface, it is a longer reach. From before 1948, Jewish leaders have feared losing the “Jewish” character of their homeland because of demographic trends. Can this be solved? It MUST and can be solved, to the satisfaction of all parties that make up “the land”. But not without treating grievances with a listening ear and heart, reaching understanding and wisdom.
It’s been a neighborhood brawl especially since the 1920s when each tribe tried to accommodate one another and failed, again and again, building competing “narratives” that served as bludgeons against the validity of the “other’s” existence, dignity and rights.
FPI joins forces with Israeli and Palestinian persons and entities that are shifting the paradigm from competition (warfare) to cooperation (reconciliation). This is the human dimension that is concomitant with any political solution. Looking each other in the eye. Getting to know one another. Seeing each other as fellow human beings with hopes and dreams. Walking in each other’s shoes. Learning each other’s stories. Laughing and crying together. Seeing things about ourselves that are hard to admit publically, because of ridicule, misrepresentation and rejection by “extremists”. And being public about it anyway.
Perhaps you can understand why the stark egalitarian appeal of the One-State position (living together equally), swept me away the other day. Forgive me. It is of course, “impossible”; for now. Of course, the Two-State solution is impossible as well. Who is holding the high cards?
Don’t you think I know how “impossible” this is politically for those who dreamed of a “Jewish homeland” in the late 1800s: the Zionist dream (secular, by the way) of a homeland “of our own” taking historical form among other nations in the world? How do we give up that dream? How do we modify that dream to accommodate the people we find in the land? How successful has the experiment been, especially since 1967 when we occupied huge swaths of land the international community declared was meant for “the other” people living there? And in 1948, driving out the native inhabitants and forcing them into refugee status or to be second-class citizens in a country no longer their own?
I will speak for myself. I need to do a better job of getting to know more Israelis and Palestinians who are sick and tired of the adversarial stereotypes being perpetuated. I want to redouble efforts to make friends with “the other” who also have dreams, dignity, disappointments and heartache and let you know about persons who are making a difference. Be they Jewish, Muslim or Christian, Druze or whoever.
I really like Eugene Peterson’s translation of Psalm 51:8. The older translation goes something like “a sacrifice acceptable to God is a contrite heart; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise”. Peterson says it better: Heart-shattered lives ready for love/don’t for a moment escape God’s notice.
I’m always looking for those little cracks in armor-plated facades that admit to being human and vulnerable; cracks that drop tears of empathy, joy and sadness when in each other’s presence. FPI is dedicated to finding those stories of brothers and sisters in the human family who find a peace the rest of the world neither seeks nor understands. This is the heart of any religion worth practicing.
I will always lift up The Parents Circle (www.theparentscircle.com), Musalaha (Salim Munayer), SABEEL, (Naim Ateek); No More Enemies (Deb Reich); Holy Land Trust (Sami Awad); Christians for Middle East Peace (CMEP); Mark Braverman (www.markbraverman.org) and many others who are breaking new ground in personal relationships.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Two State solution: Dead. Long Live One State!
Dear Friend,
I have long thought the so-called "Two State" solution to the Isr/Pal conflict was DEAD. Our "friend", Sam Bahour concurs (see below).
On the eve of official Palestinian leadership's decision to seek their "independence" inside Israel/Palestine, I send you businessman Sam Bahour's assessment and call for "One State, with liberty and justice for all". Well, that's not a direct quote, but it surely is the full intent of his editorial in the Guardian, (faithfully sleuthed out by our friends at ATFP, who are still, by the way, committed to the "Two State" solution. I give them credit for passing on Sam's critique and call.)
More and more of our "friends" are pressing the Israelis (and US) to widen their view of who a "citizen" of Israel is. Repeated calls to recognize Israel as a "Jewish State" are anachronistic, ethnic-centered, and saturated in religious settlement-driven orthodoxy. Surely this form of "A Jewish Republic" is equally as heinous as their constant criticism of Iran's "Islamic Republic". What's the difference? None. Competing orthodoxies, fused with religious fervor, won't lead any to the Promised Land, "living together equally" (as Sam Bahour puts it at the end of his opinion piece below).
The US model of a secular democracy is still the best model there is for Isr/Pal. We in the US must continue to insist on greater true democracy in that region, even though it means going up against "the Jewish State" of Bibi's Likud party, their sympathizers in the US political action committee AIPAC (and even J Street, still wanting to beat the Two-State Dead Horse). Every "state" has its "neighborhoods", but their must be some form of "confederation" that gives basic human equality to all citizens. Such equality does not now exist and few seem to be working at changing that condition!
BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions movement) should be aimed at Israeli companies who are profiting from the Apartheid-like policies, from confiscated land, depriving Palestinian participation in production and services from "their" land and energies. Read on and ponder, JRK
Palestinians will soon come full circle
Years have been wasted making concessions to their colonisers. Palestinians were right to call for a secular state at the outset
By Sam Bahour
The Guardian - Thursday - August 4, 2011
The Palestinian national liberation movement has reached its end. As the Palestinian leadership – if there is such a legitimate body today – prepares to bring the issue of statehood to the UN this September, the weeks and months ahead will witness the last desperate attempt to get the international community to assume their responsibilities and ensure that a Palestinian state becomes a reality in the occupied territories.
The reasons for the failure of the Palestinian national liberation movement are many. First and foremost, the shellshock that the creation of Israel caused among Palestinians in 1948 has never really gone away. Half of the Palestinian population at the time were displaced from their homes.
Those that refused to flee are today citizens of Israel – a citizenship that was not requested, but rather imposed upon them – and comprise more than 1.2 million people, Muslims and Christians.
As if the forced dispossession from 78% of their homeland was not enough, the Israeli military occupied the remaining parts of Palestine in 1967. Israel had planned for that occupation long before the war. Military occupation is, by definition, regarded as a temporary state of affairs – and one would be stretching the definition to the point of fantasy to consider Israel's presence in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as still temporary after 44 years. Reality is much more accurately described as the crime of apartheid than that of military occupation.
Beginning in the early 1970s, the Palestinians became, as former Palestinian diplomat Afif Safieh put it, "unreasonably reasonable". Year after year the Palestinian leadership offered concession after concession, trying to reach an equitable resolution to their dispossession and military occupation.
This seemingly never-ending chain of concessions culminated in what is known as the 1993 Oslo peace accords. These accords were a seriously lopsided bilateral agreement between the PLO and Israel, which attempted to bring the parties to a "final status agreement" within five years.
The Oslo accords kept the system of military occupation in place and simply codified the unsustainable imbalance between an occupying power (Israel) and an occupied people (the Palestinians). The accords failed, miserably and multiple times. Not only did a final agreement never happen, but today we are further from a two-state solution than ever before. No amount of 11th-hour wordsmithing by Barack Obama or Binyamin Netanyahu around reviving negotiations by setting a starting point for discussing borders is acceptable. Past procrastination has only created irreparable damage on the ground invoking a dire need for an end game, not yet another starting point.
After struggling to revive the peace process for two decades, the Palestinians have lost faith in the process as well as in those tasked with overseeing it, namely the Quartet – United States, Russia, the EU and the UN. For the entire period of the peace process, Israel ploughed forward with more land confiscations, more settlement building, more death and more destruction.
Any honest observer would reach a clear conclusion that Israel has no intention of allowing the Palestinians to create a new reality on the ground towards a feasible, workable resolution of the crisis. Nor are the powers that be, namely the US and EU, serious about ending the conflict on the basis of international law. Diplomacy has utterly failed the Palestinians, leaving them with less land and less water, more fragmented, poorer, in disunity, and with fading hopes.
The drama unfolding as we head towards September revolves around a simple equation. Those who claim to be the Palestinian leadership have no more tricks up their sleeves to justify remaining in negotiations with their occupier. Thus, they are taking what is being portrayed as a strategic move to apply for membership of the state of Palestine in the UN.
The underlying political fact they are trying to re-establish is that the resolution to this seemingly insoluble conflict is two states, Israel and Palestine, based on UN general assembly resolution 181, which in 1947 partitioned Palestine (illegally, I might add).
This move gets an "A" for effort but is doomed to fail even if Palestine is admitted into the UN this year, next year, in five years or not at all. The realities on the ground have changed drastically since 1947. Israel, with blind US support, has succeeded in removing a two-state solution from the feasible options.
The new Palestinian leaders, those whom the Israeli negotiators have not yet met, see the larger picture and refuse to believe that Israel desires to live in peace when every indication for 64 years has shown the opposite. The emerging Palestinian leaders see Israel for what it is: a settler, colonial, apartheid movement clinging to a racialist, exclusivist ideology that neither wishes nor intends to allow another state to emerge between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river, let alone allowing Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and be compensated for their hardships, as was stipulated as a condition when the UN accepted Israel as a member state on 11 May 1949.
Once this foredoomed move toward Palestinian membership in the UN runs its course, a new paradigm will take root, one that Israel dreads because it implicitly views Palestinians and Israelis as equals, as co-citizens, as partners. This new shift will see Palestinians dropping their desire for independent statehood in a fraction of their historic homeland and instead will find them, within a genuinely representative political structure, articulating their desire for self-determination within their historic homeland, even if that homeland today is called Israel.
The Palestinians are about to come full circle. They were correct, painfully so, to call for a secular democratic state at the outset of this conflict. Sadly, they wasted precious time and lost too many lives trying to accept unjust modalities of a resolution.
Now, the sooner Palestinians and Israelis realise that our destiny is to live together as equals, the sooner we can begin to rehabilitate our communities and build a single society whose citizens are all equal under law and equal as human beings.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/04/palestinians-secular-state
I have long thought the so-called "Two State" solution to the Isr/Pal conflict was DEAD. Our "friend", Sam Bahour concurs (see below).
On the eve of official Palestinian leadership's decision to seek their "independence" inside Israel/Palestine, I send you businessman Sam Bahour's assessment and call for "One State, with liberty and justice for all". Well, that's not a direct quote, but it surely is the full intent of his editorial in the Guardian, (faithfully sleuthed out by our friends at ATFP, who are still, by the way, committed to the "Two State" solution. I give them credit for passing on Sam's critique and call.)
More and more of our "friends" are pressing the Israelis (and US) to widen their view of who a "citizen" of Israel is. Repeated calls to recognize Israel as a "Jewish State" are anachronistic, ethnic-centered, and saturated in religious settlement-driven orthodoxy. Surely this form of "A Jewish Republic" is equally as heinous as their constant criticism of Iran's "Islamic Republic". What's the difference? None. Competing orthodoxies, fused with religious fervor, won't lead any to the Promised Land, "living together equally" (as Sam Bahour puts it at the end of his opinion piece below).
The US model of a secular democracy is still the best model there is for Isr/Pal. We in the US must continue to insist on greater true democracy in that region, even though it means going up against "the Jewish State" of Bibi's Likud party, their sympathizers in the US political action committee AIPAC (and even J Street, still wanting to beat the Two-State Dead Horse). Every "state" has its "neighborhoods", but their must be some form of "confederation" that gives basic human equality to all citizens. Such equality does not now exist and few seem to be working at changing that condition!
BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions movement) should be aimed at Israeli companies who are profiting from the Apartheid-like policies, from confiscated land, depriving Palestinian participation in production and services from "their" land and energies. Read on and ponder, JRK
Palestinians will soon come full circle
Years have been wasted making concessions to their colonisers. Palestinians were right to call for a secular state at the outset
By Sam Bahour
The Guardian - Thursday - August 4, 2011
The Palestinian national liberation movement has reached its end. As the Palestinian leadership – if there is such a legitimate body today – prepares to bring the issue of statehood to the UN this September, the weeks and months ahead will witness the last desperate attempt to get the international community to assume their responsibilities and ensure that a Palestinian state becomes a reality in the occupied territories.
The reasons for the failure of the Palestinian national liberation movement are many. First and foremost, the shellshock that the creation of Israel caused among Palestinians in 1948 has never really gone away. Half of the Palestinian population at the time were displaced from their homes.
Those that refused to flee are today citizens of Israel – a citizenship that was not requested, but rather imposed upon them – and comprise more than 1.2 million people, Muslims and Christians.
As if the forced dispossession from 78% of their homeland was not enough, the Israeli military occupied the remaining parts of Palestine in 1967. Israel had planned for that occupation long before the war. Military occupation is, by definition, regarded as a temporary state of affairs – and one would be stretching the definition to the point of fantasy to consider Israel's presence in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as still temporary after 44 years. Reality is much more accurately described as the crime of apartheid than that of military occupation.
Beginning in the early 1970s, the Palestinians became, as former Palestinian diplomat Afif Safieh put it, "unreasonably reasonable". Year after year the Palestinian leadership offered concession after concession, trying to reach an equitable resolution to their dispossession and military occupation.
This seemingly never-ending chain of concessions culminated in what is known as the 1993 Oslo peace accords. These accords were a seriously lopsided bilateral agreement between the PLO and Israel, which attempted to bring the parties to a "final status agreement" within five years.
The Oslo accords kept the system of military occupation in place and simply codified the unsustainable imbalance between an occupying power (Israel) and an occupied people (the Palestinians). The accords failed, miserably and multiple times. Not only did a final agreement never happen, but today we are further from a two-state solution than ever before. No amount of 11th-hour wordsmithing by Barack Obama or Binyamin Netanyahu around reviving negotiations by setting a starting point for discussing borders is acceptable. Past procrastination has only created irreparable damage on the ground invoking a dire need for an end game, not yet another starting point.
After struggling to revive the peace process for two decades, the Palestinians have lost faith in the process as well as in those tasked with overseeing it, namely the Quartet – United States, Russia, the EU and the UN. For the entire period of the peace process, Israel ploughed forward with more land confiscations, more settlement building, more death and more destruction.
Any honest observer would reach a clear conclusion that Israel has no intention of allowing the Palestinians to create a new reality on the ground towards a feasible, workable resolution of the crisis. Nor are the powers that be, namely the US and EU, serious about ending the conflict on the basis of international law. Diplomacy has utterly failed the Palestinians, leaving them with less land and less water, more fragmented, poorer, in disunity, and with fading hopes.
The drama unfolding as we head towards September revolves around a simple equation. Those who claim to be the Palestinian leadership have no more tricks up their sleeves to justify remaining in negotiations with their occupier. Thus, they are taking what is being portrayed as a strategic move to apply for membership of the state of Palestine in the UN.
The underlying political fact they are trying to re-establish is that the resolution to this seemingly insoluble conflict is two states, Israel and Palestine, based on UN general assembly resolution 181, which in 1947 partitioned Palestine (illegally, I might add).
This move gets an "A" for effort but is doomed to fail even if Palestine is admitted into the UN this year, next year, in five years or not at all. The realities on the ground have changed drastically since 1947. Israel, with blind US support, has succeeded in removing a two-state solution from the feasible options.
The new Palestinian leaders, those whom the Israeli negotiators have not yet met, see the larger picture and refuse to believe that Israel desires to live in peace when every indication for 64 years has shown the opposite. The emerging Palestinian leaders see Israel for what it is: a settler, colonial, apartheid movement clinging to a racialist, exclusivist ideology that neither wishes nor intends to allow another state to emerge between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river, let alone allowing Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and be compensated for their hardships, as was stipulated as a condition when the UN accepted Israel as a member state on 11 May 1949.
Once this foredoomed move toward Palestinian membership in the UN runs its course, a new paradigm will take root, one that Israel dreads because it implicitly views Palestinians and Israelis as equals, as co-citizens, as partners. This new shift will see Palestinians dropping their desire for independent statehood in a fraction of their historic homeland and instead will find them, within a genuinely representative political structure, articulating their desire for self-determination within their historic homeland, even if that homeland today is called Israel.
The Palestinians are about to come full circle. They were correct, painfully so, to call for a secular democratic state at the outset of this conflict. Sadly, they wasted precious time and lost too many lives trying to accept unjust modalities of a resolution.
Now, the sooner Palestinians and Israelis realise that our destiny is to live together as equals, the sooner we can begin to rehabilitate our communities and build a single society whose citizens are all equal under law and equal as human beings.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/04/palestinians-secular-state
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
NO MORE ENEMIES!
Friend,
Here is the complete review of Deb Reich's NO MORE ENEMIES, JRK
A review of Deborah Reich’s NO MORE ENEMIES, available from Amazon.com
John R. Kleinheksel (www.friendsofpalestiniansandisraelis.blogspot.com)
Our culture is more and more polarized. We accuse “others” of our woes, unable to see “the enemy” is we. One of the key issues of our time is how to build bridges to “others” instead of walls. How will be refuse to treat persons as “enemies”, turning them into partners? It's true in other cultures. It's true in Israel/Palestine.
With characteristic clarity, Martin Marty skewers the chattering class in re the Anders Breivik massacre in Norway. The world jumped to the conclusion that a Muslim extremist must have done it. O no, wait, he was a Christian extremist! “No, this is not one of us”. Left untended, we demonize Muslims or Christians, or Jews, and keep them at arm’s length, to isolate or even eliminate them. He concludes his “Sightings” column for August 1, 2011 with this illuminating paragraph:
The back-and-forth polemics continues. To what point? Each “side” finds it important and urgent to use a broad brush to paint the “other” most monstrously, in order to deflect criticism from themselves and to assure themselves of their own virtue. That obscures what should be a clear-eyed critique of “self-and-other” among all when clarity is so important. The instant and inaccurate portrayal of “the other” makes the self look good in his or her own eyes. It does not provide the accurate data about. . .the people we need to understand more than we need to fire people up, motivated by Islamophobia and Christianophobia, neither of which needs more heat in our flammable or inflammable world.
I’ve discovered a working mom in Israel, who is determined to do something about it. Somehow (perhaps through Sam Bahour), Deb Reich got on my FPI list (Friends of Palestinians and Israelis) and offered to send me a copy of her recently published book, NO MORE ENEMIES (NME). I’ve read it and recommend it to all persons seeking to advance Israeli/Palestinian reconciliation efforts. She refuses to be anybody’s “enemy”.
Born in Manhattan, educated at Barnard College, Ms Reich is a single Israeli mom, raising two children in Karkur, a small town near the Mediterranean coast. With single-minded determination, she is working to reconcile Israelis and Palestinians Arabs by building lasting friendships with “the enemy”, making them “partners” instead of adversaries. And she’s networking with scores of individuals and groups seeking to transcend literal and relational barriers.
There are four parts to her 383 page book. Part I seeks to explain NME, that “the very notion of enemies is obsolete” (p. 3). In Part II, she seeks to apply her vision to Israelis and Palestinians, giving many “stories” (Part III) of how to “live behind enemy lines”, drawn from her own experiences with friends, neighbors and colleagues between 1981 (when she moved to Israel) and 2010.
Throughout the book, she hammers home her thesis that “the enemies paradigm simply does not promote good solutions. The ‘other group’ is the partner you need in order to fix what’s broken” (p. 212). Part IV gives a smorgasbord of practical suggestions of actions to take, websites to visit, and agencies and entities that are working toward the NME paradigm. She advocates creating a literal “Toolbox” with items/objects to remind us of the many ways we can address “the other”. It is an invitation to a “transformation process” that has taken her “40 years to figure out” (p. 268).
As a fair-minded Christian I truly admire Deb Reich’s wholehearted commitment to “liberate the latent cooperation bound up in dysfunctional relationships [with] ‘enemies’” (p. 271). She knows it takes “energy”, the energy latent in each of us, to get this done (Christians would say it comes from the “one” who helps us love our enemies like he did!) She also knows it is we who are often our own worst enemies. It is we who need transformation.
Here is a typical brilliant flash of insight that sparkles throughout the book:
If you take part in systematically oppressing or disenfranchising or discounting a whole group of people over a long time, you are not merely depriving them unfairly of . . .basic human rights, you are also binding up their vital, mysterious human energy (and much of your own) in a sterile and ugly cycle of joint struggle, suffering and death (p. 270.)
I want my readers to be introduced to just a few of the websites Ms Reich has suggested, as windows into groups that are contributing to turning enemies into partners.
Women Organization for Political Prisoners: www.wofpp.org This is a group of women united in their opposition to the Israeli occupation. They wish to support (listed) women political prisoners incarcerated for opposing the occupation.
The Madaa Community Center in Silwan: www.madaasilwan.org is a Palestinians community center established in 2007. Silwan is just outside the walls of Jerusalem’s Old City, occupied by Israel. They are using nonviolent techniques in the struggle to avoid displacement. They are promoting dialogue and training youth for leadership.
Artsbridge Institute: www.artsbridgeinstitute.org Artsbridge creates a safe space for shared self-revelation while staying with the language of empathy, curiosity and compassion. It was used productively at Wahat al Salam – Neve Shalom, near Jerusalem in 2010.
Compassionate Listening: www.compassionatelistening.org teaches listening skills to create powerful cultures of peace. Their next delegation to Israel/Pal is March 18-28, 2012.
School for Peace: www.nswas.org Ms Reich has translated their Israeli/Palestinian Identities in Dialogue: The School for Peace Approach, available from their website.
Rabbis for Human Rights: www.rhr.org.il The lead article by Rab Yishai Ron, alone is worth a visit to this site.
Israeli Committee Against House Demolition: www.icahdusa.org Born in the USA, Jeff Halper has long sought to advance a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians based on coexistence and human rights. He patiently, persistently works for an end to the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
When I asked her where she got this deep desire to turn enemies into partners, she referred me to a column she wrote in 2002 to explain it:
Up Xenophilia
Nearly everyone’s heard of xenophobia (fear and loathing of foreigners and their strange ways), but what about its obverse -- xenophilia? I checked an unabridged dictionary, and there it was. Xenophile: someone attracted to things and people strange and foreign… as this columnist has always been.
Well, maybe not always; is it genetic, or learned? To teach us world history, my 4th grade teacher, Miss Ladd, organized a creative multinational food fair -- way to go, Miss Ladd! Every kid in the class chose a country, and the moms pitched in to help (dads didn’t cook yet in 1957). One fine day we must all have gathered in the classroom and eaten our merry way around the globe, though uncharacteristically I have no memory of the repast, or even of my family’s contribution. Still, my xenophilous tendencies seem to have crystallized by the 4th grade.
Xenophilia isn’t an intrinsically Jewish impulse, maybe; but it’s not a sin, either. Most people are evidently happiest sticking with their own kind, without a fuss. Relatively few seem to find foreign ways either irresistibly fascinating or intolerably threatening. Alas, the Philes tend to become anthropologists and the Phobes, politicians. Pick any nation: With its xenophiles safely shipped off to some aboriginal hinterland or busy in academe, the xenophobes in government get busy rallying the masses to make war on the neighbors (and the neighbors likewise, of course). Maybe we need a Society for the Promotion of Xenophilia in Government (unless what passes for our legislature has already made it illegal).
“That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of nations, is as shocking as it is true,” wrote Thomas Paine in 1792; “but when those… in the government… make it their study to sow discord, and cultivate prejudices between nations, it becomes the more unpardonable.” Well said, old boy.
Deb Reich is a courageous Israeli mother, consistently working in her homeland for an end to seeing “the other” as an “enemy”. She is not alone. The cascade of voices, the pounding of feet, the working hands and open arms are increasing, some day to transform the lives and landscape of the present “unholy” land. Dear lady, may your anti-tribal tribe increase!
Here is the complete review of Deb Reich's NO MORE ENEMIES, JRK
A review of Deborah Reich’s NO MORE ENEMIES, available from Amazon.com
John R. Kleinheksel (www.friendsofpalestiniansandisraelis.blogspot.com)
Our culture is more and more polarized. We accuse “others” of our woes, unable to see “the enemy” is we. One of the key issues of our time is how to build bridges to “others” instead of walls. How will be refuse to treat persons as “enemies”, turning them into partners? It's true in other cultures. It's true in Israel/Palestine.
With characteristic clarity, Martin Marty skewers the chattering class in re the Anders Breivik massacre in Norway. The world jumped to the conclusion that a Muslim extremist must have done it. O no, wait, he was a Christian extremist! “No, this is not one of us”. Left untended, we demonize Muslims or Christians, or Jews, and keep them at arm’s length, to isolate or even eliminate them. He concludes his “Sightings” column for August 1, 2011 with this illuminating paragraph:
The back-and-forth polemics continues. To what point? Each “side” finds it important and urgent to use a broad brush to paint the “other” most monstrously, in order to deflect criticism from themselves and to assure themselves of their own virtue. That obscures what should be a clear-eyed critique of “self-and-other” among all when clarity is so important. The instant and inaccurate portrayal of “the other” makes the self look good in his or her own eyes. It does not provide the accurate data about. . .the people we need to understand more than we need to fire people up, motivated by Islamophobia and Christianophobia, neither of which needs more heat in our flammable or inflammable world.
I’ve discovered a working mom in Israel, who is determined to do something about it. Somehow (perhaps through Sam Bahour), Deb Reich got on my FPI list (Friends of Palestinians and Israelis) and offered to send me a copy of her recently published book, NO MORE ENEMIES (NME). I’ve read it and recommend it to all persons seeking to advance Israeli/Palestinian reconciliation efforts. She refuses to be anybody’s “enemy”.
Born in Manhattan, educated at Barnard College, Ms Reich is a single Israeli mom, raising two children in Karkur, a small town near the Mediterranean coast. With single-minded determination, she is working to reconcile Israelis and Palestinians Arabs by building lasting friendships with “the enemy”, making them “partners” instead of adversaries. And she’s networking with scores of individuals and groups seeking to transcend literal and relational barriers.
There are four parts to her 383 page book. Part I seeks to explain NME, that “the very notion of enemies is obsolete” (p. 3). In Part II, she seeks to apply her vision to Israelis and Palestinians, giving many “stories” (Part III) of how to “live behind enemy lines”, drawn from her own experiences with friends, neighbors and colleagues between 1981 (when she moved to Israel) and 2010.
Throughout the book, she hammers home her thesis that “the enemies paradigm simply does not promote good solutions. The ‘other group’ is the partner you need in order to fix what’s broken” (p. 212). Part IV gives a smorgasbord of practical suggestions of actions to take, websites to visit, and agencies and entities that are working toward the NME paradigm. She advocates creating a literal “Toolbox” with items/objects to remind us of the many ways we can address “the other”. It is an invitation to a “transformation process” that has taken her “40 years to figure out” (p. 268).
As a fair-minded Christian I truly admire Deb Reich’s wholehearted commitment to “liberate the latent cooperation bound up in dysfunctional relationships [with] ‘enemies’” (p. 271). She knows it takes “energy”, the energy latent in each of us, to get this done (Christians would say it comes from the “one” who helps us love our enemies like he did!) She also knows it is we who are often our own worst enemies. It is we who need transformation.
Here is a typical brilliant flash of insight that sparkles throughout the book:
If you take part in systematically oppressing or disenfranchising or discounting a whole group of people over a long time, you are not merely depriving them unfairly of . . .basic human rights, you are also binding up their vital, mysterious human energy (and much of your own) in a sterile and ugly cycle of joint struggle, suffering and death (p. 270.)
I want my readers to be introduced to just a few of the websites Ms Reich has suggested, as windows into groups that are contributing to turning enemies into partners.
Women Organization for Political Prisoners: www.wofpp.org This is a group of women united in their opposition to the Israeli occupation. They wish to support (listed) women political prisoners incarcerated for opposing the occupation.
The Madaa Community Center in Silwan: www.madaasilwan.org is a Palestinians community center established in 2007. Silwan is just outside the walls of Jerusalem’s Old City, occupied by Israel. They are using nonviolent techniques in the struggle to avoid displacement. They are promoting dialogue and training youth for leadership.
Artsbridge Institute: www.artsbridgeinstitute.org Artsbridge creates a safe space for shared self-revelation while staying with the language of empathy, curiosity and compassion. It was used productively at Wahat al Salam – Neve Shalom, near Jerusalem in 2010.
Compassionate Listening: www.compassionatelistening.org teaches listening skills to create powerful cultures of peace. Their next delegation to Israel/Pal is March 18-28, 2012.
School for Peace: www.nswas.org Ms Reich has translated their Israeli/Palestinian Identities in Dialogue: The School for Peace Approach, available from their website.
Rabbis for Human Rights: www.rhr.org.il The lead article by Rab Yishai Ron, alone is worth a visit to this site.
Israeli Committee Against House Demolition: www.icahdusa.org Born in the USA, Jeff Halper has long sought to advance a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians based on coexistence and human rights. He patiently, persistently works for an end to the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
When I asked her where she got this deep desire to turn enemies into partners, she referred me to a column she wrote in 2002 to explain it:
Up Xenophilia
Nearly everyone’s heard of xenophobia (fear and loathing of foreigners and their strange ways), but what about its obverse -- xenophilia? I checked an unabridged dictionary, and there it was. Xenophile: someone attracted to things and people strange and foreign… as this columnist has always been.
Well, maybe not always; is it genetic, or learned? To teach us world history, my 4th grade teacher, Miss Ladd, organized a creative multinational food fair -- way to go, Miss Ladd! Every kid in the class chose a country, and the moms pitched in to help (dads didn’t cook yet in 1957). One fine day we must all have gathered in the classroom and eaten our merry way around the globe, though uncharacteristically I have no memory of the repast, or even of my family’s contribution. Still, my xenophilous tendencies seem to have crystallized by the 4th grade.
Xenophilia isn’t an intrinsically Jewish impulse, maybe; but it’s not a sin, either. Most people are evidently happiest sticking with their own kind, without a fuss. Relatively few seem to find foreign ways either irresistibly fascinating or intolerably threatening. Alas, the Philes tend to become anthropologists and the Phobes, politicians. Pick any nation: With its xenophiles safely shipped off to some aboriginal hinterland or busy in academe, the xenophobes in government get busy rallying the masses to make war on the neighbors (and the neighbors likewise, of course). Maybe we need a Society for the Promotion of Xenophilia in Government (unless what passes for our legislature has already made it illegal).
“That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of nations, is as shocking as it is true,” wrote Thomas Paine in 1792; “but when those… in the government… make it their study to sow discord, and cultivate prejudices between nations, it becomes the more unpardonable.” Well said, old boy.
Deb Reich is a courageous Israeli mother, consistently working in her homeland for an end to seeing “the other” as an “enemy”. She is not alone. The cascade of voices, the pounding of feet, the working hands and open arms are increasing, some day to transform the lives and landscape of the present “unholy” land. Dear lady, may your anti-tribal tribe increase!
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Working Toward Reconcilation, Salim Munayer
Dear Friend,
I'll be giving more details from Deb Reich's new book: NO MORE ENEMIES, but first this from the Musalaha director, Salim Munayer. Pray for peace and reconcilation; learning each other's narrative and working for rapproachment. JRK
The Urgency of Reconciliation
by Salim Munayer
As Israeli and Palestinian believers, we usually focus on our theological differences, but we are unaware of the greater political and societal differences. Recently, I was speaking with one of my colleagues from the Hebrew University, a professor who has done a lot of work on bringing Israelis and Palestinians together. We were discussing the different challenges that these sort of inter-group meetings face, and the lack of hope that people have in the prospect of reconciliation. This led us to talk about the new report by Sammy Smooha, a professor of sociology at Haifa University and one of Israel’s preeminent scholars of Israeli-Palestinian relations, especially within the State of Israel. He recently published a report through the United States Institute of Peace, called Arab-Jewish Relations in Israel, Alienation and Rapprochement[1]. It is an informed look at the shift in attitudes over the past few decades, as well as the current situation, and suggests a number of policy changes that should be made to help reconciliation as we go forward.
Smooha first points out that Israeli society is fragmented on a number of different levels. He writes, “Israel is a deeply divided society. The division between Arab and Jewish citizens is reflected in institutions; culture; national identity; socioeconomic status; and stances on the character of the state, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and other fundamental issues.”[2] Furthermore, Palestinian-Israelis,
[R]eject Zionism, the de facto state ideology of Israel. They see Zionism, the Jewish movement of national liberation, as colonialist and racist, and they denigrate the Jews’ fundamental Zionist collective identity. The Jews, meanwhile, do not see themselves as colonial settlers but rather as the genuine proprietors of the Land of Israel, from which they were historically exiled and to which they rightfully returned to find alien Arabs in possession . . . Both sides reject the most cherished values of the other.[3]
This division is important, because the Palestinians in Israel make up a very significant minority; one in six Israeli citizens are Arab, and they make up around 17 per cent of the total population (excluding the Palestinian Territories). Smooha explains that there are two different theories on the Arab-Jewish relations within Israel, mutual alienation and mutual rapprochement. The mutual alienation theory states that the two communities are on a violent collision course, while the mutual rapprochement theory claims that they are in the process of adjusting to each other. He then looks at the period from 1996 to 2010 and discusses some of the developments that took place, in light of these two theories. “By either account,” he writes, “any account in fact, this was a lost decade for Arab-Jewish coexistence. The situation has worsened and bodes badly for the future of their relations.”[4]
For example, Smooha discusses the collapse of the Oslo accords and the beginning of the Second Intifada, as well as the October Events in 2000, when Israeli police killed thirteen Palestinian-Israelis in protests that took place across the country. Smooha also looks at the steep rise in popularity of right wing political parties such as Yisrael Betenu, and the proposed measures to require loyalty oaths, and to criminalize participation in Nakba Day memorial ceremonies. Although these measures were not passed, they affected Arab-Jewish relations within Israel and indicate the level of animosity between the two communities. Among Palestinian-Israelis, the voting rate has dropped from 75 per cent in 1999 to 53 per cent in 2009, and contains an element of boycott that demonstrates a withdrawal from Israeli society. The Palestinian-Israelis that do vote have increasingly supported Arab parties that advocate a bi-national state that would no longer be Jewish.[5] Smooha also includes the results of his survey on attitudes towards reconciliation, and they do not paint a rosy picture. 43 per cent of Palestinian Israelis are not ready to have a Jewish neighbor, and 50 per cent of Jewish Israelis are not ready to have an Arab neighbor.[6] All of these trends represent a growing hostility between these two communities.
For Smooha, real progress will only be made when a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is found, and when Palestinian-Israelis are integrated into mainstream Israeli society. Unfortunately, no progress was made on either of these fronts in the past decade. In spite of this lack of progress, however, Smooha is optimistic. He sides with the mutual rapprochement theory, and believes that we can still reach coexistence and reconciliation, but only if we are willing to work for it. If nothing is done to bring about change, the only result will be further alienation, destruction and violence. We cannot afford to “postpone change until peace is concluded,” we must “take steps immediately to improve Arab-Jewish coexistence” if we are to “preclude further deterioration that might impede peace.”[7]
This is encouraging, and serves as an affirmation of those who work for reconciliation. But it is also a warning. As believers, we are by no means immune to the destructive traits that mark our respective communities, and all of the factors that have further entrenched the divisions in the past decade have also affected us. We may disagree on how to go about reaching reconciliation, but we do still have hope for an improvement of our relations, and we have our shared faith in the Messiah who calls us to dwell in unity as brothers and sisters. If nothing is done to restore the relationships that have been damaged, there are dark days ahead, and this is why it is crucial that we allow God to use us as an instrument of his peace. We are called to be peacemakers, and stand against division, hatred, and violence with love.
Salim J. Munayer, Ph.D., is director of Musalaha, a ministry of reconciliation.
I'll be giving more details from Deb Reich's new book: NO MORE ENEMIES, but first this from the Musalaha director, Salim Munayer. Pray for peace and reconcilation; learning each other's narrative and working for rapproachment. JRK
The Urgency of Reconciliation
by Salim Munayer
As Israeli and Palestinian believers, we usually focus on our theological differences, but we are unaware of the greater political and societal differences. Recently, I was speaking with one of my colleagues from the Hebrew University, a professor who has done a lot of work on bringing Israelis and Palestinians together. We were discussing the different challenges that these sort of inter-group meetings face, and the lack of hope that people have in the prospect of reconciliation. This led us to talk about the new report by Sammy Smooha, a professor of sociology at Haifa University and one of Israel’s preeminent scholars of Israeli-Palestinian relations, especially within the State of Israel. He recently published a report through the United States Institute of Peace, called Arab-Jewish Relations in Israel, Alienation and Rapprochement[1]. It is an informed look at the shift in attitudes over the past few decades, as well as the current situation, and suggests a number of policy changes that should be made to help reconciliation as we go forward.
Smooha first points out that Israeli society is fragmented on a number of different levels. He writes, “Israel is a deeply divided society. The division between Arab and Jewish citizens is reflected in institutions; culture; national identity; socioeconomic status; and stances on the character of the state, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and other fundamental issues.”[2] Furthermore, Palestinian-Israelis,
[R]eject Zionism, the de facto state ideology of Israel. They see Zionism, the Jewish movement of national liberation, as colonialist and racist, and they denigrate the Jews’ fundamental Zionist collective identity. The Jews, meanwhile, do not see themselves as colonial settlers but rather as the genuine proprietors of the Land of Israel, from which they were historically exiled and to which they rightfully returned to find alien Arabs in possession . . . Both sides reject the most cherished values of the other.[3]
This division is important, because the Palestinians in Israel make up a very significant minority; one in six Israeli citizens are Arab, and they make up around 17 per cent of the total population (excluding the Palestinian Territories). Smooha explains that there are two different theories on the Arab-Jewish relations within Israel, mutual alienation and mutual rapprochement. The mutual alienation theory states that the two communities are on a violent collision course, while the mutual rapprochement theory claims that they are in the process of adjusting to each other. He then looks at the period from 1996 to 2010 and discusses some of the developments that took place, in light of these two theories. “By either account,” he writes, “any account in fact, this was a lost decade for Arab-Jewish coexistence. The situation has worsened and bodes badly for the future of their relations.”[4]
For example, Smooha discusses the collapse of the Oslo accords and the beginning of the Second Intifada, as well as the October Events in 2000, when Israeli police killed thirteen Palestinian-Israelis in protests that took place across the country. Smooha also looks at the steep rise in popularity of right wing political parties such as Yisrael Betenu, and the proposed measures to require loyalty oaths, and to criminalize participation in Nakba Day memorial ceremonies. Although these measures were not passed, they affected Arab-Jewish relations within Israel and indicate the level of animosity between the two communities. Among Palestinian-Israelis, the voting rate has dropped from 75 per cent in 1999 to 53 per cent in 2009, and contains an element of boycott that demonstrates a withdrawal from Israeli society. The Palestinian-Israelis that do vote have increasingly supported Arab parties that advocate a bi-national state that would no longer be Jewish.[5] Smooha also includes the results of his survey on attitudes towards reconciliation, and they do not paint a rosy picture. 43 per cent of Palestinian Israelis are not ready to have a Jewish neighbor, and 50 per cent of Jewish Israelis are not ready to have an Arab neighbor.[6] All of these trends represent a growing hostility between these two communities.
For Smooha, real progress will only be made when a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is found, and when Palestinian-Israelis are integrated into mainstream Israeli society. Unfortunately, no progress was made on either of these fronts in the past decade. In spite of this lack of progress, however, Smooha is optimistic. He sides with the mutual rapprochement theory, and believes that we can still reach coexistence and reconciliation, but only if we are willing to work for it. If nothing is done to bring about change, the only result will be further alienation, destruction and violence. We cannot afford to “postpone change until peace is concluded,” we must “take steps immediately to improve Arab-Jewish coexistence” if we are to “preclude further deterioration that might impede peace.”[7]
This is encouraging, and serves as an affirmation of those who work for reconciliation. But it is also a warning. As believers, we are by no means immune to the destructive traits that mark our respective communities, and all of the factors that have further entrenched the divisions in the past decade have also affected us. We may disagree on how to go about reaching reconciliation, but we do still have hope for an improvement of our relations, and we have our shared faith in the Messiah who calls us to dwell in unity as brothers and sisters. If nothing is done to restore the relationships that have been damaged, there are dark days ahead, and this is why it is crucial that we allow God to use us as an instrument of his peace. We are called to be peacemakers, and stand against division, hatred, and violence with love.
Salim J. Munayer, Ph.D., is director of Musalaha, a ministry of reconciliation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)