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
Friday, March 11, 2011
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).
Friday, February 25, 2011
Mazin Qumsiyeh and Israeli/Palestinian "RULE"
Dear Friend,
FPI - Holland group should plan to trip to GR Monday and/or Tuesday March 14 and 15 to hear Mazin Qumsiyeh.
A well respected professor in the US, he moved back to Palestine to join with forces seeking Palestinian empowerment. He previously taught in Tennesee, but is now teaching in Bethlehem and at Bier Zeit in the West Bank.
Monday, March 14, at 7:00 p.m., Calvin College is sponsoring his appearance at the Calvin College Chapel.
Tuesday, March 15, at 5:45, he will speak at the Micah Center (Hope Ref. Church in GR).
Tuesday, March 15, at 7:00, he will speak at Raybrook Center
Professor Qumsiyeh has written a book, POPULAR RESISTANCE IN PALESTINE: a History of Hope and Empowerment, which summarizes and analyzes over 130 years of history.
What is happening in Isr/Pal is a classic case of confrontation between the forces of those who through the centuries have argued that to "conquer" a land and people gives you the right to settle and rule it as you see fit, only grudgingly giving rights to the conquered people; and the conquered people seeking their own rule on land now "occupied" by the conqueror. It is made more unique because it is historically true that Jews were living on that land 2000 years ago, under Roman occupation, seeking their own "right to rule" and then dispersed for centuries among all the countries of the known world, now wanting to re-congregate back there once again.
The situation in Israel is further compounded by a more and more vocal religious establishment claiming that "GOD" has given the right to rule all the land to the racial/ethnic descendants of Abraham and Sarah, not sharing rule with any of the conquered people. (The original Zionist ideal was secular, but religious forces now make Israel a quasi religious/racial/ethnic NATION STATE to die for.
It is to be known as a "Jewish Democracy", a democracy for Jews, whom "God" has finally restored to "Their Land" after 2000 years of exile, with staunch support from supposedly millions of "Christian" Zionists in the US of A.
And what is more, this rule has received the unflinching support of the world's greatest democracy, the US of A, while at the same time decrying the "Theocracy" of Iran and would-be fanatics who want to rule the world in the name of "ALLAH".
Most of the developed democracies are consistently opposed to the colonization of "conquered" territory in Palestine and are opposed to "settlements" in that conquered territory. The US is at best, ambivalent about it; at worst, it supports Israel's claim to all the territory (as seen by our veto of the UN Security Council effort to declare Israeli settlements "illegal" according to international norms).
Our FPI - Holland/Zeeland/South Haven group (40 on the list) has a chance to interact with Professor Qumsiyeh on Monday and/or Tuesday, March 14, 15. Mark it on your calendar NOW and plan on attending. Unfortunately, I will still be in Texas at the Tex/Mex border where we are wintering as usual. JRK
FPI - Holland group should plan to trip to GR Monday and/or Tuesday March 14 and 15 to hear Mazin Qumsiyeh.
A well respected professor in the US, he moved back to Palestine to join with forces seeking Palestinian empowerment. He previously taught in Tennesee, but is now teaching in Bethlehem and at Bier Zeit in the West Bank.
Monday, March 14, at 7:00 p.m., Calvin College is sponsoring his appearance at the Calvin College Chapel.
Tuesday, March 15, at 5:45, he will speak at the Micah Center (Hope Ref. Church in GR).
Tuesday, March 15, at 7:00, he will speak at Raybrook Center
Professor Qumsiyeh has written a book, POPULAR RESISTANCE IN PALESTINE: a History of Hope and Empowerment, which summarizes and analyzes over 130 years of history.
What is happening in Isr/Pal is a classic case of confrontation between the forces of those who through the centuries have argued that to "conquer" a land and people gives you the right to settle and rule it as you see fit, only grudgingly giving rights to the conquered people; and the conquered people seeking their own rule on land now "occupied" by the conqueror. It is made more unique because it is historically true that Jews were living on that land 2000 years ago, under Roman occupation, seeking their own "right to rule" and then dispersed for centuries among all the countries of the known world, now wanting to re-congregate back there once again.
The situation in Israel is further compounded by a more and more vocal religious establishment claiming that "GOD" has given the right to rule all the land to the racial/ethnic descendants of Abraham and Sarah, not sharing rule with any of the conquered people. (The original Zionist ideal was secular, but religious forces now make Israel a quasi religious/racial/ethnic NATION STATE to die for.
It is to be known as a "Jewish Democracy", a democracy for Jews, whom "God" has finally restored to "Their Land" after 2000 years of exile, with staunch support from supposedly millions of "Christian" Zionists in the US of A.
And what is more, this rule has received the unflinching support of the world's greatest democracy, the US of A, while at the same time decrying the "Theocracy" of Iran and would-be fanatics who want to rule the world in the name of "ALLAH".
Most of the developed democracies are consistently opposed to the colonization of "conquered" territory in Palestine and are opposed to "settlements" in that conquered territory. The US is at best, ambivalent about it; at worst, it supports Israel's claim to all the territory (as seen by our veto of the UN Security Council effort to declare Israeli settlements "illegal" according to international norms).
Our FPI - Holland/Zeeland/South Haven group (40 on the list) has a chance to interact with Professor Qumsiyeh on Monday and/or Tuesday, March 14, 15. Mark it on your calendar NOW and plan on attending. Unfortunately, I will still be in Texas at the Tex/Mex border where we are wintering as usual. JRK
Friday, February 18, 2011
What I Think of the US Veto of the UN Security Council "Draft" Resolution
Statement on the USA Veto of a UN Security Council Draft Declaring the Israeli Settlement “Illegal” on West Bank Territory. February 18, 2011
John R. Kleinheksel Sr.
The Palestinians refused to let the US off the hook. It wanted the US to vote our convictions about Israeli settlements or prove to be hypocritical. We chose to be hypocritical, saying we were opposed to the settlements, but not allowing the UN Security Council to “intervene with binding resolutions on issues [the US] feels belongs to direct peace talks” (Reuters report). As though only the US can be involved with efforts to bring about “negotiations” between the parties, not the UN. Not the UN? How can you keep the UN from becoming involved in an issue that has festered for 62 years?
The truth of the matter is that the “negotiations” have been a sham. Whenever the Israelis and Palestinians “negotiate”, the Israelis concede nothing and the Palestinians are expected to concede everything: 1) such as, stop opposing Israeli confiscation of land for more settlements; 2) stop resistance to the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes; 3) go on record declaring the legitimacy of Israeli efforts to take over the whole of the land as a “Jewish democracy” (while accusing the Palestinians of wanting to “drive them into the sea”).
US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said the draft “risks hardening the position of both sides” but in fact it only hardens the Israeli position that it need do nothing different in dealing with the Palestinians. It need only do more of the same. Give nothing. Concede nothing. Keep pressing for meaningless “negotiations” (talk, talk, talk) while continuing to build “facts on the ground” and the Palestinians come away empty handed.
The US wants it both ways. We want to support Israel and the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for dignity, their own land (statehood). Guess what? We just may have to stand against Israel policies that are preventing Palestinians from attaining their goals. But we can’t do it. The political implications are too daunting. We may no longer be a “friend of Israel”. The President might lose his job come 2012. And that would not be acceptable now would it? Who is in charge of US Middle East foreign policy, the United States or Israel? It should now be clear to any with eyes wide open.
Ending the settlement activity is not a “precondition” for talks, as Israel insists. Ending settlement activity would be a sign of a “good faith” environment where talks could get down to business and make the moves required for a “two-state” solution. Israel wants a “one-state” solution where she is making all the decisions and Palestinians make none to their advantage.
The settlements ARE “illegal under international law” as the binding resolution would declare. The US was not able to put it its vote where its mouth is. It was sad day for US policy in the Middle East.
John R. Kleinheksel Sr.
The Palestinians refused to let the US off the hook. It wanted the US to vote our convictions about Israeli settlements or prove to be hypocritical. We chose to be hypocritical, saying we were opposed to the settlements, but not allowing the UN Security Council to “intervene with binding resolutions on issues [the US] feels belongs to direct peace talks” (Reuters report). As though only the US can be involved with efforts to bring about “negotiations” between the parties, not the UN. Not the UN? How can you keep the UN from becoming involved in an issue that has festered for 62 years?
The truth of the matter is that the “negotiations” have been a sham. Whenever the Israelis and Palestinians “negotiate”, the Israelis concede nothing and the Palestinians are expected to concede everything: 1) such as, stop opposing Israeli confiscation of land for more settlements; 2) stop resistance to the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes; 3) go on record declaring the legitimacy of Israeli efforts to take over the whole of the land as a “Jewish democracy” (while accusing the Palestinians of wanting to “drive them into the sea”).
US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said the draft “risks hardening the position of both sides” but in fact it only hardens the Israeli position that it need do nothing different in dealing with the Palestinians. It need only do more of the same. Give nothing. Concede nothing. Keep pressing for meaningless “negotiations” (talk, talk, talk) while continuing to build “facts on the ground” and the Palestinians come away empty handed.
The US wants it both ways. We want to support Israel and the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for dignity, their own land (statehood). Guess what? We just may have to stand against Israel policies that are preventing Palestinians from attaining their goals. But we can’t do it. The political implications are too daunting. We may no longer be a “friend of Israel”. The President might lose his job come 2012. And that would not be acceptable now would it? Who is in charge of US Middle East foreign policy, the United States or Israel? It should now be clear to any with eyes wide open.
Ending the settlement activity is not a “precondition” for talks, as Israel insists. Ending settlement activity would be a sign of a “good faith” environment where talks could get down to business and make the moves required for a “two-state” solution. Israel wants a “one-state” solution where she is making all the decisions and Palestinians make none to their advantage.
The settlements ARE “illegal under international law” as the binding resolution would declare. The US was not able to put it its vote where its mouth is. It was sad day for US policy in the Middle East.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Egypt's revolution and Israel: 'Bad for the Jews'
Ilan Pappe, a Jewish historian teaching in the UK, compares developments in Egypt with the reality of "Jewish democracy", (that oxymoron), which may be as unstable as the Mubarak regime turned out to be. And that's "bad news for Israel".
Because of its embarrassment (the Wiki leaks of "The Palestine Papers"), the entire West Bank Palestinian leadership has resigned and is looking for a new start with new elections soon. Read on. JRK
Egypt's revolution and Israel: 'Bad for the Jews'
8Share Monday, February 14, 2011
From time to time, the Palestine Center distributes articles it believes will enhance understanding of the Palestinian political reality. The following article by Ilan Pappe was published by The Electronic Intifada on 14 February 2011. To view this article online, please go to http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11803.shtml.
By Ilan Pappe
The view from Israel is that if they indeed succeed, the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions are bad, very bad. Educated Arabs -- not all of them dressed as "Islamists," quite a few of them speaking perfect English whose wish for democracy is articulated without resorting to "anti-Western" rhetoric -- are bad for Israel.
Arab armies that do not shoot at these demonstrators are as bad as are many other images that moved and enthused so many people around the world, even in the West. This world reaction is also bad, very bad. It makes the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and its apartheid policies inside the state look like the acts of a typical "Arab" regime.
For a while you could not tell what official Israel thought. In his first ever commonsensical message to his colleagues, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked his ministers, generals and politicians not to comment in public on the events in Egypt. For a brief moment one thought that Israel turned from the neighborhood's thug to what it always was: a visitor or permanent resident.
It seems Netanyahu was particularly embarrassed by the unfortunate remarks on the situation uttered publicly by General Aviv Kochavi, the head of Israeli military intelligence. This top Israeli expert on Arab affairs stated confidently two weeks ago in the Knesset that the Mubarak regime is as solid and resilient as ever. But Netanyahu could not keep his mouth shut for that long. And when the boss talked all the others followed. And when they all responded, their commentary made Fox News' commentators look like a bunch of peaceniks and free-loving hippies from the 1960s.
The gist of the Israeli narrative is simple: this is an Iranian-like revolution helped by Al Jazeera and stupidly allowed by US President Barack Obama, who is a new Jimmy Carter, and a stupefied world. Spearheading the Israeli interpretation are the former Israeli ambassadors to Egypt. All their frustration from being locked in an apartment in a Cairean high-rise is now erupting like an unstoppable volcano. Their tirade can be summarized in the words of one of them, Zvi Mazael who told Israeli television's Channel One on 28 January, "this is bad for the Jews; very bad."
In Israel of course when you say "bad for the Jews," you mean the Israelis -- but you also mean that whatever is bad for Israel is bad for the Jews all around the world (despite the evidence to the contrary since the foundation of the state).
But what is really bad for Israel is the comparison. Regardless of how all this would end, it exposes the fallacies and pretense of Israel like never before. Egypt is experiencing a peaceful Intifada with the deadly violence coming from the side of the regime. The army did not shoot at the demonstrators; and even before the departure of Mubarak, already seven days into the protests, the minister of interior who directed his thugs to violently crash the demonstrations had been sacked and will probably be brought to justice.
Yes, this was done in order to win time and try to persuade the demonstrators to go home. But even this scene, by now forgotten, can never happen in Israel. Israel is a place where all the generals who ordered the shootings of Palestinian and Jewish anti-occupation demonstrators now compete for the highest post of Chief of the General Staff.
One of them is Yair Naveh, who gave orders in 2008 to kill Palestinian suspects even if they could be peacefully arrested. He is not going to jail; but the young woman, Anat Kamm, who exposed these orders is now facing nine years in jail for leaking them to Israeli daily Haaretz. Not one Israeli general or politician has or is going to spend one day in jail for ordering the troops to shoot at unarmed demonstrators, innocent civilians, women, old men and children. The light radiating from Egypt and Tunisia is so strong that it also illuminates the darker spaces of the "only democracy in the Middle East."
Nonviolent, democratic (be they religious or not) Arabs are bad for Israel. But maybe these Arabs were there all along, not only in Egypt, but also in Palestine. The insistence of Israeli commentators that the most important issue at stake -- the Israeli peace treaty with Egypt -- is a diversion, and has very little relevance to the powerful impulse that is shaking the Arab world as a whole.
The peace treaties with Israel are the symptoms of moral corruption not the disease itself -- this is why Syrian President Bashar Asad, undoubtedly an anti-Israeli leader, is not immune from this wave of change. No, what is at stake here is the pretense that Israel is a stable, civilized, western island in a rough sea of Islamic barbarism and Arab fanaticism. The "danger" for Israel is that the cartography would be the same but the geography would change. It would still be an island but of barbarism and fanaticism in a sea of newly formed egalitarian and democratic states.
In the eyes of large sections of Western civil society the democratic image of Israel has long ago vanished; but it may now be dimmed and tarnished in the eyes of others who are in power and politics. How important is the old, positive image of Israel for maintaining its special relationship with the United States? Only time will tell.
But one way or another the cry rising from Cairo's Tahrir Square is a warning that fake mythologies of the "only democracy in the Middle East," hardcore Christian fundamentalism (far more sinister and corrupt than that of the Muslim Brotherhood), cynical military-industrial corporate profiteering, neo-conservatism and brutal lobbying will not guarantee the sustainability of the special relationship between Israel and the United States forever.
And even if the special relationship perseveres for a while, it is now based on even shakier foundations. The diametrically-opposed case studies of the so far resilient anti-American regional powers of Iran and Syria, and to some extent Turkey, on the one hand, and the fallen ultimate pro-American tyrants, on the other are indicative: even if it is sustained, American support may not be enough in future to maintain an ethnic and racist "Jewish state" in the heart of a changing Arab world.
This could be good news for the Jews, even for the Jews in Israel in the long run. To be surrounded by peoples who cherish freedom, social justice and spirituality and navigating sometimes safely and sometimes roughly between tradition and modernity, nationalism and humanity, aggressive capitalist globalization and daily survival, is not going to be easy.
Yet it has a horizon, and it carries hope of triggering similar changes in Palestine. It can bring a closure to more than a century of Zionist colonization and dispossession, to be replaced by more equitable reconciliation between the Palestinian victims of these criminal policies wherever they are and the Jewish community. This reconciliation would be built on the basis of the Palestinian right of return and on all the other rights the people of Egypt so bravely fought for in the last twenty days.
But trust the Israelis not to miss an opportunity to miss peace. They would cry wolf. They would demand, and receive, more funds from the American taxpayer due to the new "developments." They would interfere clandestinely and destructively to undermine any transition to democracy (remember what force and viciousness characterized their reaction to democratization in Palestinian society?), and they would elevate the Islamophobic campaign to new and unprecedented heights.
But who knows, maybe the American taxpayer would not budge this time. And maybe the European politicians would follow the general sentiment of their public and allow not only Egypt to be dramatically transformed, but also welcome a similar change in Israel and Palestine. In such a scenario the Jews of Israel have a chance to become part of the real Middle East and not an alien and aggressive member of a Middle East which was the figment of the hallucinatory Zionist imagination.
Ilan Pappe is Professor of History and Director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter. His most recent book is Out of the Frame: The Struggle for Academic Freedom in Israel (Pluto Press, 2010).
Because of its embarrassment (the Wiki leaks of "The Palestine Papers"), the entire West Bank Palestinian leadership has resigned and is looking for a new start with new elections soon. Read on. JRK
Egypt's revolution and Israel: 'Bad for the Jews'
8Share Monday, February 14, 2011
From time to time, the Palestine Center distributes articles it believes will enhance understanding of the Palestinian political reality. The following article by Ilan Pappe was published by The Electronic Intifada on 14 February 2011. To view this article online, please go to http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11803.shtml.
By Ilan Pappe
The view from Israel is that if they indeed succeed, the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions are bad, very bad. Educated Arabs -- not all of them dressed as "Islamists," quite a few of them speaking perfect English whose wish for democracy is articulated without resorting to "anti-Western" rhetoric -- are bad for Israel.
Arab armies that do not shoot at these demonstrators are as bad as are many other images that moved and enthused so many people around the world, even in the West. This world reaction is also bad, very bad. It makes the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and its apartheid policies inside the state look like the acts of a typical "Arab" regime.
For a while you could not tell what official Israel thought. In his first ever commonsensical message to his colleagues, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked his ministers, generals and politicians not to comment in public on the events in Egypt. For a brief moment one thought that Israel turned from the neighborhood's thug to what it always was: a visitor or permanent resident.
It seems Netanyahu was particularly embarrassed by the unfortunate remarks on the situation uttered publicly by General Aviv Kochavi, the head of Israeli military intelligence. This top Israeli expert on Arab affairs stated confidently two weeks ago in the Knesset that the Mubarak regime is as solid and resilient as ever. But Netanyahu could not keep his mouth shut for that long. And when the boss talked all the others followed. And when they all responded, their commentary made Fox News' commentators look like a bunch of peaceniks and free-loving hippies from the 1960s.
The gist of the Israeli narrative is simple: this is an Iranian-like revolution helped by Al Jazeera and stupidly allowed by US President Barack Obama, who is a new Jimmy Carter, and a stupefied world. Spearheading the Israeli interpretation are the former Israeli ambassadors to Egypt. All their frustration from being locked in an apartment in a Cairean high-rise is now erupting like an unstoppable volcano. Their tirade can be summarized in the words of one of them, Zvi Mazael who told Israeli television's Channel One on 28 January, "this is bad for the Jews; very bad."
In Israel of course when you say "bad for the Jews," you mean the Israelis -- but you also mean that whatever is bad for Israel is bad for the Jews all around the world (despite the evidence to the contrary since the foundation of the state).
But what is really bad for Israel is the comparison. Regardless of how all this would end, it exposes the fallacies and pretense of Israel like never before. Egypt is experiencing a peaceful Intifada with the deadly violence coming from the side of the regime. The army did not shoot at the demonstrators; and even before the departure of Mubarak, already seven days into the protests, the minister of interior who directed his thugs to violently crash the demonstrations had been sacked and will probably be brought to justice.
Yes, this was done in order to win time and try to persuade the demonstrators to go home. But even this scene, by now forgotten, can never happen in Israel. Israel is a place where all the generals who ordered the shootings of Palestinian and Jewish anti-occupation demonstrators now compete for the highest post of Chief of the General Staff.
One of them is Yair Naveh, who gave orders in 2008 to kill Palestinian suspects even if they could be peacefully arrested. He is not going to jail; but the young woman, Anat Kamm, who exposed these orders is now facing nine years in jail for leaking them to Israeli daily Haaretz. Not one Israeli general or politician has or is going to spend one day in jail for ordering the troops to shoot at unarmed demonstrators, innocent civilians, women, old men and children. The light radiating from Egypt and Tunisia is so strong that it also illuminates the darker spaces of the "only democracy in the Middle East."
Nonviolent, democratic (be they religious or not) Arabs are bad for Israel. But maybe these Arabs were there all along, not only in Egypt, but also in Palestine. The insistence of Israeli commentators that the most important issue at stake -- the Israeli peace treaty with Egypt -- is a diversion, and has very little relevance to the powerful impulse that is shaking the Arab world as a whole.
The peace treaties with Israel are the symptoms of moral corruption not the disease itself -- this is why Syrian President Bashar Asad, undoubtedly an anti-Israeli leader, is not immune from this wave of change. No, what is at stake here is the pretense that Israel is a stable, civilized, western island in a rough sea of Islamic barbarism and Arab fanaticism. The "danger" for Israel is that the cartography would be the same but the geography would change. It would still be an island but of barbarism and fanaticism in a sea of newly formed egalitarian and democratic states.
In the eyes of large sections of Western civil society the democratic image of Israel has long ago vanished; but it may now be dimmed and tarnished in the eyes of others who are in power and politics. How important is the old, positive image of Israel for maintaining its special relationship with the United States? Only time will tell.
But one way or another the cry rising from Cairo's Tahrir Square is a warning that fake mythologies of the "only democracy in the Middle East," hardcore Christian fundamentalism (far more sinister and corrupt than that of the Muslim Brotherhood), cynical military-industrial corporate profiteering, neo-conservatism and brutal lobbying will not guarantee the sustainability of the special relationship between Israel and the United States forever.
And even if the special relationship perseveres for a while, it is now based on even shakier foundations. The diametrically-opposed case studies of the so far resilient anti-American regional powers of Iran and Syria, and to some extent Turkey, on the one hand, and the fallen ultimate pro-American tyrants, on the other are indicative: even if it is sustained, American support may not be enough in future to maintain an ethnic and racist "Jewish state" in the heart of a changing Arab world.
This could be good news for the Jews, even for the Jews in Israel in the long run. To be surrounded by peoples who cherish freedom, social justice and spirituality and navigating sometimes safely and sometimes roughly between tradition and modernity, nationalism and humanity, aggressive capitalist globalization and daily survival, is not going to be easy.
Yet it has a horizon, and it carries hope of triggering similar changes in Palestine. It can bring a closure to more than a century of Zionist colonization and dispossession, to be replaced by more equitable reconciliation between the Palestinian victims of these criminal policies wherever they are and the Jewish community. This reconciliation would be built on the basis of the Palestinian right of return and on all the other rights the people of Egypt so bravely fought for in the last twenty days.
But trust the Israelis not to miss an opportunity to miss peace. They would cry wolf. They would demand, and receive, more funds from the American taxpayer due to the new "developments." They would interfere clandestinely and destructively to undermine any transition to democracy (remember what force and viciousness characterized their reaction to democratization in Palestinian society?), and they would elevate the Islamophobic campaign to new and unprecedented heights.
But who knows, maybe the American taxpayer would not budge this time. And maybe the European politicians would follow the general sentiment of their public and allow not only Egypt to be dramatically transformed, but also welcome a similar change in Israel and Palestine. In such a scenario the Jews of Israel have a chance to become part of the real Middle East and not an alien and aggressive member of a Middle East which was the figment of the hallucinatory Zionist imagination.
Ilan Pappe is Professor of History and Director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter. His most recent book is Out of the Frame: The Struggle for Academic Freedom in Israel (Pluto Press, 2010).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)