WILL THEY SIGN THIS AD NEXT TIME?
TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO JUST AFTER ISRAEL’S INVASION OF LEBANON 1.0
An op-ed piece in the New York Times on June 26, 1982, by Roger Hurwitz and Gordon Fellman commented on the Invastion of Lebanon: “Under present international conditions, there is little likelihood that Prime Minister Menachem Begin will get the strong Lebanese government – that is, one dominated by Phalangists – that he seeks. His further pursuit of it would entail a prolonged Israeli occupation and strain his country’s resources and morale.….. West Bank Palestinians were moved to protests by expropriation of lands they worked, suppression of their cultural institutions and denial of political rights. … for three decades, Israeli officials boasted that their armed forces respected the lives of innocents … Such claims can no longer be believed, not even by the Israeli public. Until now fear of disunity has muffled public criticism by American Jews of Israel’s approach to the Palestinian issue. This fear must be overcome, for at stake are Israel’s moral future and the identity of Jews everywhere as moral agents.”
ON JULY 12, 2006, ISRAEL’S INVASION OF LEBANON 2.0 BEGAN
During July, 2006, many of us distributed this petition
On July 6, in a full-page ad in The Times of London, 300 British Jews cried out against the collective punishment of the people of Gaza with the anguished question, "What Is Israel Doing?" Several weeks later, as the Middle East sinks deeper into chaos, that question is ever more urgent.
Hezbollah's attack on an IDF outpost was a violation of international law. And after Israel attacked Lebanon, Hezbollah fired missiles at Israeli cities, killing and injuring civilians.This is not morally acceptable, whatever the provocation.
But Israel's response-- an explosion of violence and collective punishment directed against airports, bridges and populated neighborhoods of Lebanon--is an even greater crime. And now Lebanon, like Gaza, is on the brink of a humanitarian disaster.
In the face of so much violence and suffering, the United States' vetoes of UN Security Council resolutions calling for a cease fire are immoral and irresponsible.
We call upon U.S. Jews and others to join us in support of Israeli peace groups who write: "The only way to guarantee a different future of peace and security is by ending the occupation and establishing a relationship of equality and respect between Israelis and Palestinians and between Israelis and the neighboring nations."
We call upon the U.S. government to use its influence with Israel to stop the collective punishment of the people of Gaza and Lebanon; to work with the international community to impose a cease-fire and prevent any further loss of civilian life; and to work for the immediate start of direct, good-faith negotiations.
Israel's ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories and massive human rights abuses against the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples are opposed by many Jews in Israel, the U.S., and throughout the world.
Attacks on civilians will not bring peace, security or justice to Palestinians, Israelis, or Jews anywhere.
THE FINDINGS OF THE WINOGRAD COMMITTEE
Olmert criticized for 'serious failure' in Lebanon
Defense chief, ex-army leader are also faulted By Scott Wilson, Washington Post May 1, 2007
JERUSALEM -- An official Israeli investigative committee yesterday accused Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of "a serious failure in exercising judgment, responsibility, and prudence" in taking the country to war in Lebanon last summer. The interim findings of the Winograd Committee also sharply criticized Defense Minister Amir Peretz for not grasping "the basic principles of using military force to achieve political goals" and accused Lieutenant General Dan Halutz, the army chief of staff at the time, of acting "impulsively" in advocating an "immediate, intensive military strike" to secure the release of two captured Israeli soldiers. The findings amount to a harsh indictment of some of Israel's most respected institutions and the people who lead them, portraying the Jewish state's military commanders as complacent and its political leadership as rash and inexperienced. The committee concluded that Israel's army "was not ready for this war," and blamed Halutz for failing to devise an effective strategy or to make Olmert aware of sharp disagreements within the military over how to achieve Israel's goals against Hezbollah's guerrilla force. "After 25 years without a war, Israel experienced a war of a different kind," said Eliyahu Winograd, a retired judge, presenting conclusions that focused on the decision to go to war and the first days of fighting. "The war thus brought back to center stage some critical questions that parts of Israeli society would prefer to avoid." The committee is due to issue its final report this summer. But its preliminary findings describe an Israeli government that lacked a plan to achieve goals characterized as "too ambitious," suffered from a lack of military experience among civilian leaders and was undermined by a general staff that failed to adapt on the battlefield after its strategy showed early signs of failure. The report used the word "failure" dozens of times in connection with the prime minister and said Olmert bore "supreme and comprehensive responsibility for the decisions of his government and the operations of the army."
THE HUGE AD IN THE JULY 20, 2006 EDITION OF THE BOSTON GLOBE
It is difficult for me to understand how anyone who has followed the actions of the Israeli government over the past number of years could not have serious, serious, reservations about signing an ad in support of its Invasion of Lebanon 2.0 Time and again the Israeli governments have acted in a way that would give many who have read the history or and studied the Israel Palestine conflict reason to believe that the primary goal of the government of Israel is the total control of the entire West Bank with either pacified Palestinians or no Palestinians. The actions of the government of Israel in relying on military action while avoiding serious negotiation over the 40 years of the illegal and immoral occupation of the West Bank and Gaza would have to serve as evidence to many that the government of Israel has no genuine desire for peace with justice.
How did that ad appear? It is interesting to note that there is nothing to indicate who is responsible for it although I think I read a quote from someone at the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) of Boston that it came about because people were asking her what they could do to support Israel and something else that said that the language in the ad was similar to wording that had previously appeared on the JCRC and the American Jewish Committee’s website.
And yet here is the copy of the ad and a partial list of the signatories.(practically the entire political establishment in Massachusetts, Democrats and Republicans)
“We Stand With Israel”
“As concerned citizens, we stand with the Jewish community and proudly raise our voices in solidarity with the people of Israel, a brave democracy that has yearned so long to live in peace.
“We firmly support Israel’s right to defend her population against unprovoked acts of terror, including the missile attacks launched against Boston’s sister city, Haifa, which have killed and maimed innocent civilians.
“We express our heartfelt concern for the safety of innocent people, Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese, who have been hurt most by the brutality of those terrorists who have brought a new level of violence to the area.
“We call upon terrorist organizations and the regimes that support them to put an end to the terror. We call upon all who care about peace to join us in our support for Israel as she defends herself against the enemies of peace.”
(a partial list of the signers)
“Salvatore R. DiMasi
Michael Dukakis
Barney Frank
Chrisopher Gabrieli
John Garvey
Chad Gifford
Deborah Goldberg
Scott Harshbarger
Kerry Healey
Philip W. Johnson
Jay R. Kaufman
Edward M. Kennedy
John F. Kerry
Gloria C. Larson
Peter Lynch
Edward J. Markey
Thomas M. McGee
James McGovern
Peter Meade
Francis X. Meaney
Martin T. Meehan
Thomas M. Merino
Christy Mihos
Richard E. Neal
John W. Olver
Thomas R. O’Neill III
Deval L. Patrick
Douglas W. Petersen
R. Robert Popeo
Thomas F. Reilly
Mitt Romney
Frank Smizik
John F. Tierney
Stephen P. Tocco
Robert E.Travaglini
Kevin White
Michael J. Whouley
Dianne Wilkerson
Alice K Wolf”
Other headlines that day in the Boston Globe : Israel hits Hezbollah stronghold – Militants say Beirut bombing missed leaders; Humanitarian crisis feared as Lebanese flee bombing – Half a million called refugees; Raids kill 13 Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank; US broadens its evacuation of citizens from Lebanon strife
THE SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT
Since the occupation, especially since 1980, we have seen the rise of the Jewish tribalism – not the concept of universal care and concern but a very narrow perspective -We are the chosen people – we have to rely on ourselves – we can’t trust “others’ – These are the voices of fear and distrust of anyone, non-Jews and Jews who criticize the actions of the government of Israel.
After an incident at a local temple in 1989 where an individual’s criticism of the Israel government was met by derogatory vocal language, a member of the audience who continues to be a strong supporter of Israel, approached me and suggested we form a group which would serve as a place where all views of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians would be tolerated and listened to respectfully. That group continues to meet 17 years later.
In those years despite all that has taken place in Israel and the occupied territories, and the heated debates and variety of opinions expressed in Israel, I am not aware of ONE open public meeting sponsored by a local temple, JCC or Jewish Federation which has as its goal anything other than presenting the views of the government of Israel.
In fact, two years ago, according to the May 6, 2005, issue of The Salem News, a church in Salem was planning a conference on “Peace-making in Israel/Palestine: Is it Possible/”; a group organizing it described itself as one that supports the existence of the state of Israel, but it opposes Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.
The response from the head of the local Jewish Federation was not to request to participate in the conference but to charge “My concerns are that an anti-Israeli – by extension, potentially anti-Semitic – conference is going to be taking place in our community, one that will potentially inaccurately reflect both the position of the government of Israel and , more importantly, the Jewish community.” He e-mailed 250 Federation members warning them of the event and asking them to call organizers to protest. The minister of the church responded that the conference was neither anti-Israel nor anti-Semitic. “Some people honestly believe that just to be critical of the government of Israel is anti-Semitic. I personally find that untenable and I say that as a supporter of Israel.”
Fortunately, the conference went smoothly without incident.
What has impressed me over the years is how monolithic the Christian community believes the Jewish community to be. The reaction to Bishop Shaw’s actions outside the Israeli consulate a few years ago confirmed that. The result is, as one clergyman said to me, the reluctance of Christian clergy to criticize the government of Israel and speak about the plight of the Palestinians out of concern about being labeled as anti-semites. From my conversations with elected officials, I believe that that concern is shared by many of them especially since it involves the possibility of the end of a career in public office.
TWO SUGGESTIONSFirst, we should not be intimidated by these tactics, the possibility of being labeled an “anti-semite or “self-hating Jew.” We need to show our support for the core values of Judaism - social justice, love and respect for human dignity to speak out. We need to talk to other Jewish people and our elected officials and let them know that the primary obstacle to peace in Israel Palestine is the occupation and the settlements.
Second, we could try to make a reality of the hope expressed by Brad Brooks-Rubin who wrote in “A Winograd of Our Own” on April 30, 2007",
“Should I bring (my sons) to the anti-Olmert protests that will likely be ongoing after we arrive, or fear that, if they ever explained to friends here that they went to such an event – with hundreds of thousands of Jewish Israelis — that they would still be deemed traitors to their people and community? So let me just ask this, for my sake as a father, and for my sons’ sake as very young American Jews: will the mainstream American Jewish leadership form its own Winograd commission? Will they look at their own actions, their own decisions during that time? Will they examine their overall approach to the strategic issues of how to connect American Jews with Israel, of demanding that that connection always equal full support of the Government of Israel? Will they question whether, in some cases, and especially now that we can see that the system in Israel is “deeply flawed,” Israel’s future depends on our being allowed to have our own opinions on Israel’s actions, being allowed to have a real debate in the American Jewish community?”
And what about those in politics who signed the ad, Jewish and non-Jewish!! In the near future, perhaps tomorrow, when the government of Israel undertakes a military action and sends Apache helicopters into the West Bank, Gaza or Lebanon and they are asked to sign another ad starting with the words “We Stand with Israel” that does not include a commitment to end the occupation and dismantle the settlements in the West Bank will THEY do some soul-searching self-criticism? Will they reexamine their overall approach to the strategic issues of how to connect with Israel? Will they accede to the demand that the connection always equals full support of the Government of Israel?
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Israel's War Crimes in Gaza - B'Tselem
Today is Day 14,264 of the Maintenance of the Immoral (and Illegal) West Bank Settlements and almost the 40th anniversary of the start of the immoral (and illegal) occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Micah.6:8 “He has told you, O man, Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God
I have previously referred to B'Tselem The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. Its website www.btselem.org notes that the definition of the word B'Tselem in Hebrew literally means "in the image of," and is also used as a synonym for human dignity. The word is taken from Genesis 1:27 "And God created humans in his image. In the image of God did He create him." It is in this spirit that the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All human beings are born equal in dignity and rights."
GAZA - THE HUMANITARIAN DISASTER
What is it like to live in Gaza? There is only slight relief from the fact that there are no longer any settlements in Gaza. There has not been any disengagement. It is still occupied territory. There is no freedom of movement of people or goods into and out of Gaza whether by land or air (no control over cellular phones and radios) or sea (which results in the inability of fishermen to make a living.). Gaza is the most densely populated area in the world one where there appears to be no concern for the extensive poverty of about 70% and unemployment of about 55%those in the West Bank and Gaza
Exodus Rabbah, Mishpatim 31:14 “If all afflictions in the world were assembled on one side of the scale and poverty on the other, poverty would outweigh them all.”
There is the possibility at any moment of being killed by a missile while sleeping in your bed. From June 9 to June 26, 2006, 80 Palestinians were killed in Gaza before Gila Shalit, the Israeli soldier, was kidnapped. After that incident, the Israeli government began the Summer Rain Campaign saying it was to avenge the kidnapping. But the killing did not just begin, it was just continuing where it left off.
And then the Israeli government bombed and destroyed the electrical power plant in Gaza One of the speakers in the Jerusalem Women Speak program I attended in a church in Beverly, MA, on October 22, 2006, told of her counsin, paralyzed by a missile from an Israeli Apache helicopter, who now needed electricity to operate a machine to keep alive but because of the destruction of the power plant and the looming lack of batteries, he may die
In its report B’Tselem noted “The effects of the attack are apparent in all areas of life. As a result of the lack of electricity, the level of medical services provided by clinics and hospitals has declined significantly; most of the urban population receive only two or three hours of water a day; the sewage system is on the verge of collapse; many inhabitants' mobility has been severely restricted as a result of non-functioning elevators; and the lack of refrigeration has exposed many to the danger of food-poisoning. Small businesses reliant on a regular power supply have been badly affected. The hardship involved in living without a steady flow of electricity is exacerbated by the deep economic crisis afflicting the Gaza Strip…. Aiming attacks at civilian objects is forbidden under International Humanitarian Law and is considered a war crime.” It is significant that this appears to be the first time that B’Tselem attached the phrase “war crime” to actions of the Israeli government.
But now it has been used again. In a November 8, 2006 press release “The Killing of Civilians in Beit Hanun is a War Crime” B’Tselem reports “Israeli artillery shells struck a residential neighborhood in Beit Hanun, Gaza Strip, early Wednesday morning, killing 18 civilians, including 7 minors, and wounding some 40 others. The Israeli military contended that the artillery fire was aimed at the place from which Qassam rockets were fired at Ashkelon yesterday, an area about half a kilometer from where the shells actually landed. The IDF said that human or technical error caused the shells to strike the houses. The Minister of Defense has ordered an investigation into the incident. … even according to the military, the shelling was not defensive; it was not aimed at Palestinian fire or Qassam rocket-fire that was in progress. The artillery was aimed at what the IDF refers to as a "launching space," i.e., an area from which the army believes that Qassams had previously been fired.”
When Hamas was elected by the Palestinians, the Israeli government retaliated by not turning over $16 million a month of taxes due to the Palestinians leading to the inability of the Palestinian Authority being unable to pay salaries due to its employees. We learn from the Torah “You shall not abuse a needy and destitute laborer, whether a fellow countryman (a Jew) or a stranger (a non-Jew) … You must pay him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets, for he is needy and urgently depends on it; or else he will cry to the Lord against you and you will incur guilt.” Deutoronomy 24:14-15
An American peace activist Rachel Corrie was killed on March 16, 2003, by an Israeli IDF driver of a Caterpillar Bulldozer while attempting to defend a Palestinian doctor’s home from being demolished. Tom Dale, a member of the International Solidarity Movement, wrote in an eyewitness account “We’d been occasionally obstructing the 2 bulldozers for about 2 hours when 1 of them turned toward a house we knew to be threatened with demolition. Rachel knelt down in its way. She was 10-20 metres in front of the bulldozer, clearly visible, the only object for many metres, directly in its view. There is no way she could not have been seen by them in their elevated cabin. …. The bulldozer drove toward Rachel slowly, gathering earth in its scoop as it went. She knelt there, she did not move. The bulldozer reached her and she began to stand up, climbing onto the mound of earth. She appeared to be looking into the cockpit. The bulldozer continued to push Rachel, so she slipped down the mound of earth, turning as she went. … All the activists were screaming at the bulldozer to stop. … (The bulldozer) pushed Rachel, first beneath the scoop, then beneath the blade, then continued till her body was beneath the cockpit. … They reversed with the blade pressed down, so it scraped over her body a second time. .. I ran for an ambulance, she was gasping and her face was covered in blood from a gash cutting her face from lip to cheek. .. She died in the ambulance a few minutes later of massive internal injuries. She was a brilliant, bright and amazing person, immensely brave and committed. She is gone and I cannot believe it.”
A psychiatrist from the Gaza Mental Health Center reports that there is widespread terror and traumatic injury of children caused by the daily and constant sonic booms of Israeli jets flying overhead
United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: Signed by Israel 7 March 1966: Ratified by Israel: 3 January 1979
In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties (Israel) undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:
*The right to equal treatment before the tribunals and all other organs administering justice;
*The right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or institution;
*Political rights, in particular the right to participate in elections-to vote and to stand for election-on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, to take part in the Government as well as in the conduct of public affairs at any level and to have equal access to public service;
*The right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of the State;
*The right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's country;
*The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration.
Deutoronomy 16:20 – “Justice, justice shall you pursue that you may live and inherit the land which God gave you” and the footnote in the 1980 Hertz Edition “(T)here is international justice, which demands respect for the personality of every national group, and proclaims that no people can of right be robbed of its national life or territory, its language or spiritual heritage.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Settlements "a Grave and Dangerous Mistake" Rabbi Ben-Zion Gold
Today is Day 14,263 of the Maintenance of the Immoral (and Illegal) West Bank Settlements and almost the 40th anniversary of the start of the immoral (and illegal) occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
"Jews who are committed to the welfare of Israel .... have to admit that not all of the people who criticize the way Israel has dealt with the Palestinians are anti-Semites.....We have to recognize that not all who side with the Palestinians in their conflict against Israel do so because they dislike Jews.... It is not American Jewish criticism that has created sympathy for the Palestinians. It is the suppression of millions of Palestinians over thirty-five years that has done it. The Israeli government has never expressed regret for the harm it has done to the Palestinians during the occupation. An ounce of compassion would go a long way." "The Israeli-Palestine Conflict And The Role Of American Jews" a talk given by Rabbi Ben-Zion Gold, Director Emeritus, Harvard Hillel, at Harvard Hillel, April 14, 2002.
In this talk Rabbi Ben-Zion Gold looked at: the history of the occupation of the West Bank; the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, quoting two experts “Born of the ambition of one willful, reckless man, [Sharon], Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon was anchored in delusion, propelled by deceit, and bound to end in calamity; the second intifata which resulted in another war against the Palestinians waged by Sharon "even though peaceful solutions were offered twice and were rejected by him"; and the settlements about which he says "The Jewish settlements on the West Bank are a grave and dangerous mistake that have done much harm to Israel."
He concludes by saying that we should not consider all those who side with Palestinians as doing so because they dislike Jews. "It is not American Jewish criticism that has created sympathy for the Palestinians. It is the suppression of millions of Palestinians over thirty-five years that has done it."
Now read this impressive speech in full.
"The Israeli-Palestine Conflict And The Role Of American Jews"
Rabbi Ben-Zion Gold, Director Emeritus, Harvard Hillel.
A Talk given at Harvard Hillel on April 14, ‘02
I've been a Zionist for about seventy years. When I was eight years old I was already reading a book about Yemenite Jews who had settled in Palestine.
I grew up in a traditional home and the prayers that I recited daily have at least thirty references to Zion. Living in anti-Semitic Poland I knew that we were in exile and I was longing for Zion.
When I came out of the concentration camps I discovered that I was the sole survivor of my family. Faced with the choice of going to Israel or America, I accepted the opportunity of a safe life in America against my preference for Israel. I still feel more at home in Israel.
In November of 1947, when the fate of Israel was discussed at the United Nations, I was in Cincinnati at the national meeting of young Zionists.
When the news reached us that they had voted to partition Palestine into a Jewish and a Palestinian state we went out and danced in the street for joy.
In 1948 I volunteered to fight in Israel, but I was rejected. I had no experience in handling weapons and they were looking for young war veterans.
I spent the year of ‘55-‘56 in Israel. That spring, Israel was preparing to respond to the repeated attacks of Fedayeen who came from Egypt and terrorized the border kibbutzim. I went on Bitzurim, building fortification trenches. In short, throughout my conscious life I have been, as I now am, devoted to Israel. But my devotion, which began with unquestioning support for the policies of the Israeli Government and the actions of Israeli society, became increasingly critical beginning with the building of settlements in the West Bank and especially during the Lebanon War in 1982.
Now to the subject of my talk. Today I want to discuss several questions:
What is the Israeli - Palestinian conflict about? Can it be resolved with power alone? And what is the role of American Jews in this conflict? As to the first question, the conflict is about Palestinian self- determination.
When the West Bank came under Israeli occupation in ’67 it was populated by Palestinians, most of them refugees from the 1948 war. The Oslo agreements kindled their hope for a sovereign state in Gaza and the West Bank.
Building of Israeli settlements in parts of the West Bank has frustrated their hopes.
At this point three generations of Palestinians have lived for thirty -five years under Israeli occupation and the persistent building of settlements on their land has led to a violent conflict.
The present phase of the conflict began with the Intifada that erupted after Israeli- Palestinian negotiations on a comprehensive settlement failed. The precipitating event was Mr. Sharon’s visit to the Al Aksa Mosque accompanied by a thousand people, among them members of the Likud party and countless policemen. Sharon's visit was calculated to emphasize Israeli sovereignty over the area of the Muslim shrine. Israeli Security warned that the visit would spark an explosion. Arafat even asked Prime Minister Barak not to authorize the visit. The following day Palestinians in Jerusalem and in the territories protested the visit. The police responded with fire, killing several Palestinians and wounding a large number of them. Historians will debate whether that visit started the revolt; as far as I am concerned these events were not coincidental.
When Sharon was elected Prime Minister his commitment to the preservation of the settlements precluded the possibility of a peaceful resolution of the conflict. To fulfill his promise to bring peace and security to Israel Sharon reverted to his objective in the Lebanon war in '82, "to crush the PLO and drive its remnants out of Lebanon." (Morris p. 519.") In this instance it was to crush the PLO, destroy the Palestinian entity, and exile Arafat.
To gain perspective on the conduct of the present conflict it is important to review the war in Lebanon in '82, in which the main actors, objectives, and methods were the same as in the present conflict. Sharon had been authorized by the Begin government to go 40 kilometers into Lebanon to silence the PLO forces that were attacking Israel. Instead, he went all the way to Beirut. Silencing the border was apparently seen by Sharon as a half measure. Convinced that a radical solution was in order, he disregarded his promise to the cabinet and turned the limited operation that was to last 24 hours into a full- scale war that took the Israeli army all the way to Beirut to confront Arafat and the PLO.
There were officers who were uncomfortable with the extended campaign.
Professor Benny Morris in his monumental book Righteous Victims describes the meeting of brigade commanders at the planning of the assault on Beirut:
“General Drori presented the draft plan at a meeting of brigade commanders. A number of them raised objections, Col. Eli Geva, a highly esteemed officer, voiced objections of principle: What was the point of the proposed assault? Was it worth the Israeli and Arab lives? A few days later, Geva’s opposition crystallized He informed his superiors that he wished to be relieved of command of his brigade if it was ordered to advance on Beirut, and offered to continue to fight as a private. The offer was rejected, and after Eitan, Sharon, and Begin failed to persuade him to back down, he was cashiered.” (Morris p.535.)
When the war in Lebanon ended Israel, had suffered 650 dead and close to 3000 wounded. The PLO lost about 1000. There were also many Palestinians and Lebanese who died in the bombardment of Beirut. Ze’ev Shiff, Israel’s leading military analyst, and Ehud Ya’ari, the foremost foreign affairs commentator, described the invasion: “Born of the ambition of one willful, reckless man, [Sharon], Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon was anchored in delusion, propelled by deceit, and bound to end in calamity.”
An early example of Sharon’s tendency to resort to drastic measures is his treatment of the people in the border village of Qibya. “On the night of October 12, 1953, a grenade was thrown into a house in the settlement of Yehud killing a woman and two children. The retaliation was carried out by an army unit under the command of Major Sharon. They went into the border village of Qibya and killed sixty of its inhabitants. Several days later Foreign Minister Sharett noted in his diary, ‘A reprisal of this magnitude ...had never been carried out before. I paced back and forth in my room perplexed and completely depressed, feeling helpless.” (Morris p. 278.)
In addition to the moral outrage, one has to ask what were the after effects of that butchery? The sixty people had relatives and these relatives were bound by Islamic rules of blood redemption. The policy of massive retaliation has done more to build the PLO than to deter it.
To return to the present conflict: The repeated suicide bombing attacks that murdered countless civilians in the cities and towns of Israel turned the Intifada into ubiquitous terror. Israelis became prisoners in their own homes. Traumatized by these recurrent attacks Israel gave Sharon support in his campaign against the Palestinians.
Israel had to respond to the suicide bombings. The question was one of extent. Sharon again chose radical measures aimed at the destruction of the Palestinian Authority that, from his point of view, was conceived in the sin of the Oslo accords. At this point in the conflict the idea that one can destroy the cadres of Palestinian fighters is unfortunately naive. No amount of mental gymnastics can change the fact that young Palestinians become suicide bombers because they have reached a point of despair, of having nothing to lose. The only way to eliminate the suicide bombings is to eliminate the conditions that give rise to them.
Sharon’s war against the Palestinians was also burdened, as it was in Lebanon, by an obsessive hatred for Arafat. Regretting publicly that he did not kill Arafat in Lebanon and his repeated expressions of contempt for him, give the impression of a man who is out of control. No statesman would have allowed himself such huffing and puffing in public.
One might ask did Sharon have a peaceful alternative? His expressed goal of routing the PLO and its leader would preclude such a possibility. But in fact peaceful solutions were offered twice and were rejected by him. On January 2 of this year an article appeared in Ha’aretz written by Hanna Kim, a well known Israeli journalist. Ms. Kim reports about the Hudna, an armistice agreement in Muslim culture that was proposed by Eyal Ehrlich, a businessman, who in the process of his business dealings in Jordan witnessed a peaceful resolution of a bloody dispute between two clans in Amman. There he learned that to arrive at a reconciliation, a delegation of notables must be sent to express regret for the spilling of blood, and to propose a cease-fire for a limited period called a Hudna. During the Hudna they would negotiate an end to the dispute.
After the Al-Aaqsa intifada broke out Mr. Ehrlich thought that it might be possible to use the Hudna mechanism to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He consulted with his friend and business partner the former Palestinian Knesset member Abdulwahab Darawshe and the two of them went to see Professor Josef Ginat, an expert in the area of intra-Islamic conflicts.
Ginat was enthusiastic about the plan and on March 25, 2001 the three of them wrote a letter to Mr. Sharon in which they presented the idea of the Hudna to him. They proposed that Sharon, or an emissary of his, would meet with President Mubarak of Egypt and invite him to serve as a mediator between Sharon and Arafat to propose a Hudna with the aim of achieving a cease fire within a short time, without any concessions on Israel’s part.
They received no answer. They subsequently met with Egyptian and Jordanian officials and were encouraged. Both President Katzav of Israel and Mr. Arafat were prepared to participate in the Hudna. When the diplomatic correspondent for the Voice of Israel revealed the plan, the Prime Minister’s office issued a response calling the plan “stupid” and “a trap for fools.”
At the same time, Transportation Minister Ephraim Sneh proposed a year of quiet in the Intifada in return for a year of a freeze on the Jewish settlements. Sneh presented his initiative after he had checked it out with Arafat and his people. This proposal was also rejected by Sharon. To me that can only mean that Sharon did not want peace. What did he want? And why?
Sharon’s commitment to keep the settlements, which he encouraged and helped to build, left him with no peaceful solution, but his radical solution to eliminate the Palestinians as a threat to Israel failed. It ended in a standoff. The first Intifada resulted in a death ratio of 1 Israeli to 10 Palestinians. The ratio of this Intifada is 1 to 3. Without a peaceful solution the next phase of the Intifada could bode ill for Israel. His use of power not only did not solve the problem; it stimulated the Palestinians to fight with greater determination and resourcefulness.
Is Arafat responsible for the terrorism? The answer is, yes. I also believe that his objective was the destruction of Israel. Should Israel negotiate with Arafat? At this point he is the elected leader of the Palestinians. But he lies! All leaders in a military conflict lie. Can he be trusted to live up to his promises? Only if the Palestinians have something to lose and Israel is powerful militarily. Suicide bombers have to be recognized for what they are. They are an indication of the degree of Palestinian hopelessness and desperation. These young people are faced with a bleak future. They are deeply aggrieved, and many of them are willing to die to hurt Israel that has hurt them for many years.
It is clear that Israel could not have prevailed without the use of force. It is equally clear that Israel must continue to be militarily powerful. And I hope that it will also become clear to the Israeli government and society that the conflict can not be solved by power alone. Then by what? By removing the basis for the conflict. The Jewish settlements on the West Bank are a grave and dangerous mistake that have done much harm to Israel. Most Israelis favor the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. For the sake of Israel and the Palestinians I hope that Sharon will rise above ideology and accept also this mandate of his people.
Meanwhile it seems that a solution may come from an unexpected source.
Palestinians’ willingness to die for their cause seems to have had an influence on the restive youth in the neighboring Arab nations, a development that threatens to destabilize the government of these countries.
To avoid such a possibility the Saudi leadership has proposed an international conference to find a comprehensive solution to the conflict.
It is possible that the greater good of the whole Middle East and the Western world may, for once, put an end to the conflict and save both the Palestinians and the Israelis from destruction. Such a conference will also have to deal with the extensive demonization of Jews in the media and press of Arab nations. In the twentieth century we saw how accumulated hatred leads to uncontrolled violence.
It is important to note that the Saudi proposal and its acceptance by other Arab nations is a reversal of their defiant position after the Six Day War.
At the summit meeting of Arab nations in Khartoum that followed Israel’s victory they declared that the Arab world would unite to “wipe out the consequences of the aggression,” and “assure the withdrawal of Israel’s aggressive forces from the Arab lands.” The Arab states committed themselves to “no peace with Israel,” “no Recognition of Israel,” and “no agreement to negotiations with Israel.” Their defiance fed on the myth that the very existence of a Jewish state in the Arab Middle East was an aggression.
The present position of the Arab nations is a reversal of the Khartoum stance. This welcome change is the result of geopolitical necessity. It is a change that should help Israel to overcome several dangerous myths: the myth that the Arabs cannot change, that they only understand power, and the myth that time is on our side.
As to the puzzling question, why did Arafat not accept the generous offer of Prime Minister Barak at the Camp David negotiations? Having read the books written by two of the Israeli negotiators, Yossi Bailin, the former Minister of Justice, and Gilad Sher, I have come to the conclusion that his rejection may have been justified. Regrettably, these books are not yet available in English. Both of them point to the negative results of the initial meetings between Barak and Arafat. Despite his repeated emphasis on a partnership with Arafat, Barak arrived with a plan for negotiations which he imposed on the Palestinians, ignoring their expectations. The Palestinians expected that Barak would first fulfill the Wye River Plantation agreements made with Netanyahu that called for ceding land to the Palestinians but Barak decided to put it off to the final agreement. They expected that during the negotiations there would be a halt in building new settlements, they expected that Barak would complete the release of prisoners begun by Netanyahu, but Barak’s conception of working together was their accepting his prescriptions and deadlines.
A recent interview with Bailin in Seven Days, the weekly supplement of Yediyot, suggests some of the problems with the negotiations. He describes Arafat as “not one hundred percent terrorist nor a one hundred percent peacenik….
I was upset when Barak spoke of tearing off [Arafat’s] mask…The moment Barak came and said ‘at Camp David I gave everything and received a slap in the face’ he broke the Left…He also deceived the public when he said that at Camp David he turned every stone and got an Intifada… At Camp David he did not yet speak about a territory on the basis of the ’67 [borders] with an exchange of land. He agreed to cede 91% of the territories and not 96% as in the Clinton plan… The whole Camp David negotiations were conducted without [due] care…The negotiations at the ministerial level should have taken place before Camp David … [in order] to arrive at camp David knowing the gaps in every issue, whereas the opposite happened.”
Now I come to the question of what our role should be in this conflict.
There is no elected body that is authorized to speak on behalf of American Jews. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, with a right of center orientation, has presumed to fill that vacuum, and they have consistently supported the policies of Israeli governments in the name of American Jews. The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) exists for the purpose of lobbying Congress to support Israeli governmental policies and actions. These oligarchical organizations reduce Israel to their ideological preference by ignoring its critical opposition. Most American Jews have accepted the view of these oligarchies and are zealously opposed to criticism. ostensibly because it would bring down the roof of American support of Israel. I have not forgotten how viciously these bodies criticized the policies of the late prime minister Rabin.
The question of criticism came to a head in 1988, in the second year of the first Intifada. In his Rosh Hashanah Message of that year Prime Minister Shamir warned American Jews “We cannot afford the luxury of public disagreement, or public criticism that plays right into the hands of our enemies.” To this day I fail to understand how a prime minister of a democratic nation with an active political opposition would attempt to silence Jewish criticism abroad. Israel has been in the news more than any other nation its size. The American press and media have persistently covered Israeli politics and action. The English edition of Ha’aretz, Israel ’s leading newspaper, is sold in Harvard Square. Then, wherein is the danger of American Jewish criticism? I wondered, is it the criticism that is harmful or the policies and actions that are criticized? But Shamir’s warning found a powerful following among American Jews. These people have failed to see that having become apologists for the actions of the Israeli government they have also become culpable for its misdeeds.
In our time the intolerance of criticism has reached the hysterical proportion of boycotting the leading papers of America, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, as well as some of the media.
They are all accused of favoring the Palestinians. These people are saying “Don’t tell us that thousands of houses were destroyed.” “Don’t tell us that civilians were killed.” “Don’t tell us that delays at checkpoints have resulted in the death of sick people.” “Tell us the news as we like it.”
How pathetic! Expressions of sympathy for the suffering of Palestinians have become a major issue. An example of this intolerance was the booing of Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, who spoke on behalf of the President at the large pro-Israel rally, when he acknowledged that “innocent Palestinians are suffering and dying in great numbers as well.”
I find it painful to see how much effort and money is spent on an attempt to impose on the media and on the American people an ideological spin on the conflict. It may well be that the prolonged immersion in the Holocaust and its misuse for political purposes has come back to haunt us with a vengeance. For a long time the identity of American Jews was deeply influenced by Israel and by the Holocaust. Israel represents the Jews who fought and won a state and have the power and will to defend it. But the Holocaust has bred an insecurity that dwarfs even that power. When Israel is challenged that insecurity overwhelms the Jewish people in Israel and in America. Only this hypothesis explains how an otherwise generous and sensitive people have acted against their proclivities, their moral beliefs, and their long tradition of welfare.
The minority whose love for Israel prompts them to provide the critical perspective have a difficult but important function to perform. The critical opposition in Israel is alive and active. A recent demonstration at Rabin Square in Tel Aviv brought together more than 50,000 people. The combatants’ letter signed by 463 officers of the Israeli Army is a deeply moving expression of conscience and courage that should serve as an inspiration to us. Our role is to support the forces in Israel that want to make sure that in its battle for security Israel retains its sanity and soul. In this task we have to organize the disparate groups throughout the country into a vocal force over against the ‘see no evil and hear no evil’ majority of American Jews.
American Jews, who are the largest Diaspora community, have to discover their focus independent from Israel. We are not the Galutniks that Zionism in its earlier phase belittled as people who prefer the fleshpots of Egypt to a courageous and independent life in Palestine. This is an ideological distortion of Jewish history. We are the proud heirs of the Diaspora communities that have been a normal part of Jewish life for 2724 years, ever since the kingdom of Israel was destroyed and its people exiled. The Jews of the Babylonian and later of the Persian Diaspora collected and edited the Torah that Ezra the priest and scribe brought to Jerusalem by which the people covenanted to live. That was when the Jewish people became the people of the Book whose continuity no longer depended on territory or Temple.
The Diaspora has been a creative form of independent communal life in every part of the world. The Diaspora produced the Talmud, the foundation of Jewish law that structured and governed our communal and personal life.
The Diaspora gave us Jewish philosophy, poetry, ethical literature, and mysticism. The Eastern European Diaspora created Hasidism, the Hebrew Haskalah, and Zionism. It was the Jews of the Diaspora who settled in Palestine and created the Jewish state. Throughout its history the Diaspora recognized that it was but a part of Jewish life and accorded Zion a place of honor, prayed for its restoration and its welfare. We have to reject the notion that we are failed Zionists or that our role is to support, submissively and uncritically, the policies of the Israeli government.
American Jews have to link up with that proud history of the Diaspora.
They have to discover the center of their cultural, religious, and political gravity. Only then will the Diaspora be ready to enter into a mutually creative relationship with Israel. At present most American Jews who do not read Hebrew have no idea of the many- faceted literature on every aspect of life that is being created in Israel. News coverage acquaints us mainly with Israel’s problems. Hopefully, the impressive network of Jewish learning at American universities will produce a Jewishly informed intelligentsia that will assume leadership in Jewish life. Hopefully they will develop publications rich in Jewish content that will sustain their interests and the curiosity of other intelligent Jews and non-Jews.
But these are hopes for the future. At present the task of Jews who are committed to the welfare of Israel is to hold up the critical mirror for Americans and Israelis. This is a thankless but important task. We have to admit that not all of the people who criticize the way Israel has dealt with the Palestinians are anti-Semites. There are enough anti-Semites in the world without them. We have to recognize that not all who side with the Palestinians in their conflict against Israel do so because they dislike Jews.
A nation as powerful as Israel has to accept responsibility for its policies and for its actions. It is not American Jewish criticism that has created sympathy for the Palestinians. It is the suppression of millions of Palestinians over thirty-five years that has done it. The Israeli government has never expressed regret for the harm it has done to the Palestinians during the occupation. An ounce of compassion would go a long way.
Those of us who criticize Israel do so because Israel is an important part of our identity, because criticism is an integral part of our traditional culture. While it is true that American Jews do not provide the main critical perspective for Israel,-- that is done very well by liberal Israelis and by Ha’aretz and Yediot, Israel’s leading newspapers-- ours is the critical perspective of American Jews. That, too, is important; it is important for us as well as for Israel. And we offer it in all candor as an expression of respect and love for the people of Israel.
I want to conclude with the words of the prophet Micah. “He has told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God.” By all means, Humbly.
Deutoronomy 16:20 – “Justice, justice shall you pursue that you may live and inherit the land which God gave you” and the footnote in the 1980 Hertz Edition “(T)here is international justice, which demands respect for the personality of every national group, and proclaims that no people can of right be robbed of its national life or territory, its language or spiritual heritage.
"Jews who are committed to the welfare of Israel .... have to admit that not all of the people who criticize the way Israel has dealt with the Palestinians are anti-Semites.....We have to recognize that not all who side with the Palestinians in their conflict against Israel do so because they dislike Jews.... It is not American Jewish criticism that has created sympathy for the Palestinians. It is the suppression of millions of Palestinians over thirty-five years that has done it. The Israeli government has never expressed regret for the harm it has done to the Palestinians during the occupation. An ounce of compassion would go a long way." "The Israeli-Palestine Conflict And The Role Of American Jews" a talk given by Rabbi Ben-Zion Gold, Director Emeritus, Harvard Hillel, at Harvard Hillel, April 14, 2002.
In this talk Rabbi Ben-Zion Gold looked at: the history of the occupation of the West Bank; the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, quoting two experts “Born of the ambition of one willful, reckless man, [Sharon], Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon was anchored in delusion, propelled by deceit, and bound to end in calamity; the second intifata which resulted in another war against the Palestinians waged by Sharon "even though peaceful solutions were offered twice and were rejected by him"; and the settlements about which he says "The Jewish settlements on the West Bank are a grave and dangerous mistake that have done much harm to Israel."
He concludes by saying that we should not consider all those who side with Palestinians as doing so because they dislike Jews. "It is not American Jewish criticism that has created sympathy for the Palestinians. It is the suppression of millions of Palestinians over thirty-five years that has done it."
Now read this impressive speech in full.
"The Israeli-Palestine Conflict And The Role Of American Jews"
Rabbi Ben-Zion Gold, Director Emeritus, Harvard Hillel.
A Talk given at Harvard Hillel on April 14, ‘02
I've been a Zionist for about seventy years. When I was eight years old I was already reading a book about Yemenite Jews who had settled in Palestine.
I grew up in a traditional home and the prayers that I recited daily have at least thirty references to Zion. Living in anti-Semitic Poland I knew that we were in exile and I was longing for Zion.
When I came out of the concentration camps I discovered that I was the sole survivor of my family. Faced with the choice of going to Israel or America, I accepted the opportunity of a safe life in America against my preference for Israel. I still feel more at home in Israel.
In November of 1947, when the fate of Israel was discussed at the United Nations, I was in Cincinnati at the national meeting of young Zionists.
When the news reached us that they had voted to partition Palestine into a Jewish and a Palestinian state we went out and danced in the street for joy.
In 1948 I volunteered to fight in Israel, but I was rejected. I had no experience in handling weapons and they were looking for young war veterans.
I spent the year of ‘55-‘56 in Israel. That spring, Israel was preparing to respond to the repeated attacks of Fedayeen who came from Egypt and terrorized the border kibbutzim. I went on Bitzurim, building fortification trenches. In short, throughout my conscious life I have been, as I now am, devoted to Israel. But my devotion, which began with unquestioning support for the policies of the Israeli Government and the actions of Israeli society, became increasingly critical beginning with the building of settlements in the West Bank and especially during the Lebanon War in 1982.
Now to the subject of my talk. Today I want to discuss several questions:
What is the Israeli - Palestinian conflict about? Can it be resolved with power alone? And what is the role of American Jews in this conflict? As to the first question, the conflict is about Palestinian self- determination.
When the West Bank came under Israeli occupation in ’67 it was populated by Palestinians, most of them refugees from the 1948 war. The Oslo agreements kindled their hope for a sovereign state in Gaza and the West Bank.
Building of Israeli settlements in parts of the West Bank has frustrated their hopes.
At this point three generations of Palestinians have lived for thirty -five years under Israeli occupation and the persistent building of settlements on their land has led to a violent conflict.
The present phase of the conflict began with the Intifada that erupted after Israeli- Palestinian negotiations on a comprehensive settlement failed. The precipitating event was Mr. Sharon’s visit to the Al Aksa Mosque accompanied by a thousand people, among them members of the Likud party and countless policemen. Sharon's visit was calculated to emphasize Israeli sovereignty over the area of the Muslim shrine. Israeli Security warned that the visit would spark an explosion. Arafat even asked Prime Minister Barak not to authorize the visit. The following day Palestinians in Jerusalem and in the territories protested the visit. The police responded with fire, killing several Palestinians and wounding a large number of them. Historians will debate whether that visit started the revolt; as far as I am concerned these events were not coincidental.
When Sharon was elected Prime Minister his commitment to the preservation of the settlements precluded the possibility of a peaceful resolution of the conflict. To fulfill his promise to bring peace and security to Israel Sharon reverted to his objective in the Lebanon war in '82, "to crush the PLO and drive its remnants out of Lebanon." (Morris p. 519.") In this instance it was to crush the PLO, destroy the Palestinian entity, and exile Arafat.
To gain perspective on the conduct of the present conflict it is important to review the war in Lebanon in '82, in which the main actors, objectives, and methods were the same as in the present conflict. Sharon had been authorized by the Begin government to go 40 kilometers into Lebanon to silence the PLO forces that were attacking Israel. Instead, he went all the way to Beirut. Silencing the border was apparently seen by Sharon as a half measure. Convinced that a radical solution was in order, he disregarded his promise to the cabinet and turned the limited operation that was to last 24 hours into a full- scale war that took the Israeli army all the way to Beirut to confront Arafat and the PLO.
There were officers who were uncomfortable with the extended campaign.
Professor Benny Morris in his monumental book Righteous Victims describes the meeting of brigade commanders at the planning of the assault on Beirut:
“General Drori presented the draft plan at a meeting of brigade commanders. A number of them raised objections, Col. Eli Geva, a highly esteemed officer, voiced objections of principle: What was the point of the proposed assault? Was it worth the Israeli and Arab lives? A few days later, Geva’s opposition crystallized He informed his superiors that he wished to be relieved of command of his brigade if it was ordered to advance on Beirut, and offered to continue to fight as a private. The offer was rejected, and after Eitan, Sharon, and Begin failed to persuade him to back down, he was cashiered.” (Morris p.535.)
When the war in Lebanon ended Israel, had suffered 650 dead and close to 3000 wounded. The PLO lost about 1000. There were also many Palestinians and Lebanese who died in the bombardment of Beirut. Ze’ev Shiff, Israel’s leading military analyst, and Ehud Ya’ari, the foremost foreign affairs commentator, described the invasion: “Born of the ambition of one willful, reckless man, [Sharon], Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon was anchored in delusion, propelled by deceit, and bound to end in calamity.”
An early example of Sharon’s tendency to resort to drastic measures is his treatment of the people in the border village of Qibya. “On the night of October 12, 1953, a grenade was thrown into a house in the settlement of Yehud killing a woman and two children. The retaliation was carried out by an army unit under the command of Major Sharon. They went into the border village of Qibya and killed sixty of its inhabitants. Several days later Foreign Minister Sharett noted in his diary, ‘A reprisal of this magnitude ...had never been carried out before. I paced back and forth in my room perplexed and completely depressed, feeling helpless.” (Morris p. 278.)
In addition to the moral outrage, one has to ask what were the after effects of that butchery? The sixty people had relatives and these relatives were bound by Islamic rules of blood redemption. The policy of massive retaliation has done more to build the PLO than to deter it.
To return to the present conflict: The repeated suicide bombing attacks that murdered countless civilians in the cities and towns of Israel turned the Intifada into ubiquitous terror. Israelis became prisoners in their own homes. Traumatized by these recurrent attacks Israel gave Sharon support in his campaign against the Palestinians.
Israel had to respond to the suicide bombings. The question was one of extent. Sharon again chose radical measures aimed at the destruction of the Palestinian Authority that, from his point of view, was conceived in the sin of the Oslo accords. At this point in the conflict the idea that one can destroy the cadres of Palestinian fighters is unfortunately naive. No amount of mental gymnastics can change the fact that young Palestinians become suicide bombers because they have reached a point of despair, of having nothing to lose. The only way to eliminate the suicide bombings is to eliminate the conditions that give rise to them.
Sharon’s war against the Palestinians was also burdened, as it was in Lebanon, by an obsessive hatred for Arafat. Regretting publicly that he did not kill Arafat in Lebanon and his repeated expressions of contempt for him, give the impression of a man who is out of control. No statesman would have allowed himself such huffing and puffing in public.
One might ask did Sharon have a peaceful alternative? His expressed goal of routing the PLO and its leader would preclude such a possibility. But in fact peaceful solutions were offered twice and were rejected by him. On January 2 of this year an article appeared in Ha’aretz written by Hanna Kim, a well known Israeli journalist. Ms. Kim reports about the Hudna, an armistice agreement in Muslim culture that was proposed by Eyal Ehrlich, a businessman, who in the process of his business dealings in Jordan witnessed a peaceful resolution of a bloody dispute between two clans in Amman. There he learned that to arrive at a reconciliation, a delegation of notables must be sent to express regret for the spilling of blood, and to propose a cease-fire for a limited period called a Hudna. During the Hudna they would negotiate an end to the dispute.
After the Al-Aaqsa intifada broke out Mr. Ehrlich thought that it might be possible to use the Hudna mechanism to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He consulted with his friend and business partner the former Palestinian Knesset member Abdulwahab Darawshe and the two of them went to see Professor Josef Ginat, an expert in the area of intra-Islamic conflicts.
Ginat was enthusiastic about the plan and on March 25, 2001 the three of them wrote a letter to Mr. Sharon in which they presented the idea of the Hudna to him. They proposed that Sharon, or an emissary of his, would meet with President Mubarak of Egypt and invite him to serve as a mediator between Sharon and Arafat to propose a Hudna with the aim of achieving a cease fire within a short time, without any concessions on Israel’s part.
They received no answer. They subsequently met with Egyptian and Jordanian officials and were encouraged. Both President Katzav of Israel and Mr. Arafat were prepared to participate in the Hudna. When the diplomatic correspondent for the Voice of Israel revealed the plan, the Prime Minister’s office issued a response calling the plan “stupid” and “a trap for fools.”
At the same time, Transportation Minister Ephraim Sneh proposed a year of quiet in the Intifada in return for a year of a freeze on the Jewish settlements. Sneh presented his initiative after he had checked it out with Arafat and his people. This proposal was also rejected by Sharon. To me that can only mean that Sharon did not want peace. What did he want? And why?
Sharon’s commitment to keep the settlements, which he encouraged and helped to build, left him with no peaceful solution, but his radical solution to eliminate the Palestinians as a threat to Israel failed. It ended in a standoff. The first Intifada resulted in a death ratio of 1 Israeli to 10 Palestinians. The ratio of this Intifada is 1 to 3. Without a peaceful solution the next phase of the Intifada could bode ill for Israel. His use of power not only did not solve the problem; it stimulated the Palestinians to fight with greater determination and resourcefulness.
Is Arafat responsible for the terrorism? The answer is, yes. I also believe that his objective was the destruction of Israel. Should Israel negotiate with Arafat? At this point he is the elected leader of the Palestinians. But he lies! All leaders in a military conflict lie. Can he be trusted to live up to his promises? Only if the Palestinians have something to lose and Israel is powerful militarily. Suicide bombers have to be recognized for what they are. They are an indication of the degree of Palestinian hopelessness and desperation. These young people are faced with a bleak future. They are deeply aggrieved, and many of them are willing to die to hurt Israel that has hurt them for many years.
It is clear that Israel could not have prevailed without the use of force. It is equally clear that Israel must continue to be militarily powerful. And I hope that it will also become clear to the Israeli government and society that the conflict can not be solved by power alone. Then by what? By removing the basis for the conflict. The Jewish settlements on the West Bank are a grave and dangerous mistake that have done much harm to Israel. Most Israelis favor the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. For the sake of Israel and the Palestinians I hope that Sharon will rise above ideology and accept also this mandate of his people.
Meanwhile it seems that a solution may come from an unexpected source.
Palestinians’ willingness to die for their cause seems to have had an influence on the restive youth in the neighboring Arab nations, a development that threatens to destabilize the government of these countries.
To avoid such a possibility the Saudi leadership has proposed an international conference to find a comprehensive solution to the conflict.
It is possible that the greater good of the whole Middle East and the Western world may, for once, put an end to the conflict and save both the Palestinians and the Israelis from destruction. Such a conference will also have to deal with the extensive demonization of Jews in the media and press of Arab nations. In the twentieth century we saw how accumulated hatred leads to uncontrolled violence.
It is important to note that the Saudi proposal and its acceptance by other Arab nations is a reversal of their defiant position after the Six Day War.
At the summit meeting of Arab nations in Khartoum that followed Israel’s victory they declared that the Arab world would unite to “wipe out the consequences of the aggression,” and “assure the withdrawal of Israel’s aggressive forces from the Arab lands.” The Arab states committed themselves to “no peace with Israel,” “no Recognition of Israel,” and “no agreement to negotiations with Israel.” Their defiance fed on the myth that the very existence of a Jewish state in the Arab Middle East was an aggression.
The present position of the Arab nations is a reversal of the Khartoum stance. This welcome change is the result of geopolitical necessity. It is a change that should help Israel to overcome several dangerous myths: the myth that the Arabs cannot change, that they only understand power, and the myth that time is on our side.
As to the puzzling question, why did Arafat not accept the generous offer of Prime Minister Barak at the Camp David negotiations? Having read the books written by two of the Israeli negotiators, Yossi Bailin, the former Minister of Justice, and Gilad Sher, I have come to the conclusion that his rejection may have been justified. Regrettably, these books are not yet available in English. Both of them point to the negative results of the initial meetings between Barak and Arafat. Despite his repeated emphasis on a partnership with Arafat, Barak arrived with a plan for negotiations which he imposed on the Palestinians, ignoring their expectations. The Palestinians expected that Barak would first fulfill the Wye River Plantation agreements made with Netanyahu that called for ceding land to the Palestinians but Barak decided to put it off to the final agreement. They expected that during the negotiations there would be a halt in building new settlements, they expected that Barak would complete the release of prisoners begun by Netanyahu, but Barak’s conception of working together was their accepting his prescriptions and deadlines.
A recent interview with Bailin in Seven Days, the weekly supplement of Yediyot, suggests some of the problems with the negotiations. He describes Arafat as “not one hundred percent terrorist nor a one hundred percent peacenik….
I was upset when Barak spoke of tearing off [Arafat’s] mask…The moment Barak came and said ‘at Camp David I gave everything and received a slap in the face’ he broke the Left…He also deceived the public when he said that at Camp David he turned every stone and got an Intifada… At Camp David he did not yet speak about a territory on the basis of the ’67 [borders] with an exchange of land. He agreed to cede 91% of the territories and not 96% as in the Clinton plan… The whole Camp David negotiations were conducted without [due] care…The negotiations at the ministerial level should have taken place before Camp David … [in order] to arrive at camp David knowing the gaps in every issue, whereas the opposite happened.”
Now I come to the question of what our role should be in this conflict.
There is no elected body that is authorized to speak on behalf of American Jews. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, with a right of center orientation, has presumed to fill that vacuum, and they have consistently supported the policies of Israeli governments in the name of American Jews. The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) exists for the purpose of lobbying Congress to support Israeli governmental policies and actions. These oligarchical organizations reduce Israel to their ideological preference by ignoring its critical opposition. Most American Jews have accepted the view of these oligarchies and are zealously opposed to criticism. ostensibly because it would bring down the roof of American support of Israel. I have not forgotten how viciously these bodies criticized the policies of the late prime minister Rabin.
The question of criticism came to a head in 1988, in the second year of the first Intifada. In his Rosh Hashanah Message of that year Prime Minister Shamir warned American Jews “We cannot afford the luxury of public disagreement, or public criticism that plays right into the hands of our enemies.” To this day I fail to understand how a prime minister of a democratic nation with an active political opposition would attempt to silence Jewish criticism abroad. Israel has been in the news more than any other nation its size. The American press and media have persistently covered Israeli politics and action. The English edition of Ha’aretz, Israel ’s leading newspaper, is sold in Harvard Square. Then, wherein is the danger of American Jewish criticism? I wondered, is it the criticism that is harmful or the policies and actions that are criticized? But Shamir’s warning found a powerful following among American Jews. These people have failed to see that having become apologists for the actions of the Israeli government they have also become culpable for its misdeeds.
In our time the intolerance of criticism has reached the hysterical proportion of boycotting the leading papers of America, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, as well as some of the media.
They are all accused of favoring the Palestinians. These people are saying “Don’t tell us that thousands of houses were destroyed.” “Don’t tell us that civilians were killed.” “Don’t tell us that delays at checkpoints have resulted in the death of sick people.” “Tell us the news as we like it.”
How pathetic! Expressions of sympathy for the suffering of Palestinians have become a major issue. An example of this intolerance was the booing of Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, who spoke on behalf of the President at the large pro-Israel rally, when he acknowledged that “innocent Palestinians are suffering and dying in great numbers as well.”
I find it painful to see how much effort and money is spent on an attempt to impose on the media and on the American people an ideological spin on the conflict. It may well be that the prolonged immersion in the Holocaust and its misuse for political purposes has come back to haunt us with a vengeance. For a long time the identity of American Jews was deeply influenced by Israel and by the Holocaust. Israel represents the Jews who fought and won a state and have the power and will to defend it. But the Holocaust has bred an insecurity that dwarfs even that power. When Israel is challenged that insecurity overwhelms the Jewish people in Israel and in America. Only this hypothesis explains how an otherwise generous and sensitive people have acted against their proclivities, their moral beliefs, and their long tradition of welfare.
The minority whose love for Israel prompts them to provide the critical perspective have a difficult but important function to perform. The critical opposition in Israel is alive and active. A recent demonstration at Rabin Square in Tel Aviv brought together more than 50,000 people. The combatants’ letter signed by 463 officers of the Israeli Army is a deeply moving expression of conscience and courage that should serve as an inspiration to us. Our role is to support the forces in Israel that want to make sure that in its battle for security Israel retains its sanity and soul. In this task we have to organize the disparate groups throughout the country into a vocal force over against the ‘see no evil and hear no evil’ majority of American Jews.
American Jews, who are the largest Diaspora community, have to discover their focus independent from Israel. We are not the Galutniks that Zionism in its earlier phase belittled as people who prefer the fleshpots of Egypt to a courageous and independent life in Palestine. This is an ideological distortion of Jewish history. We are the proud heirs of the Diaspora communities that have been a normal part of Jewish life for 2724 years, ever since the kingdom of Israel was destroyed and its people exiled. The Jews of the Babylonian and later of the Persian Diaspora collected and edited the Torah that Ezra the priest and scribe brought to Jerusalem by which the people covenanted to live. That was when the Jewish people became the people of the Book whose continuity no longer depended on territory or Temple.
The Diaspora has been a creative form of independent communal life in every part of the world. The Diaspora produced the Talmud, the foundation of Jewish law that structured and governed our communal and personal life.
The Diaspora gave us Jewish philosophy, poetry, ethical literature, and mysticism. The Eastern European Diaspora created Hasidism, the Hebrew Haskalah, and Zionism. It was the Jews of the Diaspora who settled in Palestine and created the Jewish state. Throughout its history the Diaspora recognized that it was but a part of Jewish life and accorded Zion a place of honor, prayed for its restoration and its welfare. We have to reject the notion that we are failed Zionists or that our role is to support, submissively and uncritically, the policies of the Israeli government.
American Jews have to link up with that proud history of the Diaspora.
They have to discover the center of their cultural, religious, and political gravity. Only then will the Diaspora be ready to enter into a mutually creative relationship with Israel. At present most American Jews who do not read Hebrew have no idea of the many- faceted literature on every aspect of life that is being created in Israel. News coverage acquaints us mainly with Israel’s problems. Hopefully, the impressive network of Jewish learning at American universities will produce a Jewishly informed intelligentsia that will assume leadership in Jewish life. Hopefully they will develop publications rich in Jewish content that will sustain their interests and the curiosity of other intelligent Jews and non-Jews.
But these are hopes for the future. At present the task of Jews who are committed to the welfare of Israel is to hold up the critical mirror for Americans and Israelis. This is a thankless but important task. We have to admit that not all of the people who criticize the way Israel has dealt with the Palestinians are anti-Semites. There are enough anti-Semites in the world without them. We have to recognize that not all who side with the Palestinians in their conflict against Israel do so because they dislike Jews.
A nation as powerful as Israel has to accept responsibility for its policies and for its actions. It is not American Jewish criticism that has created sympathy for the Palestinians. It is the suppression of millions of Palestinians over thirty-five years that has done it. The Israeli government has never expressed regret for the harm it has done to the Palestinians during the occupation. An ounce of compassion would go a long way.
Those of us who criticize Israel do so because Israel is an important part of our identity, because criticism is an integral part of our traditional culture. While it is true that American Jews do not provide the main critical perspective for Israel,-- that is done very well by liberal Israelis and by Ha’aretz and Yediot, Israel’s leading newspapers-- ours is the critical perspective of American Jews. That, too, is important; it is important for us as well as for Israel. And we offer it in all candor as an expression of respect and love for the people of Israel.
I want to conclude with the words of the prophet Micah. “He has told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God.” By all means, Humbly.
Deutoronomy 16:20 – “Justice, justice shall you pursue that you may live and inherit the land which God gave you” and the footnote in the 1980 Hertz Edition “(T)here is international justice, which demands respect for the personality of every national group, and proclaims that no people can of right be robbed of its national life or territory, its language or spiritual heritage.
Jeff Halper of ICAHD - The Myth of the "Generous Offer"
Today is Day 14,263 of the Maintenance of the Immoral (and Illegal) West Bank Settlements and almost the 40th anniversary of the start of the immoral (and illegal) occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Micah.6:8 “He has told you, O man, Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God
Jeff Halper is the coordinator of the Israel Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) a non-violent, direct-action group originally established to oppose and resist Israeli demolition of Palestinian houses in the Occupied Territories. From "About Us" on its website www.icahd.org "As our activists gained direct knowledge of the brutalities of the Occupation, we expanded our resistance activities to other areas - land expropriation, settlement expansion, by-pass road construction, policies of 'closure' and 'separation,' the wholesale uprooting of fruit and olive trees and more. The fierce repression of Palestinian efforts to 'shake off' the Occupation following the latest Intifada has only added urgency to our efforts."
As I mentioned in the last post, I had the privilege to listen to a presentation by him two years ago. He is not only intelligent and full of insight, he is extremely courageous as he stands in front of Israeli bulldozers intent on destroying the homes of Palestinians for reasons unrelated to security.
While it is beyond belief that anyone would demolish the home of an innocent family, what ICAHD has felt the need to do is to extend its scope to other despicable acts such as the wholesale uprooting of olive trees owned by Palestinians, the primary source of income of many Palestinians, again for reasons not related to security. When you read in this Blog, as you will often about incidents in which representatives of the Israeli government or Jewish squatters destroy olive trees, keep in mind this quote from the Torah:
Deuteronomy 20:19 “When you besiege a city … you shall not destroy its (fruit) trees … You eat of them, do not cut them down; for man’s life depends on the trees of the field.
Here is an Op-Ed piece by Jeff Halper with his analysis of the "generous offer" and an article about his appearances both of which appeared in The Day, a newspaper in Connecticut.
For more information about ICAHD and how you can support its efforts, go to www.icahdusa.org
By JEFF HALPER
The Day
Published on 3/15/2005
In peace-making, as in law, business and other areas of life, the devil is in the details. The crux of the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is not over a Palestinian a state. The "quartet" of the Middle East Road Map - Europe, Russia, the U.N. and even the U.S. – all agree that a Palestinian state must emerge. Even Ariel Sharon himself, the father of the settlements and a fervent proponent of the Greater Land of Israel ideology, has come to understand that he needs a Palestinian state in order to relieve Israel of the four million Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories. No, the problem is not a Palestinian state but a viable Palestinian state.
Consider this: Israel has deliberately de-developed the West Bank and Gaza over the past four decades so that today all the Palestinians have is a scorched earth: No economy (70 percent of the Palestinians live on less than $2 a day), no agriculture (Israel has cut down a million olive and fruit trees since 1967), no homes for the young generation (Israel has demolished 12,000 Palestinian homes since the occupation began). Add to that the fact that 60 percent of the Palestinians are under the age of 18. These young people have never known freedom, only military occupation. They are brutalized, traumatized, under-educated, with few skills and little hope of employment. Then add in the fact that whatever Palestinian state emerges, small as it may be, will be responsible for the thousands of refugees, themselves impoverished, who will come home. Even President Bush, distinguished by his total support for Sharon, said recently in Brussels that a Palestinian state had to be "truly viable." "A state of scattered territories will not work," he stated emphatically.
So the issue is a viable Palestinian state. At the end of the Oslo Process then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak was supposed to have extended a "generous offer" of 95 percent of the occupied territories to the Palestinians. It's not true (the 95 percent figure came from a Bill Clinton proposal that both the Israelis and Palestinians accepted, but which never materialized), but let's say it was. Ninety-five percent indeed sounds "generous." But what about the other 5 percent? What about viability? Israel, it turns out, could relinquish 95% and still control the borders, freedom of movement, Palestinian water resources, the Jerusalem area (around which tourism, Palestine's major industry, is concentrated), the airspace and even the communications sphere. The Palestinians could get 95 percent of the occupied territories and still be locked into a truncated prison-state.
Offer was a setup
Barak's "generous offer," then, was a setup. Though it was never made, Barak insisted that it had. Since Arafat did not say "yes" to Barak's hint of a generous offer - especially before nailing down just what 95 percent meant in terms of sovereignty and viability - he was demonized by Barak and later Sharon. "See?" said Barak, "the Palestinians are the intractable ones. Israel has no partner for peace. I have exposed Arafat as a terrorist." Armed with that, the in-coming Sharon government suppressed the Palestinian uprising against the prison where they are today confined behind 26-foot walls while further expanding Israel into the occupied territories under the cover of "security."
It now seems like Abu Mazen's turn to be set up for another "generous offer." The euphoria generated around the "moderate and pragmatic" Abu Mazen in this "post-Arafat era" has put him in a corner. Sharon "generous offer" will consist of Gaza plus 75 percent of the West Bank and a symbolic presence in East Jerusalem. Sounds not bad, but what of viability? Sharon has worked tirelessly and openly for a "cantonized" Palestinian entity for the past quarter century, always rejecting the notion of a viable Palestinian state. Nothing has changed this on the ground. If he says "yes" and Israel's massive settlement blocs in the West Bank remain, he has become the quisling leader Israel seeks. If he says "no," Sharon will pounce: "See? The Palestinians refused another generous offer. They do not want peace." And Israel, let off the hook, will be free to expand its control of the occupied territories for years to come.
The Chinese expression has it: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." The "generous offer" worked once. It is our responsibility as those who seek a just and lasting peace to ensure that it not happen again. Viability is the devil in the details.
Jeff Halper is the coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions.
Israel-Palestine Conflict Is Called A 'Human Rights Challenge To Us All'
By DAN PEARSON
Education Reporter
The Day
Published on 3/7/2005
Old Lyme - An activist for non-violence said Sunday that peace can be achieved in the Israel-Palestine conflict through a global commitment to human rights. Jeff Halper, a Jewish American who is the coordinating director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, said this is possible because basic human rights both transcend and join diverse religious beliefs.
"If, in the light of day, right in our faces, the (Israeli) occupation wins and almost four million Palestinians are confined and imprisoned behind 26-foot walls, a new apartheid can emerge," said Halper. "It compromises human rights and makes a mockery of religious values." Calling himself as an "engaged anthropologist," Halper said his group seek peace through nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience to the Israeli Occupation Authorities. The group opposes the demolition of Palestinian homes, settlement expansion, land and water confiscation and a separation/barrier wall. Halper has taught at Haifa and Ben Gurion Universities in Israel.
Halper delivered a sermon called "The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A Human Rights Challenge to Us All" as part of an Interfaith Worship Service Sunday morning at the First Congregational Church of Old Lyme. During his sermon, Halper said two elements "blur the sacred and secular" because they are essential to both religion and human rights: that human dignity must be preserved because humans are created in image of god; and, that humans can distinguish between right and wrong.
Halper said that he stands in front of Israeli bulldozers ready to demolish homes because he is in a "privileged position as a Jew:" Israelis would shoot a Palestinian attempting the same civil disobedience. He said his group also helps Palestinians to reconstruct their homes as a sign of "political solidarity and resistance."
He said 12,000 homes have been demolished in the occupied territories since 1967. He called on people to oppose the United States sales of arms and bulldozers to Israel and called on Jewish organizations worldwide to oppose occupation and construction of a separation wall.
At a discussion following the service, some criticized Halper's presentation as "biased" because he neglected to address civilians killed by Palestinian suicide bombers or the Israeli proposal to withdrawal from Gaza and four West Bank settlements.
Halper said "any attack on civilians is unacceptable." But he said terrorism's central place in news coverage illustrates how Israel has been able to "frame" perceptions of the conflict. He said Israel is a nuclear power with U.S. backing "who portrays itself as a victim, when it is not."
He also said the withdrawal plan was a diversion, meant to "put the peace process in formaldehyde" by drawing attention away from flashpoints and caging Palestinians behind the barrier wall.
Halper also discussed global perceptions Saturday at a retreat at the Voluntown Peace Farm hosted by the Westerly Friends Meeting. The committee is a member of the trust supporting the farm, which is a gathering place for peace advocates.
Halper appeared with representatives from the American Friends Service Committee, who has an international office in Jerusalem and is a partner of Halper's group.
Halper's sermon in Old Lyme comes one month before First Congregational Church will sponsor a Tree of Life Journey to Israel and Palestine with Jews, Muslims and Christians.
"When you think of the enormity of the crisis, you ask, 'What can we, in New London County do, it can be so overwhelming," said Imran Ahmed, a member of the Islamic Center of New London who will travel with the group. "But when you think of the ocean, it is made of single drops of water. If communities come together, we can be an ocean."
Deutoronomy 16:20 – “Justice, justice shall you pursue that you may live and inherit the land which God gave you” and the footnote in the 1980 Hertz Edition “(T)here is international justice, which demands respect for the personality of every national group, and proclaims that no people can of right be robbed of its national life or territory, its language or spiritual heritage.
Micah.6:8 “He has told you, O man, Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God
Jeff Halper is the coordinator of the Israel Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) a non-violent, direct-action group originally established to oppose and resist Israeli demolition of Palestinian houses in the Occupied Territories. From "About Us" on its website www.icahd.org "As our activists gained direct knowledge of the brutalities of the Occupation, we expanded our resistance activities to other areas - land expropriation, settlement expansion, by-pass road construction, policies of 'closure' and 'separation,' the wholesale uprooting of fruit and olive trees and more. The fierce repression of Palestinian efforts to 'shake off' the Occupation following the latest Intifada has only added urgency to our efforts."
As I mentioned in the last post, I had the privilege to listen to a presentation by him two years ago. He is not only intelligent and full of insight, he is extremely courageous as he stands in front of Israeli bulldozers intent on destroying the homes of Palestinians for reasons unrelated to security.
While it is beyond belief that anyone would demolish the home of an innocent family, what ICAHD has felt the need to do is to extend its scope to other despicable acts such as the wholesale uprooting of olive trees owned by Palestinians, the primary source of income of many Palestinians, again for reasons not related to security. When you read in this Blog, as you will often about incidents in which representatives of the Israeli government or Jewish squatters destroy olive trees, keep in mind this quote from the Torah:
Deuteronomy 20:19 “When you besiege a city … you shall not destroy its (fruit) trees … You eat of them, do not cut them down; for man’s life depends on the trees of the field.
Here is an Op-Ed piece by Jeff Halper with his analysis of the "generous offer" and an article about his appearances both of which appeared in The Day, a newspaper in Connecticut.
For more information about ICAHD and how you can support its efforts, go to www.icahdusa.org
By JEFF HALPER
The Day
Published on 3/15/2005
In peace-making, as in law, business and other areas of life, the devil is in the details. The crux of the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is not over a Palestinian a state. The "quartet" of the Middle East Road Map - Europe, Russia, the U.N. and even the U.S. – all agree that a Palestinian state must emerge. Even Ariel Sharon himself, the father of the settlements and a fervent proponent of the Greater Land of Israel ideology, has come to understand that he needs a Palestinian state in order to relieve Israel of the four million Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories. No, the problem is not a Palestinian state but a viable Palestinian state.
Consider this: Israel has deliberately de-developed the West Bank and Gaza over the past four decades so that today all the Palestinians have is a scorched earth: No economy (70 percent of the Palestinians live on less than $2 a day), no agriculture (Israel has cut down a million olive and fruit trees since 1967), no homes for the young generation (Israel has demolished 12,000 Palestinian homes since the occupation began). Add to that the fact that 60 percent of the Palestinians are under the age of 18. These young people have never known freedom, only military occupation. They are brutalized, traumatized, under-educated, with few skills and little hope of employment. Then add in the fact that whatever Palestinian state emerges, small as it may be, will be responsible for the thousands of refugees, themselves impoverished, who will come home. Even President Bush, distinguished by his total support for Sharon, said recently in Brussels that a Palestinian state had to be "truly viable." "A state of scattered territories will not work," he stated emphatically.
So the issue is a viable Palestinian state. At the end of the Oslo Process then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak was supposed to have extended a "generous offer" of 95 percent of the occupied territories to the Palestinians. It's not true (the 95 percent figure came from a Bill Clinton proposal that both the Israelis and Palestinians accepted, but which never materialized), but let's say it was. Ninety-five percent indeed sounds "generous." But what about the other 5 percent? What about viability? Israel, it turns out, could relinquish 95% and still control the borders, freedom of movement, Palestinian water resources, the Jerusalem area (around which tourism, Palestine's major industry, is concentrated), the airspace and even the communications sphere. The Palestinians could get 95 percent of the occupied territories and still be locked into a truncated prison-state.
Offer was a setup
Barak's "generous offer," then, was a setup. Though it was never made, Barak insisted that it had. Since Arafat did not say "yes" to Barak's hint of a generous offer - especially before nailing down just what 95 percent meant in terms of sovereignty and viability - he was demonized by Barak and later Sharon. "See?" said Barak, "the Palestinians are the intractable ones. Israel has no partner for peace. I have exposed Arafat as a terrorist." Armed with that, the in-coming Sharon government suppressed the Palestinian uprising against the prison where they are today confined behind 26-foot walls while further expanding Israel into the occupied territories under the cover of "security."
It now seems like Abu Mazen's turn to be set up for another "generous offer." The euphoria generated around the "moderate and pragmatic" Abu Mazen in this "post-Arafat era" has put him in a corner. Sharon "generous offer" will consist of Gaza plus 75 percent of the West Bank and a symbolic presence in East Jerusalem. Sounds not bad, but what of viability? Sharon has worked tirelessly and openly for a "cantonized" Palestinian entity for the past quarter century, always rejecting the notion of a viable Palestinian state. Nothing has changed this on the ground. If he says "yes" and Israel's massive settlement blocs in the West Bank remain, he has become the quisling leader Israel seeks. If he says "no," Sharon will pounce: "See? The Palestinians refused another generous offer. They do not want peace." And Israel, let off the hook, will be free to expand its control of the occupied territories for years to come.
The Chinese expression has it: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." The "generous offer" worked once. It is our responsibility as those who seek a just and lasting peace to ensure that it not happen again. Viability is the devil in the details.
Jeff Halper is the coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions.
Israel-Palestine Conflict Is Called A 'Human Rights Challenge To Us All'
By DAN PEARSON
Education Reporter
The Day
Published on 3/7/2005
Old Lyme - An activist for non-violence said Sunday that peace can be achieved in the Israel-Palestine conflict through a global commitment to human rights. Jeff Halper, a Jewish American who is the coordinating director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, said this is possible because basic human rights both transcend and join diverse religious beliefs.
"If, in the light of day, right in our faces, the (Israeli) occupation wins and almost four million Palestinians are confined and imprisoned behind 26-foot walls, a new apartheid can emerge," said Halper. "It compromises human rights and makes a mockery of religious values." Calling himself as an "engaged anthropologist," Halper said his group seek peace through nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience to the Israeli Occupation Authorities. The group opposes the demolition of Palestinian homes, settlement expansion, land and water confiscation and a separation/barrier wall. Halper has taught at Haifa and Ben Gurion Universities in Israel.
Halper delivered a sermon called "The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A Human Rights Challenge to Us All" as part of an Interfaith Worship Service Sunday morning at the First Congregational Church of Old Lyme. During his sermon, Halper said two elements "blur the sacred and secular" because they are essential to both religion and human rights: that human dignity must be preserved because humans are created in image of god; and, that humans can distinguish between right and wrong.
Halper said that he stands in front of Israeli bulldozers ready to demolish homes because he is in a "privileged position as a Jew:" Israelis would shoot a Palestinian attempting the same civil disobedience. He said his group also helps Palestinians to reconstruct their homes as a sign of "political solidarity and resistance."
He said 12,000 homes have been demolished in the occupied territories since 1967. He called on people to oppose the United States sales of arms and bulldozers to Israel and called on Jewish organizations worldwide to oppose occupation and construction of a separation wall.
At a discussion following the service, some criticized Halper's presentation as "biased" because he neglected to address civilians killed by Palestinian suicide bombers or the Israeli proposal to withdrawal from Gaza and four West Bank settlements.
Halper said "any attack on civilians is unacceptable." But he said terrorism's central place in news coverage illustrates how Israel has been able to "frame" perceptions of the conflict. He said Israel is a nuclear power with U.S. backing "who portrays itself as a victim, when it is not."
He also said the withdrawal plan was a diversion, meant to "put the peace process in formaldehyde" by drawing attention away from flashpoints and caging Palestinians behind the barrier wall.
Halper also discussed global perceptions Saturday at a retreat at the Voluntown Peace Farm hosted by the Westerly Friends Meeting. The committee is a member of the trust supporting the farm, which is a gathering place for peace advocates.
Halper appeared with representatives from the American Friends Service Committee, who has an international office in Jerusalem and is a partner of Halper's group.
Halper's sermon in Old Lyme comes one month before First Congregational Church will sponsor a Tree of Life Journey to Israel and Palestine with Jews, Muslims and Christians.
"When you think of the enormity of the crisis, you ask, 'What can we, in New London County do, it can be so overwhelming," said Imran Ahmed, a member of the Islamic Center of New London who will travel with the group. "But when you think of the ocean, it is made of single drops of water. If communities come together, we can be an ocean."
Deutoronomy 16:20 – “Justice, justice shall you pursue that you may live and inherit the land which God gave you” and the footnote in the 1980 Hertz Edition “(T)here is international justice, which demands respect for the personality of every national group, and proclaims that no people can of right be robbed of its national life or territory, its language or spiritual heritage.
Palestinians -The People of Nowhere - Is One State the Solution?
Today is Day 14,263 of the Maintenance of the Immoral (and Illegal) West Bank Settlements and almost the 40th anniversary of the start of the immoral (and illegal) occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Micah.6:8 “He has told you, O man, Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God
I read "The People of Nowhere'. I know that I have a strong feeling for "the Palestinian plight" but in all these years I have never taken the time to read in any depth about their history.
What significance this placed on the importance of the original home and land of the individual Palestinians. How naïve it is to support the Geneva Accord and say that the Palestinians should accept its "generous" terms when the right of Palestinian return is not dealt with in any meaningful way.
What caught my attention was the discussion on page 128 where he notes the shift in 1988 from a focus on the right of return to self-determination and a Palestinian state. Just prior to that he asks what kind of independence do the Palestinians have in mind. A state in the West Bank and Gaza? A federation with Jordan? A state in the territories as the initial stage toward establishing a single political entity in all of what once was Palestine?”
I had the pleasure two years ago of participating in a conversation with Jeff Halper, the director of ICAHD, the Israel Committee against House Demolitions. Part of the discussion was about whether the facts on the ground with so many Israel settlements and so much control by the Israelis of the West Bank might not be a precursor to an eventual single state solution. In the next post I will include a letter to the editor that was just printed in The Day which, I assume, is a Connecticut newspaper and an article in that paper covering stops on his tour
My question is whether in the near future the focus on the Palestinians will like a pendulum move back to the right of return with a concurrent deemphasis on the two-state solution?
In connection with our discussion about discrimination against Israeli Arabs, did you notice this statement on page 75, "In theory the Arabs of Israel are citizens with equal rights, though in practice they do not enjoy full equality - especially as the great majority of them do not serve in the military and are thus denied the array of benefits and prerogatives accorded to army veterans?
On the other hand, in the West Bank and Gaza page 110, "The Israelis resorted to a variety of methods to expropriate land or restrict its use by Arabs. Real estate and assets registered in the names of nonresidents ("absentee owners") were declared "abandoned" and transferred to Israeli custody. In a sweeping operation that began in 1980, the military government defined "state lands" as large tracts of mostly rock-strewn land to which the local Arabs could not conclusively prove ownership. Other land was expropriated for public use, declared a "closed area for military purposes" or requisitioned for military use as "combat areas" or "firing zones". Major construction was prohibited on land adjacent to main roads, military installations, and Jewish settlements. Broad areas were declared "nature sanctuaries" and various restrictions were placed on the cultivation of land by Arabs. By the end of the 1980s it was estimated that over half the area of the West Bank had been removed from Arab control and placed in Israeli hands."
And as for the use of water, see page 114 "At the end of the 1980s, the 70,000 Jews living in the West Bank and Gaza accounted for 40 percent of the water consumption, while the remaining 60 percent of the water was distributed among the territories' one and a half million Arabs."
And, in general, on page 115-116 “Dr. Sari Nusseibeh listed the features of Israel’s policy devoted to this end (wear down the Palestinians and sever their bonds to their land) as the expropriation of land and reduction of the water supply, bans on travel and construction, the “economic siege” and restrictions on the development of an independent Palestinian economy, the transformation of peasants into urban laborers (leading to the depopulation of rural areas), collective punishment, deportation, and the demolition of houses.”
Keep in mind that all of this is done in what I believe to be violations of basic International Law: i.e., Article 55 of the Hague Convention of 1907, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 which provide as follows:
HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND, AND ITS ATTACHED REGULATIONS, OF 1907 on, among other topics, the temporary nature of military occupation) Article 55 states “The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct (A right to the use and enjoyment of the fruits or profits of another’s property, without fundamentally changing its substance)
FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR, OF 1949: ARTICLE 49 - “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Article 35 is similar.
UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
Micah.6:8 “He has told you, O man, Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God
I read "The People of Nowhere'. I know that I have a strong feeling for "the Palestinian plight" but in all these years I have never taken the time to read in any depth about their history.
What significance this placed on the importance of the original home and land of the individual Palestinians. How naïve it is to support the Geneva Accord and say that the Palestinians should accept its "generous" terms when the right of Palestinian return is not dealt with in any meaningful way.
What caught my attention was the discussion on page 128 where he notes the shift in 1988 from a focus on the right of return to self-determination and a Palestinian state. Just prior to that he asks what kind of independence do the Palestinians have in mind. A state in the West Bank and Gaza? A federation with Jordan? A state in the territories as the initial stage toward establishing a single political entity in all of what once was Palestine?”
I had the pleasure two years ago of participating in a conversation with Jeff Halper, the director of ICAHD, the Israel Committee against House Demolitions. Part of the discussion was about whether the facts on the ground with so many Israel settlements and so much control by the Israelis of the West Bank might not be a precursor to an eventual single state solution. In the next post I will include a letter to the editor that was just printed in The Day which, I assume, is a Connecticut newspaper and an article in that paper covering stops on his tour
My question is whether in the near future the focus on the Palestinians will like a pendulum move back to the right of return with a concurrent deemphasis on the two-state solution?
In connection with our discussion about discrimination against Israeli Arabs, did you notice this statement on page 75, "In theory the Arabs of Israel are citizens with equal rights, though in practice they do not enjoy full equality - especially as the great majority of them do not serve in the military and are thus denied the array of benefits and prerogatives accorded to army veterans?
On the other hand, in the West Bank and Gaza page 110, "The Israelis resorted to a variety of methods to expropriate land or restrict its use by Arabs. Real estate and assets registered in the names of nonresidents ("absentee owners") were declared "abandoned" and transferred to Israeli custody. In a sweeping operation that began in 1980, the military government defined "state lands" as large tracts of mostly rock-strewn land to which the local Arabs could not conclusively prove ownership. Other land was expropriated for public use, declared a "closed area for military purposes" or requisitioned for military use as "combat areas" or "firing zones". Major construction was prohibited on land adjacent to main roads, military installations, and Jewish settlements. Broad areas were declared "nature sanctuaries" and various restrictions were placed on the cultivation of land by Arabs. By the end of the 1980s it was estimated that over half the area of the West Bank had been removed from Arab control and placed in Israeli hands."
And as for the use of water, see page 114 "At the end of the 1980s, the 70,000 Jews living in the West Bank and Gaza accounted for 40 percent of the water consumption, while the remaining 60 percent of the water was distributed among the territories' one and a half million Arabs."
And, in general, on page 115-116 “Dr. Sari Nusseibeh listed the features of Israel’s policy devoted to this end (wear down the Palestinians and sever their bonds to their land) as the expropriation of land and reduction of the water supply, bans on travel and construction, the “economic siege” and restrictions on the development of an independent Palestinian economy, the transformation of peasants into urban laborers (leading to the depopulation of rural areas), collective punishment, deportation, and the demolition of houses.”
Keep in mind that all of this is done in what I believe to be violations of basic International Law: i.e., Article 55 of the Hague Convention of 1907, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 which provide as follows:
HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND, AND ITS ATTACHED REGULATIONS, OF 1907 on, among other topics, the temporary nature of military occupation) Article 55 states “The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct (A right to the use and enjoyment of the fruits or profits of another’s property, without fundamentally changing its substance)
FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR, OF 1949: ARTICLE 49 - “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Article 35 is similar.
UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
Deutoronomy 16:20 – “Justice, justice shall you pursue that you may live and inherit the land which God gave you” and the footnote in the 1980 Hertz Edition “(T)here is international justice, which demands respect for the personality of every national group, and proclaims that no people can of right be robbed of its national life or territory, its language or spiritual heritage.
Beilin Calls Hebron Jews Deluded
Today is Day 14,260 of the Maintenance of the Immoral (and Illegal) West Bank Settlements and almost the 40th anniversary of the start of the immoral (and illegal) occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Micah.6:8 “He has told you, O man, Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God
Within the borders of Hebron, one of the biggest Arab cities in the West Bank, are 120,000 Palestinians. In the old city of Hebron, there are 650 Jewish Israeli squatters and 30,000 Palestinians while around Kiryat Arba the squatterment founded by Rabbi Levinger near Hebron, there are an additional 9,200 squatters.
It is indeed heartening to read that Yossi Deilin is going to introduce this bill. I have likely been too charitable referring to the JISH as "squatters'. Beilin probably knows them well enough to be able to label them more accurately as "Deluded" and "Crazies".
Meretz chairman visits disputed Hebron building, says he intends to submit ‘bill calling for evacuation of all Jews from Hebron’
Tal Rabinovsky
Published: 04.17.07, 20:43 / Israel News
Meretz-Yahad Chairman MK Yossi Beilin received a not-so-warm welcome by extreme right-wing activist Baruch Marzel upon his arrival at the Jewish area of Hebron on Tuesday.
“Spy, foreign agent! You’re pals with Bishara!” Marzel shouted, in an attempt to disrupt Beilin’s visit.
The MK arrived at the town with the purpose of learning more about the daily lives of the Jewish population and the Palestinian residents, following the purchase of the disputed Hebron building.
“I intend on submitting a bill calling for the evacuation of all Jews from Hebron after the summer break. This is a new settlement, and I have been working to evacuate this deluded group since the night they invaded.
“The only question is whether the Olmert government wants to establish a new settlement in Israel today, in 2007" despite its promise not to allow new settlements, Beilin asked.
Beilin began his tour under tight security in Tel Rumeida, where he met Hani Abu Aisha, who told him about the ill treatment, as he called it, his family suffered at the hands of the Jewish residents.
Beilin also visited a grocery store nearby the disputed building, where he tried to evaluate the way the new residents behaved towards the locals. The owner of the store told Beilin about the “cruelty and violence” of the Jewish residents of the building.
There was much disorder at the entrance of the building itself, lead by Noam Arnon, spokesperson for the Jewish settlement in Hebron.
“It was you who brought us the Oslo agreement, you who brought most of the suicide bombers, and you are responsible for all of this suffering,” Arnon said.
Beilin firmly replied, “Go home crazies!”
Palestinian insists he owns Hebron house
Fais Rajabi claims he bought disputed house 15 years ago for his three wives and 22 children. 'I will go to the highest court in the world, this will not go on in silence,' he says
Ali Waked
Published: 03.20.07, 18:56 / Israel News
The strife over the disputed house in Hebron continues to pick up steam and Fais Rajabi – who claims ownership of the structure – fails to understand how the situation deteriorated so far.
Rajabi claimed he purchased the house some 15 years ago and planned to begin inhabiting it next week with his three wives and 22 children. Rajabi said he bought the house from four brothers who inherited it and he has been renovating it since he made the purchase. It's his life's work, he says.
Settlers claim they bought the disputed house
Rajabi estimates he has invested over $1 million in the project. "I bought this house with my hard-earned money, no one ever made any claims in the past, but apparently the settlers saw that all I had left to do was finish tiling and they decided that this is the right moment for them to steal the house," he said.
When asked how he felt about loosing his investment Rajabi said: "May Allah help me. Something that you nurture for years, invest enormous funds in, invest so much work and energy into, a dream that was the center of your life – that's robbed from you with empty claims and lies."
Rajabi vehemently rejects the settler's claim that they purchased the house and own the deed to it. There is no chance he was deceived by the original owner, he said, no chance it was also sold to the settlers.
"I cannot believe there is a man who can sell-out his faith like that, his conscious and his religion. The house is mine and mine alone. The documents I showed the police prove my ownership. The documents the settlers have, fake or not, purchased for money or not – that's not of interest to me. I am the sole owner of the house, and I sold nothing to anyone."
Rajabi claims that the settlers have recently begun observing the house. "I never imagined that it was towards stealing it. I will take this to the Israeli High Court – and if justice is not found there then I will go to the highest court in the world. This will not go on in silence. The house is mine, all of it is mine and only mine, and I will never give it up. This house is my entire life," he said.
The IDF, the Civil Administration and the police said they were looking into documents provided by Rajabi and the settlers, who both claim to be the rightful owners of the house.
Deutoronomy 16:20 – “Justice, justice shall you pursue that you may live and inherit the land which God gave you” and the footnote in the 1980 Hertz Edition “(T)here is international justice, which demands respect for the personality of every national group, and proclaims that no people can of right be robbed of its national life or territory, its language or spiritual heritage.
Micah.6:8 “He has told you, O man, Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God
Within the borders of Hebron, one of the biggest Arab cities in the West Bank, are 120,000 Palestinians. In the old city of Hebron, there are 650 Jewish Israeli squatters and 30,000 Palestinians while around Kiryat Arba the squatterment founded by Rabbi Levinger near Hebron, there are an additional 9,200 squatters.
It is indeed heartening to read that Yossi Deilin is going to introduce this bill. I have likely been too charitable referring to the JISH as "squatters'. Beilin probably knows them well enough to be able to label them more accurately as "Deluded" and "Crazies".
______________________
Beilin calls Hebron Jews ‘deluded’Meretz chairman visits disputed Hebron building, says he intends to submit ‘bill calling for evacuation of all Jews from Hebron’
Tal Rabinovsky
Published: 04.17.07, 20:43 / Israel News
Meretz-Yahad Chairman MK Yossi Beilin received a not-so-warm welcome by extreme right-wing activist Baruch Marzel upon his arrival at the Jewish area of Hebron on Tuesday.
“Spy, foreign agent! You’re pals with Bishara!” Marzel shouted, in an attempt to disrupt Beilin’s visit.
The MK arrived at the town with the purpose of learning more about the daily lives of the Jewish population and the Palestinian residents, following the purchase of the disputed Hebron building.
“I intend on submitting a bill calling for the evacuation of all Jews from Hebron after the summer break. This is a new settlement, and I have been working to evacuate this deluded group since the night they invaded.
“The only question is whether the Olmert government wants to establish a new settlement in Israel today, in 2007" despite its promise not to allow new settlements, Beilin asked.
Beilin began his tour under tight security in Tel Rumeida, where he met Hani Abu Aisha, who told him about the ill treatment, as he called it, his family suffered at the hands of the Jewish residents.
Beilin also visited a grocery store nearby the disputed building, where he tried to evaluate the way the new residents behaved towards the locals. The owner of the store told Beilin about the “cruelty and violence” of the Jewish residents of the building.
There was much disorder at the entrance of the building itself, lead by Noam Arnon, spokesperson for the Jewish settlement in Hebron.
“It was you who brought us the Oslo agreement, you who brought most of the suicide bombers, and you are responsible for all of this suffering,” Arnon said.
Beilin firmly replied, “Go home crazies!”
Palestinian insists he owns Hebron house
Fais Rajabi claims he bought disputed house 15 years ago for his three wives and 22 children. 'I will go to the highest court in the world, this will not go on in silence,' he says
Ali Waked
Published: 03.20.07, 18:56 / Israel News
The strife over the disputed house in Hebron continues to pick up steam and Fais Rajabi – who claims ownership of the structure – fails to understand how the situation deteriorated so far.
Rajabi claimed he purchased the house some 15 years ago and planned to begin inhabiting it next week with his three wives and 22 children. Rajabi said he bought the house from four brothers who inherited it and he has been renovating it since he made the purchase. It's his life's work, he says.
Settlers claim they bought the disputed house
Rajabi estimates he has invested over $1 million in the project. "I bought this house with my hard-earned money, no one ever made any claims in the past, but apparently the settlers saw that all I had left to do was finish tiling and they decided that this is the right moment for them to steal the house," he said.
When asked how he felt about loosing his investment Rajabi said: "May Allah help me. Something that you nurture for years, invest enormous funds in, invest so much work and energy into, a dream that was the center of your life – that's robbed from you with empty claims and lies."
Rajabi vehemently rejects the settler's claim that they purchased the house and own the deed to it. There is no chance he was deceived by the original owner, he said, no chance it was also sold to the settlers.
"I cannot believe there is a man who can sell-out his faith like that, his conscious and his religion. The house is mine and mine alone. The documents I showed the police prove my ownership. The documents the settlers have, fake or not, purchased for money or not – that's not of interest to me. I am the sole owner of the house, and I sold nothing to anyone."
Rajabi claims that the settlers have recently begun observing the house. "I never imagined that it was towards stealing it. I will take this to the Israeli High Court – and if justice is not found there then I will go to the highest court in the world. This will not go on in silence. The house is mine, all of it is mine and only mine, and I will never give it up. This house is my entire life," he said.
The IDF, the Civil Administration and the police said they were looking into documents provided by Rajabi and the settlers, who both claim to be the rightful owners of the house.
_____________________________
The conclusion from a recent post is worth repeating daily: B’Tselem urges the government of Israel to dismantle the Jewish settlement in Hebron.
Deutoronomy 16:20 – “Justice, justice shall you pursue that you may live and inherit the land which God gave you” and the footnote in the 1980 Hertz Edition “(T)here is international justice, which demands respect for the personality of every national group, and proclaims that no people can of right be robbed of its national life or territory, its language or spiritual heritage.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Fighting Anti-Judaism in Hebron - Part 10
Today is Day 14,262 of the Maintenance of the Immoral (and Illegal) West Bank Settlements and almost the 40th anniversary of the start of the immoral (and illegal) occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Micah.6:8 “He has told you, O man, Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God
Within the borders of Hebron, one of the biggest Arab cities in the West Bank, are 120,000 Palestinians. In the old city of Hebron, there are 650 Jewish Israeli squatters and 30,000 Palestinians while around Kiryat Arba the squatterment founded by Rabbi Levinger near Hebron, there are an additional 9,200 squatters.
“Settler Judaism sees the world as always again the Jews, always ready to hurt us – an d hence rejects universal, ethical standards and equates “good” with “what’s good for the Jews.” Similarly settler Judaism assumes that Jewish interests can be achieved through the use of power and coercion, the obliteration of those with whom we disagree, and believes that Jews have some special right to the Land of Israel that allows them to be insensitive to others who live there. Yet in the long-term, the greatest obstacle to Jewish values in Israel as well as in the United States lies in the triumph of the ethos of selfishness and materialism…. (W)e support those who favor a genuinely Jewish society built on principles of love, justice, peace, and caring for others , incuding non0-Jewish others.” P. 133 Healing Israel/Palestine, Rabbi Michael Lerner 2003
The following is a message from Rabbi Arik Ascherman the Executive Director of the Rabbis for Human Rights describing an incident which took place in the South Hebron Hills. The lesson to be learned from this is what the Rabbi’s mother taught him the first time she took me to synagogue, "You can pray in there all that you want. However, if you come out and punch somebody, it didn't do you any good."
After reading this article, no one should ever again be able to automatically assume that a person who goes to a temple or a synagogue or strictly complies with traditional customs and ceremonies of Judaism is a “good” person; in fact, some of them are vicious, violent, deceitful and filled with hate. They have not incorporated into their lives what we usually think of as the core values of Judaism, some of which Rabbi Ascherman lists at the end of this message. It is for that reason that I refer to their actions as Anti-Judaism.
Dear Friends and Supporters, shalom:
In addition to our invitation (sent yesterday) to see and hear me while I'm in your area on this current trip to the U.S., I thought you might be very interested to read my comments about the attack on me, RHR volunteers, and Palestinian shepherds that took place Friday.
Many of you have already heard the basic facts. On Friday settlers from Pnei Khever attacked Palestinian shepherds from El-Buweib. We feared that one of the Palestinians was seriously injured after being pushed to the ground, but he is fine. Another elderly Palestinian man was also pushed to the ground. One of our RHR volunteers was lightly injured when a settler twisted her arm trying to steal and destroy a camera. She was kicked as she lay on the ground protecting it. Several cameras were damaged. I had been further away trying to prevent one of the settlers from scaring away the sheep, but had to hurry back as one of our volunteers called to say that things had turned violent.I was pushed and slapped around by this maniac with a baton in his hand as I intervened and stood between him and additional targets, but suffered no injuries. His first words to me were, "I am not stupid like the others. I have broken the cameras and there will be no evidence." He proceeded to threaten to murder me and my family. He also claimed to have known me from the time we were in the Reform youth movement as teenagers in the U.S. A teenager from Ma'aleh Adumim was his accomplice.
It took almost an hour for security forces to arrive, even though we had notified the DCO the previous day that we would be working in the area, and I called them the moment the first two settlers and their dog arrived. My appeals to the other settlers to restrain the two also fell upon deaf ears. I was detained along with the two most violent settlers because they concocted a story in which I attacked them and stole their camera. (The original lie being that our camera was his. After I told the officers that we had proof of purchase and there were pictures from other days proving that it was our camera, he changed his lie to a claim that we had stolen and then disposed of another camera which he refused to describe.) Of course, the raging settler became as sweet as pie whenever the security forces were in earshot. He suggested that we meet for coffee, taught Torah to the police officers hanging on to his every word (He is a rabbi), squinted convincingly through his glasses in which one of the lenses was missing (his "proof" that he had been attacked.) and mourned the fact that he had offered to talk, but we weren't interested. We are very concerned that the police will dismiss the entire affair as claims and counterclaims, but we do have video to back up our position and it was the settlers that had to sign on conditions for release. I didn't. Our legal staff is following up to insure that our complaints are dealt with seriously. I really appreciate all of the phone calls and emails expressing concern. I know that the incident also made the press. However, it was others who were injured more than I and, unfortunately, such daily occurrences for Palestinians don't make the news when there isn't an Israeli rabbi involved.
As so often with these events, I relive them in my head afterwords and think about what I/we should have done and what I should have said. I demand of myself and of all of our volunteers to refrain from verbal as well as physical violence. However, perhaps I was too calm as we waited in the police station after these settlers had injured Palestinians and an RHR volunteer, threatened my family and stopped the Palestinians from accessing the land. And, although part of our discussion waiting around in the police station was about the week's Torah portion (Akharei Mot/Kedoshim), I was struck as we read from the Torah in synagogue on Shabbat how many commandments from Kedoshim had been violated that day. So, indulge me to write here what I should have said then:
1. In the police station, the settler (Dov) tried to be very friendly, but also belittled my religiousity and my Jewish knowledge. He asked how many times I had read through the Shulkah Arukh, etc. I didn't deem this worthy of reply. However, I should have reminded him of what my mother taught me the first time she took me to synagogue, "You can pray in there all that you want. However, if you come out and punch somebody, it didn't do you any good." This rabbi is clearly knowlegable about Jewish texts and made a point about how he loves to start Shabbat early. It is possible that he knows more Jewish texts than I do and his love of Shabbat is admirable. However, on Friday he attacked Palestinians, damaged cameras and injured one of our volunteers. He would do well to learn some Torah from my mother. I would be willing to study Torah together in order to try to get him to understand how one must treat fellow human beings. I will not hate or ignore his humanity or cease trying to understand his point of view, but there is no room for a friendly cup of coffee with somebody who has unrepentedly attacked women and the elderly, threatened my family and who does everything he can to strip people of their land.
2. This settler repeated time after time that there was no legitimacy to secular law, but that we recognized halakha and Jewish law. We should have gone through Parashat Kedoshim verse by verse:
Leviticus 19:11 "Don't steal." Settlers, backed by the State, certainly violate this one. Although at one point he said he had bought the land, his basic position was that there is no theft because the Torah gives the entire Land of Israel to the Jewish People. He forgets that throughout the generations most of the greatest rabbis have upheld the property rights of non-Jews in the Land of Israel. The Civil Administration representative who arrived claimed that this was "probably State Land," although he wasn't sure and both settlers and Palestinians had a right to be there. Even if it is State Land, much state land is privately owned land which the Jordanians failed to register; and the 4th Geneva Convention requires genuine State land to be held for the good of the Palestinians.
Leviticus 19:11 "Don't lie." Dov's concocted stories contained plenty of lies.
Leviticus 19:13:"Don't oppress your neighbor, don't steal" See above.
Leviticus 19:15: "Don't commit injustice in legal judgements.”.Pnei Khever is "legal" according to Israel. It is part of the entire system of stealing land "legally." While what to do with settlements founded in violation of international law is a political question beyond our mandate as a human rights organization, theft must be identified for what it is.
Leviticus 19:16: "Do not bear false tales." During this entire episode, I was accused of murdering Dov Dribben (I was already awared damages because of these libelous claims, but, as I told the settlers, they are entrapped by their own stereotypes. There was a new twist, as I was also accused of the murder of an additional settler. I should have told them that, while I had nothing to do with either reprehensible murder (not entirely clear if Dov Dribben was murdered or if the death was accidental), in the case of three murdered settlers from the S. Hebron Hills, I had heard their names for years because they had constantly harrassed Palestinians.
Leviticus 19:16: "Do not stand idly by while your neighbor bleeds." The security forces who took so long to arrive and the remaining settlers who did nothing to restrain their friend...
Leviticus 19:17:"Do not hate your brother/sister in your heart. Rebuke your fellow." There was certainly rebuke and I suppose they don't consider Palestinians their brothers or sisters. However, we Israelis certainly also had a lot of hate directed at us.
Leviticus 19:18 "You shall love your fellow as yourself." Self evident, except to those who do not wish to see non-Jews as their fellows.
Leviticus 19:32 "Rise before the aged and honor the elderly." Pushing an elderly man to the ground is not exactly honor.
Leviticus 19:33-35. "When a stranger lives amongst you do not oppress him/her. Treat the stranger living among you as a citizen. Love him as yourself for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. Do not commit injustice in legal judgements or in weights and measures." Dov maintains that all this applies only to converts to Judaism (rabbinic judaism distinguished between "ger toshav," the resident alien and "ger tzedek," the convert). There are some who claim as Dov does. However, when I asked about "for you were strangers in the Land of Egypt" Dov argued that the Jews had converted to Egyptian religion....
The bottom line is that we have several people injured and the Palestinians are still effectively denied access to the lands adjacent to Penei Khaver. We will need to determine as individuals, as Israelis and as Jews whether the State of Israel, whose Independence Day we also observed as we read Kedoshim last week, will make those words live or not.
Rabbi Arik W. Ascherman
Executive Director
Rabbis For Human Rights
Deutoronomy 16:20 – “Justice, justice shall you pursue that you may live and inherit the land which God gave you” and the footnote in the 1980 Hertz Edition “(T)here is international justice, which demands respect for the personality of every national group, and proclaims that no people can of right be robbed of its national life or territory, its language or spiritual heritage.
Micah.6:8 “He has told you, O man, Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God
Within the borders of Hebron, one of the biggest Arab cities in the West Bank, are 120,000 Palestinians. In the old city of Hebron, there are 650 Jewish Israeli squatters and 30,000 Palestinians while around Kiryat Arba the squatterment founded by Rabbi Levinger near Hebron, there are an additional 9,200 squatters.
“Settler Judaism sees the world as always again the Jews, always ready to hurt us – an d hence rejects universal, ethical standards and equates “good” with “what’s good for the Jews.” Similarly settler Judaism assumes that Jewish interests can be achieved through the use of power and coercion, the obliteration of those with whom we disagree, and believes that Jews have some special right to the Land of Israel that allows them to be insensitive to others who live there. Yet in the long-term, the greatest obstacle to Jewish values in Israel as well as in the United States lies in the triumph of the ethos of selfishness and materialism…. (W)e support those who favor a genuinely Jewish society built on principles of love, justice, peace, and caring for others , incuding non0-Jewish others.” P. 133 Healing Israel/Palestine, Rabbi Michael Lerner 2003
The following is a message from Rabbi Arik Ascherman the Executive Director of the Rabbis for Human Rights describing an incident which took place in the South Hebron Hills. The lesson to be learned from this is what the Rabbi’s mother taught him the first time she took me to synagogue, "You can pray in there all that you want. However, if you come out and punch somebody, it didn't do you any good."
After reading this article, no one should ever again be able to automatically assume that a person who goes to a temple or a synagogue or strictly complies with traditional customs and ceremonies of Judaism is a “good” person; in fact, some of them are vicious, violent, deceitful and filled with hate. They have not incorporated into their lives what we usually think of as the core values of Judaism, some of which Rabbi Ascherman lists at the end of this message. It is for that reason that I refer to their actions as Anti-Judaism.
Dear Friends and Supporters, shalom:
In addition to our invitation (sent yesterday) to see and hear me while I'm in your area on this current trip to the U.S., I thought you might be very interested to read my comments about the attack on me, RHR volunteers, and Palestinian shepherds that took place Friday.
Many of you have already heard the basic facts. On Friday settlers from Pnei Khever attacked Palestinian shepherds from El-Buweib. We feared that one of the Palestinians was seriously injured after being pushed to the ground, but he is fine. Another elderly Palestinian man was also pushed to the ground. One of our RHR volunteers was lightly injured when a settler twisted her arm trying to steal and destroy a camera. She was kicked as she lay on the ground protecting it. Several cameras were damaged. I had been further away trying to prevent one of the settlers from scaring away the sheep, but had to hurry back as one of our volunteers called to say that things had turned violent.I was pushed and slapped around by this maniac with a baton in his hand as I intervened and stood between him and additional targets, but suffered no injuries. His first words to me were, "I am not stupid like the others. I have broken the cameras and there will be no evidence." He proceeded to threaten to murder me and my family. He also claimed to have known me from the time we were in the Reform youth movement as teenagers in the U.S. A teenager from Ma'aleh Adumim was his accomplice.
It took almost an hour for security forces to arrive, even though we had notified the DCO the previous day that we would be working in the area, and I called them the moment the first two settlers and their dog arrived. My appeals to the other settlers to restrain the two also fell upon deaf ears. I was detained along with the two most violent settlers because they concocted a story in which I attacked them and stole their camera. (The original lie being that our camera was his. After I told the officers that we had proof of purchase and there were pictures from other days proving that it was our camera, he changed his lie to a claim that we had stolen and then disposed of another camera which he refused to describe.) Of course, the raging settler became as sweet as pie whenever the security forces were in earshot. He suggested that we meet for coffee, taught Torah to the police officers hanging on to his every word (He is a rabbi), squinted convincingly through his glasses in which one of the lenses was missing (his "proof" that he had been attacked.) and mourned the fact that he had offered to talk, but we weren't interested. We are very concerned that the police will dismiss the entire affair as claims and counterclaims, but we do have video to back up our position and it was the settlers that had to sign on conditions for release. I didn't. Our legal staff is following up to insure that our complaints are dealt with seriously. I really appreciate all of the phone calls and emails expressing concern. I know that the incident also made the press. However, it was others who were injured more than I and, unfortunately, such daily occurrences for Palestinians don't make the news when there isn't an Israeli rabbi involved.
As so often with these events, I relive them in my head afterwords and think about what I/we should have done and what I should have said. I demand of myself and of all of our volunteers to refrain from verbal as well as physical violence. However, perhaps I was too calm as we waited in the police station after these settlers had injured Palestinians and an RHR volunteer, threatened my family and stopped the Palestinians from accessing the land. And, although part of our discussion waiting around in the police station was about the week's Torah portion (Akharei Mot/Kedoshim), I was struck as we read from the Torah in synagogue on Shabbat how many commandments from Kedoshim had been violated that day. So, indulge me to write here what I should have said then:
1. In the police station, the settler (Dov) tried to be very friendly, but also belittled my religiousity and my Jewish knowledge. He asked how many times I had read through the Shulkah Arukh, etc. I didn't deem this worthy of reply. However, I should have reminded him of what my mother taught me the first time she took me to synagogue, "You can pray in there all that you want. However, if you come out and punch somebody, it didn't do you any good." This rabbi is clearly knowlegable about Jewish texts and made a point about how he loves to start Shabbat early. It is possible that he knows more Jewish texts than I do and his love of Shabbat is admirable. However, on Friday he attacked Palestinians, damaged cameras and injured one of our volunteers. He would do well to learn some Torah from my mother. I would be willing to study Torah together in order to try to get him to understand how one must treat fellow human beings. I will not hate or ignore his humanity or cease trying to understand his point of view, but there is no room for a friendly cup of coffee with somebody who has unrepentedly attacked women and the elderly, threatened my family and who does everything he can to strip people of their land.
2. This settler repeated time after time that there was no legitimacy to secular law, but that we recognized halakha and Jewish law. We should have gone through Parashat Kedoshim verse by verse:
Leviticus 19:11 "Don't steal." Settlers, backed by the State, certainly violate this one. Although at one point he said he had bought the land, his basic position was that there is no theft because the Torah gives the entire Land of Israel to the Jewish People. He forgets that throughout the generations most of the greatest rabbis have upheld the property rights of non-Jews in the Land of Israel. The Civil Administration representative who arrived claimed that this was "probably State Land," although he wasn't sure and both settlers and Palestinians had a right to be there. Even if it is State Land, much state land is privately owned land which the Jordanians failed to register; and the 4th Geneva Convention requires genuine State land to be held for the good of the Palestinians.
Leviticus 19:11 "Don't lie." Dov's concocted stories contained plenty of lies.
Leviticus 19:13:"Don't oppress your neighbor, don't steal" See above.
Leviticus 19:15: "Don't commit injustice in legal judgements.”.Pnei Khever is "legal" according to Israel. It is part of the entire system of stealing land "legally." While what to do with settlements founded in violation of international law is a political question beyond our mandate as a human rights organization, theft must be identified for what it is.
Leviticus 19:16: "Do not bear false tales." During this entire episode, I was accused of murdering Dov Dribben (I was already awared damages because of these libelous claims, but, as I told the settlers, they are entrapped by their own stereotypes. There was a new twist, as I was also accused of the murder of an additional settler. I should have told them that, while I had nothing to do with either reprehensible murder (not entirely clear if Dov Dribben was murdered or if the death was accidental), in the case of three murdered settlers from the S. Hebron Hills, I had heard their names for years because they had constantly harrassed Palestinians.
Leviticus 19:16: "Do not stand idly by while your neighbor bleeds." The security forces who took so long to arrive and the remaining settlers who did nothing to restrain their friend...
Leviticus 19:17:"Do not hate your brother/sister in your heart. Rebuke your fellow." There was certainly rebuke and I suppose they don't consider Palestinians their brothers or sisters. However, we Israelis certainly also had a lot of hate directed at us.
Leviticus 19:18 "You shall love your fellow as yourself." Self evident, except to those who do not wish to see non-Jews as their fellows.
Leviticus 19:32 "Rise before the aged and honor the elderly." Pushing an elderly man to the ground is not exactly honor.
Leviticus 19:33-35. "When a stranger lives amongst you do not oppress him/her. Treat the stranger living among you as a citizen. Love him as yourself for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. Do not commit injustice in legal judgements or in weights and measures." Dov maintains that all this applies only to converts to Judaism (rabbinic judaism distinguished between "ger toshav," the resident alien and "ger tzedek," the convert). There are some who claim as Dov does. However, when I asked about "for you were strangers in the Land of Egypt" Dov argued that the Jews had converted to Egyptian religion....
The bottom line is that we have several people injured and the Palestinians are still effectively denied access to the lands adjacent to Penei Khaver. We will need to determine as individuals, as Israelis and as Jews whether the State of Israel, whose Independence Day we also observed as we read Kedoshim last week, will make those words live or not.
Rabbi Arik W. Ascherman
Executive Director
Rabbis For Human Rights
Deutoronomy 16:20 – “Justice, justice shall you pursue that you may live and inherit the land which God gave you” and the footnote in the 1980 Hertz Edition “(T)here is international justice, which demands respect for the personality of every national group, and proclaims that no people can of right be robbed of its national life or territory, its language or spiritual heritage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
