Here is a demonstration planned in Chicago at the AIPAC conference there on October 25-27. Stand Up to AIPAC! Election year demos in Chicago always fill me with radical nostalgia. There will be a "hotel vigil." Ccool. The slogan is catchy. "Apartheid: Wrong for South Africans/Wrong for Palestinians." Former senator James Abourezk will speak. So will Alison Weir of If Americans Knew. The water in the aquarium is changing, did you notice? People will say these are far-left voices (Dan Fleshler once said that of me) but how far out are we when the far-right neocons are all being cast away on some island in the political equivalent of Survivor.
Related posts:
{ 11 comments }
You're still far out, in that your math/judgement does not include the violence done to Israelis.
I sent you an email of an article in Haaretz, stating that there is likely to be conflict between PA and Hamas in Hebron, that Hamas is active in Hebron.
And, I then posed the question about your and others perceptions of what you saw in Hebron, about whether the cause of conflict is mutual, not entirely unilateral.
You seem to either not care about war or terror, or have fantasies that without the occupation of the West Bank, that the attitudes and behavior of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, etc will magically change for the better.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe your math is not far out, not prejudicially selective.
Maybe you integrate the history of assaults on Jews over a century into your thinking, and you bring non-judgemental compassion to all parties.
Maybe you really are committed to a mutually respectful two-state solution that is a real peace.
Richard, this is not a mutual conflict. Not in "Judea and Samaria". This is Israel stealing Palestinian land over the last decades and wondering why the Palestinians don't simply leave (many have) or fall on their knees and demand a few crumbs of bread to survive …
Since 1967, the story is of increasing annexation of land, displacement of Palestinian civilians, legal ambiguity as to title of state lands (the majority of the land).
Prior to 1967, the story was of ethnic cleansing of Jews from much of the same land.
And currently, the story includes harrassment by zealot Arabs and harrassment by zealot Jews.
Neither of which accept each other.
Too funny. Witty, the Goliath giant blown up with his Gentile fellow citizens, fancies he is David. What's always left out of all Witty's fake humanistic principles is the issue of power. Did either mainstream USA presidential candidate say they are Pro-Palestinians? Didn't 60% of all USA congress and all mainstream USA presidential candidates bow before the last AIPAC meeting?
Witty is like an old school WASP, circa 1950.
He is the perfect case example of what Phil means by what has happened since Jews have become a significant part of the power establishment.
Also, of what Truman said about that–and that's where Americans drew the short straw, and its been so ever since. Too bad Truman's individual egotism was such a mote in his small
town eye. (Hey, there's hope for Sarah Palin).
Mr. Witty, you can't seriously believe that a two-state solution is even remotely possible? Have you seen a map of the distribution of colonies and their associated Jews-only road networks in the OPT? The Israeli government has zero control over the colonists (just a conduit for the money), and the stability, even the existence, of the state is utterly dependent upon their cooperation. It boggles my mind that people are signing on to this two-state fantasy after it is twenty years too late. Your own words: "…a mutually respectful two-state solution that is a real peace." Mr. Witty, this is a fantasy. Is a two state solution truly what you want? I apologize if I have come across as disrespectful. I did not mean to be, rather, I am incredulous. I'm trying to understand your primary objective. There HAS to be some common ground here.
Judicious abstraction is necessary in all analysis, and I see 4 major 'active' interest groups here: American Jews, Israeli Jews, Palestinians, and American gentiles. I realize that this is a simple model. I think it can be a useful starting point to foster a discussion. If you prefer a more complex model, I am open to suggestions. What do YOU want? And how do you think it can be achieved? I would like to hear your opinion on characterization of each of the four 'actors' and their needs and wants, and your conjecture on a solution to the conflict that you find acceptable. I'm willing to share mine, and I'll go first if you want.
Colin,
I want peace.
I agree with your assessment of the current trend (too long in the making) of relentless gradual annexation of the West Bank, by a strategy of intentional (or merely opportunistic) division and isolation of Palestine.
The way that I see that peace is possible is the Arab League proposal as far as boundaries. I differ with their proposal for right of return and recent revision to the protocol to get there. (Suggesting to many that they might not mean what they say.)
That is that the green line (or genuinely consented modifications to the green line) as boundary.
In order for that to come to be justly, two legal precedents are necessary in Israel and Palestine in parallel.
1. Establishment of similar color-blind rule of law, applied on the basis of legislation tested against precedent, constitutional and natural law.
2. Everybody gets their day in court, to argue their relative merits to title, and that EACH court system apply methods of remedy that emphasize allowing current residents to perfect their title.
If you actually study the basis of title in the region, it has changed radically over the last century, and in ALL acres illustrates a conflict between modern European basis of title (Ottoman reforms -> British law -> Israeli law (a step forward and to the side at the same time)).
The basis of title for most Palestinians is residence NOT ownership perse. Title by residence is always unperfected. It takes some compensation or other consented means for the title shift from a status of contested to consented.
It applies to INDIVIDUAL rights. ANY application of title on the basis of political assertion is contrary to the rule of law, and is the rule of the mob.
The most ambiguous title status is on state lands, that were Ottoman state lands, then British state lands, then Jordanian state lands, then ambiguously Israeli.
There is a very good argument that as an occupier Israel cannot claim even former Jordanian state land as Israeli. There is also a good argument that Jordanian state land is the same status as occupier, and not transferrable to individual Palestinian title, at least not without EQUAL DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LAW.
If you think that individuals don't deserve their day in court, then you are a mob advocate, rather than a law advocate.
And, if that is the case, please refrain from ever using the term "tribal" in your lifetime.
If a two-state solution is impossible, then Israel will come to annex the whole region and forcibly remove those that object.
After two hundred years of isolation but successful defense, people will gradually forget that the six generations of Jews in the region acquired a large portion of the land that they reside on duplicitously.
As, after 1800 years, and multiple waves of ethnic cleansing of Jews from the region, people have forgotten Jewish historical presence and duplicitous expulsion.
Each with beneficiaries that walk in guilt, and simultaneously groundless but forceful assertion that "we were ALWAYS here", and "the land is ours and NOT theirs and NOT shared peacefully".
The radical action to encourage is ACCEPTANCE OF THE OTHER.
In each community, that is what fulfills their religious imperative.
Any action that encourages contempt of the other, or contempt of one's own (described as "other"), is wrong and harmful and fraudulently "just".
Where exactly would South Africa be in 2008 if, instead of giving vote to black south africans, they would send each and every one of them through the judicial system to establish their right to vote?
And until the entire process was completed, they would maintain status quo…
This is practical application of your solution Richard, to speak in platitudes, while allowing the obscenities of occupation to continue.
Eva,
The day in court applies to title, as well as every legal remedy, same as the US, same as Europe.
Dissent without a specific goal, is just anger, and ultimately results in the same situation of collective punishment, just to different parties.
Your against the occupation I take it?
I'm as well, which is why I propose an alternative that prospectively shifts the relationships in the region from contested to consented.
I've seen revolutionary states. I was a progressive journalist (what an embellishment) in DC in 1980 while the Nicaraguan revolution was forming up, and the Iranian student revolution was asserting itself. I met high-ranking individuals in each. At least 1/2 of the individuals that I met/interviewed/conferenced, were purged and killed.
I prefer a kinder and more thoughtful approach.
Comments on this entry are closed.