In April the American Friends Service Committee organized an important daylong mock Congressional hearing on whether US foreign policy towards Israel/Palestine upholds American values. The organizers explain:
Rather than wait for Congress to debate the morality and utility of U.S. policy towards Israel and Palestine, we decided to hold an independent hearing, calling upon people who have directly experienced or witnessed the effects of the occupation to tell their stories. We invited Israelis, Palestinians and Americans to testify and assembled a distinguished panel of listeners, composed of academics, clergy and a Senate staff member, to question and draw out the ramifications of these testimonies. We sought to lift up the voices and hopes of those people who are never seen on television or discussed with compassion in Congress.
They have just released a 29-page report on the conference findings to coincide with the resumption of US-led talks between Israel and the Palestinians. In an AFSC press release Middle East Program director Miryam Rashid says, "We feel this report is critical reading for all who are concerned about finding a just solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. American values are not being upheld in our government’s policies in Israel and Palestine, and the reality is that negotiations will only succeed when human rights and international laws are no longer ignored."
Here's the report:
Very informative but ultimately utterly incomplete for the absence of content on the state of internal Palestinian politics, and recent and continual history of terror on Israeli civilians by virtually all political factions.
It compels strong motivation to reform.
We agree on that.
There are some minor innaccuracies in the report. For example on the map of Palestinian sovereignty, until 67 the West Bank is described as “Palestinian territory” which is innaccurate. It was Jordanian, and Gaza was Egyptian.
Also, Jeff Halper’s description “I know of no occassion where a court ruled in a Palestinian’s favor on land claim” (I’m paraphrasing), doesn’t ring true to me. I understood that the Israeli Supreme Court ruled against the state and Jewish Agency on numerous occassions, and took a lot of heat for it.
You mean like: link to vanityfair.com
You simply must be referring to these statistics?
link to huffingtonpost.com
Witty may be refering to incidents like this, which so conform to our values: link to intifada-palestine.com
Also, is anyone really surprised that Witty believes in the racist “There’s no such thing as Palestine” canard?
Chaos, that’s because Witty does not read history, is unaware of the recently declassified documents in Oxford University that make a mockery of his supposed knowledge of Palestine, and he has not read the British White Papers in the permanent collection at Yale University that underscore the inaccuracy of his conclusions. At no time did the British Mandate of Palestine — from 1917 to 1948 — intend to create anything other than a Jewish homeland within Palestine, and at no time was there ever to be a Jewish government separate and distinct from a Palestinian government in Palestine.
They meant that it is land inhabited by Palestinians, hence “Palestinian Territory”. Are you saying they were not Palestinians?
*”inaccurate” is spelled with one “N”, not two.
Then provide supporting evidence. Why do you continue to speculate and expect your words to suffice? You don’t have the credibility to afford that kind of luxury, you know.
*”occasions” is spelled with one “S” after the “A”, not two.
It compels strong motivation to reform.
We agree on that.
No, ‘reform’ is your repetitive verbal dance and a meaningless diversionary statement considering the circumstances, and the point of the document I might add, which is to indict the United States of America for abdicating its core values.
Everyone else here wants justice, and equal human rights. Which are core American values.
P.S. “Reform” is not a value, certainly not a core value. It’s a redesign, an alteration, an adjustment. You need a dictionary.
A Palestinian American’s reply to Richard Witty, the winsome Golda Meir’s echo chamber:
link to tech.mit.edu
As everybody here knows except Witty, governing the Palestine Mandate land, from which land the state of Israel came into being, included governing Palestinian jews, and Palestinan christians and muslims. Does anyone not know whom is referred to when one says “native Americans?” Or, in the American context, “Indians?”
Relative to the number of non-Jewish people living in the Palestine Mandate, the Jewish number was tiny in the early decades of the 20th Century. Today, of course, the numbers are about equal–due to Jews moving to Israel from all over the world.
“Very informative but ultimately utterly incomplete for the absence of content on the state of internal Palestinian politics, and recent and continual history of terror on Israeli civilians by virtually all political factions.”‘
It’s absent becasue it’s irrelevant and it’s irrelevant becasue it has no consequence in reality.
“It compels strong motivation to reform.”
Motivation for whom Witty? 67% of Israelis support the illgal settlements.
“There are some minor innaccuracies in the report. For example on the map of Palestinian sovereignty, until 67 the West Bank is described as “Palestinian territory” which is innaccurate. It was Jordanian, and Gaza was Egyptian.”
False Witty. The West Bank was not Jordanian. Jordan was occupying the West Bank. It was never part of Jordan.
“I understood that the Israeli Supreme Court ruled against the state and Jewish Agency on numerous occassions, and took a lot of heat for it.”
It ruled in theory but opposed the Palestinian claim in practice.
A remarkable event and an important report — many thanks to AFSC Chicago.
I agree. And it’s about time someone pointed out the glaring contradiction.
Robert Lieber at a C Span audience
Lieber’s appearance on C Span Washington Journal two years ago gives a glimpse into the way propaganda techniques were and still are used to make Americans think their values converge with zionist values.
At about 7 minutes, a Caller protests Lieber’s insistence that “Americans, both political parties, and all three presidential candidates” support Israel. Lieber tells the caller that he is “factually wrong.”
This was a maddening program: a man who represents a foreign state has more power and access to media to demand my allegiance to his state and his values rather than to my own.
Thanks, AFSC, for giving me a voice.
Jeff Halper is formidable. An expert in the field, articulate, passionate and packing the credibility of being a (naturalized) Israeli.
You can’t top Cindy Corrie as a moral voice; Amer Shurab’s testimony was heart-wrenching; Jeff Ruebner wields the stats in a most compelling way.
The report’s theme question is a total knock-out.
Kudos to AFSC!
There is an incisive comment by Jeff Halper in the report that cuts through to the heart of the problem:
The map detailing the slow-motion ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the gradual takeover of Palestine through exclusivist Israeli control is alarming and says it all without any additional commentary.
Yet the participants of the “peace process” still assure us that there can be real peace if only the Palestinians renounce terrorism and accept Israel, politically and physically.
This document should be required reading for the Israelis, so they can witness how the fierce actions of their leaders and supporters sealed the deal for Zionism.
There isn’t exclusiveness in Israel proper. 20% of Israelis are non-Jewish.
There is prejudice and less than equal due process under the law.
There is however the desire for exclusiveness in the West Bank, expressed in law prohibiting the sale of land to a Jew.
“expressed in law prohibiting the sale of land to a Jew.”
Gosh, has there ever been anything like that attitude in the history of Zionism?
And anyway, Richard, given the context, where hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews have illegally moved into occupied territory, don’t you think your comparison is just a little dishonest? By the way, how many hundreds of thousands of West Bankers have been allowed to move back inside the 1967 borders?
“There isn’t exclusiveness in Israel proper. 20% of Israelis are non-Jewish.”‘
Rubbish. Those 20% are only allowed to build and live on 3% of the land, seeing as 93% is reserved excluively for Jewish immigrants.
”There is prejudice and less than equal due process under the law.”
Yes, we there’s a name for it. Apartheid.
“There is however the desire for exclusiveness in the West Bank, expressed in law prohibiting the sale of land to a Jew.”
That’s quite an amusing theory seeing as Israel is the only authority that isses permits, and is demolishing homes and evicting people.
According to your special talmudic light to the world, Witty, there wasn’t ever exclusiveness in the USA either, nor in old S Africa.
“There is however the desire for exclusiveness in the West Bank, expressed in law prohibiting the sale of land to a Jew.”
Considering what happened to the rest of Palestine when Jews were allowed to buy land, this seems like a pretty sensible precaution.
There isn’t exclusiveness in Israel proper. 20% of Israelis are non-Jewish.
You are twisting Halper’s words. He names Zionism as exclusivist, a political movement of which Israel is the physical product. To that end, yes, it is true that there are non-Jewish Israelis. That is your observation which in no way contradicts Halper’s observation. Going back to his original statement, Halper’s point still stands that the non-Jewish minority in question is inherently disadvantaged, mistreated and structurally discriminated against in all realms of political, cultural and at times even physical spheres of life due to the Zionist exclusivist nature of Israel.
I love the American friends but they seem so politically naive. More power to them.
AFSC may “seem politically naive,” but they manage to maintain a seat at a very hostile table. AFSC uses numerous tools of protest and has done so for many years. Furthermore, AFSC has “track two diplomacy” stations, and is trusted by “enemies” of the US, in states throughout the Middle East.
link to haaretz.com
Hamas official: Israeli settlers are a legitimate military target
Israeli settlers in the West Bank are legitimate targets since they are an army in every sense of the word, a senior Hamas official told the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper on Saturday, adding that Palestinians were still committed to an armed struggle against Israel.
Is Hamas policy in harmony with American values?
“Is Hamas policy in harmony with American values?”
Unfortunately yes. We support Israel, after all. I mean it’s in harmony with our real values, the ones we practice, not the ones we profess.
Israeli settlers are criminals, by the way. Not deserving the death penalty, but people who choose to benefit from apartheid.
On the values issue, I suggest America support neither Hamas nor Israel.
Israel certainly seems committed to an armed struggle against Hamas, and Hamas members are considered legitimate targets of assassination.
Illustrating the profound injustice of the Israeli position towards Palestinians, as well as the US support of this injustice, is as simple as switching the words “Israel” or “Jew” with “Palestinian” or “Arab.” If anyone made remarks about Jews that Israelis routinely make about Arabs, they would be hanged for antisemitism.
case in point: on, why more people think Obama is a Muslim: (at 3.45 min)
Consider that bolded statement: What if Abramovitz had said, or if a the Moderator or a member of the public had said, “generally the perception of Jews, or of Israel, among a good part of the American population is pretty negative.
see my comment at 9:00 am today to see what happened when someone resisted Robert Lieber’s declaration that “Americans support Israel and not Palestinians.”
“Hamas official: Israeli settlers are a legitimate military target”
If Palestinians were in Israel stealing land, you can be certain Israel would be claiming their rightto defend themselves ie. killing them.
“adding that Palestinians were still committed to an armed struggle against Israel”
Makes perfect sense seeing as Israelis are still committed to an armed occupation.
Exactly, Shingo. Just this week, a mob of armed settlers came and expropriated the land belonging to a Palestinian village. The Palestinians were helpless to defend themselves, as they are not allowed by Israel to have arms, and Israel, with its monopoly on force, refuses to defend them.
Why the hell should they not use force against these thugs? “Palestinians should have the right to defend themselves.”
Netanahu is recently on record saying he will never agree to the Palestinians having their own army in any future state.
If Palestinians were in Israel stealing land, you can be certain Israel would be claiming their rightto defend themselves ie. killing them.
Israel would sooner kill a Palestinian finding his way back to his native home (as they did following the Nakba) than sit around and have the land gradually colonized by thieving thugs supported by a military occupation.
Hell, near the Gaza fence, the IDF doesn’t even need the Palestinains to cross over from the Palestinian side of the border to justify their lethal shootings.
As always, according to the liberal Zionist, the Palestinian is to be penalized for doing anything that does not conform to their Gandhian expectations of the occupied people, who are ideally of a subservient nature that warmly invites their Israeli conqueror. Any other action or attitude is a recipe for eternal conflict. On the subject of relentless and endless Israeli transgressions, however, their ilk is famously silent.
This is such a joke. You lose the argument up the thread and so now you resume your “HAMAS IS TEH EVILLLL!!!!” canard?
You’re so transparently inept at this debate it’s getting comical.
Witty, when was the last time you saw American civilians walking around the streets with M-16s slung over their shoulders?
“Hamas official: Israeli settlers are a legitimate military target”
Let’s try that again Witty. The quote is that “Israeli settlers in the West Bank are legitimate targets since they are an army in every sense of the word”
How come Zionists can never ever address the content on Mondoweiss? They make wild statements unsubstantiated by fact and propped up only by their extremism and bigotry, and when they lose the argument because someone does something as simple as quote facts at them, they just spam more distractions on a new thread.
Why are we entertaining the notion that it’s worthwhile to try to reach out to Zionists in honest debate? There has been zero evidence that Zionists will ever meet us on the rhetorical battlefield without resorting to propaganda, intellectual dishonesty, personal attacks and outright lies.
Now, now, the self-proclaimed and self-governing liberal zionist Richard Witty, for one, often merely plays word games, for example, with the word “Palestinian” or the word “exclusive” –he relies on his usual taking a word out of context. It must be more fun to him than writing his own barren yet preachy blog.
Chaos4700 wrote: There has been zero evidence that Zionists will ever meet us on the rhetorical battlefield without resorting to propaganda, intellectual dishonesty, personal attacks and outright lies.
perhaps because you posted that comment on Mondoweiss, unique, or at least groundbreaking in that it DOES permit and encourage the free exchange of ideas, even ugly ideas, you forgot to include another favorite tactic zionists us to shut down debate to which they have no substantive response: censorship/silencing/ muzzling.
Muzzling has been so effective that the masses are unaware that the Other Side — or at least Muslims — are represented.
In addition, the dominating side speaks for ALL sides of the debate (see Robert Lieber, above); James Zogby alluded to this phenomon in a panel discussion on the Image of Muslims in the US :link to c-spanvideo.org
Zogby said that “Bush got it right” in cautioning Americans that Islam was deserving of respect as all other religions. However, Zogby continued,
In a panel discussion last week,
Yeah it was interesting how that panel meticulously avoided naming names in that cottage industry.
The time lapse maps of Palestinian land ownership (1946 to present) on page 6 of the document resemble Louisiana’s eroding salt marshes, inexorably dwindling to nothing.
For Israel, ‘too much ain’t enough.’
Too bad ‘the people’ have to conduct their own shadow hearings, now that our compliant rubber-stamp parliament has been co-opted by the Lobby.
In line with the trend toward corporate sponsorship of public facilities, perhaps the legislative seat could be rebadged as the ‘AIPAC Capitol Building’ in return for a modest donation.