Israel must change for the sake of peace

I've been thinking a lot about Palestine the last few days, especially since hearing the news of the leaked documents that shows how the Palestinian Authority made all kinds of concessions to Israel, including giving up on the right of return. The PA also agreed to let Israel keep large parts of illegally occupied East Jerusalem. To this incredible (incredibly stupid) offer Israel said no thanks and gave no counter-offer. My first reaction was "is this really true?" Well it turned out to be true, and the documents were leaked to and by Al Jazeera. How embarrassing for the PA. They really are puppets, it seems. How sad for the Palestinians. Israel has taken four-fifths of historic Palestine and they inch closer to 100% with the help of the Palestinian Authority. What a betrayal.

There has been a "peace" between the "moderate" Arab states and Israel since the 70s, and top world leaders don't seem to care enough about Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes and Israeli annexation of Palestinian land to put real pressure on Israel to stop. The US government has it all under control: they paid Israel and Egypt billions of dollars, they vetoed every UN Security Council resolution against Israel, and they made sure the price of oil remains stable by all means possible. They got Israeli and Palestinian leaders to talk about resolving the conflict, and evidently they got the PA to cave on key demands. Yet Israel's response to the PA concessions was to say NO THANKS, Israel's getting by just fine annexing land whenever Israel wants. Americans call this the "peace process".

It has been obvious for a long time that Israel would like to annex the West Bank, and probably many conservative Americans would like the US government to help Israel in achieving that goal. But how will they achieve this and keep Israel Jewish? How does Israel take the rest of the 20% of historic Palestine without expelling a majority of the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza? In the modern age of the internet and freedom of the press, it has become difficult for Israel to pull off a Deir Yassin often enough to chase most Palestinians out. Even America would not allow it (except maybe the Tea Party). So the Palestinian populations in the West Bank and Gaza grow, even with continued emigration and economic hardships.

Israel does not want to give the Palestinians in the occupied territories Israeli citizenship, because then there would be more Palestinian citizens of Israel than Jews, and it would no longer be a "Jewish" state. So the progressive Israelis realize they need a two state solution.
And the conservatives just keep demolishing and saying God gave them that land, dammit.

Jeff Halper, who founded the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, summarizes:

"In the complex situation in which Palestinians and Israelis currently find themselves, two things seems equally evident: First, a viable and truly sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel is an absolute prerequisite for a just and lasting peace; and second, Israel needs a Palestinian state. Without a Palestine state Israel faces what it considers as two unacceptable options. If it annexes the Occupied Territories and grants citizenship to their three million Palestinian inhabitants, it creates de facto a bi-national state of 5 million Jews and 4 million Palestinians (not counting the refugees), an option that would end the Zionist enterprise. If it continues its Occupation, it inevitably creates a system of outright apartheid, an untenable option in the long run."

Israel, especially when led by conservative governments, has stalled on real peace, and the US, along with its "moderate" allies in the region - Egypt, Jordan, KSA - have helped Israel stall. Now we know the Palestinian Authority has also helped Israel stall. It should be no wonder why so many Arabs have turned to the Muslim Brotherhood for answers. The policies of the US and Israel since 1967 have created enemies across the Middle East, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism has resulted in unprecedented terrorism.

The need for justice in Palestine has become even more imperative now that the Egyptian people have stood up to Mubarak, who's been taking billions of dollars in US aid but has done little to alleviate poverty in his country. Mubarak has done what the US and Israel want him to do: clamp down on Islamic extremism and seal the border with Gaza. Essentially the US, Israel, and Egypt have been implementing measures to ensure "stability" in the short term. But what does "stability" mean? And how long are the Arabs supposed to stand by as Israel annexes more Palestinian land and makes life difficult for Palestinians in the territories?

Sealing borders and imprisoning Muslim fundamentalists may be a short term solution, but it will not solve the Palestine problem. Military spending will not bring true peace to Israel. Egyptians are no doubt pissed off at their government for taking Israel's side and doing nothing to help end the plight of the Palestinians.

Israel alone can defeat any Arab nation military, including Egypt. But that doesn't mean that Israel should not change. Israel must change; Israel must be fair to the Palestinians in order to bring about true peace. If they agree to a two state solution, Palestine must not look like an archipelago state. If they annex the remainder of Palestine and opt for a one state solution, the new Palestinian citizens of Israel must have the same rights as Jews.

Arabs and Muslims must also change. They must stop calling for the "destruction" of Israel. There will be no destruction of Israel. There will be no "pushing Israel into the sea" as the Baathists proclaimed in the 60s. The reality has been the opposite in the last half century: the Palestinians were pushed into the hills of the West Bank, into Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and other parts of the Middle East. Nevertheless, the Arabs must be fair to the Israelis, a large number of whom were born in Israel and should not be blamed for what happened decades ago. The Arabs should remember the Arab Jews who were expelled from Arab nations over the last six decades. The Arabs should be educated on the Holocaust, but Israel should not exploit it. The age of healing wounds must begin in earnest. It will help Iraq heal too, I believe.

Why is Palestine-Israel so important? Because it is decades old. The injustice continues; it's a wound that will not go away and it unites Arabs and Muslims. It must be dealt with fairly. The closer you are to Palestine the more you feel the injustice. Cairo is very close to Palestine and has been directly involved in the conflict since 1947. A democratically elected government of Egypt will demand justice for the Palestinians. Without justice, there will be no peace.

Israel is a Democracy???

Kudos to the LA Times for publishing this excellent letter by Azmi Bishara. Sometimes I wonder if Americans truly understand Israel's history and how Palestinians continue to be treated in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank.

Why Israel is after me
By Azmi Bishara

AZMI BISHARA was a member of the Knesset until his resignation in April.

May 3, 2007

Amman, Jordan — I AM A PALESTINIAN from Nazareth, a citizen of Israel and was, until last month, a member of the Israeli parliament.

But now, in an ironic twist reminiscent of France's Dreyfus affair — in which a French Jew was accused of disloyalty to the state — the government of Israel is accusing me of aiding the enemy during Israel's failed war against Lebanon in July.

Israeli police apparently suspect me of passing information to a foreign agent and of receiving money in return. Under Israeli law, anyone — a journalist or a personal friend — can be defined as a "foreign agent" by the Israeli security apparatus. Such charges can lead to life imprisonment or even the death penalty.

The allegations are ridiculous. Needless to say, Hezbollah — Israel's enemy in Lebanon — has independently gathered more security information about Israel than any Arab Knesset member could possibly provide. What's more, unlike those in Israel's parliament who have been involved in acts of violence, I have never used violence or participated in wars. My instruments of persuasion, in contrast, are simply words in books, articles and speeches.

These trumped-up charges, which I firmly reject and deny, are only the latest in a series of attempts to silence me and others involved in the struggle of the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel to live in a state of all its citizens, not one that grants rights and privileges to Jews that it denies to non-Jews.

When Israel was established in 1948, more than 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled in fear. My family was among the minority that escaped that fate, remaining instead on the land where we had long lived. The Israeli state, established exclusively for Jews, embarked immediately on transforming us into foreigners in our own country.

For the first 18 years of Israeli statehood, we, as Israeli citizens, lived under military rule with pass laws that controlled our every movement. We watched Jewish Israeli towns spring up over destroyed Palestinian villages.

Today we make up 20% of Israel's population. We do not drink at separate water fountains or sit at the back of the bus. We vote and can serve in the parliament. But we face legal, institutional and informal discrimination in all spheres of life.

More than 20 Israeli laws explicitly privilege Jews over non-Jews. The Law of Return, for example, grants automatic citizenship to Jews from anywhere in the world. Yet Palestinian refugees are denied the right to return to the country they were forced to leave in 1948. The Basic Law of Human Dignity and Liberty — Israel's "Bill of Rights" — defines the state as "Jewish" rather than a state for all its citizens. Thus Israel is more for Jews living in Los Angeles or Paris than it is for native Palestinians.

Israel acknowledges itself to be a state of one particular religious group. Anyone committed to democracy will readily admit that equal citizenship cannot exist under such conditions.

Most of our children attend schools that are separate but unequal. According to recent polls, two-thirds of Israeli Jews would refuse to live next to an Arab and nearly half would not allow a Palestinian into their home.

I have certainly ruffled feathers in Israel. In addition to speaking out on the subjects above, I have also asserted the right of the Lebanese people, and of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, to resist Israel's illegal military occupation. I do not see those who fight for freedom as my enemies.

This may discomfort Jewish Israelis, but they cannot deny us our history and identity any more than we can negate the ties that bind them to world Jewry. After all, it is not we, but Israeli Jews who immigrated to this land. Immigrants might be asked to give up their former identity in exchange for equal citizenship, but we are not immigrants.

During my years in the Knesset, the attorney general indicted me for voicing my political opinions (the charges were dropped), lobbied to have my parliamentary immunity revoked and sought unsuccessfully to disqualify my political party from participating in elections — all because I believe Israel should be a state for all its citizens and because I have spoken out against Israeli military occupation. Last year, Cabinet member Avigdor Lieberman — an immigrant from Moldova — declared that Palestinian citizens of Israel "have no place here," that we should "take our bundles and get lost." After I met with a leader of the Palestinian Authority from Hamas, Lieberman called for my execution.

The Israeli authorities are trying to intimidate not just me but all Palestinian citizens of Israel. But we will not be intimidated. We will not bow to permanent servitude in the land of our ancestors or to being severed from our natural connections to the Arab world. Our community leaders joined together recently to issue a blueprint for a state free of ethnic and religious discrimination in all spheres. If we turn back from our path to freedom now, we will consign future generations to the discrimination we have faced for six decades.

Americans know from their own history of institutional discrimination the tactics that have been used against civil rights leaders. These include telephone bugging, police surveillance, political delegitimization and criminalization of dissent through false accusations. Israel is continuing to use these tactics at a time when the world no longer tolerates such practices as compatible with democracy.

Why then does the U.S. government continue to fully support a country whose very identity and institutions are based on ethnic and religious discrimination that victimize its own citizens?

"Arab Zionist" vs. "Self-Hating Jew"

The other day on facebook I noticed that Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, a facebook friend and a brilliant young author on his way to Oxford, slammed Nir Rosen for his unwise tweets about Lara Logan. Nir posted his apology on his facebook page, and there Aymenn criticized Nir. I forget Aymenn's original comment (I don't see that thread anymore) but Nir commented that "an Arab Zionist is an abomination" in reference to Aymenn. I was surprised to see that Nir and Aymenn are friends on facebook.

On his own facebook page, Aymenn posted that he "is thrilled to have had his existence described as an 'abomination' by the disgraced Nir Rosen! A hearty 'Aymenn' to that!" Aymenn wrote in a comment: "If 'self-hating Jew' has any meaning, then Nir Rosen matches that definition."

In the late 1990s on the Yahoo message boards I saw many pro-Israel Jews and Christians calling Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Ralph Schoenman, and other Jewish critics of Israel "self-hating Jews" but I have never seen an Arab call anybody a self-hating Jew until a few days ago on facebook. What is a "self-hating Jew"? And what is an "Arab Zionist"?

I believe that Nir Rosen is also a brilliant author and journalist, although I haven't always agreed with him. I think Nir wants what's best for Iraqis, but Nir's views on Iraq have often seemed to be "pro-resistance" and I've criticized him for ignoring the history of sectarian conflict in Iraq before 2003. But calling him a "self-hating Jew" is a bit over the top. Just because Nir is pro-Palestinian doesn't mean he hates Jews, and he definitely does not hate himself. On the other hand, calling Aymenn an Arab Zionist also seems to be wrong. I wondered what makes Aymenn a Zionist, so I asked him how to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. He responded:

I support the two-state solution along the pre-67 borders as the best option. A West Bank confederation with Jordan has its merits, but it's not going to be accepted any time soon. Anyway, paramount to a lasting two-state solution will be the recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state by the Palestinian leadership- a requirement as per UN General Assembly Resolution 181- and that the right of return is simply untenable. The population has to be taught this as well- it's no good to give a different message to the people.

On the other hand, elements of the Israeli right have to realise that the West Bank cannot remain occupied, and continued construction of Jewish settlements across the West Bank will become the vanguard of a binational state, thereby endangering the very character of the Jewish state they claim to espouse. That said, I don't think that settlement building should be a reason to refuse to continue negotiations. I would like to see a final agreement reached even if settlement building continues- it's an issue that can be easily resolved after a deal is struck. Incidentally, a land swap whereby Israel gets to keep some of the major settlements like Arial in return for some land from 1948 Israel for a Palestinian state is reasonable.

Whilst Palestinian leaders should not feel a need to exclude Jews from being part of a Palestinian state, they have every right to demand that Israel respect its right to exist as a Palestinian state (also per Resolution 181).

As for East Jerusalem, it should be subject to a referendum as I find that many polls indicate that the Arab inhabitants would prefer to remain with Israel rather than become incorporated into a Palestinian state.

Hamas: it's unreasonable to expect Hamas to be incorporated into the peace process when the group doesn't recognise Israel's right to exist- what's the point in negotiating with someone who doesn't recognise you? In fact, progress in negotiations with the PA leading to a two-state solution could well prove essential for getting rid of Hamas, as it is hard to imagine that the people of Gaza would want to be 'left behind'.

In this context, I should note that it was disastrous for the Palestinian leadership to reject Ehud Olmert's offer for a Palestinian state:

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2074.htm

As for my view of the history of the conflict, Israel's record has not been entirely clean (e.g. expulsions in 1948), but ultimately the blame for a lack of a Palestinian state lies with the Arab states who repeatedly launched wars of aggression to try to destroy Israel. They should simply have accepted the original partition in 1948.

That seems reasonable. So Aymenn is a Zionist because he believes that the Arabs should accept Israel's existence according to 1967 borders? I have never seen a right-wing Zionist call for Israel to withdraw to 1967 borders.

I've written a few posts about Palestine, and anybody who has read any of them would probably conclude that I am pro-Palestinian, yet I have been called a "Zionist" before. What is a Zionist? According to the Advanced English Dictionary (iPhone app) a Zionist is a "Jewish supporter of Zionism" and Zionism is a "policy for establishing and developing a national homeland for Jews in Palestine." Obviously Aymenn is not Jewish, yet he supports Israel's right to exist. Maybe in a way this makes Aymenn a Zionist. But does this make him an abomination? I don't think so.

I wonder what Nir's solution to the conflict would be. Does Nir believe that Arabs should naturally be against Israel? Does he believe that Israel should be destroyed and that Arabs should support the destruction of Israel?

I don't agree completely with Aymenn's views. It's easy to say today that the Arabs should have accepted partition in 1948, and I don't believe that the Arabs launched wars in all five cases. To say that in 1948 the Arabs launched a "war of aggression" against Israel is to be simplistic and misleading. From the Arab point of view, they were defending Palestine, an Arab land, against colonialism. I like what Ghandi wrote in 1938:

“Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.”

--Mahatma Gandhi, quoted in “A Land of Two Peoples” ed. Mendes-Flohr.

By 1948, however, after the Holocaust and the foolish Farhood al Yahood in Iraq, the Jews had gained the sympathy of the world. Most people agreed that the Jews should suffer no more and that they deserved a homeland. But was the partition of Palestine fair to the Arabs? Palestinian scholar Sami Hadawi wrote in A Bitter Harvest:

“Arab rejection was...based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be [only half] Jewish with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body — a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least...The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own charter.”

Furthermore, Zionist leaders were intent from the beginning to take all of Palestine:

“In internal discussion in 1938 [David Ben-Gurion] stated that ‘after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine’...In 1948, Menachem Begin declared that: ‘The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever.”

--Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle”

1967 is another one of those "wars of aggression" that the Arabs allegedly launched. I believed this too until I entered college and began reading Noam Chomsky:

“The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was ‘no threat of destruction’ but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could ‘exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.’...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: ‘In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.’“

--Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle”

Since 1967, Israel has demolished thousands of Palestinian homes and has annexed large parts of what remains of Palestine. Even the US government agrees that Israeli expansion into Palestinian territory since 1967 is illegal.

Too many westerners have accepted the notion that the Arabs launched "wars of aggression" against Israel. It's kinda like saying, without elaborating, that the native Americans launched "wars of aggression" against the US after 1776. Apparently right wing Israelis and Americans believe that it is Israel's manifest destiny to take all of Palestine. But how do they do this and keep Israel a Jewish state? Even the "Arab Zionist" Aymenn says that "Jewish settlements across the West Bank will become the vanguard of a binational state, thereby endangering the very character of the Jewish state they claim to espouse." I agree. Also I agree with Aymenn that negotiations must continue, even with continued settlement building (because Israel will continue to build settlements even without negotiations), and that if the Palestinians of East Jerusalem vote to become part of Israel, then so be it, although I question Palestinians' desire to be part of Israel. I do not agree, however, that the Palestinians should be arm-twisted into accepting concessions that make them look foolish. Aymenn and many westerners evidently believe that Olmert and Barak made generous offers to the Palestinians, but I don't blame the Palestinians for rejecting those offers. Why should the Palestinians settle for anything less than complete control of the entire West Bank and Gaza, just 22% of historic Palestine?

I'm not Jewish, and had I lived in the Middle East in 1947, I probably would have been against the partition of Palestine. Palestine was partitioned nonetheless, and the Arabs lost their fight to keep it whole. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled their homes and were not allowed to return. That was an abomination, just as the subsequent expulsion of Jews from Arab nations was an abomination. The continued oppression of Palestinians and Israel's expansion into Palestinian land is also an abomination, I believe, and it is why the conflict continues. However, to call for the destruction of Israel is not only wrong, not to mention impractical, but I believe it hurts the Palestinian cause.

Speaking Frankly About Israel and Palestine

Members of the US government have always been reluctant to speak frankly about Israel and Palestine for a good reason: it is dangerous to the health of their careers. Americans who suggest that Israel has done wrong may be branded as anti-semitic, or unpatriotic, as if Israel is part of America. I believe that the fear of US officials to criticize Israel has much to do with the lobbying efforts of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). But it seems that American perceptions have been changing over the twenty years. Former Congressman Paul Findley was the first (to my knowledge) prominent American to examine America's lopsided attitude towards Israel and speak frankly about AIPAC's influence in his book They Dare To Speak Out, published by Independent Publishers Group in 1985 - apparently a large publishing company did not want to take the risk of publishing such a book back then.

The fear to speak frankly about Israel and Palestine still exists in Washington today, but the political atmosphere is not quite the same as it was in 1985. Former US President Jimmy Carter has written a book entitled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, published by big Simon & Schuster, and the mainstream media in America is allowing open discussion of the subject. Below is an Op-Ed piece written by Jimmy Carter and recently published by the L.A. Times. I have always respected Americans who are unafraid to speak the truth and understand the immediate need for a just solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Like Paul Findley, Jimmy Carter has earned my full respect.

Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine

"I signed a contract with Simon & Schuster two years ago to write a book about the Middle East, based on my personal observations as the Carter Center monitored three elections in Palestine and on my consultations with Israeli political leaders and peace activists.

We covered every Palestinian community in 1996, 2005 and 2006, when Yasser Arafat and later Mahmoud Abbas were elected president and members of parliament were chosen. The elections were almost flawless, and turnout was very high — except in East Jerusalem, where, under severe Israeli restraints, only about 2% of registered voters managed to cast ballots.

The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.

It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.

With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries. These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the U.S. and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace," which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.

The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.

Although I have spent only a week or so on a book tour so far, it is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV, including "Larry King Live," "Hardball," "Meet the Press," "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," the "Charlie Rose" show, C-SPAN and others. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.

Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that "he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel." Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-Semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions." A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent."

Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I've signed books in five stores, with more than 1,000 buyers at each site. I've had one negative remark — that I should be tried for treason — and one caller on C-SPAN said that I was an anti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors. I have been most encouraged by prominent Jewish citizens and members of Congress who have thanked me privately for presenting the facts and some new ideas.

The book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank. An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what blacks lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn any acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the terrible casualties on both sides.

The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.'

The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict

If you are interested in the history of the Palestine-Israel conflict, you will find the concise The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict by Jews for Justice to be useful. It began as a pamphlet written and published by a group of concerned Jewish American citizens in Berkeley, and now it's a website, used by other informative sites such as If Americans Knew, also run by concerned Americans.

It seems that residents of the San Francisco Bay area have always had a different understanding of Palestine. In 1991 during a trip to San Francisco I found this post card in a book store. I remember thinking "wow I can't believe this is being sold at a book store in America."

America has been slowly changing its view on this conflict, which has been the main source of tensions between Arabs and America for 60 years. More Americans are beginning to realize the portrait of Israel as innocent victim is not quite true, and they are beginning to question America's unconditional support for Israeli expansionism. Just last week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Israel emphatically that the construction of settlements must stop. It seems that the Obama administration is serious about pressuring Israel to stop expanding into Palestinian territory, more so than previous administrations. Clinton also recently blasted Israel's plans to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem. As noted on If Americans Knew, 18,147 Palestinian homes were destroyed between 1967 and 2006. So far Netanyahu has refused to stop expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Many Arabs and Arab Americans regard Obama's pick of Rahm Emanuel as business as usual, as another misguided move by a biased administration. But as Newsweek pointed out, Rahm Emanuel may be Obama's "secret weapon" with Israel: 'It's not just that Obama can use Emanuel's Israel-friendly reputation as a kind of shield, allowing him to display "tough love" toward the Jewish state. Daroff told NEWSWEEK Rahm has such a nuanced understanding of Israeli politics, he can easily act as the president's BS detector as negotiations go forward.'

Maybe I'm just being optimistic, but I hope Obama's team is able to bring about real peace and justice in Palestine.

I began reading about this conflict as a student at the University of Colorado. The political atmosphere in Boulder was more liberal than where I grew up in the suburbs of Denver, but over the four years I spent in Boulder I noticed a change in attitude among Americans, a general increase in sympathy for Palestinians. I like to think this change was the result of our work at the Arab Students Club, but more likely it was the result of brave efforts by American Jews who were concerned about the injustice in Palestine and wanted to help stop it. The US media was biased towards Israel throughout the 80s, and the Palestinian perspective was simply not covered in US mainstream media. Only horrific incidents like Baruch Goldstein's gunning down of dozens of Palestinians in a mosque made the news in America, and even then it didn't generate much public debate about what Israel was doing to the Palestinians.

Although some American mainstream media (such as 60 Minutes and Real Time) have been paying more attention to the Palestinian perspective recently, serious debate about this conflict has been confined to universities. At CU Boulder I met many well read intellectuals, including a smart Lebanese student named Ghassan, who became the President of the Arab Students Club until he graduated. Ghassan filled the bookshelves of the office with books about the history of Palestine. One of these books was The Hidden History of Zionism, by Ralph Schoenman. This book, more than any other, shocked me into sympathy for Palestinians. That's when the hypocrisy in US foreign policy and American attitudes with respect to Israel became highlighted in my mind.

After college I continued to read books and articles about the conflict, and by 2000 I felt that I knew more about the history of Palestine than I did about the history of Iraq. In the 1990s the public found a new tool for debate: the world wide web. The web changed everything. Suddenly Americans did not have to rely on US mainstream media to learn about the history of the conflict, and they also gained access to foreign media, which in general has always had a different perspective on Palestine. Le Monde, for example, has always been more objective in general than American media. Even Israeli media such as Haaretz has paid more attention to Palestinian suffering than FOX News and other popular sources of American news. A heartening fact that should be emphasized here: many American and Israeli Jews are quite aware and concerned about the injustice against Palestinians.

Could it be that the web has forced American mainstream media to focus more on the Palestinian perspective?

In the late 90s the debate about Israel-Palestine on the Yahoo message boards always attracted the most comments, about ten times the number of comments as the board on Iraq. It is no different on my blog. Both sides are passionate about this issue. American conservatives in general seem to dismiss the suffering of Palestinians and deny that injustice has been done to them. Extremist Arabs, on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge the existence of Israel and refuse to allow Arab nations to recognize Israel. Hardcore Arab nationalists wanted to push the Israelis into the sea, and this attitude only aggravated the tensions. But the reality of the conflict has been much different than the rhetoric of Arab nationalists. Israelis have not been pushed into the sea. On the contrary - Palestinians have been pushed into other countries and into the hills of the West Bank (and now densely populated Gaza), the last 20% of historic Palestine. Since 1967 Israelis have moved into the West Bank, and it is clear that Israel wants to annex the West Bank without giving citizenship to its Palestinian inhabitants, many of whom are refugees from previous wars.

The relationship between Iraqi Shia and Palestinians has deteriorated over the last two decades. In 1990 Yasser Arafat expressed his support for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. After 2003 this relationship deteriorated further, especially after Saddam was hanged. Current relations between the Iraqi Shia and the Palestinians does not change the fact that Palestinians have been wronged for the last 60 years. What happens in Iraq does not change the origin of the Palestine-Israel conflict and it does not justify Israeli expansionism and oppression of the Palestinian people.

Rev 06/03/09: Added "(and now densely populated Gaza), the last 20% of historic Palestine."

Israel's options

From an excellent article by Daniel Levy:

"Maintaining the peace treaty with Egypt has morphed over time. The peace process under Mubarak's tenure has ultimately entrenched occupation and settlements and made a mockery of its Arab participants.

Post-transition Egypt is unlikely to continue playing this game. And without Mubarak's enthusiastic endorsement, the process itself is likely to further unravel. It is hard to imagine other Arab states leaping into this breach, or the Palestinians accepting 20 more years of peace-process humiliation, or indeed of Syria adopting the Egyptian model and signing a stand-alone peace agreement with Israel.

Israel's strategic environment is about to change. Israel’s options would appear to be narrowing. Thus far Israeli establishment voices have discussed two options. One has been to dig in, to fear-monger, to convince the West that Israel is its outpost of stability in a sea of hostility, and to hope the military stays in power and democracy is tamed.

New options

In the words of Prime Minister Netanyahu, "might" is the answer. The second approach advocates an urgent return to the peace process. Neither will work. The first will exacerbate Israel's predicament, and the second is too little too late.

Israel has a third option, albeit one that is dramatic and out of synch with today's zeitgeist. It would be perhaps Israel's best and last chance for a two-state solution. While it would involve cutting Israel’s losses, it would also have the potential of unleashing huge benefits - economic, security and more, for an Israel accepted as part of the tapestry of a democratic Middle East.

Broadly speaking, this option has three components. First, an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 armistice lines almost without preconditions or exceptions - minor, equitable and agreed-upon land swaps and international security guarantees could fall into the latter category.

Second, Israel should undertake an act of genuine acknowledgement of the dispossession and displacement visited on the Palestinian people, including compensating refugees where appropriate, and thus set in motion the possibility of reconciliation. Third, there needs to be a clear Israeli commitment to full equality for all of its citizens, notably including removal of the structural barriers to full civil rights for the Palestinian Arab minority.

Admittedly, this is a path less traveled and one likely to remain so, and while the alternatives to this path may well include democracy in the region, they could preclude a future for the State of Israel.

Much will also depend on the next steps that Palestinian leaders take. It would be a strategic error of momentous proportions to revive the old and failed modalities of the peace process. Albeit both belatedly and driven by external developments, it is time for a reunified Palestinian national movement and a renewed and relevant Palestinian strategy for freedom to emerge."

Black September

In the video I posted today the Arab narrator says the Jordanian King mass murdered Palestinians in the "August of the Black". He means Black September". I've heard Arabs before confuse the names of months in English. I found this Wikipedia entry:

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in late 1947 led to civil war; the end of the British Mandate of Palestine and the unilateral Israeli Declaration of Independence in May 1948, led to the invasion of the former borders of Palestine by neighboring Arab states and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The fighting between Israel and the Arab states was halted with the UN-mediated 1949 Armistice Agreements, but the remaining Palestinian territories came under the control of Egypt and Trans-Jordan. In 1949, Trans-Jordan officially changed its name to Jordan; in 1950, it annexed the West Bank of the Jordan River, and brought Palestinian representation into the government.

At the time, the population east of the Jordan River contained over 400,000 Palestinian refugees who made up one-third of the population; another third of the population was comprised of Palestinians on the West Bank. Only one third of the population consisted of the original inhabitants of Trans-Jordan, and meant that the Jordanians had become a ruling minority over a Palestinian majority. This proved to be a mercurial element in internal Jordanian politics and played a critical role in the political opposition. Since the 1950s, the West Bank had become the center of the national and territorial aspects of the Palestinian problem that was the key issue of Jordan's domestic and foreign policy. According to King Hussein, the Palestinian problem spelled "life or death" for Jordan and would remain the country's overriding national security issue.[4]

King Hussein feared an independent West Bank under PLO administration would threaten the autonomy of his Hashemite kingdom.[5][6]. The Palestinian factions were supported variously by many Arab regimes, most notably Egypt's President Nasser, who gave political support; and Saudi Arabia, which gave financial support.[citation needed] The Palestinian nationalist organization Fatah started organizing attacks against Israel in January 1965, and it was subject to repeated cross-border attacks by Palestinian fedayeen; these often drew disproportionate reprisals that killed and injured Jordanians as well. [7] The Samu Incident was one such reprisal. Palestinian resistance received much broader support following the 1967 Six Day War, by which Israel captured and occupied the remaining portions of Palestine and additional land from neighboring Arab states. Jordan had long maintained secret contacts with Israel concerning peace and security along their border. Due to internal splits within the Jordanian government and population however, many of King Hussein's orders to stop these raids were not obeyed, and some Jordanian commanders along the Israeli-Jordanian border began giving the Palestinian raids passive assistance.[8]

I did not know that by 1949 the number of Palestinian refugees in Jordan had already equaled the entire native population of Jordan. Today up to 60 per cent of Jordan's population is of Palestinian origin.

I wondered how Scott Brown's Senate win will affect Obama's foreign policy and particularly the Obama administration's efforts to pressure Israel to stop expanding into Palestinian territory, and I found this:

Israel has made enormous sacrifices in an attempt to secure peace - including unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. I support a two-state solution that reaffirms Israel's right to exist and provides the Palestinians with a place of their own where both sides can live in peace and security. As our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel lives every day under the threat of terror yet shares with America a dedication to democratic ideals, a respect for faith, and a commitment to peace in the region. Until a lasting peace is achieved, I support the security barrier erected by Israel which has proven successful in protecting Israeli civilians from terrorist attacks.

Two state solution? Isn't that what Democrats want? Solomonia wrote "...but the position paper is three pages long and more in-depth and supporters of Israel will love it."

Apartheid state was biggest recipient of US aid

I say "was" because recently the US stopped giving "economic aid" to Israel, since their economy has been doing relatively well.

I think the apartheid claim is true if you consider the West Bank to be part of Israel. If Israel considers the West Bank to be part of Israel, then Israel is an apartheid state and until recently was the biggest recipient of US foreign aid. I believe Israel is still the largest recipient of US military aid.

It is ironic that Americans, being the supporters of democracy and justice we are, have been funding and supporting a nation that's been responsible for an apartheid situation for four decades. These days the Palestinian Authority receives US dollars too, although from my view at this time the aid looks more like bribes, an incentive to cave on key demands in the so-called "peace process". Maybe we can ask them to put the money to better use, instead of encouraging them to buy US-made weapons.

At least one American President, the one who urged Egypt's Sadat to sign a peace treaty with Israel, has been trying to talk about the apartheid situation that's been going since 1967 in Palestine (not inside Israel proper). No the numbers of deaths do not compare to Rwanda. It's more like South Africa was.

I may have posted this clip before.


Jimmy Carter is now being sued for his "anti-Israel" agenda. Wow. This is the man who got Egypt and Israel to sign a peace treaty, the same treaty that American conservatives are touting as evidence of the success of US policy with Mubarak. Yet today Jimmy Carter is being sued, for telling the truth and pointing out the injustice in Palestine, for trying to follow up on his peace initiative. It is bizarre.

12 times as many suicide bombings in Iraq as in Israel

Considering that the Arab nation has been fighting Israel for more than 60 years, and considering that of all political issues the Arabs are most concerned about the conflict in Palestine, I find it shocking that there have been at least 12 times as many suicide bombings in six years in Iraq as the number of suicide bombings during more than half a century of Israeli expansionism. I believe that this statistic, coupled with the fact that Arabs seem to be unconcerned about Arab terrorism in Iraq, shows how little the Arabs care about Iraqis. Judging by their reactions to the war in Iraq, it seems the Arabs in general care only for the Iraqis who fight Americans.

During the 60 years of Israel's existence, Arabs (all Palestinian) carried out 140 suicide bombings inside Israel. Hundreds of innocent Israelis were killed. When Israel kills innocent Palestinians, the Arabs become very angry, understandably.

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam's murderous regime, the Arabs have sent more than 1,700 suicide bombers to Iraq. Many suicide bombers have been Iraqi, but most have been non-Iraqi Arabs. The vast majority of victims have been Iraqi civilians, mostly Arabs and Muslims. But the Arabs don't seem to be as angry about this, except to blame America.

True that the first Palestinian suicide bombing occurred in 1994, so it has actually been 140 suicide bombings during 15 years of Israeli expansionism. Also a Palestinian American woman recently gently reminded me that it's much more difficult for Arab militants to enter Israel than it has been for Arab militants to enter Iraq. This is a good point. Still the fact is that the Arab "resistance", if there is such a thing, have launched 12 times as many suicide attacks in Iraq as they have in Israel, and that is not good for Arab unity.

I am not suggesting that Arab extremists try to carry out more suicide bombings in Israel. I believe that attacking innocent Israelis, civilians or soldiers, is wrong. The killing of women and children is especially disgusting, and in both Israel and Iraq the majority of victims have been civilians. But clearly there is something wrong here, if we are to believe that Iraq is part of the "Arab nation".

I did not expect so many non-Iraqi Arabs to fight in Iraq and I did not expect any bombings of Iraqi markets, universities, government ministries, police stations, restaurants, weddings and funerals. I mean that shows you how much the Arabs really hate Iraq, no?

Some people have tried to justify Palestinian suicide bombings, arguing that Israel has treated the Palestinians terribly and makes Palestinians' lives miserable. So what is the excuse for 1,700 suicide bombings in Iraq? Are the Arabs fighting occupation? Or are they fighting democracy?

Arab nations defending themselves (using weapons sold to them by US) against Israel would be 'problematic'

This makes me wonder: is a college degree a prerequisite to becoming a Congressman? Not only is Rep. Steny Hoyer a member of Congress and a Democrat, he is also the House Majority Leader!

'The threat, Mr. Burns said, is “immediate, and it’s also long-term.” He cited Iran’s support for organizations that the United States classifies as terrorist, and that are opposed to peace and stability in the region, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

The new aid to Israel will average $3 billion a year, an increase of about 25 percent from current figures. It would begin flowing in October 2008, when American economic aid to Israel is scheduled to end; Israel now has a vibrant, growing economy.

Uniquely, officials said, the new deal allows Israel to spend 26.3 percent of the aid on arms from Israel’s domestic defense industry; the rest of the money must be spent on American equipment.

The Israelis have some specific reservations about what kinds of equipment might be sold to Saudi Arabia, however, despite American promises that Israel will keep its “qualitative edge” regionally in military technology.

Rep. Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and House Majority Leader, said in an interview today that “Congress will be supportive of the aid to Israel, but with respect to Saudi Arabia, I think we will look at that more closely.”

Mr. Hoyer said there are “specific concerns on guided missile technology that could be used defensively against Israel and that would be problematic.” '

Israel OKs Saudi Weapons Deal!

An extra $600 million per year for Israel compels Olmert to say OK!

Israel signs off on U.S. arms sale to Saudis
Proposed deal aimed at countering Iran includes boost in aid for Israel

JERUSALEM - In a break from historic Israeli opposition to U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday his country understands Washington’s plan to supply state-of-the-art weapons to Riyadh as a counterweight to Iranian influence.

The United States, knowing that Israel is sensitive about such arms sales, is also offering a sharp increase in defense aid to Israel and has assured the Jewish state it will retain a fighting edge over other countries in the region, he added.

“We understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderate states and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran,” Olmert told a weekly Cabinet meeting.

The rare agreement reflects shared U.S. and Israeli concern over the potential threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

The proposed arms deal would include advanced weaponry and air systems that would greatly enhance the striking ability of Saudi warplanes, alarming the Israeli right. One leading hard-liner warned that Saudi Arabia, although not belligerent now, could be taken over by extremists.

Israel’s southern tip is 10 miles from Saudi Arabia across the Gulf of Aqaba.

Weapons boost for Israel
The proposed package comes with a serious sweetener for Israel: a 25 percent rise in U.S. military aid, from an annual $2.4 billion at present to $3 billion a year and guaranteed for 10 years.

It's $30 billion, not $10 billion

Yesterday I wrote in the subject line of my post that Israel will be getting $10 billion in US military aid. It's actually $30 billion over 10 years. Why nobody correct me?

U.S. and Israel Sign Military Aid Deal

By STEVEN ERLANGER
Published: August 16, 2007

JERUSALEM, Aug. 16 — Israel and the United States signed an agreement today that will give Israel $30 billion in military aid over the next decade. Officials called the aid a long-term investment in peace.

The officials insisted that the agreement did not depend on a simultaneous American plan to sell $20 billion worth of sophisticated arms to its Arab allies in the region, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. But Israeli officials acknowledged that the aid to Israel will make it easier for the Bush Administration to win congressional approval for the arms sales to Arab countries.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel has not objected to the arms sales, saying that he understands Washington’s need to assist moderate Sunni Arab states that, like Israel, oppose Shiite Iran’s reach for regional supremacy and nuclear weapons.

R. Nicholas Burns, who is Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, said at the signing ceremony here that “there is no question that, from an American point of view, the Middle East is a more dangerous region now even than it was 10 or 20 years ago, and that Israel is facing a growing threat” from Iran and its ally, Syria.

continued

Republicans prepare for next election

by going to Israel. It's as if Israel is a part of America. Mike Huckabee is the latest Republican to visit Israel and there he reassured Israelis (and clueless conservative Americans) that Israel has a right to continue building on Palestinian land:

Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist pastor, also attended a ceremony marking the dedication of a new Israeli neighborhood in East Jerusalem, which has been claimed by Palestinians. He defended the right of Israel to build settlements there and in the West Bank.

"I cannot imagine, as an American, being told I could not live in certain places in America because I was Christian, or because I was white, or because I spoke English," he said.

Part of Huckabee's trip was sponsored by the Jerusalem Reclamation Project, which promotes establishing settlements on contested land. Huckabee also suggested that a separate Palestinian state should not be established using land Israel has occupied.

"There are vast amounts of territory that are in the hands of Muslims, in the hands of Arabs," Huckabee said.

So Israel owns the West Bank? Why then doesn't Israel give Palestinians living in the West Bank Israeli citizenship? The implication is clear enough: the Palestinians, at least a majority of them, must move to other Arab lands and forget about their homes in Palestine, kinda like they did in 1948. Like so many Republicans, Mike Huckabee is a dick.

Israel steals Palestine's water

This has been happening for decades. Big Kudos to Jon Stewart for trying to expose some of the injustice.

'Amnesty International has accused Israel of denying Palestinians the right to access adequate water by maintaining total control over the shared water resources and pursuing discriminatory policies.

These unreasonably restrict the availability of water in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and prevent the Palestinians developing an effective water infrastructure there.

“Israel allows the Palestinians access to only a fraction of the shared water resources, which lie mostly in the occupied West Bank, while the unlawful Israeli settlements there receive virtually unlimited supplies. In Gaza the Israeli blockade has made an already dire situation worse,” said Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International’s researcher on Israel and the OPT.

In a new extensive report, Amnesty International revealed the extent to which Israel’s discriminatory water policies and practices are denying Palestinians their right to access to water.

Israel uses more than 80 per cent of the water from the Mountain Aquifer, the main source of underground water in Israel and the OPT, while restricting Palestinian access to a mere 20 per cent.

The Mountain Aquifer is the only source for water for Palestinians in the West Bank, but only one of several for Israel, which also takes for itself all the water available from the Jordan River.

While Palestinian daily water consumption barely reaches 70 litres a day per person, Israeli daily consumption is more than 300 litres per day, four times as much.'

Meanwhile in Iraq, Sunni extremists continue to mass murder Iraqis without Arab protest...

I cannot stop sympathizing with Palestinians

I know some of them supported Saddam and Zarqawi. I still cannot stop sympathizing with them. I cannot ignore the injustice of their plight. Many Iraqi Shia, including my parents, feel this way, despite the fact that some Palestinians will not stop praising Saddam. It bothers me (and most Shia) that Palestinians in general seemed to side with the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, but it is not surprising, given that most Palestinians are Sunni. It bothers me that hardcore Baathists make the Palestinian cause the number one cause for Iraq, and some of the most passionate supporters of Palestine are some of the biggest jerks in the world. This doesn't change the fact that Palestinians have been victimized in the last 60 years. The injustice continues, and people continue to write about it.

Through an exchange with a fellow Iraqi Shi3i, I came across the article below. I find it interesting that many of the great writers who expose the injustice are Jewish, and yet many American Christians disbelieve them or dismiss them.

'Middle East peacemaking has been smothered in deceptive euphemisms, so let me state bluntly that each of these claims is a lie. Israel, not Hamas, violated the truce: Hamas undertook to stop firing rockets into Israel; in return, Israel was to ease its throttlehold on Gaza. In fact, during the truce, it tightened it further. This was confirmed not only by every neutral international observer and NGO on the scene but by Brigadier General (Res.) Shmuel Zakai, a former commander of the IDF’s Gaza Division. In an interview in Ha’aretz on 22 December, he accused Israel’s government of having made a ‘central error’ during the tahdiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce, by failing ‘to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip . . . When you create a tahdiyeh, and the economic pressure on the Strip continues,’ General Zakai said, ‘it is obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahdiyeh, and that their way to achieve this is resumed Qassam fire . . . You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they’re in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing.’

'It is too easy to describe Hamas simply as a ‘terror organisation’. It is a religious nationalist movement that resorts to terrorism, as the Zionist movement did during its struggle for statehood, in the mistaken belief that it is the only way to end an oppressive occupation and bring about a Palestinian state. While Hamas’s ideology formally calls for that state to be established on the ruins of the state of Israel, this doesn’t determine Hamas’s actual policies today any more than the same declaration in the PLO charter determined Fatah’s actions.

...Halevy also pointed out the absurdity of linking Hamas to al-Qaida. "In the eyes of al-Qaida, the members of Hamas are perceived as heretics due to their stated desire to participate, even indirectly, in processes of any understandings or agreements with Israel. [The Hamas political bureau chief, Khaled] Mashal’s declaration diametrically contradicts al-Qaida’s approach, and provides Israel with an opportunity, perhaps a historic one, to leverage it for the better." '

What Israel should have done

Thomas Friedman: 'What could Israel have done? The Palestinian Authority, which has made concrete strides in the past five years at building the institutions and security forces of a state in the West Bank — making life there quieter than ever for Israel — finally said to itself: “Our state-building has not prompted Israel to halt settlements or engage in steps to separate, so all we’re doing is sustaining Israel’s occupation. Let’s go to the U.N., get recognized as a state within the 1967 borders and fight Israel that way.” Once this was clear, Israel should have either put out its own peace plan or tried to shape the U.N. diplomacy with its own resolution that reaffirmed the right of both the Palestinian and the Jewish people to a state in historic Palestine and reignited negotiations.

Mr. Netanyahu did neither. Now the U.S. is scrambling to defuse the crisis, so the U.S. does not have to cast a U.N. veto on a Palestinian state, which could be disastrous in an Arab world increasingly moving toward more popular self-rule.'

Making Aid Accountable

The US has given Pakistan billions of dollars in aid since 9/11, presumably to fight the Taliban, but Pakistan has been unable, and perhaps unwilling, to get tough with the Taliban. The Obama administration is now holding the Pakistanis accountable for the aid they receive from the US, which I think is long overdue.

"Vali Nasr, a professor at Tufts University's Fletcher School of International Affairs, has been tapped to be a senior adviser to Richard Holbrooke, the administration's special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Nasr says this time Pakistan will need to be held accountable for the U.S. aid it receives."

It is disheartening to think the US has been handing out money to people who do not fulfill their end of the obligation, who may even be supporting injustice. Which brings me to Israel. Israel has been receiving billion of dollars in annual aid since 1973. For the last 36 years Israel has unconditionally received $3 billion every year and has used it to buy all kinds of things, including US-made weapons and big bulldozers to destroy Palestinian homes and olive farms. In 2007 Israel received $6.8 million every day in 2007. Shouldn't we attach some strings to that? Shouldn't the US be influencing Israel, and helping to protect justice, instead of Israel influencing the American Congress to ignore injustice?

Suicide bombings in Israel vs. Iraq

I am surprised that no journalists except Robert Fisk have compared the number of suicide bombings in Israel to the number of suicide bombings in Iraq. Between 2000 and 2002 there were 70 suicide bombings in Israel, the country that has been hated by most Arabs for 60 years. In Iraq, it has become difficult to keep count of the number of suicide bombings and the number of victims. In March Robert Fisk and The Independent published an article that estimated the number of suicide bombers in Iraq at the time to be an astounding 1,121:

'But a month-long investigation by The Independent, culling four Arabic-language newspapers, official Iraqi statistics, two Beirut news agencies and Western reports, shows that an incredible 1,121 Muslim suicide bombers have blown themselves up in Iraq. This is a very conservative figure and – given the propensity of the authorities (and of journalists) to report only those suicide bombings that kill dozens of people – the true estimate may be double this number. On several days, six – even nine – suicide bombers have exploded themselves in Iraq in a display of almost Wal-Mart availability. If life in Iraq is cheap, death is cheaper.

This is perhaps the most frightening and ghoulish legacy of George Bush's invasion of Iraq five years ago. Suicide bombers in Iraq have killed at least 13,000 men, women and children – our most conservative estimate gives a total figure of 13,132 – and wounded a minimum of 16,112 people. If we include the dead and wounded in the mass stampede at the Baghdad Tigris river bridge in the summer of 2005 – caused by fear of suicide bombers – the figures rise to 14,132 and 16,612 respectively. Again, it must be emphasised that these statistics are minimums. For 529 of the suicide bombings in Iraq, no figures for wounded are available.

...Never before has the Arab world witnessed a phenomenon of suicide-death on this scale. During Israel's occupation of Lebanon after 1982, one Hizbollah suicide-bombing a month was considered remarkable. During the Palestinian intifadas of the 1980s and 1990s, four per month was regarded as unprecedented. But suicide bombers in Iraq have been attacking at the average rate of two every three days since the 2003 Anglo-American invasion.

The mind boggling number of suicide bombings in Iraq, when compared to the number of suicide bombings in Israel, is symbolic of what Arab extremists think of Iraqis. To these Arabs, Iraqis are expendable, if not apostates or traitors who deserve violent death. Iraqi Shia are "worse than the Jews", according to many takfiri Arabs. The number of suicide bombings in Iraq and the celebration of such bombings proves the Arab hatred of Shia in Iraq.

Why did takfiri Arabs not mass murder Iraqi Shia before 2003? Because in general Sunni Arabs were reasonably happy with Saddam. They had nothing to complain about. Saddam was oppressing Iraq's Shia and non-Iraqi Sunni Arabs did not seem to mind. Since 2003 Iraqis have been cooperating with Americans in setting up a democracy in Iraq, as flawed as it may be, and for this they are mass murdered by our Arab "brothers". Iraqi Sunni Arabs who support democracy have been murdered as well. As more of Iraq's Sunni Arabs turn against Al Qaeda and work with Americans, Al Qaeda in Iraq has murdered more Iraqi Sunni Arabs - just yesterday a suicide bomber blew himself up among worshipers in the Abu Hamifa mosque in Adhamiya, killing the deputy commander of Adhamiya's Sahwa.

So this is what our Arab "brothers" think of Iraqis. Arabs have traveled from near occupied Palestine to fight US occupation and ended up mass murder Iraqis, apparently because it's easier than entering Israel and killing civilians there. Gulfie Arabs mass murder Iraqis for working with Americans as US companies do big business in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar. Arabs complain about US military bases in Iraq as US bases and embassies are scattered throughout the Arab world, including the US CENTCOM in Doha. Yet we do not read about suicide bombings in Doha, no bombings of markets in Riyadh. Only Iraqis are murdered in these horrific ways and in such large numbers.

Iran

I don't like the Iranian regime. Recently I saw 1991 footage of an Iranian crowd stoning a woman to death. Mullahs can be quite the barbaric animals, and it disturbs me that SCIRI members are so influenced by the Iranian regime. After we fled Iraq in 1982, my father became obsessed with Khomeini and the "Islamic Revolution". Later he was dismayed to discover that Khomeini's regime murdered more Muslim clerics than did the Shah.

Having said this, I am concerned that the mainstream media in America and Europe are deliberately misquoting Ahmadinejad, who allegedly said that "Israel will be wiped off the map" in a speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference in October 2005. For several months I assumed that the media has been translating his words correctly. It was Christian Sunni who pointed out to me recently that Ahmadinejad did not actually say that Israel will be wiped off the map. In an analysis of Ahmadinejad's speech, the authors of this article conclude that Ahmadinejad was referring to the regime that occupies Palestine and not the country of Israel. Wikipedia also has a good analysis of the speech, with commentary by Juan Cole. The Iranian Foreign Minister tried to explain what Ahmadinejad said, but it did not help, and the mainstream media has been repeating the 'wiping off the map' allegation since then.

Disinformation is a tool used to manufacture consent (to war with Iran in this case), and I am surprised that the mainstream media participates in it, especially when it is obvious that Ahmadinejad was misquoted and did not actually say that Israel should be wiped off the map. He did not even use the word 'map'. The Iranian regime will fall naturally through attrition and Iranian society's thirst for freedom. To bomb Iran (and undoubtedly kill innocent Iranians) because their current President allegedly said that Israel should be wiped off the map is silly. Even if he did say that Israel must be wiped off the map, it would not be a good reason to attack Iran.

Furthermore, attacking Iran would strain US relations with Iraq. Remember Alaa’s first Law: "The relations between the Shiaa’s of Iraq and Iran are reciprocally proportional to those between them and the United States. In other words; the worst the latter gets the closer becomes the first and vise versa. Therefore this question must be dealt with, with the utmost caution to avoid quite undesirable results."

Israeli settlements will lead to one state solution

Below is more evidence that Americans' perceptions of the conflict in Palestine have been changing over the years, albeit rather slowly. I am always pleasantly surprised to see honest reporting on Palestine in mainstream American media.

Philip Weiss notes "The American lib-left seems to be getting the news that the two-state-solution is having its death rattles (3 years of death rattles, unusual case doctor). Joe Klein wants sanctions. And here’s the Nation on the crumbling of the Palestinian Authority. It is unusual to read such a starkly-honest statement of the situation in even a liberal American publication. Roane Carey in the latest Nation:

...for all practical purposes, there is only one nation between the Jordan and the sea, composed of roughly equal numbers of Palestinians and Jews. Then Israel will "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights," former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned when he was still in office, "and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished." So Israel will have to confront its own existential dilemma: are the settlements really worth retaining if it means the eventual end of Zionism?

Reading that in The Nation, a liberal magazine, was not as surprising as reading this in Time:

...while I agree that the Obama negotiators have been naive and incompetent in dealing with Likud intransigence, it's also clear that if it's "nonsense" to ask the Israelis to stop building settlements in East Jerusalem--universally recognized as Palestine's capital in a two-state solution (except by the Neocons and the Likudniks)--then the Netanyahu government isn't at all interested in peace.

It is ironic that the continued building of settlements on Palestinian territory, which right-wing Jews and Christians insist is Israel's right, would lead to the end of Israel as a Jewish state, assuming Israel eventually gives those Palestinians living on occupied territory the right to vote in Israeli elections, and assuming Palestinians continue to produce offspring at a faster rate than Israelis.

The international community, including many Jews, will not support an apartheid state, so when will the state of apartheid end? Will it be a one state solution in which all Palestinians have the same rights as Jews, or will it be a two state solution?

Thanks tgia for linking to Mondoweiss.