Tag: West Bank

Effective protest

In the face of rising arrests on university campuses of protesters against Israel’s war in Gaza and West Bank, I will explore what forms of protest are proper and effective. I will not address the merits of one view or another as I have already done so in several earlier blogs. I support the measures that will best achieve Israel’s security and prosperity as well as those measures that will best achieve Palestine’s security and prosperity. The two are inseparable.  https://wcoats.blog/2023/10/10/israel-and-the-wbgs-next-steps/

As with international relations more generally, diplomacy is preferred and invariably more successful in the long run to war. War should be the absolute last resort when every effort at diplomacy has failed, if at all.

What does this mean for the war in Gaza and between Israel and its West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBGS) neighbors more generally? Diplomacy begins with correctly understanding the views of the other side. It involves talking with each other. American University protests are largely by students protesting Israel’s behavior vis a vis Hamas and more broadly its Palestinian neighbors.

“The students are protesting against Israel’s actions in the war with Hamas. The Columbia University Apartheid Divest coalition, which consists of more than 100 student groups, is calling for the university to financially divest from companies and institutions that ‘profit from Israeli apartheid, genocide and occupation in Palestine’…. Protesters camping on the university lawn say they believe the war in Gaza amounts to ‘genocide’ of Palestinians….

“’I’m here continuing the Jewish tradition of standing against oppression and injustice, especially as we approach Passover, a holiday that celebrates our own liberation and commits us to fighting for everyone else’s,’ the Jewish Voices for Peace at Columbia said in an online statement.”  https://abcnews.go.com/US/columbia-university-student-protests-israel-gaza-war-continue/story?id=109493377

These protestors clearly have something to discuss with U of Columbia’s Administration. I have no idea whether they are or not. Peaceful public demonstrations of support for demands to impress the other side with the existence of broad support is certainly an appropriate and often effective part of pressing demands. Public debate of the pros and cons of these demands, as guaranteed by our First Amendment right to free speech, can be a powerful way to refine demands and to educate the public of their merits.

But our freedom of speech has limits. We may not yell “Fire” in a theater in which there is no fire. We may not credibly threaten physical harm as in “Kill the Jews.”  On the other hand, the charge that damning the Israeli government for its war in Gaza (or any other unwanted policy) is antisemitic is as wrong as charging me with anti-Americanism for damning some of President Biden’s policies (such as using my tax money to provide the Israeli army with weapons with which they are killing women and children in Gaza).

But many protestors at Columbia U sat up tents on the campus in violation of university rules and on April 18th more than 100 of them were arrested and removed from the campus. The right to free speech is not the right to violate the law and Universities (or other property owners) have the right to remove violators. The boundaries for the proper right to free speech are set out in the following article by FIRE’s President Greg Lukianoff https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/hypocrisy-projection-civil-disobedience?r=1n8osb&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

When protestors feel so strongly about an issue that they knowingly break the law to dramatize their position, they must expect and accept the legal consequences. But this is the equivalent of going to war when the prospects for diplomacy have been exhausted. An extreme example was the self-immolation of US Airforce officer, Aaron Bushnell, in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC. “He was a 25-year-old serviceman who, on February 25, 2024, set himself on fire as a form of protest against what he described as the experiences of Palestinians at the hands of their colonizers and declared that he would no longer be complicit in genocide.” Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell – Wikipedia

Today’s student protests, most of which have been peaceful and legal, are often compared to the Free Speech Movement at the University of California, Berkeley in 1964, in which I participated. Traditionally, meaning at least during the time I was a student there, we sat up our recruiting tables along Bancroft Avenue near its intersection with Telegraph Avenue just outside the campus.

On September 14, 1964, Dean of Students Katherine Towle “announced that existing University regulations prohibiting advocacy of political causes or candidates, signing of members, and collection of funds by student organizations at Bancroft and Telegraph would henceforth be ”strictly enforced.” FSM Leaflet: Chronicle of the Free Speech Controversy (fsm-a.org)

We, and by we I mean students across the entire political spectrum, protested. Within a week most all student groups, including the University Young Republicans of which I was President, loosely organized into a United Front for presenting our “demands” to the Dean.

On September 27, 1964, the United Front held an all-night vigil on the steps of Sproul Hall. These steps, which became a major staging place for Free Speech Movement (FSM) speeches and demonstrations, are midway between the Telegraph and Bancroft Avenue intersection and Sather Gate. On September, 30 five students who refused to remove their card table were indefinitely suspended from the University. The next day, October 1, during a rally in front of Sproul Hall, Jack Weinberg was arrested for refusing to leave his CORE table. When he was put into a police car, students immediately surrounded it and prevented it from leaving as students began to speak to the crowd from the roof of the police car and the Sproul Hall steps. The next day the student crowd grew to 3,000 and the Alameda Country police force had grown to 500.

On October 3, leaders of Berkeley’s political organizations met on the Sproul Hall steps and formed the Free Speech Movement. Each group had a member on its council and thus I was a member of the FSM Council by virtue of being President of the University YRs. Days of speeches on these steps followed. On one occasion my address to the crowd followed that of Mario Savio the de facto leader of the FSM. Mario was an inspirational speaker and never called for violence. I also stressed the importance of peaceful discussions with the University administration aimed at restoring our traditional political activities on Bancroft.

It should not be surprising that with such a diversity of members on the FSM Council views differed on how to proceed. An important misunderstanding, which persists in the general public to this day, was that Dean Towle’s banning of political activity was not actually a reference to campus activities. The Telegraph and Bancroft location of our club tables was off the campus on city territory and the city had complained to the University that it had not approved such use of its sidewalks.

When control of the FSM Council was taken over by the radical left, Marxist faction, led by Bettina Aptheker, I resigned and joined with the presidents of four other groups genuinely fighting (peacefully) for free speech on campus to help steer student protest toward genuine free speech. It was clear from Bettina’s speeches that she wanted to steer the movement toward violence. Our small group consisted of the presidents of the University Conservatives, University Young Democrats, Young Peoples Socialist League, Young Socialists and myself. We meet at 2:00 am every few days in the office of Professor Seymour Lipset because the YPSL president was his research assistant and had a key to Lipset’s office. Our goal was to represent to the University administration the broader student body commitment to genuine free speech and the exchange of different ideas.

December 2, two to three thousand students peaceably occupied Sproul Hall sitting in for two days. Mario Savio led the occupation with the following words:

“There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all! Now, no more talking. We’re going to march in singing ‘We Shall Overcome.’” 

And Joan Baez stood there singing it as they walked in. In the early hours of December 4 Alameda police carried out and arrested 800 students.

For some reason our group of five moderate left and right wing groups were never interested in meeting with the Chancellor of the Berkeley campus, Edward Strong. Clark Kerr was the president of the whole university system and we ultimately met with him and made our case that his administration had not done a very sensible thing in clamping down on all of our traditional political activities. We argued that we thought there was a way of both satisfying the law and re-establishing our tradition of open, free speech that would satisfy everybody except Bettina Aptheker. Happily, this is what happened, in part by clarifying that student activities needed to be on the campus and not on the streets of Berkeley.

Sadly, we too often choose war when diplomacy would produce a better outcome.

The Houthi’s and Us

After almost a decade of trying to end Saudi Arabian bombing of the Houthi government in Northern Yemen, President Biden has ordered multiple American bombing attacks on Northern Yemen because of Houthi attacks on ships sending arms to Israel in support of its genocide in Gaza. You might need to read that sentence again to get all its parts.

The first point is that once again the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that the Congress must authorize war before the President can launch one, has been violated. And why did Biden think it necessary to bomb Yemen? Because the Houthi attacks were interfering with our shipment of weapons to Israel in support of Israel’s vicious murder of Palestinians by bombing and starvation. “The group’s official spokesman reiterated that attacks on vessels transiting the Bab el-Mandeb Strait toward the Suez Canal will continue until “Gaza [receives] the food and medicine it needs.” That shouldn’t be hard to accomplish.

Even if the US Congress authorized the American bombing of Yemen, it would be bad policy for the U.S., for the Palestinians, and for Israel. “Weighing additional US responses to Houthi Red Sea attacks” America’s interest should be peace and prosperity for all in the Middle East (and all the world). Supporting Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza does not serve that goal and makes the U.S. complicit in Israel’s genocide. Moreover, Europe’s relative silence and the silence of any of us to Israel’s inhuman war in Gaza (including Biden, Trump and Nikki Haley) makes them all complicit. “War in Gaza exposes European philosophy ethically bankrupt”

The march toward the aridification of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank is too unbelievably savage to spell out. Such a fate should not be wished on any people. “Unfolding genocide as ever single person in Gaza goes hungry” “Israel’s Netanyahu its Cromwell”

But this war, following a century of Zionist mistreatment of Palestinians in their homeland, is destroying Israel. “Israel is facing existential threats from inside and out-there’s one solution” Israel is committing suicide. To survive, Israel must become a secular democratic state that give equal rights and fair treatment to all who inhabit it. “One state solution for Palestine/Israel”

U.S. leadership is failing once again and is waning. The lust for war by the hawks has overpowered American self-interest once again. War with Iran can’t be far behind. Taiwan can wait (a bit).  “Gaza and Yemen sound death knell for US led rules based global order”

One State Solution for Palestine/Israel

I have long supported the “two state solution” for the Levant envisioned by the Oslo Accords. I led IMF technical assistance teams that launched the Palestine Monetary Authority as called for in the Oslo Accords. “Oslo-the Play”   After listening to the following presentation by two very knowledgeable Jews, I have changed my mind: Max Blumenthal & Miko Peled 

In supporting a Two State Solution I had assumed that the alternative One State Solution had to be a democratic Jewish state as sought by Zionists, which would have required that Israel eliminate, one way or another, enough Palestinians to establish and retain a large Jewish majority. This is, of course, exactly the policy Israel had followed since its founding and most conspicuously in its current devastating attack on Palestinians in Gaza.  “A one state solution”

Miko Peled, the son of a distinguished Israeli general, proposes a One State Solution in which Israel’s Jews give up its being a Jewish State. Rather Israel, from the River to the Sea, would be a democratic state in which all residence would enjoy equal treatment under the law. But can Zionists be convinced to support a secular Israel of Jews and Palestinian, both the descendance of Abraham. In a recent meeting of the Committee for the Republic, Rabbi Yaakov Shapiroargued that Zionism is antisemitic and should be repudiated:  “Antizionism is not Antisemitic”

In a realistic assessment of the current situation, Natan Sachs argues that neither a one state nor two state solution is possible any time soon because of the lack of trust on both sides after 70 years of oppressive Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and the vicious attack on Israel by Hamas on Oct 7. However, he argues that continuing to kick the can down the road has been a disaster and must end. The U.S., now providing the bombs with which Israel is slaughtering innocent Palestinian men, women, and children, must order an immediate ceasefire before millions in Gaza starve to death and the war escalates to Lebanon and beyond.  “UN Human Rights Experts warm of unfolding Genocide in Gaza”

The U.S. must also use it considerable leverage to end new Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Settler (and Israeli Army) abuse of Palestinians living there and strengthen the Palestinian Authority. Since WWII the U.S. has given Israel more than $260 billion in foreign assistance (over $3.3 billion annually in recent years), more than to any other country.

“It is time, rather, to couple a political horizon with serious, transformative, solution-oriented yet hard-nosed conflict management: imperfect, messy, halting, unsatisfactory for all, and yet preferable by far to the current reality…. The United States must set the ground rules for the long interim period before true conflict resolution might be possible and enforce these rules vigorously…. Even if a solution to the conflict is currently unavailable, aimlessly kicking the can down the road is not a reasonable strategy. That approach was not conflict management; it was a strategy that allowed the conflict to manage both sides.”  “Peace between Israelis and Palestinian remains possible”

In my view a single state with full citizenship with equal rights for all inhabitance would be the best long run outcome but it will not be easy and will take time for interim Israeli occupation to build mutual confidence for drafting and adopting such a constitution (like England, Israel does not have a written constitution). Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and other parts of greater Israel housing important Jewish, Islamic and Christian sites must be fully protected by religious liberty provisions of the constitution.  While such an outcome will take many years to achieve, interim measures must build to that outcome.

From the River to the Sea

I oppose the death penalty, but on occasion have said (and perhaps written) that I am tempted to relax my opposition for those who deliberately spread lies (or bomb babies). This is my cherished right in the U.S. where we enjoy (still to some extent) our freedom to say whatever we want. I strongly oppose antisemitic statements as well as false claims that condemning acts of the Israeli government is antisemitic. But I defend the right of people to says such things (but would never invite them to my home). It is also my right to condemn their rudeness.

The demonstrations of Jewish (Israeli) and Arab (Palestinian) students condemning Hamas’ Oct 7 attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent attack on Gaza (and increased violence against Palestinians in the West Bank) are understandably intense. To be clear, violence from demonstrators toward anyone (such as blocking access to class) is not protected by our First Amendment right to free speech and would be certainly condemned by me. But shouting death to the Palestinians or to the Jews without actual threats of violence is protected. The First Amendment is not needed to protect speech we agree with or like but speech we disagree with and/or are offended by. The benefits of such freedom in our society are huge but seem to need renewed support.

I am particularly annoyed by deliberate distortions of the meaning of chants like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” I share that aspiration. Indeed, everyone from the river to the sea should be free. Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, was censured by House lawmakers for saying it.

Unfortunately, disapproval and disagreement have morphed into inappropriate sanctions:

“The brother of a British-Israeli man who had been killed during Hamas’ attack on 7 October… told the BBC that he found the marches in the UK for Gaza upsetting and intimidating. Chants like ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ were, he observed, evidence of deep-rooted and growing antisemitism in British society.

“The problem is not just that many British Jews assume the UK has an antisemitism problem based on a highly dubious interpretation of the chant’s meaning. It is that establishment media organisations are echoing that misunderstanding and treating it as more newsworthy than Israel killing Palestinian babies, with the UK government’s blessing. It is just one illustration of a pattern of reporting by western media outlets skewing their news priorities in ways that reveal a racist hierarchy of concern. Jewish fears are of greater import than actual Palestinian deaths, even babies’ deaths. 

“The hypocrisy is especially hard to stomach, given a central Israeli justification for its subsequent genocidal rampage through Gaza. Israel promoted the claim that Hamas had beheaded 40 Israeli babies on 7 October – a story that was widely reported as fact, even though no evidence was ever produced for it.”  “Israel-Palestine war: Gaza slogan bigger news than murder of babies”

New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik’s attack on the President of MIT, Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania for defending free (if repugnant) speech was particularly disgusting and alarming. The President of the U of Penn, Liz Magill, was evening forced to resign. While there may be some grey areas between shouting that all Arabs or all Jews (or Trumpeters) should die and actually threatening their lives, the attacks we have been seeing on the freedom to say nasty things is dangerous to a valued American institution. So is the increasing loss of civility (good manners). To preserve (or reestablish) the society we cherish, we need to use our freedom to speak to defend both speech and manners.

The Future of Gaza

Hamas had good reasons for its Oct 7 attack on Israel. However, its vicious attack was not justified. Israel has good reasons for its attack on Gaza. However, its vicious attack is not justified. What follows? Who will occupy and rule Gaza when Israel ends its assault and withdraws?

One State Solution

The answer to that question should reflect what will best serve Israel’s security and prosperity. “I am the only one who will prevent a Palestinian state in Gaza and [the West Bank] after the war,” Netanyahu told Likud lawmakers, according to Israel’s Kan public broadcaster. However, the aim of the right wing of Netanyahu’s government to kill or otherwise remove Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank in order to allow a single, democratic, Jewish state over the whole region is not acceptable to most Jews both in Israel and elsewhere. Such a genocide or pogrom would not be acceptable to most people.

The 700,000 Palestinians driven from their homes in 1947 in the war that established the state of Israel now occupy Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.  Along with increasing illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Israel army’s occupation of the WBGS since the Six Day War in 1967, frictions have increase between these regions.  For more details see my book: Palestine: The Oslo Accords Before and After-My Travels to Jerusalem”

One of many abuses under Israel occupation has been the arrest and detention of Palestinians, many of them children, for protesting or attacking their occupiers. Over 800,000 have been jailed, about a third with no charges or trail.  “The power to incarcerate people who have not been convicted or even charged with anything for lengthy periods of time, based on secret ‘evidence’ that they cannot challenge, is an extreme power,” noted Israeli human rights group B’Tselem. “Israel uses it continuously and extensively, routinely holding hundreds of Palestinians at any given moment.”  “Israel Palestine detention”  

A recent example was the arrest of 22 year old Ahed Tamimi on Nov 6. “After holding Ms. Tamimi for nearly three weeks without access to a lawyer or her family, Israel moved to incarcerate her under administrative detention….  The Israeli military has said Ms. Tamimi was arrested on suspicion of inciting violence and calling for terrorist activity, but has declined to provide further information. Her mother said the arrest was based on a post to an Instagram account in her name that referenced Hitler and vowed to “slaughter” settlers in the West Bank.” NYtimes – Ahed Tamimi detained”  

While Hamas has fired thousands of rockets into Israel, they have resulted in few casualties. Between December 9th 1987 and April 30th 2021, conflict casualties for Palestinians and Israelis claimed 13,969 lives. Fully 87% of the dead were Palestinian. If Israel is not prepared to give full and equal rights to Palestinians within one integrated state, it will need to make peace with and end its occupation of the WBGS. “A one state solution”

Two State Solution

“President Biden recently declared his desire to see a ‘revitalized’ Palestinian government that could bring together Gaza and the West Bank under ‘a single governance structure.’ That is a worthy aim.” A two state solution requires a Palestinian agreement with Israel over borders, right of return (if any), the status of Jerusalem and an efficient, properly functioning Palestinian government for WBGS. Palestinians will need to give up their claims to lost homes now in Israel and formally recognize the State of Israel. But neither side will be safe and secure without a proper, and effective Palestinian government. ‘Biden Calls for Recognition of Palestinian State”

Effective governance of Gaza must be part of the new Palestine (following a transition period of UN or other international control). To get there an interim administration by Hamas and Palestinian Authority officials will be necessary while preparing for internationally supervised election in the WBGS. How does that square with Israel’s determination to obliterate Hamas?

Israel’s goal should be to end the capacity of Hamas fighter to threaten Israel. That does not and must not mean to destroy the capacity of Gaza’s administrative bodies to oversee the essential services any society requires. Seen in terms of the United States, it would mean incapacitation the U.S. military, not the other departments of the U.S. government.

If you think this is obvious, consider the amazing steps by the U.S. lead Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq of which I was sadly a part in its final months in 2004. In what must rank as two of the most destructive acts of any occupying force, the first two Orders by the CPA kneecapped the Iraqi government and turned its army out onto the street “unemployed.”

“Section 1 Disestablishment of the Baath Party

“1) On April 16, 2003 the Coalition Provisional Authority disestablished the Baath Party of Iraq. This order implements that declaration by eliminating the party’s structures and removing its leadership from positions of authority and responsibility in Iraqi society. By this means, the Coalition Provisional Authority will ensure that representative government in Iraq is not threatened by Baathist elements returning to power and that those in positions of authority in the future are acceptable ot the people of Iraq.

“2) Ful members of the Baath Party holding the ranks of ‘Udw Qutriyya (Regional Command Member), U’ dw Far* (Branch Member), ‘Udw Shu’ bah (Section Member), and ‘Udw Firqah (Group Member) (together, “Senior Party Members”) are hereby removed from their positions and banned from future employment in the public sector.”

The Baath Party was the equivalent of Hamas in Gaza. Rather than removing the government’s leaders, this order removed most of those with the knowledge and ability to administer the Iraqi government.

“Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 2: Dissolution of Entities signed by Coalition Provisional Authority on 23 May 2003, disbanded the Iraqi military, security, and intelligence infrastructure of President Saddam Hussein.[1] It has since become an object of controversy, cited by some critics as the biggest American mistake made in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein[2] and as one of the main causes of the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/ISIS).” “Coalition Provisional Authority Order 2”.

You can find more details on the Iraq experience in my book “Iraq: An American Tragedy-My Travels tp Baghdad”

Conclusion

Israel’s security would be best served by agreement with its Palestinian neighbors on recognition of a Palestine State. This will require the end of illegal settlements in the WBGS, end of Israel’s occupation of the WBGS, and observance of other UN degrees. To apply maximum pressure on Israel to meet these conditions, the U.S. should join the vast majority of UN members in supporting these measures and recognize the State of Palestine. Palestine must recognize the State of Israel, respect its borders and laws, and renounce violence.  And the U.S., Gulf States, and UN should support and facilitate the establishment and development of a unified Palestinian Authority.

Dear Congressman Kevin McCarthy

The Times of Israel and other press report that you “would remove Ilhan Omar, the Minnesota Democrat, from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in part because of her criticism of Israel.” We should all speak out against antisemitism or any other hateful characterizations of other religious and ethnic groups. However, when you criticize the Biden administration, we would be wrong to call you unamerican. Similarly, you are wrong to conflate criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism. 

In fact, the U.S. government has been embarrassingly negligent in criticizing the Israeli government’s illegal and abusive treatment of the Palestinian residents of the Palestinian territories.  Amnesty International has declared Israel an apartheid state. “Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful under international law due to its permanence and the Israeli government’s de facto annexation policies, a UN-appointed Commission of Inquiry said in its first report, published on Oct 20, 2022.” It is reassuring that the US is undertaking an investigation of the recent shooting death of Palestinian American Shireen Abu Akleh by an Israeli soldier.  “FBI investigation—killing of Shireen Abu Akleh by Israel military”

I was born and raised in Bakersfield and now live in the Washington, DC area, and I have worked extensively in Israel and the WBGS for the International Monetary Fund. I hope for more from you.   “Israel and Palestine”   My travels to Jerusalem”  

Sincerely,

Warren Coats

Israel and Palestine

Who started the feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys? Who is to blame? In the case of the new nation of Israel in the land of Canaan (Palestine) we might go back to Adam and Eve or more recently to the Balfour Declaration in 1917 (see the brief history in my book “Palestine-Oslo Accords-My Travels to Jerusalem”) to see where the feuding began.

Who started it?

But let’s start this current, tragic round of fighting with the Israeli police attacks on demonstrators “rallying against the forced expulsions of Palestinian families from the occupied East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah…. At least 90 Palestinians were wounded on Saturday [May 8] during an Israeli police crackdown on protesters outside the Old City of Jerusalem, while another 200 Palestinians were injured on Friday when Israeli forces stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque.” Al-Aqsa Mosque, known as the Dome on the Rock in English, is Islam’s third most sacred site. Muslims believe that Muhammad ascended to heaven from this site.

 “Jerusalem court delays Palestinian Sheikh Jarrah eviction hearing”

Israel’s Supreme Court “is reviewing a judgment to evict Palestinian families from the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood of East Jerusalem. Their homes sit on land that was owned by Jews before Jordan occupied the eastern part of Jerusalem in 1948. Israeli law allows the heirs of the original owners to reclaim property in East Jerusalem. Yet Palestinians cannot claim their former homes in West Jerusalem (or anywhere else in Israel). No wonder Palestinian residents of the city are always ready to protest.

“The injustices elsewhere are worse. Palestinians in the wider West Bank, like those in Jerusalem, have watched Israel confiscate land and build settlements on occupied territory, which is illegal under international law. They must also deal with Israeli checkpoints and an onerous permit regime. In Gaza more than 2m Palestinians have been cut off from the world by Israeli and Egyptian blockades since 2007, when Hamas grabbed control.” “The Economist: Only negotiations can bring lasting peace to Israel and Palestine”

That is the immediate background to the dozens of rockets launched by Hamas from Gaza starting on Monday (May 10): “Palestinian militants launched dozens of rockets from Gaza and Israel unleashed new air strikes against them early Tuesday, in an escalation triggered by soaring tensions in Jerusalem and days of clashes at an iconic mosque in the holy city.” “Israeli police Palestinians clash Jerusalem holy site”

At least 30 Palestinians, including 10 children, and three Israelis were killed as tensions in Jerusalem spread west toward the seacoast Tuesday. Israeli airstrikes flattened a multistory apartment building in Gaza and rockets fired from the Gaza Strip reached Tel Aviv in an unusually far-reaching barrage that sent residents of Israel’s largest city scrambling into bomb shelters.  “Israeli clashes Palestinians turn deadly Jerusalem tensions spread”

More concerning than the exchange of rockets between Gaza and Israel, is the sharp rise of violence between Arab Israelis in Israel and between Palestinians and Israelis throughout the West Bank.  A major problem is that there are no good guys on either side. “Most Israelis are comfortable with the ‘anti-solutionism’ of Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, who shows little interest in pursuing a permanent settlement with the Palestinians….  Fatah, has not done much better in the West Bank. The party’s leader, Mahmoud Abbas, is in the 17th year of a four-year term as Palestine’s president. He seems concerned mainly with preserving his own power.”  “The Economist: Only negotiations can bring lasting peace to Israel and Palestine”

Critically, the United States has failed to promote Palestinian rights, giving one-sided support to whatever Israel does.

Sadly, the winners, if we can call them that, of today’s tragic fighting are the status quo leaders (Netanyahu, Abbas, and Hamas), who have failed to address the central issues of the coexistence of Israelis and Palestinians in the land of Canaan. War, or the threat of it, are historically tested instruments for strengthening public support of existing leaders.  In a recent report on the situation in Israel, the Human Rights Watch pronounced Israel an Apartheid state.  “Israel report apartheid” The Jewish diaspora are increasingly speaking up against the policies of Israel. The United States could make a major contribution by conditioning its very large financial aid to Israel on its respecting the rights of Palestinians.  “A New U.S. Approach to Israel-Palestine”  

I shudder to think what might be happening by the time you read this.

Is Rep Ilhan Omar anti-Semitic?

U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, a Muslim Somalian immigrant, has been insisting that we need to publicly condemn Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as well as in Israel itself. This mistreatment includes illegally occupying Palestinian land on which Jewish Israeli’s build so called “settlements,” excessive use of force against Palestinians protesting their treatment (since 2000 Israeli soldiers have killed 9 Palestinian, including women and children, for every Israeli killed by a Palestinian), and legally restricting the citizen rights of Israeli Arabs (i.e. imposing apartheid on Palestinians living in Israel) in an effort to keep Israel both democratic and Jewish with a “one state solution” that would make Jews a minority). All of my Jewish friends, including some Israeli Jews, also condemn these horrible acts. The issue is well summarized by Andrew Sullivan: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/how-should-we-talk-about-the-israel-lobbys-power.html?utm_source=fb&fbclid=IwAR1B12R8xQ0PTQhRO3u2f0nPO2ssSPmdZCEbbYbnvWNByClY2zuNgXaV9TE

So why is Ms. Omar being condemned as an anti-Semite by some (those who, in my opinion, are simply diverting the conversation away from Israel’s bad behavior)? It seems to arise from her complaints that “‘I am told everyday that I am anti-American if I am not pro-Israel,’ Omar tweeted March 3 in response to critics. ‘I find that to be problematic and I am not alone.’” Washington Post 3/11/2019 https://wapo.st/2TEMzt9. More specifically, and this is where critics have focused, she has complained that the so-called Israel Lobby has blinded American’s to Israel’s bad behavior. “On Feb. 27, Omar told an audience at a town hall event in Washington, D.C., that accusations of anti-Semitism were meant to silence her criticism of Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.”  Ibid. In my opinion the charges of anti-Semitism reported in the above Post article, prove her point.

Some people were particularly offended by her reference to the “Dual loyalty” of many Americans (Jewish and non-Jewish) to both our own country and to Israel.  I do not respect anyone who uncritically agrees with anything and everything their hero says or does whether it is Trump, Putin, or Bibi (I like some of Trump’s policies and dislike others, but disrespect the man). The same goes for governments. Given the strong reaction (claims of anti-Semitism) of any criticism of Israel in earlier years in the U.S. (we now see a regression to those days) I was pleasantly surprised on my many visits to Israel that a critical public discussion of Israeli policies and behavior was far more open and honest there. We should not be surprised or concerned that organizations such as American Israel Public Affairs Committee champion a particular point of view. That is what they exist for (just as the Log Cabin Republican’s and other policy oriented groups exist to propagate a point of view). What is unusual is the amazing influence that AIPAC has had on American foreign policy, often against America’s best interest. If you are not aware of this read John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.”

It is natural and usual for any of us with origins in another country (that would be most of us) to retain sympathies for the fatherland even when condemning bad things it might do. My Russian American friends, for example, can’t help smarting a bit at criticisms of Putin even when they fully agree with them. The country that gave us some of the world’s greatest literature and music has also given us the gulag, etc. But no one, at least no one I know, would dream of calling me anti-Russian when I condemn Putin.

I have not read every word from Rep Omar, but I have not read anything that suggests she is anti-Semitic. She has raised important points about the policies and behavior of the Israeli government.  President Trump’s, and for that matter his predecessors for many years, uncritical acceptance of Israel’s outrageous treatment of the Palestinians in their charge, should be challenged. Those diverting the discussion by labeling those of us who condemn Israel’s behavior as anti-Semitic are exploiting America’s very understandable sympathies for the horrors of the holocaust and a long history of anti-Semitism. But such charges and diversion are dishonest and a disservice to the best interests of the United States (and I would say of Israel as well).

The Future of Israel and Palestine

At an otherwise friendly dinner conversation at the home of Israeli friends, our host explained that Israel having taken over the West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBGS) in the 6 day war in 1967, i.e. having won the war fair and square, so to speak, the Palestinians and the rest of the world should accept that reality and move on. He was articulating the one state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. The WBGS now belongs to and is part of Israel (though Israel did withdraw later from and gave up Gaza).

The Zionist movement’s goal of establishing a Jewish homeland, a Jewish nation, seemed fulfilled with the U.N.’s recognition of the new state of Israel in 1048. The commitment of its Jewish residents to building a democratic state required achieving and maintaining a Jewish majority in the population. Absorbing the West Bank into Israel presents some obvious challenges. If you are not familiar with the history of Israel, I urge you to read my summary of it: “View from the West Bank–A History of the Conflict”

One state for Israel and the West Bank would have a majority of Palestinians. The Jews around the world willing to move to Israel (the earlier strategy for obtaining a Jewish majority) have pretty much already done so and birth rates among the Palestinians are higher than among the Jews. Thus a consolidated, democratic, and Jewish state would require second-class citizenship for its Palestinian residence. A British journalist living in Nazareth, Israel explains this in more detail: “With-more-palestinians-than-jews-israel-waging-war-of-attrition”

Former President Jimmy Carter described this potential outcome in his 2006 book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” where he wrote: “The bottom line is this: Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law, with the Roadmap for Peace, with official American policy, with the wishes of a majority of its own citizens — and honor its own previous commitments — by accepting its legal borders.” This reality is recognized by many Israeli and even endorsed by some: “Israeli minister-endorses-apartheid.”

An apartheid regime for Israel would be an affront to liberal democratic values not easily swallowed by the Jewish diaspora. In fact, it would not be acceptable at all. That argues for continued effort to agree on a two state solution. In the following article Ronald Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress, makes the case for the two state solution that the U.S. and U.N have worked for until now (or perhaps until last year) as the only morally and practically acceptable solution to this problem: “Israel’s Self-Inflicted Wounds”.

What we are seeing now, however, is something much uglier. The third option to two states, or one apartheid state, is one state that has ethnically cleansed the unwanted Palestinians in order to preserve Jewish control in a democratic state. The increasingly corrupt regime of Bibi Netanyahu seems to be moving in this direction and uncritical U.S. support of whatever his government does is putting the U.S. at odds with the rest of the world. For a similar review, see: “The-strange-catharsis-of-hopelessness-in-Israel”

U.S. tacit support of continued construction of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land was resoundingly rejected by the U.N. When President Trump moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem “The United Nations General Assembly voted… 128-9, with 35 abstentions, on a non-binding resolution condemning President Trump’s new policy recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel…. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley told an emergency meeting of the General Assembly [that] ‘the United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very right of exercising our right as a sovereign nation.’” This is the language of a bully, not a world leader, and I was appalled and embarrassed for my country. “UN-votes-to-reject-US-decision-on-Jerusalem-despite-threats”

More worrying are increasing signs that Netanyahu’s government is indeed pursuing the ethnic cleansing option. In addition to stealing Palestinian land in the West Bank for Israeli expansion, Israel has increasingly isolated and stifled the Palestinian economy. “Israel-Jewish-nation-state-bill”

Israel has occupied the West Bank for fifty years. Some of its treatment of its wards would be seen as human rights violations if committed by any other country. “Alabama-Israel-apartheid.” Recent Israeli laws are escalating such abusive treatment, allowing “the minister of interior to revoke the residency rights of any Palestinian in Jerusalem on grounds of a “breach of loyalty” to Israel.” “Israel-passes-law-strip-residency-Jerusalem’s-Palestinians”

Last December you may have watched the video of 17 year old Ahed Tamimi attacking two Israeli soldiers who had just shot her 15-year-old cousin Mohammed Tamimi in the head at close range with a rubber-coated steel bullet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YFen2KdqbU. The Israeli soldiers get points for staying cool. Ahed is now servicing eight months in prison after agreeing to a plea bargain. More recently (March 30, 2018) Israeli soldiers shot and killed 16 Palestinians on the Gaza Israeli border and wounded hundreds. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43593594 “Both UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and EU diplomatic chief Federica Mogherini have called for an independent investigation. On Saturday, the United States blocked a draft UN Security Council statement urging restraint and calling for an investigation of the violence.” Such blind obedience to Netanyahu’s government does not service the U.S. or Israel well (not to mention the Palestinians). Israel rejected the call. “Israel-rejects-calls-independent-probe-Gaza-violence.”

To ours and Israel’s shame, ethnic cleansing seems to be winning out. During my many visits to Israel and the West Bank and Gaza I marveled at the open debate among Israelis of these issues and praised their free press. I wrote the following from Jerusalem 12 years ago and again praised the importance of a free journalism. “Jerusalem-in-august-2006″. I am now waiting for today’s tweet attacks from Mr. Fake News, and wondering if we are in danger of letting it slip away.

As a bonus, I recommend the following video discussion of these issues at the New America: “Ultimate-deal-or-ultimate-demise”

 

 

 

Improving Intercultural Understanding

My friend Yael Luttwak, a film maker, undertook a brilliant project in Palestine (now comprising Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) in 2007 to improve relations between Jewish Israeli and Palestinian women. In her own words she “filmed A Slim Peace, documenting what happened when women who were secular Israeli Jews, Jewish settlers, West Bank Muslims, and Bedouin came together in a health and nutrition group run by a Jewish and a Muslim woman. Most had never met the likes of their counterparts before, and most never would have. But in that setting, they connected and empathy and understanding grew.” These women met in Gush Etzion, outside Jerusalem, not for the ostensible purpose of improving Israeli Palestinian relations, but to explore how to improve their diets and lose weight. That is the brilliance of the project. Improved understanding of each other as people was a by-product rather than the main focus. It is worth reading Yael’s full account of the project: “About A Slim Peace”

With Yael’s project in mind, I read with some dismay the experience of white and black fraternity and sorority students at the University of Tennessee in Chattanooga with what seemed a similar project. In the 1990s well meaning white students joined receptive and welcoming black students in learning the African American “step” routines that back students had performed annually for many years. But in October 2016 “black fraternities and sororities at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga had decided to [step] on their own. They took the show off campus, abandoning a glitzy annual homecoming event that had long included black and white students — and produced a program they felt was a more authentic reflection of stepping’s African American origins.” What was going on? “The-show-was-supposed-to-bring-black-and-white-students-together-it-almost-tore-them-apart”.

It is important to understand the profound difference between Yael’s Palestinian project and what happened at the University of Tennessee. The gatherings of Israeli and Palestinian women did not result in merging and blending, melting pot style, their respective cultures. Rather it resulted in improved understanding and cross-cultural bonding.

According one black student at the U of Tennessee: “The show no longer felt like a sharing of tradition but, rather, was one more element of black culture and identity that had been usurped…. This isn’t just entertainment for us,… When white students performed, it was just a performance. It had no greater meaning, or a sense of why. We don’t step without a ‘why.’ It connects us to something bigger.’”

“’Stepping isn’t yours,’ Hicks recalled responding. ‘This experience was so essential, and it’s so tied to the history of [black Greeks], and I think it just became something you have stolen and you are using it as your own’…. Kaitibi [a black student] told the audience that the black Greeks wanted to do something to ‘preserve our heritage and honor our traditions.’ It wouldn’t necessarily be bad if a white group wanted to do the same, ‘but we have to wonder: What traditions are you honoring?’”

“Black students [explained that] they were trying to find a balance between self-affirmation and racial reconciliation.”

In other words, the goal of racial and religious harmony and equal treatment under the law is not best served be attempting to obliterate or denying cultural/racial/religious differences. It is better served by developing and strengthening cross-cultural understanding and mutual respect.