-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: June 9, 2007 3:36:46 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fwd: The Two-State Solution and the Impotence of the
Israeli "Left"
The only way to break down a racist and exclusivist structure is to
[undermine] its base and force an alternative reality. This would
require not only stopping Israel's occupation of Palestine, but
looking more critically at the Israeli state, a Jewish state, and a
state which has never been, does not and CANNOT function as, a
democracy for all its people. Divestment, boycott, and sanctions
(tactics used successfully against South Africa's apartheid),
coupled with pressure on both Israelis and Palestinians to live as
equals in a shared society, is the only hope for peace.
See what's free at AOL.com.
From: "Jim S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: June 9, 2007 3:21:33 PM PDT
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: Prism of Peace: The Failure of the Israeli Left and the
Two-State Solution
http://www.ichblog.eu/text/content/view/1635/1/
*Prism of Peace: The Failure of the Israeli Left and the Two-State
Solution*
By Remi Kanazi
06/07/08
Time and again, one is told of the Israeli "left," the many number
of Israelis, ranging from members of the Knesset to shop owners,
dedicated to peace. The 40-year occupation is of particular
concern to putative peace activists and purported individuals of
conscience. "The burden of occupation" and its ugly realities, as
many so-called dovish Israeli politicians have pointed out, tear at
the moral fiber of the Jewish state. Yet, even when one looks at
the horrors of the occupation in the Israeli media and political
circles, it is at best through the Israeli prism, which juxtaposes
the pain of Israel in equal magnitude to the pain of the
Palestinian people. This Israeli pain, without its counterpart's
suffering, is transferred to the papers of the U.S. press and is
ultimately exponentially magnified, giving the American people a
distorted awareness of the Israeli narrative.
"ICH' -- Nonetheless, there must be a clear understanding that only
one people is living under occupation -- many after being
dispossessed in 1948 and again in 1967. By even phrasing today's
climate as a conflict, it lends support to the assumption that this
is a dispute between two equal sides, with equal grievances. The
complexities of the Palestine question is further complicated by
issues beyond the 40 year occupation, including the Palestinian
right of return, the Israeli settler movement in the West Bank and
East Jerusalem, and the third class status of Palestinians living
in a Jewish state.
Supposed peace activists find solace in verbally condemning the
settlement movement and the harsh conditions that emanate from
occupation. Yet, most aren’t doing anything to actively stop it;
and when moral fiber is truly urgent, as was the case during the
Lebanon war or the continuing debilitating sanctions and
bombardment on the Palestinian people, they remain silent.
Condemnation after a war isn't moral reflection, it's cowardice.
There is no difference between hawkish and dovish policy in Israel,
only a divergence in the approach to implement it. Those on the
"far left," who are the brink of being classified as "self-hating
Jews," including self-styled humanitarians such as Meretz MK Yossi
Beilin, only serve to massage their own egos and consciences by
portraying an image that they are fighting for peace. In reality,
these people assign themselves to the same racist and exclusivist
ideology that came into form long before the creation of the state
of Israel.
The discourse that frames the parameters of debate pertaining to
the Palestine question is disturbing on multiple levels. Take for
example, the recent fighting in the Gaza Strip. Nine Israelis have
been killed in Palestinian rocket attacks over the last seven
years, while last year alone, 700 Palestinians -- half of them
unarmed civilians -- were killed throughout the occupied
territories. Reading the news columns, be it in Israeli or Western
newspapers, one would think it was the Israeli people who were
occupied and being indiscriminately killed. The opposite remains
true: when one woman is killed in Sderot, it consumes the Israeli
media and immediately becomes headline material for nearly every
Western newspaper.
The cease-fire between occupied Gaza and Israel is another case in
point. Hamas eventually ended its unilateral recognition of a cease-
fire because of continued attacks by Israeli forces inside of Gaza
and the West Bank. The demand for a Gaza/West Bank cease-fire by
Hamas is seen by Israel as the same old story, where "conventional
wisdom" suggests that the obstinate, overreaching Arabs insist on
the fulfillment of unreasonable demands, when they are in no
position to do so. Yet, calling on the Palestinians (including
Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade), to accept a
truce localized to the Gaza Strip, giving Israel impunity to act
within the West Bank, is tantamount to asking Hamas not to fire
rockets at Sderot and the Negev, while remaining free to bombard
Tel Aviv and Haifa. The Palestinians are a people, no less than
the Israelis are a people, and a death in Ramallah is as
significant as a death in Gaza City.
Every problem afflicting Palestinian society, be it the expansion
of the Apartheid Wall, checkpoints, flying checkpoints, curfews, or
the restriction of goods and access to education, is characterized
as necessary measures for Israeli security. Nonetheless, many non-
partisan organizations, including the World Bank, the United
Nations, the Hague, Amnesty International and a number of other
institutions have condemned Israel and its tactics on levels of
morality, legality, and effectiveness. Logically, if one is
looking for peace with a society, economic strangulation and
imprisonment will not create an environment conducive to peace.
The Wall is not being built on the internationally recognized green
line and encroaches so far into the West Bank that thousands of
Palestinians have been kicked out of their homes, lost their land
or have been split from their towns, workplaces, and schools. Even
if one were to justify the Wall, which the Israeli Shin Bet has
called an ineffective means of protection, why not build the Wall
on Israeli territory? "Punishing" the Palestinian people by
creating a greater refugee problem and economic deprivation is
hardly an incentive for Palestinians to resort to more preferred
tactics of resistance. Furthermore, settlements continue to grow,
far surpassing the number of settlers that were removed from Gaza,
and even with the basic cessation of suicide bombings, restrictions
in movement have markedly increased in the West Bank.
The issue of the 400,000 settlers in the West Bank and East
Jerusalem is particularly startling. Policy in the United States
has slowly shifted from a two-state solution on the basis of the
green line, with no Jewish settlers within Palestinian territory,
to the vast majority of settlers staying in place, with effective
Israeli control of half of the West Bank for an indefinite period
of time. The prevailing truth that Israel and America want people
to accept is that time creates "indisputable" facts on the ground,
meaning: if a crime is committed for a long enough period of time,
the international community and the victim must recognize the
crime. It is to the bewilderment of the Palestinian people that
they are seen as the uncompromising ones when they are asking for
no more than international law provides. Sadly, it was the Labor
party -- the party that many purported peace activists are members
-- that propped up and legitimized the settler movement, leading to
one of the many disputes Palestinians and Israelis find themselves
in today.
Many so-called Israeli peace activists point to Camp David 2000 as
the quintessential example of Arab rejectionism. One is told that
Israel offered the Palestinians 95 percent of the occupied
territories, including a grand compromise on East Jerusalem. Let
us suppose this is true and forget the Palestinian narrative, that
by engaging in Oslo, the Palestinians had effectively relinquished
the right to 78 percent of historic Palestine (a "generous"
compromise in their minds). Even looking through the Israel prism,
one should ask themselves, if Israel was interested in peace (added
to the fact they are the occupying force with the upper hand),
would it not be reasonable with peace at the forefront of one's
mind, to give up all of the occupied Gaza, the West Bank and East
Jerusalem, as well as 5 percent of the Negev? While Israel has
much empty land, an abundance of resources, power and capital, an
Israeli could claim that on principle alone, the state could not
commit to such a plan. But is principle really an option when
peace could be just over the horizon or even a remote possibility?
If the offer failed, the Israeli left could point out further Arab
rejectionism, could it not?
The way in which one is expected to digest the so-called "facts" of
the Israeli occupation and the Palestine question hinders any
rationale debate and demonizes any individual calling for an end to
Israel's racist and hegemonic policy, as was the case with former
U.S. president Jimmy Carter. If there were a 100 suicide bombings
in Tel Aviv tomorrow, it would not diminish the Palestinian right
to see an end to the occupation, nor would it minimize the
urgency. Furthermore, Israel is not occupying Palestinian land as
a punishment. It is not as though a suicide bombing struck Tel
Aviv 40 years ago by a Palestinian group and the Israel army
decided it was time to clamp down on Palestinian society. Rather
after a preempted strike on neighboring states, Israel colonized a
land that the international community, including the United States,
insisted it had no business occupying.
A quick and just two-state resolution to Israel/Palestine may sound
like an over-simplification, but if supposed steps towards peace
were made and "offered" at Camp David 2000 and at the following
talks at Taba, the same type of directive could be taken today.
But, let's be honest with ourselves, the two-sate solution is
dead. It is a figment of the imagination of the Israeli left and
of the multitude of Palestinian leaders and diplomats who have gone
enormous lengths to sell out the Palestinian people. That is the
danger of looking at the two-state solution and Israel/Palestine
through an Israeli prism: it draws the parameters of practicality,
affecting even those who support the Palestinian plight. Israel
doesn't want peace, not under a Barak government, a Sharon
government, an Olmert government, or a Peres government. It's been
forty years and, yet, Israel has become married to the settlements
and to an ideology that sees a Jewish state with inherent rights
over its non-Jewish citizens, but more critically it as an
expansionist state that believes in the right to permanent
domination of the lands it controls.
The only way to break down a racist and exclusivist structure is to
chip away at its base and force an alternative reality. This would
require not only ending the occupation, but looking internally at
the Israeli state, a Jewish state, a state which doesn't and can't
function as democracy for all its people. Many Palestinians
leaders and supporters within Israel have come to realize this and
have been ostracized for bringing this notion to light, namely Azmi
Bishara, while many more will be undermined and attacked in the
future. Yet, divestment, boycott, and sanctions coupled with a
movement forward for both Israelis and Palestinians to live as
equals in a shared society is the only hope for true peace. This
new path must run counter to the Oslo mentality of submissiveness
and acquiescence: a model much like South Africa, Northern Ireland,
and Belgium. It is time for an end to the occupation, but more
importantly, it is time to look through a new prism, one that sees
a better solution for Israel/Palestine.
~~~
[Remi Kanazi is the co-founder of the political website:
www.PoeticInjustice.net
He is the editor of the forthcoming book of poetry, "Poets for
Palestine," for more information visit Poetic Injustice. He can
reached via email at: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
His commentary has been regularly featured on Al Jazeera English's
program, "The Listening Post."]
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database:
269.8.13/842 - Release Date: 6/9/07 10:46 AM
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om