Why Jews Must Speak Out on Palestine

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

by Jonathan Tasini
Huffington Post

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0324-35.htm

<snip>
Yesterday, I spoke at an event in New York City called Rachel's Words. Two years ago, Rachel Corrie, a human rights activist, was crushed to death by an Israeli Army bulldozer as she tried to protect the home of a Palestinian pharmacist from demolition in Rafah, Gaza Strip. She was 23. A play based on her writing, "My Name is Rachel Corrie" was scheduled to open yesterday in New York City but it's debut was postponed indefinitely, in all likelihood because of the controversy it would cause in a city with such a large Jewish audience.

As a Jew who lived in Israel for seven years and whose family still lives there and has deep roots going back more than 80 years, it breaks my heart that there is a refusal to grapple with an almost untouchable topic in our country: why does the United States have such a one-sided policy in the Israel-Palestine conflict? And it's the reason I agreed to speak at the event which honored Rachel's life and her beliefs.
--------------------------------

[Behind the Aegis]

1. Interesting....

First, Corrie was killed 3 years ago, not two years ago.

Second, I would just love to know how the Palestinians would react to this statement...

I also lived in Jerusalem and still remember what a beautiful city it is. Its special nature, though, is the role it plays in the spiritual lives of Judiasm*, Islam and Christianity. Jerusalem should always be the capital of Israel—but a negotiated settlement must include a plan that allows Israelis and Palestinians to share the city because Palestinians make-up one-third of the city’s residents and have historic and long-standing political, economic, and religious ties to the city. A Palestinian capital in Arab areas of Jerusalem will not threaten the city’s role as the capital of Israel. source (added emphasis)

Finally, why is yet another Jew trying to "dictate" ME policy? If it is AIPAC, it's bad. If it is someone like him, it's good? Is there no middle ground?

*Judiasm is actually spelled "Judaism."

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. Interesting is right...

...Interesting that you choose to lead and close taking issue with minutiae rather than substance. Why? Of what significance is it that Rachel Corrie was killed three rather than two years ago? Are you suggesting that this somehow weakens or invalidates the position(s) taken by Mr. Tasini? And is the typo supposed to be an important catch? If so, how? And why do you choose to quote from what appears to be campaign literature rather than from the content of the piece I posted.

As to "another Jew trying to dictate ME policy?" I'm sorry, but I'm missing your point. Can you elaborate?

And as to "If it is AIPAC, it's bad. If it is someone like him, it's good." Again, regretfully, I don't understand your point as related to Mr. Tasini's piece.

I wonder if I could impose upon you to speak more specifically to the actual content of Mr. Tasini's article. For example Mr. Tasini states that:

We speak and stand up and oppose the war in Iraq for the same reason that we speak and stand up and say the occupation of the Palestinian people is wrong, morally and legally, and must end with a negotiated, just, and peaceful solution between the lawfully elected governments of the Palestinian people and Israel. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain.

He also says:

I don't think most Jews -- and certainly this is true of most Americans -- understand the brutality of the occupation, the violations of international law and our role in perpetuating that occupation. Most Jews have never been to the area and so they either have no idea what goes on or choose to ignore the awful reality. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain.

And further:

If you raise a criticism of Israel or our country's policy toward the conflict, you immediately are targeted, within the Jewish community, as being either disloyal (if you are Jewish) or anti-Semitic (if you are not Jewish). This is nonsense and has got to stop. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain.

And:

So, let me state clearly: I believe unequivocally in a secure, prosperous Israel. But I also believe with the same passion that the occupation is draining the moral and economic strength of Israel and that there will only be a just peace agreement when a Palestinian state -- a strong, vibrant, prosperous, independent state, able to provide jobs and a good life for its people -- thrives alongside Israel. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain.

And:

Taking away the liberty, the humanity and the dignity of the Palestinian people takes away from the security from Israel. Targeting civilians, killing innocent men, women and children is evil -- no matter who is doing it. Killing civilians is a "grave breach" of international humanitarian law. Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable. We have to end the violence on both sides and support the peacemakers in both Israel and among the Palestinian people. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain.

And:

Opposition to the occupation is showing enormous love for Israel and for the Palestinian people. For the sake of Israel and for the sake of all people in that region who are fed up with three decades of war and occupation, we have to have an honest, open discussion. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain.

And finally:

How does peace come one day closer when we do not speak out against a wall that not only violates international law but, more important, embitters thousands of people for generations to come because it cuts off neighborhoods, separates families from each other, farmers from their land, the sick from hospitals, children from the schools and saps the economic vitality from an already impoverished people? Does Mr. Tasini raise a valid question here? Please explain.

To answer these questions is to speak to the substance of Mr. Tasini's piece and this is where meaningful discourse on the important issues he raises can begin.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Response

...Interesting that you choose to lead and close taking issue with minutiae rather than substance. Why? Of what significance is it that Rachel Corrie was killed three rather than two years ago? Are you suggesting that this somehow weakens or invalidates the position(s) taken by Mr. Tasini? And is the typo supposed to be an important catch? If so, how? And why do you choose to quote from what appears to be campaign literature rather than from the content of the piece I posted.

Attention to detail is important; especially when, the very article you are writing is about a 'situation' you are supposed to be passionate about. Was it a typo? I don't know. But, it is important that he got the anniversary year incorrect. So, yes, details are important, and when incorrect, can be distracting. Historical trivia: can you remember any part of JFK's speech in Berlin? I am guessing not, with the exception of his uttering, "Ich bin ein Berliner." That was considered a mis-speak in some circles, and is still remembered to this very day. Proof-reading is essential, but often overlooked. No one is perfect.

As for choosing a quote from his campaign, well, that really speaks to his position, doesn't it?

As to "another Jew trying to dictate ME policy?" I'm sorry, but I'm missing your point. Can you elaborate?

Tasini is Jewish.

And as to "If it is AIPAC, it's bad. If it is someone like him, it's good." Again, regretfully, I don't understand your point as related to Mr. Tasini's piece.

There has been much hullabaloo in recent days about the supposed strength of the "Israeli Lobby" in the US, AIPAC, being one of those groups. My point is that the same can and will be said about Tasini being a part of the "Jewish lobby" trying to mold policy around the issue of Israel.

I wonder if I could impose upon you to speak more specifically to the actual content of Mr. Tasini's article. For example Mr. Tasini states that:

We speak and stand up and oppose the war in Iraq for the same reason that we speak and stand up and say the occupation of the Palestinian people is wrong, morally and legally, and must end with a negotiated, just, and peaceful solution between the lawfully elected governments of the Palestinian people and Israel. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain.

If you desire a real discussion, then a simple "agree" and "disagree" will not suffice. Therefore, I will write out while it is partially correct. While a negotiated, just, and peaceful resolution of both occupations is desirable, it is simplistic and historically inaccurate to treat them (the occupations) as if they are the same "beast," as they are not. So, the reasons for standing against the occupations may be similar, they are not the same situation. Also, obviously, the ending of the occupations will also be very different from one another.

He also says:

I don't think most Jews -- and certainly this is true of most Americans -- understand the brutality of the occupation, the violations of international law and our role in perpetuating that occupation. Most Jews have never been to the area and so they either have no idea what goes on or choose to ignore the awful reality. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain.

I would say he is wrong that most Jews do not understand the brutality of the occupation, etc. Most Jews actually do understand, which is why most are opposed to the occupation! It is irrelevant whether they have traveled to the region or not, most of us are well-educated about Israel. He is, however, correct that most Americans don't know or understand the Palestinian Occupation. Hell, something like 40% of Americans can't find their own state on a blank map of the US!

And further:

If you raise a criticism of Israel or our country's policy toward the conflict, you immediately are targeted, within the Jewish community, as being either disloyal (if you are Jewish) or anti-Semitic (if you are not Jewish). This is nonsense and has got to stop. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain.

I greatly disagree with that statement! As a matter of opinion, I find it nothing more than extremist propaganda because it is an over-simplification. Now, it is not to say that it doesn't occur, because it does. However, anti-Semitism has been and is the root of some anti-Israeli sentiment, to deny this is foolish and myopic. My saying that usually attracts "nay-sayers" and accusations that I am actually "right-wing and a supporter of the Iraq war." The same way he implies it hampers discussion, I say the very accusation prevents some from speaking up against those arguments that are anti-Semetic, though it usually doesn't stop me.

And:

So, let me state clearly: I believe unequivocally in a secure, prosperous Israel. But I also believe with the same passion that the occupation is draining the moral and economic strength of Israel and that there will only be a just peace agreement when a Palestinian state -- a strong, vibrant, prosperous, independent state, able to provide jobs and a good life for its people -- thrives alongside Israel. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain.

I mostly agree with this statement. However, I am guessing he and I would go about solving it in completely different ways.

And:

Taking away the liberty, the humanity and the dignity of the Palestinian people takes away from the security from Israel. Targeting civilians, killing innocent men, women and children is evil -- no matter who is doing it. Killing civilians is a "grave breach" of international humanitarian law. Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable. We have to end the violence on both sides and support the peacemakers in both Israel and among the Palestinian people. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain.

Although he is seemingly talking about both sides, in my opinion he is more 'outraged' by the Israeli injustices, and more 'understanding' of the Palestinian reactions. However, I agree with the principle.

And:

Opposition to the occupation is showing enormous love for Israel and for the Palestinian people. For the sake of Israel and for the sake of all people in that region who are fed up with three decades of war and occupation, we have to have an honest, open discussion. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain.

I agree, if that open discussion means that both sides are held to the same rules. I don't think, though, opposing the occupation is showing "love for Israel." Supporting a peaceful resolution, where both sides are responsible, is showing love for Israel.

And finally:

How does peace come one day closer when we do not speak out against a wall that not only violates international law but, more important, embitters thousands of people for generations to come because it cuts off neighborhoods, separates families from each other, farmers from their land, the sick from hospitals, children from the schools and saps the economic vitality from an already impoverished people? Does Mr. Tasini raise a valid question here? Please explain.

To me the question is nonsense. How does peace come closer by speaking out against the wall? Speaking against the wall is not the same as advocating for peace talks, it is simply pointing out one of the issues needing to be discussed. By all means, protest, but don't expect it to lead to talks, other things must first take place, the most important being BOTH sides willing to talk with one another. It is this comment, as well as some others, that lead me to my earlier statement that is one-sided in the issue and he is not, as he claims, interested in peace talks as much as he is simply interested in the ending of the occupation, and if he thinks that will result in peace, then he is very short-sighted!