West Bank @ MindSay 
israel
“Mr- President -
The problem isn’t settlements, it’s Arab rejection. We all support peace in the Middle East. But pressuring Israel is not the right approach. The obstacle to peace is not Israel. The settlements are not the impediment. The issue is simple: the Arab and Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist, including through violence and terrorism, for over 60 years. Israel’s right to exist is undeniable and is based on its right to self-determination in its historic homeland. The path to peace is clear. With recognition, Israel has said again and again that everything is on the table without preconditions. Mr. President, it’s time to stop pressuring our vital friend and ally. It’s now time to direct your attention to the rejectionists who refuse to recognize Israel and negotiate an end to the conflict. With your leadership, yes, we can have peace. But the path begins with the recognition of Israel.”
You can see the ad and the formatting here
I really wish this organization would stop espousing it's over-simplified statements on behalf of Israel, because I truly believe they are ultimately to its detriment, and to the detriment of the entire peace process.There are many things I find irritating, and, beyond that, disturbing about this ad. For one thing, it’s this stolid, bull-headed view that the problem is one thing and not the other, that “the issue is simple”: but the issue is ANYTHING but simple! Is it at all possible that both the illegal, aggressive settlements and Arab rejection of the legitimacy of the state of Israel might both be parts of a much larger and much more complex problem, one that, in its complex enormity, has been brewing for many generations, into which people have been born and died, because of which directly people have been born and died?
It’s reflective of a general tendency of the extreme wings on both sides of this conflict to paint it simple, to pretend that it’s an issue of black and white, good guy and bad guy, evil side versus saintly side, when the actual case is, both sides have “good guys” and “bad guys”, and those “good guys” and “bad guys” do not emerge from a vacuum: they emerge from reactions to complex cultures of crisis. As part of this absolutist tendency, there is this cry to absolve Israel of all blame, as if in its entire history, especially its recent history, it has never had a single action that was in any way impeding the process of peace in the Middle East. That statement itself is impeding the process! It only fuels absolutist groupthink on both sides that has so far absolutely failed to solve anything (for proof, see the current state of the Middle East).
There is also this voice involved that exemplifies its own narrative as the only narrative of the situation, in complete denial of the other narratives of the same situation that exist in tandem to it, which themselves are essential to approach and consider if there is going to be any peace at all. The assumed simplicity of all Arab peoples accepting a narrative of the events in Israel’s history foreign to their own--and that all Arab people have one narrative, at that--is not only arrogant: it’s unrealistic. The acceptance of the validity of the state of Israel is more than just a symbolic action, as this ad seems to assume: it’s the acceptance of a point of view of the situation which denies the dispossession and the suffering that people have accumulated in their national memory. It is a complex and difficult struggle, one which I myself have fought with, to announce the legitimacy of the state (and to therefore imply that one condones the actions that occurred in order to establish/maintain/expand that state.) I do believe that, at this point, because there are Israelis who have been born multiple generations in Israel, that at this point the state has a right to exist (noting of course that this is not a simple thing for me, and that it is something which I struggle with daily, and that I do not feel comfortable with condoning the aformentioned things that went into the state and that continue to occur in the state. However, I am not a dispossessed Palestinian. It is much easier for me to come to that conclusion. Especially considering Israel’s past refusal to even consider the Palestinian people a people at all, let alone giving them the right to their own lands (a very, very recent development, one which even to this day has not fully come to fruition), how could it be considered so simple for them to do the same for Israel?
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this ad is its condoning and alleviation from all blame of the Israeli settlements. The settlements are, in my own opinion and in the opinion of many others, a very pointed and continued obstacle to the path of peace in the region. Spurned by the biblical imagining of the land of Israel as including the West Bank and Gaza and the right of the Jewish people to that land, these settlements are aggressively moving into areas outside of the “Green Line” into areas in the West Bank (mostly ceased in Gaza since תוכנית ההתנתקות, the Unilateral Disengagement Plan in August, 2005), much of which is occurring on lands privately owned by Palestinian citizens, and all of which occurs with the intention to “claim” all of Biblically imagined land of Israel for the Jews, devoid of Palestinians. The development of the settlements were unfortunately at various points encouraged and even developed by the Israeli government (therefore making even that issue complex, as there have been people who settled in that land without religious motive, albeit those are not the people who move out to the settlements today),but at this point many of them occur illegally (again, unfortunately, with support from the current right-wing Prime Minister, Netanyahu), but are actively dismantled by the Israeli Army and police---however, to this end, many of the settlers have taken on an anti-government attitude, saying that they will just keep re-building and re-building. If that is not a “problem” in terms of Israel and Palestine developing peaceful relations, I honestly do not know what is. Terrorist activities, suicide bombings and violence against citizens are absolutely awful and cannot be condoned, but neither can actively colonialist, disenfranchising structures and complexes, white phosphorus bombs and aerial fire-strikes on civilian homes and disproportionate military force, or blockades on basic goods. Extremism on both sides must be accounted for and called to end.
This ad is misleading and over-simplistic at best. Of course, to this argument, I have heard the counter-point "But look at what other people say about Israel!", and honestly, I absolutely do not buy that. I for one am sick of the "they did this so we can therefore do that" game. It is obvious to me that the pattern of that attitude will only form the shape of a snake biting its own tail, granting eternal life to and obliterating all hope for an end to a conflict that is creating hostility, unsafe environments, death and destruction for millions of people. The history of this conflict is long and complex, with shades of gray all over the damn place. If anyone truly wants peace, on either side of the conflict, there needs to be a removal of the albeit attractive, appealing goggles of black-and-white visions of righteous anger and the absolutely good nation and the absolutely bad nation, and there needs to be a move to start seeing the conflict for what it is: complex, with good things and bad things being done from both sides. There needs to be an acceptance (which, of course, I realize is a difficult one, and one which will take time and effort to reach) of the multiple narratives involved in the situation. Only once we switch our focus from Us vs. Them to Us and Them (if we can't get it down to just "All of Us") can peace even begin to grow.
His pro-terrorism friends include Joe Biden, a self-described "Zionist" who backs the Israel occupation, David Axelrod, Obama's chief political strategist, Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff who supports the occupation and violence against Palesteine.
Almost all Presidents since Roosevelt have backed Israel's occupation, and all Presidential candidates must support the occupation if they want to have any opprotunity to win in November. By definition, Israel is a terrorist state, the US sending billions and billions of OUR tax dollars in military aid so that the Israeli military may kill and torture thousands of innocents civilians every year.
If Obama stood for real change, he would end all aid to Israel, reset the borders to pre-1962 boundries, and surround himself with anti-terrorism progressives. By his actions already, we can see Obama is following in the steps of his Republican predeccesor, closing any opprotunities to end the violence in the Middle East.
Polls conducted by Arabs that call themselves Palestinians and polls conducted by Israelis demonstrate that a majority of these Palestine Authority Arabs support terrorism against Israel while the Israeli polls show that a majority of Israelis want to stop further withdrawals from Judea/Samaria (the West Bank).
So someone in the West tell me again how creating a sovereign Palestinian State will bring peace to the Middle East.
JRH 3/24/08
Here is some blatant evidence of Bush Administration arm twisting to force Israel into a precarious situation that will further threaten the National Security of Israel against the wishes of over 60% Israeli citizens.
Secretary of State Rice claimed recently that a majority of Israelis wish to give up the West Bank to create a Palestinian State. The poll conducted by Israel Policy Center for Promoting Parliamentary Democracy and Jewish Values in Israeli Public Life also shows that 77% of Israelis believe the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas cannot deliver on preventing rockets being launched from the West Bank if it is converted to a Palestinian State.
That means Hamas from Gaza allowing rockets to terrorize civilian cities in southern Israel and rockets from the West Bank terrorizing civilian cities as far away as Tel Aviv through central Israel. Such an occurrence from a sovereign nation would be an act of war. So why create a Palestinian State if Israel has to defend itself by invading a sovereign Palestine to prevent harm to Israel’s citizens?
Secretary Rice is obviously utilizing propaganda to convince Jewish leaders to acquiesce to the existence of a mortal enemy known as Palestine.
Here is a Ralph Peters essay on how Hamas won its victory over Fatah. It was sent via the American Congress for Truth email list.
JRH
*************************
WHY HAMAS WON
By RALPH PETERS
Via ACT Email
Fri, 29 Jun 2007
June 19, 2007 -- HAMAS won its shut-out victory in Gaza with alarming ease. And the reason Hamas won is even more alarming: Fanaticism trumps numbers.
You'll hear no end of explanations for the terrorist triumph: Hamas was backed by Iran; Gaza is Hamas' base of support; some Fatah units ran out of ammunition . . .
All true. And all secondary factors.
Fatah's security forces in Gaza outnumbered the Hamas gunmen. Fatah had stockpiles of weapons and military gear (now in Hamas' arsenal). Fatah even had the quiet backing of Israel and America.
And Fatah folded like a pup tent in a tornado.
Hamas won because its fighters are religious fanatics ready to die for their cause. Fatah runs an armed employment agency under the banner of Palestinian nationalism. Most of the latter's security men are on the payroll because relatives or ward pols got them jobs. And they want to stay alive to collect their wages.
The result was predictable. Our government pretended otherwise. Now hairs should be standing up on the backs of thousands of necks, from the White House to the Green Zone.
Yes, Iraq is more complex than Gaza. But once you pierce the surface turbulence and look deep, the similarities are chilling: Iraq's security forces do include true patriots - but most of the troops and cops just want a job, or were ordered to join up by a sheik or a mullah, or are gathering guns until their faction calls.
The al-Qaeda-in-Iraq terrorists, the core members of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and the hard-line Sunni ghazis are willing to die for the victory of their faction and their faith. They believe they're doing Allah's will. It gives them a strength we rush to explain away.
The raw numbers suggest that Iraq's fanatics don't stand a chance. The government has a far greater numerical advantage than did Fatah. But numbers often mislead analysts during insurgencies: Iraq's government wouldn't last a week without U.S. troops.
The lesson from Gaza is that such wars are neither waged nor won by the majority of the population. A tiny fraction of the populace, armed and determined, can destroy a fragile government and seize power.
Polls showing that most Iraqis "want peace" and don't support the extremists only deceive us (because we want to be deceived). It wouldn't matter if 99 percent of the Iraqis loved us like free falafel, if we're unwilling to annihilate the fraction of 1 percent of the population with the weapons and
will to dictate the future to the rest.
At the height of last week's fighting in Gaza, one Palestinian in 300 carried a weapon in support of Hamas - a third of one percent of the population. Now Hamas rules 1.5 million people.
Numbers still matter, of course. But strength of will can overcome hollow numbers. And nothing - nothing - gives men a greater strength of will than religious fanaticism.
We don't want to hear it. Secular virtues were supposed to triumph. They didn't, but we still can't let go of our dream of a happy-face, godless world where nobody quarrels.
Our refusal to acknowledge the unifying - and terrifying -power of extremist religion has deep roots. As academics rejected and derided faith in the last century, even the Thirty Years' War - the horrible climax of Europe's wars of religion - was reinvented as a dynastic struggle, or a fight for hegemony, or a class struggle.
But the Thirty Years' War was about faith. All the other factors were in play, but the core issue, from the Protestant coup in Prague in 1618 to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, was religious identity. And the atrocities committed on both sides make Iraq look like amateur hour: Wars of religion always demand blood sacrifice. (It was a compromise of bloody exhaustion that ended the Thirty Years War.)
Our problem is that, of those who rise in government, few have witnessed the power of revelation or caught a life changing glimpse of the divine. They simply can't imagine that others might be willing to die for all that mumbo-jumbo. Our convenience-store approach to faith leaves us numb to the passion of our enemies.
The true believer always beats the feckless attendee. The best you can hope for is that the extremist will eventually defeat himself.
And that does leave us some hope: Fanatics inevitably over-reach, as al Qaeda's Islamo-fascists have done in Iraq, alienating those who once saw them as allies. But the road to self-destruction can be a long one: The people of Iran want change, but the fanatics have the guns. And sorry, folks: Fanatics with guns beat liberals with ideas.
Faith is the nuclear weapon of the fanatic. And there's not going to be a religious "nuclear freeze." It doesn't matter how many hearts and minds you win, if you don't defeat the zealots with the muscles.
____________________
American Congress for Truth is a 501c3 non-profit organization. Everyday, ACT is on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of radical Muslim fundamentalists to world peace. We are committed to combating the global upsurge of hate and intolerance.
American Congress for Truth (ACT) , P.O.Box 6884, Virginia Beach, VA 23456
Email: member@americancongressfortruth.com
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
