Posts Tagged Israel
ceasefire
This is a repost of a note from my friend Amichai Lau-Lavie. I’m so tired of hearing Americans vilify Israelis as a collective, as if all of them are bloodthirsty war-mongerers. This note from Amichai is more typical of Israelis sentiment than most of what we read in the world press.
Saturday Night, Jan. 17, midnight
A bonfire was lit tonight in the olive groves outside the Latrun Monastery, not far from Jerusalem. About 30 people gathered, Jews and Arabs, adults, children, teens, for a circle of prayers, conversation, and plans for further action.
We huddled around the fire, at times standing and at times sitting, sharing painful facts and feelings, providing updates about other opportunities for hands on help to the victims on both sides of the war down south and about other circles and meetings for dialogue, promotion of co-existence, especially now. Someone prayed: Let this fire bring on the cease fire – at least for now – any progress towards peace. M. led a short Havdala Ritual – separating the Sabbath from the week, taking refuge in the fire. Wine was passed, and fresh baked challa. In the middle of a plea/prayer led by I., one of the leaders on the Palestinian side of the dialogue for reconciliation, L. received a call from A. in Gaza — local Gaza resident and UN employee. Lee put him on speaker and we all huddled even closer to hear him. ‘There is no Tomorrow in Gaza’, he said, describing some of what he has seen – only now they are starting to search through some of the rubble and expecting the numbers of the dead to rise. He emphasized the need for increased aid and supplies – milk, water, bread, blankets – whatever has been brought in is not enough.
Afterwards, I. continued his prayer and concluded with a hope – that there will be a tomorrow in Gaza, and Sederot and all over this land, and that the difficult work of healing and reconciliation – on all levels – will continue tomorrow, and the day after.
Shortly after I left the circle, about an hour later, back to Jerusalem, a unilateral ceasefire was announced by Olmert, to take place at 2am (one hour from now). Hamas shot missiles on BeerSheba a minute later. By now, I think the bonfire at Latrun has been extinguished, it has done its duty in sending out sparks of warmth and flames of hope into a world that needs it badly.
One more note about empathy. It is so difficult to be here, as an Israeli, and witness the tidal wave of refusal among so many Israelis to acknowledge (let alone take responsibility for) the devastation and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Any mention of the need to help is replied with – ‘but it’s their own fault! Why does Hamas use children as shield? What about 8 years of rockets on our children?’ I am generalizing here, and there are lots of other voices here – but the overall sense if this – us or them – and there is no room or time now for empathy or compassion towards ‘them’. What can I say to my parents and siblings and cousins and friends who have sons fighting in Gaza and relatives in the South and an overwhelming embittering fatigue from this sort of existence? Emotions harden here. No matter how ethical or moral the IDF is, how many preventive phonecalls were made to warm residents before their homes were bombed, the facts remain that a lot of help needs to happen very fast to help save lives of human beings. Period.
Enough with the either/or paradigm. It’s not working. It can be and/both. It has to be. Who cares who started at this point? Everyone is to blame and none of the babies are.
I got a long email tonight from one of the kindest and most generous women I know:
“…Why is there no uprising Against the hamas??? Where are all the arab neighbors? Don’t they see the agony?? Are we always to be blamed??
Evil, like cancer has to be removed even at the expense of healthy tissue being removed as well. NO army but IDF would warn the so called enemy that they are about to bomb the houses and please take your women and children and get out to save yourselves. I think the time has come that the Arab world instead of crying will start looking after their own.’
I should have called her but sent a quick reply instead:
Basic human empathy, that’s all.
All you say it true and sad – but – meanwhile, thousands of babies are in grave danger. Period. The aid has not been sufficient and hopefully now can increase.
Today it’s their baby and tomorrow it could be mine. A baby is a baby and is not to blame. It’s our moral duty to be compassionate to the victims and help all who in need – ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’. Doesn’t the God we believe in reminds us to remember what it was like for our people to be a freedom fighting slave camp in Egypt.
Good night. ‘
Add comment January 18, 2009
In the words of Golda Meir…
“We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”
2 comments January 8, 2009
Very cool app and way to look at situation in Gaza
Check out the Debategraph on what is motivating the Israeli attack on Gaza. This is an excellent way of exploring the issue and play out scenarios.
2 comments December 31, 2008
Obama and the Jewish Vote
An excellent article from RealClearPolitics by Professor Pierre Atlas
www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/obama_and_the_jewish_vote.html at August 01, 2008
By Pierre Atlas
In order to win the “Jewish vote,” candidates often try to out-trump each other in demonstrating their support for Israel. The media play into this game, as many journalists and pundits tend to assume, along with politicians, that American Jewish opinion is monolithic (and uniformly hawkish) when it comes to Israel: that no criticism of Israeli policies or actions will be tolerated, and that no pressure should ever be put on Israel to make compromises.
As Barack Obama traveled to the Middle East last week, his every move was scrutinized by the media. Was he pro-Israel enough to secure the vote of American Jews? Would any nuance in his statements be interpreted to mean he was pro-Palestinian?
It does a great disservice to both American foreign policy and to the Jewish community to portray American Jews as of one mind, marching in lockstep and demanding that all candidates read from a script when it comes to Israel. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of Jews are not single-issue voters. George W. Bush, arguably the most “pro-Israel” president in American history, was able to garner only 24% of the Jewish vote in 2004. Fully 76% voted for John Kerry according to exit polls. Jews have traditionally voted overwhelmingly for Democrats since the 1930s. That didn’t change after the Second Intifada, 9/11 or the invasion of Iraq. Indeed, Bush was able to increase his Jewish support by only 5 percentage points from the 2000 election.
One reason for the widespread belief in a monolithic and inflexible Jewish position on Israel is the success and perceived power of AIPAC. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has played a key role in helping to establish and maintain bipartisan support for Israel in Congress and the executive branch. AIPAC, which has become increasingly pro-Likud in recent years, is a textbook example of a successful interest group, on par with the NRA, AARP, and the farm lobby.
But American Jewish opinion, although not as diverse as that of Jewish Israelis, is more varied on Israel than AIPAC’s pronouncements would suggest. According to the November 2007 American Jewish Committee’s annual survey of Jewish opinion, 46% of American Jews supported the creation of a Palestinian state, with 43% opposing and 12% not sure–this, in a poll taken just months after Hamas’ violent takeover of Gaza. Asked whether they were “willing to compromise on the status of Jerusalem as a united city under Israeli jurisdiction” in a permanent peace deal with the Palestinians, while 58% said no, 36% said yes and 7% were not sure.
Reflecting this diversity of Jewish opinion, American pro-Israel peace groups such as Brit Tzedek v’Shalom and J-Street, the new pro-Israel PAC, have emerged as more moderate alternatives to AIPAC.
On July 16, J-Street released the results of a new survey that demonstrates “a remarkable gap between the attitudes of American Jews and the conventional wisdom about how Jews view America’s role in the Middle East.” According to the survey, 86% of Jews would support the US “playing an active role in helping the parties to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict [even] if it meant the United States publicly stating its disagreements with both the Israelis and the Arabs.” Eighty-one percent would support the US exerting pressure on Israel as well as the Arabs “to make compromises necessary to achieve peace.”
American support for Israel is longstanding and bipartisan and the reasons go well beyond AIPAC’s influence. The political, cultural, religious, scientific and economic ties between America and Israel are substantive and multi-faceted. Both Obama and McCain understand Israel’s security needs and its existential anxieties. Regardless of which man becomes the next president of the United States, the special relationship between the US and Israel will continue.
Many Israelis, however, are concerned that Obama might be hostile to the Jewish state. The false assertions that he is a Muslim and that he was raised in a radical madrassa in Indonesia, concerns about his association with Rev. Wright, and even his middle name have all played into the fears of some Israelis–just as they have with some Americans. When I was in Turkey last month, I spoke with an Israeli tourist in my Istanbul hotel who was convinced that Obama would be “bad for the Jews.” When I asked him why, most of the “facts” he cited about Obama were patently false, based on the same email rumors and innuendo that have been sent to American Jews.
Obama has sought to reassure Jewish voters and his trip to Jerusalem and Sderot was an important move. Yet he too may have bought into the simplified image of American Jews. When he spoke before the AIPAC convention in June, Obama declared that Jerusalem “will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” In so doing, he unnecessarily went further than the official US position on Jerusalem, which states that the city’s fate should be left to the final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Obama’s declaration came off as pandering for the Jewish vote. Ironically, while it caused consternation in the Arab world and dismay among peace negotiators, it is doubtful whether the statement did anything to satisfy the more hawkish Jewish and Christian supporters of Israel in the United States.
In its three-thousand year history, Jerusalem was divided for only eighteen years, from 1949 to 1967. This was a disaster and should not be allowed to happen again. But for a two-state solution to succeed, Jerusalem must become the capital of both Israel and Palestine. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have been exploring the idea of dual municipalities for years. Imagine if Obama had told the AIPAC audience that while Jerusalem should not be re-divided, it ultimately must be shared. He could have shown bold leadership and vision on one of the most vexing issues of our time, and he would have been supported by a large number of American Jews.
If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to be resolved, the next president will need to take steps that facilitate Palestinian statehood while also maintaining Israel’s security. This will require bolstering Palestinian moderates in their political struggle against extremists, encouraging key compromises on both sides, and rewarding cooperative behavior by neighboring states.
The questions posed to McCain and Obama should not be simplistic queries as to who supports Israel the most, but how they plan to move the peace process forward. What is each candidate’s vision for a new Middle East, and what role does he see for the US in achieving it?
For both the candidates and the media, acknowledging the diversity and sophistication of American Jewish opinion will be a much needed first step.
As for Obama, if he can debunk the false rumors and make the case that he is no less supportive of Israel than previous Democratic candidates, he should have little problem attracting Jewish voters, who tend to be liberal on social issues and are most comfortable with the Democratic Party. He won’t have much difficulty convincing younger Jews. The real challenge will be with the older Jewish voters.
1 comment August 1, 2008
Boston Legal – Its AntiSemitic to dare to criticise Israel!?
I love this show, especially the ending cigar chats. This 1:30 clip explains a lot!
Add comment July 1, 2008
