Not long after I'd stood on a sidewalk in East Jerusalem and felt a swell of hope at the Sheikh Jarrah protest, the Im Tirtzu storm hit.
In late January, Im Tirtzu, an extreme right-wing nationalist group that describes itself as a" centrist extra-parliamentary movement," ran an advertisement attacking the New Israel Fund (NIF) and its president, Naomi Chazan. NIF, a left-leaning organization that states it is "committed to democratic change within Israel" as well as social justice and equality, bankrolls many of the NGOs that have spoken out against the atrocities committed by Israel during Operation Cast Lead.
In Im Tirtzu's ad, Chazan was monstrously depicted with a rhinoceros horn bearing the acronym "NIF" strapped to her head. The caption incorrectly blamed Chazan and the NIF for the UN fact finding mission that resulted in the Goldstone Report -- omitting the fact that the UN committee was established not in response to the NIF, but in response to Operation Cast Lead which, in the UN's words, "caused grave violations of the human rights of the Palestinian civilians" of Gaza.
Speaking to the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz, Chazan said, "They're using me to attack in the most blatant way the basic principles of democracy and the values of the Declaration of Independence: Values of equality, tolerance, social justice and freedom of speech."
Following Im Tirtzu's frightening lead, members of the Israeli Knesset began making moves against Israeli NGOs, bastions of free speech and democracy. Some Knesset members pushed for an investigation of NIF's financial sources. Members of the Kadima party, considered by many to be fairly middle-of-the-road, called for a ban on Israeli NGO's receipt of foreign funds.
Amidst this dangerous political climate, the left mobilized. A chorus of voices spoke out against Im Tirtzu's advertisement. Dissent rang out against the McCarthy-esque stirrings in the Knesset. I should have been excited by the left's response -- they stood tall together, and rallied for Chazan, the NIF, free speech and democracy. But I couldn't shake a sinking feeling of disappointment.
In a recent op-ed discussing Israel's sorry image on the world stage, Haaretz writer Roi Ben Yehuda used the analogy of a man who lost his keys in the alley, but is searching for them in the street where the light is better. This parable is also applicable to the Israeli left. While the attack on the NIF and Naomi Chazan was certainly an assault on free speech and democracy, the left's justifiable anger was misdirected -- the keys were dropped elsewhere.
The question is where?
Some might choose Netanyahu's public condemnation of Breaking the Silence, the Israeli NGO that collects testimonies from Israeli soldiers who have witnessed, or participated in, abuses of Palestinians.
Others might point to the police investigation of New Profile, an organization that advocates for the demilitarization of Israeli society. These are both excellent examples of the government's attempts to persecute Israeli human rights groups.
But the most illustrative attack came in the fall of 2009 when the Gaza District Coordination Office (DCO), an Israeli governmental body that issues exit permits to Palestinians, formally severed ties with Israeli NGOs. On 14 September, three Israeli human rights organizations -- Gisha, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, and HaMoked -- received letters from Colonel Moshe Levi informing them that the DCO would no longer process their requests to help Palestinians leave Gaza. Without the advocacy work of these organizations, chronically ill Palestinians would have even more difficulties accessing life-saving medical care in Israel, the West Bank and neighboring countries.
The NGOs anticipated a spike in access-related deaths.
A coalition of human rights groups lead by the three NGOs targeted by Col Levi's letters composed a fiery response to the colonel and the DCO. The move, they said, "constitutes a grave humanitarian blow to the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip."
The implications for Israel were also bleak. The organizations wrote: "This kind of conduct, in which a government authority attempts to impede the activities of human rights organizations, to drive them away and to make their work more difficult -- to effectively boycott them -- is characteristic of tyrannical regimes and is inconceivable in a democratic state."
Although Gisha, PHR-Israel, and HaMoked are all funded by the NIF -- and Colonel Levi's letter followed the government-led attacks on Breaking the Silence and New Profile -- the ordeal went largely unnoticed by the Israeli left. Instead, it took a direct hit on an Israeli to really raise the left's collective ire. And this is where the trouble lays -- this is where the keys were lost.
Some discussions about the Sheikh Jarrah protests have included similar commentary. Following the January arrest of 17 demonstrators -- including the Executive Director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Haggai El-Ad -- the dialogue drifted towards East Jerusalem as a flashpoint for defending Israeli free speech and democracy. A handful of activists spoke out, privately, against this shift in focus, urging protestors to keep their eyes trained on the root of the problem -- the dispossession of the Palestinian people.
The continued maltreatment of Palestinians puts every Israeli's freedom at risk on a daily basis. If your government disregards the rule of law, disenfranchises your neighbor and tramples his most basic human rights, how can you expect that your own freedoms will remain intact?
The Knesset's current deliberations are sad but unsurprising -- what type of democracy can you expect from a government that ignores the humanity of millions and has done so since its inception? What else can come of a country that is founded on dispossessing others?
The situation is beyond urgent now. And it has been for a long time. The Israeli left must redirect its energies, channeling them to the source of the sickness that threatens everyone, regardless of their political affiliation -- the systematic disenfranchisement of Palestinians that began over 60 years ago. Only after the Palestinian right to return has been acknowledged and a shared, bi-national country has been established can we expect to see a truly democratic state emerge.
Follow Mya Guarnieri on Twitter: www.twitter.com/myaguarnieri
I think that Palestine which is the land of Israel can hold within her just 2 national states as I said and not more, such as suggested widely with the reclaimed "2 states for 2 peoples". Don't ignore the fact that Jordan is the already the Palestinian state in action. They don't need a Hashemite king to rule them. They are grown up enough to run their own state far enough from Jerusalem.
There wasn't any (Arab) Palestinian people, but the Jewish people. There is no meaning for Palestine in Arabic and they don't have even the "P" consonant in their language. In the British mandate all civilians were called Palestinians (Jews, Greeks, Arab etc.) and the Arabs rejected that name because the lack of their historical memory to the land of Israel. The Arab states use their Arabs living in the land of Israel to be their forerunners against Israel way before 1948 war. The Arabs lives in the land of Israel (aka Palestine) were called - Syrian Southerners. If you want some political proof just look at UN resolutions 242 & 336 (1967 & 1973) - no mention of Palestinians. Palestinian Arab nation is a new and modern invention to precede the war of the Arabs against Israel.
Too bad Palestinians were too absorbed in their belligerent self-righteousness to notice a pattern of Israeli victories. Maybe if they thought about rationally, rather than in "every centimeter" absolutist terms, peace could've been made long ago. Palestinian political thinking didn't advanced much since 1947. Too bad for them and Israelis.
You are leaving out of your analysis that it wasn't the Palestinians who chose not to create a state between 1949 and 1967, it was Egypt and Jordan-- the occupying FOREIGN powers who would not allow this to take place.
Your assumption that because Palestinians are Arab, they must have the same goals and aspirations as ALL Arabs would be like saying that in the 20th century all Europeans had the same goals because they all shared a similar culture. There were two World Wars among Euopeans in the 20th century.
Just because Palestinians are Arab, doesn't mean they had or have the same goals as ALL Arab nations or peoples.
The problem with the conflict today is the hole that the palestinians have dug themselves. When the israelis left gaza, it became a stronghold of a group devoted to destroying israel, and rockets started getting fired at israel. Because of that, withdrawing from the west bank, which before was incredibly difficult because of settler and right wing groups has now become politically impossible, as no sane israeli would ever risk their safety by leaving the west bank anytime soon. The west bank is within katyusha range of virtually the whole country, and all the major population centers. Meanwhile israeli arabs in arab areas of israel are terrified of being transferred to a future (poor compared to israel) palestinian state, so they wouldn't even support it, despite their distaste towards what is happening in the occupied territories.
This illiterate liberal is largely based on a few half-digested notions learned in cultural anthropology and comparative religion classes.
It is based on a principle that certain ( not all) indigenous religions and cultures are beyond criticism.
In short, anything that is not perceived as originating from Europe ( and America by extension) deserves support and appeasement.
In another preposterous principle ( unique to white liberalism) is that weakness has its own a virtue. Thus such groups as Hamas and l Al Qaeda are righteous and worthy of adulation because of their weakness.
I think what you are misunderstanding -- on the part of liberals in the West-- is the reaction to the demise of Colonial Imperialism (at least as it was DIRECTLY applied-- today it has largely been replaced by economic imperialism -- but that is a topic for another day).
Until WWII, there has been much chauvinism in the West-- an unquestioned belief that Western Civilization WAS civilization, and there was "the white man's burden" to spread this civilization to all other cultures on the planet. (while at the same time reaping the economic rewards of taking the natural resources of these "lesser civilized" peoples.
The damage done by this is still being felt all over. The cultural devastation was breathtaking.
ctd.
And now we are seeing a backlash, in at least two ways-- first, by those victims of Imperialism, whose development has been affected -- and some of whom choose to react violently (although their violence hasn't even approached the violence committed by the West) and by those in the West, perhaps sobered by WWII and seeing that a "modern civilized nation" like Germany showed the world that perhaps we are not so superior as we believed.
There are those of us who ARE concerned about Islamic Fundamentalism, but who, looking at history, believe that the more we interfere, the WORSE we are going to make the problem, not the better. Certainly acts like killing large numbers of civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan or Gaza will only STRENGTHEN, not weaken, groups like Al-Qaeda and Hamas.
I've never known violence alone to solve a problem.
Perhaps you should read this:
http://www.rfkmemorial.org/lifevision/onthemindlessmenaceofviolence/
The context today is different-- but the heart of the speech is relevant, even 40 years later.
Ah, if only Palestinains would become politically mature enough to realize this.
Not to mention a half million Jews expelled from Arab countries when Israel became a nation.
How many of those Israelis of Middle Eastern descent do you think would WANT to return to their nation of origin?
Israel WANTED those Jews to immigrate to Israel; indeed that is the heart of Zionism.
So much so that when the Soviet Union collapsed and many Russians (Jews and non-Jews alike) chose to emigrate, Israel persuaded the Us to NOT allow Russian Jews (by and large) to have the choice of emigrating to the US thus encouraging them to move to Israel.
The result was the "second Aliyah" in the 1990's.
Palestinians, on the other hand, WANT to return to their homes-- they do not WANT to leave their homeland.
They are also about as welcome as Jews in the nations where they live in refugee camps.
If Palestinians are not allowed to return to Israel proper, then the only fair alternative is for Israel to evacuate the settlements in the Territories, and allow the Palestinians to build a life there. But we are talking about several million people, so there isn't room for expanding settlements AND returning Palestinians.
their countries displaced or made refuges.
That would include, Arabs, Jews and other ethic groups.
Compensation will be not be paid to the people who have not been displaced.
For example a great-grandchild of a Yemeni Jewish refugee would not be ineligible to compensation or return of his land or property in Yemen.”
The reason so few ( so called) supporters of refugee are interested in a just resolution is that their primary concern in the one of revenge on the Jews who dared to challenge the predominance of Islamic imperialism. To the very same folk, justice and common sense is an irrelevant nuisance.
Again, your history is clouded by your ideology.
In 1947, the Palestinian population had a MUCH higher percentage of Christians than it does today. I'm guestimating, but I would say that only Lebanon had a higher percentage of its population that was Christian.
Also, Palestinians were, at the time, much more secular than today: when any people undergo great suffering there is (whatever the religious faith) an upsurge of fundamentalism and apocalyptic belief.
one thing I am certain of-- no peace agreement will last if it does not find SOME solution for the Palestinian refugees (and their families).
Jewish self determination effort DIRECTLY challenged this Arab imperialist narrative. This is compounded by former century old racist view that Jews are weak and easily intimidated. Arab-Muslim civilization still hasn't psychologically adjusted to the change.
Again, you are generalizing greatly.
First, there is no "Arabo-Islamist" civilization. The two leading proponents of Islamic fundamentalism come from Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Iran isn't even an Arab nation. And Iranians are largely Shiites, while the Saudis are largely Sunnis.
And in case you haven't noticed, the two sects disagree STRONGLY on many issues; they are as divided as Europe was during the Reformation.
And were you aware that the largest Muslim nation in the world is INDONESIA?
And where do the Sufis fit into your picture. Sufis are a progressive sect of Islam-- women and men worship together, and they hold much more tolerant views toward other faiths.
Of course MOST Muslims have respect for Judaism and Christianity. They refer to them as 'People of the Book"-- In Islam, the first two prophets were Moses and Jesus.
Islam is a much more complex and diverse religion than you think it is. It has adherents in many other cultures than Arabic.
Are there extremists? Of course-- that is a plague in EVERY religion. It is not a character of the religion, but of human nature.
Want the right of return? Fine, after the independent palestine state is established. All the refuges can return to the new palestinian state, NOT Israel.
While I can't speak for the Palestinians, I believe most of them would accept that plan, provided that the Palestinian state was VIABLE and REALLY independent (and by this I don't mean heavily armed, but one that controls its borders, skies, waters, ports, airports, resources -- especially water).
Palestinians won't accept a 'protectorate" or a state cut into pieces by Israeli settlements and infrastructure and walls.
It will have to be largely along the 1967 border.
Now that leaves Israel with 78% of the original land -- so it seems the best combination of fairness and practicality that we can probably do.
But it means Israel needs to decide NOW on the settlements-- expansion sends the Palestinians the message that Israel isn't serious about an Independent Palestinian state.
Examples of the tragic consequences of this inhumane decision:
"Palestinian high-school student Fida Hejji died of cancer waiting for Israeli permission to go to an Israeli hospital for treatment." She was 18 years old!
"Whenever I heard Israel had closed the crossings, I told myself I was going to die," said 67-year-old Mohammed Abdel-Al, who was undergoing dialysis this week."
"Nafeth Enaeem, head of Shifa's kidney department, said dialysis treatments had to be carefully rationed last year, which he said was the worst in terms of health conditions."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/20-2
Hundreds of Gazans are refused permission to travel to other countries every month for life-saving medical treatment. Last year, 27 Palestinians died in Gaza because the blockade prevents them from getting life-saving help.
ICRC's report on this situation:
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/palestine-report-260609
Closing the border to gravely-ill patients is criminal and inhumane!
I also saw a feature on Al Jazeera this weekend about a village which the Israelis have arbitrarily sealed off from the world - they don't allow anyone to visit it, not even the villagers' family members or the TV crew, and the people have to go through a military checkpoint and walk miles to get to the shops, or in the children's case, to school.
The report said a third of the people had given up and left, which is the obvious intention as there is a rapidly expanding settlement nearby. These people have done nothing wrong and are being denied the most basic of human rights.
By the way, you might be interested to know that Britain's Foreign Sec Miliband held a public meeting this weekend in London hoping to do some election campaigning, but spent most of the evening fielding questions and defending policy on the Middle East. When he said Britain never supplied arms used for repression, he was jeered by the audience. People are angry.
skialethia is directly addressing the points raised in the blog post above -- no side track on the status of Cyprus here.
If a peace deal is ever reached, there will likely be a symbolic 'Right of Return' for a number of refugees, as well as compensation for others. However, the best case scenario for the descendants of those who fled in 1948 is living in an independent state along the 1967 borders.
Get over your military failure and move on with you lives. Even the children of Cuban refugees have moved on from their "exile" from Cuba. Since 1948, over 40 million refugees from conflicts worldwide have been resettled. Including several hundred thousand Jews exiled from Arab countries. Only the Palestinians haven't been resettled. It's been 60 years
You see the EU is working on an initiative to recognize a Palestinian State by next year. Once the Palestinians are recognized internationally as a state, they can seek all kinds of rights internationally to get Israel out of and off their land as well as working on bringing back the refugees. Oh I can't wait for the EU to lead the way for a Palestinian state!
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1151219.html
Enough is enough! Israel is evolving into an undemocratic theocracy with total disregard for Interntional Law, while Palestinians move on to freedom, citizenship and statehood!
Skialethia, that is hardly what happened, and you know it.
If someone would like to try and find one, please do so. But there is none.
They don't all share the same religious fate, the same history, the same culture -- and so on.
There are similarities, to be sure. But there are important differences also.
Here's a question for you, Mya: If your definition of a "truly democratic state" results in Israeli Arabs becoming the majority in Israel and then voting to dismantle the Jewish state and replace it with an Arab or Muslim state, would you still be in favor of the "right to return"?
Israeli multi-cultis having lost the trust of Israeli electorate ( just like their Euro counterparts) have little left ( no pun intended) but endless repetition of discredited slogans.
There is no logic or rationality in pure unbridled hatred as favoured by the far right - which inidentally - is a minority in Europe and always will be.
The defence of what by the extreme right? Are you serious? Democratic and humanistic values?