« The cycle of violence | Main | Israel’s Arab in San Francisco Shares “Real Stories” »
ISRAEL WANTS PEACE!
By yaman | February 8, 2008
According to ASUC Senator Gabe Weiner, Israel wants peace. Really, it does. Weiner tries to appeal to readers by invoking Barack Obama and Martin Luther King Jr in support of his position (as if they support his position).
Pretenders like Weiner hijack the language of anti-imperialist and anti-racist groups by claiming to be examples of “peace” and “diversity.” And, of course, they never fail to invoke iconic progressive figures like Martin Luther King Jr.
But phony invocations like Weiner’s can be separated from authentic ones because Weiner, while he claims to support the spirit of those figures, will never support the embodiment of that spirit. Just this week, Weiner refused to vote in support of the Activism Right There festival–the biggest event on campus this year that managed to breathe some life, if only temporarily, into that spirit.
Why? Because that spirit was never complacent, nor satisfied, with the way of things, and those kind of people are a threat to the status quo that Weiner relishes in. Weiner’s will never be a call to real action, and he will never impress the thought upon people that it is within their power to change the world around them.
Compare Weiner’s tokenism and calls to inaction to Allison Deger’s reflective and insightful piece on what Weiner’s student group, Tikvah, organized.
Can peace or its likeness exist in a country where tomorrow an American Jew can move to Israel and, in the words of Ismail Khalidi, a non-Jew representative of the Israeli government, “have more rights than I do”? Is it peace when a wall is constructed inside of the Green Line (the 1967 West Bank border with Israel proper), annexing almost 12 percent of the land for Jewish settlements? Is it peace when the International Court of Justice rules against the construction of the wall, yet its construction continues? Is it peace when Palestinian homes are demolished in order for Jewish-only roads to be built? Is it peace that these roads exist so that Jews may have the opportunity to drive in the Occupied Territories without having to be burdened with waiting in line for hours at a checkpoint with the indigenous Palestinian population?
In reflecting on the nature of peace, I am reminded of a Martin Luther King Jr. quote: “True peace is not merely the absence of violence, it is the presence of justice.” SJP does not advocate an abolishment of Israel. We do not hate Israel or Israelis (some of our members are Israelis), but we ask for a different Israel.
We ask for an Israel that has the presence of justice. We ask for fairness, opportunity, dignity and the right of return for all Palestinians. We ask for electricity to be returned to Gaza, we ask for the wall to fall, we ask for the right to education, we ask for the life of a Palestinian to be valued as a life of a Jew.
Topics: Absurdities |
February 9th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
It’s hillarious that SJP claims it doesn’t advocate the destruction of Israel after you all chanted “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
You make up lies to attack Israel instead of supporting constructive dialog.
The security fence exists because of terror. So called “Jewish roads” exist because of terror. Checkpoints, which are not the burden you claim they are, exist because of terror. The power was out in Gaza because of terror.
Stop the terror, and there can be peace. Stop advocating violence and the destruction of Israel and there can be peace.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
It’s hilarious by a stretch of your imagination. There is the real SJP, which you know very little about, and the one in your imagination, which is based on the following assumptions that plague most people I have encountered in Israel advocacy groups on campus:
(1) That SJP as an organization, and persons associated with it, whenever they pay due attention to deprivation of Palestinian rights by the Israeli government, are motivated by hatred of Israelis or Jews.
(2) That the two options for people regarding Israel are either total complicity with what Israel is doing (ie, never voice your dissent against Israeli policy publicly in an organized manner, only in small talk for the rhetorical purpose of “showing” that you are not a drone to the Israeli state), or support for the “merciless destruction of Israel and its people.” There actually is a third middle ground which follows neither of these paths, and SJP and the people who make it up are one embodiment.
(3) That support for a one-state solution (not the position of all folks in SJP, by the way) with equal rights for all people, Jews and Arabs, is tantamount–and here is where your imagination should be applauded–to “destruction” of Israel and “pushing the Jews into the sea.” Can anybody show how this follows?
That said, if you cast aside those 3 assumptions, I think it is impossible to translate “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” into “the merciless destruction of Israel and its people.” I did not know that freedom was murderous.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
By exaggerating the situation SJP sends the message that you carry a double standard toward Israelis and Jews. By chanting “from the river to the sea” you send the message that you reject the Jewish right to a national homeland while embracing other national rights. These imply at the very least racism against Israelis or Jews.
“There actually is a third middle ground which follows neither of these paths, and SJP and the people who make it up are one embodiment.”
That’s utterly false, and you know it. It’s true that SJP members have some disagreements….like whether or not they endorse Hamas terrorism, or whether or not Hamas ought to recognize Israel for the time being while continuing its attempt to destroy Israel (I read this in Disorientation magazine). You personally have lambasted the Palestinian Authority and hinted that you support Hamas, “the duly elected leaders of the Palestinians.”
If there is anyone in SJP who supports a two-state solution they certainly have never publicly said a thing on behalf of SJP. They must be seriously silenced.
“From the river to the sea…” is a mantra repeated by extremist Muslims who intend to destroy Israel at all costs and turn it into a Muslim state. Every member of SJP at least supports a “binational democratic state,” which is a more politically correct way to advocate the destruction of Israel. You know that in advocating such a state you are advocating what you think will be an Arab state. You are practicing racism against Jews.
Members of SJP categorically reject Jewish sovereignty. They reject the natural right of the Jewish people for their own state. It’s that position that will never lead to peace, that will never lead to dialog.
February 10th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I see you have backed down from your earlier claims. We’ve moved from “destruction of Israel” to “rejecting the Jewish right to a national homeland.” Still not exactly correct, but it’s progress.
A few points first:
(1) As far as my experience is concerned, there is unanimity amongst members of SJP that violence against Israeli civilians by Palestinians or anybody else is as reprehensible as violence against Palestinian civilians by Israelis or anybody else. So, you are wrong; there is nobody in SJP who supports what you are referring to as “Hamas terrorism”–assuming, of course, that you mean attacks on Israeli civilians.
(2) I absolutely do not support the Palestinian Authority. It is funny that you cite this to discredit me at the same time that you accuse me of having a “double standard against Israelis and Jews.” I thought this made my position against structures of inequality and control consistent.
(3) We have often sponsored speakers who support a two-state solution despite the fact that not all of us support something like that. Last year we co-sponsored an event with the Israel Action Committee called “Combatants for Peace” in which both speakers advocated a two-state solution, and one SJP member, Matthew Taylor, attempted to start a group called “Two States Now.”
Those few points aside, we come to what you have to say about rights to sovereignty and statehood. I think you’ve entered a problematic discourse here. I find it difficult to privilege these rights, if they exist, to the point of justifying the unjust treatment and suffering of other people.
(a) How can you ignore the fact that the same land you speak about as Eretz Yisrael was a homeland to other people, both today, and thousands of years ago? Do the rights you say the Jewish people have eclipse the rights of other people that live there, or used to live there, despite claims to the contrary in the Declaration of Independence? How can you reconcile the following statemetns statements in the Israeli declaration of independence with Israel’s actions today, as well as its consistent program (which you advocate even in your messages) to lessen the Arab population within Israel, as well as under Israeli jurisdiction:
(c) Why does the idea of binationalism scare you? A homeland for both the Jewish people, especially the inhabitants already there, as well as the Palestinian people?
(d) Why is it so important that a state be specifically Jewish rather than for all its inhabitants? The problem with the foundation of Israel is that the Zionist movement–in reacting to anti-Semitism in Europe, and to the structural exclusion if not elimination of the Jewish people by the nation-state system–merely reproduced the same oppressive nation-state system that was bound up in ethnic or other identities. Hannah Arendt wrote beautifully about this fact, that the solution to the European problem of having stateless minorities like the Jewish people, when it was solved with a state based in the same logic (Israel), merely created another category of stateless people: the Palestinians. Maybe it is time to look forward, rather than backward, and make Israel-Palestine a site of innovation. I do not say that Israel is unique in its oppressive structures or in the logic of its nationalism. I say that it is unique in the opportunity that it provides for a radical re-working of the way we think of politics and the state. The United States might have been in a similar position, if the native people who were here were not practically extinguished by now. There is absolutely no justification for Israeli nationalism, or for the type of Palestinian nationalism that will come out of a two-state solution.
That got a little too long and rambly–sorry.
February 10th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Tom, (apparently my namesake!)
you are making misguided assumptions about us. We never would chant anything hateful towards jews and Israelis (as a jewish Israeli, I would never be member of an organization that advocated any of those positions). We also never endorsed any form of terrorism or violence.
I’m a one-state person, not because I don’t recognize my own right for self-determination, but because the way this right was implemented in the past, in a country originally populated by a Palestinian majority, has brought immense suffering upon millions of people. This isn’t a philosophical argument about our abstract right to determine ourselves, but a very concrete and painful question of creating a jewish majority by force, which is what happened in 1948. That has been the root of our troubles since then, and I think our right for self-determination could be accomplished in the future with greater considerateness towards our Palestinian sisters and brothers. This doesn’t mean we should stop speaking Hebrew or protecting jews from persecution, but we can’t just ignore the needs and wishes of the people who lived in the country when we got there.
Not all jews are or were zionists. Zionism was a minority position among jews for a good part of the twentieth century. Some ultra-orthodox groups still don’t accept it, as do radical left-wing groups in Israel. Philosphers like Martin Buber saw themselves as Zionists but still advocated a binantoinal solution. Are all of us racists? is there only one way for us to express our right for self-determination? does anything deviating from the official line consist of racism? that seems to narrow down the discussion, no?
February 15th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
The infamous author of controversy speaks!
Tom (not Tom P)
It seems as though you need to really reflect on your statement of the “natural right of the Jewish people for their own state,” and break down what this actually means, and what are the practical and discursive implications of a “jewish state” vs. an “israeli state.” Does this “right” of jews to self-determination also signify an absence of the same “right” to the non-jewish population of israel. Additionally, what of the rights/status of non-israeli jews? Should they have rights over others (e.g. other non-citizens) because they are Jews? If we move along this logic, it becomes very dangerous because now you have entered into a realm where one ethnicity receives preferential treatment to others, and we usually refer to this ethnic elitism as racism.
So please, reflect on what a “jewish state” means. If it were possible for Jews to have a state where its existence is not at the expense of others, I see little problem with it, but this is not the current state of affairs and never has been.
Also, as a quick final point, binationality does not infer an “Arab” state, but infers a state where both Hebrew and Arabic are spoken in state sanctioned institutions and both Jewish and non-Jewish perspectives are alive in history classrooms. But, since you mentioned “Arab” as the polar opposite of “Jew” or “Israeli,” I would like you to entertain that these labels are not static. Please consider that there are peoples who identify as Arab-Jews, Palestinian-Israelis and Palestinian-Jews. If the definition of an Arab is one from a country within former greater Arabia and whose first language is Arabic, then there are many Arabs that are Jews (Mizrachim, most notably). By referring to an “Arab state” as the opposite of a Jewish state, you are being quite insensitive to Arab Jews and in a single phrase, you have robbed them of their rich culture and heritage.
Last comment, I promise, last comment:
Everyone seems to forget that Jews, according to Judaism, are living in galout, exile. We are not to return to haeretz israel until the mashiach, messiah, comes. So its quite ironic that there is a “Jewish” state, which fundamentally, contradicts with the religion it espouses.
Tom, if you have any thoughts on my comments please share them. I am always looking to understand how people arrive at different political/humanitarian/theological positions then mine.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Isn’t it somewhat unprincipled and hypocritical for you to attack Gabe Weiner and Ishmael Khaldi for Tokenism, and then present your own token Jewish girl? I found her article (and comments) to be in particularly bad taste. Everybody has the right to his or her own opinion, but to exploit a caricature of one’s own identity for the purpose of making a political point (”I love Gefilte fish, I like to speak Yiddish”) is offensive. I don’t see how a person who criticizes Orientalism can endorse this kind of behavior. After all, you don’t see the Israeli’s dressing Ishmael Khaldi in stereotypical Arab dress, and making him ride a camel to work.
I think, however, that the existence of assimilated Jews with identity issues in the Diaspora, like Allison raises an important issue. It is obvious that she has little understanding or connection to Israel, and Jews like me with a history in Israel and the Middle East, can hardly identify with her.
There are a few proposals designed to distance Israel from diaspora Jews who only claim their Jewishness when their is a short-term benefit, like the following by the “down-to-Earth” Meir Sheetrit:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/918573.html
It is unacceptable to have a YIDDISH-speaker speaking on behalf of the people living in the HEBREW state.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Dear Allison,
I will share my thoughts on your philosophical belief.
I assume in good faith that you have arrived at your anti-Zionist position after carefully studying the Torah, Talmud and Mishnah.
While I respect your right to form your own religious beliefs, I find that some religious teachings do not comply with modern standards of justice and morality.
For a long time, the slavery and abuse of Africans was justified by a passage in the bible called “the Curse of Ham”. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1548811
I see little difference between the religious justification for forced exile and exploitation of Africans, and the religious justification for the forced exile and suffering of Jews.
So, if you feel that Jews have a religious obligation to live in a state of wretched humiliation, by all means, continue doing what you’re doing. Otherwise, please emancipate yourself from mental slavery.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
a, you don’t know what tokenism is. It is not simply referring to the opinions of someone of the ‘Other’ group in order to legitimize what ‘my’ group is saying. The obvious implication of that (your way, that is), is that there is such a thing as a domain that only a particular group of people can have legitimate opinions about. That is not something I have ever claimed or accepted.
Allison, unlike Ishmael Khaldi, is not paid to share her views. Neither does she harbor another set of views, which are mostly hidden, which would confirm another opinion from her own.
I criticized Gabe Weiner for tokenism, because he is guilty. I did not criticize Ishmael Khaldi for tokenism–I accuse the Israeli Foreign Ministry and groups like Tikvah: Students for Israel, and Gabe Weiner, and others involved in the Hasbara Fellowships program, of tokenism. Ishmael Khaldi is simply a token.
I did not call Ishmael Khaldi a token simply because he was Arab. I called him a token because of 1) the views he shares are highly selective and inconsistent overall with his position and 2) he is always advertised by campus groups as an Israeli Arab Bedouin who “used to be a Shepard.” All this is attire enough–you don’t need to give him a camel or a horse, this suffices.
Allison, on the other hand, mentioned her identity her self. This isn’t meant to validate her position (that is, that opinion is correct because someone Jewish said it, which is what people who talk about Ishmael Khaldi claim), but rather it’s meant to show that her position is perfectly consistent, whether or not she is Jewish. I won’t try to speak for her, but maybe the fact that she mentions her strong Jewish identity is that she feels it is threatened by those who disagree with her on these issues–like those who accuse Jewish activists who criticize Israeli policies of being “self-hating” or other such nonsense.
And, despite all this, it’s nice that you call Israel a “HEBREW state.” Where does Ishmael Khaldi fit into all of that, hm?
February 18th, 2008 at 2:10 am
a:
“if you feel that Jews have a religious obligation to live in a state of wretched humiliation, by all means, continue doing what you’re doing.”
A, I don’t think that you are really grasping the views presented by my voice. I do not advocate this aspect of your criticism. If I did propose this, then please, by all means continue… Also, I did not mention Gabe Weiner by name, only Tivkah. Though I know Gabe is affiliated with Tivah, I have never met him and therefore I am not in a position to single him out. I did, however, have the unpleasant opportunity to see members of Tikvah in action and my article reflects that experience. As for Khaldi, I did not “attack” him, but I did use a quote from him, from our conversation. I referenced a point that he made, and I posed a question to the reader, is that justice?
There is a problem I see and that is of how my voice, my comments are understood. You seem to invalidate me and my thoughts by sort of leaping to a conclusion that I was not eluding to. So the question then is, what makes my views so invalid?
Should I, as a Jew, not mention aspects of my identity when commenting on why I do not find Israel to be a democracy, a democracy with peace or justice? Or, if I can reveal my identity, how much and in what way do you find appropriate? When do I cross the line in discussing my identity, from stating myself as a Jew to overstating my “Jewishness” as a rhetorical mechanism? If I were writing a zionist article, is there more leniency on revealing my Jewish identity? These are questions you should ask yourself.
You also make some assumptions on my connections to Israel, as if because I am not Israeli my voice should not be valid? Or maybe you just assume that I have less “connections” to Israel than you do. The fact is, you have no idea as to what my, and my families connections to Israel are (and I also have no idea the extent of your connections). I chose to leave out of my op-ed my connections (other than simply stating that I have been to Israel) because frankly, they are not important. I could have never been to Israel, have no family there or family history and my views should still be just as valid.
As for religious justification for ending the occupation that you jokingly stated:
“I assume in good faith that you have arrived at your anti-Zionist position after carefully studying the Torah, Talmud and Mishnah.”
I was simply pointing to the irony that there is no religious justification FOR a Jewish state. I never asserted that there was a justification AGAINST a Jewish state, but that it is a contradiction to Judaism. This is not something I need to go to Yeshiva to discover and frankly, the degree of my Jewish education is of no concern to you. I don’t need to prove my “jewishness” to you, or to anyone else.
But, I do feel the need, from the depths of my core, to speak out against the atrocities that are happening everyday to Palestinians, for the past 60 years, in the name of a Jewish state. Everyday I am a Jew, and everyday I look Palestinians in the eye, and I can not help but think, in the back of my head, “I can have the citizenship that you need.” So please A, how is this justice? How can we justify an ethnic state at the expense of another population?
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:20 am
a,
I find it really oppressive when people are expected to prove their authentic credentials in order to have an opinion about what happens in Israel/Palestine. Should human rights issues only be discussed by experts with 6 PhDs and 30 years of living in the relevant country? do you not have any opinion about any issues outside the country where you live?
when the last Lebanon war broke out I did everything I could to tell people this was a mistake and that widespread attacks on civilians would lead nowhere. Many of my friends demonstrated in Tel Aviv every week, people called us ignorant and traitors and self-hating jews, but within a few weeks the rest of the public realized what a mistake this war was, and ex-generals began coming out with statements against the use of cluster bombs and other misguided attempts to hurt civilians in the hope of influencing hezbolla. Point being, sometimes simple civilians have enough sense to distinguish right from wrong, even if their grandmother speaks yiddish. Try arguing with our opinions instead of discrediting our background.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Dears,
It is possible to live in peace. I live in Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Im Irish origin, have friends english, lebanese, israel, japan, africa origin and we all live together in peace!
Of course, we have giant violence problems but not these.. Thank goodness.
Our problem is related to poverty, oportunity, social questions, but most of all because money desintegrates in politicians dirty hands.
Peace and love 4 all!
Roger