Contents
Bulletin - Bomb in Tel-Aviv
House Demolitions
Sitings
Dialog and Boycott - Ami Isseroff
|
|
Bulletin - Bomb in Tel-Aviv
This morning a bomb exploded in a busy intersection (Allenby and
Rothschild) in the heart of Tel-Aviv. PNA officials were quick to condemn this terror
action by an unknown organization.
The bombing comes after the stabbing last week in Tel Rumeida of Rabbi Shlomo Ra'anan.
These incidents underscore the fact that no government can guarantee 'Peace with Security'
or even security without peace. When terrorist incidents occurred during the tenure of the
Labor government, Netanyahu and the Israeli right were quick to blame the Peace process.
Now they point the finger at the PNA,
which does not do enough, according to them, to stop terror. If so, then nobody is
apparently 'doing enough' - since the Israelis could not prevent these incidents either.
Terror and violence are not a means of bringing about peace or justice. They never were.
It is time that the Israelis understood that there are no magic formulae for
getting rid of terror. It is also time that the Palestinians understood that these
incidents are doing their cause - and the cause of peace - tremendous harm.
Ami Isseroff
Top
House
Demolitions
The practice of house demolitions continues. Israelis should ALSO write to
the Knesset members of the Meretz party:
Dedi Zuker: zuker@meretz.org.il
Ran Cohen: cohen@meretz.org.il
Amnon Rubinstein: rubinstein@meretz.org.il
Yossi Sarid: sarid@meretz.org.il
Haim Oron: oron@meretz.org.il
Meretz supposedly stands for all things decent. Dedi Zuker is one of the founders of
Betselem. So their silence on this issue is deafening. Haim Oron's assistant wrote that
Meretz has done a great deal to stop house demolitions. I asked what was done,
specifically, but so far have gotten no reply.
Ami Isseroff
Top
Sitings
Sign the Amnesty International Petition for Human Rights by writing to:
udhr50th@amnesty.org.au
* Put YOUR NAME in the SUBJECT
* Put the following text in the message:
"I support the rights and freedoms in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for
all people, everywhere."
OR - view and sign the declaration at www.amnesty.org
OR - view the declaration (in Hebrew) and sign it at www.amnesty.org.il
For those interested in viewing the Meretz Party platform in ENGLISH - it is at their new
English language Web site:
http://www.meretz.org.il/english.html
Not all features of the Hebrew site are replicated in English, but the platform is.
Dialog and
Boycott - Ami Isseroff
A recent conference at Rhodes where Palestinian journalists met with
Israeli ones stirred up severe disapproval by the Palestine Journalist's Association, as
discussed in a recent Ha'aretz article by Danny Rubenstein. The Palestinian Journalists
Association, like many Arab professional groups, including groups in Jordan and Egypt,
boycotts meetings with "Israelis" - even as individuals. The current excuse
given for the boycott is the Israeli occupation and lack of progress in the peace talks.
In a letter to a small group of PEACE participants, I noted that those journalists who
attended the Rhodes conference are to be commended for showing courage in defying the ban.
However, the boycott hurts Palestinians, not Israelis. It prevents Palestinians from
presenting their case. It gives the Israeli Right more ammunition
for propaganda saying there are no Palestinians who are for peace. The best hope of the
Israeli peace movement to convince other Israelis that peace is possible, is to show that
the Palestinians want peace and an equitable solution. If we cannot produce many such
Palestinians, we in Israel have no case. I also noted that the ban has nothing at all to
do with what Israel does or not do in the peace process. It is the same ban that has
been in effect since 1947.
As part of this exchange of letters, Anita Abu-Daya pointed out to me an article by Daoud
Kuttab at http://www.amin.org/pages/dkuttab/july_2398.htm
in which he lists all the reasons why communication is supposedly impossible: Israeli
harrassment of Palestinians, inequality, unwillingness of Israelis to read the Palestinian
press etc. Among other things, Mr. Kuttab claims that the Israeli left is not doing enough
to help Palestinians, that the left should be helping to rebuild demolished houses for
example (the article was written just before the Gush Shalom group rebuilt the Shawamreh
house). It seems to me that if someone does not want dialog, they can find reasons.
Israelis can cite terrorist incidents such as the one that occurred today. Palestinians
can cite acts by the Israeli government and the settlers. However, Mr. Kuttab has missed
three important points. The first is that activities such as those of the settlers are
designed to wreck the peace and prevent dialog, just as much as the terrorist bombings.
The second is that if he holds the Israeli peace movement responsible for acts of the
Israeli government, then equally valid logic would make all Palestinians responsible for
the incendiary statements issued by the PNA regarding Jerusalem, and by the Fateh,
regarding the armed struggle for the liberation of all of Palestine. Mr. Kuttab notes that
the Israeli peace movement has made only ineffective protests against government actions
such as house demolitions. But at least something was done. Nobody on the
Palestinian side has come forward to condemn statements such as those of Yasser Arafat and
the Mufti Sabri, in which they said that the Jews have no rights in Jerusalem.
The third and most important point is, that it is the Palestinians who most desparately
need dialog and communication, and they are hurting themselves by joining the boycott or
discouraging dialog.
The boycott is a reason to stop acting for peace. Peace is good for Israel as well. But
the actions of Israeli citizens for peace will not be effective if there is not an
answering echo from the other side.
Below is some of the discussion that ensued.
------------------------------------
Letter from Simon Rosenblum (Co-Pres. Canadian Friends of Peace Now)
Ami:
You are,of course most correct. This goes back to my earlier concern that the Jewish left
is too busy making excuses for the Palestinians when we should be challenging them to act
as responsible partners.
Best Regards,
Simon
-----------------------
Reply from A.I.
Correct. Problem is, we can't challenge the ones who won't talk to us, because they aren't
listening.
Best
Ami
------------------------------------
Boycott - Letter from Rabbi Arthur Waskow:
Dear Ami et al:
I would go further still and say that with the Israeli govt in swift retreat
from any intergovernmental version of the peace process, it is absolutely CRUCIAL for
civic society in both countries/ peoples to undertake peace processes -- to make
"established facts" "on the ground" for peace, instead of for
occupation and war.
Thus the two journalist societies should be publicly proclaiming that THEY are at peace
even if their governments are not (and acting that way): peace-oriented Israeli
neighborhoods and kibbutzim should be entering into direct cultural-and-economic exchange
agreements with Palestinian towns like Beit Sahour; there should be a bunch of
local-to-local, professional-to- professional, union-to-union "people's peace
treaties."
If these actions skirt or constitute civil disobedience on one or both sides, so much the
better: like the early "illegal" Jewish settlements on the West Bank, they will
force the issue, force people to decide. The recent joint efforts by Israelis and
Palestinians to rebuild houses demolished by the Israeli govt are a good example.
I wrote an article along these lines -- "Creating the Peaceful Future Now, New
Outlook June-July-Aug 1991, pp. 15-17. My view, then and now, was that any
peacemaking by govts would be too vulnerable to unofficial acts of violence -- terrrorism
-- unless such grass-roots peace agreements were in place.
Unfortunately, I was all too right.
Shalom, Arthur Waskow
----------
Reply By A.I:
Dear Rabbi Waskow,
You are absolutely correct (in my view) regarding dialog of course. That is what PEACE and
other dialog groups are supposed to be about. However,the professional associations are
_not_ government associations. In fact, in Egypt and in Jordan, the professional
associations are taking an anti-dialog stand in _opposition_ to the government. So we have
a grass roots movement - or rather a movement led by intellectuals in the name of the
common man - _against_ dialog and _against_ peace. Civil Disobedience is working _against_
peace. And there are few people with the courage to speak out against it!
The journalists who attended the conference were not engaging in civil disobedience. As
far as I know, there was no ban by the PNA on dialog with Israeli Journalists.
It appears that Arab intellectuals are by and large in the forefront of the anti-peace
movement. People like Fawzi Mansour have made it clear, moreover, that this stand has
nothing to do with anything we in Israel do or do not do: he simply does not want to have
anything to do with 'Zionism.'
Since that atmosphere prevails in public opinion, Palestinians and others who _might_
otherwise be interested in dialog, and in presenting their case to Israelis, are afraid to
do so. The result is that it is very difficult to find Palestinians who will engage in
dialog.
You cannot have a dialog that is confined to one side - or in which the Palestinians are
represented by a few people, whom the others repudiate as traitors. Such a dialog is like
the sound of one hand clapping.
Best
Ami
-----------------------
Reply from Rabbi Waskow
Chaver Ami,
In this kind of situation, defying one's union/ professional assn takes a lot of guts.
So maybe not "de jure", but 'de facto,' the Palestinian
journalists who went to Rhodes were doing civil disobedience.
So don't underplay the degree to which PALESTINIAN intellectuals ( I am not talking about
other Arab communities) are taking risks for peace.
Indeed, if you could figure out an act for the sake of peace that would both be authentic
and legitimate in your own eyes and bring on your own head as much opprobrium from
right-wing Israelis as their act brought on their heads from right-wing
Palestinians, that would be an even stronger step toward a "journalists' peace
treaty."
Shalom,
Arthur Waskow
------------
Reply from A.I.
Dear Rabbi Waskow,
The Israeli left has already thought up and carried out sufficiently daring exploits:
* Letter from officers to Clinton urging pressure on Netanyahu.
* Barak went to the U.S. and told anyone who would listen that Israeli Government policy
is wrong.
* Peace Now demonstrations at Har Homa
* Gush Shalom rebuilds demolished housing.
* Letter writing campaigns.
* Gush Shalom boycott of Settler produced goods
* Gush Shalom marked the green line.
YOU have carried out a great newspaper ad campaign to get the U.S. government to pressure
Israel into concessions. A great idea.
What is the result?
1. Some fascist American columnist called Barak a Quisling (then he said he wasn't calling
Barak a Quisling).
2. In the eyes of the Israeli public, for whom Jerusalem is a 'consensus issue, the left
is discredited - all we do by these actions is lose votes and support.
3. Al-Ahram poured scorn on Peace Now and their meeting with Egyptian
Peace movement - as do others in the Arab camp.
These actions have received little or no recognition from the Palestinian camp. No more
Palestinians have come forward for dialog. No Palestinians have protested the statements
of Arafat and Mufti Sabri RE Jerusalem, or the Fateh summer camps where kids are taught to
retake Yaffo and Haifa in a Jihad.
It cannot be a one way street.
Dialog helps the PALESTINIANS. It should be them who are anxious for it, and it is their
business to promote it at least as much as it is mine and yours.
Shalom,
Ami
______________
>From Ruth Shapin (Cousins Club of Orange Co. California)
Dear Ami:
The Arab intellectuals who refuse to engage in dialogue with their Jewish
counterparts who want peace play into the hands of the Israeli hard-liners. They (the
hard-liners) can say, "See. It doesn't matter what we do. The Arabs don't want to
co-exist with us in peace." I understand their frustration and
bitterness. The house demolitions are truly outrageous. However, it would be more
appropriate for them to unite with Jews to resist the demolitions peacefully, by
non-violent protests, sitting down in front of bull-dozers and rebuilding houses, and
organizing
international letter-writing campaigns. (Our Cousins Club sent a letter to Senator Diane
Feinstein and Madeline Albright.)
The Palestinians in our club are very down-hearted and angry, but they are sticking with
us. However, how long can we expect them to be patient? How long can people respond
peacefully to tyranny? The burden is on us, the Jews, to move the peace process along even
if we don't get the cooperation we would like to have. After all, sadly, it is our
people who are the oppressors.
Shalom/Salaam
Ruth Shapin
-------------
{From Ami to Ruth}
Dear Ruth,
Tell your Palestinian friends: It does not matter who are the 'oppressors.' I am not
responsible for the Deir Yassin massacre, and Ahmad and Ameen are not responsible for Gush
Etzion. I am not responsible for house demolitions and for the settlers in Yizhar - I
can't do anything about them. They are not responible for Hamas. We can only stop these
things by speaking and acting together. If they do not talk to us, we will never be able
to stop the violence and hate.
Best
Ami
----------------
>From Ahmad Humeid
Ami,
The article and your comments are indeed interesting. I found the article pretty precise
in its analysis of the situation. largely agree with your comments with exception of the
idea that Israeli individuals are not responsible for their government's actions.
Israel is the self-proclaimed democratic oasis in the "authoritarian desert" of
the Middle East. This clearly means that the collective will of Israelis actually does
shape the actions of their government. Netanyahu has been surviving one vote of
no-confidence after the other. This situation cannot be blamed solely on the last election
that was decided by a "protest vote" as a reaction to terrorist attacks.
So this again brings us back to the grass-roots issue. Although I don't find the
proclamation of boycott by professional associations and other similar bodies admirable,
yet one has to ask the obvious question: why do these "popular" associations and
grass-roots organizations do it.
That these organizations are largely still dominated by old guard figures and ideologies
is only half of the answer. The other half, in my mind, is that there is some real grass
root refusal of peace (or "surrender" as put by the anti peace camp). And who do
we blame for this: well there are also two sides to blame. First, Israel can be blamed as
a country/nation that acts as a conqueror, viewed by many as a society based on the
supremacy of the Jewish ethnicity, that uses a religio-nationalistic mixture to revive the
dream of two thousand years ago. Equally, one can blame the Arab governments and official
institutions, who for decades were teaching children the culture of war not peace, then,
with the click of a button, reversed all their official discourse, with Israel suddenly
being termed as a "neighboring country".
Maybe there was hope for dialogue during the Rabin era (just after the accords where
signed). Many intellectuals wanted to try this forbidden fruit of "dialogue with the
other". I personally know many people who were willing to engage in cultural dialogue
and activities back then, but who now find it difficult to do so (both internally or
"introspectively" or in the face of the current public opinion).
The Arab psyche's deepest scar is perhaps its relation with Israel. It's a reflection of a
collective military, cultural and economic defeat. The added religious dimension of the
conflict complicates the matter even further.
Hope for a dialogue can perhaps only become realistic if circumstances similar to those
after Gulf war and the Labor peace accords can somehow be brought into existence.
Regards,
Ahmad
---------------
Reply to Ahmad from Ami
My point was that the boycott is hurting the Palestinian cause badly, unless that cause
continues to be the absolute and total destruction of Israel. That 'cause' is what brought
about the Naqba, and began the whole sorry mess. For the advocates of that cause, peace is
indeed surrender.
If the goal of the boycott is to protest-and end- the occupation of lands taken
since 1967, it is achieving precisely the opposite result. The Palestinians need dialog
infinitely more than we Israelis do, and every minute they are losing is precious.
Israel is no doubt a democracy of sorts. That is precisely why it is so important for
Palestinians and Arabs who are for peace to make their voices heard in Israel - and to
influence Israeli public opinion through journalists and other professionals. Democracy
has its limitations. A small vocal group can sometimes impose its will on the majority.
This is true for the religious coercion issue for example. It is also true for the
settlers and their advocates. The settlers are winning their case because they can point
to terror, to the boycott, to the cold peace, to obscenities like the Fatah constitution,
to the camps where Palestinian kids are trained to take back Yafo and Tel-Aviv. They point
to these and say 'see - we cannot give back the land, because the Palestinians will use it
as a base to destroy us, with the help of our Arab neighbors.' This was Bibi's
winning card. You know that I am not exaggerating because I have forwarded to you - and
others - some of the materials we get from right-wing groups and individuals.
Unfortunately, the Israeli peace movement is somehow held responsible for these
Palestinian acts. I will not be led into that trap, any more than I will be led into the
trap of excusing house demolitions or land-grabs. It cannot be that I am at the same time
responsible for the house demolitions, as you claim, and also somehow responsible for the
acts of the Hamas, as the Israeli Right claims.
The 'grass roots' you say are against peace. Well, the polls of the CPRS indicate exactly
the opposite in PNA held areas. The grass roots - housewives, the poor, the undeducated,
are overwhelmingly FOR the peace process. The rich, the educated are the ones who are
against the peace process. The myth of the 'Palestinian man in the street' who is opposed
to the peace process is exploited
by the enemies of peace for their own purposes, but it is a myth.
The dialog in Rhodes did the cause of peace - and the Palestinian cause- a great deal of
good. The Israeli journalists who came were not people like me who voted for Meretz and
Peres. They included many Rightist journalists who came away with an entirely different
perspective on the conflict, and much more willingness to listen to the other side.
I am responsible for house demolitions and occupation to the extent that they are done in
my name. However, I protest against them every chance I get, and expect other Israelis to
do so - in OPPOSITION to government policy. I have not seen many Jordanians and Egyptians
who are willing to come forward in SUPPORT of their governments' policy. Likewise in
Palestine, the voices for peace may represent the majority, but they are very quiet, while
the bellicose voices are heard quite clearly.
The wars have indeed left a big scar in the Arab world. The cultural defeat of the Arab
world is not the fault of the Arab people or of Israel. It did not begin in 1947. It began
with the decay of the Ottoman Turkish Empire many years before. The way to begin repairing
the specific wounds with respect to Israel is to understand
that the problem began with the boycott, and the boycott began in 1947, not 1967. It
is the same boycott for the same reasons - let's not kid ourselves.
The defeat at the hands of Israel hurts so much more than all the other defeats
because of our perceived inferiority, not superiority. The Jews were thought
to be cowards, shopkeepers and weaklings, as attested by many refugees interviewed by
IPCRI. Nobody (the Jews included) imagined that we could win a war. The same thing was
repeated in 1967. Egyptian television had pictures of big Arab supermen crushing little
defenseless Jews. The Jews around the world - and not only the Jews - accepted this image.
The United States did not believe we could win in 1948. In 1967, I am told there was a
moronic commentator on U.S.
television - a retired General, who day after day explained that the Israelis would lose
the war the next day. Getting beaten up by Mike Tyson may be painful, but the ego will
survive if the body does; getting beaten up by some nerdy shopkeepers is humiliating.
This is _still_ the _self-image_ of many Israelis! It is this fear that Bibi Netanyahu
plays on.
You say that we must somehow recreate the situation after the Gulf War. If the
Palestinians want to wait for that, or think that it will happen by pressure or
threatening Israel or flying kites with the names of Israeli cities on them - Yaffo, Haifa
Tzfat, Tiberias - or by sanctions, or by war as one reader suggested, they have
another thing coming.
Best
Ami
Top |
