“I appreciate your bumper sticker.” She said. I turned and there stood a lady admiring my “Free Palestine – End the Occupation.”
“And I am Jewish,” she added. “I want to support the State of Israel but right now I cannot. I hate what Israel is doing to the Palestinians but when I say that in my synagogue, I get ostracized. Sometimes I feel like I am the only one. It gets sort of lonely.”
I didn’t have the foggiest idea who she was or where she had come from but there we were talking in the parking lot for a few minutes. Then we each went our own way. As soon as she was gone, I thought of many things I wish I had said to her, starting with, “You are not alone.”
I think of Michael Lerner, editor of TIKKUN, one of the leading Jewish magazines in America which has been calling Israel to a more civilized behavior for years. Back in 1990, Lerner wrote:
Stop the beatings, stop the breaking of bones, stop the late night raids on people’s homes, stop using food as a weapon of war, stop pretending that you can respond to an entire people’s agony with guns and blows and power. Publically acknowledge that the Palestinians have the same right to national determination that we Jews have, and negotiate a solution with representatives of the Palestinians[1].
And I wish I had told her of Marc Ellis, a prolific Jewish author whom I claim as a friend. He stayed in my home while lecturing in Atlanta. Ellis has written, among other things, Beyond Innocence, (1990) a sharp indictment of Israel’s non-Jewish policies and Unholy Alliances. (1987).
And I wish I had asked her if she were familiar with the works of Noam Chomsky. My mind kept racing across the many great Jewish authors who for years have struggled to reconcile the ethical and moral teachings of their faith with the immoral and brutal practices of the modern state of Israel. If I knew who she was, I would send her a list of books by Jewish authors who have influenced me; I would begin with:
1982 – Jacobo Timerman, THE LONGEST WAR, (pp167).
Timerman was actually tortured in Argentina because he was a Jew, Yet looking at Israel, he writes:
In these past months, I have left behind many illusions, some frustrations, several obsessions. But none of my convictions. Among all these things, there is one that shatters me beyond consolation, I have discovered in Jews a capacity for cruelty that I never believed possible.[2]
1983 – Noam Chomsky, wrote a classic, THE FAITHFUL TRIANGLE,
(pp 469.)
It is long, but well worth the read.
1990 – Marc Ellis with Rosemary Rather Ruther wrote, BEYOND OCCUPATION,
(pp 298.)
This was one of the first books to open my eyes to the truth of what is happening in Palestine and Israel’s brutality.
All of these authors, writing twenty to twenty-five years ago, left me with the feeling of embarrassment. I claim to be an educated person and yet, I did not know this history. Jewish writers are still making the same claim: Israel is out of control.
2003 – Michael Lerner – HEALING, ISRAEL/PALESTINE. (pp 184.)
This marvelous book seeks to tell the story from both sides, but as the more powerful, Lerner holds Israel responsible, saying,” Israelis, have increasingly used methods to secure the Occupation that violate international standards of human rights and make a mockery of the highest values of the Jewish tradition.”
2003 – Norman G. Finkelstein, IMAGE AND REALITY OF THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT (pp.198)
This hard hitting book documents the real history of Zionism’s conquest of Palestine.
2006 – Ilan Pappe, THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINE, (pp.261.) This is the most provocative book I have recently read documenting the real motive behind Israel’s imperialism and its savage brutality toward the Palestinians.
2007 – Joel Kovel, OVERCOMING ZIONISM, (pp 247.)
Kovel describes his own passion. “I wrote this book in fury about Israel and the unholy complicity of the United States and its Jewish community that grants it impunity?”
When non-Jewish authors write, they are immediately labeled as anti-Semitic. When these Jewish authors write and criticize Israel, they are writing out of a great concern and commitment to their Jewish heritage and moral standards ingrained in them by their Jewish tradition…and they must be heard and respected.
I would refer my Jewish lady to the magazine TIKKUN, published by Rabbi Michael Lerner, and ask her to Google Ha’aretz, a leading Jerusalem newspaper. In many ways, it seems that the Jews of Israel are far more free to criticize their own government than are the Jews of America.
No, she is not alone and those sharing her concerns are increasing every day. She is one among an ever growing number of Jews who have chosen to live out their faith above everything else, regardless of the cost.
Thomas Are
July 23, 2009
[1] Marc Ellis and Rosemary Rather Ruether, Beyond Occupation., p.100.
[2] Jacobo Timerman, The Longest War, Israel in Lebanon, p.158.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
A Dangerous Threat
On the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton said that if Iran attacked Israel America would be able to “totally obliterate them.” That was a foolish threat then and it's even more dangerous now. Yet, last week, she again brought up the possibility of a “preemptive strike, “ by “someone”, saying, “If they believe that the United States might attack them the way that we did attack Iraq, for example…”
George Stephanopolos interrupted her, “Before they attack, as a first strike?”
“That’s right, as a first strike … to make clear to the Iranians that their pursuit of nuclear weapons will actually trigger greater insecurity, because right now, many of the nations in the neighborhood, as you very well…
Stephonopolic interrupted her again, “Because Israel will strike before they can finish?
Clinton: “Well, but not only that. I mean, other countries, other Arab countries are deeply concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons.”
Throughout the entire interview Clinton made it, “clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States.” [1]
Is the new Secretary of State claiming the right to commit genocide against the people of Iran if their government does not cease its effort to obtain nuclear power?
My main concern is the casual way in which she addresses the subject of going to war. Has she forgotten the wars we are already in and cannot afford or seem to get out of?
Jim Wallis spoke to the Celeste Zappala, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq about the cost of war:
“What happens,” she asked, to the “souls of soldiers who have picked up their friends in pieces, or fearfully fired into a moving car – to discover a shattered Iraqi family a moment later?” She talked about the many victims, on two continents. “An Iraqi mother searches a morgue for the familiar curve of the hand of her child beneath the pale sheet; an American father watches his son beheaded on videotape; an Iraqi child wakes up in a shabby hospital in excruciating pain and without his arm; an American girl writes letters to her dead soldier father; a young vet wraps a garden hose around his neck and leaps away from the nightmares that beset him.” And she recites the tragic numbers: “1,950 U.S. kids lost a parent; 25,000 wounded and struggling through the V.A. system; scores and scores of suicides; 500,000 and more dead Iraqis; 2 million refugees…”[2]
No one is suggesting that there are not some dangerous people out there. But maybe pre-emptive strikes are not the best way to deal with them. Wallis says, “Fighting evil with evil, as recent events show, just adds fuel to the fire. How about overcoming evil with good? If you want to deprive jihadists of ammunition, make it hard for them to persuade others to hate us.”[3]
We could seek to put clean water in every sick and hungry village on the globe. Or, we could stop bombing Arab nations for oil. Or, we could cease protecting Israel’s crimes with our U.N. vetoes. Or, at least, we could cease threatening to obliterate Iran with our military force if it seeks to defend itself against an Israeli attack.
Do you think the Apostle Paul might have been on to something when he said , “Live in harmony with one another…Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in sight of all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God…No, if your enemy is hungry, feed him, if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12: 16-21) Sounds risky, but does anyone actually still think that violence can be defeated by more violence? Can’t we find ways to defeat our enemies without killing them?
Thomas Are
June 12, 2009
[1] This Week, with George Stephanopoulos, ABC, June 7, 2009.
[2] Jim Wallis, The Great Awakening, (Harper One, New York, 2008) p.242.
[3] Jim Wallis, ibid, p. 262.
George Stephanopolos interrupted her, “Before they attack, as a first strike?”
“That’s right, as a first strike … to make clear to the Iranians that their pursuit of nuclear weapons will actually trigger greater insecurity, because right now, many of the nations in the neighborhood, as you very well…
Stephonopolic interrupted her again, “Because Israel will strike before they can finish?
Clinton: “Well, but not only that. I mean, other countries, other Arab countries are deeply concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons.”
Throughout the entire interview Clinton made it, “clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States.” [1]
Is the new Secretary of State claiming the right to commit genocide against the people of Iran if their government does not cease its effort to obtain nuclear power?
My main concern is the casual way in which she addresses the subject of going to war. Has she forgotten the wars we are already in and cannot afford or seem to get out of?
Jim Wallis spoke to the Celeste Zappala, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq about the cost of war:
“What happens,” she asked, to the “souls of soldiers who have picked up their friends in pieces, or fearfully fired into a moving car – to discover a shattered Iraqi family a moment later?” She talked about the many victims, on two continents. “An Iraqi mother searches a morgue for the familiar curve of the hand of her child beneath the pale sheet; an American father watches his son beheaded on videotape; an Iraqi child wakes up in a shabby hospital in excruciating pain and without his arm; an American girl writes letters to her dead soldier father; a young vet wraps a garden hose around his neck and leaps away from the nightmares that beset him.” And she recites the tragic numbers: “1,950 U.S. kids lost a parent; 25,000 wounded and struggling through the V.A. system; scores and scores of suicides; 500,000 and more dead Iraqis; 2 million refugees…”[2]
No one is suggesting that there are not some dangerous people out there. But maybe pre-emptive strikes are not the best way to deal with them. Wallis says, “Fighting evil with evil, as recent events show, just adds fuel to the fire. How about overcoming evil with good? If you want to deprive jihadists of ammunition, make it hard for them to persuade others to hate us.”[3]
We could seek to put clean water in every sick and hungry village on the globe. Or, we could stop bombing Arab nations for oil. Or, we could cease protecting Israel’s crimes with our U.N. vetoes. Or, at least, we could cease threatening to obliterate Iran with our military force if it seeks to defend itself against an Israeli attack.
Do you think the Apostle Paul might have been on to something when he said , “Live in harmony with one another…Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in sight of all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God…No, if your enemy is hungry, feed him, if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12: 16-21) Sounds risky, but does anyone actually still think that violence can be defeated by more violence? Can’t we find ways to defeat our enemies without killing them?
Thomas Are
June 12, 2009
[1] This Week, with George Stephanopoulos, ABC, June 7, 2009.
[2] Jim Wallis, The Great Awakening, (Harper One, New York, 2008) p.242.
[3] Jim Wallis, ibid, p. 262.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Did You Know
Did you know? I didn’t. Of course, there is little reason for either of us to know. It was covered up by our media, ignored by our politicians and justified by our loudest TV prophets. It’s almost as if it did not even happen. Or if it did, it is of so little consequence that it was hardly worth mentioning at all.
But, I ask again, did you know that last January, Israel struck a convoy on the road just north of Port Sudan and killed 119 people. It was announced by the Sudan media, but not a word in the US press. Israel claimed that those killed were smugglers. At first, the US was blamed, but eventually Israel admitted that they had killed all those Sudanese people as a “warning to Iran.”[1]
Israel acts like a cornered animal, snapping out in any direction which it considers might be a threat. Egypt in 1967, Iraq in 1981, Lebanon in 1982, Syria in 2007, Lebanon again in 2007, Gaza in 2008, Sudan in 2009.
Also, did you know that suddenly, last month, Israel warns Gazans that they will be shot if they come close to the border fence which Israel erected on the Palestinian side.
"Israeli aircraft dropped exploding boxes full of leaflets across Gaza Strip today, littering the tiny enclave with threats to shoot any Gazans who come within 300 meters of the border fence…
The Israeli military has shot multiple Gaza citizens since the end of its invasion of the strip, including several farmers whose fields were close to the border. The warning is raising concern that civilians will be in greater danger in up coming days.
In the densely populated strip, many residents live less than 300 meters from the border fence. One of the residence wondered if 'the Israelis expect these people to start migrating yet again and flee like during the war.' Blocking off 300 meters across the entire border would actually make a considerable portion of the strip into a no-man’s land, but for the enclaves 1.5 million inhabitants, it is just business as usual in their ever shrinking home."[2]
Most repulsive of all, have you heard of the latest goal of Avigdor Leiberman (no kin to Joe Leiberman but a brother against the Palestinians). Israel’s government has moved so right-winged that an Avigdor Leiberman was the biggest winner in this year’s election, giving him enormous swing power.
According to Fareed Zakaria:
“Leiberman and his issues have moved to center stage. As fiercely as he denounces the Palestinian militants of Hamas and Hizbullah, his No. 1 target is Israel’s Arab minority, which he has called a worst threat than Hamas. He proposes the effective expulsion of several hundred thousand Arab citizens by unilaterally redesignating some northern Israeli towns as parts of the Palestinian West Bank. Another group of several hundred thousand could expect to be stripped of citizenship for failing to meet requirements such as loyalty oaths…
The New Republic’s Martin Peretz, a passionate Zionist and critic of the peace movement, calls Leiberman a ‘neo-fascist…a certified gangster…”[3]
Expulsion of Israeli Arab citizens is more than a goal, it’s a plan. Leiberman, who is now Israel’s Foreign Minister, has prepared a bill requiring an oath of loyalty to the “current government as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state.”[4] Think about that for a minute. Of course, Israel has a right to force its citizens to respect its laws, but to require Palestinians to swear allegiance to the Zionism that massacre their parents, took their homes and usurped their culture, is expecting too much. Loyalty is a trap leading to the expulsion of 20 percent of its citizens.
In the meantime, America looks the other way. And why should it matter that we know about these kinds of things. I believe it’s important because unless Israel backs off and stops attacking its neighbors, there will be no peace for Israel…or the U.S. Are we again being dragged into a war that we cannot win, nor afford? We cannot pay for our own ”snappings” in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now we are barking at Iran.
We should know, at least, that if we get pulled into a war with Iran, it may very well destroy Israel and bankrupt the U.S. Israel’s atrocity is a luxury we can no longer afford. Besides that, it is wrong.
Thomas Are
June 6, 2009
[1] Antiwar.com/2009/05/25/state-meia-119-killed-in-january-sudan-bombing. Israeli Air Strike on Sudan Convoy in January Killed 119. DM Insist Attack Still Under Investigation, by James Ditz, May 25, 2009.
[2] Jason Ditz, Israel Warns Gazans will be Shot if They Come Close to Border. Antriwar.com/5/25/09,
[3] Fareed Zakaria, Israel’s Biggest Danger, NEWSWEEK, February 23, 2009, p 41.
[4] Jason Ditz, Israeli FM’s Party to Introduce Loyalty Oath Bill, Antiwar.com, 5/25/2009.
But, I ask again, did you know that last January, Israel struck a convoy on the road just north of Port Sudan and killed 119 people. It was announced by the Sudan media, but not a word in the US press. Israel claimed that those killed were smugglers. At first, the US was blamed, but eventually Israel admitted that they had killed all those Sudanese people as a “warning to Iran.”[1]
Israel acts like a cornered animal, snapping out in any direction which it considers might be a threat. Egypt in 1967, Iraq in 1981, Lebanon in 1982, Syria in 2007, Lebanon again in 2007, Gaza in 2008, Sudan in 2009.
Also, did you know that suddenly, last month, Israel warns Gazans that they will be shot if they come close to the border fence which Israel erected on the Palestinian side.
"Israeli aircraft dropped exploding boxes full of leaflets across Gaza Strip today, littering the tiny enclave with threats to shoot any Gazans who come within 300 meters of the border fence…
The Israeli military has shot multiple Gaza citizens since the end of its invasion of the strip, including several farmers whose fields were close to the border. The warning is raising concern that civilians will be in greater danger in up coming days.
In the densely populated strip, many residents live less than 300 meters from the border fence. One of the residence wondered if 'the Israelis expect these people to start migrating yet again and flee like during the war.' Blocking off 300 meters across the entire border would actually make a considerable portion of the strip into a no-man’s land, but for the enclaves 1.5 million inhabitants, it is just business as usual in their ever shrinking home."[2]
Most repulsive of all, have you heard of the latest goal of Avigdor Leiberman (no kin to Joe Leiberman but a brother against the Palestinians). Israel’s government has moved so right-winged that an Avigdor Leiberman was the biggest winner in this year’s election, giving him enormous swing power.
According to Fareed Zakaria:
“Leiberman and his issues have moved to center stage. As fiercely as he denounces the Palestinian militants of Hamas and Hizbullah, his No. 1 target is Israel’s Arab minority, which he has called a worst threat than Hamas. He proposes the effective expulsion of several hundred thousand Arab citizens by unilaterally redesignating some northern Israeli towns as parts of the Palestinian West Bank. Another group of several hundred thousand could expect to be stripped of citizenship for failing to meet requirements such as loyalty oaths…
The New Republic’s Martin Peretz, a passionate Zionist and critic of the peace movement, calls Leiberman a ‘neo-fascist…a certified gangster…”[3]
Expulsion of Israeli Arab citizens is more than a goal, it’s a plan. Leiberman, who is now Israel’s Foreign Minister, has prepared a bill requiring an oath of loyalty to the “current government as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state.”[4] Think about that for a minute. Of course, Israel has a right to force its citizens to respect its laws, but to require Palestinians to swear allegiance to the Zionism that massacre their parents, took their homes and usurped their culture, is expecting too much. Loyalty is a trap leading to the expulsion of 20 percent of its citizens.
In the meantime, America looks the other way. And why should it matter that we know about these kinds of things. I believe it’s important because unless Israel backs off and stops attacking its neighbors, there will be no peace for Israel…or the U.S. Are we again being dragged into a war that we cannot win, nor afford? We cannot pay for our own ”snappings” in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now we are barking at Iran.
We should know, at least, that if we get pulled into a war with Iran, it may very well destroy Israel and bankrupt the U.S. Israel’s atrocity is a luxury we can no longer afford. Besides that, it is wrong.
Thomas Are
June 6, 2009
[1] Antiwar.com/2009/05/25/state-meia-119-killed-in-january-sudan-bombing. Israeli Air Strike on Sudan Convoy in January Killed 119. DM Insist Attack Still Under Investigation, by James Ditz, May 25, 2009.
[2] Jason Ditz, Israel Warns Gazans will be Shot if They Come Close to Border. Antriwar.com/5/25/09,
[3] Fareed Zakaria, Israel’s Biggest Danger, NEWSWEEK, February 23, 2009, p 41.
[4] Jason Ditz, Israeli FM’s Party to Introduce Loyalty Oath Bill, Antiwar.com, 5/25/2009.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Controlling Hatred
Even though The New York Times did report on January 27 that hundreds of trucks carrying clothing, baby food, rice, juice, sugar and flour donated from around the world “sat in the hot sun, going nowhere” at the border,[1] I have given up expecting the Times to hold Israel responsible for its role in the Middle East turmoil.
For example, reflecting on the recent visits of Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas to the White House, the Times, in its top billing editorial last week, laid out a litany of “must dos” for Abbas if he is to maintain his presidency of the Palestinians. The Times even threw in a “must” for Obama and one for the Arab leaders. What was missing was a single “must” for Mr. Netanyahu:
"When Mr. Netanyahu visited the White House last week, Mr. Obama publicly pressed the Israeli leader to freeze settlements and commit to a two-state solution. Now he has set markers for Mr. Abbas, urging him to make greater efforts to rein in militants and halt incitement against Israel. We hope he will do the same for leading Arab states."[2]
I think it is somewhat disingenuous to write, “He (Abbas) must redouble efforts to halt the constant spewing of hatred against Israel in schools, mosques and media.” How can Abbas or any other leader of an occupied people halt the anger of those victimized by a calculated and brutal imperialism?
I am amazed that the Times did not address the causes of such “hatred,” including the ever expanding settlements, mostly occupied by lawless zealots who without impunity harass, steal from and sometimes shoot those whose lands they have occupied. How can the Times, as a responsible reporter of news, turn its back on the continued demolition of homes and the uprooting of olive trees? Add in, the humiliation inflicted by 600 military check points, the assassinations and imprisonment of Palestinian leaders and a wall separating farmers from their fields, kids from their schools and the sick and injured from hospitals, and who among us would not be enraged?
Just one “must” directed toward Israel would do more to diminish the level of hatred than all the punishment measures inflicted upon the Palestinians, many of whom have somehow managed to control their rage and actually seek peace with Israel.
Thomas Are
June 1, 2009
[1] Cited in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Rachelle Marshall, Israel Changes Leaders but Not its Goal: No Palestinian State, April 2009, p.8.
[2] The New York Times, May 30, 2009, Editorial, Mr. Obama and Mr. Abbas, p. A16.
For example, reflecting on the recent visits of Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas to the White House, the Times, in its top billing editorial last week, laid out a litany of “must dos” for Abbas if he is to maintain his presidency of the Palestinians. The Times even threw in a “must” for Obama and one for the Arab leaders. What was missing was a single “must” for Mr. Netanyahu:
"When Mr. Netanyahu visited the White House last week, Mr. Obama publicly pressed the Israeli leader to freeze settlements and commit to a two-state solution. Now he has set markers for Mr. Abbas, urging him to make greater efforts to rein in militants and halt incitement against Israel. We hope he will do the same for leading Arab states."[2]
I think it is somewhat disingenuous to write, “He (Abbas) must redouble efforts to halt the constant spewing of hatred against Israel in schools, mosques and media.” How can Abbas or any other leader of an occupied people halt the anger of those victimized by a calculated and brutal imperialism?
I am amazed that the Times did not address the causes of such “hatred,” including the ever expanding settlements, mostly occupied by lawless zealots who without impunity harass, steal from and sometimes shoot those whose lands they have occupied. How can the Times, as a responsible reporter of news, turn its back on the continued demolition of homes and the uprooting of olive trees? Add in, the humiliation inflicted by 600 military check points, the assassinations and imprisonment of Palestinian leaders and a wall separating farmers from their fields, kids from their schools and the sick and injured from hospitals, and who among us would not be enraged?
Just one “must” directed toward Israel would do more to diminish the level of hatred than all the punishment measures inflicted upon the Palestinians, many of whom have somehow managed to control their rage and actually seek peace with Israel.
Thomas Are
June 1, 2009
[1] Cited in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Rachelle Marshall, Israel Changes Leaders but Not its Goal: No Palestinian State, April 2009, p.8.
[2] The New York Times, May 30, 2009, Editorial, Mr. Obama and Mr. Abbas, p. A16.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Just My Opinion
Who am I to even have an opinion? There are others who live closer to the pain and have far more knowledge and experience than I who would disagree with me. But, I have an opinion and it is this: I see little hope for a two state solution in Israel/Palestine. With the domination of the wall, settlements and division of water, I am not optimistic about the chances for the survival of an independent Palestinian state. Taking into account the religious fundamentalists who now occupy those settlements because they believe “God” wants them to fight for “their” land, and given their history and theology, these zealots for Zionism will resort to terrorist attacks to bring down a young and vulnerable Palestinian state.
The only hope for Israel to survive, in my opinion, is to annex the West Bank and Gaza and become a nation for all its citizens. Of course, then Israel would no longer have a Jewish majority with a Jewish government giving preferential treatment to a Jewish citizenship. However, it would survive and share in the benefits of a democracy.
Israel needs to survive. That’s not just an opinion, it’s more like a moral declaration. There are generations of people living there who have never known any home but Israel. It would be immoral to take from innocent children their security and state just because of the irresponsible leadership of their government. Kids are innocent and should not have to suffer because of the ambitions of grown-ups. So, again, I say, Israel must survive.
Yet, I am growing more and more skeptical as to its survival possibilities. Their government is in the hands of Nazi-like racists. Nearly a century ago, the leaders in Germany tried this “chosen race” stuff. Believing that God or nature had set up Germans as a unique and superior race, the Nazis set out to establish their own nationalism.
Norman Finkelstein writes about it.
Romantic nationalists argued that more profound bonds both “naturally united certain individuals” and “naturally” excluded others. Ideally, they concluded, each such organically connected community ought to be endowed with an independent state… Jews constituted an “alien” presence amidst states belonging to other, numerically preponderant, nationalities. Anti-Semitism was the natural impulse of an organic whole “infected” by a “foreign body (or too obtrusive a “foreign” body.[i]
Sound familiar? Yet, history rejected the Nazi ideology in Germany and
will reject it again in Israel.
Even a controlled media will not be able to convince the people of America that trapping a civilian population into one of the most crowded regions on earth while massacring 1400 people should not qualify as a crime against humanity. In spite of locking the Gazans in and locking international reporters out, the word escaped. Americans cannot avoid hearing stories of Israel’s cutting off the life line of food, water, medicines and electricity without thinking: something is out of whack…and it not working.
The likes of Netanyahu and Lieberman must learn that warfare has changed. You can’t defeat a rebellious people with bombs and tanks. Every time you kill or torture one person, others will take his place filled with even more hatred and dedication to vengeance. Having the fourth largest army on the globe will not control the determination of an oppressed people seeking their freedom. Violence only generates more violence.
In spite of those standing up in pulpits and appearing to speak with some God authority, even the least informed will begin to realize that the theology promoting such atrocities comes from a “book,” written by Jews, to Jews, and on the behalf of Jews only. It seems a questionable theology at best.
Sooner or later, those Christian Zionists who justify injustice in the name of Jesus are going to stumble. History and scholarship are going to catch up with them. In spite of the powerful influence of evangelical television, more Christians are going to realize that killing, brutalizing and stealing from another people is wrong. And sooner or later, the world is going to take steps to stop it.
It is insane to think that a little nation of 7.4 million, of which 20 percent are Arabs, can continue to humiliate a billion Muslims and expect their support and partnership in such things as trade, health and environmental security, all of which are necessary ingredients to survive in today’s world.
By far, the most serious threat to the survival of Israel is the economic decline of the United States. Americans give over six billion dollars a year to Israel. Considering the financial crisis we are facing, such an enormous hand out will become more and more questionable. It is my opinion that before long we will have a significant number of US citizens beginning to challenge the rationale of sending money to lift the living standard of Israel while we have Americans sleeping under bridges and going without medical care.
In short, I don’t think Israel can survive on its current course. The time for a “chosen and privileged people” claiming God given rights over others is dying. That world no longer exist. There is no room on this shrinking planet for a racist, theocratic state.
Thus, my opinion, for what it’s worth: The only way forward is for Israel/Palestine to become one democratic nation for all its citizens. Neither state can survive on its present path, nor should it have to.
Thomas Are
May 12, 2009
[i] Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestinian Conflict, (Verso, New York, 2003) p. 8.
The only hope for Israel to survive, in my opinion, is to annex the West Bank and Gaza and become a nation for all its citizens. Of course, then Israel would no longer have a Jewish majority with a Jewish government giving preferential treatment to a Jewish citizenship. However, it would survive and share in the benefits of a democracy.
Israel needs to survive. That’s not just an opinion, it’s more like a moral declaration. There are generations of people living there who have never known any home but Israel. It would be immoral to take from innocent children their security and state just because of the irresponsible leadership of their government. Kids are innocent and should not have to suffer because of the ambitions of grown-ups. So, again, I say, Israel must survive.
Yet, I am growing more and more skeptical as to its survival possibilities. Their government is in the hands of Nazi-like racists. Nearly a century ago, the leaders in Germany tried this “chosen race” stuff. Believing that God or nature had set up Germans as a unique and superior race, the Nazis set out to establish their own nationalism.
Norman Finkelstein writes about it.
Romantic nationalists argued that more profound bonds both “naturally united certain individuals” and “naturally” excluded others. Ideally, they concluded, each such organically connected community ought to be endowed with an independent state… Jews constituted an “alien” presence amidst states belonging to other, numerically preponderant, nationalities. Anti-Semitism was the natural impulse of an organic whole “infected” by a “foreign body (or too obtrusive a “foreign” body.[i]
Sound familiar? Yet, history rejected the Nazi ideology in Germany and
will reject it again in Israel.
Even a controlled media will not be able to convince the people of America that trapping a civilian population into one of the most crowded regions on earth while massacring 1400 people should not qualify as a crime against humanity. In spite of locking the Gazans in and locking international reporters out, the word escaped. Americans cannot avoid hearing stories of Israel’s cutting off the life line of food, water, medicines and electricity without thinking: something is out of whack…and it not working.
The likes of Netanyahu and Lieberman must learn that warfare has changed. You can’t defeat a rebellious people with bombs and tanks. Every time you kill or torture one person, others will take his place filled with even more hatred and dedication to vengeance. Having the fourth largest army on the globe will not control the determination of an oppressed people seeking their freedom. Violence only generates more violence.
In spite of those standing up in pulpits and appearing to speak with some God authority, even the least informed will begin to realize that the theology promoting such atrocities comes from a “book,” written by Jews, to Jews, and on the behalf of Jews only. It seems a questionable theology at best.
Sooner or later, those Christian Zionists who justify injustice in the name of Jesus are going to stumble. History and scholarship are going to catch up with them. In spite of the powerful influence of evangelical television, more Christians are going to realize that killing, brutalizing and stealing from another people is wrong. And sooner or later, the world is going to take steps to stop it.
It is insane to think that a little nation of 7.4 million, of which 20 percent are Arabs, can continue to humiliate a billion Muslims and expect their support and partnership in such things as trade, health and environmental security, all of which are necessary ingredients to survive in today’s world.
By far, the most serious threat to the survival of Israel is the economic decline of the United States. Americans give over six billion dollars a year to Israel. Considering the financial crisis we are facing, such an enormous hand out will become more and more questionable. It is my opinion that before long we will have a significant number of US citizens beginning to challenge the rationale of sending money to lift the living standard of Israel while we have Americans sleeping under bridges and going without medical care.
In short, I don’t think Israel can survive on its current course. The time for a “chosen and privileged people” claiming God given rights over others is dying. That world no longer exist. There is no room on this shrinking planet for a racist, theocratic state.
Thus, my opinion, for what it’s worth: The only way forward is for Israel/Palestine to become one democratic nation for all its citizens. Neither state can survive on its present path, nor should it have to.
Thomas Are
May 12, 2009
[i] Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestinian Conflict, (Verso, New York, 2003) p. 8.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Seeking Balance
One of the best resources I know for keeping up to date on what is happening in the Middle East is a monthly magazine, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Every month, informed journalists and free lancers report on what’s happening on the ground. Rachelle Marshall alone is worth the cost of the subscription. However, this month, I was captivated by a letter to the editor in which the writer complained about the lack of “balance.” “Why do you keep publishing, month after month, the same anti-Israel article? Only the author’s names seem to change. ..Wouldn’t it be refreshing to publish one article presenting Israel’s point of view?” He recommended Dershowitz.
His challenge struck me because I also hear that same complaint. “Tom, you see everything in the Palestinian conflict through the lens of Israeli atrocities.” Or, “You seem to see Israel as all wrong and Palestinians as always right.” Or, “I wouldn’t criticize Tom Friedman. People really like him.” And, “You need to lighten up.”
While trying to formulate my own response to such concerns, The Washington Report said it better than I ever could. After thanking the reader for his letter, the editor writes:
Perhaps we don’t mention often enough the names of the many Israelis we admire – Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, Uri Avnery, Linda Breyer, among others – as well as the fact that debate on the issue that concerns us is much more open and robust there, as exemplified by the fine publication Haaretz. Were the debate as open here, we could count on the main stream media (MSM) to do more than tout the Israeli line. Since they don’t, we try to provide “balance” by covering stories that the MSM refuses to touch (such as the Israel lobby, which we reported in Vol. 1, No. 1 of the Washington Report, published 27 years ago). And most recently, for example, The Washington Post failed to cover several local demonstrations – one in front of its very door—against Israel’s assault on Gaza.
Ultimately, what we and many others find unacceptable is the ideology upon which the state of Israel is based: that only Jews have a right to live there. We don’t see “another side” to racism or to genocide. Nor do we recall similarly “balanced” stories about apartheid South Africa, genocide in Rwanda, or Nazi Germany during World War II. Would you have demanded that Goebbels be asked to provide “balance”?
I would add such voices as that of Noam Chomsky, Marc Ellis, Norman Finkelstein, Joel Kovel, Robert Simon of 60 Minutes and Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine, all courageous souls who in spite of ridicule and public pressure are trying to be faithful to the moral fiber of their Jewish tradition.
Concerning the Israel/Palestinian conflict, Americans are ignorant. It is not their fault. Americans are good people and would stand up for doing what is right if they only knew. But when the media, the pulpit and politicians of all parties choose to keep silent about what they undoubtedly know, the average American has little incentive to “go against the stream". That’s why I so appreciate such publications as the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. It only cost $29 a year.
Thomas Are
May 4, 2009
His challenge struck me because I also hear that same complaint. “Tom, you see everything in the Palestinian conflict through the lens of Israeli atrocities.” Or, “You seem to see Israel as all wrong and Palestinians as always right.” Or, “I wouldn’t criticize Tom Friedman. People really like him.” And, “You need to lighten up.”
While trying to formulate my own response to such concerns, The Washington Report said it better than I ever could. After thanking the reader for his letter, the editor writes:
Perhaps we don’t mention often enough the names of the many Israelis we admire – Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, Uri Avnery, Linda Breyer, among others – as well as the fact that debate on the issue that concerns us is much more open and robust there, as exemplified by the fine publication Haaretz. Were the debate as open here, we could count on the main stream media (MSM) to do more than tout the Israeli line. Since they don’t, we try to provide “balance” by covering stories that the MSM refuses to touch (such as the Israel lobby, which we reported in Vol. 1, No. 1 of the Washington Report, published 27 years ago). And most recently, for example, The Washington Post failed to cover several local demonstrations – one in front of its very door—against Israel’s assault on Gaza.
Ultimately, what we and many others find unacceptable is the ideology upon which the state of Israel is based: that only Jews have a right to live there. We don’t see “another side” to racism or to genocide. Nor do we recall similarly “balanced” stories about apartheid South Africa, genocide in Rwanda, or Nazi Germany during World War II. Would you have demanded that Goebbels be asked to provide “balance”?
I would add such voices as that of Noam Chomsky, Marc Ellis, Norman Finkelstein, Joel Kovel, Robert Simon of 60 Minutes and Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine, all courageous souls who in spite of ridicule and public pressure are trying to be faithful to the moral fiber of their Jewish tradition.
Concerning the Israel/Palestinian conflict, Americans are ignorant. It is not their fault. Americans are good people and would stand up for doing what is right if they only knew. But when the media, the pulpit and politicians of all parties choose to keep silent about what they undoubtedly know, the average American has little incentive to “go against the stream". That’s why I so appreciate such publications as the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. It only cost $29 a year.
Thomas Are
May 4, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Tom Friedman, "PEP"
I have just finished reading a great book, Hot, Flat and Crowded, by Thomas Friedman. He spells out the consequences of continuing to live in a world that is suffering from global warming, over population and a vast inequity in the distribution of wealth and resources. It is an important book and I agree with what he says on 411 of his 412 pages. But, I was shocked by his comments on page 92, in which Friedman making the point that petro dictators support terrorist groups wrote:
Immediately after Hezbollah launched a reckless war against Israel from Lebanon in the summer of 2006, Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah declared that Hezbollah would begin paying out cash to the thousands of Lebanese families whose homes were destroyed by Israeli retaliation… To paraphrase the Allstate commercial, “You’re in good hands with Hezbollah”…Hezbollah and Iran were like a couple of rich college students who rented Lebanon for the summer, as if it were a beach house. “C’mon, let’s smash up the place,” they said to themselves. “Who cares? Dad will pay.” The only thing Nasrallah didn’t say to the Lebanese was, “Hey, keep the change.”
I thought, Friedman is a PEP, (Progressive Except for Palestine, a term not original with me.) He could have made his point without assigning blame for the massacre of Lebanon to either side, but he could not pass up the opportunity to defend Israel and put the blame for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict on the backs of the victims. It was Israel, not Hezbollah (or Iran) that “trashed” Lebanon, launching 12,000 combat missions killing over a thousand people, mostly civilians, 30 percent children, and displacing over a million people. And Friedman casually describes Hezbollah as thinking of the killing of so many as rich kids breaking up a beach house. Hezbollah are not rich kids who rented Lebanon for the summer. Lebanon is the only home they have. They had a home once. It was called Palestine, but they were driven out in 1948 and again in 1967. The “beach house” is all they have. They would never choose to “trash” it.
Friedman is a great writer with keen insights into many significant problems facing the US and the world today, but I don’t trust his analysis of the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. In his op-ed column in the New York Times, January 14, 2009, he describes the massacres in Lebanon and in Gaza as a successful effort to teach Hezbollah and Hamas a lesson they would not soon forget by inflicting pain on the Palestinian civilizations. He is careful not to endorse Israel’s massacres but he comes close. And he certainly does not condemn it.[1]
His casual comment that Hezbollah “launched a reckless war,” sounds like those who say, “No big deal. Jews and Arabs have been fighting each other for a thousand years.” Such a statement assumes that both sides choose the battle and have an equal chance to gain from the conflict.
The truth is, the conflict is more like a defenseless girl raped in the park who scratches her assailants face. We can’t just say, “Oh well, there is violence on both sides.” In fact, it is more unfair than that because our media seems to say, what kind of bad girl goes around scratching people? Our sympathy goes to the rapist when all we see on the news are pictures of the scratches.
I remember in 2001, Senator George Mitchell made a fact finding trip to Israel/Palestine and announced that the Palestinians were begging for U.N. observers to see what was happening to them there. Mitchell said that we couldn’t pull it off because Israel was adamantly opposed to it. So, the UN resolution for observers failed. The United States and Israel voted against it. It would have violated Israel’s sovereignty.
I have never known of a rapist who wanted a cop in the park.
“Then, why don’t the girls just stay out of the park?” Some have asked. Why? Because they were born in the park. It’s their home and they are not allowed outside the park. And they have been raped for 61 years.
Thomas L. Are
April 25, 2009
[1] Google: Glenn Greenwald, Tom Friedman offers a perfect definition of terrorism. Jan. 14, 2009, Salon.com. But first, Google: Tom Friedman’s Op-Ed Column, Israel’s Goals in Gaza, New York Times, January 14, 2009.
Immediately after Hezbollah launched a reckless war against Israel from Lebanon in the summer of 2006, Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah declared that Hezbollah would begin paying out cash to the thousands of Lebanese families whose homes were destroyed by Israeli retaliation… To paraphrase the Allstate commercial, “You’re in good hands with Hezbollah”…Hezbollah and Iran were like a couple of rich college students who rented Lebanon for the summer, as if it were a beach house. “C’mon, let’s smash up the place,” they said to themselves. “Who cares? Dad will pay.” The only thing Nasrallah didn’t say to the Lebanese was, “Hey, keep the change.”
I thought, Friedman is a PEP, (Progressive Except for Palestine, a term not original with me.) He could have made his point without assigning blame for the massacre of Lebanon to either side, but he could not pass up the opportunity to defend Israel and put the blame for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict on the backs of the victims. It was Israel, not Hezbollah (or Iran) that “trashed” Lebanon, launching 12,000 combat missions killing over a thousand people, mostly civilians, 30 percent children, and displacing over a million people. And Friedman casually describes Hezbollah as thinking of the killing of so many as rich kids breaking up a beach house. Hezbollah are not rich kids who rented Lebanon for the summer. Lebanon is the only home they have. They had a home once. It was called Palestine, but they were driven out in 1948 and again in 1967. The “beach house” is all they have. They would never choose to “trash” it.
Friedman is a great writer with keen insights into many significant problems facing the US and the world today, but I don’t trust his analysis of the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. In his op-ed column in the New York Times, January 14, 2009, he describes the massacres in Lebanon and in Gaza as a successful effort to teach Hezbollah and Hamas a lesson they would not soon forget by inflicting pain on the Palestinian civilizations. He is careful not to endorse Israel’s massacres but he comes close. And he certainly does not condemn it.[1]
His casual comment that Hezbollah “launched a reckless war,” sounds like those who say, “No big deal. Jews and Arabs have been fighting each other for a thousand years.” Such a statement assumes that both sides choose the battle and have an equal chance to gain from the conflict.
The truth is, the conflict is more like a defenseless girl raped in the park who scratches her assailants face. We can’t just say, “Oh well, there is violence on both sides.” In fact, it is more unfair than that because our media seems to say, what kind of bad girl goes around scratching people? Our sympathy goes to the rapist when all we see on the news are pictures of the scratches.
I remember in 2001, Senator George Mitchell made a fact finding trip to Israel/Palestine and announced that the Palestinians were begging for U.N. observers to see what was happening to them there. Mitchell said that we couldn’t pull it off because Israel was adamantly opposed to it. So, the UN resolution for observers failed. The United States and Israel voted against it. It would have violated Israel’s sovereignty.
I have never known of a rapist who wanted a cop in the park.
“Then, why don’t the girls just stay out of the park?” Some have asked. Why? Because they were born in the park. It’s their home and they are not allowed outside the park. And they have been raped for 61 years.
Thomas L. Are
April 25, 2009
[1] Google: Glenn Greenwald, Tom Friedman offers a perfect definition of terrorism. Jan. 14, 2009, Salon.com. But first, Google: Tom Friedman’s Op-Ed Column, Israel’s Goals in Gaza, New York Times, January 14, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
