Reply
Thu 19 Jun, 2003 07:58 am
Rabbi will make case for ending West Bank settlements.
By Nancy Haught , The Oregonian (2003-05-06
Rabbi will make case for ending West Bank settlements. The executive director of a human rights group decries inequities
The opinions of Portland's Jewish community toward Israeli settlements on the West Bank and Gaza may be tested when an activist rabbi arrives to talk about human rights in Israel.
Rabbi Arik W. Ascherman, executive director of Rabbis for Human Rights-Israel, will give a free lecture on Monday, sponsored in part by the Portland chapter of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom. That group, whose English name is the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace, is a year-old organization of American Jews that favors a negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and sees evacuation of the Israeli settlements as a first step to peace.
In February, the Christian Science Monitor profiled Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and quoted a Zogby International 2002 survey that found 86 percent of American Jews say that Israelis and Palestinians have the right to secure and independent states of their own. Fifty-two percent of those surveyed support a peace agreement that includes the evacuation of most Jewish settlements from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
In Portland, Bob Horenstein, community relations director for the Jewish Federation, is not surprised. He agrees that many Portland-area Jews favor a two-state negotiated peace and realize that Israel will have to dismantle settlements. But the first step, he insists, does not belong to Israel: The Palestinians first must put an end to the terrorism and incitement to violence of the past 21/2 years.
"We are in favor of a two-state solution, but not a two-state solution at any cost," Horenstein says.
Who should take a first step toward peace is a major point of contention between the Jewish Council for Public Affairs -- a national Jewish umbrella group that the federation, 13 national groups and 120 communities belong to -- and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom.
The Portland chapter of Brit Tzedek has about 80 members and has sponsored about four public events so far this year, says Sandy Polishuk, a chapter leader. The national group has about 2,500 members in 20 chapters and is trying to build grass-roots support for a campaign to withdraw Israelis from the settlements as a first step toward peace.
"Preconditions are an invitation for extremists who don't want peace to derail the process," says Shamu Fenyvesi, who, like Polishuk is a member of P'nai Or, Portland's Jewish Renewal community. "It's our duty as American Jews to talk to our government about what is in the best interest of the Jewish people. . . . We have to look at our own actions, at what we can do, and do it."
Brit Tzedek is sponsoring Ascherman's visit so Portlanders may hear firsthand about his organization's work in Israel, Polishuk says. Rabbis for Human Rights includes members of the Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Renewal and Reconstructionist movements in Judaism.
Founded in 1988, the group of 90 ordained rabbis, plus a number of rabbinic students, publicizes human rights violations, lobbies the Israeli Knesset (parliament) for legal changes, takes part in court cases and engages in civil disobedience. They call public attention to Israeli home demolitions in the occupied territories, advocacy for those who've lost their homes, the need for better health care for all Israelis and closing the economic gap between the rich and the poor.
Ascherman, who was born in Erie, Pa., graduated from Harvard University and Hebrew Union College. He settled in Israel in 1994 and became an Israeli citizen. As he travels North America, speaking on behalf of Rabbis for Human Rights, he said he condemns Palestinian violence.
"I don't slip that under the rug," he says in a telephone interview from Israel. But he has acted as a human shield when Palestinian houses are at stake and has stood watch as Palestinians harvested their olives, protecting them from Israeli interference.
"My job -- as a rabbi, a Jew, an Israeli -- is to get our house in order," he says. "The way of violence is wrong, and it won't bring about any better influence for any of us."
A voice of reason speaking for justice -- let's hope that it is not drowned out by the screams of the hateful and the murderous . . .
Wait a minute, how about a different approach?
I've opined for years that the settlements, originally and persistently fostered by none other than Sharon, are a major contributor to the Israel-Palestinian disputes. Everyone urging peace says they should be demolished.
But, wait a minute. Why should housing be demolished by bulldozers leaving nothing but vacant ground?
There is a critical housing shortage in the areas that will eventually become part of the Palestinian State. Why not leave the housing for those people who have been landless for decades?
Will Palestinians want to live in housing built by israelis? Some purists may not want to. However, I bet that most would welcome any decent housing regardless of who built it.
To sweeten the pot, why not have the U.S. or the U.N. buy all the settlement housing and then sell it to Palestinians with substantial financial help to people unable to afford it due to the long-time unrest in the area? In addition, this would compensate the owners for the money they would otherwise lose in a forced evacuation of the settlements. This would be a win-win solution that would cost far less than bombs, jet planes, armies, and might even help the peace process along at a faster rate. It might even help stop the killing on both sides.
I assume there are public service buildings: schools, hospitals, administrative management buildings, utilities, etc. in the settlement areas. If so, the infrastructure facilities will speed the process of creating a viable Palestine, both politically, socially and economically.
Is this possible? I wonder.
---BumbleBeeBoogie
It takes two to tango. All the good intentions in the world are meaningless If one of the participants aim is to eliminate the other. I continue to believe that the Arabs are more interested in the destruction of Israel than in the creation of a Palestinian State.
Au,
You are right that "it takes two to tango". But, in my opinion this tango of death and hatred has been going far too long.
If either side decides seriously to stop dancing we will have peace. If there is a serious, large Palestinian peace movement that uses non-violent means to resist the occupation, I am certain that the pressure on Israel will be unbearable and the Palestinians will win a just peace.
Likewise, If Israel offers a *just* peace that involves a viable Palestinian state, there will be very little support of terrorism by a Palestinian society that actually has something to lose.
The primary obstacle to peace is the rhetoric that prevents either side from ending the dance. Half of the people are saying "the Palestinians only want the destruction of Israel". The other half say "The Israelis only want to rule and repress the Palestinians".
You are right, dear Au, that it takes two to tango. Either side has the ability to stop.
This rabbi is one of us who wants the dance to end.
I hope his voice will be heard above those who are cheering the dancers.
"Likewise, If Israel offers a *just* peace that involves a viable Palestinian state, there will be very little support of terrorism by a Palestinian society that actually has something to lose."
What do you mean *IF*?!?! The Palestinians, or Arabs (as they really are), had their state in 1948. They then got greeds. Then, when in a well documented case, the OM offered Arafat 97% of what he asked for (that's not compromise, that's a gift!), Arafat turned him down. Hrmmph. Flame me or get mad at me if you'd like -- but these are the facts. Cold and hard.
Crunch
Somehow people refuse to believe that the peaceful Arabs are after one thing and one thing only. The destruction of Israel. It is not two states they are after but an all Palestinian one. So that they can wallow in $hit as they and the rest of the Moslem world has for centuries.
Au,
Your statement that "the peaceful Arabs are after .... one thing only, the destruction of Israel" is unquestionably extremist. This kind of statement is the reason that there still is a Middle East conflict that is taking the lives of both Israeli's and Palestinians alike.
The Israeli extremiests use this rhetoric to justify occupation and repression. The Palestinian extremists use similar rhetoric to justify suicide attacks against civilians.
What you don't understand is that it is all the same. Bigotry is bigotry no matter which side is using it. The fact is you are supporting violence, and this violence prompts the violence from the other side. The fact is, your rhetoric directly supports Hamas.
Of course both the Arabs and the Israelis have a wide range of viewpoints. Most of them are simply families trying to live a decent life while the extremists keep yelling about the barbarity of the other side.
There are strong Palestinian voices for peace. The problem is just like the Israeli voices for peace they are being drowned out.
What really bugs me about your position is that even if your extreme statement were true, there *still* woulc be no threat to the existance of Israel. Israel has the support of an unmatched army, and would have nearly Universal International support if it decides to live peacefully in its 1967 borders.
Both Israel and the Palestinians need to learn that their present route of violence and death is not getting anywhere.
The voices for peace, on both sides, need to be supported. They have the answer that will work. Unfortunately it has not been tried. The voices of hatred are too loud.
Crunch, your understanding of history is rather simplistic and one sided. But, I don't feel like arguing about it right now as it is a moot point. Most of us weren't even alive in 1948.
What was offered Arafat was not considered viable by the Palestinians, and by most of the unbiased world. A free Palestine must be economically viable, continguous and sovereign. You can argue the but again it seems a moot point. (Incidently I am not a fan of Arafat.)
The point is what we are going to do *now*. There are two options, violece or peace.
If you choose violence than keep doing what you are doing now. Make broad disparaging rhetoric against the other side. Justify violent acts that kill civilians. Insist that the other side are barbaric and can't be trusted.
If you choose peace you will step out of your biased view and think about how the good natured people from both sides can come up with a just compromise. You will stop saying "We can't compromise with them because the are [_____]". You will stop using violence or repression. You will offer concessions in good faith.
So what will it be ... violence or peace?
Brown
Quote:
Your statement that "the peaceful Arabs are after .... one thing only, the destruction of Israel" is unquestionably extremist.
How many times in how many ways do they have to say it before you believe that the Arabs goal is the destruction of the Jewish State. They have been attempting just that since 1948.
As for the rest of your comments rather than tell you what I think of them I will just say you are living in a dreamworld of your own making.
Au,
What do you mean by "the Arabs". Lumping a large group of people into a group that supposedly all have the same goals and opinions is the very definition of bigotry.
It is true or logical.
Sure there are Arabs with very extreme views who do say this. There are also Israeli's that want the land to be purely Jewish up "to the Jordan River". There are also many people, both Arab and Jew, who want a just peace for both peoples.
Stop demonizing people based on their race.
As far as my "dreamworld", all I am saying is that people should stop using barbaric violent acts that kill civilians. Is this a dreamworld?
There is absolutely no good reason that Israel can't withdraw from the settlements, stop firing rockets into civilian areas and stop bulldozing houses (etc.) Likewise there is no good reason the Palestinians can't stop using violent attacks against Israelis. Any of these actions would go a long way toward peace. Is this a dreamworld?
What is your alternative? We could continue to demonize the other side while justifying our own brutal acts. But that's what's been happening "since 1948".
I think my dreamworld is quite a bit better than the nightmare you seem to want to continue.
! Ebrown
You seem to be oblivious to the fact that the Israeli's are attempting to follow the road map while the Palestinians continue to commit acts of terror.
Quote:Stop demonizing people based on their race.
What has this conflict to do with race? The people involved are all of the Caucasian race. In fact they are all Semites. Therefore I suggest you dispense with the race card crap.
Quote:As far as my "dreamworld", all I am saying is that people should stop using barbaric violent acts that kill civilians. Is this a dreamworld?
I agree the Palestinians should stop targeting civilians. And in turn the Israeli's will stop retaliating.
Au,
As you said, "It takes two to Tango". Israel has not been wholehearted with the roadmap for peace. Diplomatically it insists on its "14 reservations" to the roadmap. Militarily it continues to try assassination attempts using rocket attacks in civilian areas resulting in the deaths of civilians and children.
I didn't play the race card. it was *you* who said "The Arabs goal is the destruction of the Jewish state". I was simply pointing out that is wrong for you to generalize the goals and aspirations of a whole group of people. I was trying to "dispense" with *your* use of the race card.
I am only saying that there are people of good will on both sides of this ethnic conflict. Your argument seems to depend on demonizing one side of this inane conflict.
So this is your solution?
---"You stop your senseless brutal violence first, and then we will stop ours".
The problem is that both sides are saying this, and the tango continues.
Come on Au! This is ludicrous!
Brown
Again I must point out that there is no question of "Race" involved. The problem is one of religion. I get tired of people trying to equate religion with race they are not the same.
As for my assertion that the aim of the Palestinians is the destruction of the state Of Israel. Of that there is no doubt.
I do not know the specifics of the 14 points or reservations that Israel has related to the road map there is one however that they will never agree to. That the right of return since agreeing to it would be tantamount to committing national suicide.
Au,
If you change your statement to the less extreme
"... the aim of *some* Palestinians is the destruction of the State of Israel".
I will accept it.
But in the name of fairness there are also Israelis whose aim is the removal of Palestinians from the occupied territory. There are many Palestinians who without doubt accept the existance of Israel and are working for a just Palestinian State. Palestinians are human beings. They have a wide range of opinions just like anyone else.
Incidently, I agree with you about the right of return. I believe that this is one of the concessions that the Palestinians will have to make for a lasting peace. I also believe that they will accept this in exchange for a viable sovereign state in peace.
This has nohing to do with either race or religion. There are a wide range of viewpoints that exist among all of the ethnic and religeous groups involved.
This has everthing to do with people who will hold onto ideas of violence and vengence and hatred and those who are willing to work for a just peace.
Which side are you on Au?
Brown
. The aim of *some* Palestinians is the destruction of the state of Israel\".
OK I can go along with that. I do believe however it is *most*. But why quibble.
If you are asking am I in favor of a peaceful settlement and a Palestinian State. The answer is yes. I do not want to see anyone killed, Israeli or Palestinian. Do I believe it will happen? The answer is hopefully yes. However, I believe the ball at least for the present is on the Palestinian court. It is now their turn to pick it up and run with it. IMO the greatest impediment to a settlement is Arafat he is still running the show
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace