Very few Americans appreciate either what is at stake in Palestine or what problems remain to be solved. We just aren't interested.
This last week, presidential candidates and their sympathetic pundits took shots at President Obama's Thursday speech, decrying his call for continued peace talks based upon the 1967 borders. No one on either side or anywhere in between believes that those borders are defensible.
In what Israel would claim to be their sovereign territory, the typical Jewish citizen may travel freely. Not so in Palestine for the typical Muslim. Israeli checkpoints dot the West Bank, making it nearly impossible to travel and conduct business beyond one's own neighborhood. And to make some borders "defensible," Israel has built 20-foot high concrete walls dividing and even isolating Muslim-occupied neighborhoods from each other and from the outside world.
Those who studied Apartheid in South Africa recognize today's condition in Palestine. Yet the one person still living today who has contributed the most to peace in Palestine, Jimmy Carter, was soundly criticized for comparing today's Palestine to Apartheid in South Africa.
South African Apartheid was based upon the establishment of a state for Afrikaners separate and unequal from numerous other smaller states set aside for native populations. South Africa prospered alongside these inferior states, exploiting their labor and restricting their comings and goings. Those natives living in South Africa proper were forced to live in guarded ghettos like none ever seen before and were restricted to travel outside only for work. Not until the outside world finally took a stand against Afrikaners, imposing sever economic sanctions against their businesses, did change begin to occur.
In Palestine today, there are three separate states: Israel, the largest state dedicated primarily to Europeans of Jewish heritage and dissent; the West Bank, the second-largest state policed extensively by Israeli forces who restrict the free movements of its predominantly Muslim population, otherwise ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organization (true liberation yet to have been achieved); and the Gaza Strip, the smallest and most densely populated area ruled by Hamas and kept in a near starvation condition. Native South Africans had it much better.
Today's Israeli politicians desire to maintain this status quo. It suits them just fine. From time to time, the most repressed Gazans strike out in frustration and anger. Interestingly, but for recent European immigration into Israel, were these three states combined, in not very many years Arab Muslims would be in the majority. And were those Arab Muslims who fled Palestine during the war following Israel's 1948 "establishment" to return to their "native land" a majority of Muslim Arabs would exist in Palestine today.
Why is there an Israel today? At the turn of the 20th century, Palestine was ruled as a part of the Turkish Empire; and Jews, Christians and Muslims lived harmoniously side by side in Jerusalem and its surroundings. Not until the mass migration of Jews from Europe was permitted during British administration did this peaceful status quo change. Perhaps peace would return most naturally if there was only one state in Palestine today, one ruled under democratic principles, one vote per citizen and equal citizenship for all. And where European Jews who were without a homeland for upwards of two millennia had cause to "return," surely those Palestinians living in neighboring states today have even stronger rights. It's only been 63 years since they left in fear of their lives.
Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu, the Arab Spring is coming to a neighborhood very near yours and there is a much less desirable alternative out there than 1967 borders.
Dale Whiting is a resident of Chandler
Accuracy posted at 11:39 am on Sat, May 21, 2011.
By calling for Israel to go back to 1967 borders, and calling Israel's West Bank settlements a ‘permanent occupation,’ President Barack Obama is calling for a divided Jerusalem under a terrorist-run Palestinian government.
Obama isn't considering the reality of the Middle East.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told President Obama he's willing to make some compromises to achieve peace in his nation, but that returning to Israel's 1967 lines is not an option. And it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are 'indefensible'.
Netanyahu said Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government that is backed by Hamas. He gave Palestinian leaders a choice -- their pact with Hamas or peace with Israel. Monday, he will speak to a joint session of Congress.
sharkscue posted at 12:18 pm on Sat, May 21, 2011.
Well written piece. I do agree that Israel has and is going too far. They were given an arm and the they took a leg. If they truly want peace the they must allow for a Palestine State. I'm sure the Jews should remember how it feels to be opressed.
Slabside posted at 2:53 pm on Sat, May 21, 2011.
Once again, Obama shows his ignorance in the area of world politics. The Gaza Strip was returned to the Arabs (I refuse to refer to them as "Palistinians" as there is no such people) that occupy the area and what did it bring? More shelling and rocket launches into Israel from the Arabs.
The Arabs want the Jews DEAD... end of story.
"Understand that terrorism in Palestine was invented by the likes of Menachem Begin. And it also includes Muslim on Muslim attacks. Walk a few miles in the shoes of someone whose very country appears to have been taken over by powerful factions who are engaged in depriving you and your family of meaningful employment and a fair shake in the economy and see if terrorist tendencies do not develop!
Dale Whiting 3-28-2011
k33j88 posted at 3:41 pm on Sat, May 21, 2011.
Dale holds J. Carter in such a positve light it makes me sick to my stomach. This former president caters and panders to Hamas, PLO, and other terrorist organizations. Their agenda is nothing less than the total destruction of my beloved ISRAEL. Shame on you Dale to throw your support behind terrorist groups. The more land you give the palestinians, the closer the rockets land to innocent civilians.
Cerulean posted at 6:19 pm on Sat, May 21, 2011.
Both Thomas Friedman of the New York Times and Mort Zuckerman of U.S. News and World Report agree with you, Dale “the Arab Spring is coming to a neighborhood very near yours” Netanyahu, and you had better wake-up.
It was easy to criticize the Palestinian Arabs when violence and cast stones were the modus operandi. What are the Israelis going to do if there are hundreds of thousands peaceful protesters walking the streets demanding a Palestinian state and negotiations that realistically do start with the ‘67’ borders? No one is suggesting that the negotiations end there, neither side wants that but Netanyahu needs to wake- up; ‘peace will only endure on unshakable facts’ (to paraphrase Netanyahu). One of those facts include Egypt’s announcement that they are ready to break agreements with Israel and permanently open the Rafah border with Gaza. And it is about time!
Dale, your use of Jimmy Carter’s comparison of Apartheid in South Africa and conditions in Palestine is interesting. He is looking at the situation in a way I had not thought of.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 6:30 pm on Sat, May 21, 2011.
A first, Folks.
I agree with this Letter to the Editor.........100%.......yup, you aren't seeing things...and not it's not the ...End of the World.....[wink]
Leon Ceniceros posted at 6:44 pm on Sat, May 21, 2011.
P.S.....The first time the word ..."TERRORISTS"..was ever used was on the 27th of July, 1946.
It was to describe the .....ISRAELI LIBERATION GROUP CALLED THE ....IRGUN.
They had just planted and exploded a bomb in the basement of the largest Hotel in Palestine (Israel) in Jerusalem.....called the ....KING DAVID HOTEL (look it up in 'search' on your Yahoo or Google).
91 British, American, European men, women and children were killed when the front of the Hotel collapsed from the explosive power of the large bomb. There were also 46 other victims that were wounded or maimed for life.
The Times of London for the first time in Newspaper History used the word .."TERRORISTS TO DESCRIBE THE ..........ISRAELI ..."IRGUN" ..GROUP"
So given the History of Israeli Liberation from British Mandate....where do they now get off...............REFUSING TO DEAL WITH A PALESTINIAN TERRORIST GROUP = HAMAS..............THE ISRAELI ...IRGUN...AND HAMAS ...ARE THE SAME.
ENOUGH AMERICAN TAX-PAYER MONEY (ALMOST 70 BILLION DOLLARS) HAS GONE TO ISRAEL SINCE 1947.......THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN HAVE DIED OR BEEN WOUNDED BECAUSE OF THE ...........ISRAELI - PALESTINIAN CONFLICT.
GET GENERAL SCHWARTZKOFF AND PUT HIM IN A ROOM WITH NETANYAHU, AND THE PALESTINIANS ............PUT 3 BUNKS IN THERE...3 CHAIRS AND A TABLE AND A PAD OF YELLOW LINED PAPER, 3 PENCILS AND A MAP OF ISRAEL/PALESTINE AND A COUPLE OF RED AND GREEN MARKING PENS AND..........NO ONE COMES OUT UNTIL IT'S DECIDED AND DONE WITH...ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Dale Whiting posted at 10:19 pm on Sat, May 21, 2011.
P.S. Leon,
Would you ration the food going into that room? I like your idea much better than mine. I would send in pork chops. Both Jew and Arab would not like having to live on pork! And outhouses are a bit too crass in today's world.
My other idea is to send those Israeli Jews who need defensible borders to Long Island. There wouldn't be any cultural shock and who could complain?
One only needs a defensible border if one is expecting to battle one's neighbors. And who would want to strike out at such cheritable neighbors as the Israeli Jews? Kill an Israeli solder and the Israely Defense Forces take out 30 to 100 Palestinians or Lebanese! That is proportional response gone wet and wild!
Sure, there are Arabs who wish to strike out at Israel. But before 1948, their chief complaint was unrestricted Jewish immigration and a sense that European Jews were about to take over the Palestinian Arabs' historical homeland! The King David Hotel bombing surely gave pause to consider that possibility, didn't it!
Recall my piece on obtaining Closure. One gets closure the best when one also finds peace. And both come best from trying hard to understand the other side's point of view. That is why taking the Hatfield Israelis and the McCoy Palestinians out back or better yet, into that closed room, is the way to go.
Why aren't you other people writing pieces on these issues?
Incidentally, my maternal great grandmother was an Afrikaner from Capetown. She with her parents immigrated to the US to get away from that brutality. I know of at least one other person who left South Africa to get away. His name was Ghandi! We need more Ghandis and less Netanyehu's in today's world.
k33j88 posted at 6:09 am on Sun, May 22, 2011.
So you just "understand" them, Dale? Tell that to the children left without a father or a mother fighting for your right to express your views. Question: How many "terrorists" disguised as "hard working undocumented" do you support?
sockratties posted at 7:36 am on Sun, May 22, 2011.
Dale - I’m sure you’re referring to Jimmy Carter’s book “Palestine Peace, Not Apartheid” in which he makes the obvious comparison of pre-Mandela South Africa to Israel in 2006. He received a lot of flak from Jewish supporters who considered his book anti-Israel, if not anti-Semitic.
There are a large number of people in the U. S. who don’t want that discussion to take place. A U. S. congress person who takes Israel to task is unlikely to win another election on the national level. President Obama is taking a risky stand and a lot of snipers are going to be taking their shots.
Radicalism defeats reason whenever the two meet and Zionism is no exception. It is a form of racism and racial discrimination. Israeli Zionists have driven the State of Israel into a position that is not good for the Middle East, Israel or the United States. Countries like Iran, Syria, Libya love it, though, as well as anyone that manufactures weapons.
The so called peace talks are only that, talk. The Zionist movement is based on a return of land, described in the Old Testament of the Bible, promised to the Jews.. This goal cannot be achieved if ANY land is returned to the Palestinians (meaning any of the indigenous people of the area). This not too hidden agenda will always defeat any efforts to achieve a meaningful peace.
Accuracy posted at 2:44 pm on Sun, May 22, 2011.
“President Obama's Thursday speech, decrying his call for continued peace talks based upon the 1967 borders.”
Then after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the idea was indefensible, President Barack Obama reiterated his stance Sunday during an address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and again changed his story. Meaning; that he did not mean what he said about pre-1967 lines.
Stressing Washington's "ironclad" commitment to Israel's security, and stressed that Israel and the Palestinians must "negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967."
Dale Whiting posted at 9:35 pm on Sun, May 22, 2011.
k33j88,
What makes you think that we have terrorists desguised as hard working undocumented persons? Have you ever actually met any or do they exist in your mind? Are you hinting that you would go with me to the Gila River lettuce fields and hoe with some of those undocumented workers? You have a phobia and it's making you very ill.
Catch the Tom Vilsack piece in this weekend's San Tan News.
Accuracy,
You need to learn to read accurately. No one is advocating the post 1967 borders. Those borders are the starting place for negotiations not the end point. Israel is full of wackos who have been building settlements on Palestinian lands. They either need to be moved off or lands in Israel proper need to be surrendered in exchange. But Netanyahu wants to surrender nothing. It's winner take all.