Skip to main content

Rabbi Michael Lerner, author of The Left Hand of God and proponent of progressive spirituality, outlines a process to bring lasting peace to the Middle East in the September/October issue of Tikkun magazine.

This is the first time I have seen a peaceful proposal for achieving an end to conflict, and I think it is particularly remarkable because it is written by a rabbi and insists on fair treatment of every nation and culture involved in the conflict.

Rabbi Lerner asks the question

"[W]ho in their right mind would want this struggle between Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbors to continue for decades to come?"

"Only extremist nuts, who should not be allowed to prevail."

His peace proposal includes 5 terms outlined below the fold.

Rabbi Lerner suggests that the terms of his peace proposal have to be imposed by the international community because "there are extremists on all sides of this struggle who would prefer to keep it going for the next hundred years rather than give up their maximalist fantasies of decisively defeating the other sides."

Term 1

Creation of 2 states

Create a Palestinian state and recognise unequivocally the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.

The Palestinian state should include all of the West Bank and Gaza. The border between Palestine and Israel should be adjusted to include the Israeli settlements already in existence near the border but an equal amount of land from Israel should be given to Palestine.

Israel offers special immigration rights to Jews from around the world who are escaping religious persecution but must provide full equal rights to its minority populations. Similarly, Palestine would provide a haven to Palestinians from around the world but must provide full equal rights to all of its residents, including its minorities.

Term 2

Reparations to refugees

Reparations to Palestinian refugees who lost property or livelihood from 1947 - 2006, and to Jewish refugees from Arab lands who lost property or livelihood from 1948 - 2006, should be funded by an international consortium.

Term 3

Total ban on teaching hate

(I love this one.) All regional media, education systems, textbooks and religious institutions will be supervised by an international council to ensure that hatred or denigration of another group is not being promulgated.

Term 4

Security from terrorists

International forces will protect both Israel and Palestine from terrorists, each other and any outside forces that might attack them.

Term 5

Truth and Reconciliation Process

A process similar to what took place in South Africa would allow participants to publicly confess their acts of violence or human rights abuses, leading to reconciliation. Those who do not own up to their actions may be referred to a War Crimes Tribunal.

The point of this process is to bring everyone to the realisation that we are all part of one human family and that our own well-being depends on the well-being of our fellow humans.

Furthermore --

The path to peace must in face be peaceful. Non-violence is not just the goal, but the means.

Once the 5 terms are in practice, Rabbi Lerner suggests a "Global Marshall Plan" where the G8 countries would apply 5% of their GDP for 20 years to "eliminating global poverty, hunger, homelessness, inadequate education and inadequate health care."

Lerner feels (and I agree) that terrorists would find less and less support from the populace and over time would find it harder to recruit volunteers.

We would "conquer" terrorism (if one can ever conquer a tactic) as well as bring lasting peace and prosperity to the Middle East.

The other big bonus with this proposal is that it would bring spiritual growth to the countries providing the support, not just to the Arabs, Muslims and Jews. And that will benefit the whole world.

Front-paged at The Next Agenda.

Originally posted to Thursday Next on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 03:28 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  All mojo gratefully accepted (22+ / 0-)

    I have to say that I have never understood how we can hope to bring peace using military force. Rabbi Lerner outlines a process that instills respect and support on all sides and brings peace using peaceful means. This makes a lot of sense to me.

    The Next Agenda a dkos-style blog for Canadian politics

    by Thursday Next on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 03:21:54 PM PDT

    •  Sounds great, now I am going (6+ / 0-)

      to buy his book.  Thanks for the diary.

      "The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know". -Harry Truman

      by bittergirl on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 03:24:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No military force? (0+ / 0-)

      the terms of his peace proposal have to be imposed by the international community

      All regional media, education systems, textbooks and religious institutions will be supervised by an international council to ensure that hatred or denigration of another group is not being promulgated.

      International forces will protect both Israel and Palestine from terrorists, each other and any outside forces that might attack them.

      Who's going to do all that -- the girl scouts?

      Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

      by LarryInNYC on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 06:24:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Personally... (7+ / 0-)

    ...and it may be heresy, but the plan put forth in "The Sum of All Fears" by Tom Clancy didn't seem that bad - make Jerusalem an international city, administered by the UN and guarded by the Swiss Guard.

    Of course, having a sovereign state for Palestine would also be good.

    Deny My Freedom
    "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

    by PsiFighter37 on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 03:24:24 PM PDT

    •  Sounds like both may be necessary (5+ / 0-)

      Don't know that Rabbi Lerner would object to your suggestion; Jerusalem is one controversial issue that he doesn't directly address, and ultimately the parties would have to do so.

      "The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love."

      by Budlawman on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 03:38:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The UN? (5+ / 0-)

      That's a good one.  

      If the UN tried to put troops or administrators into Jerusalem, that would probably the surest way to make sure the entire city is burned to the ground.  No party is as roundly hated, by Israelis and Palestinians both.

      The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

      by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 04:02:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't know that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ormondotvos

        Can you tell us more?

        The Next Agenda a dkos-style blog for Canadian politics

        by Thursday Next on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 04:05:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well... (5+ / 0-)

          ...antipathy to the UN among Israelis has many authors, not least the repeated resolutions condemning Israel, the designation of Zionism as racism, and the appalling record of the UNFIL in Lebanon.  Meanwhile, the UN is perceived as a tool of Western powers by the Palestinians, which is in the pocket of the Israelis and Americans, as well as being despised for the original partition plan.

          The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

          by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 04:07:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ormondotvos

            That explains a lot about what is going on.

            The Next Agenda a dkos-style blog for Canadian politics

            by Thursday Next on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 04:18:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Except.. (4+ / 0-)

              ..the second part, about the Palestinians hating the UN isn't really true.  Sure they're disappointed the international community vis-a-via the UN hasn't been able to bring a resolution to the conflict, but the reason UN resolutions condemning Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians rarely pass is because the United States exercises its veto in the Security Council -- so the animosity is actually directed towards the United States, not the UN.

              Regardless of the fact that the UN partitioned Palestine in 1948 the fact of the mattter is that NOW, the UN is the only body that stands to protect Palestinian rights.  UNSC resolution 242, which calls for a withdrawal by Israel from the territories it occupied in 1967, is what the Palestinians base their claim to their right to establish a state on the West Bank and Gaza.  Also since 1950 the UN (UNWRA) is the body that administers to the millions of Palestinian refugees, both withen and outside the occupied territories, runs many of their schools, provide other services, etc.  In the past the Palestinian Authority has asked the UN to intervene in the conflict to protect them from Israeli actions;  many feel if it were not for the US veto, the UN would have imposed a solution by now based on a plan similar to the Geneva Initiative, which has the support of the majority of Palestinians.

              Not that Israel would  accept an imposed solution mind you, or the UN would try to enforce one by force, but there are other ways, such as economic sanctions, but it will never happen because of the US veto.

              But it is true that most Israelis hate the UN, because of its criticism of Israel and because Israel percieves the UN to be "on the side" of the Palestinians.

              •  This makes more sense to me (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sofia

                I was disappointed to think that Palestine would hate what is supposed to be an international group aimed to bring peace and protect human rights.

                I can certainly understand Palestinians having a sense of no faith in the UN as long as the US can veto anything that displeases Israel.

                The Next Agenda a dkos-style blog for Canadian politics

                by Thursday Next on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:47:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Shabat Shalom!! (6+ / 0-)

      (A Sabbath Greeting, but also, literally, 'Sabbath Peace').  I'm not sure the method, but it's crystal clear to me that the holy sites in Jerusalem must be both protected and open, respected by all.  

      I was there a couple of years ago, and was incredibly struck by how intertwined they are. Maybe God's trying to tell us something!!

      Division and Partition simply won't work in this city.  Many of the sacred sites are literally just feet from one another!!!

      Salaam Aleikum, Sholom Aleichum--both are thousands of years old, and both wish peace for the other person.

      I issue a challenge.  If your religion, whatever it is, is truly about peace, then don't talk about it--show it, do it, make it so!!!

      A religion that does not have the sincere and genuine desire for peace and love at its core and as its animating creed is not, IMHO, worthy of being a major part of our 21st Century World.

      It's time to fish or cut bait, separate the wheat from the chaff....Salaam, Sholom, Peace!!!

    •  yep (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anonymousredvest18

      International city. Legally, beyond the reach of Israel and Palestine.

      Probably put some Buddhist monk in charge of the whole thing, just so no Muslims, Christians, or Jewish can have the final say of what that place means.

      on top of that. there is an automatic nuclear trigger. the minute any of the three religion making trouble in Jerusalem. That place is radioactive glass for next 30,000 years. No question ask. just.....boom.

      keep fighting, then nobody gets it.

      •  You can't be serious n/t (0+ / 0-)

        The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

        by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 04:11:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  hey (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anonymousredvest18

          either that or turning Jerusalem into on giant bodega with free weed to boot. Make everybody happy, holding hands and sings together.

          (what's serious? obviously every single proposal out there are pretty rediculous too. All involving mvoing people around, giving land right to this or that people, and defining what is holy place or not....

          seriously...
          •  Why do so many people... (0+ / 0-)

            ..cling to the belief that anyone can force a solution to this or any other world conflict?

            The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

            by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 04:17:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  because (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anonymousredvest18

              The violence there spreads (via religious affiliation and sympathy)

              And obviously the idiots in chage in that city refuse to see this fact, and in fact use it fully to each side advantage. (eg. just turn on the TV and watch what sort of argument is being used)

              so. obviously it is time for the world to act and provide a concrete solution. Because the locals are not capable of finding solution on their own.

              •  What makes you think... (0+ / 0-)

                ...that the Israelis and Palestinians won't simply attack whoever comes to try to impose the "solution" of which you speak?  If the United States can't bring peace to Baghdad, what makes you think they can do it to a nation with nuclear weapons?

                The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 04:27:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  they can try (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  anonymousredvest18

                  but then we'll just nuke the city.

                  ...shrug...

                  hey, life is tough. live with each other or party is over for next 30,000 years.

                  •  What if they nuke you first? (0+ / 0-)

                    You think they'll sit back and let you do what you please?

                    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                    by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 04:41:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  how (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      anonymousredvest18

                      ...? sure they can try to nuke me. ...see if I care.

                      But they will still kill each other and in the end involved in a regional nuclear war. (Israel vs. Iran/Syria)

                      Let's face it, these people are fundamentally friggin stupid. Medieval stupid. fubar stupid.

                      They will shoot and try to kill each other until the end of time. So why bother...

                      •  Ugh (0+ / 0-)

                        Y'know, I'm one of "these people".  I am many things, but I don't believe I'm "Medieval stupid".

                        The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                        by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 07:56:07 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Then (0+ / 0-)

                          yer surrounded by stupid people and yer not smart enough to change anything meaningfully. I am sorry to give you that news.

                          In term of bulk aggregate, yer just another abberation is sea of stupidity.

                          Yes I know this is a fatalistic view, but observe how many people in Israel or Jerusalem call for peace (only a few handfull youth group) ... even now, there is nobody call for meaningfull peace  movement that hit directly the power structure.

                          (yes yes,, there is...let's hold hand and sing koombaya...proposal... but all the power structure that result in the event are still intake. And most likely WILL create similar situation AGAIN in the very near future.)

                          It's same thing over and over.

            •  Eisenhower in 1956 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anonymousredvest18

              forced Israel to withdraw from Suez.  The threat of withholding aid from Israel seemed to work pretty well.

              •  Eisenhower... (0+ / 0-)

                ...didn't threaten to withhold aid; he threatened to attack the Israeli forces in Sinai.

                The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 07:55:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  See 'Warriors at Suez' by Donald Neff (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rusty Pipes, sofia

                  According to Neff, Eisenhower's threat was made when Israel had already withdrawn from most of Sinai but refused to leave Gaza.  Ike warned BenGurion that if Israel did not withdraw "the U.S. might vote for sanctions in the UN and that such sanctions might include not only government but private assistance to Israel..."(p. 434). $100 million annually was at stake.  

                  Although fifty ships of the U.S. Sixth Fleet were in the area, and its admiral warned the fleet to be ready for anything "if fighting broke out among the allies," Neff does not say there was a threat from Eisenhower to use the fleet (p. 409).  

  •  Rabbi Lerner is Awesome (8+ / 0-)

    I donate to Tikkun whenever I can.  You should to if peace is important to you.

    This kind of thinking is the only way out of this mess for the human race.  If the world is to be diverted from its present course of escalating violence and hatred leading inevitably to thermonuclear suicide, we need to start better supporting the likes of Tikkun.

  •  Excellent proposal, (6+ / 0-)

    please consider posting this to "Street Prophets" as well.  I believe that there is more potential for love than for hate, even in the times we share.

    "One way or another, this darkness got to give"

    by wozzle on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 03:26:15 PM PDT

  •  Stumble at first step (9+ / 0-)

    Lerner is among the few who get it that Israel and Palestine must ensure "full equal rights" to their minority populations.  But this goal is inconsistent with the designation of a religious state, be it Islamic or Jewish.  As long as Israel aspires to being Jewish State, its non-Jewish population will never enjoy "full equal rights."  There will always be some suppression of rights to ensure a Jewish majority.  Why not just accept Israel as a secular state with freedom of religion? Same for Palestine.  And if that point is conceded, why even have 2 states, if both Israel and Palestine are committed to the same principles?

    If Israel can accept the possibility that its internal demographics might some day result in a minority Jewish population, but with full equal rights, then there can be peace.  If Israel wants to continue tinkering with demographics to favor its Jewish population, then it should learn more about what really happened in South Africa.

    •  Jewish state (5+ / 0-)

      The idea of Israel as a Jewish state was that as long as Jews face anti-Semitism in any corner of the world, they need a country where they are safe.

      I think that as a starting point, we would have to assure Jews that they would have Israel for their own but once this plan moved forward, the likelihood of anti-Semitism occurring anywhere in the world would disappear and as would the need for a religious state.

      I can see this being a gradual rather than an immediate solution.

      The Next Agenda a dkos-style blog for Canadian politics

      by Thursday Next on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 03:57:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  or the opposite (2+ / 0-)

        since Israel is a nation state with all it's usual nation state needs and demands. It actually project powers through its all international assets, including jewish throughout the worlds.

        This is readily manifested in the usual argument (this or that is bad Israel...retort: are you anti semitic)  ie. The state uses the race conflation to defend its need as a state.

        logically, if there is a war, rival country has to take that into account. (just as we do to Saudi, or any arab organisations) We declare anything related as "terrorists". They can simply declare all jewish are zionists hence enemy, regardless if it is true or not.

        dialectic of violence.

    •  Jewish holidays (8+ / 0-)

      I tend to agree with you but there is nothing incompatible with giving special regard to religious holidays. Britian for example has an established church and our public holidays are based in part on the Christian calendar. Easter and Christmas are public holidays for example.

      Both countries anyway share the convention of the "weekend" being Friday and Saturday. I should remind you that Palestine is not solely Muslim and both countries have large proportions of the population who, even while complying with observance to their religious obligations, are essentially secular. Actually Muslim holy dates are notoriously difficult to arrange in terms of public holidays as many are dependant on observing the sun. Depending on the custom (including whether you consider the observation should be local or a Mecca), the date can be a day different.  

    •  Yes - a one religion state (6+ / 0-)

      will never have equality for all, and thus, will never be truly free.

      That goes for all of the "Muslim" states on Earth as well.

      •  It's not about religion... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pumpkinlove

        ....it's about heritage.

        Israel is a Jewish State, it's not a Judaic State.

        If you are Jewish and you want to emigrate to Isreal, you do not have to be a practicing Jew.  As long as your mother is Jewish, you can emigrate to Israel.

        As long as your mother is Jewish, you can be a pork eating atheist and still emigrate to Isreal.  That pretty much describes a majority of the Russian Jews who moved to Israel after the fall of the Soviet Union.

        -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

        by xynz on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 05:04:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Even worse (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anonymousredvest18, curmudgiana

          Then it is a state where one race is legally better than others. How is that better?

          •  oh stop (0+ / 0-)

            Jews aren;t better but Israel is their sanctuary

            •  I'm saying its not a truly free country (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anonymousredvest18

              I don't know if Michel Eisner, Bill Kristol, and my veterinarian need a "sanctuary," but that's beside the point.

              •  I know neocon is a euphamism for Jew (0+ / 0-)

                and a way of making anti-semitic statements while pretending not to be anti-semitic but please keep in mind that not all Jews are conservative.

                •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                  neocon is a euphamism for Jew

                  Are you referring specifically to the comments in this diary, or do you mean generally?

                  If your experience is that people are using neocon generally to imply Jew, then I am totally out of touch. I grew up Unitarian so my experience has generally been that Jews are very progressive.

                  The Next Agenda a dkos-style blog for Canadian politics

                  by Thursday Next on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:55:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  yes, really (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Thursday Next

                    There is a nasty segment in the left using neocon to mean Jew.  I see it a great deal on this blog and elsewhere.   Neo-con.. look at perjorative  Also, consider when they talk about important neocons in government almost all of them are Jewish.  

                    If your experience is that people are using neocon generally to imply Jew, then I am totally out of touch. I grew up Unitarian so my experience has generally been that Jews are very progressive.

                    Some are.  There is an entire spectrum of Judaism both politically and religiously.  If you grew up Unitarian, you probably dealt mostly with Reform or maybe Reconstructionist.. both tend to be liberal.

                    For the life of me I can NOT understand the left's absolute obsession with Israel, the constant degredation and insistance that Israel is the evilest of evils, the worst nation of the worst.    How many diaries do we see devoted to Israel every month?  How many do we see about Tibet?  How many do we see about Sudan?

                    People are up in arms about Israel's immigration policies considering them racist (zionism = racism) but shrug off the mysogeny of a large part of the Arab/Muslim world.  And they use inappropriate but highly inflammatory words to describe Israel.

                    Israel is Nazi Germany.
                    Israel is commiting genocide.
                    Israel is apartheid.
                    Israel committed a massacre.

                    Something's Rotten in Denmark.

                    Oh and have you read the Jack Spratt books?

                    •  Thanks for the info (0+ / 0-)

                      It took a lot of reading for me to understand why Jews need a sanctuary in Israel. I think that the left is not anti-Semitic and does not perceive any threat to Jews so many people don't understand the need for a sanctuary. They get angry at Jews for being involved in fighting in the ME because they think that Jews are heightening the conflict.

                      I'm not condoning the hateful attitudes, just putting forward a theory to explain them.

                      I liked Lerner's proposal because he cut through all of that and said that everyone has to agree that Israel has to exist as long as Jews perceive a threat of anti-Semitism. So get over it, everyone. (I'm paraphrasing.)

                      I haven't read the Jack Spratt books yet but they're on my list. I love the way Fforde plays with ideas.

                      The Next Agenda a dkos-style blog for Canadian politics

                      by Thursday Next on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 10:24:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  ... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Thursday Next

                        I like what Lerner said as well.  When I was living in Israel, the Geneva Accords was mailed to every home in the country.  People in Israel want a solution.  Most hate the settlers.. they waste resources and lives over land they don't need or want.  

                        I think that the left is not anti-Semitic and does not perceive any threat to Jews so many people don't understand the need for a sanctuary. They get angry at Jews for being involved in fighting in the ME because they think that Jews are heightening the conflict.

                        It depends on who you are talking about.  There is a group within the left who are anti-Semitic.

                        There is another group who sees this narrative as simply bad, greedy, militant white European colonialists came and colonized the land, stealingit from the good, innocnent, niave brown natives.  

                        As for Fforde, love him.. the Jack Spratt are every bit as good as Thursday Next and Thursday will be backnext summer

          •  What are Jewish racial/genetic characteristics? (0+ / 0-)

            asdf

            -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

            by xynz on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 11:02:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Stumble and fall (4+ / 0-)

      Zionism has always been about establishing an exclusive nation...for Jews only.  

      The trouble was zionists had to displace and "mistreat" non-Jews to accomplish their goal.  

      The trouble is zionists continue to displace and "mistreat" non-Jews to accomplish their goal.  

      Zionists have never learned to say they're sorry.

      With the help of Uncle Sam, who has done Israeli citizens no favor by protecting them from the consequences of their government's misbehavior, and by encouraging the Israeli governments recalcitrant and arrogant attitude and behavior, the State of Israel and its citizens will continue on the path towards eventual annihilation.

      •  If that was really the case.. (0+ / 0-)

        ...then Israeli Arabs would not have the right to vote and there wouldn't be any Arabs in the Israeli Knesset (Congress).

        -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

        by xynz on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 05:00:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Israel Supreme Court has ruled laws racist (5+ / 0-)

          The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that  at least one law is racist and has also ruled against the government in several cases involving discrimination against Palestinians. It has however passed a law that forbids "1967" non-Jews from living with their "1948" spouse in Israel proper (ie somebody living on land expropriated by Israel in after the 1967 law cannot live with their husband or wife who has Israeli citizenship (and their family) in Israel proper.

          An Israeli advocacy group, Adalah in Israel (with obvious sympathies) outlines the problems facing non-Jewish Israeli citizens:

          Adalah's report to the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, issued August/September 2001 and entitled Institutionalized Discrimination Against Palestinian Citizens of Israel, identifies more than 20 laws that discriminate against the Palestinian minority in Israel. The report shows that the Jewish character of the state is evident in numerous Israeli laws. The most important immigration laws, The Law of Return (1950) and The Citizenship Law (1952), allow Jews to freely immigrate to Israel and gain citizenship, but excludes Arabs who were forced to flee their homes in 1947 and 1967. Israeli law also confers special quasi-governmental standing on the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency, the Jewish National Fund and other Zionist bodies, which by their own charters cater only to Jews. Various other laws such as The Chief Rabbinate of Israel Law (1980), The Flag and Emblem Law (1949), and The State Education Law (1953) and its 2000 amendment give recognition to Jewish educational, religious, and cultural practices and institutions, and define their aims and objectives strictly in Jewish terms.

          Government discrimination

          Further, the discretionary powers entrusted to various government ministries and institutions - including budget policies, the allocation of resources, and the implementation of laws - results in significant de facto discrimination between Jewish and Palestinian citizens. For example, a report issued by the Ministry of Interior confirmed that Arab municipalities received a fraction of the total funds allocated by the national government per resident to Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories and to development towns populated exclusively by Jews. Moreover, the Ministry of Religious Affairs affords a small percentage of its budget to the Arab Muslim, Christian, and Druze religious communities. Funds for special projects such as the renewal and development of neighborhoods and improvements in educational programs, services, and facilities are also disproportionately allocated to Jewish communities. To date, Israeli authorities have rarely used their discretionary powers to benefit the Palestinians minority.

          Land expropriation

          Most importantly, the Israeli government has maintained an aggressive policy of land expropriation, adversely affecting Palestinian land and housing rights. For example, the National Planning and Building Law (1965), retroactively re-zoned the lands on which many Arab villages sit as "non-residential." The consequence of this is that despite the existence of these villages prior to the establishment of the state, they have been afforded no official status. These "unrecognized Arab villages" receive no government services, and residents are denied the ability to build homes and other public buildings. The authorities use a combination of house demolitions, land confiscation, denial of basic services, and restrictions on infrastructure development to dislodge residents from these villages. The situation is severely acute for the Arab Bedouin community living in these unrecognized villages in the Naqab.

          The situation in Israel is highly hostile to Arabs, with 62% favoring what amounts to ethnic cleansing  in a poll earlier this year.

          This page quotes a Uri Avnery on how elected members of the Palestinian Parliament living in East Jerusalem were faced with being expelled or resigning. (the links on this site are to Hebrew pages and at least one of the English language links is broken).

          •  Thank you for supporting my position... (0+ / 0-)

            ...although I am sure that it wasn't your intention.

            I was replying to the comment which stated:

            "Zionism has always been about establishing an exclusive nation...for Jews only."

            If that was indeed the case, then Israeli courts would NEVER rule in favor of a Palestinian ever.

            -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

            by xynz on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 11:11:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually it does (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rusty Pipes

              Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The very fact that the Israeli Supreme Court on comparatiely few occasions ruled in favour of Israeli Arabs (NOT Palestinians, non-Jews born in Israel and with Israeli citizenship, a point which somewhat indicates your position when you make the deliberate error) shows that the Government and Knesset went one step too far over the bounds of decency.  

              In addition Ah was referring to Zionism which different governments and presumably different Supreme Court judges had differing0 degrees of fervour about.

              •  Jew vs Zionist (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Rusty Pipes, Thursday Next

                Not all Jews agree with the Zionist philosphy.

                In fact, when modern Zionism fist started to take hold, there were many Rabbis who argued against it.

                Israel as a country and many of its citizens are not the problem.

                The Zionist philosphy and behavior towards achieving and maintaining Zionist ideals cause, and have caused, most of the grief for the citizens of Israel and Palestine.

              •  Now let them enforce it (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Noah in NY, Thursday Next

                Thanks for the link to a good resource by Israeli Arab/Palestinian Israeli lawyers working for equal civil rights in Israel.  Unfortunately, even in the rare cases when the High Court rules on their behalf, the rulings are rarely enforced or even blatantly flouted by the IDF.

                As Andrew Jackson said when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee's land claims: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."  Democracy is dysfunctional in a country in which its highest court's rulings are ignored.

                "when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again ..." - Bush aide

                by Rusty Pipes on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:04:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  THe Israeli Supreme Court (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Thursday Next

                XYNZ was commenting that the Israeli S.C. does rule in favor of Palestinians (and Israeli Arabs).

                One example is that the Israeli S.C. ruled that the route of the fence was causing needless harm and forced it to be rerouted.  

                That's not a sign that the government went overboard, it is a sign that the government is healthy and functioning properly.  

    •  Stumble and fall (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Noah in NY, ormondotvos

      Zionism has always been about establishing an exclusive nation...for Jews only.  

      The trouble was zionists had to displace and "mistreat" non-Jews to accomplish their goal.  

      The trouble is zionists continue to displace and "mistreat" non-Jews to accomplish their goal.  

      Zionists have never learned to say they're sorry.

      With the help of Uncle Sam, who has done Israeli citizens no favor by protecting them from the consequences of their government's misbehavior, and by encouraging the Israeli governments recalcitrant and arrogant attitude and behavior, the State of Israel and its citizens will continue on the path towards eventual annihilation.

    •  Nice idea but too idealistic. (5+ / 0-)

      Two states, Israel and Palestine, with Jews and Arabs living in them as majorities, but with dual citizenship accorded to those living in one state, who wish nationalistic ties with the other. Laws of the state govern behavior in that state. This resolves the settler problem and partially resolves the right to return problem. Thus, Jews (settlers) living as citizens in Palestine may identify themselves as Israelis, and Arabs living in Israel may identify themselves as Palestinians, with rights to change residence. Right to return may be handled best with good incentives for residence in Palestine, and allowing the return of a small percentage of diehards to Israel. That should not disturb the majority-minority balance very much.

      Reconcilitation is the best idea: people beginning to talk to one another as human beings.

      Let's do it.

      Read Jeffery Sachs' The End of Poverty.

      by shergald on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 04:46:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent proposal (6+ / 0-)

    I have a couple of times expounded very similar proposals with the exception I see that the eventual solution will be one combined state, with the two states as an interim step. The alternative is some sort of union similar to the EU where both countries' citizens would have the right of free movement within the area.

    Certainly his suggestion for the Right of Return is very similar to my own thoughts, my criterion being the internationally accepted qualifications for asylum - ie in genuine fear of harm if they remained in their country of origin. It is the trickiest proposal as the whole rationale for the UN setting up Israel was to provide a refuge against future persecution.  

  •  We need to address the roots and branches (8+ / 0-)

    of the problems of the ME.  The branches are the continuous conflicts involving Israel, ultimately stemming from its birth (which is not to say it is always at fault; its presence, I'm afraid, is provocation and example to the world that would like to destroy it, both because of what it is and what it symbolizes to its enemies, including being a stand-in for the U.S.) and from the extremists with arms.

    The roots are poverty and refugee status, and the culture of hate and desperation bred on all sides.  When one is in a constant state of war, then one is probably in a constant state of objectificaton of one's enemy.  So entire generations growing up in the ME are exposed to this kind of harmful and self-destructive indoctrination.  Lerner has this right, that those problems can only be addressed through concerted international commitment beyond the usual players in the ME.  In fact, while the land for the "land for peace" deal must come from Israel, the reparations and "Marshall Plan" moneys should come from the world community as a whole.

    As Hezbollah has learned, providing social services is priceless in terms of good will and future ability to hold and wield power and organize people.  That power must be restored to those who will use it in the name of and for the purpose of making peace.   I would really like to see a modern-day Pennsylvania Dutch barn-raising scene, where Israelis help the Palestinians and Lebanese build their infrastructure, and vice versa.  

    It's Friday evening, I'm allowed to dream. . . .

    "The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love."

    by Budlawman on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 03:50:14 PM PDT

  •  I really enjoy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Noah in NY, Thursday Next, serrano

    Rabbi Lerner and try to visit his website regularly - used to get his emails, but I just get too many and had to let some go, so appreciate your bringing this to my attention.

  •  The trouble is... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thursday Next, curmudgiana

    ...nothing in Rabbi Lerner's statement leads to any plan that could reasonably implement his proposal.

    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

    by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 04:03:25 PM PDT

    •  Sorry (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anonymousredvest18, Noah in NY

      I didn't put everything from Lerner's article into this diary.

      It would need international cooperation but I think he has enough in his article to make a plan.

      Lerner suggests that an international group (if you don't think the parties would like the UN, how about the G8 or the G13?) would impose the peace, which I interpret to mean that they would comply with it themselves, stop supporting the warring parties and show the blueprint to all the affect parties.

      I would hope that if everyone realises they will be treated with respect and that reparations will be made that they would be willing to comply.

      The Next Agenda a dkos-style blog for Canadian politics

      by Thursday Next on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 04:17:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's a lot of problems with Lerner's plan... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Thursday Next

        ...I love it, naturally, since it heavily favors Israel.  But that's the trouble - it ignores the issues which have been the sticking points in all negotiations.

        How does Rabbi Lerner's plan address the Palestinian right of return, which Israel will not accept?  How does it deal with the issue of Jerusalem?  How does it cope with the fact that third-party groups cannot be absolutely stopped from committing violence?  How does it resolve water rights in the West Bank from the Jordan river?

        The G8 and G13 wouldn't do it; such an imposition of peace would require serious casualties from whatever group would impose it.  And we're really talking about some force that Israel could hold accountable that would police the Palestinian state.  After Iraq, who would take that job?  The only hope for such a force is from the Arab League or Saudi Arabia, and they have serious reasons to not wish to take that step.

        Right now, there are serious limits to how we can move on from where we are today.  The Palestinian Authority is in tatters, and are almost completely isolated.  Now that Lebanon appears to be over, the first question is how do we restore some normalcy in Israeli-Palestinian relations.  How do we restore some seblance of cooperation with the Hamas government, or how can we make a transition past them to another authority in Palestine?  Without that step, no forward progress is possible.

        The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

        by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 04:25:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  RIght of return is a problem. (3+ / 0-)

          Palestinians refused earlier offers of payment for their land in Israel, which never got off the ground anyway. But it can be worked out if the incentives are generous enough, since there would be none for returning to a now bulldozed village in Israel.

          Read Jeffery Sachs' The End of Poverty.

          by shergald on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 04:53:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  A first step might be talking to them (4+ / 0-)

          Then the LORD said unto me: 'Out of the north the evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land.

          by curmudgiana on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 06:06:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, sure... (0+ / 0-)

            ...although I suspect Israel is talking to them, and most certainly they have been talking to them for many years previously as well.

            I continue to believe that removing the settlers is a requisite step before meaningful negotiations will be possible.

            The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

            by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 07:58:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ??? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anonymousredvest18, Noah in NY

              The fundamental Israeli policy is NOT to talk to any party with whom it might be possible to make peace, which they fear above all things.

              Not Hamas, not Hezbollah, not even Mahmoud Abbas, though he wears out the knees of his pants, crawling after them, begging for a single word.  Not Syria nor Iran.

              What is this talking of which you speak?

              Then the LORD said unto me: 'Out of the north the evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land.

              by curmudgiana on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 08:13:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pumpkinlove

                ...now's where I start to think you're crazy.  I agree with almost nothing in your post.

                The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 08:35:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Agreement isn't the point (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rusty Pipes, Noah in NY

                  Either Israel is talking with the parties I named, or it's not.  This is a matter of fact, not agreement.  You can disagree with me all you want, but disagreement with the facts is unwise.

                  To quote Yossi Sarid:  http://www.haaretz.com/...

                  I remember a name I have not encountered for a long time and a meeting that was supposed to happen ages ago. Former prime minister Ariel Sharon promised to hold it and Olmert repeated the promise. If my memory serves me correctly, the name I am thinking of is Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) and the meeting is an encounter between Israel's prime minister and the Palestinian Authority chairman.

                  But Olmert, neck-deep in Israel's problems, has no time for crazy ideas: "A meeting? Talks? What else do you propose? A meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad?!"

                  So is Sarid wrong?  Is he uninformed?  Are all kinds of substantive talks going on behind his back?

                  Then the LORD said unto me: 'Out of the north the evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land.

                  by curmudgiana on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 09:30:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...you're conflating the failure of leadership of Olmert with some sort of long-standing Israeli policy.  

                    Is Sarid wrong?  Yes, probably, and he probably knows it too.  He's a former politician, the leader of Meretz for a time who quit politics in a huff, and snipes at both the Israeli left and the right.  He's a former (minor) cabinet minister too, so he knows damn well that Israel communicates with multiple parties sub rosa that it will not openly deal with, such as Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood.

                    Ought they officially talk to Abu Mazen?  Absolutely, I would say.  But to not speak officially and to not communicate at all are very different things.

                    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                    by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 09:36:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't recall Sharon talking (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      sofia, callmecassandra

                      with the same parties Olmert is not-talking to.  It is indeed a policy, it's a fatheaded policy, and it's a US policy, too.  The entire cease-fire negotiation thing in Lebanon could have been put on the stages of the Theatre of the Absurd because of all the parties that the parties were refusing to talk to.  As was the spectacle of Olmert in Jordan, squirming for fear he might have to actually talk to Abbas, which he had long been promising to do, as long as promising could substitute for doing.

                      And this is the sort of talking I am referring to.

                      Then the LORD said unto me: 'Out of the north the evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land.

                      by curmudgiana on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:58:56 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Not-talking continues (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Rusty Pipes, sofia, Thursday Next

                        Arab League foreign ministers have asked to send a high-level delegation to a ministerial meeting of the Security Council in September to initiate a new effort to bring lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese.

                        Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman said Friday that the country's top priority at the moment is "solving the Lebanon problem" and making sure the UN resolution ending Israel's 34-day war with Hezbollah is implemented - not starting a new Mideast peace process.

                        Then the LORD said unto me: 'Out of the north the evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land.

                        by curmudgiana on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 11:49:19 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Not talking.. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Rusty Pipes, Noah in NY

                          ..of course, because that would mean relinquishing almost all of the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem, dividing the Old City, or making it an international  zone, returning the Golan Heights to Syria, and leaving Shebaa Farms.  Better to pull out of the parts you decide you don't want anymore because there is a radicalized population there (thanks to a brutal occupation) that poses a demographic threat, annex the parts you do want to keep, and then keep applying force when "the Arabs" don't accept it. Jay Elias is not in favor of Israel giving up sovereignty in East Jerusalem, especially the Old City, nor is he in favor of returning the Golan to Syria, hence the throwing up of straw on the topic of negotiations.

    •  Bringing Idealism Down to a Pragmatic Level (6+ / 0-)

      The subtitle of Tikkun's Ad is, "Convene an International Middle East Peace Conference".  Now, if we can organize a G8 summit, WTO meetings, GATT rounds et al then this can be done rather easily from a purely logistical standpoint   What is the impediment, clearly, is the will to do so.

      As far as any "reasonable" implementation, well, all sorts of formerly crazy ideas begin to look suddenly reasonable when the alternative becomes mutually assured destruction.  Where there's a will, there's a way, so I think it can happen.  When enough people become sick to death of war, and see no advantage in continuing to study and pursue it, then peace becomes a real option.

      And since annihilation is in effect no solution at all, peace may be, as the Rabbi suggests, inevitable; it's merely a question of how many must die before we get there.

      If Hezbollah's missiles did any good at all during the war, they demonstrated quite clearly that one day military might may not be enough to create even an illusion of stability.

  •  all nice ideas .. #3 (0+ / 0-)

    is really the key to the future; and this will be the one that most certainly won't happen. He is asking for oversight in a religious environment; the very crucibile where the flames of fanaticism are born.

    No way you will ever get that to happen.

    All good goals to work towards, but I don't see how they can be implemented. Feels good reading it, and then reality comes back, making things all gloomy again.

  •  I like Mike personally, but the real solution (4+ / 0-)

    would seem to be the Hezbollah and Hamas solution: help people out until there is plenty.

    Israel has to stop controlling the sovereign rights of Palestine: no blocking of borders, waters, air rights. That is non-negotiable. This game of smashing the government and then whining disingenuously about no partner for peace makes me sick. It's so obvious.

    I'll take Stratfor's line: Israel is quite practically trying for complete dominance of a disrupted Middle East. Facts on the ground. Israel's phrase.

    How dreadful knowledge of the truth can be when there's no help in the truth. -Sophocles, (495-405 BCE)

    by ormondotvos on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 04:56:48 PM PDT

  •  Lerner is a good guy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anonymousredvest18

    and I admire his commitment to peace and justice.

    But this plan is naively optimistic, relying as it does on "international forces/consortiums" to enforce all its provisions - forces that do not now exist and are never likely to exist, taken from nations who will always put their own interests first.

    The UN can't even manage to assemble a peacekeeping force to enforce the ceasefire in Lebanon.

    Then the LORD said unto me: 'Out of the north the evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land.

    by curmudgiana on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 06:01:29 PM PDT

  •  I can't really add much to this discussion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thursday Next

    except one small link.

    The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

    by FrankFrink on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 07:04:28 PM PDT

  •  Not so practical guy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anonymousredvest18

    The Palestinian state should include all of the West Bank and Gaza.

    And that will never happen.

    Israel offers special immigration rights to Jews from around the world who are escaping religious persecution

    Well, some come from New York?

    should be funded by an international consortium.

    Who? Israel ( and her allies) are wealthy countries. If needed, they can easily pay for it. I don't see how i should pay for something i haven't been doing (and in fact, something i have been against). Nut of course it would be a cheap price for peace.

    Total ban on teaching hate

    Are there any parts in the teachings of the regional religions that would encourage to dismiss other religious groups? Very difficult to see how this could be done, what is hate? Are you allowed to teach historical facts?All you have to do is to tell what has been going on for decades and you have more than enough hate. Very difficult goal to achieve, but a good start.

    Those who do not own up to their actions may be referred to a War Crimes Tribunal.

    At least this fellow has some nice ideas. I'm not sure he is the most practical man on earth.

    where the G8 countries would apply 5% of their GDP for 20 years to "eliminating global poverty, hunger, homelessness, inadequate education and inadequate health care."

    5% of their GDP? Well, at least that's a shit load of money. But most of those countries could use that 5% for rising healthcare, education and energy prices.

    Rabbi Lerner has some nice ideas but i doubt those are all that practical. And i don't see where the support would come from.

    And can we use the old king Solomon solution for Jerusalem: This is the deal, if you don't accept it we will nuke the place. Problem solved.

    •  Could we start witgh (0+ / 0-)

      Are there any parts in the teachings of the regional religions that would encourage to dismiss other religious groups? Very difficult to see how this could be done, what is hate? Are you allowed to teach historical facts?All you have to do is to tell what has been going on for decades and you have more than enough hate. Very difficult goal to achieve, but a good start.

      Not teaching children that Jews are apes???  that they don't eat matzah made with the blood of children?  getting rid of those songs about how great it is to kill Jews complete with gestures?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site