is an admirable organization. On this, shergald and I appear to agree. RHR describes itself as "the organization of Israeli rabbis from every Jewish denomination devoted to the furtherance of Human Rights and the strengthening of Israeli society in the knowledge that all human beings are created in the image of God." RHR's "agenda includes domestic issues of poverty, equal treatment of women and minorities as well as . . . extensive work on the human rights of Palestinians."
I am bold enough to hope, therefore, that those who have cited RHR statements critical of particular Israeli policies (criticism with which I basically agree), may take to heart some of the other things RHR has had to say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In Palestinian Jews vs. Palestinian Arabs Rabbi David J. Forman, the founder of Rabbis for Human Rights, writes in response to the IDF (Israel Defense Force) seizure of a boat Palestinians were using to try to smuggle arms to the Gaza Strip.
- "The Palestinians are employing some of the same techniques that we did during our struggle to gain our independence from the British. I do not want to make glib comparisons. We were then, and are now, no match for Palestinian brutality. But the shock expressed by our military and political leaders at the size of the arsenal of weapons being brought into the territories reveals a total lack of understanding on our part as to what a people is willing to do secure its freedom."
- "Beyond arms smuggling, there is little that the Palestinian Arabs under our occupation have in common with what those Palestinians Jews underwent during the British Mandate, despite Palestinian and pan-Arab attempts to paint us as the British (or Nazis) and themselves as the "new Jews." Yes, we wanted to cast off the yoke of oppression of the British as do the Palestinians want to rid themselves of our rule. But beyond that, there is no comparison. And the Palestinians would be wise to understand this, especially in the manner that they are trying to force an end to the occupation."
- "The British were the occupiers from afar. Like the Americans in Vietnam and the French in Algeria, they eventually were driven out, because they were not defending their homes. They were vulnerable, because as absentee landlords, their fighting forces lacked the commitment to maintain their colonial rule. Always in the back of their minds they knew they could return safely to their borders. Psychologically, we Jews knew we could defeat the British."
- "So, too, do the Palestinians fail to see the error of their rhetorical parallelism. There is no vast ocean that separates us from the Palestinians. The Palestinians should realize that, while they are fighting for their independence, we are fighting to maintain ours. So any facile comparisons to the time of the British Mandate won't work."
- "Moreover, we accepted the UN call for a two-state solution, which was less than what we had hoped for. We had a practical approach to our independence. If the Palestinians want to truly cast themselves as the "new Jews," they, too, should accept a two-state solution. But as long as they blow themselves up in crowded Jewish markets or on packed Israeli buses, they will have no hope of shedding themselves of an often aggressive and certainly demeaning occupation."
- "And as long as we underestimate the lengths to which a people are willing to go to win independence, we will remain wedded to an archaic and cumbersome military machine that will continue to be startled by arms smuggling, and will continue to perpetuate an obscene occupation.
- "Here is the last quasi-comparison between the Palestinians and us: Our fight for independence was forged not only to guarantee an independent homeland for Jews, but also to set up a country that would be based on the social ideals of the prophets. We may have failed in many aspects (the occupation being the most glaring one), but compared to what we can envision for an independent Palestinian state, based on the reality of the behavior of the Palestinian leadership, we are a paragon of democratic virtue."
And, in an open letter to the Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church, RHR as an organization wrote:
- "Like you we hate the Occupation, condemn it and work for its speedy end in a peace accord. However, the Occupation cannot be used to excuse the re-awakening of demons. . . . It is not just that your resolution ignores the homicidal ideologies that have so sadly taken hold among some of our Palestinian neighbors. Nor is the problem just that it averts its eyes from the attempts to destroy our country that transcend the Occupation and precede it by decades. Its deepest flaw lies in the ramifications of the highly charged language you employ. . . . "
- "You passed a resolution directed as a "call ... on the Israeli government," describing the Occupation in a way that profoundly places Israeli sin alone at the heart of the situation. While we recognize that you deplore terror against Israelis, you direct not one word of criticism to the government of the Palestinian Authority despite its manifest multitude of profound sins against God and the Human Rights of Palestinians and Jews. You ignore the incontrovertible fact that this catastrophe is the product of many causes and that there is guilt enough to share between all parties. People of conscience must act in awareness that the singling out, magnifying and sanctifying of Jewish sins has always been at the core of the terrible evil that we know as anti-Semitism. Failing in this awareness, you cross a line that people of good conscience dare not cross."
In other diaries, I have presented proposals for peace between Israel and Palestine that include significant demands on Israel. Please see, for example:
These demands on Israel include, but are not limited to:
Dismantling outposts – The Government of Israel must instruct the IDF and the police to immediately dismantle all 105 outposts in the territories, which were built in contravention of official Israeli policy that opposes creating new settlements in the West Bank.
Freezing construction in settlements – The Government of Israel must freeze all construction beyond the Green Line.
Additionally:
Under the framework of negotiations for a final settlement, the government of Israel must continue the process of evacuating the settlements in stages as a trust-building measure towards the Palestinian leadership that will improve the situation on the ground, strengthen the moderates on both sides and improve Israel’s security and economic situation. The Government of Israel must evacuate the settlements in coordination with the Palestinian side, and not unilaterally as done previously.
But I've also voiced expectations about what I think the Palestinian side should do for the sake of peace. Curiously, I've thought, when I've asked vocal supporters of the Palestinians what they have asked, or would ask, of the Palestinians, I've been met either by silence or criticism of my proposals (often by mischaracterizing them and ignoring the fact that they mostly reflect the terms of the Geneva Accord, a model (unofficial) peace treated negotiated by senior Israeli and Palestinian figures.
Ever the optimist, I'll try again. Whatever demands you think Israel needs to satisfy either to promote peace with the Palestinians or to achieve an acceptable peace treaty,
- what, if anything, ought the Palestinians do to promote peace with Israel?
- what ought the Palestinians be prepared to agree to to achieve an acceptable peace treaty?