Celebrate Israel's 60th: End the Suffering of the Palestinians

Many Jews around the world are celebrating Israel's 60th birthday this week. Mazl tov!

Let us recall this week a wonderful Jewish tradition, shared by other faiths and nations around the world throughout history. Those who have been blessed share their blessings with the less fortunate.

Fans of Yiddish literature will remember the wonderful story "Strike of the Schnorrers," where a Jewish wedding celebration is put in peril because the poor people are on strike - and how could the celebration proceed without a meal for the poor?

So long as Palestinians cannot exercise their right of national self-determination, any celebration of Israel's independence will always be marred.

We know what we have to do. Consistent pressure from the United States can help bring about a two-state solution on the 1967 borders, a solution that has near-universal international support.

This is, in theory, U.S. policy. The question is always whether the U.S. Administration will make this policy a priority.  

They would, if they heard consistently from Congress that it should be a priority.

And Congress would say consistently that it should be a priority, if they heard consistently from their constituents that it should be a priority.

This week there are several Congressional initiatives underway to advance the cause of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Representatives Kucinich and Hinchey are circulating a letter, supported by Just Foreign Policy, praising Secretary of State Rice for her stated opposition to Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank, and asking her to follow through.

Reps. Price and LaHood, supported by Americans for Peace Now, Churches for Middle East Peace, and other groups, are circulating a letter to President Bush, urging the President to seek a solution to the crisis in southern Israel and Gaza.

Meanwhile, thousands of Americans have signed a petition circulated by Just Foreign Policy and Jewish Voice for Peace in support of former President Carter's recent peace initiative, seeking to end the counterproductive campaign to exclude Hamas from efforts for peace. The petition is being delivered this week to the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.

There could hardly be a more appropriate way to celebrate than to take effective action to end needless suffering.

•  Thank you Robert

  by valadon on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:10:12 AM PDT

  •  You're welcome! Thanks for taking action!

    by Robert Naiman on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:15:17 AM PDT

•  Nice diary

  Thanks.

  by Jesus H Christ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:13:57 AM PDT

•  It is Way Past Time

  Since the Bush administration apparently is basing its whole approach to Isreal and Palestine on some kind of loopy right wing Christian idea that there is no point in promoting peace because Armageddon will be upon us soon, they have been promoting conflict instead of diplomacy.

  What else explains such an irresponsible policy on the part of Bush, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, et al?  They have created a whole lot of suffering and death because they have failed to lead.

  I doubt they will change the way they see things or the resulting policy.  Hopefully, a Barack Obama administration will have a more down-to-earth and useful approach to playing a diplomatic role.  

  The US is going to have to leverage its vast military largesse to the state of Israel, get the players to really talk and promote a solution based on the reality that everybody can have something if everybody is willing to find some space for compromise.

  by Stuart Heady on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:13:58 AM PDT

•  thanks for posting. glad to see all of the peace

  initiatives

  by Tanya on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:14:23 AM PDT

  •  Peace initiatives?

    A couple of letters from Congressman, and petition in support of a trip that accomplished nothing.

    This is a joke?

    by FischFry on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:51:17 AM PDT

    •  it is a lot more then we have seen in a very long

      and I for one am very happy to see any kind of counter balance to AIPAC.

      by Tanya on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:27:59 PM PDT

      •  No, it's not

        It's just an opportunity for really minor figures (like Kucinich) and tiny organizations to get a little press.  There have many far more substantial efforts, even in recent weeks. Trips by Rice. Meetings between Olmert and Abbas. Those are real events, not letters aimed at getting liberals' approval and money.

        by FischFry on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:05:35 PM PDT

•  Just Foreign Policy and Robert Naiman....

  are a great source for positive change.

  by Barry Leonardini on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:15:54 AM PDT

•  here's who Carter should have

  met with and given a worldwide audience cause meeting with Hamas did nothing. Can you imagine Nisreen Shaheen touring the world on behalf of peace and a two state solution thanks to Jimmeh?

  by Keith Moon on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:23:33 AM PDT

  •  That's a powerful statement by a Palestinian

    mother. Here are links to the One Voice web site and to the inspiring list of One Voice's partners, which includes a large number of Palestinian, Israeli and joint organizations.

    by word is bond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:37:58 AM PDT

•  A negotiated two-state solution

  that includes a substantial international commitment to the economic development of the Palestinian state is really the only conceivable resolution to the conflict that has a chance of success. The outlines of the solution are well known.

  People of good will can help by identifying and supporting the forces of moderation and peace in both the Israeli and Palestinian communities. Neither side will capitulate on its most fundamental positions, and neither can make peace happen on its own. However, both will benefit from a set of compromises that can be achieved with bold leadership as well as international support to make unpopular sacrifices politically possible.

  The Bush administration has shown itself incapable of proceeding on that basis.

  by word is bond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:24:50 AM PDT

  •  International commitment is strong

    Billions of bucks.  And there's gas off gaza that can be developed.  (Good for PA and Israel) What's needed is local security so investment can flow in.     And some measure of sovereignity including open ports and borders.  

    by Eiron on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:34:35 AM PDT

    •  I was envisioning something broader

      Not just gas production - who needs another Equatorial Guinea or even another Kuwait? - but a diversified economy that provides training and employment for a large population. Palestine's greatest resource is its people, and a viable economy could include businesses in such fields as knowledge and information industries, finance, technology, education and tourism.

      Not just billions of bucks of future promises, but funds risked and spent now. There are entrepreneurs in the oil-rich emirates lavishing vast sums on playgrounds for millionaires and trophy monuments; a small part of that could finance, say, a health resort at the Dead Sea patronized by vacationers from the Persian Gulf. It could provide a test case and opportunity for both Palestinians and Israelis to demonstrate the willingness and ability to cooperate and create the conditions necessary for investment to succeed.

      The barriers that currently exist, both in terms of Israeli restrictions on the occupied territories and in terms of governmental issues within the Palestinian community, are real and go beyond issues of security. Perhaps an investor who initiated discussions for a specific concrete project could alter the current conditions in that tangible context.

      by word is bond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:50:42 PM PDT

•  happy Yom Ha'atzmaut to you too

  I'm going to enjoy the day, while somewhat briefly noting the suffering of the Palestinians, mostly as a day of joy, that I, as a Jew, have had a state in the land of Israel for 60 years, something that most Jews throughout the ages never thought possible.  I'm assuming I won't see a diary on those thoughts today at Kos (and I don't have time to write one myself), so this comment will have to suffice.  I will get back to working with other nuanced people to make peace between these two peoples tomorrow, but today, I will celebrate.

  by DoGooderLawyer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:39:51 AM PDT

  •  enjoy the day in good health

    the diary, with its links, will still be here tomorrow.

    ad mea v'asriim.

    :)

    by Robert Naiman on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:09:41 PM PDT

•  The partiality of the Congressional letters.

  Kucinich and Hinchey are right to call for a freeze on further construction in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Their letter suffers, however, from a factual error and a major omission.

  The factual error is their claim that the Israeli government announced "plans to build hundreds of new settlements." Not so. The government has announced plans for new housing units, not new settlements.

  The major omission is Kucinich and Hinchey's failure to call on the Palestinians to end the use of violence, especially terrorism, against Israel and Israelis.

  These two demands -- a settlements freeze and an end to terrorism -- are not mutually dependent. Israel should freeze the settlements -- indeed, it should evacuate settlements that are illegal even under Israeli domestic law -- without regard to what the Palestinians do. The Palestinians should cease fire without regard to what Israel does about the settlements.

  The Price-Lahoud letter is alive to the human suffering and adverse impacts on peace of continued violence, but it doesn't talk about the settlements.

  All that said, I read the diary in the spirit of the following comment today by Norman Geras:

  Those who cannot celebrate the existence of Israel but only criticize it, put themselves beyond all sense of sympathy with the legitimate concerns of the Jewish people - as if these had no basis, no rationale, no historical genesis; as if Israel's history was solely about usurpation and error; as if it was not itself born under the threat of annihilation, a threat that is ever renewed. To celebrate with Israel is to be able to speak criticism of its mistaken policies from within, so to say, criticism without demonization.

  by another American on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:41:18 AM PDT

•  Senator Obama gives a lead.

  Well here's my starting orientation is A - Israel's security is sacrosanct, is non negotiable. That's point number one. Point number two is that the status quo I believe is unsustainable over time. So we're going to have to make a shift from the current deadlock that we're in. Number three that Israel has to remain a Jewish state and what I believe that means is that any negotiated peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is going to have to involve the Palestinians relinquishing the right of return as it has been understood in the past. And that doesn't mean that there may not be conversations about compensation issues. It also means the Israelis will have to figure out how do we work with a legitimate Palestinian government to create a Palestinian state that is sustainable. It's going to have to be contiguous, its going to have to work its going to have to function in some way. That's in Israel's interest by the way. If you have a balkanized unsustainable state, it will break down and we will be back in the same boat. So those are the starting points of my orientation.

  I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have a honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress. And frankly some of the commentary that I've seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is non military or non belligerent or doesn't talk about just crushing the opposition that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we're going to have problems moving forward. And that I think is something we have to have an honest dialogue about.

  by another American on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:45:23 AM PDT

•  You've GOT to be kidding

  Two letters and a petition. I'm sure there are celebrations in the Palestinian community.

  Such celebrations will spread to wherever Palestinians are living in exile, today. In fact, I think those celebrations have spread to Beirut...Yes, I'm sure of it. As I'm watching CNN, I see footage capturing the sounds of this joyous moment. The Sunni and Shi'ite neighborhoods are engaging in their quaint ritual of celebration, sending RPGs and gunfire into each other's neighborhoods.

  Peace is breaking out throughout the Middle East. And, it's all down to those letters and petitions being circulated for signatures.

  Hooray.

  I might add that this is a ridiculous statement:

  "Consistent pressure from the United States can help bring about a two-state solution on the 1967 borders, a solution that has near-universal international support."

  Consistent pressure from the United States -- in the form of blockades and regular fighter overflights didn't exactly end the Ba'athist hostility in Iraq. Consistent U.S. pressure isn't causing Iran to end it's nuclear program. Consistent U.S. pressure led to 40-year Cold War, with numerous hot wars. Consistent U.S. pressure hasn't changed Cuba. But, you think consistent U.S. pressure will magically cause a solution in the Middle East?

  Then, there's the nature of the solution you propose. Neither Israel, nor the PNA have any interest in locking in the 1967 borders -- even in the event of a peace agreement. Israel will want to hold on to more populous settlements, and the Palestinians will want a contiguous territory -- not two unconnected islands. If there is ever a peace, you can be sure of one thing -- it won't be "on the 1967 borders." "Universal international support"? That's just because no foreign power wants to be seen as proposing something that might deviate from that, even though it makes sense. There's already a framework for a peace settlement -- the Geneva Accords -- and the '67 borders were just a starting point for the negotiations there -- not the endpoint.

  by FischFry on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:49:04 AM PDT

•  Thanks for the diary, RN! n/t

  by Rusty Pipes on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:17:34 PM PDT