The Middle East is a “tinderbox that could go off at any time,” says Jordan’s King Abdullah II. He ought to know. His father and great-grandfather helped create that “tinderbox,” if grudgingly.
Abdullah told The Wall Street Journal that he will press President Obama to present his own plan for a settlement between Israeli and Arab negotiators, as The Washington Post reported. The king has already balked at combining Jordan and the West Bank in some kind of governing arrangement. As has Egypt with Gaza.
That signifies the Middle East dilemma. Everyone wants a solution without taking firm responsibility. Let Israel do the hard work.
Obama may well bring his own plan to the bargaining table on grounds that the two parties cannot reach an agreement on their own. The upshot: Israel may need to decide on giving up East Jerusalem to obtain protection from Iran’s nuclear threat.
The Obama administration’s treatment of Israeli leaders was disgraceful, but its efforts to sanction Iran are progressing. This means that the president appears to be making sincere efforts to help Israel where it most counts, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would understand that.
Concern is understandable over settlement expansion in the West Bank, where the land is needed to build a Palestinian state. However, the Arabs have never explained why they need East Jerusalem for their capital or any other purpose. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton achieved a new level of notoriety for berating the prime minister over housing plans in a Jewish neighborhood there.
Palestinian Arabs persist in clamoring for East Jerusalem at a time when Obama hopes to unite Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Arab powers as a bulwark against Iran; after all, many other Arab countries fear Iran is attempting to dominate the region.
That Iran threatens them as well as Israel is not sufficient reason to form an alliance with Israel. Arab leaders appear to believe that they must convince their own people that today’s Israel is not their father’s Israel - the oppressor of the poor Palestinians - so there are fewer extremists to threaten their rule.
In this vein, it was never enough that 10 years ago Israel offered Palestinian Arabs their own state to encompass East Jerusalem, or that five years ago Israel withdrew all settlers and soldiers from Gaza. Israeli leaders might have planned for West Bank settlement evictions had their attention not been deflected by two wars provoked by Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
Obama hopes to do more than neutralize Iran, if that is possible. He wants to drain hostility in the Arab world so that extremists will ultimately lose their core following, and then Arab countries can focus on rebuilding their societies and developing friendlier ties with the West. President Bush’s abrasive policies maximized Arab antagonism.
The president has recently taken new steps to reassure the Arab world. He announced a policy to limit a nuclear response in case of attack, signed a treaty with Russia to reduce their arsenal and got countries to agree to secure their nuclear weapons. An Israeli concession to give up East Jerusalem - expected to be part of Obama’s undisclosed plan - would add to the list of Western goodwill gestures.
Sacrificing East Jerusalem might boost Israel’s image in the Arab world, but it will not solve deeply rooted internal problems in individual Arab nations. What effect will losing East Jerusalem have on Israel? Do the Palestinian Arabs even need Jerusalem?
One step for certain: Each demand must be justified. Since the Arabs want East Jerusalem so badly, why do they want it and what do they intend to do with it? Will they exploit it as a staging ground to attack Israel?
Obama has a right to present his own plan, but not if he intends to impose his concepts on either party. Of course, many supporters of Israel believe and expect that is just what the president will attempt to do. Why should Israel consent to demands that make no sense?
Obama’s role amounts to a two-edged sword. He deserves credit for his efforts to impose sanctions on Iran to preclude its production of a nuclear bomb that would evidently target Israel. The New York Times reported that President Hu Jintao of China promised to join negotiations on a new package of sanctions, after a 90-minute talk with Obama.
The president outlined measures which would likely deny Iran access to international credit, choke off foreign investment in Iran’s energy sector and punish firms owned by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a White House official told the Times. Obama has also attempted to find alternate oil suppliers for China, which fears losing oil supplies from Iran if it participates in sanctions.
It is certainly an open question to begin with if sanctions can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
The Arab parties generate concerns because they persist in pressuring Israel to make concessions instead of discussing issues. Salam Fayyad, prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, warned in Haaretz, an Israeli daily newspaper, that the PA might declare Palestine as a state in 2011, saying, “It is the right of an oppressed nation to say ’enough.’ No one should be expected to stand for injustice, not least the Palestinians, who have endured long decades of occupation.”
Fayyad neglects to mention that they could have “endured” 10 years less of of occupation had they accepted the Camp David deal in 2000.
Though Jordan invaded Israel three times, Abdullah’s great-grandfather and father led those attacks for fear of being overthrown or even invaded by one of their so-called allies. Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, and a Washington Post story reported that Jordan and America’s intelligence agencies work together to combat terrorism.
Jordan and Egypt oppose aligning, respectively, with the West Bank and Gaza because they expect the extremists there to try to seize control of their governments.
These instances raise questions about even broader issues, such as the wisdom of creating a Palestinian state; that’s grist for another article. What’s important is whether a peace settlement will benefit Israel or merely exchange one “tinderbox” for another one.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
An unholy Vat (ican) attack
The Catholic Church historically inspired persecution against our people, and in the last half-century church leaders merit recognition for reconciling with us. After that immense effort to do right, the church has embarked on a new course of action: Confuse the heck out of the Jews.
New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, normally known to be a fine gentleman, implied to his flock that a second crucification might be approaching. Who was blamed for the first one?
Then a Vatican priest, the Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa, on Good Friday, of all days, likened the disparagement of Pope Benedict XVI to anti-Semitism. To call this comparison a stretch is a polite understatement. He was wise enough to apologize two days later, on Easter Day.
This frantic rhetoric is rooted in the sex abuse scandal that has finally been dropped onto the pontiff’s lap. Predictably, from Benedict on down church leaders have been defensive to the point of exploiting others, like the Jewish people.
Fortunately, I doubt if their approach will cause Jews any genuine harm. The Vatican’s influence in Europe and North America has thinned over the years. Most Catholics in those regions will probably not take these references seriously. I also give Dolan and Cantalamessa the benefit of the doubt that they intended no offense, and for the record I have long had both positive and negative feelings toward the Catholic Church.
The words uttered by Dolan and Cantalamessa are still potentially threatening, and both should have known better. The New York Daily News reported that Dolan told parishioners at Palm Sunday Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, “(Reforms) could never have happened without the insistence and support of the very man now being crowned with thorns by groundless innuendo.”
Asking if the church and the pope “need intense scrutiny and just criticism,” Dolan added, “All we ask is that it be fair and that the Catholic Church not be singled out for a horror that has cursed every culture, religion, organization, institution, school, agency and family in the world.”
Thousands of miles east, Cantalamessa was delivering a Good Friday sermon in St. Peter’s Basilica - with the pope in attendance - when he said the timing of Passover and Easter the same week prompted him to think of the Jews, according to The New York Times. “They know from experience what it means to be victims of collective violence, and also because of this they are quick to recognize the recurring symptoms,” he said.
The priest, who holds the title of preacher of the papal household, then quoted from what he noted was a letter from a Jewish friend whom he did not identify: “I am following the violent and concentric attacks against the pope and the faithful by the whole world. The use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt, remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism.”
Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi swiftly emphasized that the sermon reflected Cantalamessa’s thoughts and was not an official Vatican statement. He did not mention that Cantalamessa made these comments while serving in his official capacity for the Vatican, and the location was St. Peter’s Basilica.
So many distortions, so little space.
Benedict is not Jesus, and it is always risky to draw comparisons with a larger-than-life historical or religious figure. The New Testament recounts that Roman soldiers placed a crown of thorns atop Jesus’ head before he was crucified. The church for most of its existence blamed Jews and their descendents for the death of Jesus. Will the Jews be blamed for Benedict’s fate? Or will they replace us with another scapegoat?
When Dolan pleads for fair treatment, the scrutiny is in fact long overdue. It could be far worse. Sexual abuse is a serious crime, and anyone who shields sex abusers could also be vulnerable to prosecution.
If the church is being singled out, maybe that is due to the vast numbers of victims. These are hardly isolated incidents. It is a direct result of a scarcity of competent leadership. If the church had enacted firm policies and enforced them, church leaders would not feel they were under siege at this time.
It is ironic that Cantalamessa would compare this siege to anti-Semitism since the church perfected hatred of Jews to an art form. The knights who entered Jerusalem during the Crusades massacred not only Muslims but Jews as well. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella murdered, tortured, expelled and forcefully converted Spanish Jews to Catholicism.
Jews suffered from “collective violence,” but what church leaders (with one reported exception) have been subjected to violence over this?
Would nuns and priests stand for such excuses from students and parishioners?
Church leaders must confront these charges like adults. When mistakes are made in the media, they are welcome to correct the record, but it is time they took full responsibility. Just leave us out of it.
Bruce S. Ticker can be contacted at Bticker@comcast.net.
New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, normally known to be a fine gentleman, implied to his flock that a second crucification might be approaching. Who was blamed for the first one?
Then a Vatican priest, the Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa, on Good Friday, of all days, likened the disparagement of Pope Benedict XVI to anti-Semitism. To call this comparison a stretch is a polite understatement. He was wise enough to apologize two days later, on Easter Day.
This frantic rhetoric is rooted in the sex abuse scandal that has finally been dropped onto the pontiff’s lap. Predictably, from Benedict on down church leaders have been defensive to the point of exploiting others, like the Jewish people.
Fortunately, I doubt if their approach will cause Jews any genuine harm. The Vatican’s influence in Europe and North America has thinned over the years. Most Catholics in those regions will probably not take these references seriously. I also give Dolan and Cantalamessa the benefit of the doubt that they intended no offense, and for the record I have long had both positive and negative feelings toward the Catholic Church.
The words uttered by Dolan and Cantalamessa are still potentially threatening, and both should have known better. The New York Daily News reported that Dolan told parishioners at Palm Sunday Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, “(Reforms) could never have happened without the insistence and support of the very man now being crowned with thorns by groundless innuendo.”
Asking if the church and the pope “need intense scrutiny and just criticism,” Dolan added, “All we ask is that it be fair and that the Catholic Church not be singled out for a horror that has cursed every culture, religion, organization, institution, school, agency and family in the world.”
Thousands of miles east, Cantalamessa was delivering a Good Friday sermon in St. Peter’s Basilica - with the pope in attendance - when he said the timing of Passover and Easter the same week prompted him to think of the Jews, according to The New York Times. “They know from experience what it means to be victims of collective violence, and also because of this they are quick to recognize the recurring symptoms,” he said.
The priest, who holds the title of preacher of the papal household, then quoted from what he noted was a letter from a Jewish friend whom he did not identify: “I am following the violent and concentric attacks against the pope and the faithful by the whole world. The use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt, remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism.”
Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi swiftly emphasized that the sermon reflected Cantalamessa’s thoughts and was not an official Vatican statement. He did not mention that Cantalamessa made these comments while serving in his official capacity for the Vatican, and the location was St. Peter’s Basilica.
So many distortions, so little space.
Benedict is not Jesus, and it is always risky to draw comparisons with a larger-than-life historical or religious figure. The New Testament recounts that Roman soldiers placed a crown of thorns atop Jesus’ head before he was crucified. The church for most of its existence blamed Jews and their descendents for the death of Jesus. Will the Jews be blamed for Benedict’s fate? Or will they replace us with another scapegoat?
When Dolan pleads for fair treatment, the scrutiny is in fact long overdue. It could be far worse. Sexual abuse is a serious crime, and anyone who shields sex abusers could also be vulnerable to prosecution.
If the church is being singled out, maybe that is due to the vast numbers of victims. These are hardly isolated incidents. It is a direct result of a scarcity of competent leadership. If the church had enacted firm policies and enforced them, church leaders would not feel they were under siege at this time.
It is ironic that Cantalamessa would compare this siege to anti-Semitism since the church perfected hatred of Jews to an art form. The knights who entered Jerusalem during the Crusades massacred not only Muslims but Jews as well. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella murdered, tortured, expelled and forcefully converted Spanish Jews to Catholicism.
Jews suffered from “collective violence,” but what church leaders (with one reported exception) have been subjected to violence over this?
Would nuns and priests stand for such excuses from students and parishioners?
Church leaders must confront these charges like adults. When mistakes are made in the media, they are welcome to correct the record, but it is time they took full responsibility. Just leave us out of it.
Bruce S. Ticker can be contacted at Bticker@comcast.net.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Loyalty test: Two 'big deals' for U.S. Jews
American Jews were treated to two Biden-style “big deals” - one good for the Jews, one not so good.
Most Jews probably cheered President Obama’s words when he signed the historic health-care bill into law: “The bill I’m signing will set in motion reforms that generations of Americans have fought for and marched for and hungered to see.”
Yet many of these same Jews were enraged and apprehensive later the same day when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu entered the White House for what must have been a let’s-have-it-out confrontation with our president.
Welcome to the unwanted netherworld of dual loyalty. Most American Jews feel fortunate to be both, American and Jewish. We love our country and our people, and in the past few weeks two monumental issues reached parallel boiling points. We can love President Obama for leading the drive for health-care reform, and we can be infuriated with our president for his administration’s abrasive reproach of Netanyahu over an irrelevant sideshow.
The vast majority of American Jews do not favor Israel’s interests over America’s interests. They never needed to decide between the two. They usually vote for Democrats or moderate Republicans who press for a progressive agenda while supporting Israel. They had the best of both worlds.
Some Jews vote for conservative candidates who would reduce services for the poor, lower taxes for the wealthy and launch questionable wars like Iraq, while bolstering even the most hawkish Israeli governments. They represent a minority of Jews here. A check of voting patterns shows that 75 to 80 percent of Jews vote for Democratic candidates each presidential election. Why would the majority of Jews favor the invasion of Iraq or tax breaks for the rich if they voted for Gore, Kerry and Obama?
True, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts voted for the Iraq war, but the alternative in 2004 was President Bush. Clearly, Kerry staunchly backs a progressive domestic agenda.
Obama’s 2008 campaign presented Jews with a potential dilemma. Obama’s plans for health care and other issues conformed with most Jewish attitudes, but his view of Israel was at best confusing. These conflicting concerns recently came to a head at the same time.
On Tuesday afternoon, March 23, the president made health-care reform the law of the land when he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Vice President Biden contributed a profanity-laced pronouncement that threatens to go down in history with White House proclamations like “Day of infamy” and “Ask what you can do for your country”: “This is a big (you-know-what) deal.”
Like other humane citizens, most Jews are pleased that more Americans will benefit from affordable health care, including the nation’s estimated 5.1 million Jews.
Rep. Henry Waxman, the subdued and astute congressman whose district covers Malibu, Beverly Hills and other obscenely rich areas, linked Jewish religious beliefs to health care, saying, “The meaning of the seder (at Passover) is that no one should be left behind. It means that everyone should have a seat at the table, that everyone should partake in the afikomen of freedom. On the secular level, that is what the health care bill means to millions of Americans.”
As chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Waxman was one of three committee chairs who influenced the shaping and movement of the legislation, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported. The organized Jewish community could benefit from wealthy donors whose charitable contributions were threatened by a proposed cut in tax deductions; the reduction did not go through. JTA reported that this might mean a windfall for 120 Jewish nursing homes, 145 Jewish family service agencies and 15 to 20 Jewish hospitals supported by the Federation system.
Another big darned deal was created on March 9 when an Israeli minister announced the construction of 1,600 housing units in an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in northeast Jerusalem. Biden was in Israel when he learned of it and twice publicly condemned the announcement. The vice president considered it a humiliating experience.
This should have been too petty a matter to bother Biden. This was Jerusalem, not the West Bank, which is necessary to create a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu apologized for the timing of the announcement, but on Friday, March 12, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu and spent 43 minutes berating him.
Interestingly, they all converged on Washington, D.C., a week later when both Clinton and Netanyahu addressed the premier pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, where Clinton declared that condemning the construction announcement was necessary to maintain “an atmosphere of trust.” Clinton’s statement prompts this pointed question: How does building housing units in a Jewish neighborhood spoil trust?
Netanyahu responded that evening with this memorable statement: “Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital.” The next day, Netanyahu engaged in tense talks with Obama’s team at the White House where the president made some unspecified demands. The prime minister left Washington without reaching an agreement.
Obama has some understandable concerns because Israeli cooperation could help improve America’s image in the Arab world. Bush’s policies - especially the invasion of Iraq - left Obama with a massive clean-up job of Arab attitudes toward America.
The president needs to understand that in the long run the Israeli/Arab situation will make no practical difference in other Arab nations. Reasonable steps by Israel would contribute to an upgraded perception, but Obama expects Netanyahu to go further.
After all, Netanyahu suspended expansion of West Bank settlements, but that was not enough for Arab leaders. This move emboldened them to demand elimination of construction in East Jerusalem before they would negotiate. Why? They are probably pressuring Israeli leaders to capitulate to a demand that they have yet to justify.
It is a positive step that Obama and Netanyahu attempted to compromise on their approach to the conflict, but they have not yet reached an agreement. Now Obama is reported to consider an American proposal for a peace settlement. Is this intended as a suggestion or a demand?
Quite a crazy making conundrum for moderate to liberal Jews who are tempted to seek an alternative to Obama. Bear in mind that the younger Bush eliminated Saddam Hussein as a counterweight to Iran, which now threatens to annihilate Israel with a nuclear device.
Obama is reported to be well aware that he needs the Jewish vote for his political health. He has a strange way of showing it.
Most Jews probably cheered President Obama’s words when he signed the historic health-care bill into law: “The bill I’m signing will set in motion reforms that generations of Americans have fought for and marched for and hungered to see.”
Yet many of these same Jews were enraged and apprehensive later the same day when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu entered the White House for what must have been a let’s-have-it-out confrontation with our president.
Welcome to the unwanted netherworld of dual loyalty. Most American Jews feel fortunate to be both, American and Jewish. We love our country and our people, and in the past few weeks two monumental issues reached parallel boiling points. We can love President Obama for leading the drive for health-care reform, and we can be infuriated with our president for his administration’s abrasive reproach of Netanyahu over an irrelevant sideshow.
The vast majority of American Jews do not favor Israel’s interests over America’s interests. They never needed to decide between the two. They usually vote for Democrats or moderate Republicans who press for a progressive agenda while supporting Israel. They had the best of both worlds.
Some Jews vote for conservative candidates who would reduce services for the poor, lower taxes for the wealthy and launch questionable wars like Iraq, while bolstering even the most hawkish Israeli governments. They represent a minority of Jews here. A check of voting patterns shows that 75 to 80 percent of Jews vote for Democratic candidates each presidential election. Why would the majority of Jews favor the invasion of Iraq or tax breaks for the rich if they voted for Gore, Kerry and Obama?
True, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts voted for the Iraq war, but the alternative in 2004 was President Bush. Clearly, Kerry staunchly backs a progressive domestic agenda.
Obama’s 2008 campaign presented Jews with a potential dilemma. Obama’s plans for health care and other issues conformed with most Jewish attitudes, but his view of Israel was at best confusing. These conflicting concerns recently came to a head at the same time.
On Tuesday afternoon, March 23, the president made health-care reform the law of the land when he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Vice President Biden contributed a profanity-laced pronouncement that threatens to go down in history with White House proclamations like “Day of infamy” and “Ask what you can do for your country”: “This is a big (you-know-what) deal.”
Like other humane citizens, most Jews are pleased that more Americans will benefit from affordable health care, including the nation’s estimated 5.1 million Jews.
Rep. Henry Waxman, the subdued and astute congressman whose district covers Malibu, Beverly Hills and other obscenely rich areas, linked Jewish religious beliefs to health care, saying, “The meaning of the seder (at Passover) is that no one should be left behind. It means that everyone should have a seat at the table, that everyone should partake in the afikomen of freedom. On the secular level, that is what the health care bill means to millions of Americans.”
As chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Waxman was one of three committee chairs who influenced the shaping and movement of the legislation, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported. The organized Jewish community could benefit from wealthy donors whose charitable contributions were threatened by a proposed cut in tax deductions; the reduction did not go through. JTA reported that this might mean a windfall for 120 Jewish nursing homes, 145 Jewish family service agencies and 15 to 20 Jewish hospitals supported by the Federation system.
Another big darned deal was created on March 9 when an Israeli minister announced the construction of 1,600 housing units in an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in northeast Jerusalem. Biden was in Israel when he learned of it and twice publicly condemned the announcement. The vice president considered it a humiliating experience.
This should have been too petty a matter to bother Biden. This was Jerusalem, not the West Bank, which is necessary to create a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu apologized for the timing of the announcement, but on Friday, March 12, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu and spent 43 minutes berating him.
Interestingly, they all converged on Washington, D.C., a week later when both Clinton and Netanyahu addressed the premier pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, where Clinton declared that condemning the construction announcement was necessary to maintain “an atmosphere of trust.” Clinton’s statement prompts this pointed question: How does building housing units in a Jewish neighborhood spoil trust?
Netanyahu responded that evening with this memorable statement: “Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital.” The next day, Netanyahu engaged in tense talks with Obama’s team at the White House where the president made some unspecified demands. The prime minister left Washington without reaching an agreement.
Obama has some understandable concerns because Israeli cooperation could help improve America’s image in the Arab world. Bush’s policies - especially the invasion of Iraq - left Obama with a massive clean-up job of Arab attitudes toward America.
The president needs to understand that in the long run the Israeli/Arab situation will make no practical difference in other Arab nations. Reasonable steps by Israel would contribute to an upgraded perception, but Obama expects Netanyahu to go further.
After all, Netanyahu suspended expansion of West Bank settlements, but that was not enough for Arab leaders. This move emboldened them to demand elimination of construction in East Jerusalem before they would negotiate. Why? They are probably pressuring Israeli leaders to capitulate to a demand that they have yet to justify.
It is a positive step that Obama and Netanyahu attempted to compromise on their approach to the conflict, but they have not yet reached an agreement. Now Obama is reported to consider an American proposal for a peace settlement. Is this intended as a suggestion or a demand?
Quite a crazy making conundrum for moderate to liberal Jews who are tempted to seek an alternative to Obama. Bear in mind that the younger Bush eliminated Saddam Hussein as a counterweight to Iran, which now threatens to annihilate Israel with a nuclear device.
Obama is reported to be well aware that he needs the Jewish vote for his political health. He has a strange way of showing it.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Rachel Corrie's foolish choice
Rachel Corrie took a stand for what she thought was a righteous cause. Maybe it was.
If Corrie had a significant concern, her response was not only self-destructive but also ineffective, a danger to others, a disruption of military operations and utter disregard for the rules of her host country.
Corrie was fatally injured seven years ago when she tried to block an Israel Defense Forces bulldozer from razing a home in Rafah near the Gaza/Egyptian border. She belonged to an organization called the International Solidarity Movement, which consisted mainly of Americans and Europeans devoted to helping Arabs in Israel’s territories.
Her death is the focus of a civil lawsuit which her family brought against the Israeli government for either intentionally killing her or taking negligent actions that contributed to her death. Court proceedings, which began in a Haifa courtroom on March 10, reflect seven years of rationalizing by her parents. They persist in ignoring that much responsibility for this tragedy must be attributed to their own daughter and her organization.
Maybe Israel was mistaken to level Arab homes in Gaza and the West Bank, but Corrie picked the wrong means of protesting the policy. The solution: Fight City Hall.
Corrie, of Olympia, Wash., was fortunate to grow up in a country with a democratic process that can lead to policy changes if a person takes advantage of the system. In turn, the United States can influence a democratic ally such as Israel to consider altering a questionable policy.
Israel’s practice of bulldozing Arab homes was often confusing. Sometimes it sounded necessary, sometimes not. Israel cited two prime reasons. First, the entry points for arms-smuggling tunnels were built under these homes. Secondly, Israel razed the homes of terrorists regardless if any family members were involved. The concern at least merited further inquiry.
The most serious concerns for Israeli policies in 2003 were the construction of settlements in hostile areas and questionable military operations.
Corrie and her friends could have challenged Israel’s demolition practice without leaving home, almost. They could have organized politically and lobbied the federal government. That would have meant forming an organization, collecting petitions, holding rallies, writing the president and members of Congress, and aligning themselves with diverse groups of people.
Many Jews might have joined such a drive then because common ground could be found between reasonable critics of Israel and mainstream supporters of the Jewish state. There were Jews who felt uncomfortable with both the right and the left, and probably would have participated in a centrist organization.
Perhaps such an initiative would have succeeded, but members of ISM flew to Israel and injected themselves into perilous activities. The bulldozer that targeted the house in Gaza was in a vicinity that was, for all practical purposes, a war zone.
When ISM members attempt to block military actions, they endanger the lives of others and themselves. Corrie jeopardized her own life by placing herself in front of the bulldozer. The driver was forced to react, and he claimed he did not see her, according to the military.
What actually happened may never be known. The prospect that Israel did anything wrong in this instance cannot be casually dismissed, but Corrie still put herself in harm’s way.
ISM members might argue that taking political action back home would have failed because of the influence of AIPAC, the premier pro-Israel lobbying organization, and the hawkish slant of the Bush administration. It would have been harder than today, but they would never know without trying.
Among current examples of lobbying, the Obama administration possibly influenced Israel to allow three Americans and a Briton to testify during the court proceedings, according to The Guardian of London. They have all been denied re-entry to Israel until now.
The witnesses, then ISM members, have been expected to testify that Israeli soldiers saw Corrie and other activists at the scene, and could have arrested or removed her before she risked her life, the Guardian reported.
Also, a left-leaning lobby called J Street has proven to be a player in Washington, D.C. J Street could have accommodated Corrie’s cause had the group existed seven years ago. The need for a J Street has diminished because Israeli policies have moderated, and J Street’s current positions are too rigid.
The Israeli military exonerated its troops and the bulldozer driver, but accused Corrie and the ISM of conduct that was “illegal, irresponsible and dangerous.” They were right. Corrie and friends could have been working toward the same goal in a manner that was legal, responsible and safe.
Bruce S. Ticker is a Philadelphia freelance journalist. He can be contacted Bticker@comcast.net.
If Corrie had a significant concern, her response was not only self-destructive but also ineffective, a danger to others, a disruption of military operations and utter disregard for the rules of her host country.
Corrie was fatally injured seven years ago when she tried to block an Israel Defense Forces bulldozer from razing a home in Rafah near the Gaza/Egyptian border. She belonged to an organization called the International Solidarity Movement, which consisted mainly of Americans and Europeans devoted to helping Arabs in Israel’s territories.
Her death is the focus of a civil lawsuit which her family brought against the Israeli government for either intentionally killing her or taking negligent actions that contributed to her death. Court proceedings, which began in a Haifa courtroom on March 10, reflect seven years of rationalizing by her parents. They persist in ignoring that much responsibility for this tragedy must be attributed to their own daughter and her organization.
Maybe Israel was mistaken to level Arab homes in Gaza and the West Bank, but Corrie picked the wrong means of protesting the policy. The solution: Fight City Hall.
Corrie, of Olympia, Wash., was fortunate to grow up in a country with a democratic process that can lead to policy changes if a person takes advantage of the system. In turn, the United States can influence a democratic ally such as Israel to consider altering a questionable policy.
Israel’s practice of bulldozing Arab homes was often confusing. Sometimes it sounded necessary, sometimes not. Israel cited two prime reasons. First, the entry points for arms-smuggling tunnels were built under these homes. Secondly, Israel razed the homes of terrorists regardless if any family members were involved. The concern at least merited further inquiry.
The most serious concerns for Israeli policies in 2003 were the construction of settlements in hostile areas and questionable military operations.
Corrie and her friends could have challenged Israel’s demolition practice without leaving home, almost. They could have organized politically and lobbied the federal government. That would have meant forming an organization, collecting petitions, holding rallies, writing the president and members of Congress, and aligning themselves with diverse groups of people.
Many Jews might have joined such a drive then because common ground could be found between reasonable critics of Israel and mainstream supporters of the Jewish state. There were Jews who felt uncomfortable with both the right and the left, and probably would have participated in a centrist organization.
Perhaps such an initiative would have succeeded, but members of ISM flew to Israel and injected themselves into perilous activities. The bulldozer that targeted the house in Gaza was in a vicinity that was, for all practical purposes, a war zone.
When ISM members attempt to block military actions, they endanger the lives of others and themselves. Corrie jeopardized her own life by placing herself in front of the bulldozer. The driver was forced to react, and he claimed he did not see her, according to the military.
What actually happened may never be known. The prospect that Israel did anything wrong in this instance cannot be casually dismissed, but Corrie still put herself in harm’s way.
ISM members might argue that taking political action back home would have failed because of the influence of AIPAC, the premier pro-Israel lobbying organization, and the hawkish slant of the Bush administration. It would have been harder than today, but they would never know without trying.
Among current examples of lobbying, the Obama administration possibly influenced Israel to allow three Americans and a Briton to testify during the court proceedings, according to The Guardian of London. They have all been denied re-entry to Israel until now.
The witnesses, then ISM members, have been expected to testify that Israeli soldiers saw Corrie and other activists at the scene, and could have arrested or removed her before she risked her life, the Guardian reported.
Also, a left-leaning lobby called J Street has proven to be a player in Washington, D.C. J Street could have accommodated Corrie’s cause had the group existed seven years ago. The need for a J Street has diminished because Israeli policies have moderated, and J Street’s current positions are too rigid.
The Israeli military exonerated its troops and the bulldozer driver, but accused Corrie and the ISM of conduct that was “illegal, irresponsible and dangerous.” They were right. Corrie and friends could have been working toward the same goal in a manner that was legal, responsible and safe.
Bruce S. Ticker is a Philadelphia freelance journalist. He can be contacted Bticker@comcast.net.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)