Turning to President Barack Obama and his speech at the Department of State, about a quarter of the way through his speech today the President says:
So we face a historic opportunity.But, this isn't about Israel and Palestine, but about Tunisia.
About 60% of the way through the talk the President lays out a Four Point economic plan for supporting democracy in the area. It is after that important statement that the President turns to the issue of Palestine and Israel.
I think these are fair and balanced words by our President:
For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.Those are all good words, but here are the words that may cause the most heartburn:
As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it's important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.
We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.It seems not unreasonable to me, except for that "contiguous" part. With the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, how can it be "contiguous"?
OK, so Israel says fine, we are pulling back to the 1967 borders, except as negotiated between us and Palestine. Does that bring peace?
If Palestine won't make any changes to the border and Israel just pulls back unilaterally, will that be peace?
If, after Israel pulls back to the 1967 borders and sponsors a UN Resolution proclaiming a State of Palestine, is that peace?
What about the right of return? What is fair? Or, how many Palestinians being allowed back into Israel is fair?
If, at the end, nothing satisfies the Palestinians and their Arab and Iranian supporters, where do the Israeli People go? Europe? Would you want to go back to Europe, if your grandparents had died in the death camps?
Regards — Cliff
I feel you unfairly single out Palestinian intransigence for your list of closing questions. One of the two most prominent features of the present situation is "what if Israel insists on continuing to confiscate Palestinian land"--all the "say they pull back" questions are entirely moot. (The other being violence against citizens on both sides).
ReplyDeleteThe predominant fact is that Israelis have done to displaced Palestinians everything short of gassing them--they've confiscated land, they've confiscated property, they've interned civilians in de facto concentration camps, (albeit, perhaps, only slightly less brutal, even though every bit as inhuman and hopeless, and don't make me start with the white phosphorous evidence again), and they have refused to treat them as equally important human beings in the eyes of God and the law.
I think Obama's comment that "the status quo is unsustainable" is the breakthrough quote. We have too long supported the Israeli regime's policy of oppression and confiscation, and entrenched their position from which compromise is impossible. Just as surely as the Diaspora were displaced, the Palestinian populations in Gaza and elsewhere have been just the same, and you can't give the same piece of land to two different people--you simply can't--and the problems all cascade from there.
The answer may indeed involve repatriation of Europeans to Europe--my Protestant ancestors were genocided out of the Rhineland Palatinate by Catholic oppressors, but I'd hardly consider any question about settling there to be affected by that. Sooner or later we have to stop blaming the Nazis and the Bolsheviks for things they no longer have sway to influence, and accept that the rule of law is best applied to the present, and not the however-distant past.
This is one more ongoing example of Imperial America poking its nose in places that we have no REAL stake. The land under protest has been under protest for centuries before the birth of Jesus, and those conflicts have continued unabated ever since.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of modern conflict, the League of Nations managed to add to the conflict by giving the British Empire "custodial" control of the region while simultaneously recognizing the Jewish state through the Zionist papers filed circa 1917. Then, in typical BE fashion, the British did an effective Pontious Pilate in the late thirties by issuing a White Paper effectively denying the Jewish state's desire to exist.
Who is entitled to the land and how much of it? Who knows? Certainly Obama's "directive" that Israel return to the boundaries of 1967 are as arbitrary and capricious as suggesting that they be established by the boundaries established during the Roman rule of the region...or perhaps the Hellenic rule....or the Ottoman rule.
One thing is perfectly clear, history suggests almost emphatically that this is an age old conflict of a tribal nature, one that has never been adequately resolved, and will likely never be resolved in the future.
These are matters in which the US has absolutely no vital interest, and would wisely avoid further entanglement. The ONLY reason for our involvement since 1948 is the Jewish political presence in the US political world.
Freedom and Israel were put on Earth by God. The sooner we grasp that, the sooner we will grasp the neo-con mind set.
ReplyDeleteOf course, once the Muslims are removed, the Jews will be re-branded as "Christ Killers."
Bet that!
Actually, I thought, given the President's call to return to the 1967 borders that my questions were fair enough. This is a blog and not a Masters Degree Thesis.
ReplyDeleteAs for going back to Europe, are Israelis "Europeans", as Kad suggests, or are they Semites? Interesting implications in that.
If the Israelis return to Europe, where do they go? Can we channel them all to Germany? Will they be able to reclaim their family homes in France, Belgium and Holland?
As for Neal's point, I think it misses the debt we (as part of the West) owe the Jews over the Holocaust. As Kad notes, this debt won't go on for ever. However, it still exists.
Jack might be right, but I don't think it is the way to bet.
And, isn't it being muted about that President Obama is moving toward more of a "Neo-con" position.
Regards — Cliff
I don't think Obama has a choice in re a Neocon position on Israel. I don't think any US President has had a choice since 1948....and arguably since the mid-30's.
ReplyDeleteI think in re the question of "them" being Europeans or semites is a matter of how each individual perceives his or her zeitgeist. I think one could easily be a European and a Jew.....but for many...the adaptation would have to be on the part of the European neighborhood.....not the other way around.
I don't think anyone is talking about a mass resettlement....well...except perhaps the Palestinians....and they've been urging that for centuries....
I didn't miss the point of what we "owe" the Jews. I ignored it. I for one am absolutely bone tired of having to bear the burden of sins long past done. I was not even a tadpole when Hitler began to persecute the German Jews...and Lenin had a huge jump on Uncle Adolph....so why am I still having to feel guilt? Same with all of the other "offenses" against WASPs. I didn't do it......and I have no immediate evidence that any of my family members did anything to anyone....so I am long past over it. Sure....whatever happened was horrible...slavery....extermination and so on.....but hey....whole civilizations have been wiped out by others throughout history.....
My suggestion....those whose ancestors were so afflicted need to get over it...and the rest of us need to get over the guilt trip......
I probably would say the same thing if this was a Master's thesis.....but...since its a blog.....
I only mention return to Europe in order to point out that the absence of a place for Jews in Europe now that their possessions and property are stolen is no less poignant that the absence of a place for refugee Palestinians in Palestine now that their possessions and property are taken from them, too. I find it hard to find patience for arguments against Jews returning to Europe, because they would be the same arguments that should have been used to invalidate the taking of Palestinian land to form a Jewish state. But here we are.
ReplyDeletean argument with which I completely agree. My only point...and my disgust over...is that we have no business taking sides on an issue that has transcended the history of that area of the Middle East, an issue that is so muddled by time that one can't really even lay claim to original tribal membership....whatever that means. Within the Christian religion, there is still much discussion about who Jesus belonged to.....many claim he is a Jew...and yet, much in scripture would suggest otherwise.
ReplyDeleteAnd if we are so strongly in support of supporting Israel's claim that the area occupied and claimed by the Jewish state is "homeland" denied them, then what is the difference between that and suppressing the various claims by various Indian tribes that their tribal lands were illegally taken from them? Frankly, I don't see much difference. Well...I suppose we did drive them onto Federal reservations....the Palestinians don't get that much.....
Given our own history of American Imperialism....I think out position on Israel is at least hypocritical.....
"Much in scripture would suggest otherwise"???
ReplyDeleteThe genealogy in Luke 3 and Matthew 1 is pretty clear as far as I'm and most folks are concerned. Other folks with neo-religious-political agendae can obfuscate all they want, but scripture and history make little room for alternate opinions that don't place those alternate opinions directly into the "fantasy" category.
I never said what I personally believe, nor will I on a blog as it is really nobody's business but mine and God's. However, many learned Christian researchers would take exception to your sweeping assumptions Kad....all respect due. And frankly, w/r to which tribe Jesus was descendant from is quite a pointless discussion as He is the Son of God, God come to live among Man....He is now and was then far above the tribalism that infected the day...and continues to infect today.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet...which is my point....many of those tribes claim Jesus as their own, and thus, exclusive right to land which was, and always will be, God's creation for all.
But...we humans LOVE to play games....God likes ME best.....
Among other things, John 4:22 puts the words directly in Jesus' mouth.
ReplyDeleteI've seen the nonsense that attempts to muddy the water with farfetched conclusions based on the ambiguity of geographic dispersal, but the genealogy is clear (Matthew anticipates this nonsense right from Chapter 1) and the fact that Jesus lived as a Jew is uncontestable. He was circumcized, (Luke 2), his uncle, Zachariah was a priest, (Luke 1), his disciples called him "Rabbi", and Jesus and they all spoke Hebrew (John 1). His Sermon on the Mount affirmed his belief in the Torah, (Matthew 5), and he taught in the Jewish temple (Luke 21), and Jewish law would have forbidden even his presence there if he were not. Roman law remanded him to the Jews for judgment, which would not have occurred were he not Jewish as well, and he was buried in a Jewish burial ground.
You can thank Lutheran Sunday School for my wealth of information and dearth of humor on this, but, seriously, this is settled both in the religious scripture as well as by scholarly history. If by "learned Christian researchers" you mean men with an agenda, you can leave me out of the propaganda blitz.
Talking to negotiations—trying to move past who Jesus is, someone made this comment in another forum:
ReplyDeleteQUOTE
...also a constant source of anger for Palestinians—much of Israel's water comes from Palestinian aquifers. I'm not sure that's a deal-breaker, but it's important. The Israelis also get water from southern Lebanon and—and this would be funny if it were not so serious—the two countries almost got into a firefight after the 2000 withdrawal when some farmer's goat fell down a ditch and plugged up a pump that was being used to supply water to an Israeli community across the Blue Line.
UNQUOTE
There are a lot of things to work out here.
Regards — Cliff
I don't dispute your beliefs Kad, in fact (and I said I wouldn't do this) I agree with your bio sketch and am about as conservative as you can get. Both of my sons are deacons in their respective evangelical churches, so there is little room in my family for divergent conclusions...and I raised them that way.
ReplyDeleteMy point in even bringing it up is that religion is an underlying but defining thread in the whole mess, particularly in terms of birthright as bestowed by God via Jesus the Christ. This adds a very deeply emotional component that defies political process I believe.
Some will further argue that it is Israel's destiny to bring about Armageddon in their resolute mission to restore the original Holy Land, a sort of commentary on Good vs. Evil...if one gets into allegory....for myself...as a disclaimer.....I am not certain precisely what Revelations is telling us other than the end state. I'll leave interpretation to the "learned people."
My point, perhaps exactly like yours, is that while essential facts are denied in support of otherwise indefensible "beliefs", that no earthly compromise is possible. We have earthly laws, and while they are ignored in favor of "faith-based" ones, we all lose. "Illegal settlements" are just that. There's no amount of "belief" that changes that. But making room for those beliefs in the enforcement of law is wrong. And it's doubly wrong when those "beliefs" are outright hallucinations. Jesus was a Jew. Period.
ReplyDeleteAlong those lines, I tire of those playing "what-if" games with scenarios that skip well past the "illegal" parts of our present situation. It's illegal to kill civilians. It's just as illegal for armies with white phosphorous weapons to kill civilians as it is for "terrorists" to do so with homemade incendiaries, and it's illegal for governments to insist that settlements made on an illegal basis have to be protected in any future compromise.
Any solution that fails to respect that will fail.
HA!! You are right Kad....killing in the name of God is killing......and I'm pretty sure that God doesn't chose up sides....but "hey"....I'm just a traveler along the road to......
ReplyDeleteYour posit is precisely why failure is all but guaranteed in any attempted resolution in the Middle East....
I reiterate too that it is my humble belief that the US is very wrong to take up sides in this....or frankly...any other conflict among people's in the world unless it rises to the level of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan and threatens our own national security. Then, I believe we are correct in applying whatever force is needed to negate that threat.
And while the holocaust was absolutely reprehensible beyond words, we can't let than continue to bind us to partisanship in ME conflicts. That the Jews were unbelievably wronged in Nazi Germany is not a de facto justification for Israel taking some of the aggressive "defensive" actions they've engaged in.