Response To My Palestine Essay
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
-----------------------------------------
First Quick Response to Your Article
-----------------------------------------
While agreeing that "One State" as a slogan or demand for the general
movement may be either too specific or not specific enough, I strongly
feel that "Stop the Occupation" is too narrow and historically
misleading as to the nature and origins of the conflict, at least if
"the Occupation" means the one that started with the 1967 war.
In my view, we must directly address the need for basic human rights,
democratization, and equality in _all_ parts of Palestine/Israel,
emphatically including Israel proper within its pre-1967 borders. This
means addressing and educating about the tragic legacy of the 1948 war
as well as the 1967 conflict, and heeding the voices of three distinct
but interacting Palestinian constituencies:
1. We must join the call of Palestinian Israelis such as
Azmi Bishara, Member of Knesset, for a democratic
Constitution (as mandated by United Nations General
Assembly Resolution 181) making Israel proper "a
state of all its citizens" and recognizing the
national rights of both Israeli Jews and Palestinian
Arabs.
2. We must, from a simple human rights perspective, join
millions of Palestinian refugees in calling for a
full, nontokenistic, implementation of the Right of
Return, a position supported by such organizations as
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
3. We must also, of course, call for some democratic resolution
of the situation in Gaza and the West Bank to end military
rule in the latter and a kind of open-air bantustan or indeed
prison in the former.
For me as a Jew, the issue of unification (which I see as the wiser
and more elegant choice) or some kind of "repartition" is not in
itself a central ethical issue. Ethnic cleansing, disenfranchisement,
and discrimination, however, are -- whether in the 1967 territories,
or in Israel proper.
One of the complications of discussing or debating a "two-state
solution" is that this phrase often serves as a "code word," rather as
the phrase "two-drinking-fountain solution" might have in the
Mississippi of 1960. A region such as Palestine/Israel might well have
two "states" of some sort both based on democracy, binationalism, and
ethnic diversity; and a building in MIssissippi might well have two
drinking fountains, accessible on a nondiscriminatory basis. However,
that is not what these slogans tend to imply in the relevant contexts.
Specifically, a "two-state solution" has tended to imply one which
avoids any basic political change within Israel proper which would
place Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews at some reasonable level of
parity; and which accordingly avoids any fair, nontokenistic, program
to implement the Right of Return within Israel.
The common slogan "Peace Through Separation" says it all, a slogan all
too unconfortably and relevantly like "Peace Through Segregation." I
cannot see a movement for peace and justice remaining silent about or
giving second priority to an injustice at the roots of the conflict,
the ethnic cleansing and marginalization of Palestinians displaced
from Israel proper during or in the years after the 1948 war, or
remaining there as second-class citizens subject to many of the same
forms of opporession we have decried in the 1967 territories (house
demolitions, for example, with "demographic" motivations).
Note that a slogan such as "Peace Through Integration and Diversity"
does not necessarily imply immediate unification of the country, for
example under the kind of scheme involving cantons or federal
districts which I would join with Emile Nakhleh and Lama Abu-Odeh in
advocating. It does imply the democratization of Israel proper:
through constitutional change (repairing the absence of a written
Constitution with nondiscriminatory clauses required by Resolution
181); and demographic change brought about by the Right of Return.
What we as activists in the USA can and must demand and educate
upon, it seems to me, is that Israel offer full equality and
enfranchisement under law to its rightful citizens, including those
Palestinian-Israelis who are already within its borders and all
refugees of 1948 (including descendants) who wish to return.
In response to the discussion in your article about refugee attitudes,
I would say that the critical question about "quotas" for return to
Israel is their size. Obviously the return of what could easily be
from one to two million people must be humane and orderly, and that
will take some time. The highest historical rates of Jewish
immigration to Israel in the period around and immediately after 1948
might provide one "ballpark" guideline. If the question is whether to
have a quota of 150,000 or 300,000 a year, I would call that a matter
for negotiation.
However, it seems to me that any friend of human rights must be alert
to the dangers of tokenism, including proposals to "implement the
Right of Return so that Israel's demographics will be preserved." That
is like integrating the University of Mississippi without changing its
demographic balance.
The basic demand that Israel offer full inclusion to its rightful
citizens leaves open the question of whether the residents of Gaza and
the West Bank (other than 1948 refugees who choose return to Israel
proper) should also become Israeli citizens. Here I would agree with
your position that it is a political question to be resolved by the
parties, although it seems to me appropriate that international
activists including those of us in the USA might join in an open
dialogue on possible arrangements.
Please let me candidly acknowledge the obvious: that my position is
likely to evoke much of the same resistance as a "One State" position
because it squarely confronts the need for democratic and demographic
change within Israel proper. To champion Palestinian-Israeli parity
and the Right of Return is precisely to advocate what many would call
"the demographic destruction of Israel."
Here I believe that we must respectfully but unequivocally join in the
fray, replying that likewise one might speak of the "demographic
destruction" of South Africa in the early 1990's, or of the State of
Mississippi in the 1960's. We must emphasize that an Israel
constitutionally premised on two equal nationalities would continue to
recognize the Israeli Jewish people as a co-founding national group,
not merely as a minority -- a point presciently made by the Rabbi
Judah L. Magnes some 60 years ago.
Further, of course, the Israeli Jews in such a new situation, much
like people of European origins in post-1994 South Africa, would
continue to enjoy immense economic and other advantages, underscoring
your point that the struggle for _de facto_ equality is likely to be a
long one. When inevitably confronted with "demographic destruction"
rhetoric, we can and should take the opportunity to inject a note of
realism and sanity by pointing these things out.
While supporting Palestinian-Israelis and refugees in their quest to
actualize basic human and civil rights is a moral imperative in
itself, I might add that it could be the best guarantee of a decent
future for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza -- those who remain
there, as well as many refugees of 1948 who would likely choose to
return to a democratic Israel.
If Palestinian-Israelis were 30-40% of the Israeli population, and
played an essential partnership role in Knesset coalitions, one might
guess that policies toward the 1967 territories would be radically
different, whatever the outcome as to unification. We would see
bridges rather than separation walls. Gaza and the West Bank might
become, at least for a while, some kind of "semiautonomous region" in
relation to Tel Aviv -- but a democratic and reasonably representative
Tel Aviv based on a binational partnership rather than Israeli-Jewish
hegemony.
In contrast, a "two-state solution" that does not address democracy
and equality within Israel proper might actually leave the growing
Palestinian-Israeli population, which poses a "demographic problem"
for Israeli-Jewish hegemony based on differential birthrates alone,
vulnerable to future attempts at induced or even forced displacement
in the name of "Peace Through Separation."
Having said this, I would add as a nonviolent activist that a balanced
campaign should seek a deescalation of violence and a humanization of
the people on all "sides" even as it struggles to clarify the root
issues of the conflict.
Thus our slogans, even as they frankly confront the human rights and
civil rights concerns at stake, should also offering reassurring
affirmation of our commitment to equal rights for Israeli Jews as well
as Palestinian Arabs: "For a Democratic and Diverse Israel" or "Peace
Through Integration."
To conclude, a focus on human and civil rights in all parts of
Palestine/Israel does not necessarily imply unification, but does
imply basic democratic and demographic change within Israel proper. It
implies giving special priority to Palestinian voices not so often
heard in the mass media: those of Palestinian-Israelis, and of refugees
who, if they choose to return, are also rightful Palestinian-Israeli
citizens.
I realize that for many people in the movement, addressing these
issues might seem not only to intensify but to redefine the conflict
in question. However, this should be a liberating and clarifying
experience, bringing to bear on the Middle East values we take for
granted in other conflicts involving ethnic equality and diversity --
and values courageously expressed by Palestinian Arabs and Israeli
Jews with a special power and eloquence, I would add.
While we in the USA indeed need to guard against the temptations of
hybris, we and other international activists may have a real power and
responsibility to help focus world attention on a Palestinian
spokesperson such as Azmi Bishara of the National Democratic Assembly
or Balad Party, for example.
Finally, while applying basic values such as ethnic equality and
diversity to Israel proper may indeed evoke what you term a "fanatical
response" from many Israeli Jews and others, it also opens the way for
a frank and respectable debate which could engage the involvement of
people in the peace and justice movement who have seen the question of
Palestine/Israel as a depressing territorial squabble seemingly beyond
any hope of solution.
A fuller response would go into more detail on existing UN resolutions
as a legal basis for ethnic equality and the Right of Return in
Israel, a basis sadly ignored since 1948. However, I feel that a
movement seeking justice must indeed look mainly forward, and hope
that what I have written may at least express some of the main points
and concerns I see at issue.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
mschulter@calweb.com
-----------------------------------------
First Quick Response to Your Article
-----------------------------------------
While agreeing that "One State" as a slogan or demand for the general
movement may be either too specific or not specific enough, I strongly
feel that "Stop the Occupation" is too narrow and historically
misleading as to the nature and origins of the conflict, at least if
"the Occupation" means the one that started with the 1967 war.
In my view, we must directly address the need for basic human rights,
democratization, and equality in _all_ parts of Palestine/Israel,
emphatically including Israel proper within its pre-1967 borders. This
means addressing and educating about the tragic legacy of the 1948 war
as well as the 1967 conflict, and heeding the voices of three distinct
but interacting Palestinian constituencies:
1. We must join the call of Palestinian Israelis such as
Azmi Bishara, Member of Knesset, for a democratic
Constitution (as mandated by United Nations General
Assembly Resolution 181) making Israel proper "a
state of all its citizens" and recognizing the
national rights of both Israeli Jews and Palestinian
Arabs.
2. We must, from a simple human rights perspective, join
millions of Palestinian refugees in calling for a
full, nontokenistic, implementation of the Right of
Return, a position supported by such organizations as
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
3. We must also, of course, call for some democratic resolution
of the situation in Gaza and the West Bank to end military
rule in the latter and a kind of open-air bantustan or indeed
prison in the former.
For me as a Jew, the issue of unification (which I see as the wiser
and more elegant choice) or some kind of "repartition" is not in
itself a central ethical issue. Ethnic cleansing, disenfranchisement,
and discrimination, however, are -- whether in the 1967 territories,
or in Israel proper.
One of the complications of discussing or debating a "two-state
solution" is that this phrase often serves as a "code word," rather as
the phrase "two-drinking-fountain solution" might have in the
Mississippi of 1960. A region such as Palestine/Israel might well have
two "states" of some sort both based on democracy, binationalism, and
ethnic diversity; and a building in MIssissippi might well have two
drinking fountains, accessible on a nondiscriminatory basis. However,
that is not what these slogans tend to imply in the relevant contexts.
Specifically, a "two-state solution" has tended to imply one which
avoids any basic political change within Israel proper which would
place Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews at some reasonable level of
parity; and which accordingly avoids any fair, nontokenistic, program
to implement the Right of Return within Israel.
The common slogan "Peace Through Separation" says it all, a slogan all
too unconfortably and relevantly like "Peace Through Segregation." I
cannot see a movement for peace and justice remaining silent about or
giving second priority to an injustice at the roots of the conflict,
the ethnic cleansing and marginalization of Palestinians displaced
from Israel proper during or in the years after the 1948 war, or
remaining there as second-class citizens subject to many of the same
forms of opporession we have decried in the 1967 territories (house
demolitions, for example, with "demographic" motivations).
Note that a slogan such as "Peace Through Integration and Diversity"
does not necessarily imply immediate unification of the country, for
example under the kind of scheme involving cantons or federal
districts which I would join with Emile Nakhleh and Lama Abu-Odeh in
advocating. It does imply the democratization of Israel proper:
through constitutional change (repairing the absence of a written
Constitution with nondiscriminatory clauses required by Resolution
181); and demographic change brought about by the Right of Return.
What we as activists in the USA can and must demand and educate
upon, it seems to me, is that Israel offer full equality and
enfranchisement under law to its rightful citizens, including those
Palestinian-Israelis who are already within its borders and all
refugees of 1948 (including descendants) who wish to return.
In response to the discussion in your article about refugee attitudes,
I would say that the critical question about "quotas" for return to
Israel is their size. Obviously the return of what could easily be
from one to two million people must be humane and orderly, and that
will take some time. The highest historical rates of Jewish
immigration to Israel in the period around and immediately after 1948
might provide one "ballpark" guideline. If the question is whether to
have a quota of 150,000 or 300,000 a year, I would call that a matter
for negotiation.
However, it seems to me that any friend of human rights must be alert
to the dangers of tokenism, including proposals to "implement the
Right of Return so that Israel's demographics will be preserved." That
is like integrating the University of Mississippi without changing its
demographic balance.
The basic demand that Israel offer full inclusion to its rightful
citizens leaves open the question of whether the residents of Gaza and
the West Bank (other than 1948 refugees who choose return to Israel
proper) should also become Israeli citizens. Here I would agree with
your position that it is a political question to be resolved by the
parties, although it seems to me appropriate that international
activists including those of us in the USA might join in an open
dialogue on possible arrangements.
Please let me candidly acknowledge the obvious: that my position is
likely to evoke much of the same resistance as a "One State" position
because it squarely confronts the need for democratic and demographic
change within Israel proper. To champion Palestinian-Israeli parity
and the Right of Return is precisely to advocate what many would call
"the demographic destruction of Israel."
Here I believe that we must respectfully but unequivocally join in the
fray, replying that likewise one might speak of the "demographic
destruction" of South Africa in the early 1990's, or of the State of
Mississippi in the 1960's. We must emphasize that an Israel
constitutionally premised on two equal nationalities would continue to
recognize the Israeli Jewish people as a co-founding national group,
not merely as a minority -- a point presciently made by the Rabbi
Judah L. Magnes some 60 years ago.
Further, of course, the Israeli Jews in such a new situation, much
like people of European origins in post-1994 South Africa, would
continue to enjoy immense economic and other advantages, underscoring
your point that the struggle for _de facto_ equality is likely to be a
long one. When inevitably confronted with "demographic destruction"
rhetoric, we can and should take the opportunity to inject a note of
realism and sanity by pointing these things out.
While supporting Palestinian-Israelis and refugees in their quest to
actualize basic human and civil rights is a moral imperative in
itself, I might add that it could be the best guarantee of a decent
future for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza -- those who remain
there, as well as many refugees of 1948 who would likely choose to
return to a democratic Israel.
If Palestinian-Israelis were 30-40% of the Israeli population, and
played an essential partnership role in Knesset coalitions, one might
guess that policies toward the 1967 territories would be radically
different, whatever the outcome as to unification. We would see
bridges rather than separation walls. Gaza and the West Bank might
become, at least for a while, some kind of "semiautonomous region" in
relation to Tel Aviv -- but a democratic and reasonably representative
Tel Aviv based on a binational partnership rather than Israeli-Jewish
hegemony.
In contrast, a "two-state solution" that does not address democracy
and equality within Israel proper might actually leave the growing
Palestinian-Israeli population, which poses a "demographic problem"
for Israeli-Jewish hegemony based on differential birthrates alone,
vulnerable to future attempts at induced or even forced displacement
in the name of "Peace Through Separation."
Having said this, I would add as a nonviolent activist that a balanced
campaign should seek a deescalation of violence and a humanization of
the people on all "sides" even as it struggles to clarify the root
issues of the conflict.
Thus our slogans, even as they frankly confront the human rights and
civil rights concerns at stake, should also offering reassurring
affirmation of our commitment to equal rights for Israeli Jews as well
as Palestinian Arabs: "For a Democratic and Diverse Israel" or "Peace
Through Integration."
To conclude, a focus on human and civil rights in all parts of
Palestine/Israel does not necessarily imply unification, but does
imply basic democratic and demographic change within Israel proper. It
implies giving special priority to Palestinian voices not so often
heard in the mass media: those of Palestinian-Israelis, and of refugees
who, if they choose to return, are also rightful Palestinian-Israeli
citizens.
I realize that for many people in the movement, addressing these
issues might seem not only to intensify but to redefine the conflict
in question. However, this should be a liberating and clarifying
experience, bringing to bear on the Middle East values we take for
granted in other conflicts involving ethnic equality and diversity --
and values courageously expressed by Palestinian Arabs and Israeli
Jews with a special power and eloquence, I would add.
While we in the USA indeed need to guard against the temptations of
hybris, we and other international activists may have a real power and
responsibility to help focus world attention on a Palestinian
spokesperson such as Azmi Bishara of the National Democratic Assembly
or Balad Party, for example.
Finally, while applying basic values such as ethnic equality and
diversity to Israel proper may indeed evoke what you term a "fanatical
response" from many Israeli Jews and others, it also opens the way for
a frank and respectable debate which could engage the involvement of
people in the peace and justice movement who have seen the question of
Palestine/Israel as a depressing territorial squabble seemingly beyond
any hope of solution.
A fuller response would go into more detail on existing UN resolutions
as a legal basis for ethnic equality and the Right of Return in
Israel, a basis sadly ignored since 1948. However, I feel that a
movement seeking justice must indeed look mainly forward, and hope
that what I have written may at least express some of the main points
and concerns I see at issue.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
posted by Steve Fake at 11:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home