Stop the Murders of Israelis and Palestinians

[Resistance]

From Tikkun weekly mail, which is posted for now at:

http://www.tikkun.org/tikkunmail/index.cfm

Stop the Murders of Israelis and Palestinians

How many more will have to die?
by RABBI MICHAEL LERNER

How many more will have to die before both sides realize that their fantasies of revenge, or as Sharon put it, of "liquidating" the enemy, are pure pipe dreams, and bring nothing but more violence and murder?

These are the realities:


There will be no peace for Israel, no safety, no matter how many walls they build or how repressive they get, until the Occupation ends. Anyone who wants to save Israeli lives has got to focus on that. Don't waste your time on this or that detail—funding or not funding this amount of West Bank settlers, stopping the Wall or not stopping the Wall, unless at the very moment you are doing that you are explicitly educating people about what a final settlement could look like and why it has to happen NOW.

There will be no safety for Palestinians if they can't find a way to stop the people who want to disrupt any chance of peace. But they are powerless to stop them as long as the objective conditions are so intolerable. Imagine trying to convince someone whose family member was just killed because they happened to be living near a target for assassination by Israel, or someone who knows a person whose baby was miscarried because she was not let through an Israeli checkpoint, or someone whose house was demolished in order to make room for the new Wall Israel is constucting (its so-called "security fence") right through the West Bank. It's an impossible task, and if we make that the condition for negotiations, the struggle will just keep going on. What we can ask from the Palestinians, in fact demand it, is that the PA start explaining to their own people why the acts of violence actually undermine any possibility of building a peace perspective inside Israel.

The U.S. is the only hope—though a thin reed to be sure. It could intervene immediately to stop the violence by creating an international force (and in the process, it would give new strength and revived credibility to the UN if that force were created by and through the UN) to separate and protect each side from the other (though in truth, nothing will protect Israelis effectively till the Occupation ends, and until Israelis act in a generous spirit and a spirit of repentance for their side of the responsbility. And, no, it's not just Israel's fault, and the responsibility is not one-sided, but Israel's attempts to assassinate the leadership of Hamas is going to put more and more Israelis in danger of losing their lives, and it's a stupid and immoral and self-destructive strategy that will not work.
Our job is to get the U.S. more fully and seriously involved—not with these puny little statements of regret, but with powerful actions. And to demand of the candidates who are seeking our support for President, Congress, Senate, and whatever else in 2004 to make strong and unequivocal statements that support our position. Don't settle for less now—because now they need you, whereas once elected they won't.

(snipped the rest)

[Brucey]

1. Let's hope that "US is the only hope"

is garbage, since there will be no hope until at least 2004 election is over (and Dems win!). In the meantime the middle east should look elsewhere for peace negotiators.

[Resistance]

2. and how is the Dem position any different from the Republican?

[Resistance]

19. Hello - anyone?

To repeat: How is the position of the Democrats toward the conflict in Palestine any different from the Republican one? - certainly someone out there can make an attempt at defending the Democrats here.

Or is the Democratic stance too obviously pathetic to risk throwing yourself into the fire?

I think you know the answer.

[Jackie97]

17. I don't see hope in the US or the UN for this......

Especially since the UN is the puppet of the US. The US needs to stop funding Israel. Maybe Israel and the Palestinians need to be left to solve their own problems (with some help to the Palestinians to build an army to defend themselves with of course. Israel has one, they need one too).

[nn2004]

3. Platitudes

Lerner almost spits out as harsh a lashing against the suiciders as he spanked Israel with but then goes on to justify their actions with:

"Imagine trying to convince someone whose family member was just killed because they happened to be living near a target for assassination by Israel, or someone who knows a person whose baby was miscarried because she was not let through an Israeli checkpoint, or someone whose house was demolished in order to make room for the new Wall Israel is constucting"

That could have just as well read:

Imagine trying to convince someone whose family member was just killed because they happened to be a Jew eating pizza, or someone who knows a person whose baby was blown to pieces by a bus bomber, or someone whose house was demolished in a drive-by suicide bombing.

Until suicide bomb aplogists quit validating murder there will never be peace. Sorry Lerner, keep trying...you're getting warmer.

[Resistance]

4. do you also have a problem with

Israeli apologists who validate murder, land theft, collective punishment, and the razing of farms and arable land?

[nn2004]

6. I would have a problem if I saw acts of

murder, land theft, collective punishment, and the razing of farms and arable land against random innocent people.

It doesn't matter what I support because I'm not on a bully pulpit writing stories that millions of people directly involved in the conflict will read. My observations of the platitudes Lerner displays are just that...observations. Nothing personal.

[jos]

13. Huh?

Land is being confiscated on an ongoing basis. Farms are being raised to build the "wall." Collective punishment is being meted out in the form of destruction of houses of the families of suicide bombers and the like, and of apartment buildings, simply because a "terrorist" was living there.

[The Magistrate]

8. The On-Going Theft Of Land, Mr. Resistance

Being conducted by Israel in the territories overrun in '67 is wrong: it ought to stop. Further, Israel ought to begin dismantling settlements, and should do so irregardless of the activities of various armed Arab Palestinian bodies.

Much of the rest is more open to debate. What you call collective punishment and murder are, for the most part, to me and many others, only the normal conduct of war against guerrilla forces, that conceal themselves among a population. There will certainly be incidents of excess, but the general pattern is not so: it is a necessity of the circumstance currently existing.

Further, there is a distinction of degree between taking property and taking life, that it is wise to remember in formulating equivalencies for purposes of debate.

[Resistance]

10. a couple of points

On your opinion towards the on-going theft of land, I would like to ask, which Democrat even feigns to suggest the wrong-ness of it, or *god forbid* dares to suggest that it "ought to stop" "irregardless" of actions taken on the Palestinian side - as you do? Even you, Magistrate, can be portrayed as a 'radical' on the issue.

On the subject which you claim is "open to debate": the collective punishment and murders - do you really believe (or expect us to believe) that even though 3 times more Palestinians have been killed than Israelis, that all, or most, those casualties fall in the category of 'accidental' and/or 'collateral damage'? How many "incidents of excess" do you really think is going on? 1 or 2 here and there? Or is it possible, to you, that there is a clear strategy here of murder and aggression (and, ultimately, dispossession) which is being carried out under a deceptive disguise of 'self-defense' which includes clever excuse making such as the 'unfortunate' "necessity of the circumstance"?

I know you have a point on the distinction between taking land and taking a life, however, they are both war crimes, and both deserve serious questioning as to whether or not we as Americans want to continue to support it or not.

[Gimel]

14. Palestinians deaths

This total also includes the suicide bombers (death by own hand) and deaths by the Palestinians side on its own people. Shall we go back to the categories posted earlier? About half of the Palestinian deaths are militants. A decided majority of the Israeli deaths are non-combatent women and children.


http://www.idf.il/daily_statistics/english/1.doc

http://www.ict.org.il/casualties_project/stats_page.cfm

[Resistance]

23. General Reginald Dyer

also claimed that a "concentration of rebels" existed amongst the crowd which he ordered gunned down in Amritsar, India in April 1919.

How easy it is for some to cling to the excuses which appear to justify the murders of innocents that happen to the 'other side'.

[Gimel]

35. No relation

But then again, the Palestinians claim that all Israelis own guns and so they can murder anyone on the street and call it justified.

[Resistance]

36. how could you fail to see the point?

Dyer fired upon that crowd of civilians, with the justification that a "concentration of rebels" existed within.

Israel fires missiles upon crowds of civilians, with the justification that "members of Hamas" exist within.

Do you think General Dyer was wrong? Or justified.

[Resistance]

37. as a sidenote which might be worth consideration

Dyer was favorably welcomed by the conservative Tories upon his return to London, with some calling him the "savior of India".

The British army charged him with "error in judgement".

And a British court acquitted him of the charge.

[Gimel]

38. Mistaken

Israel fires missiles upon crowds of civilians, with the justification that "members of Hamas" exist within.

There was never a firing of missiles into crowds. The only firing resulted in no casualties, so you can't claim that the firing at a crowd was a crime. Building only were hit.

[The Magistrate]

15. The Question Of Settlements, Sir

Is one that would meet approval from a large part of the people of our country. You may recall dismantling of settlements formed a key plank of even the plan proposed by the current administration: Sharon's refusal of any but the barest cosmetic action regarding this did as much to doom that plan as any action by the other side. Even a majority of the Israeli populace supports the dismantling of settlements as part of a final peace. It seems true to me as well that a Democratic administration, knowing the great bulk of its voters support such a policy, would be better placed to insist on its execution: the Christian Zionists, etc., mostly vote for the other side, and their outrage need have little effect if our's is in power.

As to casualties among Arab Palestinians, fully half of those killed are indeed members of combatant bodies, without question legitimate targets in a state of war such as exists between the two peoples. Of the remainder, the greatest proportion have indeed had the fatal misfortune of being near military operations aimed at legitimate targets. This is a thing greatly to be regretted, and a leading argument, to my view, for serious action to end the conflict on both sides. But so long as partisan forces conceal themselves among a civilian populace, itself a practical necessity for their operations, it is an unavoidable consequence of military action against them, a thing that is also a necessity so long as hostilities continue. The responsibility for such casualties rests upon both parties, not just one: though the analogy is minor, it is rather similar to an accident where one party runs a stop sign while speeding, and the other is speeding with faulty brakes: both make a material contribution to the resultant carnage.

Measures such as checkpoints and travel restrictions and curfews, that you would likely characterize as collective punishments, are the time-tested techniques of guerrilla suppression, and are employed because they are effective. They greatly hamper movement and communication by the guerrilla force, and serve roughly the same purpose as an interdiction barrage does in conventional war. That they cause distress to the civilian populace is true, but again, that is not their particular purpose, and they do have direct military value. In their enforcement, there are many incidents we would agree are excesses.

To your larger point, Sir, no, it does not seem to me there is a strategy of murder and dispossession being carried out under guise of self defense, and for my part, recognition of necessity in life amounts to a moral credo. You may well disagree, and could probably support your position ablely. There is, certainly, one way to test your proposition: that would be if the attacks against Israeli civilians came to a halt, and sustained that halt indefinately, while the political speech of Arab Palestinian leadership of all stripes proclaimed in no uncertain terms its willingness to live alongside Israel in peace and cooperation. If the conduct of Israel continued to be that of a party at war in all regards, you would be vindicated, and you would also find me condemning the behavior of Israel in the strongest terms alongside you.

[Resistance]

20. I agree

that a Democratic administration would be better suited to insist on dismantlement of the illegal settlements; however, I am extremely put off by the recent remarks made by Joe Lieberman and other Democrats who have attacked Dean for suggesting an "even-handed approach" - a statement which now Dean is saying he regrets making. How much can we really expect when even Democrats must very carefully guard their words in their approach to any criticism of (let alone take any punitive action towards) the GOI?

And remember, this isn't anything new - when Bush criticized an Israeli missile strikes upon crowds of civilians a couple months ago, it was Democrats who turned and criticized Bush for daring to sympathize with Palestinian victims.

I would ask you to revisit your knowledge of the recent history of the region, when you say you do not see any strategy of murder and dispossession - in fact the State itself was founded on just such a strategy. In my view, that strategy continues to this day. I believe you can learn more from actions than from words. The actions show that the intent, ultimately, is to dispossess as much land as possible from the original owners (Palestinians), and in the meantime, to continue the eye-for-an-eye cycle of violence because as long as that remains, Israel can use that for cover while continuing to create the 'facts on the ground'.

Let's face it - Israel and the United States are the ones with the real power to end this thing. They refuse to do so because those parties place higher priorities over peace and stability. Namely, theft of land for Israel, a strong military presence in the oil-rich Middle East for the U.S., and money all around for the defense industries.

[The Magistrate]

21. Well, Sir

Clearly, on some elements of this matter we will have to agree to disagree: that is no new thing, certainly. My view of both the more distant and recent history in this matter differs from yours, and we will not likely reconcile our views of it.

Sen. Lieberman certainly will not be the nominee of the Democratic Party: Gov. Dean might well be. If he wins, we shall see what he does, and a statement such as the one you reference may be an indication of his course, should he be secure in office. Politicians, like children, say the darndest things during campaigns, and persons who cannot talk out of both sides of their mouths during a campaign are not fit to hold office after one.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. No, it's not open to debate...

"Amnesty International today condemned the demolition of dozens of homes in Rafah, in the south of the Gaza Strip, as an act of collective punishment and a grave breach of international humanitarian law."

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE150052002

I don't really see how anyone can justify the demolition of homes as 'only the normal conduct of war against guerrila forces that conceal themselves among a population...


Violet...

[Resistance]

24. great point.

if any organization can be called even-handed and unbiased towards any political party, it is Amnesty International.

[The Magistrate]

25. Demolition Of Homes, Ma'am

Certainly is an excess in many instances: in some others, it is part of theft of land. In some situations, clearing of fields of fire can be an appropriate measure. It is not my contemtion Israel does no wrong, but rather that a good deal is done by both sides, and that there are in fact necessities of war operating in the over-all situation.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. In this case it's collective punishment...

And a grave breach of international humanitarian law. It's not a necessity of war operating in the over-all situation. It doesn't matter an iota to me that there may be situations in conflicts where the demolition of a home may be justified by security measures because in this case that doesn't come into it. My point was to show that it isn't debatable at all that Israel has carried out collective punishment towards the Palestinians. It's a fact that it's happened, and what I showed was only one example, and I think a very clear one, as I think that AI tends not to say something's a violation of international law unless they're on very solid ground with it...

Violet...

[StandWatie]

5. I've asked this before...

What is the deal with the Pizza Parlor? Every last time, out of all the bombings through the years why is it always the Pizza Parlor that gets the most shmaltzy, tear-jerk, responses.

[nn2004]

7. Maybe it's where the pimple faced kids go to meet

and begin their journey through life with friends and lovers. Then some sicko comes in and blows them and their dreams all to hell.

[TSElliott]

9. The August 9th 2001 bombing gets the most

tears because the death of children tug at heart strings. Just like everyone remembers the young Palistinian boy who died while in his fathers arms by Israeli crossfire.

[StandWatie]

11. that's right..

I forgot about that.

[jos]

12. "A Jew eating pizza"

Many killed in these bombings throughout the years have been Arabs. Do you not know that? Or are their lives just not as important?

[nn2004]

16. Yes I knew that and thank you for mentioning it

Any innocent life lost is tragic no matter what race, sex or title.

By using that single term I in no way meant to omit the other just-as-innocent victims. Thanks again and peace.

[rini]

26. I don't get it

do you have a pizza fetish or a Jewish fetish. You have mentioned this more than once.

[Resistance]

27. Have the gloves come off rini?

This is the second post of yours which I have seen today where you make charges against others of outright anti-Jewish motives.

[jos]

28. Actually both

Considering that I'm Jewish and I like pizza.

And I never referred to this before. You must be confused.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. He didn't justify their actions at all...

What he did was explain why the Palestinian people are currently powerless to stop them. There was absolutely no justification at all made for suicide-bombings....

Violet...

[Darranar]

18. Great article...

The single problem is that there is truly no chance whatsoever of any multilateral action against Israel for them to end the occupation; and that's aside from the fact that i doubt that that is neccesary.

[Resistance]

29. what do you doubt is necessary?

(your post was unclear) - the need for Israel to end the occupation? Or the need for multilateral action?

[Darranar]

31. The need for multilateral action...

and the usefulness of it if it does happen.

[sushi]

32. Both sides will go on killing

They're like a couple who can't live together and are making life hell for each other. Why not divorce. One gets the house and the other leaves to make a new life in another place.

[Resistance]

33. There's a Swahili saying

Wa kipi gana tembo, yana umwa majani. (sp?)

"When the elephants fight, it's the grass that gets trampled."

[Darranar]

34. Unfortunately...

it's true. Especially in concern to I/P and the vile Iraq war.