What Strategy for Middle East Peace? Grass-roots organizing -- for what?
Click here to see a listing of all recent blog posts
Should a grass-roots movement to make peace in the Middle East focus on US pressure for region-wide peace including Israel, Palestine, and all Arab states — or on boycotting/ divesting from Israel?
On March 4, 2010, I was interviewed on “Democracy Now!” — a progressive nationally viewed TV news show hosted by Amy Goodman — for a 15-minute debate with Omar Barghouti, a Palestinian-American professor. The topic: “BDS,” short-hand for “Boycott, Divest, Sanctions” aimed against Israel.
Mr. Barghouti defined BDS as a boycott of all Israeli life, including universities, music, businesses, etc., aimed at ending not only the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, but also ending discrimination within Israel against its citizens of Palestinian origin, and enforcing the “right of return” for all Palestinian refugees into Israel..
It seems to me that Mr. Barghouti’s version of the means and goals of BDS might depend on and would be likely to result in first demonizing and then dissolving Israel. (See below for why i think so.) I think that is an unethical goal, and therefore unachievable — and if that were to become the goal and a totalistic version of BDS were to become the practice of those who seek a decent peace in the Middle East, it would prevent the achievement of what would be both ethical and possible — a regional peace treaty encompassing Israel, a new Palestinian state, and all the Arab states.
I therefore support a very different strategy — also a grass-roots American movement, but this one aimed to bring the US government to insist on ending the occupation, ending the state of war most Arab states still hold against Israel, and bringing about a just peace between Israel, Palestine, and all the other Arab states. (I can imagine a laser-beam tactic of boycotting specific enterprises most related to the occupation that would fit into this approach— but that is not the totalistic strategy proposed by the BDS “”movement” and Mr. Barghouti. For details of a laser-beam tactic, see below.)
Indeed, Mr. Barghouti explicitly rejected ending the occupation as the principal goal of his version of BDS. He insisted the key issue is what he calls “the right of return.” He made clear that his goal is resettling a million Palestinians — not only real refugees from 1948 but their children & grandchildren — to return to what is now Israel inside the Green Line (rather than to the Palestinian state, where of course they should be welcome).
But that result would shatter any possibility of Israel’s having a special relationship with the Jewish people. To create such a state was why Israel came into existence. Dissolving it is so far from acceptable to Israelis that it means a No-Go on all negotiations. Mr. Barghouti said he has no objection to a “Jewish state,” but that’s meaningless under the conditions he proposed. His totalistic attack aimed at all aspects of Israeli society is integrally connected with a totalistic demand for dismantling the only purpose for Israel’s existence.
This ethical failing is connected with the impossibility of getting a majority for this in the US public, and therefore any change in the crucial factor — US government action. Or in Israeli society and policy.
I’m sorry that I didn’t say it as clearly as that on the program. (To see it, click here.)
Meanwhile, I have learned that during the next few weeks two major umbrella organizations of the official “established” Jewish institutional structures in America - the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Jewish Council on Public Affairs - are planning efforts to combat what they call “the delegitimization of Israel.” BDS is one of their targets; the other is efforts to bring the Israeli government before the bar of international law.
I have a totally different strategy about that too. My way of preventing delegitimization of Israel would be to insist that the Israeli government stop acting in specific illegitimate ways. I will take up those specific points below.
During the interview and in the hours since, I have kept remembering an extraordinary story from the Book of Joshua.
In the story, Joshua, who has inherited leadership of the Israelite people after the death of Moses; who has led the people in crossing the Jordan; and who seems to have every reason to think God wants the Israelites to conquer the Land of Canaan, meets an awesome figure in full battle dress.
He calls out to this figure, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”
And the figure answers, “NO!”
Think for a moment about that “No!”
I hear it to mean, “I am not here to support either one of you in your war against each other, nor do I support the conflict itself.” - And now the awesome figure continues in its own voice - ” For I am a captain in the Army of YHWH, the Interbreathing of all life.”
To the extent that in my life I can clumsily try to walk the path of serving only in God’s Army, the Infinite Host of that One Whose breathing gives life to all beings — I understand this to mean:
I am not to blindly support my own government — or its enemies - when they clash in unjust conflict with each other. Not the US government when it attacks half a dozen Muslim countries, nor Al Qaeda when it attacks America. I am to hear instead the trumpet-blast of peace that is rooted in justice, the trumpet that awakens the troops of God’s Own army.
I am not to give blind support to the government of Israel or those Americans (Jews or others) who bow to its policies - nor am I to support those who demonize Israeli society and try to bring disaster on its people.
Instead, I see my task as seeking to bring about an independent, God-centered vision of a just peace. I understand God’s desire — command — to be ending the wars, not winning victories for either side over the other.
It is now clear that neither the divided government of Palestine nor the government of Israel can take the necessary steps to make peace. They are like two hostile adults, thrown in a room together after childhoods of terrible abuse. They take out their traumas on each other. Only an outsider can break into the cycle and help a different process emerge.
That requires focusing the power and influence of the United States to bring about a decent peace among the warring parties in the Middle East — Israel, Palestine, all the other Arab states, and the US itself. Unlike the South African case, which BDS supporters often cite in support of the effectiveness of BDS, the US government - not private banks and companies - is the main economic support for the Israeli occupation.
For me, the notion of a two-state peace settlement means that the “right of return” for Palestinians should be exercised chiefly in and with the new Palestine, while Israel like all other sovereign states defines its own immigration policy; and the discrimination against Israeli Palestinians should be dealt with chiefly by Israelis in an atmosphere of peace, no longer dominated by fear of the Arab “enemy.”
How do we get to this point? The Obama Administration seems to believe, as a matter of rhetoric, in the regional peace settlement I have sketched. But rhetoric is not enough. The Arab League has offered to negotiate, with such a regional peace settlement as the goal. But the Israeli government will not end the occupation and make peace with Palestine, Syria, and other Arab states when met with US rhetoric alone. And so far, only some parts of Hamas seem willing to consider such a peace settlement.
The US government — and only the US government - does have the power and influence to work with the Arab League and its proposal for a regional peace treaty; with the Palestinian leadership, including those elements of Hamas that have said that if the Palestinian people votes for a two-state solution, they will accept it; and above all with the government of Israel, whose military policy depends on US military aid.
Imagine the US saying that it will put half its military aid to Israel in escrow; that the money will be made available only to pay the costs of resettling the 400,000 Israelis who are now living in Palestinian land beyond the 1967 borders, and will be paid in one-fifth sums when (a) the blockade of civilian goods from entering Gaza is restricted to preventing only actual weapons from being imported into Gaza; and (b) chunks of 100,000 or so settlers at a time have left the West Bank and returned to Israel proper. (Present Israeli residents of the Old City of Jerusalem and any present Israeli settlers who agree to live fully under Palestinian law and sovereignty would be permitted to stay. If a new Palestinian government of national unity agreed to land swaps allowing some few Israeli settlements to become part of Israel while other Israeli land became part of Palestine, those settlers would also be permitted to stay.)
At the same time, the US government would offer aid to a new Palestine on condition that at least some Fatah and Hamas leaders join in a government of national unity, take major steps to prevent attacks on Israel, and agree to take part in a regional peace conference with the clear aim and commitment of making peace among Israel, all Arab states, and the nascent Palestine on approximately the pre-war 1967 boundaries.
And the US government would call for and use all its political, diplomatic, and economic clout to bring about a Middle East regional peace conference to accomplish exactly that result.
Why put in escrow only half, instead of all, US military aid to Israel? because ethically and in practical politics as well, the US needs to be absolutely clear that it is ready to ensure Israel’s security while at the same time, and with the same level of commitment, ready to insist on the end of the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the end of the blockade of civilian goods from entering Gaza.
This approach can only be taken by a US government if there is a strong public movement for it. So far as I can see, the only Americans who care enough about the Middle East, with enough passion and numbers to make a difference, are American Jews, Christians, and Muslims whose religio-ethnic identifications with the history and the peoples of that region are strong enough to move them into action - for war or for peace.
For the first time in decades, or ever, there is within the Jewish community not only an inchoate desire for a decent peace, but the organizational forms that are sufficiently independent of the Israeli government to pursue it.
For the first time ever, American Muslims are on the way to creating a coherent public voice on American foreign policy.
And for the first time in decades, some Protestant churches are willing to take on these questions in public, as they get less fearful of being labeled anti-Semitic when they criticize Israeli government policy.
So for the first time, it might be possible to put together a Jewish-Christian-Muslim coalition to work for strong insistence by the US government on a decent Middle East peace. Those who say it is hopeless to move the US government to such a policy because it has never behaved that way before, are forgetting there has never been a powerful coalition demanding that it act that way.
In the context and only in the context of such a coalition, it is conceivable that economic pressures could be aimed specifically and narrowly at the Occupation. For example, stockholder pressures on Caterpillar Tractor to prevent the use of its bulldozers to destroy Palestinian homes, and refusals to buy products that are identifiably produced and sold by Israeli settlers on Palestinian land, could be combined with economic support for grass-roots fair-trade joint Israeli-Palestinian enterprises (like PeaceOil, an olive-oil import enterprise with exactly that commitment. See http://www.peaceoil.net
But this kind of activity is not what the present BDS movement is calling for. And even such a laser-beam economic pressure would only be worth the effort in the context of a multireligious and multicultural social movement initiated by local coalitions of Jews, Christians, and Muslims and focused on changing the outlook of US Congressmembers and the President.
Meanwhile, what do I make of the plans of the two major Jewish “umbrella organizations” to combat what they call the “delegitimization of Israel”?
I agree there is a danger of Israel’s delegitimization. . But it does not flow chiefly from the actions of non-governmental organizations that the present Israeli government is attacking. It flows in larger measure from some actions of the Israeli government itself.
I urge American Jewish organizations to prevent the delegitimization of Israel by urging the Israeli government to end those of its actions that are themselves illegitimate.
For instance, they should publicly urge both the Israeli government and the Hamas government of Gaza each to create at once a fully independent commission with full judicial powers to investigate all allegations that its own forces — either Palestinian or Israeli — committed war crimes before and during the Gaza invasion.
That is what the Goldstone Report called for. Only if either party failed to do this, said Judge Goldstone, should the International Criminal Court take up the case concerning that party. The evidence of war crimes is strong enough, and refusal to have an independent body investigate the claims is so illegitimate, that both governments are bound to be “delegitimized” if they refuse.
And these American Jewish bodies should urge the Israeli government to end at once the illegitimate blockade on the entry of civilian goods into Gaza; to freeze all settlements in the Palestinian areas, including East Jerusalem; to end all demolitions of Palestinian homes; and to meet with the Arab League to aim at a full regional peace settlement.
If the Israeli government took these steps, almost all efforts to “delegitimize” Israel would swiftly melt away.
If on the other hand, JCPA and the Conference of Presidents put their efforts into attacking NGO’s and other groups that are already under attack by the Israeli government and its allies, the result might very well be a descent into a McCarthyist blizzard of slanders and attacks. I know that many of the member groups and their leaders would abhor such a result; I hope you will act to reaffirm the desirability, not just the acceptability, of listening to a very wide variety of opinions.
And finally, I would ask both the national organizations of Muslims, Jews, and Christians — and local grass-roots groups of people from the Abrahamic traditions:
Are you ready to come together not just for intellectual “dialogue” but for common action toward the peace our sisters, brothers, and cousins so desperately need?
Comments
4 comments postedI am wondering why the Jewish Right Of Return is never discussed? The Palestinians left voluntarily because Israel’s Arab neighbors promised them all of Israel if they left. At the same time Jews were forced to leave Iran, Syria, Egypt, etc… under the threat of severe persecution or murder. Their possessions were seized and stolen. Don’t the Jews have a more legitimate right of return than those that left voluntarily for the promise of financial gain?
Another issue is whether peace is possible with people lead by Hamas. With people willing to blow up school buses. With people that believe that murdering their own daughter because she was raped by an older male relative restores their honor. By people that worship a book that talks about killing every Jew behind every rock.
Is there really a partner for peace?
Agreeing with Rabbi Waskow’s basic focus, I’ll suggest one important strategy is to support
candidates for US Congress and US Senate who clearly articulate the vision of a just and peaceful
Israel and Palestine, and what it will take to help bring that into reality. Unfortunately, J Street’s PAC has adopted a policy to not endorse candidates in primaries, essentially emasculating J Street as an effective advocate for truly pro-peace candidates. We need to let all progressive Jews know when a courageous leader is running for high office, and do our best to support such efforts.
For example, Jonathan Tasini (www.jonathantasini.com) running for US Senate in New York, challenging the unelected Kirsten Gillibrand in next September’s Democratic primary. Here’s an article by Tasini printed by Huffington Post in 2006: Published on Friday, March 24, 2006 by the Huffington Post :
Why Jews Must Speak Out on Palestine
by Jonathan Tasini
Yesterday, I spoke at an event in New York City called Rachel’s Words. Two years ago, Rachel Corrie, a human rights activist, was crushed to death by an Israeli Army bulldozer as she tried to protect the home of a Palestinian pharmacist from demolition in Rafah, Gaza Strip. She was 23. A play based on her writing, “My Name is Rachel Corrie” was scheduled to open yesterday in New York City but it’s debut was postponed indefinitely, in all likelihood because of the controversy it would cause in a city with such a large Jewish audience.
As a Jew who lived in Israel for seven years and whose family still lives there and has deep roots going back more than 80 years, it breaks my heart that there is a refusal to grapple with an almost untouchable topic in our country: why does the United States have such a one-sided policy in the Israel-Palestine conflict? And it’s the reason I agreed to speak at the event which honored Rachel’s life and her beliefs.
The event took place at the historic Riverside Church. I stood in the pulpit in the very same place that Dr. Martin Luther King stood almost 40 years ago. And that’s where I began my remarks:
Almost 40 years ago, in 1967, Dr. King spoke in this very place about the need to speak up against a great purveyor of violence: his own government. He said, “If America ‘s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam…So it is that those of us who are yet determined that “America will be” are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.”
Dr. King also said that he was speaking on behalf “of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them too because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.”
“I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours.”
How those words, sadly, have so much meaning for us today.
Those of us who stand opposed to the war in Iraq do so as patriotic people who love our country and our communities but, because it is our country, we demand that it live up to high moral standards of peace, justice, democracy and human rights.
We speak and stand up and oppose the war in Iraq for the same reason that we speak and stand up and say the occupation of the Palestinian people is wrong, morally and legally, and must end with a negotiated, just, and peaceful solution between the lawfully elected governments of the Palestinian people and Israel.
To be honest, I don’t think most Jews — and certainly this is true of most Americans — understand the brutality of the occupation, the violations of international law and our role in perpetuating that occupation. Most Jews have never been to the area and so they either have no idea what goes on or choose to ignore the awful reality. Their perceptions are framed by the MSM and pandering politicians.
If you raise a criticism of Israel or our country’s policy towards the conflict, you immediately are targeted, within the Jewish community, as being either disloyal (if you are Jewish) or anti-Semitic (if you are not Jewish). This is nonsense and has got to stop.
In fact, those politicians who pander to our worst instincts of fear and hatred, who praise policies that violate international law, they are the ones who are hurting Israel’s long-term security and the security of all the people in the area.
So, let me state clearly: I believe unequivocally in a secure, prosperous Israel. But I also believe with the same passion that the occupation is draining the moral and economic strength of Israel and that there will only be a just peace agreement when a Palestinian state — a strong, vibrant, prosperous, independent state, able to provide jobs and a good life for its people — thrives alongside Israel.
Taking away the liberty, the humanity and the dignity of the Palestinian people takes away from the security from Israel. Targeting civilians, killing innocent men, women and children is evil — no matter who is doing it. Killing civilians is a “grave breach” of international humanitarian law.
Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable. We have to end the violence on both sides and support the peacemakers in both Israel and among the Palestinian people.
Opposition to the occupation is showing enormous love for Israel and for the Palestinian people. For the sake of Israel and for the sake of all people in that region who are fed up with three decades of war and occupation, we have to have an honest, open discussion.
There is a physical embodiment of the occupation that we must speak up against now: the separation barrier that is being built in the occupied territories, sl icing through Palestinian communities, with the support of the U.S. government. Yes, Israel has a right to protect it citizens. But last night I asked:
How does peace come one day closer when we do not speak out against a wall that not only violates international law but, more important, embitters thousands of people for generations to come because it cuts off neighborhoods, separates families from each other, farmers from their land, the sick from hospitals, children from the schools and saps the economic vitality from an already impoverished people?
We have politicians who claim to be for the rule of law and stand before the Wall (as Hillary Clinton has done) and praise it — even though it violates international law.
For us in the United States, the question becomes what is our government’s role in perpetuating this conflict. As I said:
For too long, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, our government has had a counterproductive, one-sided policy that too often ignores democracy, human rights, and respect for international law.
Let’s get this debate going. Begin to raise it among your friends and do so with the same love and commitment that you do for our country that leads you to vigorously oppose the Iraq war.
As Dr. King said in 1967, “Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now.”
Jonathan Tasini is running for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in New York. For the past 25 years, Jonathan has been a union leader and organizer, a social activist, and a commentator and writer on work, labor and the economy.
© 2006 The Huffington Post
Please support Tasini’s campaign. He’s great on all issues. He’s got a chance, if he can raise enough money to be ‘taken seriously’ by the media.
www.jonathantasini.com— click on Donate.
Thanks!
Will Fudeman
Hello Rabbi Waskow,
I’d like to make a few comments on your strategy for peace in the Middle East, but first I’d like to apologize to you for a rash comment I previously made, asserting that your solution to the problem is tantamount to advocating the destruction of Israel. I was very glad to read here that you recognize that Omar Barghouti’s insistence on “the right of return” is in fact a strategy for dissolving Israel as a Jewish state:
“But that result would shatter any possibility of Israel’s having a special relationship with the Jewish people. To create such a state was why Israel came into existence. Dissolving it is so far from acceptable to Israelis that it means a No-Go on all negotiations. Mr. Barghouti said he has no objection to a “Jewish state,” but that’s meaningless under the conditions he proposed. His totalistic attack aimed at all aspects of israeli society is integrally connected with a totalistic demand for dismantling the only purpose for Israel’s existence.”
I’d also like to say that I agree whole-heartedly with you when you say:
“I see my task as seeking to bring about an independent, God-centered vision of a just peace. I understand God’s desire — command — to be ending the wars …”
However, I can’t agree with the final clause of that last sentence, in which you denied that God’s desire or command could be “winning victories for either side over the other”. Sometimes, in fact most of the time in human history, the only thing that stops conflict is victory or defeat. But I certainly do believe that we should apply all of our human intelligence to resolving conflict by means other than violence. For me, that means that we need to understand the issues deeply, and that we must be able to recognize the objectives, motives and strategies of all parties involved. It just doesn’t work to shut your eyes to what is really going on and cling to a simplistic desire for peace. You can’t have peace until you really understand the dynamic of what is preventing peace. If you see a boulder precariously perched above your home and you want to prevent the destruction of your house, you need to understand the laws of physics, and then you can design a way to avert the disaster. If you take an ethical approach and stand in the path of the boulder righteously hoping to stop it, all you will end up doing is proving the reality of laws of Universe — God’s Laws — at the cost of your life.
So, what is the best strategy for a just peace in the Middle East? Once again I must take issue with the strategies you have proposed, although I realize that you are making these proposals in good will and seriously desiring to bring about a just peace. I hope you will realize that I am criticizing your positions here — the ideas you have affirmed — and not you or your intentions.
First, I think it is a mistake to begin with a model of the situation depicting the two principal parties to the conflict as dysfunctional “hostile adults” who are the victims of psychological “childhood abuse”. Such a premise is based on myriad hypotheses of pseudo (or borderline) science in psychology, sociology, etc., many of which are merely veils concealing political agendas. In other words, it may be useful to deal with childhood traumas on a personal level, for self-understanding, just as it can be valuable to read literature to deepen one’s appreciation of the human condition, but this is certainly not the starting point for understanding and resolving political differences. The Israelis and the Palestinians are not children, and they are not dysfunctional adults acting out childhood traumas in some mechanistic “cycle”. Both need to be treated as responsible adults, and a brief look at the vibrant societies of both peoples is evidence of their integrity, as is the thoroughly organized and competent manner in which the conflict has been waged for 60 years.
This is really an important point. The fact that the conflict has been going on for so long is not proof that the combatants are caught in some process that is “out of control”, or that they are “unable to take the steps necessary for peace”. On the contrary, the incredible degree of planning, forethought, organization and perseverance that was necessary on both sides to maintain the conflict for so long proves without a doubt the competence of both sides. What is necessary is to address these supremely confident and competent parties with respect, acknowledging each as a responsible party to the conflict. What third party players can do is offer advice and new perspectives on how each might change their strategy in dealing with the other, leading to a compromise in which each can achieve enough of their objectives to make peace seem agreeable.
I would strongly urge you to consider, Rabbi, that any other peace, such as one imposed by a stronger 3rd party, without the total consent of both parties responsible for this conflict, is merely a recipe for disaster in the future. Thus, in my opinion, your suggestion that “focusing the power and influence of the United States to bring about a decent peace among the warring parties in the Middle East…” is supremely misguided. Of course, the United States does have a huge roll to play in helping to find a resolution to the conflict, especially by brokering negotiations, and by suggesting new options and strategies to both parties, and perhaps most crucially, by using its “power and influence” to prevent others from meddling in the conflict while pursing their own interests (which is and has been a major dynamic of the conflict, e.g., the influence of Islamic fundamentalist militants and the states supporting them).
Finally, I would like to offer a counter suggestion to your imagined scenario of the United States economically blackmailing Israel by withholding critical foreign-aid funds until Israel succumbs to the economic pressure and makes concessions such as relocating half a million Israelis out of the West Bank settlements (what planet are you living on, Rabbi Waskow?). I think my counter proposal will suffice to answer everything else you have suggested in this article, because from this point on, everything you say is based upon the idea that a “new coalition” is possible which will be able to force Israel into adopting a peace which it does not view as true peace. Again, from my perspective, it is far more fruitful to exert our energy trying to understand what are the issues and obstacles to peace IN THE MINDS OF BOTH PARTIES than trying to find ways to bully one party into acquiescence.
A New Proposal for a Just Peace in the Middle East:
First, my premises:
-1- Israel truly desires peace with the Palestinians, and with all Arabs and Muslims.
-2- Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza & East Jerusalem and the Sinai in a defensive war, fighting for its existence against a coalition of forces intent on destroying it (and on perpetrating genocide) in the 1967 war.
-3- Israel has always been willing to trade territory captured in 1967 for lasting peace. It was able to make such a deal with Egypt, but has not yet found a sincere “partner in peace” among the Palestinians willing to make the deal (although it tried mightily to make such a deal with Arafat and the Palestinian Authority).
-4- The enemies of Israel have been unrelenting for more than 60 years, forcing Israel to maintain a more or less permanent state of war with the combatants in the region.
-5- The problem Israel has had in waging this war of six decades is that its enemies, having repeatedly lost in conventional military combat, have adopted terrorist tactics, including the intentional targeting of civilians and the institutions of civil society, as opposed to military targets, and most troublesome, enemy combatants use civilians of their own society as shields for their operations, a tactic which has effectively prevented Israel from using its overwhelming military superiority to defeat its enemies.
Based upon these premises, I think a clear strategy can be devised to end the conflict permanently.
Imagine if Israel were to make an offer to all Palestinians, including those living in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, as well as those which the United Nations considers “refugees” living in the adjacent Arab states. (The offer could also apply to any Arab Israelis already citizens of Israel.) The offer would be as follows:
To any Palestinian willing to sign a Contract of Friendship with Israel, in which they agree to live in peace as neighbors and to reject all violence and “jihad” against the State of Israel and the Israeli people, the State of Israel will provide without charge the latest modern and technologically advanced housing and community infrastructure within Palestinian townships on the West Bank (and potentially Gaza), along with security services to protect these Palestinian settlements (including incorporation within the Israeli security border), as well as access to Israeli justice system, and unfettered economic exchange with Israel (meaning no border checkpoints or other barriers to free exchange).
The State of Israel would allow the Palestinians in the townships self-determination and agree not to interfere with the social institutions of the Palestinians, whether religious, political or economic, except to the extent required to insure law enforcement and security.
Also, the State of Israel would agree, ahead of time, that when the number of such Palestinian townships within the West Bank (& Gaza) reached a critical number, that Israel would grant sovereignty to them, and recognize them as the Free Palestinian State, a sovereign nation, and would then remove all Israeli security forces not retained by treaty, once Israel was certain that the new state posed no security risk to Israel.
So, Rabbi Waskow, this is my proposal, which is sort of hybrid of an interim bi-national state leading to a two-state solution. What do you think? Of course, I have left out the unpleasant part, which for the sake of completeness I should mention. Once a sufficient number of Palestinians accepted the deal, and a sufficient portion of the West Bank was included in the townships, Israel would then have given the Palestinians a clear opportunity to declare themselves as friend or foe. It would then be possible for the Israeli military to deal with those who prefer to challenge Israel as enemies, for they would no longer be able to hide behind “innocent” civilians.
Loren Castleton
oloren1@fastmail.fm
HI Arthur,
I agree with you completely that now is the time to really push Israel to dismantle settlements and make peace. You mention that there are finally strong American Jewish groups that can lobby the US government to help push the process forward, but you didn’t name those groups. Are you talking about J Street? I think they are doing fabulous work.
It is helpful to name the groups moving in the right direction as it adds to their strength.
Bruce Phillips