[Peace-discuss] Re: Program on anti-Semitism, etc.

[David Green]

This may be a duplicate message.
   
  Hi Stuart,
   
  The purpose of my post was to publish a comment on a show that I did not see--I don't even know if it was shown on WILL. The comment was disseminated on the Not in My Name (Chicago) discuss list, without further disucssion. I don't endorse the comment as a whole, although I would assume unless corrected that the show was indeed a piece of propaganda--it could hardly be anything else, since charges of anti-Semitism serve as a distraction from the fundamental issues. But it is admittedly somewhat of a red herring for the author of the critique to stress the failure of the show to mention that it was wrong to establish a Jewish state in 1948--even though it was wrong, it's been a done deal for quite some time.
   
  The question is what can be done to right that wrong, either in terms of a one-state democratic solution, or in terms of a two-state solution and justice for Palestinian citizens of Israel. I suspect that the purpose of the show was to distract viewers from these fundamental problems, as it usually is when the phrases "anti-Semitism" and "right to exist" or mentioned. Claims of Israel's fantasized "right to exist," ad nauseum, have been addressed (also ad nauseum) by those who rightfully assert that no nation has a right to exist, and that Israel is accorded diplomatic recognition in the same manner as every other nation, no more or less, such recognition being the right of sovereign states to offer or withhold without explanation or apology. Those who challenge Israel's policies of occupation/discrimination do so based on the assumption that recognition or passive acceptance of a state's continued existence in its current general form depends on that state's protecting
 the rights of its citizens, as well as observing international agreements (the Geneva Conventions regarding the rights of the occupied and the obligations of occupying powers). As a state not of its citizens, but of the "Jewish people," and as an occupying power, Israel passes neither of these tests.
   
  Nevertheless, it is the moral and legal obligation (as well as the wise and pragmatic strategy) of those proposing substantive change in the political form/existence of Israel to do so in a non-violent manner, in pursuit of the basic human and civil rights of all of those in the area, including of course the Jewish citizens of Israel; in either scheme, or an alternative (for example, bi-national) one. This standard is met by those advocating a one-state solution in a manner that will obviously not be achieved without the consent of Jewish Israelis themselves, although external tactics such as boycotts and severing diplomatic recognition need to be discussed as potentially legitimate (non-violent) options (means of persuasion)  by the international community, both in moral and pragmatic terms, as they were with South Africa.
   
  Finally, Palestinians in the occupied territories do indeed retain the right of violent resistance against the occupying military under international law, for what it's worth (not much in pragmatic or moral terms), without being accused of denying Israel's "right to exist," or even of violating the human rights of their military targets. It is equally unhelpful to accuse them of anti-Semitism, although obvioiusly I don't know whether that charge was included in this program.
   
  David


 
---------------------------------
Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070111/cd52ef75/attachment.htm