The conversation -
“Happy birthday, Richard. Your birthday post was moving, especially the personal note toward the end in which you cite love as one of the primary influences motivating you. May I invite you to apply this principle to how one might approach the Palestinian/Israel conflict?
It would be woefully unrealistic to hope that Israelis and Palestinians will come to love one another anytime soon. But in the absence of love, reconciliation is still possible, even if it’s no more than grudging mutual recognition of one another, along with mutual acceptance that there’s at least some validity in the other’s position. With this, a conflict can be resolved through compromise, and the parties can live in peace.
Regrettably, the perspective that informs your posts on this blog militates against reconcilliation. Condemning everything Israel does while ignoring Palestinian transgressions or even mistakes—what you call “constructive imbalance”—is inherently and inevitably polarizing. I won’t use this occasion to argue over whether or not applying constructive imbalance is fair; we’ve argued over this before and will never agree. However, I will assert that it does not promote reconciliation, which, it seems, should be the primary objective of an approach driven by love.
I might add that your posts may be long on righteous indignation, but they are short on a quest for understanding. This, in turn, influences the tone of readers’ commentary, much of which is hostile and, in some cases, slinks toward anti-Semitism. As a case in point, check Walker Percy’s last comment on your previous post (on Obama’s election). You and I have differed on where to draw the elusive line between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism. But Percy’s post leaves no doubt. He clearly crosses the line with a distorted view of Judaism—not Israeli policy but the Jewish religion; Jewish history, and the Jewish psyche. Indeed, his application of Social Darwinism repeats a tactic used by the Nazis.
A moderator cannot be held responsible for everything that appears on his blog. But Percy has posted repeatedly with similar material. He has been welcomed and, at times, congratulated and thanked.
The issue here is not whether you now hasten to remove the post, or post a notice disassociating yourself from Percy’s libel. The key question is what is it about your blog that encourages someone with Walker Percy’s extreme and obvious bias to believe he is welcome here. Where love prevails, defamation knows that it is unwelcome.”
Ira, last name, I have unfortunately not included here, but it is available on the site along with birthday greetings for Richard Falk, on his 82nd year.
Analysis –
Peace can be achieved, believes the rabbi, if love is absent, but not if “understanding” of the others’ position is not helped by “love of humanity?” to eliminate all others who would cause even mere “hope of understanding” or some sort of “possible compromise” (my quotes, not the rabbi’s) to dissolve. I do see what he is saying, and agree. Understanding and compromise will be better than “pretended love” (which he seems to be accusing Richard Falk of – or accusing him of something perhaps more sinister? I won’t be one of those to point the “anti-Semitic” finger at R. Falk, here, today, or anytime. But it is a valid question; “where is this love?” as the Payolas sang two decades ago or more.)
If love does exist, in Falk’s heart for “the solution”, not the final solution, obviously, but some “heartfelt” compromise, or “hope” on the horizon, or in our not so distant futures, if ever, then where would he or we believe it could take root and with what? Will it take root in Palestine and Israel, simultaneously with a “two state” solution, somehow brokered by some agreement, etc. Or will it take root in Palestine, if Hamas becomes the “man of the hour”, so to speak, finally accepted by the international community (it is almost looking good now) as well as everyone in Gaza’s “peoples’ hero”? Or will Israel finally give land for Peace, which Palestinians will accept (not like what happened when, according to comments I’ve read, Gaza was given to the Palestinians, but then they refused to behave peacefully, Hamas launching hundred or more rockets into Israel, killing people (sorry, I don’t know all the details)? The reasons for their unacceptance of this supposed or ‘so-called’ “peace initiative”, which might have favored Israel, in actuality (again, according to what comments I have read only, not personal opinion for or against any one side), is clear to the Arabs and Hamas supporters, or most if not all Palestinians, but not to everyone. We see that Gaza is actually an “occupied land” much like the rest of Palestine (I’m thinking, again aided by the comments of others about recent history).
The rabbi writes of Falk’s site “[in contrast] where love prevails, defamation knows that it is unwelcome”. But before that he writes a few lines up “You and I have differed on where to draw the elusive line between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism.” I think, while the “Percy” fellow, whose ‘anti-Semitic’ remarks the rabbi is denouncing, and wants Falk also to denounce (and remove or block, from his site, as a sign of definite “love” for Israelis - as well as Palestinians, I’m assuming), must have angered a lot of people, but specifically Jews; it is obvious that the owner of his comments can be judged much more accurately/easily on them, than Falk can for not having denounced outright or removed them. But I also say this, for the sake of honest debate, not having seen the remarks, of which there might be quite a few – and to what degree of “hate” are they?? – A few thoughts,
Is Richard Falk, too much in controversies for his own good?
Why not just denounce, Percy now if need be??
These are questions I won’t answer, but readers of Falk can, to their own satisfaction.
As one who wants Peace in the ME, I hope such people, as the rabbi can be taken at face value as well.
While the rabbi speaks about the primary objective, which would be reconciliation and which would be achieved “by an approach driven by love” (because Falk’s own approach, (revising – Falk’s approach is driven by love, above, yet also struggles to achieve balance, it would seem) “constructive imbalance” is wrong, according to the rabbi, and maybe on reflection many others would agree with this viewpoint; it has its merits; for one thing, it appears to be more long-range than worrying about alleviating immediate suffering, and hoping (probably unrealistically) that Palestinians will suddenly move into the “next phase” without problems - just because they have suffered the most, and like many people who have PTSD, or stress related disorders, and suffer depression, anger, maybe uncontrollable aggression, and likely nurture a vendetta against Israel, almost impossible to counter, which no amount of “love” or even apologies and “mutual recognition” will erase, for a generation, if not more )
The Balkans -
The short range vision of Richard Falk, and the kind of supporters he has, (my view; but what do I know, really?), who want things done now, because it has been so long, I’m afraid, though well-intentioned, can’t have the effect that “reconciliation” such as happened in Rwanda, would have.
BUT, this is the Middle East, and this is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, not Rwanda, or the Balkans. In Rwanda all the people came to the table voluntarily; in the Balkans, the Muslims were forced to the table, by some kind of trickery; after having (mostly reluctantly I’m sure) given up their weapons. (The Serbs never gave up a majority of their weapons, it should be noted.)
In this conflict, and because it is a wider problem of Israel within the Middle East, as the only obstacle to the Muslim’s (and Christians’) shared ownership – with Israel - of Jerusalem, having annexed Jerusalem, Israel, the strongest military in the region, and the only country in the Middle East to possess not only nuclear capability, but nuclear weapons (and with its own nuclear program), which believes in its goal of “greater Israel” also is not believable; it isn’t probable that Palestinian will ever really “trust” the Israelis (the government), or even the masses of trained civilians.
Can the pacifist Israelis yield enough power in a “reconciliation” process to be able to avoid the mistakes of the international community foisted upon the Muslims (also Croats) in the Balkans? By working closely with the Palestinians, they would be the only ones, I believe, trustworthy or capable enough – people or groups such as “Jews against Israel” or something – (find names; revising) to get the requisite cooperation of the Palestinians, or any groups; especially, Hamas must be there, at the “reconciliation table”. But even then, if a miracle such as envisioned, “honest to goodness” peace talks and reconciliation were in motion, for the first time in the conflict’s long history, not stalling, or circumvented by some attacks by masked, maybe even unknown, gunmen, or “terrorists” out of the blue, who might in reality (because they are “unknown” and an X in the equation) be anyone, to tip the process, turning it on its head, as past attempts have gone; the greatest obstacle of all would be the world community’s reluctance to have a free Palestinian state in the Middle East.
I think, at any time, Peace could revert back to war, just because, as has happened even in a free and democratic country like America; there are behind the scenes people, or groups which will never relent, never let the Muslims have their rights on Jerusalem recognized, although that is a prerequisite as well, and would be a major sign of real and final changes. Jerusalem as a focal point is the real X in the equation (X = Peace, or X = Reconciliation). Jerusalem is to the equation, “the fulcrum of change”. Whatever metaphor we speak about, Jerusalem is the key. I don’t believe the Zionists, or Israel, or the Israeli lobby will give it up, not even a little.
My view at present is, “does constructive imbalance necessarily prevent Jewish groups from coming to negotiations or a reconciliation process reminiscent of others in recent history (past 15 – 20 years or so), or does it only give some extremists - i.e. Zionists are the ones who would complain the most, it would seem is obvious, as “constructive imbalance” is trying to give the Palestinians some leverage, even if it’s only a little bit - an excuse to refuse to “negotiate a settlement” or try for “reconciliation”?
The Long-term -
If mutual recognition is more important than love; “constructive imbalance” shouldn’t stop anyone from seeking their object of peace or reconciliation, because it is “not worth it”. It is a proverbial “throwing the baby out with the bath water” situation. Constructive imbalance is a temporary fix used by some to try to counter the effects of media, etc. As I said, Falk’s approach is a “short term” one; the rabbi’s suggestion would be a long range one – i.e. get everyone to the table with “mutual recognition” that they have legitimate grievances - Israel is afraid of ‘annihilation’ by its neighbours; which could happen with a war with Iran, or any government, such as a new Islamic Government in Egypt (however hard to predict final outcomes there) and the Palestinians are the victims of an ongoing genocidal campaign by the Israeli gov’t and army (which includes trained volunteers).
This would be a long process, which would require every side’s dedicated cooperation, no matter what the positions, or no matter what the levels of animosity (of some of the parties). There would be necessarily, planning and then stages; can we begin with one of the previous attempts (such as anything even a little equitable (Camp David II, or Oslo, previous?) in planning, and formulate the stages for reconciliation. For example, is there anything that can be had as a kind of “peace pipe”?; I think, we have that in part, in the recent events, therefore, now maybe Arab states’ recognition of Israel (who does at present recognize Israel?) The two-state solution is of course an option, as always. What about a one-state solution, which would counter uneven distribution of resources, institutions, holy sites or important landmarks, and more?
South African Apartheid -
South Africa in the 1990s was not quite ready for a reconciliation process. In many ways, it mirrors the situation in Palestine and Israel today. In the 2000’s Mandela’s release from prison gave blacks hope and recognition that they could also soon take their places in a changed South Africa. His election as President added more encouragement and erased the previous status quo; the white supremacists’ exit from the scene came next. Despite the problems that exist there today, all South Africans are politically and for all intent purposes free.
On the bright side -
A compromise is before the UN right now, but Britain is abstaining from an important vote; is it because “mutual recognition” doesn’t apply to the Palestinians, on paper? Or before a vote in an international assembly, when the clock is ticking? (As of the last writing, the UN had not yet voted for Palestinian nationhood and non-member status in the UN. Now it has done so, and the results were greatly and over-joyously celebrated in the UN assembly last Thursday, by (live?) media coverage, in the Arab world, and in the world at large.)
“Long live Palestine! And “Hooray”, or “God is great!”
Facebook.com/J.DughatirNiemi
