Peace and Reconciliation are Possible, According to a Rabbi.

 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

The UN Special Rapporteur is as American as Apple Pie

 

Richard Falk may be engineering himself between a rock and a hard place. But why does he?

I don’t know much about the man, except what I’ve seen of him on the internet. His activities; writings, blog, UN special Rapporteur posting, Professor Emeritus at one University, and Visiting Special at another, all point to the fact, this person is serious. He may also be compromised.

Why not give up your UN posting? Why not ‘resign’ before you are sacked? Is it the prestige, or the money you seek? How much does a posting like that pay? Not to mention, how much do you make with all the articles you write, your opinion pieces?

Sure, he is allowed to his opinions, like everyone else. I don’t even argue where he is coming from. But, isn’t it hypocritical to keep a UN posting, and at the same time tell the UN off? I don’t know it seems to me to be a compromising position. Since you think so poorly of the UN in its lack of progress on the Middle East or World Peace processes, why not resign on principle? Is it a posting with special status, such that you are like another Watchdog? So you can’t be sacked? But then how can others in the UN demand your firing, if you are somehow protected? If they insist, will you be made to leave against your will?

I’m not an expert on Politics, or any field. But I suspect, you can’t be fired, or there are people who don’t want you fired. If the ‘nays’ are greater than the ‘ayes’, then you will remain the UN Special Rapporteur (on Palestinian issues).

Is it a cushy job? Seems to me it would have to be; lots of free air miles, hotel accommodation, maybe. I wouldn’t mind a UN posting, but I don’t have the knowledge or the experience to earn such. It’s almost like a reward for all the long years of writing pieces that make some Americans’ neck hair salute.

Americans will do anything for money, in that sense at least, Richard is as American as Apple Pie with ice cream.

Just one more question, “Who’s your daddy?”*

DD – I like to write silly stuff sometimes, this is one of those times. As John Candy said in one of his roles, “There’s a time to act and a time to think; and this man has no time to think”.

* A line from the movie, “Master of Disguise”, which was pretty hilarious, and sometimes not so much. Michael Moore says it in his anti Bush production, I forget the name.

Why Terry Jones is Relevant

by DD (06/05/2011)

Someone asked me, why do you reply to comments by “nobodies”, is this person important, etc.?

Simply, I am exercising my right to free speech; to disagree with anyone I deem is not being fair, or is abusing her “free speech”, or similarly if someone is blogging about an issue which people are interested in, I can voice agreement to it, comment, etc.

Sometimes, people begin with an argument, but then get wildly lost; losing focus. This makes reading their arguments tedious or an irritation, instead of a worthwhile exercise. This happens to everyone at some point, but shouldn’t be a ‘way of life’.

Terry Jones, most people who have followed the news a little bit know, was going to burn the Qur’an on 9 11, but was prevented. He later burned it on another date; I was informed of that later on, and haven’t even had the time to go and verify that, but that’s the impression I’m left with (it was in Richard Falk’s article two days previous on Jazzera English blog)

Regardless, Terry Jones is relevant (as most people are) but for a very bad reason. And while some argue that his Qur’an burning is “freedom”, or “freedom of expression”, I argue that it isn’t.

My argument is simple: there should be rules for “freedom” and “freedom of expression”. In fact, there are already such rules. But they are not always applied. For example, there is a rule on Facebook, because it is a private owned entity, that members cannot just post whatever content, be it photos, or writing that they think is fit. It’s up to the FB site to allow members to post content on their page according to rules set out by the FB owners.

Therefore, while Facebook is public, it doesn’t allow members to post whatever they feel like, if it’s against FB rules, to which everyone must sign their agreement. That doesn’t prevent some people (I saw a teenage boy who posted very disturbing comments, which would have to be removed, and tried to file a complaint, but it seems there was a problem with the site, maybe a huge watershed of other people’s complaints, that prevented mine from being registered...I don’t know) from posting disturbing comments or opinions occasionally. Incidentally, the teenager was having a stick figure drawing complaining about being sexually abused, sodomized, etc. It was disturbing and ugly.

If you own a house, not anybody can just walk in because he’s expressing his freedom. That might lead to a lot of problems, so it’s not something considered “normal”. There are rules that are governing who can come into your home. There are many good reasons for the rules (in other words privacy laws, ownership laws, etc) and you can probably think of many of your own reasons, as a reasonable human being who knows that this is for society’s own good.

Some laws permit the ownership of a rifle, some are against it. It could be dependent on where you live and what you would need the rifle for. In Texas, for example citizens need a rife (‘in case’) to shoot the dangerous wild boar, which often attacks people (or so it’s been claimed, but some of those photos of men posing beside the animal look faked; as my son pointed out, the pig is always from the same angle except the photo has been flipped; he also said, “the pig is the size of an elephant!”)

This brings me pretty quickly to the reason for the “wrongness” of what Terry Jones did. By burning the Qur’an he is trying to have a strong negative response from Muslims, obviously. Some people, like Hannah, think that’s okay; because since she believes Muslims are extremists, they would control themselves in this one instance? Or Terry Jones, Hannah, and people like them, don’t care about consequences. If they insult all the Muslims, the Prophet of Islam, and burn the Qur’an, that’s ‘okay’. But let someone else suffer the consequences; Terry Jones himself said, and I will try to verify this, he doesn’t care if some Christians or people get hurt. It’s worth it! (It was R. Falk in the same article as mentioned above.)

What is worth it? What does Terry Jones get out of it? What is the unsubstantial, unverifiable benefit to him?  Will he be sainted in the unforeseeable future?  Is his fifteen minutes of fame worth the suffering (if other people get hurt)? Then isn’t it worth a terrorist’s time to blow up a few commuters in London, and call it freedom of expression; especially, if he gets some kind of really good feeling from it? Maybe (to his mind) even his own suicide/martyrdom; isn’t it worth it, or for arguments’ sake, isn’t it his right to only threaten to do something? NO. Maybe in the terrorist’s mind it is worth it; but our society considers this abhorrent, and it is. For this reason, society sets up rules, called laws, etc that are enforceable, can land anyone in prison for breaking them, and keeps everyone else (outside and inside, hopefully) relatively safer. His threat would be comparable to yelling ‘fire’ in a packed movie theatre, as Falk points out.

Decades ago, society realized that drinking and driving needed to be controlled; no driving permitted when blood alcohol is past the legal limit. This was to prevent (other) peoples’ deaths, and the drunk’s (would-be criminal) as well. Suicide is still considered illegal in most places; you’re not free to kill yourself. Why does society lock up criminals, even permanently?

I hope soon, society will realize that the general safety shouldn’t be compromised for some fools’ “freedom of expression”, and make better laws to reflect what a lot of people feel should be amended; the lack of enough strictures on (what is termed) “freedom”.

Dictionary –

Strictures: controls

New World Order Is Not Static

(Just because) Richard Falk says, “no law was broken, or widely endorsed moral position affronted” (Al Jazeera’s English service), the world order now supports more the right to insult other’s religion or point of view, than to force people to curb their personal “emotional” reaction to create a new order (where peace and productivity to other goals by working together for common good) would prevail.

Maybe in a future”perfect world”, or a less hostile one, things will change; the ‘political’ or ‘moral’ will reflect a different balance, or order.  

Eventually, the world order will change as it always does. Probably, as we see now, by peaceful peoples movements, and by the mere fact that Islam is almost the second largest religious group in the USA. These trends point to the fact that ideas and maybe norms are changing. Maybe it won’t be far off, when Muslims will feel like equal citizens in the West.

Finally, maybe Politics, as a means to a goal, will no longer be as important, or a powerful tool as it is now? Who knows, maybe people will have more freedom to do as they please without the government that provides all the necessary things, like water, electricity, sanitation, etc. ruling over the people like an autocracy; will become a smaller entity in a bigger picture. Maybe the government will actually work for us, instead of demanding more taxes (where you live).

Will there (have to) be no wars over oil? Will people feel safer everywhere, in their neighborhoods’, as well as during travel overseas? Will the “terror alerts” cease to be useful? (Not that they are useful now according to many people). This is all unlikely, but maybe it’s okay to hope; even necessary sometimes. I’m not really one of those wishful thinking people, and actually, having feet planted on the ground I feel safer, than pretending that everything is okay. At least, I don’t have to take anyone’s word for anything like little children sometimes do; ‘’everything will be all right’’.

And I’m not really an optimist, just a realist. Still the ball could roll either way, couldn’t it? Eventually, change happens, that’s definite.

But shouldn’t people try to make change go faster, because it would save the world a lot of grief if done properly and for the right reasons. Many people are worried about women and children around the globe. There are movements to get every woman the knowledge she needs to make informed decisions about birth control, family planning, and health issues. Regardless of the financial costs, this is what many people want FOR these women in poorer countries. West Africa is in the news recently in relation to these same issues. Anyone can read a blog about the issues, but being complex as they are, commenting haphazard about solutions is not productive. There is something called EQ. Like IQ, EQ, or emotional intelligence is even more important in succeeding in the workplace, and also important in relationships elsewhere. Spouses can use EQ to understand what the other’s point of view is, and really listen to find solutions to problems that would satisfy the other person, not only oneself.

If women don’t understand why they should space children apart in age, or why indeed they shouldn’t try to have as many children as possible, then selling them birth control, or abortion clinics, will be impossible. Just like the people movements happening in Arab countries, women have to want to do those things, but with an understanding that it is really what they want, and if it’s not, why would they accept someone else’s lording over them?

The emotional reactions people have when they first get an idea in their head, is just an “impulse” because the brainwaves go through the limbic system (where emotions rule), and move to the front of the brain where logic rests. If a person reacts quickly, he will say or do something, without considering the consequences, or if in fact he really believes his first reaction. Emotions are powerful motivators, but need to be tempered. You don’t have to act on every whim. The opposite is true too, that the brain doesn’t like change, and will very often resist it.