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

Arab unrest and the US response

(I will be publishing many posts I had written from the previous 6 months while I was away)

“The west ravaged and destroyed Afghanistan for years “, says Brzezinski in an interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN.

Libya, and Yemen and Syria are thorny issues.

It has approached the Libyan crisis well”, he had said at the time about Obama administration’s role in the conflict before the lynching of the late leader (Gaddafi) by rebels.

ON the other hand, in other conflicts, the US should not be in the forefront of the military initiative.

“There can be a slight gap between (our) words and actions”, he had said.

The West totally ignored Afghanistan (after the end of the war with Russia) and then Taliban appeared, he explains.

Concerning future relations in the region; “Iran is more hostile while Egypt will be more difficult”, he says.

Fareed Zakaria explains, we approve of the Arab uprisings, but may make things more difficult for American foreign policy issues.

The masses are more driven and less patient, explains Brzezinski.

It’s in Israel’s interest to move forward (now).

I particularly have in mind Egypt and potentially Jordan.

The New York Times “story of a showdown likely in the UN” is worrying. Will the UN vote for Palestinian independence? He asks.

“The time is against us”, he said. US voted against UN resolution despite the wording being like the American position, “conveying that it is powerless,” but it is a “redeemable” mistake, he points out.

American Interference and Life - Part Two

Legalities and Life

The wording is so important;

Will the AUMF apply in 2021 in Somalia, as it does in 2001, in Afghanistan? Now, I want to clarify something, although I’m not familiar with law. If something is right in 2011, isn’t it right in 2001, or 2021? And if it’s wrong in 2021, isn’t it wrong in 2011 or 2001?

You see, the Islamic law, called Shari’a, as most people who read about Islam at all will know, hasn’t changed in over 1,440 years! The Shari’a hasn’t changed, but applications can change, depending on different variables, and so on.

Slavery wasn’t completely abolished in Islamic Shari’a, because, as some people surmise, if slavery were abolished to the Muslims (no longer would they be allowed to have slaves), but somewhere in the future the non-Muslims align against the future Muslim state (under a Khalifah) for argument’s sake, and they decide it is in their best interests to have Muslim captives become their slaves, you can see how it would be really difficult for Muslims to retaliate in wise.

Whereas alcohol and pork are forever and always will be considered “haram”, slavery isn’t. “Slaves” doesn’t mean “blacks”, but anyone who is made a slave. In Islam, racism is totally, forever and always will be “forbidden”. During the early period of Islam, there were slaves among Muslims and non-Muslims. The Islamic state, under the Prophet Muhammad’s guidance, taught the people that one of the best forms of repentance was to “free a slave”. That’s why it was done so extensively. Since that time Muslims freed their slaves liberally and the number of slaves dwindled in the first few centuries of Islamic rule. Just one point, they are not permitted to free another’s slave, only a slave in their possession.

Did you ever think about Saddam Hussein’s trial; why was it done so quickly? Saddam was probably one of the few Iraqis, or Muslims in the ‘war on terror’ privileged enough to (avoid a long and dragged out) “due process”. However, the medical examinations he had to endure could be seen as “unusual punishment” (because he was a prominent figure).

There are lots of detainees still in Guantanamo or in black sites (as “disappeared” persons), who are in effect being held illegally, without trial, without charge, without legal representation, is this not the case? Isn’t this scenario against International law? What is being done about these men, (or if there are any women, about them)?

Can a Muslim government also use AUMF in/for their own country? Or is AUMF only okay for America, or American forces, but not Muslim governments or their forces? Also, is brutal use of force by law enforcement, or military - even “torture” justified in some instances? We are led to believe that “torture” is not justified, yet isn’t “torture” used even by America; as such America’s black sites are there for this specific purpose, to extract confessions out of people? Although he was innocent, Khaled El – Massri is a case in point - he was kidnapped and tortured in Afghanistan for five months, then dumped in Albania, left to find his way home. You can find out more about the ongoing case he’s fighting against the American government at WikiLeaks.

 Faced by “terrorism”, and “extremists” torture or “enhanced interrogation” techniques is still an option most governments (will) use as a final option, whether it gets the desired results or not.

(The Authorized Use of Military Force)

For America as it stands now, the congress needed some powers to get Al-Qaeda, and Bin Laden or their operatives inside and outside America, so AUMF was used. Bush said, “We’ll smoke ‘em out”, or was it “him (Bin Laden) out”? At any rate, AUMF allows for long detentions, detention without trial and interrogation tactics, which may or may not look like torture to some of us, to name a few.  The AUMF must be extended to 2011, now, or the date of the explanation by Ho, I read at opinionjuris.org.  

Some problems:

A new bill – what’s wrong with the old one? Apparently these things run out, and have to be renewed.

The new language – the Obama administration (maybe) wants to Veto (the) (some) new language because (it) “if the set of detainee related provisions are included” (must be bad for the detainees). Mainly as explained by Deborah Pearlstein, the language being objected, more vigorously this time, has to do with “Gitmo (detainees) prosecution -and-transfer restrictions.”(opinionjuris.org)

Spaulding says, “[OBL] sparked the Global war”.

The reason that conspiracy theories exist, and by the theory of relativity, the opposite of them exist; I mean arguments (equally as unbelievable as the conspiracy theories and just as improbable) against the conspiracy theories (i.e. the 9-11 truthers theories, are the most recent and maligned of these), obviously can’t and shouldn’t be ignored, whichever side of the argument you fall on. The fact is, nothing has yet been proven or disproven to the whole population. Actually, the 9-11 camp has a lot of supportive evidence, which if someone is honest with himself, would realize is not all “crazy”.  We should be as honest and straightforward as the truthers are being, should we not? (I’m speaking here as an omniscient outside voice, not taking sides, apparently). To tell the truth, I know what side I’m on, have no ambivalence about it whatsoever, but I’m trying to add my bit to keep the debate alive, otherwise it might die, and become another historically forgotten matter. But what about the next event, national disaster in America, or global jihadist group that comes along; it will...Is there a lesson, to be learned here, in the here and now?

It’s not true, what Spaulding says in her report; that America was pulled into the war with OBL and Al-Qaeda, at least, not completely true. There are ‘forces’ at work, or clandestine” men in black”, in the shadows who make conflicts happen.

Suzanne Spaulding, who wrote her report for the Senate Select Committee, “[The]events of 9-11 provoked the United States into declaring its own Global War, which Bin Laden used to support his own claim that Muslims were called to join in the Global Jihad”

I can’t believe, even in light of the fact that some 3,000 innocent people (innocent of attacking Bin Laden)were killed in New York in 2001, that America decides to start a Global War in ‘retaliation’.  Was it not only to play the blame game, name OBL the mastermind, throw in a global Jihad, the Taliban, Mullah Omar, some Arabs the Pakistanis decide to turn in for the cash reward, who turn out to be largely innocent of a connection to 9-11, Khaled El Massri who is trying to get justice, or a highly paranoid KSM, who ranted in his diaries about all kinds of stuff, obviously mentally disturbed and possibly mentally handicapped, too, to plaster his photo, unkempt hair, chest hair and in undershirt to make one of the supposed “brains” of the operations; should we believe he is brilliant, yet deranged, taking a cheap shot at Muslims and their supposed  “cream of the crop”, the leader who goes into hiding, in caves, and a one-eyed religious icon, Prophet, according to media hype, it all played out so well, in the hysterical aftermath of the crash of the stock markets, in the hysterical aftermath of the crashing of the ‘twin towers’ (in the financial center), never mind that at least one man, Silverstein made a lot of money when he agreed to sign, as he clearly says, in video footage (Loosechange, or other 9-11 theory information gatherers didn’t plan this, it just happened) to have his building (one of the no 5, or no 7, I’ll have to watch the video again to be sure) demolished, “brought down” with “controlled explosions” because as he casually, under no duress explains, his decrepit building is worth a lot torn down, and he wouldn’t have paid for the cost of refurbishing it, because his building had asbestos, an expensive do-it-yourself project on its own, he decides just before the “terrorist attacks” that anytime will be good to “bring (it) down”. The environmental impact of the attacks, and the destruction of the buildings which contained asbestos, clearly was terrible, and the impact on people’s lives continues, to this day. The insurance he got after the attacks (for that building alone) was 3 billion! I think.

The government claimed (i.e. Condoleezza Rice made statements which contradict her earlier actions, or statements) or members of the administration did, that they had no advanced knowledge of “the attacks”. < a href = http://www.opinionjuris.org > Condoleezza </a> received advanced notice, via  information she received in a folder from then President Bill Clinton.

About the AUMF, if America could do so, please try using it to “target” those “belligerent individuals” in Libya ( who must surely exist) if America is involved in a campaign there (revised June 29), as opposed to an entire population in the urban centers which Nato is bombing daily; that might help cut down on the “collateral damage”, as some like to call non-military people in the crossfire or “run” of apache helicopters and “bombing raids” in a ‘war zone’, the civilian casualties. I happened to hear from a close family member that his sister saw a lone school girl outside of  the school she attends get hit with fire from an apache helicopter, as it flew overtop the area. One of many “bringing freedom and democracy” to Libya - or is it too soon to hope? I see that beleaguered country and its people, most of all, facing a future, I’m afraid will be as much as Iraq, one of destruction and mayhem, and above all, occupation.

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.