Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning Zionism, anti-Zionism, peace

Hello, everyone, and I know that issues of Zionism, anti-Zionism, and
the search for peace in the Middle East can get very emotional. Please
let me try to propose some ideas with a view toward a solution. I'll
try to be reasonably evenhanded, and also constructive, although I
realize that proposing something other than a conventional "roadmap"
can itself arouse strong feelings on various sides.

First, there are various kinds of Zionism and anti-Zionism, on the
part of Jews and others, and as a Jew I'd urge that it's important to
make some useful distinctions. Not all forms of anti-Zionism are
anti-semitic, especially since Jews have sometimes taken an
anti-Zionist perspective from religious or secular perspectives.

At the same time, not all forms of Zionism are racist. The spiritual
or cultural Zionism of Albert Einstein or the Rabbi Judah L. Magnes,
which seeks peaceful coexistence and democratic power-sharing between
Jews and Palestinian Arabs, is in fact one of the best hopes for a
just peace in the region.

We can pursue these basic points more, but my main focus is on
peacemaking and likely "roadmaps" to a solution which can meet some
basic standards of human rights and democracy for both Israeli Jews
and Palestinian Arabs in the 21st century.

My purpose here is not to assign blame for the violence of the last 58
years or so, because there is more than enough of that to go around.
We could detail the truck bombings of public markets and similar acts
of violence against civilians by both Palestinian Arabs and Zionist
Jews in the period of 1947-1948, or massacres from Hebron (1929) to
Deir Yassin (1948) and unfortunately many more since.

Also, I consider it a most dangerous doctrine that would take the past
wrongs committed by Palestinian Arabs or Israeli Jews as a reason to
deprive either people of basic human and civil rights. Let us consider
some realities and rights which a peace process should address:

(1) Israeli Jews have the right to remain, and to retain
their national identity; further, I would urge that
the Law of Return offering a haven to any Jew who
wishes to immigrate is a desirable provision, although
I regard other legislation of the same era around 1950
as a catastrophe for both peoples.

(2) Palestinian Arabs or Israeli Jews displaced in the
1948 war have a right to return either to their homes
or -- if these homes were destroyed or have since been
put into use by others -- to the "vicinity" of those
homes. This is itself a matter of international
humanitarian and refugee law, but one with political
implcations which should inform a just peace.[1]

(3) Israel, however its borders might be defined in a
peace agreement, needs under United Nations General
Assembly Resolution 181 (1947) to adopt a written
constitution based on equal and nondiscriminatory
citizenship for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs.
Together with the demographic shifts caused by
full implementation of the right of return within
pre-1967 Israel for Palestinians displaced in 1948
and their descendants who choose to exercise this
right, this delicate power-sharing process may
require redefinition of what a "Jewish state" is.

(4) Both peoples have the right to move beyond the
military rule which has been a tragic hallmark
of almost the entire period from 1948 to the
present, with the exception of some months in
late 1966 and early 1967. This rule, first
within the Palestinian Arab areas of pre-1967
Israel (1948-1966), and then in the West Bank
and until recently Gaza following the 1967 war,
has tended to brutalize both peoples and distort
the best Israeli Jewish and Palestinian Arab
traditions.

The dilemma of Zionism has been how to relate to the Palestinian Arabs
already present when the Balfour Declaration of 1917 established the
goal of a "national Jewish homeland" in Palestine. As Jewish leaders
and thinkers such as Einstein and Rabbi Judah L. Magnes realized,
under these conditions a "Jewish homeland" must be based on democratic
power-sharing with those already present.

More specifically, Magnes urged that such a power-sharing arrangement
must recognize not only the individual rights of each citizen, but
also the presence of two distinct nationalities or peoples in one
land. He explained that in such a democracy, Jews would uniquely be a
founding nation, rather than merely a minority group as everywhere
else. At the same time, Palestinian Arabs would also be a founding
national group. Thus the state would be uniquely "Jewish" -- but not
exclusively so.

Today, after six decades of often bloody and dehumanizing conflict, it
is time for Israeli Jews to realize that the only kind of "Jewish
state" worthy of Jewish values in one based on equal human, civil, and
national rights for Palestinian Arabs also.

It is also time for Palestinian Arabs and the world clearly to affirm
that an exclusively "Palestinian" state would raise many of the same
issues as an exclusively or overwhelmingly "Jewish" state, and that
power-sharing both in pre-1967 Israel and in the territories occupied
in 1967 is the most fruitful path to peace.

Slogans such as "peace through separation" or "a fully independent
Palestinian state" are, in my view, moving in the wrong direction,
although many people of goodwill around the world support them. If
the establishment of a more perfect democracy in Israel proper is a
top priority, then Israeli Jews asked to share power in the Knesset
with Palestinian Arabs (including returning refugees) will naturally
ask for their share of power in the West Bank and Gaza.

One approach would be to give priority to basic civil and human rights
issues, while leaving some space and time for the resolution of the
question of the West Bank and Gaza:

(1) Military rule in the 1967 territories might be replaced
with some kind of UN mandate or trusteeship administered
by Israel with the understanding that after a period
of ten years, say, the residents of these territories
(Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews) would vote on
such options as incorporation into Israel proper;
a continuation of "territorial" status for some years;
or some degree of independence.

(2) Israel would implement the right of return for Palestinian
Arab refugees of 1948 and their descendents who wish to
live within the pre-1967 borders. Such implementation, as
noted by human rights groups such as Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch, should be expeditious, orderly,
and humane. Possibly the highest rates of Jewish
immigration to Israel in the early years of 1948-1950
could provide one guide to a realistic annual quota,
something like 200,000 refugees per year.

(3) At the same time, Israel would adopt a constitution
explicitly recognizing equal national as well as civil,
ethnic, and religious rights for Israeli Jews and
Palestinian Arabs. The goal would be to affirm the
identity of each people while also setting a foundation
for common citizenship, and to protect the rights of
all regardless of the "demographic balance" at any
particular point.

(4) In the West Bank and Gaza, a territorial constitution
would also be enacted based on equal civil and
national rights for both peoples, including Israeli
Jewish settlers who immigrated after the 1967 war
and "wish to live at peace with their neighbors" --
an affirmation which might also reasonably be asked
of Palestinian Arab refugees of 1948 returning to
Israel proper.

(5) The expected migration of a large number of Palestinian
refugees of 1948 from Gaza to lands of southern Israel
proper could be balanced by a migration of a substantial
number of Israeli Jews to a now increasingly less crowded
Gaza. This would help to affirm the understanding that
whatever precise political forms might prevail, both
peoples have a legitimate attachment to the land known
both as Eretz Israel and as Palestine, from the Jordan to
the sea.

In my view, the ideal conclusion of such a process would be
unification of the whole country under the aegis of a democratic
Israel. However, both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs might find
some advantages in allowing a period of years for other kinds of
democratization and integration to occur before unification. Some
considerations might be:

(1) Israeli Jews, who would be asked to share power with
Palestinians in the Knesset on a serious basis of rough
parity, and to give up the "demographic" situation of an
overwhelming majority (actually about 80% at present),
might find it easier not to confront immediately the
additional factor of another 3.5 million of so
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza also voting for
the Knesset.

(2) A large number of Palestinians -- although opinion is
notably split -- have been oriented to a program of
seeking an "independent" state in some or all of the
West Bank and Gaza rather than equal citizenship in
an Israel including these 1967 territories. As Israel
becomes more democratic and demographically balanced,
and a period of cooperation offers new expectations
to replace the dismal landscapes of six decades of
violence, a stronger consensus for unification may
build.

(3) An emphasis on democratizing Israel proper should
address the needs of those often neglected by
previous "peace processes" -- the 1.3 million
Palestinian citizens of Israel proper and the
refugees of 1948 -- while producing a Knesset
apt to be much more friendly and cooperative
to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

(4) Israeli Jewish settlers who dislike the idea
of living with Palestinians on an equal basis
are likely to leave. However, those who are
there for economic reasons, or for peaceful
religious reasons, might in the best tradition
of Albert Einstein and Judah L. Magnes join
with their Palestinian neighbors in building
the basis for multiethnic democracy. This
direct experience would also serve as a
firmer ground for eventual unification of
the country.

While pointing out the injustices of past and present is often
necessary as a means of moving people to consider the need for
something better, peacemaking must seek an evenhanded affirmation of
the rights and responsibilities of all sides.

It is also important, in my view, to affirm the need to temper the
nationalism of both Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews, while
affirming the national rights of both peoples (and indeed making these
rights an explicit foundation of any constitution for any state or
territory formed or maintained in Israel/Palestine).

During the period around 1940-1941, some courageous Jews and
Palestinian Arabs were ready to negotiate an arrangement for the kind
of power-sharing required in "a land of two peoples." Tragically,
other views prevailed on both sides.

Today, it is our responsibility as world citizens to learn from the
tragedies of the last six decades. The Israeli Declaration of
Independence envisions a democratic and nondiscriminatory state in
keeping with the values of the "Hebrew prophets" and also of
Palestinians such as Edward Said. It is time to end the violence and
make that vision a reality for both peoples which can transform the
Middle East and the world at large.

--------
Note
--------

1. Here I focus mostly on the Palestinian refugees of 1948, and on the
smaller number of Jewish refugees displaced in that conflict from
locations such as Gush Etzion that came under Jordanian rule.
However, it should be added that a large number of Jews displaced
from Arab countries in the years after the start of the 1948
conflict who emigrated to Israel should also have a right of return
to their countries of origin. This would be a vital step of truth
and reconciliation -- and democratization -- for the Arab world.
One might guess that relatively few of these refugees or their
descendants in Israel might actually choose to return: but the
right is precisely one of choice, and also of compensation for
property lost, damaged, or abandoned.

In peace and love,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@...

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Margo Schulter <mschulter@...>
wrote:

POST BELOW IS FROM STEPHEN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Margo

What should be done about Hezbollah?

Destroy, negotiate, ignore, other ?

If Iran gets nukes won't Hezbollah?

You can comment if you wish on the above questions.

This is what I think of negotiations with Hezbollah:

----------------------------------------------------------------

Fierce-eyed Hezbollah representative: Thank you for the invitation;
lovely office. Death to Israel.

Gullible American: Well, that's just rhetoric; we understand.

Hezbollah: It is not rhetoric. It is truth. The Zionist entity is a
festering infected splinter in the lip of the Caliphate.

(pause)

GA: So you're saying you want some antibiotics as well? We can do
that. But you have to show us you're ready to coexist with Israel.

Hezbollah: We recognize the right of Israel to exist, but only as a
footnote in history books.

GA: So we agree on principle, and the rest is just a matter of
details. Great! We'll draw up the treaty for the signing ceremony.
You're going to love the pens. They're Cross. Smoothest pen you've
ever used.

Hezbollah: I will save it to plunge into the heart of the last Jew to
crawl towards the sea.

GA: Do you need your parking validated?

Repeat until the last accords fall apart, then call for new accords.
------------------------------------------------------------------
(9 times out of 10 I post the link of where I got a quote.
You don't have to click on it.)

http://wethefree.blogspot.com/2006_07_16_wethefree_archive.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------

POST BELOW IS FROM MARGO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> Hello, everyone, and I know that issues of Zionism, anti-Zionism, and
> the search for peace in the Middle East can get very emotional.
Please
> let me try to propose some ideas with a view toward a solution.

Zionism, anti-Zionism, peace

🔗Margo Schulter <mschulter@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>