So for those of you not aware, I’m currently spending some time in Israel. The reasons for this are long and varied, and not particularly relevant to this post, but I’m here for a while. And prior to coming here, you couldn’t exactly describe me as a friend of the State of Israel.
I’m not anti-Semitic by any means. Most of my closest friends are Jewish for reasons I can’t really identify or explain. My first fiance when I was 18 was Jewish and I adore the culture.
But like many people I know interested in these issues, I too have felt it very difficult to have an open and frank conversation about the actions of the State of Israel without being accused of anti-Semitism.
And lets face it, Australia generally is not pro-Israel. When you live in a country where there are more advocates for the Palestinian perspective than the Israeli one, and anytime you try to talk about the actions of the State of Israel the Jewish counterparts dismiss you as being anti-Semitic… it is really easy to write Israel off as being arrogant and not behaving appropriately, and either stay on the fence or side with the Palestinian cause.
Until you come to Israel and see it for yourself.
Of course, mostly I have only seen Jerusalem. I haven’t been near Gaza, although I have crossed in to the West Bank a couple of times. I live in the Christian Quarter of the Old City where the dominant language is Arabic, not Hebrew, and have had many conversations with Jews and Arabs and others in the last two weeks. And while I haven’t been drinking the Kool-Aid, I have to concede my position is progressively being fundamentally shifted.
I understand the siege mentality. I get it. I understand how difficult it is to break the cycle of thinking and acting on the defensive. And previously I had believed that the ultra-defensive and perceived excessive actions of Israel were connected to eons of being locked in a siege mentality. But the reality is that here you can really see just how constantly under attack they are.
I am consistently floored by the willingness of the people I have met who are pro-Israel to continue to seek peace citing Tikkun olam - which means ‘repair the world’, one of my favourite parts of Jewish culture – despite the fact they are permanently under attack somewhere in the form of military action, terrorism, rhetoric or all of the above.
My thoughts on this issue, or more correctly issues, are not yet fully formed, but I have a couple of points to make:
- The Israel/Palestinian question is not special. Palestinian refugees are not different to other refugees, and shouldn’t get any kind of special consideration. I could only imagine the kind of sloganistic drum banging that Australian politicians would kick up if someone suggested an unlimited number of refugees from a particular place be allowed to stream in to Australia; no boats, detention centres or processing required. Similarly, a group wanting to declare independence in Palestine must be treated the same as Timor Leste, or South Sudan, or any other area wishing to declare independence or establish a new state. They must have their act together, there must be agreement, and they must have the support of the people. The same rules should be applied here as everywhere else in the international community.
- The concept of giving up Jerusalem is utter nonsense. Go to the wall and see for yourself how sacred this place is to the Jewish people. Actually you don’t even need to go to the wall to feel it – Judaism radiates from the walls and streets of this place. Trying to argue that Jews should give up Jerusalem is as insane as saying the Catholics should give up the Vatican. Jerusalem must remain in Israel – tell the Palestinians to find another place for their capital. They can take the Dome or Al Aqsa or both with them if they want, there is excellent expertise here in removing and relocating/rebuilding old buildings. Or they can just leave them there – I don’t think anyone is suggesting that they wouldn’t have access just as no one is suggesting Christians would ever be denied access to the Holy Sepulchre or Via Delorosa. Judaism’s tolerance of other faiths and respect for other’s significant sites is fairly well unparalleled.
- I get that the Palestinians do not want to formalise their dispossession. But the reality is that the land of Palestine is as artificially created as most of the middle east – carved up according to random lines on a map to suit European interests. And they never really controlled the land anyway – the British did. And the British gave it away to the Jews, so get pissed at the British. Twice Israel has agreed to a Palestinian State – twice they have said no. Now they are picking and choosing the parts of agreements they like rather than return to the table with Israel, and asking the UN to recognise their preferred choice of borders. So basically the lesson has not been learned: the Palestinians are continuing to make the mistake of their former British protectors of drawing lines on a map as they see fit rather than working it out with vested parties and consulting the people who actually live there.
- I didn’t make it to Bethlehem for Christmas, but I will at some point. However, having been near the checkpoint one needs to cross to go there, I was struck by this thought: does the Christian world want the Birthplace of Christ to be in a nation that is embroiled in civil war and is likely to continue to be in some level of turmoil for decades? Or would they rather have it as part of Israel, knowing and understanding the recognised tradition and history of protecting heritage and culture regardless of which culture or faith it belongs to, and benefit from unimpeded travel between Jerusalem and Bethlehem?
- While previously I had supported a two state solution, I don’t think it will work. Palestine would need to be a contiguous state for any kind of stability to be achieved. Otherwise the bit between the West Bank and Gaza would still be perpetually under threat. So for my two cents, it’s either one state or 3 (Israel, Palestine, Gaza). I have also been pondering whether a democratic solution could be arrived at within Israel as a single state that would give a similar effect without the issues of 2 or 3 states in such a small area of land – ie. establishment of basically self-governing secular provinces, with the same kind of freedoms that say Quebec has in Canada to do as they please within an overarching national framework that is the Jewish nation state. It is not as though this is the first time the world has encountered significant regional differences within a country. Although arguably the differences between the West Bank, Gaza and the rest of Israel are significantly less than say the differences between Vancouver and Montreal, or Broome and Melbourne etc. I think however the Palestinians are far to stubborn and short-sighted to consider such a mature democratic solution.
- Oppression of people is intolerable by any nation-state or governing force. (Yes, I’m a democrat, I always side with the people.) Gaza is currently oppressed by two forces: Hamas and Israel. Neither is acceptable. Ah, but the people of Gaza voted for Hamas you say. No one votes for violent rule. No one votes to have their communities and businesses destroyed and turned in to fodder for bombs to be launched from or at. Just as the people of Zimbabwe got something other than what they voted for when they first elected Mugabe, or insert other example here from the multitudes throughout history, the international community must and should act to protect a people from this kind of abuse of power and oppression. From both oppressors.
- I have always believed the Global Divestiture Campaign (GDC) that some in the Australian Greens support to be the best current example of the worst kind of stupid popular ill-thought out campaign, and now that I am here I can assure you that belief is utterly solidified. It may be a Jewish state, but many, many people of all cultures, religions, backgrounds and walks of life work for Israeli companies. Including Palestinians who cross the checkpoints every day to get to work. Banning Israeli products only hurts those they claim to support.
I have a number of other thoughts but they are not as formed. So End Rant, for the moment.
That’s it. I’m out. If you can visit Israel and ignore the wall and the plight of the Palestinians, I do not want to hear from you again. You have just “come out” in my opinion. Have you read “The Wandering Who?” by Gilad Atzmon, who was born in Israel? He woke up years ago. But then he has a heart and cares deeply about the Palestinians. Palestine has been there for hundreds of years – maybe thousands. Long before the Kahzar Zionists decided they wanted to own land there. And these Zionists are not even semitic.
I’m disgusted. Another hope for the future of our “democracy” (which we don’t have) has just gone down the toilet.
Julia Gillard did the obligatory trip to Israel about 12 months before she became PM too. All very interesting… and very sickening…
Firstly, I have no idea who you are are or what you were ‘in’ to be out of.
Secondly, I have not ignored either the wall or the plight of the Palestinians. If you are talking about the Western Wall I visit it daily – if you are talking about the security fence/wall- I have been and looked at it with my own two eyes, referenced the checkpoint to go to Bethlehem in the post, and have spoken to many people about it, but it is something on which I have not yet made up my mind… although I can report both Arabs and Jews here that I have spoken to seem to agree that whatever you think about it, it has dramatically improved quality of life in the area.
I am not here on an obligatory trip to say ‘yes, I have been there’ – I am not here for any kind of political or work purpose, nor am I a zionist or anti-zionist, nor is the above trying to be any kind of comprehensive statement on the issue. Just some base level thoughts with the appropriate advice signifying such.
So you can be disgusted all you like, but until you can actually read what is written in a blog post rather than reading in to it something that is not there, I don’t particularly care. Until you can read and take in a piece of information without beating the drum about your own view, your ill-informed BS is irrelevant and just as closed minded and childish as the vast majority of people that keep this issue tied up in hysterical knots rather than seeking real solutions. I am not interested in disgust, outrage, sickening or any other hyper-emotional framing or alarmism from either side.
(BTW: thank you for giving me a damn good laugh with “Palestine has been there for hundreds of years”! Dear Australian, I appreciate that you, like most Australians, are used to hundreds of years being a long time, however, in this part of the world it is a blink of an eye. By the Jewish calendar this is the year 5772. Abraham traveled to the land of Canaan, which is now Israel/Palestine, circa 1900 BCE, or near enough 4000 years ago. The first temple stood on the Temple Mount and was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE, so some 1200 years before Islam existed. Zionists did not decide they wanted land here – God did, theoretically, when he wrote the endless references to it in to Torah. Even if you want to believe that the scholars/Rabbis/whatever put the endless references to the Holy Land in themselves when writing the Torah, the wording of it hasn’t been changed since 100CE, or 1900 years ago. Hundreds of years? Ha!)
Daphne – I’m not sure if I should classify you as an anti-Semite or not, but the statements that you’ve made do have an anti-Semitic background. For instance, you quote Gilad Atzmon, who has labelled himself as a self-hating Jew and hates Judaism and the Jewish people. Despite his Jewish heritage and him originally from Israel – I do not take anything Atzmon says serious mainly because his motive is racist towards the Jewish people, prejudice towards Israel and very unhelpful in resolving the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. You mention the “Khazar Zionists” as a euphemism for Israeli Jews and Ashkenazi Jews in general. There is an anti-Semitic belief that all Ashkenazi Jews (which is the majority of modern day Jews) are the descendants of the Khazars who lived between the Black and Caspian Seas more than a thousand years ago (modern day Georgia, Russian, Abkhazia and Ossetia). It is true that Khazar nobility and some of it people did convert to Judaism, however not all Khazars were Jews. There were Khazars that practiced Islam, the Greek Orthodox faith and other religions. To state that Ashkenazi Jews are not Semites and not real Jews like the Sephardi Jews is racist and unworthy. There is DNA evidence that modern day Jews (whether they be Ashkenazi or Sephardi) are relates to other Semites such as Arabs, Assyrians, Chaldeans and the Maltese people. Check out the kohanim gene. Hence Jews and Arabs have historical ownership of pre-1948 British Mandate Palestine/post-1918 Ottoman Palestine/modern day Israel, West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Kathryn has not anything anti-Semitic as all, only you have Daphne. As for democracy, 20% of Israel citizens are Arabs, Druze and Bedouin and elect their own people to the Israeli Knesset. Palestinian Arabs and Samaritans elect their own to the Palestinian Legislative Council in the West Bank and Gaza. So what is this talk of no democracy in the region????
I’m a fence-sitter. And the following is not as nicely organised as you have managed; they’re mostly just thoughts that probably reveal more about my prejudice than I formally acknowledge.
I understand that the Palestinians probably feel dispossessed. And I understand that the Jewish nation (either born there, or originally from many other nations) probably also feel the same. And I don’t think that the length of time that the location has been significant to either party should really have anything to do with it. Because, really, it is now a significant place to both parties involved. So, I like point 1. Neither Palestinian nor Jewish refugees should be given special consideration; they’re all just refugees. The time of British mandate/rule, under which moderately large numbers of Jewish refugees were allowed into Palestine, probably exacerbated the issue, by making Palestinians feel forcibly dispossessed/powerless, while many of the Jewish refugees simply felt that they were returning home.
I do have a (formerly very religious) friend who theorised that this trouble is caused by the Jewish people attempting to return to the Holy Land before their repentance (I assume this means the recognition of Christ as the son of God), after Judah was exiled by God. I personally think that’s a rather extreme view.
To be honest, I think it’s a huge damn mess, involving elements I cannot understand (of religious, historical, and national importance). It’s going to be a long struggle. I don’t know whether that amount of time is lengthened or shortened by international involvement (and obviously never will), but I do think that striving for any sort of equitable arrangement between the currently existing states—while ‘proper’—is going to take a hell of a lot of time (and lives).
“…although I can report both Arabs and Jews here that I have spoken to seem to agree that whatever you think about it, it has dramatically improved quality of life in the area.”
Sorry, I couldn’t quite unravel the preceding sentence, or the comment from the other person. This is referring to the security fence, yes? Out of personal curiousity, did they say why it had improved the quality of life?
The sentence was referring to the security fence. The use of the term ‘wall’ is always problematic, because, well, there’s a few of them. The people that I have spoken to hear say that the security fence has dramatically decreased the number of terrorist attacks on the green line areas thus dramatically improving quality of life… because they can (re)build and invest in property and businesses with more confidence, go about their day to day business more freely, etc. Essentially the fence allows them to get on with their lives.
“Palestinian refugees are not different to other refugees”
Yes, they are, and -especially- in the way that you frame it. Palestinian refugees seeking to the “right of return” are not Afghanis trying to enter Australia in an “unlimited number”. They are people seeking to return to the place they (or their parents) once called home. Contrast this with what is called “The Law of Return”.
No they’re not. There’s plenty of refugees from all kinds of war torn places who would like to go home, but they can’t. Refugees are refugees. Reparations are made, absorption in to new cultures is required, or they can sit in refugee camps and wait – but if their home no longer exists, or someone else lives there now, then that’s the way it goes. Throughout the history of time, that’s the way it goes… I’m quite sure there’s Vietnamese and Koreans and Iraqis and (insert any other nationality of mass exodus) who would like to go back to their homeland… but they aren’t being given a special deal by the UN. To me, whether they were chased out or chose to leave or were encouraged by Arab leaders to leave is also utterly irrelevant. Refugees are refugees.
The ‘Law of Return’ relates to Jews returning to the Holy Land – has almost nothing to do with refugee or other status or even immigration as a political concept and everything to do with Talmudic requirement. The two are not even vaguely relatable or contrastable – they are two utterly different things. Those seeking to live here – even under the Law of Return – still have to jump some mighty administrative hoops, as you do migrating to almost any country, the usual blood tests, police background checks, paperwork, lots of money… and if you are Jewish, you need all the paperwork to prove you are Jewish… not unlike proving your grandparent was a citizen of the UK for example if you wanted to migrate there.
(I never made any reference to Afghanis, I was speaking hypothetically about the noise the Australian body politic would make if presented with a similar request.)
Kathryn – well done on your piece. This is probably one of the most objective piece of work written by someone with an open mind and considers herself neither pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. Overall I do agree with what you have written Kathryn. Only a few points I personally disagree with.
First point is the issue of the Old City of Jerusalem. Historically and religiously, Jerusalem should be part of Israel as it is the holiest city to the Jews, third to Islam and somewhere below no 1 for the Christians. Also majority of Jerusalemeans would prefer to live under the Israelis rather than the Palestinian Authority. However in the interested of peace and permanent state for the Palestinians and the Israelis – Jerusalem needs to be split into two to accommodate for Israel and the Palestinians. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should be the capital for the Palestinians as well.
Second point I want to raised is the issue of whether there should be a one-state, two-state or three-state solution. I believe that a three-state solution is the most viable solution in the region. It is very important that since 1948, you have two powerful cultures created and they both need to be maintained. Israel must continue to exist due to the Hebrew language, the Jewish people and the Israel culture and way of life. However, the Palestinians are also a people, with Arabic as their language and Islam and Christianity as their religion. Palestinians have every right to nationhood as much as the Israelis do.
A one-state solution will cause one culture to dominate and destroy the overall culture. A one-state solution will actually cause a civil war between the Israelis and Palestinians and this will be more bloodier than the current conflict. A two-state solution is possible – however if the internal politics with Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank – there is a possibility of unified Palestinian state within the two regions being unachievable. Three-state solution will continue to have a Jewish state in Israel and two Palestinian states within the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Both cultures are preserved and maintained and we hope peace will be everlasting in the Holy Land.
Just a comment on the Palestinian refugees – they are genuine refugees as they do not have a homeland, no citizenship and no equal rights. So who is to blame for all this. Kathryn is spot on in saying the British. There is a lot of talk of blaming Israel for the Palestinian refugee problem. But why Israel? The Arab States (except Jordan) have not granted Palestinian refugees citizenship and equal rights, whereas Israel has provided Arab Jewish refugees Israeli citizenship and equal rights. There is so much talk about returning Palestinians to Haifa and Jaffa in Israel – to a country they do not agree with nor support – but very little talk about the world taking these Palestinian refugees, granting them citizenship in Australia, US, wherever and having the equal rights that we Australians have for the Palestinians who have been homeless since 1948.
So Kathryn – very well done on this piece of work.
Kind regards
Paul
http://www.onevoicemovement.org/
Hi Paul – firstly thank you and apologies for the delay in approving your post, it got flagged as spam (probably the link). Just on your point about the Palestinians: while there are many Christian Palestinians, it is my understanding that they intend to impose Sharia Law, which is not exactly tolerant of Christians continuing to practice their faith. One issue I wasn’t aware of is that while under Jordanian occupation, none of the churches could be repaired – they are allowed to stand, but not to be maintained. This was explained to me when I asked about the extensive renovation works in almost every church I have visited. The Holy Sepulchre in particular has scaffolding and repair works underway on about a third of the building as part of an extensive repair program they have only been able to engage in since 94. You may also be interested to know that Israel has a special visa class offering protection to any gay or lesbian Palestinians as they are not permitted to be openly homosexual in the Palestinian Territories.