51st: The State of Our Union
PM Netanyahu addressed the fawning U.S. Congress this morning (May 24):”Making his second appearance before a joint meeting of Congress, Mr. Netanyahu entered to prolonged applause, accompanied by a hefty delegation of supportive senators and representatives. And practically every paragraph he spoke was met with more applause.”
The Times’s account includes this line: ““I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace,” he said, adding that it would not be easy, because “in a genuine peace, we will be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland.”
Ancestral? If that’s the standard, what about the Canannites, Phoenicians, Edomites, etc?
UPDATE: Better than the Onion: Flash! Israel declines annexation of the United States.
“In an impassioned speech today to the western (trans-Atlantic) branch of the Knesset, Prime Minister Natanyahu warmly accepted the 36 standing ovations of the US Congress, but stated firmly that in spite of Mormon claims to the early settlement of North “America” by the lost tribes of Israel and recent archaeology that the LDS church cites in support of that “fact,” Israel could not in conscience accept the offer to merge the United States with Israel under the Israeli Basic Law. Such a merger, he said would be traumatic for those “Americans” who could not claim Israeli citizenship under the Israeli “Law of the Return.” Bravo Pat Lang!
Haaretz on Netanyahu’s speech to U.S. Congress: “The prime minister will return home from the United States without major developments to show for himself. He is leading Israel and the Palestinians into a new round of violence, along with Israel’s isolation and deep disagreement with the American administration. The time has come for the large numbers of those in Israel who seek peace to be heard. Israel deserves a different leader.”
M.J. Rosenberg: “Congress to Palestinians: Drop Dead.” “If anyone had any doubt about whether the Palestinians would declare a state in September, they can’t have them now.” And much, much more from a supporter of Israel.
Here’s Ethan Bronner’s report (May 25) on Israeli reaction: “JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel returned from Washington on Wednesday to a nearly unanimous assessment among Israelis that despite his forceful defense of Israel’s security interests, hopes were dashed that his visit might advance Palesinian peace negotiations.”
Andrew Sullivan has a cri de coeur on our subject.
From a friend: “Bibi and the Yo-Yos” (referring to our Congressional representatives) by Uri Avnery, Israeli commentator and peace maker.
What about the Canaanites? The Israelites emerged from the Canaanites.
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=israelites+emerged+from+canaanites&aq=&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=6787e58e620085fc&biw=1084&bih=502
No generous compromise on a united Palestinian negotiation team – just Abbas’s goup (applause?)
No negotiation on Jerusalem (applause?)
So how much negotiation is possible in this kind of framework?????
The Jews certainly have a better claim on that ancestral homeland than the Palestinians do.
So too, the Lanapia’s claim on Manhattan.
And Ohlones on the San Francisco Bay Area!
Besides, since when should political solutions to political problems be based on one group’s interpretation of biblical stories?
Hmm, Edom was an independent kingdom, and largely outside of the borders of modern Israel, I believe. But, according to the infallible Wikipedia, it probably was a vassal state of the Davidic monarchy for a while. So depending on which date one fixes as the date in which the “real” borders were in effect, one would either include it as part of Israel, or not. I remember reading an article once about how thankless Rand McNally’s business was – they were getting harassed constantly by countries, ethnicities, etc., who disputed the company’s representation of borders on maps and globes.
Lanapias and Ohlones have not, to my knowledge, laid claims to their alleged homeland via suicide bomber.
I don’t know much about Middle East history so I spent a while reading a wikipedia timeline page on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It seems, from what I’ve read, that there’s plenty of blame to go around. When I look at current events – the British Queen visiting Ireland, for instance – I see lots of examples of powerful countries having taken advantage of othe countries in the past, with a continuing presence in those countries, but there is never as much acrimony heaped on them as is heaped on Israel in this blog. Why are they in particular so hated here?
Israel is not hated. My own hope is that Israel will survive and flourish alongside a Palestinian state. As someone who has followed the Israel-Palestinian struggle for decades, I agree there is plenty of blame to go around beginning with the British Mandate and its treatment of both Jews and Arabs, down to today’s Israelis and Palestinians.
My chief criticism is of U.S. policy that supports whatever Israel does in Gaza and the West Bank. We have no control over either Israelis or Palestinians and yet we have supported one side unconditionally to the detriment of all, of Israel, the Palestinians, and ourselves. This is a foolish and destructive policy and poisons the political future of the whole Middle East. Netanyahu’s parading and preening before our fawning Congress is an insult to our country, our president, and our Constitution, and if I may say so to Israelis and American Jews most of whom know this man does not represent their real and best interests.
“Netanyahu’s parading and preening before our fawning Congress is an insult to our country, our president, and our Constitution, and if I may say so to Israelis and American Jews most of whom know this man does not represent their real and best interests.”
Wow, that sure is a lot of people to speak for.
The history is apples and oranges.
North American Indians did not have to lay claim as the right to nationhood was already implied and stated from the earliest point of settlement; first from the British and after 1776 the USA. It was understood that the Indian nation was a nation within a nation. That was the whole point of treaties – a nation to nation negotiation. Issues and conflicts that exist today concern the Indian nation in relation to the treaties signed. These are usually worked out in the courts or federal government negotiations.
The problem with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was the right to a Palestinian state, let alone that Palestinians were a “nation”, was never even acknowledged at the inception of the Israeli state. Until very recently, I believe Oslo, it has always been ambiguous whereas the right of an Israeli state was unconditionally accepted by the US and Western Europe almost immediately.
The problem with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was the right to a Palestinian state, let alone that Palestinians were a “nation”, was never even acknowledged at the inception of the Israeli state.
________________
Nations are made by the people declaring themselves to be a nation. It is an inherent right of self-determination. Nations, and the right to a particular state, are not dependent upon what outsiders do or do not do. That is how nations and states are made.
The Palestinians could have declared themselves a nation at any time. But, instead, they chose to deny the nationhood of Israel and have waged war against that nation for generations. It is a war that they have lost, again and again. And one of the rules of war is that if you start a war and lose, you forfeit the lands from which you launched the attacks.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian leadership, and neighboring Arab countries, have been more oppressive to the Palestinian people than Israel ever has. And Israel extends more rights, including citizenship, to non-Jews, i.e. Muslims, than Palestine will ever extend to a Jew. As we see with the settlements, Palestine is to be Judenfrei (and their definition of “Palestine” includes the entirety of the region between Syria, Jordan, and the Sinai).
We could have a nation of Palestine and peace in the region tomorrow. All that has to happen is for the Palastinians to choose peace, and accept Israel’s right to exist, rather than conflict.
As Crystal Watson said @ 6:47pm, 5/24: There’s plenty of blame to go around. Why does the U.S. continue to overwhelmingly favor one side while leaving the other side to its own (often destructive) strategies?
Margaret:
I completely agree. It seems to me that Obama wanted to signal fairmindedness. This is hugely important. Even General Petraeus acknowledged that the Israeli conflict hurts America’s interest in the region and makes entering into imporant strategic partnerships difficult.
I completely agree with Rosenberg as well.
It isn’t about picking sides, it is about being fair and reasonable.
The constant ululating against Israel on this blog is scary.
Netanyahu makes a passionate speech in defense of his state, which is under endless threat of annihilation, and he’s sneered at for parading and preening. The Congress receives the message with enthusiasm and is derided as fawning.
For an account of Netanyahu’s speech see this morning’s NYT:
“I stood before my people and said that I will accept a Palestinian state; it’s time for President Abbas to stand up before his people and say, ‘I will accept a Jewish state,’ ” Mr. Netanyahu said to cheers from a hugely friendly crowd of Democratic and Republican lawmakers gathered in the House chamber of the Capitol.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/world/middleeast/25diplo.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=benjamin%20netanyahu&st=cse
G@10:23: “The constant ululating against Israel on this blog is scary.”
The constant and ignorant defense of a policy that supports an illegal blockade, the illegal occupation of another’s territory, the indefinite detainment of other people, illegal arrests, etc., and applauds our own country’s support, direct and indirect, of such policies is short-sighted; it will ultimately bring down what everyone here no doubt supports: a secure Israel at peace with the Palestinians and all its neighbors.
Gerelyn, have you been treating your neighbors the way the Israelis have been treating Palestinians? You don’t seem like that type!
If the Palestinians laid down there weapons there would be immediate peace in the Middle East. If the Israelis lay down their weapons, they will be annihilated, exterminated.
A lot of the hatred against Israel you see here can be attributed, I think, to liberal white guilt. To them, Israel represents the ultimate Western colonialism, dumped right into the Middle East. Since the Israelis took only a decade or two to turn a stinking desert into a land of green and plenty, it offers a stark contrast between the Judeo-Christian culture capable of such transformation and the technologically and morally backward Islamic culture which has utterly failed to offer its people a decent civilization. Naturally, this is heresy to the multicultural mindset, which pretends that the two cultures are equal. So, they seek to weaken Israel so that it will eventually be driven into the sea and the embarrassment of a flourishing Western civilization among the backward cultures of the Middle East will be removed.
I don’t know about Gerelyn, but my neighbors acknowledge my right to exist.
Felapton, are you living in a home you drove them from?
“So, they seek to weaken Israel so that it will eventually be driven into the sea and the embarrassment of a flourishing Western civilization among the backward cultures of the Middle East will be removed.”
To the contrary, Israel has never been in a stronger position both legally and tactically to enforce its right to self-defense than it is now and it is in major part to the people you think “hate” Israel.
“The problem with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was the right to a Palestinian state, let alone that Palestinians were a “nation”, was never even acknowledged at the inception of the Israeli state. ”
I’ve seen it stated that a still-existant Palestinian state was established at virtually the same time that modern Israel was established: the Kingdom of Jordan, which seemed to include, at the conclusion of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the West Bank of the Jordan River. I’d welcome Margaret’s and others’ comments on this. Wikipedia’s rather convoluted account of the history suggests the complexity and contentiousness around it. I’m fuzzy on the actual nationhood status of the West Bank today, but my impression is that it is quasi-independent of both Israel and Jordan, but de facto controlled by the Israel military.
“If the Palestinians laid down there weapons there would be immediate peace in the Middle East.”
Maybe or not.
But the Palestinians, as an embedded culture within Israel, were in an ideal position to offer non-violent non-cooperation if they wished to force the Israelis to the table.
Another of my favorite memes is that the Christians, Jews and Arabs of the Holy Land have deprived themselves of riches on the scale of trillions by their addiction to violence. Who needs oil? Half the world reveres the sites of Jerusalem and Mecca and places in between. If it were a place of peace, it would be the number one tourist destination on the planet. Nothing else would be close. The holy sites, the food, the climate, the hospitality of the cultures. It’s all a tragic waste.
My own sense is that continued aid to either side constitutes an immoral act not unlike passing a flask to alcoholics. These people have forgotten peace, morality, and indeed, humanity. They have condemned their children to decades of hate and wasted opportunities. Neither side deserves any support whatsoever until they get their act together.
No. Neither have they driven me from the homes they’re living in. If they had, I would content myself with the one I’m in now.
As Crystal Watson said @ 6:47pm, 5/24: There’s plenty of blame to go around. Why does the U.S. continue to overwhelmingly favor one side while leaving the other side to its own (often destructive) strategies?
I’m still catching up on the history, but I’d ask instead, as I did above, why most liberals (and I’m about as lefty-liberal as one can be) and the majority of commenters on this blog, overwhelmingly blame Israel for admittedly questionable acts, while rarely mentioning the bad stuff done by the other side. Stronger countries have been taking advantage of their neighbors forever, from the Indonesian gov miustreating those in New Guinea, to the British occupying force that shot unarmed Irish in the back on Bloody Sunday. We don’t care about what happens in New Guinea because Indonesia lets us run the largest gold mine in the world there, and we (our president) say we’re proud of the Queen of England for saying sorry, though still keeping Northern Ireland, because we need the Brits as friends. Maybe we need Arab oil more than we need the Israelis as friends?
“Maybe we need Arab oil more than we need the Israelis as friends?”
Indeed, it is ironic that so many claim all the US cares about is oil and yet we support Israel which has no oil. So the Israel haters have to resort to other sorts of conspiracy theories explaining our support, such as the “All Powerful Jewish Lobby” which is their anti-semitic equivalent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. See Mearsheimer and Walt on that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401282.html
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict also reminds me of the English/Irish conflict. I think as Crystal pointed out, our government policies re: both countries supported the occupiers. But I thought there was tremendous grassroots support in America in the 80s and 90s for the IRA and their cause. (I did live in Irish neighborhoods, so my view could definitely be skewed; possibly the rest of the American people were not as supportive of a united Ireland as the Irish Bronxites were). But it is my understanding that the IRA was basically bankrolled by American sympathizers and our government didn’t seem to be especially aggressive in halting the flow of money to the IRA. I’ve always wondered why there wasn’t similar grassroots support here for the Palestinian cause. Frankly, I often wonder whether, if nothing else changed, but if the Palestinians had pale skin and blue eyes and were predominantly Christian, their cause might not have more support here among the American people.
I have tremendous sympathy for both the Israeli and Palestinian people and I hope they can find a shorter road to peace than did the English & the Irish.
Jim P@ 5/25; 1:35: “I’d welcome Margaret’s and others’ comments on this. Wikipedia’s rather convoluted account of the history suggests the complexity and contentiousness around it.” Jim, this is my research project for today. It is convoluted from what I’ve read so far, in part, I think because the Jewish community (Yishuv) was more focused on nationhood than the Arabs who seemed to live as if the Ottoman Empire was still in effect. But I’ll let you know what I find.
Irene: As you know, there are many Palestinian Christians who tend to be marginalized by both Muslims and Jews in Israel/Palestine as elsewhere in the ME (look at Iraq). There are large Arab settlements in Michigan, I think around Detroit etc. Don’t know the religious breakdown (Jean Raber, any info?). I bet if they’re sending money, they’re on the FBI/CIA/NSA wavelengths unlike U.S. supporters of the IRA. But that’s just a conjecture.
“but if the Palestinians had pale skin and blue eyes and were predominantly Christian, their cause might not have more support here among the American people.”
Yawn. The repulsion of the majority of the American people against the Palestinians has a lot more to do with their barbaric resort to suicide bombing and deliberate rocket attacks on Israeli school playgrounds than it does the color of their skin.
“Yawn. The repulsion of the majority of the American people against the Palestinians has a lot more to do with their barbaric resort to suicide bombing and deliberate rocket attacks on Israeli school playgrounds than it does the color of their skin.”
Yawn, yourself, Mr. Flanagan. Your earlier comment calling the Palestinians a “technologically and morally backward Islamic culture” valdiates my theory that, at least with some people, racism is at play.
Let me add that ,I too, am revolted by the intentional killing of civilians, in the case of both the Palestinians as well as the IRA in the past. I would just like to point out that the accusation of bias- that charge that some people are unduly critical of Israel, also seems to cut the other way, some people may object to the Palestinians, not because of the wrongfulness of their acts, but because, they have a blanket belief that Muslims are “morally backward”.
Suicide bombing (and the widespread support of it in Palestinian society) would seem to be pretty much conclusive evidence of a morally backward society. Barbaric, even.
Maybe I could give an example of myself – the way I came to sympathize with the Israeli cause. It will probably sound naive, but …
I grew up in an area of California where Jewish people are so thin on the ground that I’ve never yet (knowlingly) met one (have met some Arabs, though). I had no opinion about the conflict until I became a Catholic about 10 years ago. I’d been a history major and knew of the centuries of mistreatment of Jews by Christians (Ghettos, expulsions, etc.) but being now a Catholic, I began to fell in some ways responsible. I then read about the Holocaust and the role our church played in helping/not helping the Jews then, and I read about the present relationship between our church and the Jews, which I found serously wanting. I also began to read about the history of the present conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians – the terrorist attacks of Black September, Entebbe, suicide bombings, etc.
I don’t say that the Israelis are blameless, but given their history and given their present situation, I find it hard to believe our country would be doing any better in the same circumstances, and with all that we Christians have contributed to the problem over the centuries, I feel we owe them something more constructive than just blame. Are they coming unglued – maybe – but given their history and present reality, it would almost be bizarre if they weren’t. We should help – both them and the Palsetinians.
Crystal W. The account you give is one that many others could repeat. I grew up in a big city and I live in another one. I have always had Jewish friends, neighbors, and colleagues. That has taught me that there is not one “Jewish” view on Israel..there’s not even two. There’s many. Believe it or not, many Israelis, many American Jews, many Christians feel that the West Bank Settlements, the blockade in Gaza (ending this week-end with the Egyptians open the southern border), etc. are unjust and illegal.
Like you, many Christians learned the history of the Holocaust as adolescents or young adults; most of us accept that the Church (along with many other European institutions) did/mostly did not acquit itself well. This knowledge, over time, predisposed people to be totally sympathetic to the establishment and development of Israel. But for some of the same reasons that our sympathies should go to our Jewish friends for the history they’ve suffered, I have come to observe and think that some similar form of sympathy should go to the Palestinians. In my one visit to Israel, I met Palestinians (thanks to my Israeli hosts) from various walks of life; professors, politicians, and people who still live in refugee camps. They’re real people with real desires for a normal life. The increasing movement of Israelis into the West Bank and the territory that would be Palestine makes the idea of a real country and a normal life recede forever into the future.
Despite the howling of some commenters here, these posts are not anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, or anti-Semitic, they are efforts to get Americans to see that our unstinting support of Netanyahu’s government is foreclosing any hope of a two-state solution. Just because Catholics and Christians feel guilt (and should) about Hitler’s treatment of the Jews doesn’t mean were off the hook when it comes to the treatment of the Palestinians.
Margaret, thanks for the reply. I guess the truly awful thing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that there are good people on both sides who deserve a solution that allows them all to flourish, and yet there doesn’t seem to be a way to accomplish that end. If only there was a Millennium Prize for solutions to this conflict instead of for math problems.
Jim P. I’m still at work on your question.
Crystal:
For my part, I have met and been on friendly terms with some, not a lot but some, Jewish people. The more religiously oriented, the better I am able to get along and understand their point of view which is in many respects quite fascinating. As Margaret mentioned there is a wide array of opinion and thought among Jewish people.
But I do agree that criticizing when you are outside the family can sometimes be bad manners. On the other hand, there are real world implications in the sense of dollars and billions of dollars of aid that the US (and Canadians) taxpayers send to both the Palestinians and Israel so there is a legitimate stake we have in ensuring that the investment is used appropriately. Also, we need to hear different perspectives. I am glad that Margaret regularly posts because all you need to do is compare the press from Europe and even some within Israel to that of the USA when it comes to this issue and it is night and day!!
Nonetheless, what the Israeli/Palestinian conflict teaches me is how important it is to have a correct religious understanding. Had the early Zionists followed the ideas and notions of philosophers like Martin Buber, it might be a totally different situation now.
Just like with us. It is very, very important that the Church follow the correct understanding of Vatican II. Fr. Imbelli posted some reflection on Rahner who was influential at the Council.
Criticism of Israel does not equate to anti-semitism or anti-Jewish sentiment any more than criticism of the hierarchy necessarily implies anti-Catholic sentiments. Obviously it is possible that these currents exist but they don’t with me and I doubt they do with most of the posters here. It’s possible – we all have our demons but I don’t think so.
Jim P – a wikipedia page you might find helpful (the one I’ve been reading myself) … Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
George D – thanks for the response :) I actually have recently made my first Jewish friend, a fellow blogger who lives in Jerusalem – so far, politics hasn’t come up for discussion.
Crystal, thank you. Margaret, it appears I inadvertently gave you a major homework assignment :-) – just want to assure you that I wasn’t expecting you to spend a ton of time on it, but I will certainly welcome whatever comments you care to make.
And I agree with this: “these posts are not anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, or anti-Semitic, they are efforts to get Americans to see that our unstinting support of Netanyahu’s government is foreclosing any hope of a two-state solution. ”
My own view is that there have been so many injustices committed by the two sides against one another that no unraveling and setting-right of them will ever be possible. The only way peace will come about is if the two sides decide to acknowledge facts on the ground, forgive whatever injustices led to them, make peace and live peacefully. Of those things, the forgiveness part will be the hardest, by far. This is where Palestinian Christians would seem to be particularly well-suited to make a contribution – which is one reason we should share Rome’s distress that the region is becoming less friendly to a Christian presence.
Jim: it’s quite interesting project as focused by your question. Am at work on it.
Jim P. asked @5/25: 1:35, “I’ve seen it stated that a still-existant Palestinian state was established at virtually the same time that modern Israel was established: the Kingdom of Jordan, which seemed to include, at the conclusion of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the West Bank of the Jordan River.”
The story of Israel/Palestine and the origins of the current issues are indeed complicated. From my reading yesterday and today, the following background context is important:
1. Israel/Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey) and was a piece of the province of Syria. It was populated largely by Arabs who were Muslims (about 80 percent; Christians (a bit more than 10 percent; Jews (a bit less than 10 per cent). The province was a bit of a backwater. Jerusalem and surrounding Christian sites were no doubt the main interest of Westerners.
2. The Ottomans fought on the side of the Axis Powers (Germany, etc.) and were defeated in 1917 by General Allenby of the British Army. The end of the Ottoman Empire followed and for all intents and purposes the British were in charge until after WWII.
3. The British are central to the story from this point. The League of Nations divided up pieces of the Ottoman Empire, assigning this parcel to the British. The British had previously agreed in the Balfour Agreement to allow Jewish settlers (Zionists) to immigrate and settle there. The Zionists had actually been doing this from the end of the 19th century.
4. The British favored the Zionist settlement. First, because many of them were bible-reading Protestants who thought the Jews should return to “Zion.” And along with many Europeans, they thought this would settle the Jewish question by providing a homeland, a nation for them (in an era of high nationalist views).
5. In general the local population of Arabs were opposed to Jewish settlement both under the Ottomans and the British.
6. I think this is key: the Zionists were modernizers within their own Jewish community and certainly in contrast to the Arabs of Palestine who were largely an agricultural, herding society with several elite families more or less culturally and economically dominant.
7. The Zionists, i.e., Jewish settlers bought up land from both the local elite and absentee landlords living elsewhere. This no doubt upset the local land usage practices and tenancy agreements.
8. Skip to WWII. The British having put down an Arab rebellion 1936-39 were deeply concerned about Arab loyalty and feared their alliance with Germany. To placate the Arabs, they banned Jewish immigration. Nonetheless, the Yushuv (Jewish community in Palestine) was well organized economically, politically, and culturally. Various Jewish military forces were organized to support the British giving the Yushuv well trained soldiers and various kinds of armaments of use in the 1948 war with the Arabs.
9. The end of the war and news of the Holocaust turned world opinion in favor the the establishment of the Jewish state.
10. The Arabs remained divided among themselves and were no match for the better organized Jewish community. When the British mandate ended, Israel became a state authorized by the UN; the Arabs protested mightily but seemed unable to either unite themselves or to effectively press their own legitimate claims to a state. While their “territory” was recognized in the UN ruling, it was actually to be part of Transjordan under the King–a plan the British favored.
What we have here is a struggle between the modern and not yet modern; between Jews with national aspirations and Arabs still existing in a quasi-feudal system. The Jews were favored by the West; the Arabs of Palestine had no effective support from the then nascent Arab League, formed after WWII.
This is a very capsule account. Corrections (real facts please!) welcome. This info is from three books:
Rashid Khalidi, The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood, Introduction, Chapters 1 and 2.
Benny Morris, 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War, Chapter 1.
Ilan Pappe, A History of Modern Palestine, Chapter 3.