The author argues that as a self-identified center-right individual, they feel they lose moral high ground when discussing issues related to Israel that are automatically given to left-wing positions. Specifically, the author does not believe the Israeli presence in territories beyond the 1967 borders constitutes an "occupation" and argues this term undermines the Jewish claim to the land and chances for a peaceful resolution. While the author acknowledges the unclear circumstances Palestinians live in, they believe both sides must have open discussions and make compromises to reach a long-lasting peace without predetermining stances.
1) The document describes Israel's 1968 invasion and destruction of the Palestinian village of Karameh in Jordan. 2) Jordan requested an urgent Security Council meeting to take action against Israel. The US initially asked for delays and adjournments but eventually did not put forward their promised draft resolution. 3) The author, Jordan's ambassador, suspected the US was not acting in good faith and was stalling to protect Israel, as evidenced by the weak language in the eventual US statement that failed to condemn Israel's actions.
The document discusses several perspectives on why the number of overweight children is increasing in developed countries. Some argue it is due to the growing availability of fast food outlets. Others believe parents are responsible for not properly managing their children's health and diet. The response agrees both factors likely contribute to the problem. Fast food outlets make unhealthy options readily available. However, parents play a role in what food they purchase and allow their children to eat regularly. A balanced, nutritious diet and sufficient exercise are needed to address the issue.
This document discusses the Israeli policy of expansionism and resistance versus terrorism. It makes several key points:
1) Israeli leaders have long advocated for further expansion and wars of independence to gain more territory, as shown by quotes from prior to the 1967 war.
2) The Palestinians have legitimate claims to resist Israeli occupation, as resistance was praised in Europe against Nazi occupation.
3) Israeli actions have violated UN resolutions and agreements like the 1949 Protocol of Lausanne, encouraging further defiance.
4) Recognizing Israel's legitimacy should not come at the expense of Palestinian rights and claims to their own state.
Article in The Times of Israel by Andy Blumenthal: In short, the Left is right when it comes to caring about others and the ultimate goal that we all seek, which is genuine and lasting peace and the ability to live side by side as brothers and sisters in peace and prosperity. However, the Left got it all wrong when it comes to the reality on the ground in terms of the radical Islamic groups who want no peace, no negotiation, and no recognition of Israel, period. This is where the hope of the Left met the reality of the Right, and the Left lost all credibility, at least for the time being. Perhaps, just perhaps, reality will change and radical hearts will soften and give peace a fighting chance, allowing the Left to be right as well.
Du bow digest germany edition september 27, 2011dubowdigest
The document summarizes the recent UN General Assembly meeting regarding Israel and Palestine. It discusses that while Palestine gained some recognition, the US vetoed their bid for Security Council membership, relieving Israeli and Jewish concerns. It analyzes the core issues in the conflict being Israeli security and recognition as a Jewish state versus Palestinian claims to holy lands. Overall, the situation remains unchanged with negotiations still needed.
This document provides background on the Palestinian case and the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It discusses how Palestinians have historically lived in the land now known as Palestine and considers several important documents related to the conflict, including the Balfour Declaration of 1917 in which Britain supported the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine without consulting Palestinians. It examines Britain's contradictory promises to Arabs and Jews and argues Palestinians were denied rights laid out in Woodrow Wilson's declaration about self-determination after World War I. The document provides historical context on the roots of the conflict over territory and nationhood.
The Origin of the Palestine - Israel ConflictHear O World
This document provides a summary of the history of the Palestine-Israel conflict from the Palestinian perspective. It begins by stating that the conventional view is that both sides are at fault, but the Palestinians have a real grievance as their homeland was taken from them during the creation of Israel, mostly by force. It then outlines the history of Palestine to show how the Zionist colonization process occurred and displaced the indigenous Palestinian population. The document argues that the root cause of the ongoing conflict is this original injustice against the Palestinians and that a moral solution would involve Israel assisting in the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.
In this letter, David Ben-Gurion explains to his son Amos his strong support for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, even if it is only on a portion of the land, as proposed by the Peel Commission. [Ben-Gurion argues that a Jewish state, even if small, would increase Jewish strength, population, economy, and defense capabilities, allowing for further settlement of remaining lands over time through agreement with Arabs or other means if necessary.] He believes that the status quo is untenable and that a Jewish state is the beginning, not the end, of fully realizing Zionism through the settlement of the whole of Palestine.
1) The document describes Israel's 1968 invasion and destruction of the Palestinian village of Karameh in Jordan. 2) Jordan requested an urgent Security Council meeting to take action against Israel. The US initially asked for delays and adjournments but eventually did not put forward their promised draft resolution. 3) The author, Jordan's ambassador, suspected the US was not acting in good faith and was stalling to protect Israel, as evidenced by the weak language in the eventual US statement that failed to condemn Israel's actions.
The document discusses several perspectives on why the number of overweight children is increasing in developed countries. Some argue it is due to the growing availability of fast food outlets. Others believe parents are responsible for not properly managing their children's health and diet. The response agrees both factors likely contribute to the problem. Fast food outlets make unhealthy options readily available. However, parents play a role in what food they purchase and allow their children to eat regularly. A balanced, nutritious diet and sufficient exercise are needed to address the issue.
This document discusses the Israeli policy of expansionism and resistance versus terrorism. It makes several key points:
1) Israeli leaders have long advocated for further expansion and wars of independence to gain more territory, as shown by quotes from prior to the 1967 war.
2) The Palestinians have legitimate claims to resist Israeli occupation, as resistance was praised in Europe against Nazi occupation.
3) Israeli actions have violated UN resolutions and agreements like the 1949 Protocol of Lausanne, encouraging further defiance.
4) Recognizing Israel's legitimacy should not come at the expense of Palestinian rights and claims to their own state.
Article in The Times of Israel by Andy Blumenthal: In short, the Left is right when it comes to caring about others and the ultimate goal that we all seek, which is genuine and lasting peace and the ability to live side by side as brothers and sisters in peace and prosperity. However, the Left got it all wrong when it comes to the reality on the ground in terms of the radical Islamic groups who want no peace, no negotiation, and no recognition of Israel, period. This is where the hope of the Left met the reality of the Right, and the Left lost all credibility, at least for the time being. Perhaps, just perhaps, reality will change and radical hearts will soften and give peace a fighting chance, allowing the Left to be right as well.
Du bow digest germany edition september 27, 2011dubowdigest
The document summarizes the recent UN General Assembly meeting regarding Israel and Palestine. It discusses that while Palestine gained some recognition, the US vetoed their bid for Security Council membership, relieving Israeli and Jewish concerns. It analyzes the core issues in the conflict being Israeli security and recognition as a Jewish state versus Palestinian claims to holy lands. Overall, the situation remains unchanged with negotiations still needed.
This document provides background on the Palestinian case and the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It discusses how Palestinians have historically lived in the land now known as Palestine and considers several important documents related to the conflict, including the Balfour Declaration of 1917 in which Britain supported the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine without consulting Palestinians. It examines Britain's contradictory promises to Arabs and Jews and argues Palestinians were denied rights laid out in Woodrow Wilson's declaration about self-determination after World War I. The document provides historical context on the roots of the conflict over territory and nationhood.
The Origin of the Palestine - Israel ConflictHear O World
This document provides a summary of the history of the Palestine-Israel conflict from the Palestinian perspective. It begins by stating that the conventional view is that both sides are at fault, but the Palestinians have a real grievance as their homeland was taken from them during the creation of Israel, mostly by force. It then outlines the history of Palestine to show how the Zionist colonization process occurred and displaced the indigenous Palestinian population. The document argues that the root cause of the ongoing conflict is this original injustice against the Palestinians and that a moral solution would involve Israel assisting in the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.
In this letter, David Ben-Gurion explains to his son Amos his strong support for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, even if it is only on a portion of the land, as proposed by the Peel Commission. [Ben-Gurion argues that a Jewish state, even if small, would increase Jewish strength, population, economy, and defense capabilities, allowing for further settlement of remaining lands over time through agreement with Arabs or other means if necessary.] He believes that the status quo is untenable and that a Jewish state is the beginning, not the end, of fully realizing Zionism through the settlement of the whole of Palestine.
DuBow Digest -Germany edition october 10, 2010dubowdigest
The document discusses several topics related to Germany, Israel, and Jewish communities:
1) It congratulates Germany on the 20th anniversary of reunification and notes the significant accomplishments since the fall of the Berlin Wall, while also acknowledging the challenges of reunifying East and West Germany.
2) It discusses the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and differences in perception between Israelis and others regarding settlement construction, citing an article explaining the Israeli viewpoint on continuing construction.
3) It provides an overview of several other articles and topics in the newsletter, including analyses of a Jewish state, the Christian group Christians United for Israel, a German company decision regarding Israel, changes at the White House, and cultural issues.
1) The book reviews Israel's founding in 1948 and the expulsion of Palestinians, which the author argues has obstructed peace efforts. While the author acknowledges the removals were unjust, he believes they were necessary to establish a viable Jewish state.
2) The book explores Israel's identity challenges as a Jewish state and examines controversial issues like settlements and ethnic cleansing during Israel's founding that continue to impact the conflict.
3) Younger Israelis are more critical of Israel and judge it based on its treatment of citizens, rather than just its existence, as older generations are more accepting of due to their experiences with existential threats faced by Israel.
This document discusses Japanese internment during World War II from several perspectives:
1) It provides context about why internment occurred through examining primary sources from the time period including documentary footage and personal interviews.
2) It describes life in the internment camps through an art piece and personal accounts, highlighting the difficult conditions people faced.
3) It presents differing judicial opinions on the constitutionality of internment, with the majority opinion upholding exclusion orders while the dissent argued they punished individuals for their ancestry rather than personal actions.
Du bow digest germany edition may 7, 2011dubowdigest
The document summarizes the views of two American Jewish organizations on the recent unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas. It outlines the writer's skepticism that the agreement will help peace talks or lead to a two-state solution given Hamas' stated goal of destroying Israel. It then provides an opposing view from the organization J-Street, which believes reconciliation could reduce obstacles to peace and supports engagement to explore opportunities for a two-state solution.
The cause of_world_unrest-ian_colvin-key_writer-274pgs-polRareBooksnRecords
This document provides a list of books published by Grant Richards Limited. It includes summaries and reviews of several books on political topics such as "The Evolution of Revolution" by H.M. Hyndman, "Clemenceau: The Man and His Time" also by Hyndman, "The Bolshevik Theory" by R.W. Postgate, "Ireland a Nation" by Robert Lynd, and "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" by Robert Tressell. It also advertises an upcoming book "The Cause of World Unrest" and provides the table of contents for that book.
This document profiles 12 peace builders and figures of resistance against Israeli occupation in Palestine since 1950. It provides brief biographies of each person and 1-3 quotes from each that illustrate their views, which generally call for non-violence, recognition of both peoples' ties to the land, an end to the occupation, and a two-state solution with open borders and shared citizenship rights. In particular, it discusses their views on recognizing historical facts, economic boycotts, bi-national states, and rejecting violence and military approaches in favor of non-violent resistance and reconciliation between the two peoples.
This document discusses the causes of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. It examines both general long-term causes like religious beliefs over land claims and short-term causes like the outcome of the 1967 Six-Day War. Key long-term causes included the Jewish belief in their right to Israel as their homeland, Arab opposition to a Jewish state being imposed in their region, and the failure of regional leaders and international powers to broker a lasting peace agreement. Short-term causes included Egypt and Syria's desire for revenge after their humiliating defeat in 1967, Israel's failure to appreciate how the balance of power had shifted, and ongoing border tensions between the wars. The document provides historical context on the religious and political roots of the conflict dating back
More Related Content
Similar to What Occupation – The Moral High Ground of Close Minded Openness
DuBow Digest -Germany edition october 10, 2010dubowdigest
The document discusses several topics related to Germany, Israel, and Jewish communities:
1) It congratulates Germany on the 20th anniversary of reunification and notes the significant accomplishments since the fall of the Berlin Wall, while also acknowledging the challenges of reunifying East and West Germany.
2) It discusses the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and differences in perception between Israelis and others regarding settlement construction, citing an article explaining the Israeli viewpoint on continuing construction.
3) It provides an overview of several other articles and topics in the newsletter, including analyses of a Jewish state, the Christian group Christians United for Israel, a German company decision regarding Israel, changes at the White House, and cultural issues.
1) The book reviews Israel's founding in 1948 and the expulsion of Palestinians, which the author argues has obstructed peace efforts. While the author acknowledges the removals were unjust, he believes they were necessary to establish a viable Jewish state.
2) The book explores Israel's identity challenges as a Jewish state and examines controversial issues like settlements and ethnic cleansing during Israel's founding that continue to impact the conflict.
3) Younger Israelis are more critical of Israel and judge it based on its treatment of citizens, rather than just its existence, as older generations are more accepting of due to their experiences with existential threats faced by Israel.
This document discusses Japanese internment during World War II from several perspectives:
1) It provides context about why internment occurred through examining primary sources from the time period including documentary footage and personal interviews.
2) It describes life in the internment camps through an art piece and personal accounts, highlighting the difficult conditions people faced.
3) It presents differing judicial opinions on the constitutionality of internment, with the majority opinion upholding exclusion orders while the dissent argued they punished individuals for their ancestry rather than personal actions.
Du bow digest germany edition may 7, 2011dubowdigest
The document summarizes the views of two American Jewish organizations on the recent unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas. It outlines the writer's skepticism that the agreement will help peace talks or lead to a two-state solution given Hamas' stated goal of destroying Israel. It then provides an opposing view from the organization J-Street, which believes reconciliation could reduce obstacles to peace and supports engagement to explore opportunities for a two-state solution.
The cause of_world_unrest-ian_colvin-key_writer-274pgs-polRareBooksnRecords
This document provides a list of books published by Grant Richards Limited. It includes summaries and reviews of several books on political topics such as "The Evolution of Revolution" by H.M. Hyndman, "Clemenceau: The Man and His Time" also by Hyndman, "The Bolshevik Theory" by R.W. Postgate, "Ireland a Nation" by Robert Lynd, and "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" by Robert Tressell. It also advertises an upcoming book "The Cause of World Unrest" and provides the table of contents for that book.
This document profiles 12 peace builders and figures of resistance against Israeli occupation in Palestine since 1950. It provides brief biographies of each person and 1-3 quotes from each that illustrate their views, which generally call for non-violence, recognition of both peoples' ties to the land, an end to the occupation, and a two-state solution with open borders and shared citizenship rights. In particular, it discusses their views on recognizing historical facts, economic boycotts, bi-national states, and rejecting violence and military approaches in favor of non-violent resistance and reconciliation between the two peoples.
This document discusses the causes of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. It examines both general long-term causes like religious beliefs over land claims and short-term causes like the outcome of the 1967 Six-Day War. Key long-term causes included the Jewish belief in their right to Israel as their homeland, Arab opposition to a Jewish state being imposed in their region, and the failure of regional leaders and international powers to broker a lasting peace agreement. Short-term causes included Egypt and Syria's desire for revenge after their humiliating defeat in 1967, Israel's failure to appreciate how the balance of power had shifted, and ongoing border tensions between the wars. The document provides historical context on the religious and political roots of the conflict dating back
Similar to What Occupation – The Moral High Ground of Close Minded Openness (7)
What Occupation – The Moral High Ground of Close Minded Openness
1. What Occupation? – The Moral High Ground of Close Minded Openness
I have been bothered by something for quite some time now. Why is it that as a self-defined ‘centre
to right’ politically minded individual do I immediately lose any moral high ground that
automatically gets ‘given’ to left wing politics. Why am I considered anti-peace? Why is it assumed
that l would prefer war and blood to anything else? Why am I considered ‘thuggish’, close minded
and unable to hear a different point of just because my default position is not one where I
inherently challenge the Israeli government policy. Ironically, this type of attitude is itself wholly
close minded and usually comes from those who claim to be completely open minded to all peoples
and opinions…unless those opinions disagree with their own views.
This quandary manifests itself largely, but not by any means solely, when talking about ‘the
occupation’. I know what some have you have just done…some of you have read the last sentence
seen the quotation marks and rolled your eyes. You have said to yourself “here we go again another
right wing extremist who refuses to accept the facts and wont rest until there are no Palestinians
anywhere in the borders of Israel”. To my rolling eyed readers, that is the type of reaction that I
am talking about above.
Let me explain why… I do not think that there is an occupation taking place, I do not think that the
aforementioned ‘occupation’ is an obstacle to peace and I do not think that Geneva conventions
are being violated. However, and here is the kicker so be sure to read this twice if you need to, I
do accept that there are hundreds of thousands of people living in unclear circumstances. I do
accept that forcefully taking land, houses, villages and towns for one’s own purposes will get you
nowhere (am I not casting any views as to whether this does or does not take place to be clear), I
do accept that a solution is needed and I do accept that any solution cannot be made by one side,
must suit the needs of all peoples in question and, most likely, won’t end with the Israeli
government in control of land and borders assigned to it by the original League of Nations
mandate.
What then, I hear you asking is my problem? What is wrong with calling those people that settle
the land beyond the green line obstacles to peace? Why can’t we say Israel is the occupying force
and make it incumbent upon ‘every Jew to call for an end to the ‘occupation’’ and bring about
peace.
Well, as I said earlier, I don’t believe there is an occupation, and in fact I believe that we have let
‘the other side’ define our opinion and terminology for so long that it has become ‘the norm’. I
believe calling the presence of Jewish people and the Israeli army beyond the green line an
‘occupation’ is not only factually incorrect, but also dangerous to any future potential of arriving
at peace. Let me start by explaining why I don’t believe that there is an ‘occupation’ and why I
believe labelling Jewish settlement beyond the green line is factually incorrect.
In 1920 at the Sanremo Conference the League of Nations partitioned land previously under the
recently devolved Ottoman Empire. It was decided (finalised four years later) that the land of
Palestine, including some land in what is now Syria would be ruled by Britain and France. For
reasons beyond the scope here Britain gave the land which is now Syria to France. Therefore, we
arrive at the now well known ‘British Mandate of Palestine’ who’s borders were decided by the
League of Nations, as a land accepted, through a deceleration of the British government (and
subsequently accepted by the League of Nations) for the establishment of a national home for the
2. Jewish People. If the story ended there the outcome would be simple. The borders of Israel would
be clear, all of the land including Gaza and land beyond the green line would be part of this place
set aside to create a national home for the Jewish people.
However, we all know that is not the end of the story. In 1948, when the British Army left the land
assigned to its rule, the surrounding Arab armies attacked and invaded the land. The sole purpose
of this invasion was to stop any potential of a Jewish state being founded within any of the borders
of what was the British Mandate of Palestine. Now, here is where things get interesting. In 1949,
the newly founded Israeli state army and its enemies called the war to a halt. They drew what is
known as armistice lines which was meant to mark the areas where the opposing armies ended up
after calling the invasion to a halt. It is important to note, these were not borders, in fact in the
1949 armistice agreements with both Egypt (at this point found in Gaza) and Jordan (at this point
found in Judea and Samaria) it states ‘No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the
rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine
question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations’ and
‘The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial
boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the
Armistice as regards ultimate "settlement of the Palestine question".’
Therefore, looking back the history of these areas we can see that they were, and since no agreement
has since been made, still are, what is known as ‘disputed territories’. Such that, the Israeli claim to the
land is based on the mandate given to it by the League of Nations which was then called in to question
after the war when two enemy armies ended up within those borders. Now, how can a people who
were given land by the international body whose right it was to give out the land, which was
subsequently invaded, occupy land which was originally given to them to settle in!
It has become so common place to call these pieces of land ‘the occupied territories’ that actually we
have forgotten that these pieces of land are disputed. Now if something is disputed no one can claim
ownership of it enough that they can call others occupiers or trespassers. Surely that is the definition
of disputed! Each one thinks they have the stronger claim over the land.
Having said all of this it seems clear to me when people call this piece of land ‘the occupied territories’
they are not only factually incorrect but they are also damaging any chance for an honest and mutually
beneficial peace due to the fact that they are belittling and relinquishing any Jewish claim to the land.
Ultimately what they are doing is undermining any possibility of Jewish presence in this piece of land
under any peace deal, even as a land swap, because why would anyone agree to an alien presence in a
land that they have no claim over?
3. As such, returning to my original point, when I refuse to accept that there is an occupation, when I
insist on calling areas by the names that Israel calls them or at least calling the land disputed, when I
disagree that these pieces of land are answer to all the questions in the Israel Palestine conflict, it is
not because I think that there should be a one state for one people solution. It is not because I refuse
to accept that living standards for Arabs living in these areas are not as good as they could be (although
arguably better than if there was no Jewish presence here but we can talk about that another time.)
Neither is it because I wish to commit inhumane atrocities to other human beings or wish to live in a
constant state of war. Rather, I refuse to accept that stabbing people indiscriminately in the streets is
a form of uprising against an occupying force. I refuse to accept that firing rockets in to civilian areas is
a justifiable ‘last resort of a people that have been willing and ready to compromise for peace but have
gotten nowhere’ even if I were to believe this was true. I refuse to accept that just because someone
has said something to me over and over again it means that it is true and I refuse to accept that
compromise and co-operation from both sides is not a necessary to step to achieve a lasting peace.
Consequently, I do not appreciate it when I am told that ‘every Jew has a duty to end the occupation’
as Emily Hilton wrote on August 11 2016. What makes this view any more ‘Jewish’ than mine. What
makes this analysis of the situation any more correct that mine giving it the authority to call for a ‘Jewish
response’. Rather, I would implore every Jew, and non-Jew, alike to analyse the situation themselves.
Make their own decision as to what they think and respect that others can come to different
conclusions to your own but that does not mean that it should not be held within the plethora of views
that surface when talking about the Israel Palestine conflict. And finally, but perhaps most importantly,
that no view however absurd you may think it is, should be thrown out as radical, extreme, ridiculous
or any other superlative you can think of until it has been assessed, discussed and analysed by both
sides. I believe that only by having this attitude combined with open and frank discussion between all
parties involved will we be able to arrive at negotiated, long lasting and secure peace for everyone, in
whatever form that may be.