Obama's visit to Israel and the hope

MIKE GHOUSE, SEAN HANNITY AND OTHERS ON FOX NEWS
Friday night special about Obama's trip to Israel.

URL -http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2013/03/obamas-visit-to-israel-and-hope.html 

....
Obama's visit to Israel and the hope
New York, March 20, 2013. There will be 20 of Sean Hannity’s guest commentators  at  Fox Studios in New York to night  to talk about President Obama’s trip to Israel, and it will be filmed to be broadcasted on Friday night.   

Courtesy of Telegraph.

I am glad Hannity invited me to be a part of this meeting, as I am deeply committed to finding ways for peace in the Middle East; the mother of all conflicts in the world. I have nothing to gain but see peace.

Security of Israel is tied to justice for the Palestinians, one will not happen without the other. Neither the right wing Israeli hawks can send the Palestinians in to bushes, nor can the Palestinians will drive the Israelis into the sea. Neither will happen but, both will continue to suffer due to their arrogance and inability to see inwards while others are cashing in on those gratuitous statements.   

The leaders in both the states do not represent the common public, they are like Bush, who was opposed by 72% of Americans, yet he caused so much death and destruction of Americans as well as the Iraqis and Afghanis based on blatant lies.  The Israeli and Palestinian leadership is in the same boat and I do hope Pew conducts a survey to determine if the leadership reflects the peace the public wants.  Given the history of people, neither the majority of Israelis nor the Palestinians are the problem, it is the leadership.

The overriding need for security has pushed them in quick sand of injustice, they were a just people and we need to find a way out.  Obama can help it by recognizing the Palestinian statehood, which will benefit Jewish psyche, a sigh of relief – to have acceptance of undisputed home land, a genuine source of security.

 Here is a video appeal to Obama - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNYmI6MlhZw&feature=related

Indeed, we the Americans, and the Arabs, have messed up the Israel-Palestine conflict. We chose to die for our allies at all costs, and got them to entrench into hawkish positions. Had we got them to sit down instead, and talk as a condition of our aid and support, then we would have done good for both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

The American Hawks, particularly my fellow Republicans cannot see it, as they had no clue about the elections they just lost; they supported lies in the past and will continue to believe in fabrications.

It is sickening to hear the hawks shouting out loud that we need to protect our allies; they don’t mean it. We need to question their integrity, and if AIPAC does not support them or threaten their elections prospects, would they still be sincere?

Israel does not need duplicity; she needs genuine friends who will bring security now through dialogue, and not lying to them we will support you no matter what. How long the ordinary Israelis will be duped by these rogues? 

I hope Obama appeals to the Israeli and Palestinian public,and pray that Netanyahu, Abu Mashaal and Abbas see the validity of Israel's security and Justice to the Palestinians with long term ideals of normal living.

Here are a few basics.

Israel
Jews have a need to be understood and be acknowledged for their eternal security needs, not the military, but mental security where they can put their guards down and live their life in peace.

Palestine

Palestinians have a need to be understood. They have suffered immeasurably, no human should be stripped of his or her hope and dignity; hope to have a family, work and own a house and call a place their homeland. The world has failed them.

Threat

The real threat to the peace process between Israel and Palestine stems from their inability to look at their own policies critically. It is time to quit blaming and start finding solutions. Damn it, the leaders ought to be ashamed of themselves if they cannot look in the eyes of Palestinian and Israeli Children and commit to give them a better life.

The leaders need to learn,  that they cannot have peace and security when they keep threatening others around them, period. Peace is always the responsibility of the mighty.

U.S.A.

Our Presidents need to seriously look at what works. They need to have the vision for peace. They must understand that it may be going against the general opinion and must take bold steps and produce peace for the people of Israel and Palestine. It will save lives and brings peace to them and takes a burden off us.

We must protect Israel, our ally; however, if that protection is based on injustice to either Palestinians or compromising long term security of Jews, our integrity becomes questionable. We need to be above reproach and seek justice for one and all.

Mighty empires can crush the weak for a short term; in the long run every one goes down the tube. We cannot rob anyone and live with a good conscience.

The Right wing Jews of Israel and America do not like to hear reasoned voices of Moderate Jews and others including mine, likewise the right wing Muslims do not like to hear reasoned voices including mine. Just to clarify, the right wingers are not a group or set of people, it is the mental attitude  of individuals that gets them to dig in their heels, their solutions to the problem is kill all the Palestinians in the name of Jesus and Moses, and same goes the other way- kill all Jews in the name of Allah.

Mind you, the right wing nuts are few, but they bark louder in unison and we need to outnumber them, not in barking, but to let them know that more people want peace than conflict. That will begin the process of  weakening the bad and strengthening the good, for the common good of all parties.
.... ......

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, and interfaith. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through links.

On Questioning the Jewish State

By JOSEPH LEVINE

I was raised in a religious Jewish environment, and though we were not strongly Zionist, I always took it to be self-evident that “Israel has a right to exist.” Now anyone who has debated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have encountered this phrase often. Defenders of Israeli policies routinely accuse Israel’s critics of denying her right to exist, while the critics (outside of a small group on the left, where I now find myself) bend over backward to insist that, despite their criticisms, of course they affirm it. The general mainstream consensus seems to be that to deny Israel’s right to exist is a clear indication of anti-Semitism (a charge Jews like myself are not immune to), and therefore not an option for people of conscience.

Over the years I came to question this consensus and to see that the general fealty to it has seriously constrained open debate on the issue, one of vital importance not just to the people directly involved — Israelis and Palestinians — but to the conduct of our own foreign policy and, more important, to the safety of the world at large. My view is that one really ought to question Israel’s right to exist and that doing so does not manifest anti-Semitism. The first step in questioning the principle, however, is to figure out what it means.

One problem with talking about this question calmly and rationally is that the phrase “right to exist” sounds awfully close to “right to life,” so denying Israel its right to exist sounds awfully close to permitting the extermination of its people. In light of the history of Jewish persecution, and the fact that Israel was created immediately after and largely as a consequence of the Holocaust, it isn’t surprising that the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” should have this emotional impact. But as even those who insist on the principle will admit, they aren’t claiming merely the impermissibility of exterminating Israelis. So what is this “right” that many uphold as so basic that to question it reflects anti-Semitism and yet is one that I claim ought to be questioned?

The key to the interpretation is found in the crucial four words that are often tacked on to the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” — namely, “… as a Jewish state.” As I understand it, the principle that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state has three parts: first, that Jews, as a collective, constitute a people in the sense that they possess a right to self-determination; second, that a people’s right to self-determination entails the right to erect a state of their own, a state that is their particular people’s state; and finally, that for the Jewish people the geographical area of the former Mandatory Palestine, their ancestral homeland, is the proper place for them to exercise this right to self-determination.

The claim then is that anyone who denies Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is guilty of anti-Semitism because they are refusing to grant Jews the same rights as other peoples possess. If indeed this were true, if Jews were being singled out in the way many allege, I would agree that it manifests anti-Jewish bias. But the charge that denying Jews a right to a Jewish state amounts to treating the Jewish people differently from other peoples cannot be sustained.

To begin, since the principle has three parts, it follows that it can be challenged in (at least) three different ways: either deny that Jews constitute “a people” in the relevant sense, deny that the right to self-determination really involves what advocates of the principle claim it does, or deny that Jews have the requisite claim on the geographical area in question.

In fact, I think there is a basis to challenge all three, but for present purposes I will focus on the question of whether a people’s right to self-determination entails their right to a state of their own, and set aside whether Jews count as a people and whether Jews have a claim on that particular land. I do so partly for reasons of space, but mainly because these questions have largely (though not completely) lost their importance.

The fact is that today millions of Jews live in Israel and, ancestral homeland or not, this is their home now. As for whether Jews constitute a people, this is a vexed question given the lack of consensus in general about what it takes for any particular group of people to count as “a people.” The notion of “a people” can be interpreted in different ways, with different consequences for the rights that they possess. My point is that even if we grant Jews their peoplehood and their right to live in that land, there is still no consequent right to a Jewish state.

However, I do think that it’s worth noting the historical irony in insisting that it is anti-Semitic to deny that Jews constitute a people. The 18th and 19th centuries were the period of Jewish “emancipation” in Western Europe, when the ghetto walls were torn down and Jews were granted the full rights of citizenship in the states within which they resided. The anti-Semitic forces in those days, those opposing emancipation, were associated not with denying Jewish peoplehood but with emphatically insisting on it! The idea was that since Jews constituted a nation of their own, they could not be loyal citizens of any European state. The liberals who strongly opposed anti-Semitism insisted that Jews could both practice their religion and uphold their cultural traditions while maintaining full citizenship in the various nation-states in which they resided.

But, as I said, let’s grant that Jews are a people. Well, if they are, and if with the status of a people comes the right to self-determination, why wouldn’t they have a right to live under a Jewish state in their homeland? The simple answer is because many non-Jews (rightfully) live there too. But this needs unpacking.

First, it’s important to note, as mentioned above, that the term “a people” can be used in different ways, and sometimes they get confused. In particular, there is a distinction to be made between a people in the ethnic sense and a people in the civic sense. Though there is no general consensus on this, a group counts as a people in the ethnic sense by virtue of common language, common culture, common history and attachment to a common territory. One can easily see why Jews, scattered across the globe, speaking many different languages and defined largely by religion, present a difficult case. But, as I said above, for my purposes it doesn’t really matter, and I will just assume the Jewish people qualify.

The other sense is the civic one, which applies to a people by virtue of their common citizenship in a nation-state or, alternatively, by virtue of their common residence within relatively defined geographic borders. So whereas there is both an ethnic and a civic sense to be made of the term “French people,” the term “Jewish people” has only an ethnic sense. This can easily be seen by noting that the Jewish people is not the same group as the Israeli people. About 20 percent of Israeli citizens are non-Jewish Palestinians, while the vast majority of the Jewish people are not citizens of Israel and do not live within any particular geographic area. “Israeli people,” on the other hand, has only a civic sense. (Of course often the term “Israelis” is used as if it applies only to Jewish Israelis, but this is part of the problem. More on this below.)

So, when we consider whether or not a people has a right to a state of their own, are we speaking of a people in the ethnic sense or the civic one? I contend that insofar as the principle that all peoples have the right to self-determination entails the right to a state of their own, it can apply to peoples only in the civic sense.

After all, what is it for a people to have a state “of their own”? Here’s a rough characterization: the formal institutions and legal framework of the state serves to express, encourage and favor that people’s identity. The distinctive position of that people would be manifested in a number of ways, from the largely symbolic to the more substantive: for example, it would be reflected in the name of the state, the nature of its flag and other symbols, its national holidays, its education system, its immigration rules, the extent to which membership in the people in question is a factor in official planning, how resources are distributed, etc. If the people being favored in this way are just the state’s citizens, it is not a problem. (Of course those who are supercosmopolitan, denying any legitimacy to the borders of nation-states, will disagree. But they aren’t a party to this debate.)

But if the people who “own” the state in question are an ethnic sub-group of the citizenry, even if the vast majority, it constitutes a serious problem indeed, and this is precisely the situation of Israel as the Jewish state. Far from being a natural expression of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, it is in fact a violation of the right to self-determination of its non-Jewish (mainly Palestinian) citizens. It is a violation of a people’s right to self-determination to exclude them — whether by virtue of their ethnic membership, or for any other reason — from full political participation in the state under whose sovereignty they fall. Of course Jews have a right to self-determination in this sense as well — this is what emancipation was all about. But so do non-Jewish peoples living in the same state.

Any state that “belongs” to one ethnic group within it violates the core democratic principle of equality, and the self-determination rights of the non-members of that group.

If the institutions of a state favor one ethnic group among its citizenry in this way, then only the members of that group will feel themselves fully a part of the life of the state. True equality, therefore, is only realizable in a state that is based on civic peoplehood. As formulated by both Jewish- and Palestinian-Israeli activists on this issue, a truly democratic state that fully respects the self-determination rights of everyone under its sovereignty must be a “state of all its citizens.”

This fundamental point exposes the fallacy behind the common analogy, drawn by defenders of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, between Israel’s right to be Jewish and France’s right to be French. The appropriate analogy would instead be between France’s right to be French (in the civic sense) and Israel’s right to be Israeli.

I conclude, then, that the very idea of a Jewish state is undemocratic, a violation of the self-determination rights of its non-Jewish citizens, and therefore morally problematic. But the harm doesn’t stop with the inherently undemocratic character of the state. For if an ethnic national state is established in a territory that contains a significant number of non-members of that ethnic group, it will inevitably face resistance from the land’s other inhabitants. This will force the ethnic nation controlling the state to resort to further undemocratic means to maintain their hegemony.

Three strategies to deal with resistance are common: expulsion, occupation and institutional marginalization. Interestingly, all three strategies have been employed by the Zionist movement: expulsion in 1948 (and, to a lesser extent, in 1967), occupation of the territories conquered in 1967 and institution of a complex web of laws that prevent Israel’s Palestinian citizens from mounting an internal challenge to the Jewish character of the state. (The recent outrage in Israel over a proposed exclusion of ultra-Orthodox parties from the governing coalition, for example, failed to note that no Arab political party has ever been invited to join the government.) In other words, the wrong of ethnic hegemony within the state leads to the further wrong of repression against the Other within its midst.

There is an unavoidable conflict between being a Jewish state and a democratic state. I want to emphasize that there’s nothing anti-Semitic in pointing this out, and it’s time the question was discussed openly on its merits, without the charge of anti-Semitism hovering in the background.

Joseph Levine is a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where he teaches and writes on philosophy of mind, metaphysics and political philosophy. He is the author of “Purple Haze: The Puzzle of Consciousness.”

A Jew calls for 850 Million Hindus to assert themselves

I am baffled by the audio tape link listed below. Normally, I ignore the guys who thrive on pitiching one Indian against the other. However,  since it came from an active Indian leader and has come many times in the last few days in the email.  I decided to listen and did not hear any facts to back up the rants of the speaker.

Throughout our history, there have been men who have made their good by keeping other people in conflict. If you listen – he would want India to remain in a non-stop civil war. The man has nothing to lose but gain.

The right wing Hindus would love this kind of rhetoric, facts don't matter to the them, and the same goes with right wing Muslims who love similar rhetoric, and Christians and Jews are no different either.  

If we listen to this guy, the gullible among us would buy his hate pitch, and instantly start hating fellow Indians, and for some, their blood boils with a desire to kill every Muslim in India, particularly the Indians living in the United States. Please remember the extremists are no more than 1/10th of 1% of any group, be it Hindus or Muslims.

Imagine a scenario – where people would listen to this man, and go on a killing spree, but how many can you kill? Then Muslims will kill Hindus… is there an end to this Sunghursh (endless fight)? The Norway killer, the Wisconsin Killer had something in common, they cited reading Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer's hateful pieces about Muslims. Pamela's inciting posters may have been the reason for the death of a Hindu man in New York subway. I had warned about it on Fox News twice. As Indians we have a responsibility to nail every one who instigates disturbance and disturbs the peace.

If you and I are willing to give up everything and go on the street with swords– and ready to kill each other, then we are something. Otherwise we are disgusting humans who want the ordinary Hindu cocks to fight with the ordinaryMuslim cocks to bleed themselves to death. It is a game to some of us, other people's lives don’t mean a thing to us. But if this man expects you and me to fight, either he is delusional or we are stupid.

This guy is a disgrace to Judaism, Israel and America. He is justifying in his own sick mind what the Israeli settlers are doing to the Palestinians; he thinks a majority should bulldoze the minorities. Does't this hypocrite expect the United States to treat him as an equal, and yet he advocates otherwise, it is this kind of ugly men that contribute to Antisemitism.  Are my fellow Indians dumb enough to believe that they as a Minority in the United States should be treated in the same fashion as they want the Muslim minority in India be treated? 

All of us have worked hard against anti-Semitism, racism, anti-GLBT, Islamophobia, anti-immigrations, women's rights, discrimination,  and we must continue to work hard against these individuals. 

I appeal to the Jewish communities to denounce this man and keep their records clear,  that they do not approve of this. Why should  a Muslim man on the street not Hate Jews, if this Jew is inciting Hindus to hate Muslims? The guy is not an idiot, he just does not have morals or care for the future of Jews in the world, Mr. Madoff is for himself.  

I am sure some of the right wing Hindus are eager to write a big check to their savior, who laughs his ass off after collecting the monies. I urge you to spend your money in building relationships and causing lasting peace with your money, so all of us can live in peace. Please don't treat ordinary Hindus and Muslims as cocks who can kill each other. Let us not be his pawns.

As Indians we need to grow up, and not fall to those who want us to fight – they succeeded in splitting our nation, and keep us busy hating each other, they have done that in other parts of the world as well. Do we want to be screwed more?

Most of the Indian Hindus, Muslims, Sikh, Christians, Jain, Buddhs or others care less, but a few have made their business to spread hate. Don't brush this off, it is the build ups like these that explode into riots. 
Ask yourselves, what is your contribution towards making India, a better India to live? A better India is not seeing luxury cars on the roads, call centers or big homes, or industrial growth, a better India is where no Indian is afraid of the others, and if we have bad guys, we need to lock them up, with a clear understanding that their parents, siblings, kids, spouse or religion or not responsible for his actions.

I urge you to read Hyderabad blasts to appear in Huffington post this week at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse 

Mike Ghouse is committed to building cohesive societies where all of us can learn to live with each other without fear of the other.
...................

KARAYAM SADHAYAMI VA DEHAM PATYAMI Hindus  wake up and figght for your rights. This  is now or never. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JhJCHtyS60

...
Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel,India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive Americaand offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest onSean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly atHuffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal sitewww.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links.

Israelis & Palestinians voting for joint Parliament this month

Israelis & Palestinians voting for joint Parliament this month  
 Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/338524#ixzz2Ec05i6O3
 By Aymen Zaben 

On December 12, the Israeli Palestinian Confederation will hold its first election ever, allowing Israelis and Palestinians to vote as equals for President, Vice President and Parliament.

  

On December 12, the Israeli Palestinian Confederation will hold its first election ever, allowing Israelis and Palestinians to vote as equals for President, Vice President and Parliament.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, deeply rooted in religious and territorial disagreements, has been an issue in the Middle East for many years. With staunch views on both sides, conflict has been a given and has erupted into wars over the years with each side vying for control and fighting to prove who rightfully belongs in this small piece of land. In an area so often portrayed negatively in world media with seemingly perpetual conflict that is deeply rooted in religious and territorial disagreements, there is promising news on the horizon. The proverbial “light at the end of the tunnel” may turn into a flickering flame that is going to bring about democracy in this ideologically and historically war-torn region. History will be made as this much-anticipated event unfolds.

December 12th, 2012 will be a very historical date on the calendar of Middle East politics. The Israeli Palestinian Confederation (IPC) will hold its first election ever in the West Bank, Gaza and Israel, allowing Palestinians and Israelis to vote as equals for a President, Vice president and a joint Parliament. The larger objective of the Israeli Palestinian Confederation is to act as a third government for the people of these warring nations. While the Israeli and Palestinian governments will remain in place and make decisions regarding all important issues, the Confederation will act as a mediator to help resolve issues on which both sides have failed to reach agreement. In addition, the IPC will help address issues that impact day to day life such as water, transportation, education, public safety and security.

The establishment of the Israeli Palestinian Confederation will consist of a President, Vice President and Parliament. The democratically elected president and vice president of the IPC will serve in 4 year terms with a maximum of 8 years in office. One will be from Israel and the other from Palestine. However, to maintain political balance the IPC constitution requires that the president and vice president alternate positions after 2 years. The Parliament, on the other hand, will consist of a combined total of 300 members made up of both Israelis and Palestinians. Each Member of Parliament can serve a maximum of 12 years in office.

To successfully pass legislation for ultimate government approval, a 55% vote is needed from each side. While there haven't been very productive measures taken over the years to resolve the conflict, the creators of the IPC are hoping that great strides will be made on December 12, 2012. The creation of the IPC will help to quell long-held resentment through logic, reason, and diplomacy. Israelis and Palestinians will be able to select those that they see as being best fit to represent them in Parliament on December 12th, 2012, and the eyes of the World will be watching.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/338524#ixzz2Ec05i6O3
 

Israel Palestine 101 - Jewish Voice for Peace

The following video comes from Jewish Voice for Peace, which has a similar call as mine - Security for Jews and Justice for the Palestinians. The site claims, "Watch this short, historically accurate animated introduction to Israel-Palestine 101" - 

I believe Miko Peled's history has a slight variation in its narration of history, the Palestinians did not accept the mandate because a majority of the living population were given a small piece of land, where as the majority of the land was given to the a minority Jews.  However, between Miko Peled's history and this, varies on the Arab invasion. 

Here is Mike Peled's version at: http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2012/11/miko-peleds-video-israeli-generals-son.html
 

Indeed, my understanding of the entire conflict is laid out in my article, http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2012/11/how-to-achieve-security-for-israel-and.html

Here is the version by Jewish voice for peace.

http://israelpalestine101.org/ 

 

----------
Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place and standing up for others as an activist. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News, fortnightly at Huffington post, and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes everything you want to know about him.

Netanyahu’s Brazen And Perilious Defiance

Alon Ben-Meir and I have similar takes on the issues of Israel and Palestine - Mike Ghouse 
Dec 3, 2012
Alon Ben-Meir

One would think that Prime Minister Netanyahu and his cohorts would one day come to their senses and realize that there are limits to which they can defy the international community, including the United States, without serious, if not perilous, repercussions for the state of Israel. As long as he is in power, Netanyahu has no intention, now or ever, to allow for the establishment of a functioning and independent Palestinian state. His talk of a two-state solution is nothing but an empty slogan designed to mislead the international community, and tragically he is leading the Jews’ third commonwealth to a historic disaster akin to the destruction of the Second Temple. Those Israelis from the left and center of the political spectrum must wake up and stop him in his tracks before it’s too late. Otherwise, they will be judged as harshly and mercilessly as history will judge Netanyahu by not preventing the looming disaster from destroying the Jews’ last refuge.

I may sound overly dramatic, but anyone who witnessed last week’s events at the United Nations and condemned the General Assembly’s overwhelming support in granting the Palestinians a non-voting observer state is contributing to the demise of a two-state prospect, which offers the only solution that preserves and safeguards Israel’s very existence. Leading Israeli figures, including former Prime Minister Olmert, applauded the UN resolution not because they care about the Palestinians as much as they are concerned about the future of Israel itself. Israel’s isolation has already reached its zenith as was displayed at the UN vote, and further defiance of the international community will make Israel a pariah state living in darkness and uncertainty, with no friends left to watch its back.

Due to the converging political events and circumstances in Israel and in the region, I for one feel, like millions around the world and in Israel, that the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) successful UN bid offers a momentous opportunity to resume in earnest the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Israel and the United States for that matter, who claim that the PA’s unilateral action only undermines the peace negotiations, have yet to produce a shred of evidence that supports their contention. In fact, Israel has been taking unilateral measures in the occupied territories, including expropriating Palestinian land with impunity, to which the whole world is opposed.

There are several central reasons why I feel that further delay in resuming the negotiations for tactical or strategic reasons by either side will erode the last vestiges of a mutually accepted agreement with dire consequences for both.

First, as the peace negotiations have been frozen for the past three years, I believe that the PA’s elevated status could change the dynamic of the conflict in an unprecedented manner, compelling the Israelis to face a new reality. For many years now, as long as there was no spike in violence or threat of imminent danger emanating from the West Bank, the Israelis became increasingly complacent, preferring the status of “no peace, no war.” This condition allowed Netanyahu to have it both ways, which is precisely what he wished to accomplish as he continued unabatedly with the expansion of settlements. President Abbas’ effort at the UN has now shaken that status quo. Mr. Olmert expressed his support, stating that the move is in “line with the strategy of a two state solution,” and any attempts to stifle this momentum will herald a return to the status quo ante, which will severely cripple the viability of the two-state solution and acutely harm Israel’s national interests.

Second, although the Obama administration voted against the UN resolution, the timing of the PA move is particularly important as President Obama prepares for his second term where he must now deal with the ever-changing conditions in the Middle East. Recent events in Gaza have added further urgency for direct U.S. involvement in solving the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Obama administration has largely neglected the conflict after attempts were made in 2010, but the latest flare-up of violence between Israel and Hamas provided a “rude awakening”- that the U.S. cannot ignore the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without consequences to America’s strategic interests. The fact that the U.S. has backed Israel at the UN does not suggest that President Obama supports Netanyahu’s ever obstructionist policy toward the Palestinians.

The Netanyahu government’s announcement, the day after the PA’s successful bid, that it was moving ahead with plans to build a new city in the contentious area known as E1 between Maale Adumim and Jerusalem making the contiguous Palestinian state virtually impossible, was nothing short of a slap in the face to President Obama. Defying Israel’s sole ally is not only short-sighted but extremely damaging to Israel as the US is becoming increasingly frustrated with a prime minister who has lost his bearings and his mind. Regardless of Netanyahu’s loathsome behavior, however, the PA move should prompt the US to interject itself directly, actively and consistently, as it must, to push for an accord while making it abundantly clear to the Netanyahu government that it can no longer take U.S. blanket support for granted.

Third, regardless of who wins the January 2013 elections in Israel, the next prime minister will have to face the Palestinian problem in one way or another. Playing for time, as Netanyahu has done over the past four years, will no longer work. The election in January can be fateful only if the center and left political parties come to grips with the danger that Israel will face should Netanyahu be given another chance to form a new government. These are no ordinary times; the splintered political groups in Israel must either rise to the occasion and literally save the country from sliding toward the abyss, or allow their personal interests and inflated egos to stand in the way of fighting for their country. I know this is a tall order, but if they do not match their criticism of Netanyahu with action, they will have sacrificed the future of the nation on the altar of their blind self-indulgence. Then again, should Netanyahu form a new government, he will have to face, or must be made to face by the US, the changing dynamics. The Palestinians now have other tools by which to constantly refocus the attention of the international community on their plight by going, for example, to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and exercising their newly gained leverage. Israel should look at the changing conditions constructively. Instead of opting to punish the Palestinians, the next government must respond to the majority’s demands that Israel exorcize the evil of occupation and restore dignity to both Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Fourth, the overwhelming support from the international community has sent a loud and clear message to the current and future Israeli governments that Israel has no friends left. The biggest blow to Netanyahu’s policy came from the European countries that either chose to support the resolution (like France) or abstain (like the United Kingdom and Germany). Denying Netanyahu even a minimal face-saving outlet represented nothing short of exposing his unseemly bankrupt policy. The disproportionate vote at the UN (138-9, with 41 abstentions) provided a glaring testimony to Israel’s near complete isolation, which necessitates that something must now be done to face the conflict squarely. No new Israeli government, even if led by Netanyahu, can afford to ignore the consensus of the international community, provided that the leading European nations, especially, Britain, Germany, and France under the leadership of the US, are determined to use whatever diplomatic tools and leverage they can muster to resolve the conflict. In that sense, what happened in the UN provided a new momentum because the stakes for all countries concerned are extremely high.

Finally, the Palestinians are not likely to remain idle in the wake of the Arab Spring when young men and women have and continue to die for their freedom and dignity in places such as Libya, Egypt, and Syria. It would be only a question of when, not if, they will rise against the humiliating occupation. The PA’s success is likely to forestall the potential uprising in the territories and give more time for negotiations. Moreover, the successful UN bid strengthens the PA’s position as well as that of other moderate voices over Hamas, whose political standing along with other extremist groups was boosted in the wake of the latest Israel-Hamas flare-up. This development offers the US in particular a new opportunity to re-engage Israel and the Palestinians in a productive dialogue.

To fully benefit from these developments, the Palestinians would be wise to use their elevated position in a constructive way. Instead of threatening to go to the ICC, they should focus intently on the resumption of negotiations unconditionally and leave it to the US to establish the rules of engagement. In so doing, they will deprive Netanyahu from playing for time particularly because it was he who insisted on resuming the negotiations unconditionally. Israel, for its part, would be wise to refrain from taking even symbolic punitive actions against the PA, which will not only worsen the situation but weaken Israel’s hand as it would be acting against its own interest while further alienating the entire international community. The recent decision by Netanyahu’s government to build 3000 units in East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements is exactly the wrong prescription for the immediate resumption of negotiations, but since this project is still at the planning stages, the US can play a direct role in diffusing this conflicting issue.

The Obama administration has an equally important task in pushing to resolve the conflict by demonstrating that it can be an honest and impartial mediator. The US should retract its own threat of taking action against the PA. President Obama can make a convincing argument to Congress that taking punitive action would further undermine US influence in the region and that withholding aid from the PA will only strengthen the extremists among the Palestinians.

It should be made clear, though, that none of the above exempts the Palestinians from responsibility. They have all along abstracted the peace process and resorted to violence, especially the second Intifada, which was a turning point for Israel providing justification for its concerns, suspicions, and complete lack of trust. In that regard, while the Palestinians “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” Israel cannot afford to miss this opportunity and bring an end to seven decades-old debilitating conflict with dignity.

Fundamentally, the dwindling prospect of achieving a two-state solution demands a creative and principled approach by the United States and Israel. The latest move by the PA may well provide the impetus to seek a solution, however elusive it may seem.


Click here to read this article and more on AlonBen-Meir.com.

Gaza - where is our humanity?

Every now and then, I pull Facebook conversation as a reference, and it saddens me.
We have indeed condemned Hamas for shelling rockets and harassing the civilian Israeli population. We need to condemn Israeli pounding of Gaza as well. 

We are (Americans) manipulated into hating the Palestinian from our stinky attitudes of superiority (statements made by a few Israeli leaders and Romney), and that has lead us to justify bombing the Palestinians in revenge. How can we support annihilation of a people? It saddens me to see the bloodthirtyness on both sides.

Aren't we stripping our own humanity by dehumanizing them, of not being just to them,  justifying bombing them as revenge. Obama is damned wrong on it, so are the others.  Jews don't need fake support from us Americans, that is insincere and full of duplicity, they need genuine security, the path chosen is not the way to go about it.

We cannot justify either, nor should we goad them in their actions. If we do, we need to ponder about our own humanity.


The least we can do is pause and think about it. We said never again after the holocaust, but genocides have continued non-stop, and we are currently witnessing the annihilation of the Palestinians people by the Israelis and we cannot justify it -we need to resist the blood thirstyness in us. This will prolong the dream of Jews for security and hope of Palestinians for justice, and we will carry a moral burden on us, we may deny it, but need to consider its impact on our own balance and a sense of morality.

References:

•  Video Securing Israel and Justice for Palestinians -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aze64wmeP0
• Muslims condemn Hamas attacks - http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2012/11/muslims-condemn-hamas-attacks-and.html
• How to secure Israel and bring Justice to the Palestinians - http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2012/11/how-to-achieve-security-for-israel-and.html

Here is a conversation on the facebook, that prompted me to write the above.

In Gaza, surge of support for Hamas starts to fade. The nervous ecstasy of conflict gives way to a grim status quo, as Gazans wonder what was accomplished. 

In Gaza, surge of support for Hamas starts to fade

www.washingtonpost.com

The nervous ecstasy of conflict gives way to a grim status quo, as Gazans wonder what was accomplished.

• Rahel Limor Keep praying!
• Paul ClarkWe can only hope. (And support the PA.)
• Xavier Romero-Frias Because those supporters had been fed mainly propaganda
• Mike Ghouse NO matter what any one does on either side, we should not slip from finding security for Israel and Justice for the Palestinians...10 hours ago · Like · 2
• Grant Gochin Palestine is now a legal State. The very first missile that comes over from Palestine (Gaza) is a legal act of war by one State on another. Therefore, missile #1 from Gaza is a legal basis for a full and complete clean up. That is the legal effect of the UN Vote.8 hours ago · Like · 2
• Mike Ghouse Grant, why are we blood thirsty? Why do we rejoice cleaning up the other? You and I are bloody safe in our homes in the United States, not those living in Gaza and Israel... we don't need more revenging, we need more understanding... of each other.8 hours ago · Like · 2
•  Grant Gochin Do you see any understanding coming from Gaza? No, neither do I. If there is a war declaration from Gaza, they are a legal state. Very simple. The UN just protected Israel. Don't you see that?  8 hours ago · Edited · Like

•  Mike Ghouse Grant, indeed a recognition is the right thing to do, how stupid them the Arabs and we the Americans, refusing to acknowledge each other while we exist. This recognition is relief for the Jewish people to focus back on social justice rather than not being their own selves. Take a look, the dialogue is in between...
• 
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNYmI6MlhZw&feature=related

• 
  

  President Obama, you must vote YES NOW for Palestinian Statehood

  www.youtube.com
  

  Mike Ghouse is committed to building cohesive Societies and offers pluralistic s...See More

  
  
• Janet Clifford -Grant G. do you know something that world doesn't know? Palestine has observer status not a state.
  
  Mike Ghouse

  www.MikeGhouse.net