Someone among you will charge me with ignorance of the nuances of diplomacy and foreign policy; guilty, as charged. Others will challenge that I don't understand Israeli or Palestinian trauma and scar tissue. Also probably true.
But nonetheless,
as a citizen, I can read: On Feb 23rd of last year, The White House
issued National Security Memorandum #18, “for” the Secretaries of State,
Treasury, Defense, Commerce, and Energy, and “for” the Director of National
Intelligence and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The
subject: United States Conventional Arms Transfer Policy.
Having read that policy promulgated by the Biden White House (I urge you to do so: I couldn't get the link to work, so Google National Security Memorandum #18,) I must express my revulsion at our complicity in the Israeli – Palestinian struggle over how two peoples can occupy the same territory. Our veto of the UN call for a ceasefire is for me the final straw. Our nation’s back appears broken.
The ”policy” states
“Sec.
4. Arms Transfers and Human Rights. United States national security
is strengthened by greater respect worldwide for human rights and international
law, including international humanitarian law. The legitimacy of and
public support for arms transfers among the populations of both the United
States and recipient nations depends on the protection of civilians from harm,
and the United States distinguishes itself from other potential sources of arms
transfers by elevating the importance of protecting civilians. Strong
United States human rights and security sector governance standards for arms
transfers — in addition to ensuring compliance with end-use requirements and
providing human rights and international humanitarian law training, as
appropriate — encourage recipient governments to respect international law,
human rights, and good governance, and help prevent violations of human rights
or international humanitarian law.”
That’s pretty clear, isn’t it?: we must curtail transfer
of weapons to Israel.
Second, it appears to me that we should stop urging the two-state dead
horse lying athwart Gaza, Israel, and the occupied
West Bank to get up and move forward. The two-state idea is DOA, thoroughly
killed by fundamentalist Jews and resentful Arabs in their disdain for one
another’s views.
We also must stop dreaming of a single state in which
Palestinians are treated as equals under the law; even Arab citizens of Israel are not equal, and are, today, having their citizenship rights further threatened by Bibi’s ultra-right
partners who blackmail him with threat of jail.
Our veto of the security council’s call for a cease-fire shredded whatever residual respect the world might still have held for us
as an exemplar of human rights and signatory of the UN Resolution on Human
Rights, the lasting legacy of Eleanor Roosevelt. She would be ashamed, as am I.
“My Promised Land”, as Ari Shavit termed it, is a poisonous desert of distrust, discord, and duplicity. But we should be involved. We should be
even-handed. We should encourage dialogue and listening. We should generously
give medicine, food, supplies to and succor any people in need. We should press for
an end to killing and support any cessation of hostilities, no matter how short
or temporary, for only when the guns and bombs fall silent, can people hear one
another. We should support and encourage – despite that this will be seen as “meddling” –
those opposed to extremism on either side.
It's time to live up to our own ideals, even as the Israeli government, Hamas and the PLO do not live up theirs.
Fletch: Annie and I are so appreciative of your thoughtfulness and humanity. I can't agree more that the US has been put into a very difficult position of considering the proper way to provide support to this situation.
ReplyDeleteSo, if not a two-state solution, then a one-state solution? That would mean a major overhaul of Isreal's constitution and a move away from law and order as defined by hebrew philosophy and rhetoric to a broader semetic view of life and governance based on undisputable humanitarian principles-- hard to imagine, given the extreme views which have intensified during this horrific conflict.
So we just let them work it out? Or should some outside body, like the UN or Qatar, take over and reconstruct a government for the people (not "by the people") that will result in lasting peace in the region?
This will be one of the most challenging solutions of our lifetime.
I don't see an answer so long as Israel proclaims itself a Jewish State and a democracy; that's an oxymoron. You're either one or the other. A Theocracy cannot be a democracy.
ReplyDeleteI cannot see Jewish fundamentalists -- ultra-Orthodox and committed Zionists -- ever willingly share "their homeland" with another tribe. They would have to be forced to do so. It's conceivable that they would embrace an apartheid system despite the opprobrium of their neighbors and most of the world. It's impossible that they would give up the identity of a "Jewish State."
So, I see an anguished future of more conflict, more hatred, until exhausted peoples decide they must accommodate one another in some grudging, hostile but non-violent way.
Obviously the Israelis had the right, and the duty, to respond vigorously to the Hamas attack. But this is war, and war is waged strategically and tactically, not with cold vengeance, not by calculated murder, not by killing 10 children for every Israeli citizen killed. Battle hardened Israeli soldiers and statesman, far wiser and wearier than any who speak for Israel now, have warned more than once that the Palestinians must strike back. They have. They did. They will again, until they sit again in the fields and beneath the vines of their forefathers.
ReplyDeleteArabs and Jews will bleed, and bleed again, until they learn to share this ancient land.