Reexamining Israel and Palestine from the Ground

In 'Enforced Silence', Jesse Aizenstat expresses an admirable desire for improving the lot of a downtrodden people. Unfortunately, the naive hype widely misses its mark. It is understandable how, leaving a cushy American home for the stark reality of a refugee camp, he was shocked into seeing the situation as 'a blatant atrocity to the human experience'. Perhaps if he were exposed to, say, the indescribable inhumanity of the concentration camps that his ancestors suffered, or the more recent hells of Darfur and some other choice locales around the world, his description of a West Bank Palestinian refugee camp - where residents live by choice, so they can get a UN handout - would be toned down.

If he knew what true apartheid was, he might be more reluctant to throw the term around regarding a political reality which is quite unrelated to the former racial oppression in South Africa. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is political, not racial. Those Palestinian Arabs who live within the 1949 armistice lines are full citizens of Israel, with access to full political representation, whereas those residents of what is destined to be an independent Palestinian state are, of course, not Israeli citizens. They were offered, and rejected, full sovereignty in 1948 and again in 2000. Like Hamas' current, clearly stated policy, Arafat and all previous Palestinian representatives were not willing to settle for anything less than wiping Israel off the map. Comparing this to apartheid is an affront to all those black South Africans who suffered and struggled non-violently for their freedom. If the Palestinians had acted anywhere near as nobly as the blacks in South Africa, there would not have been a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians today.

I find it ironic that the author accuses America of "enforced silence... regarding the Israel/Palestine calamity", when any college student can get his opinion on the matter published (as long as it supports the Palestinians and accuses Israel of apartheid and other evils). Even more amusing is the implication that he, having spent an entire month in the West Bank, is now an expert on 'the situation on the ground'. If he had bothered to spend his time in Israel with open eyes and ears rather than a heart full of preconceptions, he would not have come up with the absurd contention that Israelis are ‘transformed by a thirst for revenge’. The Israeli people have a thirst for peace and a normal existence free of the threat of war and terror, but not at the cost of committing political or physical suicide. It was not, as Aizenstat claimed, ‘history’ that taught the Israeli government to ‘take no chances’ – it was the Palestinian militants, and the Arab regimes that played the Palestinians for pawns.

Aizenstat calls for the U.S. to ‘support honest negotiations’. He would do well to take his own advice, and support honest dialog rather then the trumped-up, vile hype which extremism feeds on.

As I said: Enforced Silence
By Jesse Aizenstat

I feel tickled for being publicly chastised in my hometown newspaper of liberal Santa Barbara for attempting to have an intellectual discussion regarding the Israel, Palestine calamity. The irony is that my piece “Enforced Silence” was precisely illustrated by last week’s hawkish letters suggesting that my editorial, based on political science and first-hand experience is a piece of propaganda.

Responses like “sometimes silence is worth gold”, as written by Ami Cohen in last weeks Independent, only confirm my initial point that there is an American hush to this conflict that I too have now felt. I continue encourage the “moderates” of this conflict not to obsequiously stand-by while others continue to condemn this essential debate.

Sorry, Jesse, but I don't buy it. It's just silly to equate the statement "sometimes silence is worth gold" with an insidious hush campaign. But to be clear: I defend to the death your right to be just silly.

I do hope, however, that your ongoing UC education helps helps you to develop a more rigorously analytical approach, if you intend to carry on weighing in on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Your Voices piece is full of passionate intensity (cf. Yeats' "The Second Coming"), but your arguments are absolutist and largely unsupported by fact. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is hugely complex, and no one side has a lock on righteousness, or on suffering. Any time you find yourself reducing the players to Good Guys and Bad Guys, it's time to rethink your position. IMHO.

Peter Melnick

Jessee, I am deeply disappointed that someone with a degree in political science, not to mention being of "Jewish-German decent" (like it has anything to do with anything…) can write such an imbalanced and superficial article.
You have a degree in political science? lovely. So do I. You have been for few weeks or couple of month in the territories? that's also lovely. I have spent much more time their as a soldier, civilian and a political activist (belonging to the left, mind you). I attended piece rallies when it was not exactly popular and I also witnessed how innocent civilians were blown to pieces in front of my bloody eyes in a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. I think I know the realities of the Middle East as least as good as you do. Maybe, just maybe, slightly more.
I am a great advocate of a peaceful two state solution between Israel’s and Palestinians. However, i know the complexities and I know why israel has very good reasons to be careful while progressing to the peaceful solution.
I find it ridiculous that you will keep on complaining about being silenced. the reality is that you are the one that received a full page in the Independent. Not me. The reality is that the Palestinian’s have always received much more media attention and support than any other victims of conflicts in the world, including those who suffer much much more than them and need urgent attention. Hell, most Americans are not even aware of the injustice in Porto Rico (the citizens there can not vote in the federal elections: some may say this is a form of Apartheid). You want an open, sincere and productive debate? Great. Let’s hold a public debate. Just say when and where
Sincerely
Ami Cohen

RE DANSOME:

While some palestinians commit acts of terrorism or support them, it is unfair to imply that most don't struggle non-violently or lead noble lives. Acts carried out by Palestinians are referred to as terrorism yet equally as violent acts carried about by Israeli military go without the label of terrorism because they are within the context of the military, which is what I feel Jesse wanted to point out. Wether the offender is civilian or officer does not matter, the victims are the same and therefore so is the crime.

As you bask in the shadows of your anonymity dansome, I ask you to reconsider your last remarks. You are foolish and too idealistic to demand anyone go without bias. People are biased, this is a fact of life, welcome to the world, oh and surprise! you are too. It is bias of you to declare Jesse travelled the Middle East with preconcieved ideas and his own bias. He tried to prove the opposite by noting his German Jewish heritage to highlight his understanding and personal connection to key aspects of the Israeli cause. While you try to suggest that Jesse's "voice" is heard because his oppinion is the popular one, I disagree. While this is just my oppinion many would agree with me that in America in the media and the government, images and ideas favoring the Israeli cause over the Palestinian creates a biased view in opposition to the one Jesse expressed above, a view you yourself have seem to have adopted. If you disagree with me then consider the large amounts of money from our tax dollars the U.S. gives to the Israeli military.

Lastly, Jesse never declared himself an expert, YOU did. It is good to see that you too are such an "expert" at giving an overwhelmingly biased rebuttle. I guess that also makes you an expert hypocrite.

RE MELNICK:
Cute of you to reference Yeats. As I and any other former student of a high shool sophomore English class knows that according to "The Second Coming" it is the worst that are filled with passionate intensity and the best that lack all conviction. The irony in your choice to reference these lines to describe Jesse is that you assign him to the role of "the worst" and yourself to the role of the best, with your conviction lacking response. So while your attempt to seem educated by referencing Yeats is cute, I ask you to "rethink your position" because it is you who is making this good guys and bad guys. Therefore you too are a hypocrite.

AND AS FOR YOU AMI COHEN:
I have no energy left for you but I will say this. I think you might just be bitter that "the reality is that you are(n't) the one that received a full page in the Independent." So while your competitive attitude and hostility is just "lovely" lets consider the real reason why you may not have gotten your page in the Independent. Your degree in Political Science is nice, but you need to go back to elementary school to learn some basic writing skills and the difference between words like "piece" and "peace".
- H Walsworth

I love that Yeats poem, but I did not get to know it until my freshman year at college. Hats off to you, and to your high school English teacher.

I fear you miss my point, however. The trouble with Aizenstadt's Voices piece is that is filled with unsubstantiated assertions that the author attempted to bolster, not with facts, but by reference to his own family background, his undergraduate studies and his own limited anecdotal experience during a recent visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories. No one can quarrel with personal experience - Aizenstadt saw what he saw, and for whatever it's worth, he knows what he knows. But it's no good flinging around terms like "apartheid state," for example, without grounding them in fact-based analysis. And the charge that Israel is an apartheid state flies in the face of the significant number of Arab Israelis sitting in the Knesset, evidence of Israel's deep-seated commitment to democracy and the rule of law.

Indeed, H, it would be better if you, too, confined yourself to arguing the facts, rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks on those with whom you disagree.

Peter Melnick

HCW:

Either you are not very skilled at critical reading, or deliberately choose to twist my words. I hope it is the former. But first, pardon me for not stating it clearly: my name is Dan Some, just like my username. No secrets there.

Jesse Aizenstat made many useful points. However, he had nothing to say about labeling the Palestinian acts solely as terror and the Israeli as non-terror, though you ascribe this to him - perhaps wishful thinking on your part.

I certainly did not state or imply that individual Palestinians may not struggle non-violently; I linked the wholesale violence quite clearly to Arafat and Hamas/Jihad. These leaders, unfortunately, have been rather successful in turning the average Palestinian away from peaceful means. In all recent polls, the majority of Palestinians support violence including suicide bombing as the only means of obtaining their goals. Those who advocate non-violent means, sadly, must fear for their lives from their own people. For example, Sari Nusseiba and Hanan Ashrawi, prominent moderate Palestinian leaders before the PLO arrived, were basically threatened into silence by the Fatah. That’s real enforcement, not Jesse’s imagined dark forces.

I have no illusions about personal bias influencing all discussion. But, while Aizenstat's article promotes honest brokerage, he himself repeats in various instances the kind of hate-filled, patently false and unsubstantiable, and often ridiculous, claims that are designed to demonize Israel and break down honest dialog.

Another dishonest aspect of the article was the claim that supports of Palestine are silenced in America; this was obviously false as evident by his own publication, and clearly a setup for the critical replies that arrived so he could dutifully announce his own martyrdom.

Jesse implies his own expertise based on his allusions to a month spent in the West Bank. What he saw was undoubtedly real, but lacking context. His generalizations of isolated incidents to "their unspoken doctrine of global dilution of the Palestinian people and culture" is one of the typical baseless Arab propaganda pieces he threw in; it sounds like a quote straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This is not about his personal view of things, but hate-mongering, which is rather disappointing in view of much of the rest of the article.

You appear disapproving of my considering myself something of an expert. Well, 20 years spent as an adult in the place does give you more than an inkling of what's going on.

Finally, I find it rather telling that those supporters of Israel besides myself who object to the propaganda in Aizenstat's and HCW's writings, are both card-carrying, left-leaning dove peaceniks who support dialog between Israel and the Palestinians. Those who support the Palestinians moderates (rather than blindly oppose Israel), would be better served by sticking to facts and rational arguments.

- Dan Some

A response to Mr Walsworth
Your speculations about my motives are highly "interesting" and it is also very impressive that you found a spelling error in my letter.... English is not my native tongue and while some bigots thinks that It implies that my knowledge or reasoning are defective and send me back to elementary school, I beg to differ. The "real reason" why I did not get to write an article for the independent is that I did not try to...
Others with better "writing skills" but with a pro-Israeli attitude did not get such a chance either.
The major point here of course is that one contradicts himself when he claims that he is being silenced after he got such a chance to state their views on a whole page.

The "significant number of Arab Israelis sitting in the Knesset" which Peter has suggested as "evidence of Israel's deep-seated commitment to democracy" totals 12 out of 120, or about 1%, which is at an all time high following the last elections. Arab Israelis make up over 20% of the population of Israel, not counting the 2.5 million Arabs in the territories who are denied the right to vote for Israeli candidates (though they are controlled, taxed, curfewed, patrolled, and checkpointed by the state of Israel). Were Arabs to be given citizenship or the right to vote, they would outnumber Israeli Jews. And it is for this reason that they are not given that right. You see, generally when a country denies 50% of its inhabitants the basic right to vote, the other 50% tends to win the elections. Imagine that! But regardless, I seriously doubt most Israelis driving to Jewish-only settlements on Jewish-only roads accessed with Jewish-only license plates concern themselves much with their country's "deep-seated commitment to democracy," and why should they? Living in Jewish democracy is is a pretty sweet gig - if you're Jewish.

Response to georgehale
You have a point, and as Israeli I was in favor of leaving the territories because I believe that it is not right to rule over people and not give them the right to vote. HOWEVER, I must correct few of your statements which are based on common misconceptions:
A) The reality is that Israel doesn't rule or tax the majority of Palestinian that lives in the territories. As you probably know, Israel left the Gaza strip and its more than a million Palestinians. These Palestinians don't go through road blocks, do not pay taxes to Israel and have a right to vote-to their own sovereign government.
B) Palestinians who live in Israel itself have the right to vote and to be elected to any position. There are 12 Palestinian members of parliament and not more because Palestinians do not vote necessarily to Arab parties.
C) There are no roads for Jews only. there are some roads in the territories for ISRAELI'S only, whether these Israeli’s are Jewish or Arabs. In addition, the Israeli supreme court has ordered long ago that no community will be allowed to prevent Arab citizens from joining it. This is a fact.
Also, let me just say that denying the right to vote from a countries inhabitants who pay taxes is not uncommon. The USA doesn't give the right to vote to the inhabitants of Porto Rico or to the many millions of "illegal immigrants". As an American, I am sure you first want to deal with these injustices
Take care
Ami Cohen

Moreover, georgehale, 12 Arab Israeli members of the Knesset out of 120 constitutes TEN percent, not one percent, of the Knesset. We all make mistakes with the "zeros" column, but one ought to take more care when using statistics to indict a country.

It's also worth pointing out that in America, where women comprise about half of the electorate, they comprise only 16 % of our senators (16 senators out of 100) and 16% of the House of Representatives (70 out of 435 seats in the house), according to the Center for American Women in Politics. Perhaps when it comes to representation, statistics don't tell the whole story. But the right to vote is paramount.

1. Israeli Arabs make up 20% of the total population of Israeli citizens, but only 10% of the adult population. That accounts pretty squarely for their representation in the Knesset.

2. The Arabs in the West Bank are citizens of **Jordan**, as a result of Jordan taking over the West Bank in 1948 and preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state. Egypt did the same in Gaza, but did not extend citizenship, leaving the poor Palestinians in Gaza stateless.

3. These days, the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza vote for **members of their own parliament and their own government**. First they elected Arafat and his gang, then tossed them out because of corruption and elected everyone's favorite political party, Hamas. Pretty audacious to suggest that they vote in their own elections and Israel's, too.

- Dan Some

Correction - just redid the math without rounding off - Israeli Arabs make up 15% of the adult population. But they don't all vote for Arabs - the majority actually vote for 'Jewish' parties, which have some Arab representatives. The Arab parties tend to be too extreme for most of the Israeli Arab populace. And they have the freedom to vote however they like.