This boy’s story is truly gut-wrenching, and yet to the occupiers it seems that young Atta is just another relatively trivial casualty. This in itself is a damning testimony to the inhumanity of the Palestinian Occupation.
Atta is young in years but he is wise enough to recognise that there will be no justice for him – no investigation, no punishment, no accountability.
His mother recognises that he is burying his anger, for the moment.
Lord, have mercy!
if you can’t view this video, click here.
Filed under israel and palestine conflict by on Aug 10th, 2013. Comment. 
This is an excellent essay by Joseph Levine – a professor of Philosophy and a Jew.
Levine raises a question generally considered to be off-limits to right-thinking people – ‘Does Israel have a right to exist?’ To even raise the question is generally considered to be Antisemitic, but Levine questions this.
His case is well argued, as you’d expect from a philosophy professor, but the important thing is not to agree with him but to recognise that the questions he raises are legitimate subjects for debate!
Father Dave
Prof. Joseph Levine, University of Massachusetts (image: University website www.umass.edu…)
source: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/on-questioning-the-jewish-state/
On Questioning the Jewish State
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.”
Filed under Israel and Palestine, israel and palestine conflict by on Mar 17th, 2013. Comment.
Australian Catholic Bishop Pat Power prepared the following paper for the ‘International Conference on Jerusalem’ that was held in Doha, Qatar, in late February 2012. Unfortunately the paper was not discussed.
My personal thanks go out to Bishop Power for allowing his excellent paper to be published in this blog.
Dave
Bishop Pat Power (pic taken from Catholic News)
Perspective of an Australian Catholic Bishop
Doha, Qatar. 26-27 February 2012
Background
My father was of Irish descent and my mother’s parents (Abukhalil) migrated from Lebanon to Australia in the 1890s. I am proud of my ancestry but painfully aware of many of the cultural and religious conflicts in both Ireland and Lebanon; at the same time I am heartened by the restoration of peace in both nations in recent times. One of my hopes when made a bishop over 25 years ago was to do what I could to be a bridge-builder and a peace- maker both within my own Church and in the wider community.
Visiting the Holy Land as a pilgrim in 1973 and again in 1988, I was deeply disturbed by what I observed as the harsh treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli authorities. I recognise that there is fault on both sides but there is also a great imbalance of power. On my 1988 visit I witnessed fighter jets, helicopter gunships, armoured tanks and a menacing military presence on the streets, and at one point was confronted with tear gas in Jerusalem.
I deplore any form of violence, but while the Australian/Western media make much of occasional outbreaks by desperate Palestinians, it is rarely acknowledged that in the overall conflict, Palestinian casualties outnumber those of the Israelis by about ten to one.
The increasing number of illegal Israeli settlements resulting from the unjust confiscation of Palestinian homes and land by Israelis is another example of criminal behaviour which the international community, including the United States of America seemingly condones.
In my time as bishop, I have done what I can in Canberra and more widely through the media to other parts of Australia to protest against the injustices perpetrated against the Palestinian people. I welcome participation at this conference as an opportunity to be better informed on the issues and to make whatever contribution I can to peace in the Holy Land.
The Kairos Palestine Document. A moment of truth: A word of faith, hope and love from the heart of Palestinian suffering.
This incisive document was issued on 11 December 2009 and is available in a number of languages at www.kairospalestine.ps
It represents a heartfelt cry from Palestinian Christians “from within the suffering of our country, under the Israeli occupation, with a cry of hope, a cry full of prayer and faith in a God ever vigilant, in God’s divine providence for all the inhabitants of this land…..We address ourselves to our brothers and sisters, members of our Churches in this land. We call out as Christians and as Palestinians to our religious and political leaders, to our Palestinian society and to the Israeli society, to the international community and to our Christian brothers and sisters in the Churches around the world.”
I view my participation in this conference as in some small part responding to this moving appeal.
The Palestinian Christians see Jerusalem as central to their struggle: “Jerusalem is the heart of our reality. It is, at the same time, symbol of peace and sign of conflict. While the separation wall divides Palestinian neighbourhoods, Jerusalem continues to be emptied of its Palestinian citizens, Christians and Muslims. Their identity cards are confiscated, which means the loss of their right to reside in Jerusalem. Their homes are demolished or expropriated. Jerusalem, city of reconciliation, has become a city of discrimination and exclusion, a source of struggle rather than peace. Also part of this reality is the Israeli disregard of international law and international resolutions, as well as the paralysis of the Arab world and the international community in the face of this contempt. Human rights are violated and despite the various reports of local and international human rights organisations, the injustice continues.”
As the Kairos Palestine Document reaches its conclusion it raises hopes which I am sure are on the hearts of us all at this conference. “Jerusalem is the foundation of our vision and our entire life. She is the city to which God gave a particular importance in the history of humanity. She is the city towards which all people are in movement – and where they will meet in friendship and love in the presence of the One Unique God according to the vision of the prophet Isaiah: ‘In the days to come the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established as the highest of the mountains and shall be raised above the hills; all the nations shall stream to it. He shall judge between the nations and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into ploughshares , and their spears into pruning hooks; nations shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.’(Isaiah 2,2-5).Today, the city is inhabited by two peoples of three religions; and it is on this prophetic vision and on the international resolutions concerning the totality of Jerusalem that any political solution must be based. This is the first issue that should be negotiated because the recognition of Jerusalem’s sanctity and message will be a source of inspiration towards finding a solution to the entire problem, which is largely a problem of mutual trust and ability to set in place a new land in this land of God.”
The National Council of Churches in Australia meeting in Canberra in July 2010 responded to the Kairos Document adding its voice “to Christian voices throughout the world calling for an early end to the occupation of Palestine through a freely and peacefully negotiated solution in accordance with international law and United Nations resolutions.”
I am aware that historically conflicts between Muslims , Jews and Christians have caused untold loss of life and property and given rise to much hatred and suspicion. But I also believe that these three great faiths which all recognise Abraham as their father in faith are able to draw on the best of their traditions to find solutions which recognise the rights of all the people involved. In publicly opposing the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I asked the question “Is an Iraqi life of any less value than an
American life, a British life or an Australian life?” I ask this conference “Is every life in Jerusalem of unique value and is every human right to be strenuously defended? What practical proposals are we able to offer the international community in the quest for peace in Jerusalem and the Holy Land?”
Statement by Australian Church Leaders, Bethlehem 18 December 2007
This delegation of nine people from a broad spectrum of Christian Churches reported after widely travelling and consulting in Jerusalem and throughout the Holy Land. What follows is the substance of their report.
“We were distressed to hear Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim, relate the suffering and fear experienced daily by large numbers of their people. We saw and heard evidence of systematic harassment, physical and psychological oppression, widespread unemployment, poverty, and economic deprivation, resulting directly or indirectly from Israeli military occupation of the West Bank. Their suffering compels us to respond, and we assure Palestinians of our compassion and concern.
“We visited Yad Vashem and laid a wreath in memory of the victims of the Holocaust. We heard of Israeli grief and pain resulting from violent attacks and continuing fear of terrorist activity. We condemn all acts of terrorism and assure Israelis of our compassion and concern.
“We recognise the complex nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We strongly affirm the right of both Israel and Palestine to political autonomy, security and self-determination. We join with a large majority of the people of Palestine and Israel in longing for a just and lasting peace. We understand the reluctance to make concessions or to trust those who are the source of fear and oppression, but the time for courageous and inspiring leadership has come.
“In the light of what we have seen and heard during this visit, we support actions to enable Israel and Palestine to negotiate just outcomes on borders, settlements, water, refugees, prisoners, Jerusalem and security.
“We are particularly concerned by the imprisonment of teenagers, mothers with dependent children, and those detained without trial for long periods. We encountered the debilitating effects on the Palestinian economy and impacts on daily life of the segregated road system, the proliferation of checkpoints and road blocks throughout the West Bank, restriction on movement of people and goods, and the effective isolation of Palestinian communities from one another. We were repeatedly told that these matters stand in the way of a just peace.”
These observations are consistent with what I understand about the situation in Israel and Palestine.
Statements of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI
The Holy See (Vatican) has consistently supported the notion of Jerusalem being a city shared by Palestinians and Israelis, Muslims, Jews and Christians. The Vatican entered into diplomatic relations with Israel in 1994 and in January 1996, Pope John Paul II welcomed the Representative of the Palestinian People to the meeting with the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See. At this meeting the Pope spoke of the need for a just and adequate solution to be found for the problem of Jerusalem. “The religious and universal dimension of the Holy City demands a commitment on the part of the whole international community, in order to ensure that the City preserves its uniqueness and retains its living character. The Holy Places, dear to the three monotheistic religions , are of course important for believers, but they would lose much of their significance if they were not permanently surrounded by active communities of Jews, Christians and Muslims enjoying true freedom of conscience and religion, and developing their own religious, educational and social activities. The year 1996 should see the beginning of negotiations on the definitive status of the territories under the administration of the National Palestinian Authority, and also on the sensitive issue of the City of Jerusalem. It is my hope that the international community will offer the political partners most directly involved the juridical and diplomatic instruments capable of ensuring that Jerusalem, one and holy, may be truly a ‘crossroads of peace.’ “
At the outset of his visit to the Holy Land in March 2000, Pope John Paul expressed his hopes: “I pray that my visit will serve to encourage an increase of interreligious dialogue that will lead Jews, Christians and Muslims to seek in their respective beliefs, and in the universal brotherhood that unites all the members of the human family, the motivation and the perseverance to work for the peace and justice which the peoples of the Holy Land do not yet have and for which they yearn so deeply.”
At the January 2001 assembly of the Diplomatic Corps at the Vatican, Pope John Paul reflected on his visit to the Holy Land the previous year.” It is time to return to the principles of international legality: the banning of the acquisition of territory by force, the right of peoples to self-determination, respect for the resolutions of the United Nations Organization and the Geneva conventions, to quote only the most important. Otherwise, anything can happen: from unilateral rash initiatives to an extension of violence which will be difficult to control.”
Pope Benedict has continued along similar lines to his predecessor. He visited the Holy Land in May 2009. He spoke with sadness of the lack of peace in Jerusalem and throughout the Holy Land. “Even though Jerusalem means ‘city of peace’, it is all too evident that, for decades, peace has tragically eluded the inhabitants of this holy land. They eyes of the world are upon the peoples of this region as they struggle to achieve a just and lasting solution to conflicts that have caused so much suffering. The hopes of countless men, women and children for a more secure and stable future depend on the outcome of negotiations for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. In union with people of good will everywhere, I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties, so that peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognised borders. In this regard, I hope that a greater climate of trust can soon be created that will enable the parties to make real progress along the road to peace and stability.”
At the beginning of 2010, Pope Benedict again spoke strongly about the Holy Land, making a number of points:
- The right of the State of Israel to exist and to enjoy peace and security within internationally recognised borders.
- The right of the Palestinian people to a sovereign and independent homeland, to live in dignity and to enjoy freedom of movement.
- The protection of the identity and sacred character of Jerusalem, and of its cultural and religious heritage which is of universal value.
At Christmas 2010, the Pope repeated his plea for genuine peace in the Holy Land while in his 2011 World Day of Peace message he spoke of the need for genuine religious freedom as a path to peace.
Conclusion
No fair-minded persons can be happy with the current treatment of the Palestinian people. In the face of an Israeli government which is becoming more and more intransigent and dismissive of the rights of Palestinians, they must wonder why the United States and other Western countries stand by idly and helplessly in the face of blatant injustices perpetrated by a government which is scornful of any questioning of its inhumane policies. The treatment of the people of Gaza, the confiscation of Palestinian land and homes, the construction of illegal Israeli settlements, the building of a wall separating Palestinians from each other as well as other obstacles to freedom of movement, the unfair allocation of water are just some of the violations of justice against the Palestinian people. Successive Popes have pointed out that there can be no genuine or lasting peace which is not underpinned by justice. Jerusalem, which is the particular focus of this conference, highlights the plight of the Palestinian people. Deprived of their freedom, homes, property, the opportunity to trade and to work, Palestinians in Jerusalem are even in danger of losing their identity when their papers are confiscated by Israeli authorities.
The 64 years of pain and suffering the Palestinians have endured are enough. This paper has shown how the Catholic Church and other Christians have cried out for peace and justice in the Holy Land.
The Arab League has rightly demanded that Israel end the occupation and withdraw to the 1967 borders. Jerusalem needs to be secured as a city for all faiths with Muslims and Christians from outside Jerusalem being given the opportunity to pray in the Holy City. Provision needs to be made for the millions of Palestinian refugees by providing a right of return and just compensation in accordance with UN Resolution 194.
I plead for patience and restraint on the part of the Palestinian people, for good will, a sense of justice and practical peace-making actions on the part of Israel and a firm resolve on the part of the international community to broker a peace which is based on justice and respects the dignity and rights of all the people involved. I pray for that climate of trust called for by Pope Benedict and I pray that the God of Abraham will bless these steps towards a peaceful solution in the Holy Land.
(Bishop) Patrick Power
Doha, Qatar
February 2012
Recent Comments