OPINION & EDITORIAL
Peace in Israel: it’s about time
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Julie Isen:
- Cystic Fibrosis in need of cure (May 2, 2005)
- Russ Feingold in 2008? (September 1, 2005)
- Inequality looms over Wisconsin (September 16, 2005)
- Waging war on women's health (September 20, 2005)
- Wisconsin deserves FEMA relief funds (September 29, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Hamas must be part of discussion (November 30, 2007)
- Israel Must End Its Illegal Occupation of the Palestinian Territories (April 11, 2002)
- UW can do better (May 6, 2002)
- Israelis are fighting for their survivial (April 15, 2002)
- War is Arafat's choice (February 21, 2002)
by Julie Isen
Friday, February 4, 2005
“Peace in our time” is what Neville Chamberlain promised when he returned from creating and signing the roadmap to peace with Germany in 1938, as he waved a piece of paper proudly in the air. Now, as we all know, that plan didn’t work out too well. In fact, World War II ensued.
Why did this happen? Because all the roadmap to peace was to Adolf Hitler was a piece of paper and without moving towards peaceful relations, that piece of paper was meaningless. Chamberlain’s quote may seem ironically humorous to us now that we know what followed, but unfortunately, 11 million lives and seven years later, the whole world realized exactly how wrong Chamberlain was.
As a liberal democrat and Israel supporter, two things that don’t usually go together around here, allow me to begin by acknowledging my disagreement with the liberal movement in the United States. As Dr. King stated so eloquently in the 1960s while equating anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism, “when people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews.” The liberal movement today as a whole has an air of anti-Semitism. After all, no one political group is perfect, that would be too easy.
Over the past few years, the Middle East has been a hot debate topic as well as a continuing hotbed for terrorist activity. There is distrust on both sides with an attack-and-retaliate pattern that has the potential to go on forever. History has taught them that leaders are two-faced and not to be trusted. Yasser Arafat, the former leader of the Palestinian Authority up until his death this past year, was also known for telling the world one thing and his followers another.
The peace process, which until now could have been called the trail of broken promises between the Israelis and Palestinians, has just taken a momentous leap forward, but not for the reasons one would think. Recently, Israel has kept its promise to turn over control of cities in the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority with the reduction of terrorist attacks. The important part of this move is not that the PA will now have control over some land.
Now let me explain: for the first time, arguably, since the peace process began, both sides of the table have kept their promises. The new leadership of the Palestinian Authority, led by Mahmoud Abbas, has done its part in decreasing the amount of terrorist activities. At this point, the Israelis led by Ariel Sharon can keep their promise by giving land for peace, something that has historically been a solution for Israelis in their inhospitable neighborhood surrounded by unfriendly countries.
This seems like such a simple idea, something that a child might learn in kindergarten. Do not make promises you aren’t going to keep. It just isn’t nice. Maybe what these leaders need is some training in sincerity. And although that’s not going to happen, these lies cannot continue and hopefully with this new leadership, the distrust can simmer down. In this part of the world, when the promise-makers don’t keep their promises, innocent people wind up dead.
These new developments in the peace process have brought about some differing reactions. Israeli citizens in the West Bank do not feel that this is a viable solution to end the violence in the area. There will continue to be protests and opposition to this move, which is welcomed by the government, as Israel is a democratic country.
Here in Madison, members of Madison Public Affairs Committee (MadPAC), a local offshoot of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), are encouraged to form their own opinions on the situation. Aaron Cohn, a member of MadPAC, expressed a somewhat different view than the protestors in the West Bank.
Cohn feels “that Israel’s security can only come through Palestinian prosperity,” and “with the new Palestinian leadership and the bold moves of Israel’s government,” he is hopeful for a more peaceful future for Israelis and Palestinians. I tend to agree with him.
This year is shaping up to be a productive one for Israel and her neighbors, and hopefully our optimism will come to fruition. In this particular issue, tempers tend to run high and patience for argument runs low, but if these two groups continue to keep their promises, peace just may be in their future.
Julie Isen (jisen@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in political science.
Anonymous (February 4, 2005 @ 12:18am):
Thank you for taking the time to look down from your tower to tell the rest of us how the world works (from your sickly distorted perspective no less).
3L
Anonymous (February 4, 2005 @ 1:56am):
You know you made no attempt at an argument in your post. Try thinking before you type. What Julie did was give all of us who are hoping for peace in the Middle East some hope.
Anonymous (February 4, 2005 @ 8:01am):
Julie, it would be nice to see a lasting peace come about from the current situation, but Abbas did say recently that he would not hand over Palestinian militants to Israel. Also, Israel grabs land because it is necessary to widen the safety zone between Israel and areas where Palestinians launch their assaults, whether the assault comes in the form of missiles or as border crossings used by suicide bombers.
Just remember that every cease-fire was violated by Palestinian militants. For once, you'll have to accept the fact that the Palestinians must acknowledge that they are more to blame than the Israelis. If the terrorists attacks would end, then Israel could turn its attention to more pressing concerns, like revitalizing their economy and improving their health care and education.
Yes, it would be nice to see positive things happen, but equal commitment from the Palestinians is essential for success.
Anonymous (February 4, 2005 @ 10:00pm):
julie, i wish you knew how offensive it is when people like you automatically criticize people like me as anti-semetic just because i might see the israeli/palestinian situation differently from you.
it's really amazing that talking about palestinian oppression is somehow construed as anti-semetic or anti-jewish. can you understand why this kind of tactic is cheap and only discredits zionism?
personally, although i believe the state of israel is mostly at fault for the crisis in the region, in no way do i support the destruction of israel or ethnic cleansing of jews. it sounds ridiculously obvious, but apparently a lot zionists don't seem to feel the same way about the palestinians. israeli state rights are always assumed, palestinian state rights are always conditional. leading american politicians (like former republican majority leader dick armey) can openly advocate the ethnic cleansing of palestinians without any fear of reprisal, but imagine if an american politician advocated ethnic cleansing against jews as a solution to the conflict. their head would roll. julie, where was the public outrage for the palestinians? even talking about an "even handed" policy in the region is considered politically taboo (a la lieberman vs. howard dean).
in this twisted bizarro policy world, the plo are terrorists and the irgun and the stern gangs were "freedom fighters". palestinians are told to "resist non-violently, like dr. king" while at the same the ones who do resist nonviolently get run over by israeli bulldozers and the state dept. sends israel $3 billion a year to buy attack choppers, missiles, and tanks to use against palestinians, while israel, whose leaders were not even born on the land, forcibly occupy an entire nation of native people. in this bizarro world, the idf general who 20 years earlier resigned in shame after being held responsible for the massacre of 3,000 palestinian refugees in a brutal attack at the refugee camps of chatila and sabra -- is later made the prime minister. just as the former leader of the irgun zvai leumi, who slaughtered 250 innocent civilians at deir yasin, also not only goes on to become prime minister, but even wins the bizarro world nobel peace prize. in this bizarro world, the palestinians are blamed for the failures of camp david 2, even though it is the state of israel that fails to agree even to the minimum standards set by the united nations, such as full withdrawal from the west bank. and of course, in this bizarro world where every un resolution ever submitted unfailingly is in support of the palestinians by vote margins that are consistently in the range of 98-4 in favor of the palestinians, the zionists will only submit these votes as "proof of worldwide anti-semetism" and only further evidence of the dire needs for a strong israeli state.
it must be nice awesome living in bizarro world.
most israeli supporters have got the best intentions julie, they just happen to be wearing some bizarro glasses that are distorting the view.
respectfully,
occupation = intifada
Anonymous (February 5, 2005 @ 3:12am):
An Israeli supporter? In the Badger Herald?
Anonymous (February 5, 2005 @ 3:15am):
Israli "citizens" in the West Bank?
I think you mean Israeli squatters.
Anonymous (February 5, 2005 @ 8:23am):
"it's really amazing that talking about palestinian oppression is somehow construed as anti-semetic or anti-jewish. can you understand why this kind of tactic is cheap and only discredits zionism?"
Not nearly half as offensive as idiots like you who clearly take a side on an issue without actually examining both sides beforehand.
Just because all your "hip" friends decided to bash Jews doesn't mean it's, um, "hip".
Go back to class and start earning that sheepskin, plowboy. Either that or learn to love working for minimum wage, because that's all you're gonna get!
Anonymous (February 5, 2005 @ 11:16am):
"Israli "citizens" in the West Bank?
I think you mean Israeli squatters."
In some of these places, Jews have lived for over 2000 years. Take Hebron, for example. Jews have lived there since Biblical times, and there are archaeological records to prove it. Are the Israelis who live there squatters? By your logic, you have no business living in Wisconsin, since you white folks clearly stole the land from the Native Americans.
Anonymous (February 5, 2005 @ 12:39pm):
your argument is powerful and compelling.
everyone knows israel's side of the story. very few know the palestinian side.
-----
Not nearly half as offensive as idiots like you who clearly take a side on an issue without actually examining both sides beforehand.
Just because all your "hip" friends decided to bash Jews doesn't mean it's, um, "hip".
Go back to class and start earning that sheepskin, plowboy. Either that or learn to love working for minimum wage, because that's all you're gonna get!
Anonymous (February 5, 2005 @ 1:45pm):
"everyone knows israel's side of the story. very few know the palestinian side."
Wrong. Thanks to media bias, everyone knows about the Palestinian side but damn little about the Israeli side. Most people who follow the big doings in the Middle-East know more about current events than they do about the Holocaust. Not only that, most folks don't even know about the first 30 years of Israel's history since 1948.
If you studied that period, then you'd know why the Israelis are so fed up with being nice. They've been way too trusting for way too long, and they are the ones who got scammed every time.
Anonymous (February 5, 2005 @ 3:32pm):
I think I wrote about five different drafts for this posting, but they always boiled down to the same thing...
Isn't each side to blame in this? I mean, I've seen so much hatred between the Israel and Palestine camps in THIS country, that I can't EVER see things getting better over there, where it really counts. According to all of you, BOTH sides have pulled countless stunts on each other in the past, BOTH sides, it can be argued, are wrong...
(sigh) What's the common sense thing to do when two sides refuse to yield ground and keep on pounding each other? Personally, all the logical options I can come up with involve innocents getting stomped, and that's anything but cool.
P.S. To all those Israel supporters who would call me an anti-semite, I don't hate Jews, nor do I hate Arabs. I merely think some of their leaders are playing with stakes too high for their petty blood grudges to allow.
-W. Northend
Anonymous (February 5, 2005 @ 5:03pm):
that's ridiculous.
there are no hollywood movies about palestinian oppression. nobody keeps count of palestinian casualties. everyone knows about the oppression of the jews, especially by the nazis and their death camps.
israeli casualties are equated with civlian casualties. palestinian casualties are always equated with "terrorist" casualties, even though their civilian casualties and body counts are 3 times as large as the israelis. there are more dead palestinian children since the intifada began than total israeli deaths.
there is no media outcry when israel bulldozes the homes of palestinian civilians, which happens every day. this is never called "terrorism" in the media. when israeli choppers fire rockets into crowded streets in broad daylight that lead to massive civilian palestinian casualties, nobody in the media calls it terrorism.
you are the one who is mistaken.
i would never deny the oppression of jews throughout history. and i would never tolerate it amongst anyone i associated with in the cause of palestinian liberation. what i do object to is an elevation of jewish oppression over all others. 25 million africans died in the transatlantic slave trade. 10-15 million american indians were killed by american settlers, virtually wiping out the entire race. some have estimated that there are more polar bears left in the world than full blooded american indians. and yes, millions of jews died in brutal nazi concentration camps. and they must be remembered. but this can never justify ethnic cleansing or occupation against palestinians.
-----
Wrong. Thanks to media bias, everyone knows about the Palestinian side but damn little about the Israeli side. Most people who follow the big doings in the Middle-East know more about current events than they do about the Holocaust. Not only that, most folks don't even know about the first 30 years of Israel's history since 1948.
If you studied that period, then you'd know why the Israelis are so fed up with being nice. They've been way too trusting for way too long, and they are the ones who got scammed every time.
Anonymous (February 5, 2005 @ 5:59pm):
"israeli casualties are equated with civlian casualties. palestinian casualties are always equated with "terrorist" casualties, even though their civilian casualties and body counts are 3 times as large as the israelis."
There's a good reason for this. The vast majority of Israeli casualties ARE civilians, who were intentionally targeted by Palestinian terrorists. The vast majority of Palestinian dead are either terrorists who killed themselves or got killed by Israeli security forces, people who got too close to a Palestinian bomb making workshop that blew up due to the carelessless of the inept terrorists working inside, or people who were caught in the crossfire between Israeli troops and Palestinian terrorists intentionally hiding in civilian areas in order to increase the casualty rate as much as possible.
Anonymous (February 5, 2005 @ 7:48pm):
"there is no media outcry when israel bulldozes the homes of palestinian civilians, which happens every day."
That's because the Palestinians had it coming. Retribution for terrorist acts, my friend.
Anonymous (February 6, 2005 @ 3:08am):
there is no excuse for killing children on the way to school.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3748054.stm
there is no excuse there is no excuse for surprise rocket attacks from idf choppers firing into busy streets packed with unsuspecting civilians.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3001692.stm
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/13/israel.lebanon/
contrary to your argument, there were not good reasons to kill palestinian civilians. and contrary to what you say, the vast majority of palestinian casualties are in fact innocent civilians. as i've already pointed out, there are more dead palestinian children than total israeli deaths in the current intifada. think about that for a minute.
--
There's a good reason for this. The vast majority of Israeli casualties ARE civilians, who were intentionally targeted by Palestinian terrorists. The vast majority of Palestinian dead are either terrorists who killed themselves or got killed by Israeli security forces, people who got too close to a Palestinian bomb making workshop that blew up due to the carelessless of the inept terrorists working inside, or people who were caught in the crossfire between Israeli troops and Palestinian terrorists intentionally hiding in civilian areas in order to increase the casualty rate as much as possible.
Anonymous (February 6, 2005 @ 3:21am):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3001692.stm
- idf launching helicopter rocket attacks in crowded civilian streets of palestine, killing unsuspecting palestinian civilians without warning in broad daylight during business hours.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4022109.stm
- idf captain unloads his entire magazine clip into an already dead or dying 13 year old palestinian girl on her way to school.
let's not set the terms of this argument according to bizarro world anymore, ok? how about you at least acknowledge that palestinian civilian life is readily dismissed by the idf. if they don't target them intentionally, then at the very least they woefully disregard palestinian civilians and children as valuable human lives.
it's really sickening that you competely blame the deaths of palestine's children upon the palestinians, and not upon those who actually shoot them.
-----
There's a good reason for this. The vast majority of Israeli casualties ARE civilians, who were intentionally targeted by Palestinian terrorists. The vast majority of Palestinian dead are either terrorists who killed themselves or got killed by Israeli security forces, people who got too close to a Palestinian bomb making workshop that blew up due to the carelessless of the inept terrorists working inside, or people who were caught in the crossfire between Israeli troops and Palestinian terrorists intentionally hiding in civilian areas in order to increase the casualty rate as much as possible.
Anonymous (February 6, 2005 @ 10:05am):
"it's really sickening that you competely blame the deaths of palestine's children upon the palestinians, and not upon those who actually shoot them."
Just because the Palestinians claim the Isrealis shot doesn't mean they are actually the ones who shot them. Hey, if Palestinian adults are perfectly willing to send these kids out into the street to throw rocks at Israeli troops, then it can only follow that Palestinian adults are the ones putting a bullet through their heads and then telling the media that the Israelis did it.
Anonymous (February 6, 2005 @ 12:20pm):
Because Palestinians shoot their children I guess. I would object to that assertion, but I don't want to be called anti-Semitic.
Anonymous (February 6, 2005 @ 12:53pm):
It's interesting how the pro-Israeli side in this herald debate is constantly justifying killings of Palestinian civilians while the pro-Palestinian side in this argument never justifies killings of Israeli civilians.
It says a lot to me about the two movements. The idea that "they had it coming" only leads to perpetual war. And if that's what the pro-Israeli argument boils down to, I'm pretty sure what side I'm going to end up supporting.
Anonymous (February 6, 2005 @ 1:55pm):
"Just because the Palestinians claim the Isrealis shot doesn't mean they are actually the ones who shot them."
There's a great example of this in just the past week. Palestinian security forces arrested a Palestinian man, a member of Hamas, for shooting a 10-year-old girl in the Gaza Strip, but the Palestinian press (as well as the AP, AFP, Reuters, and the BBC) continue to claim that Israeli soldiers guarding a nearby checkpoint did it.
Anonymous (February 6, 2005 @ 5:45pm):
"Because Palestinians shoot their children I guess. I would object to that assertion, but I don't want to be called anti-Semitic."
Who'd be surprised? They send their own kids into Israel with dynamite strapped on. Remember the teenager who was stopped at a checkpoint? They had to send out a pair of scissors on a robot so he could cut the thing off. Of course, we'll never hear left-wingers bitch about that, will we?
"It's interesting how the pro-Israeli side in this herald debate is constantly justifying killings of Palestinian civilians while the pro-Palestinian side in this argument never justifies killings of Israeli civilians."
No, it's actually been the other way around. We're not stupid, you know. The more ignorance on your part, and the more you assume ignorance on our part, the more ignorant liberals become.
Anonymous (February 6, 2005 @ 11:18pm):
When you say you wouldn't be suprised if Palestinians shot their kids, then accuse lefties of being ignorant, this just makes people in the middle feel weird.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 12:33am):
"When you say you wouldn't be suprised if Palestinians shot their kids, then accuse lefties of being ignorant, this just makes people in the middle feel weird."
Well, I gues you're weird then.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 12:57pm):
The quote that Juli employs by Dr. King is hoax, he never said that, and he was vocally anti-zionist, so was Malcolm X.
A dtailed deconstruction of the claim that the qoute is MLK's is here, http://www.counterpunch.org/kiblawi01172004.html
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 1:13pm):
I would have a lot more respect for "supporters of Israel" if they could frame their arguments without coordinating with paid members of the Israel political lobby. Some of us actually have to read books and travel to the Middle East to come up with our opinions, rather than receiving a series of talking points from a PR lobby: Neville Chamberlain, MLK as Zionist, etc.
The optimism ploy is a tactic to erase history. It is Palestinians who attempted to "appease" Israelis by agreeing to the Oslo process. It got them a doubling of the settlement population. Supporters of the Israelkeep repeating the same madness hoping for a different result.
They can do this because they live in a world where people don't know about the Holocaust (something covered in every American high school and memorialized in Washington DC). They conveniently blame the peculiarities of Yasser Arafat for all the problems, not the simple asymmetry of power that makes negotiations between a conqueror and a conquered people, the Palestinians, unlikely to produce any fruit. Instead they give us kindergarten lectures. I fear there are Palestinian kindergarteners with more political savvy than the author of this article.
JB
Chicago, IL
