|
Written on: 01. 12. 2011 [10:24]
|
|
d.pruiksma
Dick Pruiksma
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR
Topic creator
registered since: 17.08.2010
Posts: 10
|
On September 19, 2011, ICCJ President Dr. Deborah Weissman wrote:
(re-posted December 1, 2011, by ICCJ office)
The big news this week is the intention of the Palestinian leadership to go to the UN and present their case for statehood. While the ICCJ is not an organization that generally takes specific political stands, our Berlin Document issued in 2009 does give us a basis for guiding our approach to these events:
1) Some of the attacks on Israel and Zionism are expressions of
antisemitism. When they are, they should be critiqued as such. (point 4, bullet 5)
2) We should differentiate between fair-minded criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism. Thus, some criticism of Israel and her policies may be justified. (point 7)
3) We should join with Jewish, Christian and Muslim peace workers, with
Israelis and Palestinians, to build trust and peace in a Middle East where all can live secure in independent, viable states rooted in international law and guaranteed human rights. (point 4, bullet 6)
What follows is not an official statement in my role as President of the ICCJ; it is a personal response as a Zionist, a Jew and an Israeli.
Some of us are Zionists; that is, we support the existence of a sovereign Jewish-democratic state in the land of Israel as a national homeland for the Jewish people. It has become fashionable in some circles to see Zionism as the basic problem. I disagree: Zionism as such is not the enemy. There are certain interpretations of Zionism that are problematic, just as there are certain interpretations of Palestinian nationalism or of our various religious traditions that are problematic. But Martin Buber was a Zionist, and I am a Zionist who believes that the best fulfillment of Zionism will come when there is a Palestinian state living in peace alongside the State of Israel.
As a Zionist, I came to live in Israel 39 years ago. I have lived here through many wars and I even served in the Israel Defense Force as an education officer. I think that attempts to blame only one side of the conflict for the tragic impasse we have reached are not helpful. Both sides are responsible for the stalemate. In the absence of a return to face-to-face negotiations, what is necessary is a courageous and creative step outside of the box. It may be that turning to the UN can be such a step.
Therefore, rather than condemning it, we should be welcoming it. The Israeli leadership should be open and creative in its response to the Palestinian action. A response, not of "No", but "Yes, but" could move us along, on the road to peace and justice for both peoples. I believe that we should welcome the Palestinians into the family of nations, recognize the state of Palestine within temporary borders and reach an agreement on permanent borders through negotiations.
|
|
Written on: 01. 12. 2011 [10:28]
|
|
d.pruiksma
Dick Pruiksma
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR
Topic creator
registered since: 17.08.2010
Posts: 10
|
Rabbi Ehud Bandel, Jerusalem, replied:
(re-posted by ICCJ office)
I have no problem in supporting the idea of a Palestinian state that will live peacefully alongside the state of Israel. However, there is a legitimate debate regarding the ways to achieve that goal. Is a unilateral step, using the automatic Arab majority in the UN really the best way to bring about peace and reconciliation? I can certainly understand those who will say "No way." We should continue to "pray for the peace of Jerusalem" and "to build trust and peace in a Middle East where all can live secure in independent, viable states..." But at the same time, respect the notion shared by many, that such a solution should be a result of negotiations and dialogue between the parties and not a unilateral step.
|
|
Written on: 01. 12. 2011 [10:30]
|
|
d.pruiksma
Dick Pruiksma
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR
Topic creator
registered since: 17.08.2010
Posts: 10
|
Dr. Willy Weisz, Vienna, replied:
(re-posted by ICCJ office)
I'm not sure whether we can already say "Yes, but .." or remain more cautious and say "No, but ...". The "no" has too many sources to be utterly optimistic by now:
1.) The Palestinian side doesn't desist from their "right of return", meaning the physical return to the place and homes (even when the latter don't exist any more). Had we Jews requested that from the European countries after 1945 or 1989, what an outcry would we have witnessed!
2.) On the other hand, the provisional Palestinian constitution as published on the Internet explicitly forbids that Israeli Jews live in the Palestinian State - even so some of them may have ancestors that have lived for centuries in places like Hebron.
3.) The right of existence of the Jewish State of Israel isn't part of any Palestinian declaration. On the contrary, even the so-called "moderates" want to have it stripped of its Jewishness. And the more outspoken ones bluntly say that the two-state solution is just a transition to a single Palestinian State from the Mediterranean to the Jordan.
These, and a few other points, make me doubt that the Palestinian State that is proposed at the UN General Assembly, can be a state existing peacefully alongside Medinat Yisrael, and for the good of both nations.
Since our children live beyond the Green Line, I experience every time when I'm with them, that a peaceful side-by-side life of Israelis and Palestinians (not living together, which isn't on the wish list of any of the sides) with good economic ties is possible, and profits both sides.
For the sake of the people living in the area I would like to say "yes", but reading the Palestinian statements a big "Not so" overtakes. Therefor, instead of saying "yes, but ..." I prefer the "no, But ..." with the "no" to what is on the agenda now, and an emphasis on a promising and hoped for "But".
|
|
Written on: 01. 12. 2011 [10:34]
|
|
d.pruiksma
Dick Pruiksma
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR
Topic creator
registered since: 17.08.2010
Posts: 10
|
William Szekely, President CCJ Australia, replied:
(re-posted by ICCJ office)
Having bided my time in the lead up to 20 September, and seeing the proposals changing almost by the hour, at the end of the day, whilst nationhood is always desirable, the chance of actual peace and dialogue on the ground perhaps is more important than a flag and a bunch of other countries supporting the applicant.
I would tend to agree with both Ehud and Willy that it is perhaps better to opt for a No But..., leaving the door open for discussion, than endeavouring to move for something that will not perhaps lead to peace or medium term peace.
Whilst both sides could do better in the lead up, the safer option for all I think is still slowly but surely - for a host of reasons, the trust is not there on either side, the faith basis of dialogue is of less effectiveness right at the moment, and what we ought now to be focussing on, is the day after.
In Australia, there is a bit of a groundswell for what is presently perceived to be the underdog, ignoring the realities of what happens on the ground, the distances involved and the relative mistrust on both sides. The BBC on line survey has polled many people in many countries but I would bet that most of those polled would not really have a detailed idea of the realities and anguish on both sides in the quest for peace. All they tend to see is the mistakes but not the good works and the behind the scenes trust building.
Some may regard me and my views as conservative or pessimistic but nevertheless, my present focus, having regard to 'No, but' is towards the day after, when things have to return to 'normal'.
|
