Jerusalemâ€”May 19thâ€”Your scribe has cultivated a collegial relationship with a progressive American Jewish group, J-Street, who advocate a strong Israel next to a viable independent Palestinian State. They wish to be able to communicate with American Muslims as natural allies, too, towards concluding a mutual peace throughout the Levant.
On the date above, Jeremy Ben-Ami of J-Street in Washington invited me to be on a Conference call with Major General Nat Sharoni (retired) of the IDF (Israeli Defense Force); now Director of the Council for Peace and Security and with Taras Hassan, a ranking member of Tel Avivâ€™ Justice (sic!) department.
Your essayistâ€™s stance is close to theirs, curiously enough. Therefore, although not Jewish by religion, I support their position, and, thus, consider myself as a â€œfellow traveler.â€
Admittedly, it is a â€œDisaster,â€ though, that the Jewish State (20% of its population are not Jews) was established in this profusely populated region in the Middle East even though Stalin, only as an example of another possible alternative, had a functioning (Jewish nation) within Central Asia at the time of the latter Stateâ€™s establishment (1948) built upon the Foundation of the British (Palestinian Arab) Mandate.
If you remember your writerâ€™s study of the Hindu M.K. Gandhi upon the founding of Israel which was published on these pages a bit over a year ago, your researcher was of the opinion that, if the Zionist faction, would have seriously contemplated Gandhiâ€™s propositions, Israel could have emerged as an admirable multi-sectarian( Middle Eastern) entity.
Just last week (May 16th â€“ 21st), as your columnist, was preparing this weekâ€™s column, your reviewer received a request out of the University of Bethlehem by a group of impressive Palestinian intellectuals to sign onto a call for a one-State solution. Your commentator did not, even though I had proposed a Constitutional schema to resolve such an eventuality last year in reply to a memo to the Chair of an assemblage who desired such a resolution to the conflict.
It is true a one-State solution would destroy Tel Aviv as the Center of a Jewish State. Instead Israel-Palestine would revert back to the acceptable cultural constitution of the multi-sectarian Ottoman Province and the similar structural mix of the later pre-Partition British Mandate.
Such leading personalities as Judge Richard Goldstone himself, the lead author of the Goldstone Report on the IDF (Israeli Defense Forceâ€™s) aggression against Gaza, and Richard Falk, the former U.N (United Nationsâ€™) Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories during the incursion (Operation Cast Lead) from the middle of December 2008 until end of January 2009, believe that a One State solution is the only possible endgame, unfortunately, due to the Settlersâ€™ illegal theft of land from its rightful residents. Also, a similar posture — based upon dissimilar rationale — is held by leading Palestinian thinkers as, curiously, by some right-wing Jewish individuals. (The latter consider it to be the only way they could â€“ in any way — ultimately be able to hold onto those settlements.)
This past week the Libyan Civil War, further, raged while NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) continued its ferocious intervention. In Yemen one of the major tribes is in open revolt against the government. Syria is close, too, to an out and out civil conflict. The rest of the lands around the Southern shores of the Mediterranean Sea are at different levels of upheavals or crises.
The Key to the success or failure of the Arab â€œSpringâ€ lies here within non-Arab Jerusalem. Whatever reaction Israel might make, very well will determine the success or failure of the â€œSpring,â€ and this past week has been a momentous one for the United States, Israel and Palestine (the â€œOccupied Territoriesâ€).
The U.S. Presidentâ€™s Special Envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, resigned while on the Palestinian side their two violently competing parties, Fatah and Hamas, reconciled to the trepidation of Tel Aviv. The Israeli Prime Minister Netanayhu came to Washington to address the combined houses of Congress after the U.S. President made an important address on Holy Land peace, also. The conversation, which will be described in future sections of this extended article, occurred shortly after the latterâ€™s speech.
That middle week of last month was an important period for those from the three above mentioned countries â€“ individuals within them who are striving for a bi-national conclusion to the Arab-Israeli conundrum of the past sixty-three years. Furthermore, all progressive peoples in these three lands are preparing for this Septemberâ€™s upcoming scheduled crucial vote in the United Nations (U.N.) for Palestinian independence.
Within the Hebrew-speaking populace a twofold homeland outcome is becoming ever more accepted and apparent.
The American President Barrack Hussein Obama proposed an amazingly even-handed practical basis for negotiation, but the Hebrew Prime Minister instantly — with a politically tactless rebuff â€“ insulted the Presidentâ€™s proffered rational peace principles. In effect, the latter man rejected any possible proactive participation toward solving the problem; and, thereby, any possibility of a peaceable co-existence between the two populations soon. In essence, Netanyahu ensured that no motion towards the cessation of hostilities will be made while the current government in Tel Aviv remains. Furthermore, it is unlikely that there will be a better time than now to begin to reconcile the two sides with the most even-handed American Presidency in Washington since the Nakba (of 1948).
It was a bad week for all who desire peace. Most of all, it was a bad meeting for the Israelis for it will guarantee that their â€œEternal Warâ€ will continue which can only conclude in an unimaginable violent end to their national ambitions at its current pace. Fortunately, there are high ranking dissidents in the Jewish State whose propositions would be more acceptable to the Palestinian parties, and in future segments of this study you will be able to listen to those.
The Obama Administrationâ€™s central plan to begin the dialogue was that the borders for a new State of Palestine would be based on the pre-1967 borders. Prime Minister Netanyahuâ€™s repudiation of that request was that those borders were indefensible for Israel, but some of his best military advisors disagree with him, and your reporter will bring influential high-ranking Israelisâ€™ arguments against their P.M. (Prime Minister) in future sections of this extended article.