Zatara Checkpoint





3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Wendy, i love your posts and what Israel is doing in the occupied territories is shocking. I however am no partisan of either side, personaly, and i do want however to ask a question and please reply honestly:
Do you believe Israel deserves to exist within the 1967 borders or do you believe in a Palestine "from the river to the sea" as many do, ie thatg there should be no "state of Israel" at all incl. the 67 borders?

Wendy said...

Hi Anonymous,
First of all, who are you? I love to dialogue with people about this issue but I like to know with whom I am talking.

Nevertheless, in the Jewish tradition, I'll answer your question, by asking a question.

Do you think that the United States deserves to exist?

The "right" of Israel to exist or the question you posed, does Israel "deserve" to exist is a moot point. Not many dispute the fact that Israel does exist and it is not going away. (Even Hamas.)

Like many nations, including my own, Israel’s existence is built on brutally and violently displacing an indigenous population. Even so, should we move forward from this point in history and resolve the conflict by establishing two states, Israel in the 1967 borders and Palestine in the remaining fragments? Sure, if both parties agree to this. (However, the Palestinian state offered in these negations must truly be a viable one. i.e. it would actually control its own borders and airspace, its own land and resources, including water, etc.) Or should the solution encompass a single, secular, democratic state? Personally, this is my preference. Furthermore I believe that Israel itself has precluded the first option by its extensive settlements and complex by-pass road network.

Ultimately, I think that framing the issue as a "right to exist" or "deserving to exist" obscures more important questions. However, if you really insist on considering the idea of the right of a nation to exist, I would say that the only right by which Israel (or many states, including the U.S.) exists is that of right by might. I can only hope that humanity is evolving to a more enlightened realm.

You might find this excellent article on the subject interesting reading.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0202/p09s02-coop.html

Sincerely,
Wendy

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the thorough answer to my question, especially the "Sure, if both parties agree to this." Which is my position by the way. Although, let me point out a contradiction: "However, the Palestinian state offered in these negotiations must ..." etc.
This is precisely the problem I have with the ISM line: like other revolutionists (whether internationalist or -- yuck -- Stalinist) you assume for yourselves the vanguard position when history doesn't support that.
Let the Palestinians decide whether to accept whatever terms are agreeable. Sure, the terms offered in the are sucky -- which is why they were rejected (latest by Arafat in the Barak sequence).
No, this is not nit-picky; ISM does NOT have the right to dictate terms, nor to push an internationalist agenda if that overrides what the people want. And I, personally, know Palestinians who want peace and economic relations with Israel. I , personally, know Palestinians who are highly disturbed by the raising of children from the smallest age to love shahada and hate Jews as well as Israelis.
The Hamas line is not the only line FOR THE PALESTINIANS, and the ISM line I consider mere outsider opinion no matter how long or how often or how heroically you go to front-line support against the Israeli crimes.
Reach me at palestinespeaks@gmail.com should you wish to continue this dialog in private, although I think it serves people well to do it right here on the blog. Meanwhile, I'm off to read the csmonitor article you mention! thanks for your good work, - p