canarabia find peace?

8/3/2019 Canarabia Find Peace?

1/30

CANARABIA FIND PEACE?

It seems like the ultimate antithesis to the peaceful ways of Canada is the region

that some people call Israel, and others call Palestine. Canada is not completely isolatedfrom these troubles. At the Nova Scotia Multicultural Festival I saw that both the

Canadian Jewish community and the Canadian Palestinian community had maps of the

Holy Land, and each was claiming all of it as their own, the root of the conflict.

If Canadian citizens have ties to these nations, thus making these nations an extension of

Canada, then it means that Canada is at war with itself.

Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are Jewish, and have long-established roots

in their communities. They have no problem identifying both as Jewish and Canadian.They regularly take pride in both labels, with a sense of loyalty and duty expressed

towards both.


2/30

From the Facebook group of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Israel has a Canada Park established by the Jewish National Fund of Canada, as

a token of friendship. I like the name but am troubled by the fact that Canada Park is

built on land outside of Israels official borders, where Palestinian villages once stood

before being demolished in the 1967 war, when Israel began the occupation of the West

Bank. If I had lived in one of those villages I might take offense. There are definitelyplenty of Arab Canadians and other Canadians sympathetic to the displaced Palestinians,

who criticize the Canadian government for its relationship with Israel.


3/30

The JNF is one of many organizations representing the Jewish Diaspora in

Canada and around the world. These groups engage in activities like outreach and

community service. Many of them also take up the banner of supporting the state ofIsrael, seeing it as vital to their Jewish identity that they stand up for it.

From the Facebook group for Magbit Canada

The UJA (United Jewish Appeal) Federation of Greater Toronto holds an annual

Walk with Israel. It is a fundraising event that also offers people a chance to show asense of Israeli patriotism in parade-like fashion. Were this money going to be used tosupply weapons for the Israeli Defense Forces, I can see how that could be seen by many

as controversial. But instead the money goes to environmental causes and underserved

communities in Israel, making it philanthropic in nature. However the 2010 walk wasattended by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was given a Toronto Maple

Leaves hockey Jersey with his name emblazoned on it. Netanyahu is a man completely

unapologetic for any Palestinians who have been, or will be displaced, so I think hispresence could again make the event controversial.

Near the beginning of this book, I expressed my annoyance with Mr. Thomas

Naylor repetitively claiming that the United States government was controlled by theIsraeli lobby. But I would have to be blind not to see that the U.S. has a bias in favoring

Israel in the Middle East conflict. And there are lobbyists advocating for Israel within the

U.S, government, but there are various lobbying groups, and though they all haveinfluence it doesnt mean they control the government. Instead, I explain our bias in the

fact that many of the people in the United States see Israels culture as sharing what we

consider our Judeo-Christian heritage. Just as Russia sided with its fellow Slavic nationof Serbia in World War I, we feel a sense of ethnic solidarity. Some in Canada have this

same sense towards Israel, and it is obvious who they often vote for.

The government of Stephen Harper has made it clear where it thinks Canadas

loyalty should lie. Surprise, surprise, he thinks they should echo the U.S. government intaking a heavily one sided view towards the conflict. Harper supported Israels 2008-

2009 attack on the Gaza Strip, which resulted in the deaths of a hundred times morePalestinian civilians, than the Israelis killed in the rocket attacks from Hamas that

instigated the battle. Harper also opposed a UN resolution to lift the blockade that has cut

off Gaza from the world. Along with the U.S. and Israel, he boycotted the 2009 WorldConference Against Racism, after the 2001 conference in Durban South Africa became


4/30

critical of Zionism. He also agreed to have Canada represent Israeli interests in

Venezuela, after Chavez cut off diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.

Harper certainly does not reflect the sympathies of many Canadians however.

There have been large scale protests in Canada against the Israeli occupation of the

Palestinian territories. Some in these protests have expressed support for organizationslike Hezbollah and Hamas, which I fear could only increase Islamaphobia among other

Canadians. Both the politically conservative Canadian Islamic Congress and the

Canadian Arab Federation have urged the government to take Hezbollah and Hamas offthe list of terrorist organizations.

Logos for the Canadian Arab Federation and the Canadian Islamic Congress

Together, the CIC and the CAF held an essay contest in 2008 on the subject ofthe ethnic cleansing of Palestine. This of course raised objections by the politically

conservative Jewish group Bnai Brith Canada, showing how Canadians could be divided

between themselves based on their different cultural ties to far off lands.

In 2002, The Jewish Hillel at Concordia University organized a visit by the once

and future prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu. Protests of his visit on September 9

culminated in a riot. The Middle East was over 5000 kilometers away and yet by localCanucks taking sides, it was almost as if the streets of Jerusalem were placed in the

middle of Montreal. How the hell are we to find peace there if there is conflict over here?

IN SEARCH OF UNIVERSAL JUSTICE

There is so much selectivity on both sides when seeing both injustice, andjustifiable grievances. It is almost impossible to find a solution that seems fair to

everyone. Many have proposed solutions that were seen by one side as going too far and

by the other side as not going far enough. Whoever proposes such actions from one side

or the other will probably be seen as a traitor, caring about their enemies more than they

care about their own. If a man like Ariel Sharon, one of the most hawkish Israelipoliticians, could have decided to pull out of the Gaza Strip be rest assured that it was not

out of love for the Arabs. Many Israelis saw this action as a betrayal. Some went so far asto call him a Nazi. I found this ironic, because there are many Palestinians who would

agree with this assessment.

It would not be easy to find common ground for two conflicting groups. Although

not as intense as the rift between the Israelis and Palestinians, there has been animosity


5/30

between Anglo-Canadians and French Canadians. For his efforts to bring them together

in harmony, Sir Wilfred Laurier was accused of being too British by fellow French

Canadians, and too French by British Canadians. Sometimes I fear that the closestagreement you can come up with is being mutually despised by everyone.

No matter where you stand relative to this conflict, your view will be skewed.Some will no doubt assume that I am more in favor of the Israelis. They might even point

to my history of active participation in Jewish community events as evidence of my bias.

At the same time some on the pro-Israel side will probably assume I am favoring thePalestinians, and am perhaps even anti-Semitic, simply because I do not share all of their

views in their entirety.

Most people are biased even if they dont realize it. When I heard a woman saythat no one could deny that Israel was an illegal state, I had to wonder if it was just an

amazing coincidence that she herself was Palestinian. Neither can I swear that my views

on the conflict would be no different if I had a Jewish girlfriend or an Arab girlfriend.

Biases in perceptions of universal justice are everywhere, even by those who

claim to truly have equal concern and love for all sides. For someone who has no closefamilial or social ties to anyone on either side of the conflict it is easy for them not to take

any events in the Middle East too personally. I would rather hear the opinions of people

tied to both sides. Discordia was a brilliant documentary, made by Ben Addleman and

Samir Mallal about the fallout from the Concordia protests.

An Arab-Bedouin member of the Israeli Defense Forces might be well received in

a synagogue, but I am guessing that most Arabs would view him as an Uncle Tom, andit would be unrealistic to expect all Arabs to adopt his point of view. At the same time, I

have seen pictures of activists in Toronto protesting against the annual Walk with Israel

that included Heredi Jews fromNeturei Karta, a group that believes that Zionism is inviolation of Torah, the following picture comes from their website.


6/30

They carry the Palestinian flag, and join with the Arab-Canadian protestors in

denouncing Israel as a terrorist state. I have to wonder though if a lot of these Arab

protesters that they were standing shoulder to shoulder with would still hold the sameopinions of Israel if they themselves were Jewish.

Israelis in the ultra-conservative Likud Party think a fair peace deal would involvethe Palestinians just handing over all their land and leaving. Though had they been raised

Muslim their vision of a just peace would most likely be like that of Hamas.

We can not expect other people to show more passivity and humility than

ourselves. Also, martyrs or Uncle Toms should not be quick to assume that it is

possible for everyone on their side to show as much humility and passivity as they show

themselves.

Founded in 2008, Independent Jewish Voices Canada is a nationalhuman rights organization whose mandate is to promote a just resolution to

the dispute in Israel and Palestine through the application ofinternational law and respect for the human rights of all parties. (ijvcanada.org)

Independent Jewish Voices takes the brave and lonely stand of not letting the

JNF, Hillel, UJA, or any other mainstream organization of define for them how they must

express pride in being Jewish. They are not afraid to be critical of Israels actions, but the

manifestations of that justifiable criticism can sometimes be more alienating thannecessary.

Photo from the Facebook page for the Canadian Boat to Gaza

I notice that in this photo of a Palestine Solidarity protest in Montreal that there is

no sign of the Canadian flag. This could alienate Canadian patriots who could have beenconvinced to support them otherwise. I also notice that the only Israeli flag shown has

been defaced, which could alienate a lot of Jewish people who are not ready to choosebetween supporting Israel and supporting the rights of the Palestinians at Israels

expense. Thankfully there are other options for being a peace activist.


7/30

Canadian Friends of Peace Now (CFPN) is the only mainstream Jewishorganization in Canada dedicated entirely to promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace

on the basis of the two-state solution. (peacenowcanada.org)

This group (Canadian Friends of Peace Now) takes the radically moderate stance

of supporting an Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territories, but still making itpossible for Israelis to believe in Zionism. For other activists, Zionism remains a four-

letter word however.

THE INHERITANCE OF SHAME

Holocaust denial is the most extreme example of historical revisionism but it is

far from the only one. Deir Yassin proves this. Deir Yassin was a Palestinian villagewhere over 100 unarmed men women and children were killed by Jewish soldiers in the

early days of Israels independence struggle. Many members of the Jewish community

are quick to attack anyone who supports this remembrance movement. These same

people would be offended by anyone who tried to cover up the memory of the Holocaust,and I think therein lies a bit of incongruence.

To use the Deir Yassin massacre as an excuse to hate someone for being Jewish

would be wrong, as it would be wrong to use the Holocaust as an excuse to hate someone

just because they are German. Denying history is never the answer though.

The truth of history should be acknowledged, but we should avoid drawing the

wrong conclusions from it. That is why it is important that nations which have had

members commit a crime against humanity be the first to acknowledge it. People fromany nation can play the role of villain and they should consciously try to avoid falling

into that category. This makes it harder for others to denounce an entire nation.

Israel should therefore, for its own national interests, be the first to recognize the

massacre at Deir Yassin, and other examples of injustice committed in the name of their

country. To help promote the principle that historical atrocities can not be used tocondemn their nation in its entirety, one of the most productive courses of action for

Israel might be to be vocal in stating that the mass slaughter of Armenians at the hands of

soldiers of the Ottoman Empire does not mean that the citizens of the modern Turkish

Republic should have to grow up thinking less of themselves.

Armenia wants Turkey, and the rest of the world, to recognize these mass killings

by Ottoman soldiers as genocide. Perhaps then one of the most productive things theArmenians could do is to speak up about the injustice of the Azerbaijanis who were

dislocated during the war to occupy Nagorno Karabahk, a predominantly Armenian

enclave within Azerbaijan. Azerbaijanis are certainly upset from this, but the best way forthem to raise awareness about this injustice might be to condemn the expulsion of the

sizeable Armenian community from Baku, the capitol of Azerbaijan.


8/30

It would certainly seem to be in the interests of Turkish national pride for them to

avoid the sense of shame many people have long put on Germany for the Holocaust. The

most productive thing Turkey might then do to avoid this fate would be if they becomevocal in stating that no Germans from the post-Hitler generations should be born

ashamed of themselves. Standing up for the Germans might also help the marginalized

Turkish minority residing in Germany.

Serbia is reluctant to officially recognize the slaughter of Bosnian Muslims in the

1990s as genocide, just as Turkey is in regards to the Armenians. I propose that theSerbian government be given responsibility, not for determining if the ethnic war in

Bosnia was a case of genocide, but if the war on the eastern frontier of the Ottoman

Empire was. The Turkish government meanwhile, would be given the task of determining

on behalf of the Serbian government, if the attempts at ethnic cleansing of the BosnianMuslims could be considered genocide.

Finally, the best thing that people in the Arab world could do to help shed light on

the historical grievances of the Palestinians, and crimes against humanity like thosecommitted in Deir Yassin, would be to very publicly acknowledge and condemn the

Holocaust. It is easy to condemn acts of horrific violence committed against yourself, orpeople you see as being like yourself. The real test of whether you are a true believer in

universal justice is if you can condemn injustices done to a group of people you feel have

wronged you. For Palestinians to attract more sympathy from the Jewish community,

when they talk about the injustice of being driven from their homes, they should alsospeak out against the injustice of the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries in retribution

for the founding of the state of Israel.

This chain of events would promote a principle, and its a principle that would be

to the benefit of all the nations of the world, including Israel. That principle being that we

should learn to recognize the inhumanity that humans are capable of, so that none of usever stop trying to hold our people (all seven billion of them) up to a higher standard.

HISTORY OR MINE?

Regardless of the side of the debate, you will find plenty of volunteers eager to

explain the history of the Palestine-Israel conflict. They assume that the historical facts

will speak for themselves. Like Fox News, they say that they will leave you to decidewho is right. They are confident that you will decide that they are.

I remember, even as a child, being bombarded by television commercials forcompeting telephone companies and brands of soda. They always seemed to show

proof that they were undeniably the right choice, even though their competitors seemed

to have just as much proof that they were. So, from a young age I became sensitive tobullshit, and became unwilling to take any accounts at face value.

Like with soda, any account will make it seem undeniable who is right and who is

wrong in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Not surprisingly, you can somehow draw


9/30


10/30

http://the-end-time.blogspot.com/2011/05/incredible-shrinking-israel.html

All of these maps are accurate, but their presentation is still meant for deception.Although it was once part of the British Mandate of Palestine, the territory east of the

Jordan River was never under Israeli control, nor promised to them. The BalfourDeclaration was a very vague statement meant to get Jewish support for Britain during

World War I. This series of maps also conveniently leaves out the time between 1922 and1973, when Israel quickly doubled its land area following independence in 1948, and

then in 1967 tripled the land area it controlled. If the purpose of these successive maps is

to paint Israel as doing nothing but sacrifice it seems more convincing to leave out thatperiod of time.

I would also like to note that this map comes from a Christian fundamentalistsource, and they always seem to side with Israel and try to ignore the fact that there are

Palestinians that are Christian. It should also be noted that the creator of this website is a

doomsayer, convinced that we will see the biblical apocalypse in our lifetime, despite a

hundred generations of disappointment. Doomsayers believe that the existence of theJewish state is vital to ensuring the return of Jesus, whom they eagerly await to tell the

Jewish people that they are wrong for not worshipping him, and then smite them. But

until then, they will express their support for the Israelis.

People like the 2012 U.S. Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich have

tried to argue that the Palestinians are an invented people, to try and deny that they have


11/30

any right to state-hood. People try to claim that the name Palestine was never even used

for the land until the 20th Century. I would like to tell people like Mr. Gingrich that those

they think of as Americans are also an invented people, but that doesnt make thedesignation meaningless to the people who apply it to themselves. And regardless of what

you call them, the people referred to as Palestinians are human-beings, and that is

supposed to mean that they have some kind of inalienable rights.

Pro-Palestinian sources might agree with me for pointing out these attempts to re-

write the truth, but I think it is fair to also call them out for their own attempts to givehistory a twist. A sequence of maps is also used to show Palestine looking like it has been

continuously eaten away by an aggressive take-over, which has never been in a state of

remission. Websites supporting the Palestinian cause will often show a progression of

historical maps like this:

International Middle East Media Centerwww.imemc.org/attachments/sep2011/palestine_shrinking.jpg

Again, each of these maps is accurate, but what they are implying is not. Like theother succession of maps, they are used to make it seem like the only story to tell is the

never-ending loss of territory from one side to the other. The difference is where the gapsin history are. In this case, they ignore the period between 1967 and 1999. Had they

bothered to include this period of time, they would have shown that by the end of 1967the green area of the map would have disappeared completely (since the white area

represents areas that Israel has controlled but that may not have ever been officially

annexed, and that continued to have an Arab majority the whole time). It is only later thatthe green areas shown in 1999 were given to the control of the Palestinian Authority.


12/30

These green clumps on the most current map look like the last dying embers of

the Palestinian nation. Some could also think of it as a new hope rising from the dead, but

that only works if you point out that Israel once occupied this land in its entirety. If thepoint of these maps is to perceive Zionism as a disease that never lets up then it is better

to leave that part out.

I am not pointing out these historical omissions to make the claim that current

grievances by the Palestinians are unfounded, or that they should be eternally grateful for

Israel giving them back a few scraps of land. But giving such an obviously skewedpicture of recent historical events could be used by others to try and discredit Palestinian

nationalism.

I have found these series of maps depicting progressive loss of land to the Israelisreposted on multiple websites dedicated to supporting Palestinian rights. Most of those

websites are legitimate, and motivated by humanitarianism. However, I have also seen

these maps recreated on a website by a group entitled Jew Watch. In their logo, they

not-so-cleverly combine the Star of David with the Hammer and Sickle, because they seecommunism and Zionism as the same force for tyranny, and show a picture of Leon

Trotsky from the Zionist USSR to depict their point. Never mind the fact that manyolder Arab nationalists once looked to the Soviet Union for inspiration and support, or

that Stalin took advantage of Russian anti-Semitism to denounce Trotsky. I also cant

help but note some of the other people who have tried to claim that the Jews were all

communists, namely Hitler.

Even if I am not a conspiracy theorist, I can almost believe that this Jew Watch

could be some kind of COINTELPRO effort to try and discredit the Palestinian rightsmovement. It certainly helps to promote the claim that anyone who tries to criticize Israel

must be anti-Semitic, so it is important for all of the legitimate Palestinian rights groups

to quickly condemn this website.

In any case, most of the people alive today were not alive when these recent

historical events with their multiple interpretations took place. And there are certainly nopeople left alive from the days when Abraham was alive, so you cant get any first hand

accounts if it was his son Isaac that he was prepared to sacrifice, as the Israelis believe, or

his son Ishmael, as the Muslims believe. History from Biblical times is therefore the

easiest history of all to twist into whatever form serves you best. Arguments overwhatever happened in those days, to prove who the land belongs to, are as fruitless as

trying to find the end point of a circle. You can search forever without finding anything.

Therefore, I do not want to use any Biblical arguments about history, because they canonly distract us from the larger truth. That truth is that whatever happened to other people

down through the centuries, the needs of all of them put together are less important than

the rights and the needs of the people alive right now.

If this proves anything it is that Palestine, like Israel, is a word, and the rocks and

hills and rivers that make up the land are more permanent than the names given to it.


13/30

***

It is common for supporters of Israel to claim that people who are critical of it arebeing anti-Semitic. What is troubling is that anti-Semitism really does exist, and is wide

spread. It is because that anti-Semitism is a reality that accusations of being anti-Semitic

should not be made like the boy who cried wolf. Human rights advocates are sick ofclaims of anti-Semitism being used to explain every criticism of Israel, and it only makes

it harder to recognize instances of true anti-Semitism.

Another fact that refutes the argument that all critics of Israel are anti-Semitic is

that some of its critics are Jewish. Aaron Mate was a Concordia student featured in the

movie Discordia, and you can see other Jewish students claiming he is a self-hating

Jew because of his outspoken criticism of the state of Israels actions. Aarons father, theson of Holocaust survivors, was himself an advocate for Palestinian rights, and like

Irshad Manji, a Muslim who defends Israels right to exist he has faced death threats from

members of his own community for his self-criticism.

Aaron Mate was also accused by his friends in the Palestinian Solidarity

Campaign as not going far enough. When Aaron disapproved of the Concordia StudentUnions suspension of Hillel, he was accused of not showing solidarity with the CSU.

One of his Palestinian associates said that it was not enough for him to stand with them,

but he needs to be standing behind them. The truth is that in a free country he can stand

wherever he wants, and if half of the people in the Jewish community showed half of hislevel of commitment for Arab rights, Palestine would already be free.

It takes a lot of courage to be radically moderate. I dont think that there are manywho would be willing to stand where Aaron was standing. I question if a lot of the

Palestinians who said he should get behind them would have been willing to do it if they

were Jewish. It makes me wonder how many more Aarons and Irshads there would be ifthere was just a little less pressure on them to take sides.

I have also wondered how much more support there would be forenvironmentalism and animal rights issues if groups like PETA were not so quick to

alienate themselves from people who shared most of their views, but God forbid enjoyed

a burger now and then. Likewise, I wonder how many more people from the Jewish

community would speak up against the abuses faced by the Palestinians, if there were notso many scenes at protests of burning the Israeli flag.

There are injustices committed in the Middle East that anyone with a conscience,if forced to acknowledge, would agree are wrong regardless of their own nationality.

Most Israelis and their supporters do not take the time to face the inexcusable insults that

the Palestinians have to put up with, like the children of Israeli settlers harassingPalestinian women and children on their way to school, even getting physical with them

while Israeli soldiers stand by and watch uncaringly.


14/30

palestinemonitor.org

No matter how many injustices the Jewish people have suffered over the millennia, or

how great the argument to defend the existence of the Jewish state, this action above, andthe inaction of the soldiers, does (less than) nothing to help Israel.

I only saw evidence of this injustice myself because I went to a teach-in where the

general consensus was that the state of Israel must cease to exist. Just like the mistake ofnot separating calls for legalizing industrial hemp from calls to legalize marijuana, if the

message for Palestinian rights is treated as inseparable from calls to destroy the Jewish

state, most Israelis will never hear that message. During times of conflict, whenever thereare innocent victims, people say that they will do what they must to protect themselves,

often not questioning if some victims were avoidable. Hence, an injustice becomes easy

to ignore in their eyes.

Less obvious is the misfortune that this causes the perpetrators. There are some

serious national concerns for the state of Israel about loosing its moral credibility to the

rest of the world, as well as not making the wisest choices about securing its own safety.These misfortunes are probably less obvious because many Palestinian rights advocates

make the same mistake that the Likud voting bloc does. They treat the well-being of their

opponents as having no correlation with their own welfare.

Just as many Israelis might fill their arguments with calls of self-defense to ignore

those times when someone has kicked an old Arab lady, spit on a child, or burnedsomeones olive grove, many Palestinians might fill their own arguments with calls of

self-defense to ignore those times when the actions or language of some Palestinians hasbeen atrocious. Ignoring it only makes it easier for Israelis to use self-defense arguments,

ignoring crimes committed in the name of their country, which makes it easier forPalestinians to do the same, and around and around we go.


15/30

actwestnashville.com

Again, not helping anyone, except maybe the Likud Party at election time

Such language and actions are in especially poor judgment, since the Palestinians

have sympathizers coming from alldifferent kinds of people. There are some advocates

for Palestinian rights who are Jewish, but feel no sense of affinity for Israel. This means

that those Jews that do care about the Jewish state are more likely not to question theactions of the Israeli government, and even more likely to fail to realize when those

actions are self destructive. More Jewish people would join them if they were offeredmore of a chance to stand for the human rights of the Palestinians while not having todenounce Israel in its entirety.

I am impressed by those who can have the humility to show care and compassionfor those that are different from themselves. But I am more impressed by people who not

only manage to have care and compassion for others while maintaining it for themselves,

but who can also recognize when helping others can help themselves.

Israel probably is aware, like anyone who has ever studied economics, that

everything has a cost. In the name of defending the nation, Israel would probably always

agree that the cost is worth it, as any nation naturally would, even if that cost is gettingthe Palestinians and most other nations to despise you, and to try the patience of some of

their closest allies. That is how Israel comes to terms with the negative worldwide

reaction to their seizure of the flotilla in 2010 that was trying to bring supplies to theisolated Palestinian enclave of Gaza. Israel naturally feels that the opinions of the other

nations of the world must come second to their own security.

One thing that you try to keep in mind in economics is that just because

everything has a cost does not mean that you should loose sight of trying to minimize that

cost. While playing the national defense card to justify all of its actions to the scrutiny of

the global community Israel must critically assess its own actions to determine if they are

making the wisest choices possible. Even if the Gaza Flotilla was carrying weapons (itwasnt), would it have not made more sense to wait to intercept it until it had entered into

Israels territorial waters? Attacking them out in the middle of the Mediterranean justmade their actions look like an illegal act of international piracy.


16/30

Here is a picture from rabble.ca of the Canadian boat that was going to join the second

Freedom Flotilla in 2011. It was prevented from leaving port in Greece.

Furthermore, in Israels aerial bombardment of Gaza, have they really done all

that they could to make sure that innocent civilians were not killed? I understand being

upset about rocket attacks by Hamas killing Israelis, but when your counterattack causes

a hundred times more civilian deaths on the Palestinian side it still makes you look bad.The Israeli government doesnt seem to ask itself these questions. Perhaps most people

who ask these questions do not make the safety of Israel priority number one, but Israeli

politicians still must try and make the wisest choices for the sake of the country.

Israelis might say that the Palestinians and their international supporters have also

failed at having the responsibility to make the wisest choices for their sake of their cause.They might say this only to take attention away from their own failures, but they are still

right. Many Palestinian advocates have not considered how to minimize their own costs.

People on the Freedom Flotilla had a right to be upset with the IDF, but attacking Israeli

soldiers with hammers as soon as they boarded might not have been a good idea. It madeit easier for the Israelis to falsely justify their own violent response that lead to the deaths

of several Turkish nationals. Also, horrific terrorist acts might be orchestrated by a

violent fraction of Palestinians, but everyone else struggling for their freedom shouldalways be the first to condemn them, and the loudest.

PLAYING ISRAELS ADVOCATE/ PLAYING PALESTINES ADVOCATE

A lot again goes unsaid for fear that it will go against the progressive liberal

principles of supporting universal peace and justice. But what we remain silent about

could make the difference between getting a lot more Jewish support for Palestinianrights and letting hard-line Israeli nationalists maintain a monopoly on patriotism.

It might be time to think as hard as we can of possible ways that it might bepossible to defend the existence of Israel. This can help our own arguments, by helping to


17/30

make them strong enough to convince people besides ourselves that we are right in

supporting Palestinian rights. If we can do that we might be able to offer a third option

between the extremes of Jews who would otherwise get behind people like Netanyahu.

We live in a very diverse world. The world would be missing a huge part of its

soul without the existence of the Arab and Islamic cultures. Their presence, mostprominent in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, and Central and South East Asia,

contributes greatly to the human legacy.

Remember that I said that sometimes a culture is only visible if there is a place

where their nation can be concentrated enough to form a majority. When Anglophones

complain about the language laws in Quebec they are probably not looking at the point of

the view of the Quebecois, because their own Anglo culture is predominant just abouteverywhere else in North America. Where else on the continent do French speakers form

the majority? Taking that same logic, ask yourself where other than Israel do Jewish

people make up the majority? Where else is there a state that has Hebrew as an official

language? What other national flag has the Star of David represented on it? Also, notehow many national flags have the Crescent Moon of Islam on them.

From the Facebook page of the UJA Federation of Greater Toronto

What if instead of several countries, there was only one country where Arabs

were in the majority, where Arabic was the only official language (it is an officiallanguage in Israel alongside Hebrew) and Islam was the state religion? If to keep that

Arab nation visible they needed a small piece of land taken out of a much larger area

where a more populace culture predominated, would they not see that as justified to helppromote diversity in the world? Do WASPS or Arabs know how it would feel for there to

be no where in the world where most of the people share their culture?


18/30

Also, consider the fact that most Arab citizens of Israel would rather maintain

their current citizenship than be put under the authority of another Arab government.

But for arguments sake, we must also consider why others do not look fondly on

Israel. From other perspectives, the state of Israel is often viewed like a splinter, a foreign

object stuck in the body. Almost all Arab lands were once under foreign rule. It wasforeign rule that permitted the creation of this non-Arab state on a part of their land, so its

existence is going to feel like a lasting reminder of the insult of colonial rule.

The state of Israel has received most of its support from the Western World. This

is probably because when we see Israel, we see ourselves. I think even the kinds of folks

who have traditionally not liked Jews so much will still often support the state of Israel.

Conservative Christian support, despite how they might disguise it, is not done out oflove of Jews, but hatred of Muslims. They can only support Israel as long as the

neighboring countries seem more foreign. If every state in the Middle East other than

Israel had a Christian majority, there is no doubt that these same Bible-thumpers would

view the Jewish state the same way Hamas does.

Another thing that makes Israel easy for people in the West to accept is that wedont feel like we had to give up any of our own territory to create it. It is created on land

that otherwise would not have been seen as a part of Western civilization, so its existence

seems like a bonus that costs ourselves nothing.

Imagine an alternative history where the before the Moors pulled out of Spain, or

the Ottomans pulled out of the Balkans, they had taken advantage of the opportunity to

establish a Jewish state in Europe. In the Caliphates of old, Sephardic Jews found a homethat was a lot more tolerant towards them than Europe was to the Ashkenazi Jews. Just as

the Ashkenazi Jews were strongly influenced by Western customs, so have Sephardic

Jews been influenced by North African ones. Such a Jewish state would have seemed likea lasting reminder of the invasion of the caliphates into Europe, and they would still be

perceived as Arab in nature, and probably unwelcome by the Crusaders.

You have to admit, many of us in the west have probably not taken the time to

think about how we would perceive Israel if we were to see the Arab culture as our own.

I find that this is much like how many peoples stance on abortion is influenced by their

lack of a uterus.***

No one should have to leave the place they have lived their entire lives, andalways called home, because of the language they speak, the tone of their skin, or the

religion they belong to. This is true regardless of where they are, or what their

color/language/religion is. This means that it is an injustice for either Palestinians or Jewsto be forced into relocation.

I have heard so many things said in defense of the Jewish state, and can think of

so many for myself. Looking at the macrocosmic level, there seems to be no limit to how


19/30


20/30


21/30

over one million Arabs. Israel is doing something that I suggested the old South African

regime could have tried, namely seeming more inclusive while still ensuring a numerical

majority of preferred citizens to preserve the political status quo. This does give theIsraeli state more legitimacy than the old South Africa. Of course, to someone living in

an overcrowded refugee camp, it might be little concession to you that someone who

shares your language and religion has the chance at a decent life that you had beendenied.

Apartheid South Africa put a lot of emphasis on saying that order had to bemaintained. If anybody brought up the uncivilized actions the state was engaged in, the

government could just reiterate the need to protect their homeland, as if you couldnt

have both order and fairness. When groups like the Concordia Hillel say they stand with

Israel, as if that is the end of all discussion, with no mention of the occupation of theWest Bank, it reminds me a bit of that. It should not be viewed as a choice between

preserving peace and order in the Jewish state, and ending the injustices faced by the

Palestinians.

There is one major parallel between the Israeli government and the old South

Africa government that is overlooked. In fairness, it is a characteristic found in just aboutany state that finds itself in a position of dominance. This characteristic is an

overestimation of your ability to hold onto your power indefinitely and as such fails to act

on the opportunities presented to them to preserve whatever power for their own group of

people they can. Just like the dream of a state where Afrikaner culture could bepredominant, the Zionist dream is a ticking clock counting down towards zero.

With the exception of East Jerusalem, Israel has never officially annexed the WestBank, which it has occupied since 1967. Therefore, Palestinians born in the Occupied

Territories outside of East Jerusalem are not given any of the benefits of Israeli

citizenship, even though their lives are largely controlled by the Israeli authorities. Theirmovement across their own land is regulated by these authorities, who allow an Israeli

minority to freely move through it on modern highways cutting through Palestinian land

but that are for the exclusive use of Israelis. This gives Jewish settlers easy access toIsrael proper, whole the Arabs are subjected to multiple checkpoints, even when just

traveling to different points in the West Bank. Israel even maintains control of the

aquifers under the Palestinians feet, and rarely grants them permits for wells. A third of

Israels water comes from the West Bank, and Israelis use five times more water percapita than the Palestinians (source: National Geographic Oct. 2002). The only way

Palestinians get integrated into Israeli society is as a cheap labor class. Israel as a whole

might not resemble the old South Africa, but the realities of the West Bank certainly do.

Even though they have never officially annexed the West Bank, Israel certainly

acts like it is a part of their country. Israeli maps usually depict the West Bank as acontiguous part of their country, just as Quebecois maps often do with Labrador. To

reinforce their claim, over 100 Israeli settlements have been built. Even so, 40 years later

they remain a minority in West Bank. No matter how many times you say Jordan is

Palestine, Arabs in Judea and Samaria are not going to magically disappear.


22/30

Israel really needs to either shit or get off the pot. If you are going to continue

controlling the West Bank, you need to officially annex it already, and offer all of thepeople who live there the full freedom of movement, and rights and privileges, as Israeli

citizens. This might seem unrealistic, since it would make Jews a much smaller

percentage of the citizens of Israel. Well, if they cant give all of the people in the WestBank civil rights while under their control, then they need to withdraw.

Israel has withdrawn from West Bank territory, but only partially. Full control bythe Palestinian Authority is limited to non-contiguous areas with Israel controlling the

corridors between them as well as the most strategically important territory.

Since the Israelis and Palestinians are acting like children, it seems reasonable totry and treat them as such and separate them. If one of those children dictates the terms of

that separation however, you can guess who is going to end up with most of the toys. If

the separation wall Israel has built directly followed the internationally recognized

border, perhaps it would be fair. However it is built almost entirely within the West Bank,with twists and turns that divide the land into ridiculous shapes, to let Israel hold onto as

much territory as it can, no matter how much it inconveniences the Palestinians. Youwould think that Israel could at least give those Palestinians living on the same side of the

barrier as the Israeli settlements full citizenship, but even that is apparently too much.

Just like the apartheid governments efforts at appeasing the internationalcommunity, the attempts by the Israeli government at appearing fair are not nearly good

enough. This is not to say that if the Palestinians were in their position that their proposal

would be fair either.

Not only do the Palestinians want to see a removal of all of the Israeli settlements

within the West Bank, but they also demand the Right of Return for the millions ofdescendents of the first generation refugees. The Palestinians in the West Bank are not

being expected to tolerate a small fraction of the people living in their territory as non-

Arab, but they expect Israelis to accept a population of refugees so large, that in ademocratic system they would no longer be able to control their own government.

Others before me have pointed out that within the area controlled by the state of

Israel, with its large Arab minority living within its internationally recognized bordersand the millions of Arabs living in the occupied territories, in the near future Arab

Muslims will be the numerical minority within the territory that Israel controls. When

that happens, it will become a lot more difficult to repudiate the accusations from theinternational community that they are an apartheid state. These arguments could be one

of the strongest for allowing the establishment of an independent Palestinian state outside

of the control of Israel. However, Israeli nationalists seem to have a bad case of cognitivedissonance, like arrogant Republicans have with global warming. And like Republicans

and global warming, they will ignore demographic trends as long as they can, and even

when they cant ignore it any longer, they will still maintain the same false logic that


23/30

fueled their ignorance, and use it to come up with solutions that wont work. Any efforts

will be too little too late.

The demographic time bomb might eventually destroy the state of Israel, but this

does not equal Palestinian justice. African colonies only gained their freedom after

violence has destroyed most of their former infrastructure. I imagine that in the samepattern, an independent Palestine could resemble a larger version of the Gaza strip, with

few people living above the poverty line, and the violence of the past occupation so

engrained that infighting will continue among rival groups, even if there are no moreIsraelis. The chaos of war could also ensure that whoever rules over such a territory could

be as despotic and dismissive of the populace as the IDF has been in the West Bank.

The Israelis would certainly not be in a better position than they are today either,since their state would cease to exist. Neither side will benefit from trying to hold on to

the current status quo. This precious time should be used to prepare for the creation of an

independent Palestinian state, which will also give the Israelis time to be pre-emptive in

ceding land that they can not hold indefinitely, so that there may still be some areas thatcan maintain a Jewish majority.

ONE-STATE TWO-STATE GREEN-STATE BLUE-STATE

Many do not want to see a division of the land they consider holy, anymore than a

mother would agree to have King Solomon slice their baby in half. I am a bit confusedthough how it is people always assume that Gods definition of politics is the same as

their own. The modern notion of the nation-state is only around 200 years old, and do we

think that the boundaries of the land of Abraham coincide with the ones drawn out for thepost World War I British mandate? Are we so egotistical that we assume that if we draw

a line on a map, that we also draw one in Gods eye?

I have to wonder if the two-state solution would be one of those agreements that

everyone was happy with, or that no one was happy with. Both the Palestinian and Israeli

sides would prefer a unified state that ideally would be known either as Israel orPalestine. Some hope for an agreement of a shared state that will be secular in nature, but

that will probably appeal more to whomever feels like they will be able to dominate it,

just as a North American Union would appeal more to the U.S. than to Canada.

If the choice is seen as between Jewish rule, and non-Jewish rule, most of the

support for a secular state might come from non-Israelis. There are already plenty of

countries that are secular, as well as many Muslim countries trying to enact Sharia Law.But if there were to be any country that had their laws influenced by Jewish teachings, it

would either be Israel, or no-one.

Just because a single state is established, with the stated intent of being secular,

and equal for all, does not mean that it will be. Israelis might still have economic

dominance in a single state, just as white South Africans do after apartheid. And once the

concrete walls are replaced by glass ceilings, there might be a lack of willingness to see


24/30

the need for affirmative action. There could also be the possibility of eventual Arab

dominance, at which point the demand for maintaining a secular state might become less

popular. What if the Palestinian equivalent of Robert Mugabe came to power?

***

From a Zionist standpoint I could understand wanting to keep all of the territory

Israel captured in 1967 (Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, West Bank, and the entire Sinai

Peninsula). The territory of the Arab world would still be much larger. That might seemfair to the Israelis, but like the dream of preserving apartheid, it is simply not possible.

Even if a Greater Israel were to exist, it would no doubt find the need to designate

a portion of the territory they claimed as an autonomous region for Palestinians. SouthAfrica tried this with the Bantustans, but ultimately failed because it kept them too small

and dependent. The only hope for being able to sustain a Greater Israel would be if the

self governing region granted to the Palestinians was so large that it was like a dual state.

The Israelis would have to grant an equal partnership status to the Palestinians, like theAustrian Empire had to give to the Hungarians. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a modern

example of such a dual state, shown on maps as being one country, but in two halves thatare each pretty much sovereign in all of their affairs, so that the different population

groups can feel represented, with the capital city straddling the boundary between them,

much like has been envisioned for the future of Jerusalem.

Starting from an Arab nationalist standpoint, I can see wanting to consider all of

this land in its entirety as theirs. They must face the fact however that every attempt at

destroying the Israeli state has proven self-destructive. If they want to see all of this landas part of a Greater Palestine, they must be willing to accept that Arabs will not make up

the majority in all parts of it. Even without Israel, Arab countries have already been using

Extra National Perceptions to perceive places with non-Arab majorities as a part of theirnation, like the Darfur region of the Sudan, or the Kurdish regions in northern Iraq.

Likewise, Israelis have also been using Extra-National Perceptions even whenthey dont count the West Bank as a part of Israel. There is an Arab majority in the

Northern Province of Israel where Nazareth is located. Both Israelis and Arabs have

already proven that they are able to accommodate the other, without having to sacrifice

their own identity.

Thanks to the use of Extra-National Perceptions, It might be possible for the

Palestinians to have a state, and to define its borders as encompassing all of the area andfor Israelis to simultaneously do the same. What do you call this two-in-one state?

Different languages use different words to describe the same thing. Peace is Shalom in

Hebrew and Salaam in Arabic. Therefore, call the country Palestine in Arabic, andIsrael in Hebrew. As for the rest of the world, they can call it Susie for all I care.

***


25/30

It is easy for parishioners of a Unitarian church in North America to dream of

Israelis and Palestinians living together in harmony, hand-in-hand skipping through a

field of daisies. We need to take off those rose-colored glasses. Unlike the U.S.-Canadianborder, a border shared by Israelis and Palestinians is likely to be a tense one.

That is why I propose that there be some kind of buffer-zone between the twohalves. The UN has such a buffer between the Greek and Turkish communities of

Cyprus. However, if there was going to be a no-mans land between the Israelis and

Palestinians then a lot of people would have to be displaced from what is already a smallterritory. That is why like the Green Line in Cyprus, this territory should be a place where

people from both nations can live together as true equals.

This is where I think the idea of a secular state shared by Israelis and Palestinianscould be useful. It would be easier to sustain the secular nature of such a state if there is a

Jewish state to one side, and an Arab-Muslim state to the other, to accommodate those

who see secularism as intolerable.

Everyone living within the secular state buffer zone would have dual Israeli and

Palestinian citizenship. People in either the Israeli or Palestinian states would have theoption of dual citizenship. However, Hebrew would be the primary official language in

the Israeli state, Arabic would be the primary official language in the Palestinian state,

and both would be given equal status in the secular state. Israelis in the buffer zone could

be free to consider themselves and their land as a part of Israel, and Palestinians could befree to see themselves as a part of Palestine.

This is not to say that there would no longer be any Arabs living in Israel, or Jewsliving in Palestine, but they would have to accept that they are in the minority, and see

the prudence of encouraging a spirit of coexistence with their neighbors.

Whoever lives in the buffer zones should be devoted to peace. Considering the

mentality of some Israelis, particularly settlers, it is perhaps best if some do relocate.

Hopefully other Israelis with a stronger commitment to progressive politics could find ahome here, so that the best of both sides could be represented.

The buffer zones also help create an opportunity to at least partially accept the

demand for a right of return. Of the millions of Palestinian refugees, surely there areenough who can prove that they are willing to coexist with Israelis, that a number that is

at least equal to the number who were originally expelled in 1948, could be invited to live

in the secular middle-state.

The proceeding map indicates what this arrangement might look like. Hard-line

Israeli nationalists might not accept this, just as Afrikaner nationalists never would haveaccepted ceding control of the eastern half of South Africa. But like the old South African

government, time is not on the side of the Likud Party, so this might be the best deal

Israel can get in the long run. With hindsight, future Zionists might long for the day when

they could have had an arrangement like the one below.


26/30

The size of the White Zone could vary from enveloping almost the entire country,or limited to a small strip between the Jewish and Muslim states. The Blue Zone is less

like the early Israeli state than the White Zone. There was a strong tradition of secularism

among the earlier Zionists. I see that tradition alive in scenes of drum circles taking placeon the beaches of Tel-Aviv. Now, the ultra-religious are trying to take over and ruin it for

everyone. They are trying to force women to sit at the back of the bus in Israel. They

have already forced Reform Jews to go to Cyprus to get married, because Israel will notrecognize their weddings. With the White Zone, secular minded Jews would be ensured a

refuge from this fanaticism, and marry as they please. People in the White Zone also

wouldnt be expected to financially support any ultra-Orthodox that are unemployedbecause they devote all their time to reading the Talmud. People in the White Zone

should also be exempt from conscription, like the ultra-Orthodox are. Secular Jews

should realize that their best allies in helping ensure a zone where religion and politics

are kept separate would be Palestinian Christians and Muslims who believe in theseparation of Mosque and state.

The Blue Zone would be more like what the religious-nationalists are trying tomake Israel into. I dont think everyone living there should be Jewish, but everyone

living there could make the pledge of allegiance to the Jewish state that conservative


27/30

Israeli politicians are trying to foolishly advocate for the whole country. Also, regardless

of religious affiliation, anyone who lives there should be considered, not by

discrimination but rather inclusion, as part of the People. Just as everyone is Irish on St.Patricks Day, regardless of their heritage, everyone living here should be automatically

Jewish, whether they practice Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Just as non-practicing Jews

have been counted as a part of the tribe, this zone should be an excuse to extend the senseof national-family to others.

It used to be common knowledge that historically, being Jewish and being Arabwere not mutually exclusive. Historically, there were sizeable Jewish communities spread

throughout the Arab world, using Arabic as their native tongue, and as such were Jewish

Arabs. Being rejected by the Arab world when Israel was founded, most of these Israeli

citizens do not identify strongly with these roots.

This secular buffer zone would also be a good place for settlement of Israelis who

have ties to the Arab world. For the sake of peace for Israel, they should find volunteers

from the Jewish community who are willing to provide a vital bridge between the Araband Jewish worlds, by living in the buffer zone, and finding a way to identify with the

culture and language of the Arab world, but also maintain their Jewish religion, andIsraeli citizenship.

Flag for Jewish Arabs

Because of its small size, most of the buffer zone around the Gaza Strip would be

made out of Israeli territory, perhaps following the lines of the Jewish state that wasagreed to in the UN partition plan. However, considering what a small strip of land Israel

has between the West Bank and the Mediterranean Sea, I think the buffer between the

Palestinian controlled West Bank and the State of Israel should be mostly situated on landin the West Bank. I also think that portions of northern Israel that have an Arab majority

should become part of this secular, intermediary state. Many of the Israeli Arabs living

there have not expressed a desire to become a part of the political turmoil that has been

faced by the Palestinian Authority.


28/30

The Palestinians could achieve some compensation for territory ceded to the

White Zone by getting some territory from the adjacent Kingdom of Jordan, where there

is already a large Palestinian population. In return, Jordan would be made part of a newconfederation that included Israel, Palestine, and the secular buffer zone between them.

Just as Canada is considered part of the realm of the Queen of England, all of the area in

Palestine/Israel, should be considered part of the realm of the King of Jordan, but like inCanada this would be a constitutional monarchy, and Israelis and Palestinians could

choose whether or not to acknowledge the King of Jordan as their sovereign. Jordan

could also be offered a port in the Gaza Strip, so that they could have open access to theMediterranean Sea. It would also be easy to provide an access corridor, in the narrow

piece of Israeli territory in the Negev Desert to link Egypt and Jordan.

As for the Palestinian Right of Return, obviously international law is not enoughto make Israel allow several million Arabs to move into their borders. Their refusal might

seem prudent for national interests. But considering the popular demand to do so, they

could, also for the prudence of national interests, open up the pressure-release valve a bit

and let some of them in. After almost seventy years, there is no reason for Palestinians tostill be stuck in overcrowded, poorly maintained refugee camps. Israel is right to ask why

other Arab countries besides Jordan do not give citizenship to displaced Palestinians, butthat does not excuse their own lack of humanitarian action.

Even with full citizenship in other Arab countries, many Palestinians would still

be stuck in poverty, as many of the nationals in countries like Egypt and Syria are. Theywould have more opportunities in countries with a higher GDP. Israel has a relatively

high GDP, but many still do not consider them a big enough vessel to absorb the whole of

the displaced Palestinian nation. Well, if Israel is not big enough, then other developedcountries like the United States certainly are.

With its large size, and over 300 million people, the U.S. could easilyaccommodate the Palestinian refugees. And it is not as if they would have to take all of

them in, perhaps just a million or so, less than 1% of their current population. Some

Palestinians could still return to their ancestral homes in Israel proper. Others could begiven citizenship in the wealthier Arab states like Kuwait and the U.A.E. Countries like

Canada could certainly also take some in, but considering how much support the U.S. has

given to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories, most of the responsibility

rests with them. If Americans really say they support Israel, then they should accept this.It also seems like the humane thing to do.

As for Jerusalem, it should be one city, with one city council, but with threedistricts that are almost completely autonomous. Most of what is now West Jerusalem

would be directly under Israeli jurisdiction, and house the Knesset. The second district of

Jerusalem would become the center of government for the autonomous, secular bufferzone between the Israeli and Palestinian states. It will be made up of some territory from

West Jerusalem, but mostly territory from East Jerusalem and from the town of

Bethlehem to the south, to encompass a mixed community of Jewish Christian and

Muslim residents. Some neighborhoods can be exclaves of the Israeli and Palestinian


29/30

states, just like Switzerland has exclaves of Germany and Italy within its borders. Like

these other exclaves, there would be no border checkpoints between them. This district of

Jerusalem would be the narrow bottle neck of the secular buffer zone. This district woulditself have kind of an hourglass shape, as the territory for the Israeli controlled district

and the Palestinian controlled districts would both come close to the Old City, which

would also be located in the buffer zone, and like the Old City of Quebec, be declared aUNESCO World Heritage Site. The third district of Jerusalem will be made up of those

adjacent areas of East Jerusalem that have a mostly Muslim population, but also be

expanded to include the nearby Palestinian towns of Ram Allah, and Al-Quds, and behome to the Palestinian Parliament.

A lot of value is attributed to such a small area. Why do you think it is called the

Holy Land? It is not because of the holes left by bullets and bombs, although those areplentiful. The most revered territory is Jerusalem, and no place in Jerusalem would be

considered more valuable than the Old City, which is divided into the Christian,

Armenian, Jewish, and Muslim Quarters. Although the Old City would be inside the

buffer zone, the Jewish Quarter could be an exclave for the Israeli state, and the MuslimQuarter would be an exclave for the Palestinian State.

Where does the land stop being holy? Does Israel (or Palestine) truly have any

real borders, or is all of the land on Gods Earth holy? This also applies to the municipal

limits of the city of Jerusalem. You might know where this sacred city is, but can you

really define where it is not? Rebbe Menachem Sneerson once said that wherever youfind yourself, make that your Jerusalem.

Finally there is the Temple Mount, where the ancient Israelis built the first andsecond temples, and it is said that the prophet Mohammed ascended into heaven. The Al-

Aqsa Mosque, and the Golden Dome of the Rock, currently occupies that space, and only

Muslims are allowed to worship there. If the Palestinians are going to sue for peace andjustice, the Temple Mount is their biggest bargaining chip. I like the late King Hussein of

Jordans idea of having the Temple Mount under the sovereignty of God alone. This

could be one of the places where hopefully we let go of giving names to the nameless,such as Israel or Palestine, Jerusalem or Al-Quds, the Temple Mount or

Haram-al-Sharif. The Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif can not be contained by the

concept of property and mortal ownership. Let it be a place where everyone is truly an

equal, not to be distinguished by wealth, nationality, or title. Just as all pilgrims going toMecca all wear simple and plain clothes, as a reminder that they are not to be

differentiated by the outside lives, so should it be here. There should be no differentiation

of Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Some ultra-nationalist Israelis want to build the Third Temple where the Golden

Dome of the Rock now stands. Is this temple to really be dedicated to God, orthemselves? It would be a shame to destroy Jerusalems most picturesque building, and

besides, it too is meant to be dedicated to God. Where once we found triumph in

conquering lands, it would be better here to conquer our own minds. Rather than build

different structures on the Temple Mount, how about having different perspectives on


30/30

them? For instance, and this might be too radical a concept for some to be ready for, but

what if you considered the Dome of the Rock as the Third Temple?

You dont have to accept this. I state again that I am just throwing out ideas for

the purpose of considering all options for serving a higher purpose. Like religious faith,

you only have to choose what beliefs help you lead the best life you can, and maintainpeace with yourself and others. Even with my disclaimer, for expressing these ideas out

loud I have now probably succeeded in making plenty of enemies on all sides.

I created a Facebook group called Children of Abraham to promote a design for

a flag for both Israelis and Palestinians, not to replace their respective flags, but to createone with common ground. Many have rejected this flag, because they see any love for, or

even just willingness to coexist with the other side as a betrayal. This reminded me of a

time in class when I calmly approached a bee and used my hands to gently guide it

towards the window. Many of my classmates interpreted my actions as being for love ofbee, but one could find reasoning behind my actions without giving a shit about bugs. I

too wanted to avoid anyone getting stung. However, it just so happened that the best way

to ensure my own well-being was to take action that would also be to the benefit of thebee, and thus seemed like something that only some rainbow flower child would do.

The way forward is not to start by asking anyone to love another people. The firststep is not even to desire peace above all else. The first step is to love your own people. I

know it seems as though that is what leads people to war in the first place, but if your

love for your people is genuine then surely you would love them enough to avoid any

action that would inevitably harm them.

In the name of loving our own, we should be willing to see all options that we can

take to help ourselves, even when the best option is an action that we think only a pussyor an Uncle Tom would take. A bee dies after it stings someone, so coincidentally it

would have been prudent of the bee not to sting anyone unless it had to. We must ask

ourselves when we are acting like bees, and taking actions in the name of our ownwelfare that could harm us.

canarabia find peace?

Documents