| Home |
| About Us |
| Community |
| Culture & Education |
| Yiddishkayt |
| Social Action |
| Overview |
| Current Campaigns |
| Mid East |
| Worker & Immigrant Rights |
| Progressive Culture |
|
| Youth |
|
Social Action | Overview Public writing by WC President Mike Felsen and members of our board
[most recent writing first]
From The Jewish Advocate
Letters, July 23, 2010
Two-state alternative?
As admittedly and unabashedly one of the Jewish progressives Tom Mountain regularly decries in his column (including, most recently, his “Why such fuss over Tamir?” July 16), I confess to being somewhat incredulous that Mr. Mountain believes he is really serving the interests of Israel and/or the Jewish community with his diatribes. When he ridicules departing Consul General Nadav Tamir for promoting what Mountain views as the “odd ‘two state solution,’” I wonder what solution Mr. Mountain has in mind for the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
If he believes in a “Greater Israel” that reaches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean – and I must assume that’s what he means when he rejects the concept of two states for two peoples – what is his plan for the millions of Palestinians who live in the West Bank? And whatever that plan may be – and I assume it wouldn’t include democratic rights and equality for the Palestinians who live there, since affording those rights would effectively undercut, if not eviscerate, Israel’s status as a Jewish homeland in the very near term – does he believe that it has any realistic chance of providing a safe and secure Israel that would be accepted by the U.S. and the rest of the international community?
Inquiring minds would like to know: when Mr. Mountain castigates liberal pro-Israel, pro-peace, two-state voices like J Street, just what viable alternative – beyond hollow invective – does he propose?
- MICHAEL FELSEN
The author is President of Boston Workmen’s Circle
From The Jewish Advocate
Op-Ed by Mike Felsen, 6/18/10
Wanted: Bold Ideas
By Michael Felsen
Earlier this month, Ami Ayalon, former commander-in-chief of the Israeli Navy and head for several years of the Shin Bet (Israel’s Secret Service), spoke at a luncheon event in Boston, only a few days, by happenstance, after the Gaza flotilla disaster. An avid advocate for “two states for two peoples,” he was accompanied by Jeremy Ben-Ami, director of J Street. Ayalon advocated passionately for new, non-military approaches to the intractable Israeli- Arab conflict, stressing the need in Israel to shift from a paradigm of blame to one of responsibility (as in, rather than point fingers and rue the absence of a Palestinian partner for peace, take responsibility to help nurture such a partner).
In a compelling vignette, Ayalon recalled his response to a question – “What to do about the oncoming Gaza flotilla?” – posed to him the week before the violent encounter aboard the Mavi Marmara. He proposed the following: Organize 50 Israeli sailboats, and sail out to meet the six-boat flotilla. Each of the 50 sailboats would fly a large flag emblazoned with the name “Gilad Shalit” (the Israeli soldier held by Hamas without visitation for four years). Bring the world media along. Allow the flotilla to land in Gaza, and permit the off-loading of the cargo with international oversight, to ensure that no weapons are hidden.
And what would it have accomplished? No one can say with certainty when thinking and acting is, like this, “outside the box.” But a few important outcomes would have seemed likely. First, no violent confrontation, no loss of life or limb on either side, no dueling spin machines blaming the other for the carnage. Second, to the international community, and one would hope to the citizens of Gaza and the broader Arab world, this course of action would have been viewed not as a sign of weakness but as evidence that Israel has the courage to acknowledge a failed policy and the wisdom and will to rectify it. Third, it would have capitalized on international attention by shining a bright light on Hamas’ intolerable refusal to grant outside visitation to Shalit, thus shifting much of the focus from what had been Israel’s oppressive embargo policy – now revised – to Hamas’ intolerance, human rights abuses, and obstructionism.
The endless impasse that is the Arab-Israeli conflict cries out for this kind of creative, strategic approach. Here’s another idea from Ayalon: Pass a law of compensation for settlers on the eastern side of the security fence/separation wall. Treat them “as heroes, not as hostages,” by his estimate, 20-30 percent would gladly return to Israel. When they do, when the settlers pack up their belongings and drive west, Palestinians will gain confidence that their long-awaited state is maybe, after all, more than illusory.
Bold thinking for peace. Many have already shown the way, among them Yitzhak Rabin, Ayalon, Yossi Beilin (the Geneva Initiative). Israel, as a country, is clearly capable of taking up the challenge. But does it have the will? And, even more importantly, does it have another acceptable choice?
- Michael Felsen, lawyer, is president of Boston Workmen's Circle.
Statement from Workmen’s Circle President, Mike Felsen, about feedback from the Gaza Flotilla statement – from our website
Following the web posting of our statement on the Gaza flotilla incident, we've received both expressions of support as well as an airing of concerns that the statement didn't support Israel and/or wasn't balanced.
We welcome your feedback, and as President of the organization I would like to address the concerns raised with some further thoughts:
Boston Workmen’s Circle standing positions on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict have been much debated and well-publicized. They include support for a two-state solution and an end to the violence on both sides. We do not believe that calling for non-military solutions to the conflict, for an end to the occupation, or for lifting the Gaza blockade on humanitarian aid, are in any respect anti-Israel views. Indeed, we believe that the opposite is true. Likewise, when we voice support for the positions of groups like J Street and the Geneva Initiative, we believe that we are speaking with a strong pro-Israel, pro-peace voice, that also acknowledges that the needs and aspirations of the Palestinian people must be addressed if there's to be any hope for peace in the region.
As for our Gaza flotilla statement, it's true that it doesn't reference Hamas, whose policies and actions we deplore. The statement, if anything, expresses our concerns about what we view as policies of the present Israeli government that harm both the residents of Gaza and Israel itself, and that we, as American Jews, believe fervently need to change in the very near term. To suggest that our statement is anti-Israel, or even sides with those who seek the destruction of Israel, I feel misses the point. Indeed, the last words of the statement are in many ways its most important: a speedy and just solution to the conflict that results in "a viable, independent Palestinian state...alongside a safe, secure, and democratic Israel." Is that anti-Israel?
Your feedback is welcome. I also highly recommend reading Peter Beinart’s groundbreaking New York Review of Books article a few weeks ago for a probing analysis of why it’s time for the Jewish “establishment” to embrace the pro-peace, pro-Israel position.
- Mike Felsen
Statement on the Gaza Flotilla Tragedy – from our website
The Workmen’s Circle expresses its grief and horror at the consequences of the Israeli military attack on civilian ships bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza, resulting in the death of at least nine civilians. Unless there is an end to the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the lifting of the blockade of all civilian goods to Gaza, tragic events like this one will continue. Regrettably, the policies of the current Israeli government have resulted in the continued oppression of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, while at the same time undermining Israeli democracy and contributing to the isolation of Israel in the world community. The ongoing occupation and the blockade of Gaza not only diminish Israeli security and embitter daily Palestinian life, they also threaten peace and stability in the wider world.
We call upon the government of the United States to support a thorough and genuinely impartial investigation into the events of May 31st, and to support the prosecution of any violations of international law that such an investigation may uncover. More importantly, we call upon the United States to employ its considerable influence and resources to bring about a speedy and just solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict through the establishment of a viable, independent Palestinian State based on the pre-1967 borders, with agreed-upon adjustments, alongside a safe, secure, and democratic Israel.
Link to Peter Beinart article (referenced above)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/
Related effort:
A Call for Mutual Understanding and Cooperation between Jews and Muslims – on our website
Back
|
|
