|WHY I WILL NOT SIGN THE AD FROM AMERICAN JEWS FOR
PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST ADDRESSED TO OUR GOVERNMENT
July 18, 2002
Yesterday’s full page ad in the N.Y. Times by mainly Jewish academics
contained two seemingly progressive proposals, it called for two sovereign
states to be partitioned according to the pre-1967 borders which can
modified by “minor mutually agreed territorial swaps.” The Statement
calls for the removal of settlements in the Occupied Territories, excepting
“those within the agreed swapped areas.” Given the uneven
that the colonized victims find themselves on, it becomes apparent
“mutual agreement” will generally be to the advantage for the colonizer.
But even if it were possible to reach a just solution involving “swaps,”
justify my decision opposing the Ad since the potentially progressive
proposals are seriously undermined by the fact that in several instances
equates the victim and victimizer, the oppressor and the oppressed.
1. “Israel and Palestinian peoples have
equal rights to national self
determination and to live in peace and security.” The oppressor
achieved its self determination, just as Apartheid South Africa did
controlled, oppressed and murdered people in the Occupied Bantustans.
2. “Israel and Palestinians have equal
rights to a fair share of the land
and resources of historic Palestine.” This is sheer rhetoric
establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 gave a majority of the
a minority of Jewish settlers.
3. Your demand for “Palestinian acceptance
of negotiated limitations on the
‘right of return’ in exchange for financial compensation for refugees”
both reactionary and racist. Well over a million Palestinian
and Arabs were
forced or decided to flee the new settler state so that the right of
should be unequivocal for those who choose to do so. Underlying
position is the essentially racist Israeli view (by both Labor and
governments) that to do so would eventually result in a majority population
of the “Other” rather than the Chosen.”
4. A final example of your equating oppressor
and oppressed becomes evident
when you say that “majorities on both sides support provocative military
actions that they view as purely defensive.” You thus equate
the far more
limited violence and terror of the suicide bombers that act out of
desperation and the conviction that there is no alternative for them,
the state sponsored and U.S. imperialist supported massive terrorism
Israeli Defense Forces.
Your proposals I believe continue to feed illusions particularly of
regard themselves as liberal and progressive. These illusions
obstacle to the struggle for Palestinian liberation and a real sovereign
independent and secure State.