Fathima Cader writes:
I posted a note on my Facebook profile of a list of Israel and Jewish voices opposing Israel’s attacks on Gaza (Word Doc). It begins, “Contrary to what popular media in North America claims, there are critical voices in Israel and among American Jews.” Though I put it up, I paused before writing that sentence, particularly the bit about American Jews, because of how uncomfortable I feel when people write carelessly about resistance movements among Muslims. I wondered if I was being just as condescending as others are when they take Muslim activists out of context in order to use their comments to bolster their own self-righteousness. […]
Ultimately, I think the links I put up are ones that need to be read, because the papers I read are doing a troublingly good job of not giving them publicity. I wish, though, that I could word it in a way that more carefully distanced American Jewry from Israeli policy, in the way that I demand people understand the distance between Muslims and Al Qaeda.
On writing about America’s progressive Jewry, Steve Ackerman notes:
You don’t want to reduce yourself to the mere fact of your heritage and become a self-parody. You have other stuff to write about and pay attention to. You don’t want to hurt your mother’s feelings.
That resonates with me.
And here, with Fathima’s permission, is her link list (everything in this post following this line is written by Fathima, not me):
Other Israels
Contrary to what popular media in North America claims, there are critical voices in Israel and among American Jews. Don’t support the violence just because it looks like only the terrorists (/muslims /arabs) aren’t. ((Before anyone asks, I’m quite sure the conflation of “terrorists” with “muslims” and “arabs” is sarcastic, not literal. –Amp))
Tom Segev at Haaretz: Trying to ‘teach Hamas a lesson’ is fundamentally wrong
All of Israel’s wars have been based on yet another assumption that has been with us from the start: that we are only defending ourselves. “Half a million Israelis are under fire,” screamed the banner headline of Sunday’s Yedioth Ahronoth – just as if the Gaza Strip had not been subjected to a lengthy siege that destroyed an entire generation’s chances of living lives worth living […] Most dangerous of all is the cliche that there is no one to talk to. That has never been true. There are even ways to talk with Hamas, and Israel has something to offer the organization. Ending the siege of Gaza and allowing freedom of movement between Gaza and the West Bank could rehabilitate life in the Strip.
Harm to civilians during the fighting in Gaza and Southern Israel
Israeli human rights groups track civilian casualties:
Jewish Voices for Peace: JVP statement on Gaza attacks
Jewish Voice for Peace joins millions around the world, including the 1,000 Israelis who protested in the streets of Tel Aviv this weekend, in condemning ongoing Israeli attacks on Gaza. We call for an immediate end to attacks on all civilians, whether Palestinian or Israeli.
For example, the military bombed the main police building in Gaza and killed, according to reports, forty-two Palestinians who were in a training course and were standing in formation at the time of the bombing. Participants in the course study first-aid, handling of public disturbances, human rights, public-safety exercises, and so forth. Following the course, the police officers are assigned to various arms of the police force in Gaza responsible for maintaining public order […] These are just examples of what appear to be clear civilian objects attacked by the army. On the face of it, the activity carried out in these places is not military activity aimed against Israel, and the IDF spokesperson does not even make this claim. Clearly, then, they cannot be considered military objects in accordance with the provisions of international humanitarian law.
J-Street: Statement by Jeremy Ben-Ami, Executive Director, on Israeli Airstrikes in Gaza
Respecting Israel’s right to defend itself, we urge leaders there to recognize that there is no military solution to what is fundamentally a political conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples […] The United States, the Quartet, and the world community must not wait – as they did in the Israel-Lebanon crisis of 2006 – for weeks to pass and hundreds or thousands more to die before intervening. There needs to be an urgent end to the new hostilities that brings a complete cessation to the rocket fire out of Gaza and that allows food, fuel and other civilian necessities into Gaza. The need for diplomatic engagement goes beyond a short-term ceasefire.
Ezra Klein at The American Prospect: An Occupied Nation and a Threatened One
One important disconnect in Israel/Palestine debate is that Israel’s supporters tend to focus on what the Palestinians want while Palestine’s supporters tend to focus on what the Israelis do. Israel’s defenders, for instance, make a lot of Hamas’s willingness to kill large numbers of civilians. Palestine’s defenders make a lot of the fact that Israel actually kills large numbers of Palestinian civilians.
The Magnes Zionist: How the Western Media is Falling for Israeli Spin
And BBC, please fire the journalist who gets his (dis)information from Israeli spokespeople. You didn’t know that the cabinet had approved the Gaza operation? Well, for Chrissake, you should have read the Friday Haaretz, where the headline was: 70 rocket strikes in southern Israel; Cabinet approves military response.
In the Hebrew edition, the cabinet was said to have authorized earlier in the week the Defense Minister and Prime Minister to decide on the timing of the operation.
Mathew Yglesias: Attack on Gaza
The strikes were in response to Hamas’ habit of launching indiscriminant rocket fire from Gaza land, though how exactly these strikes are supposed to stop the rockets is mysterious to me. Less mysterious is the idea that the Kadima-Labour coalition wants to “look tough” and beat off the political challenge from Bibi Netanyahu and the Likud.
Spencer Ackerman at The Washington Independent: Progressive Jewish Groups See Test in Crisis
“Absolutely,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, executive director of J Street, a new liberal Jewish lobby group. “This is a real testing moment for those of us who honestly believe you can be supportive of Israel but questioning of steps its government takes.”
M.J. Rosenberg, director of policy analysis for the Israel Policy Forum, another progressive Jewish organization, was similarly blunt. “It’s put-up-or-shut-up time,” he said. “For a two-state solution, for the U.S. to be an honest broker — if all of us just sit back and say, ‘Israel had no choice [to bomb Gaza], then we’re just a bunch of phonies. But I don’t see that happening.”
Laila El-Haddad writes about trying to stay in contact with her family in Gaza: Safety is a state of mind
When the bombs are dropped around them, they send me a quick note to inform me of what happened before running to safety. I am still not sure where “safety” is; and neither, I think, do they. It is perhaps more a mental state and place than a physical one. In any other situations, people flee to where they perceive are safer locations. In Gaza, there is no “safe”. And there is no where to flee to, with the borders closed, the sky and sea under siege.
The question should never be anything except rhetorical: where do you run to for safety, when there’s a wall up that’s there expressly for the purpose of keeping you in?
With all the “negotiate with Hamas!” stuff, has anyone else read the hamas charter?
If you haven’t, you should. The link to the Hamas charter is here:
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
I will quote some parts of it here. Then perhaps it will help us in the discussion of “should Israel negotiate with hamas?” “should we all seek a peaceful two state or one state solution?” and the like.
Article seven: fight and kill the jews.
Article eleven: the land is reserved for Muslim use. Not incidentally, two followup conclusions are that 1) jews don’t belong on it, and 2) you can’t really negotiate regarding it.
I’m not sure whether this is believed to apply to the land which is currently in Israel, but I suspect that it does.
Article 13: no peaceful solution exists. More war is coming.
i.e.: no israel. no 2 state. No 1 state. ‘shadow if islam sovereign over the region’ =/ Israel.
Some of us–I would say “the sane people”–think atht the Camp David accords were not enough but were generally speaking a good thing, and we think that pulling other countries “out of the circle of conflict” so that people don’t get killed any more is a good thing.
So, an interesting question:
Say you were a politician in israel.
Would you negotiate with a government who had that charter?
Would you you feel comfortable trusting the motivations of a group who elected that government in a majority?
Don’t you understand that this is a fullblown war, set into text in the words of hamas themselves? How on earth can you negotiate with a government whose basic motivation is not “let’s all get along” but is rather “you should all be dead, somewhere else, or both?”
I just don’t get it. negotiating with fatah made sense. hamas is just insane.
[edit] generally i feel sympathetic. I don’t want the gazans to keep getting killed and I don’t want israel to keep making their lives miserable. My default feeling is usually one of sympathy.
But then when I read this stuff I get a lot less sympathetic. i mean, can you imagine that charter anywhere else?
Has hamas managed to move the overton window so far that it can get many countries to say “oh, you should try negotiating rather than military action” when it simultaneously has its own freakin’ charter saying that peace won’t work? We look at countries close to war–india and pakistan, for example–and at least their leaders and governments have a facially defensible claim that they want peace.
What would you do? I look at the pictures of Gaza and i want peace. then i read the charter and I think that the people who wrote it would never grant peace.
Pingback: Jewish Voices on Behalf of Gaza « The Czech
So the US supports elections in Palestine.
Palestinians democratically elect Hamas.
The US aids Fatah to help topple Hamas.
Hamas sees that it cannot trust Fatah and seizes control of Gaza.
There were elements within Hamas arguing that they should begin a dialogue with Israel. These elements, of course, will not voice that opinion again, due to recent events.
Hamas has been internationally isolated by Western countries. They have only hardened, grown more radical, and felt justified in their radical positions due to the treatment they have gotten.
How can anyone possibly believe the answer is to further destroy the lives of the people of Gaza? If Israel has a right to sovereignty and security, doesn’t Palestine/Gaza? Aren’t the Palestinians people too? Didn’t Israel make life incredibly hard on Gaza Palestinians? Don’t they have a right to resist?
Don’t forget the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions.
This is wonderful. Thanks, Fathima and Amp!
Also for the list: the Coalition of Women for Peace.
I tend to favor the concept that you can’t negotiate with people who have sworn to either kill or subjugate you based on your religion. But I do wonder what endpoint Israel’s course of action here is intended to produce. What does victory look like to Israel?
Sailorman, the graph here seems to suggest a good-faith effort to stop the violence. And RonF, the post addresses that very question by assuming the guy in charge did not have “Israel” in mind and asking what follows. See however More Fine Journamalism From America’s Finest Journamalists, as well as the post on the main page about Arnon Soffer.
First, just to be clear: I do not support the policies or, in this case, the actions of the Israeli government when it comes to the Palestinians. Nonetheless, Sailorman’s points and questions remain good ones, the chart hf linked to notwithstanding. As long as the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel, the “universality” of Hamas, contains antisemitic tropes like World Zionism–along with all that trope implies–how much credence can you give to any statement the organization makes to a willingness to coexist, on any terms? I am not suggesting Israel should therefore not talk to Hamas at all, nor am I suggesting that the reduction in missiles launched into Israel indicated by the chart hf linked to is insignificant; I am merely pointing out that not to understand any action by Hamas in the context of its charter, especially, but not only, if you’re Israel and live right next door, is naive and foolish. It would be like failing to understand the US invasion of Iraq, or our military presence in Afghanistan, or the policy of extreme rendition (do I have that right?), in the context of the Bush Doctrine as laid out in the National Security Strategy document his administration produced. Again, my point is not that this quandary justifies Israel’s actions or policies, just that the wrongness of those policies or actions does not mean that Israel is not in a real quandary.
What hamas does may be constrained by the limited options available to it. What hamas says is, oddly enough, much less limited.
But to think and write and redraft and finally publish a charter which is so completely antithetical to the very concept of peace with Israel means (I think fairly) that the government who published it does not deserve the right to demand that israel ignore it.
I mean, we’re not talking physical action here. It’s not like “Oh, live in squalor and deprivation for long enough without protesting and then we’ll trust you.” We’re not talking about physical action.
It’s a fucking piece of PAPER. It’s malleable with little work. Hamas could revise the damn thing in 10 minutes if they wanted to. They could hold a vote and renounce the “kill the Jews!” section, or the “everyone should be islamic” section. hell, they can probably do it without a vote.
But until they do, I do not think they have the right to be treated as negotiating partners, and I cannot see how they (or any other country) can expect israel to negotiate with them in good faith.
Moreover, we all know damn well that none of the “make peace!” countries would do it, either. Wars happen all the time; truces are formed; peace is made. The first step towards peace is always SAYING YOU WANT peace. The second step is actually doing it.
Hamas hasn’t taken the first step yet.
But statements like this are contingent on the assumption that Hamas will remain in power indefinitely. The point of negotiating with Hamas in the short term is to give Gazans another option in the long term. As other writers have pointed out, Hamas wrote a vile, militant, bigoted charter – but then, unlike any other entity, started building an infrastructure and providing basic necessities in Gaza. If Gazans already had a decent quality of life due to international aid, they wouldn’t be dependent on a militant group. Hamas would lose its popularity.
Now, you could argue that rocket attacks would probably increase in the short term if Israel ended the blockade. I’m not a military strategist, so I don’t know what to do about that. But what Israel’s doing now is ensuring long term violence.
Julie: Quickly, because I need to go back to work: I was not arguing that Israel should not talk to Hamas in the short term. My only point was that Israel’s quandary in terms of how much credence to give to anything Hamas says, in the short or long term, is a real one. The fact that Hamas started building infrastructure does not necessarily mean that it is willing to coexist with Israel (though it could certainly imply that); it does mean that the organization’s leaders understand that infrastructure and services are a surer way of winning the people’s loyalty than sloganeering, firing rockets and suicide bombers. I also think the reasoning in what you wrote does not take into account that Hamas, or at least elements of Hamas, really believes in the religious elements in its charter, that this is not just political posturing, and that, like the Islamic Republic of Iran, they would have no problem imposing Islamic law on the people they rule.
There is also the fact that Israel seems to have changed its approach somewhat, and taht some of the anti-Israel tactics that Hamas used may not be as effective. for example, though they continue to try to call and warn people before they bomb their homes, they have nonetheless gone after a few top Hamas people who were surrounding themselves with civilian shields. They have also bombed mosques, which they do not usually do.
perhaps in the end Israel will succeed in damaging hamas to enough of a degree that it will no longer be the controlling factor in gaza, and they can return to peace talks.
Julie, i think you are completely wrong when you say that israel is only buying itself long term violence. If israel can manage to expel hamas and/or kill enough of the people who are responsible for the attacks, then in the long term, this is likely to be the best way to reduce long term violence. There can be no effective longterm peace with an organization who has sworn to violent action against you.
OK, so Hamas has a Charter calling for the destruction of Israel, but in the meantime Israel is destroying Hamas and the Palestinians. It’s my belief that if the Palestinians were allowed by Israel to live in dignity, there would be no need for Hamas. The Palestinians are simply trying to exist.
We aren’t talking mere politics here, we are talking about lives.
Sailorman, that sounds remarkably like a strategy of ours that seems to produce consistently bad results. Robert Dreyfuss:
Exactly who do you believe will replace Hamas in this magical fantasy world where bombing brings peace?
Richard wrote: contains antisemitic tropes like World Zionism
And it certainly does seem antisemitic in that form. But how would you go about fighting the trope in question, when the guy who talked calmly about the need to kill and kill and kill Palestinians also reports the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, “who was director of policy planning for the US State Department at the time,” telling him: “We’ll allow Israel to establish a ‘Philadelphi Corridor’ in the Jordan Valley, to guarantee the neutralization and demilitarization of Judea and Samaria.”
hf, things were looking about a thousand percent more positive under fatah than with hamas, at least in my opinion and 9as far as i can tell from public issues) the opinions of a variety of other people.
Wait a second… did you know that Hamas had that in its charter? if not, don’t you think it deserves more than a quick ‘sure, but?’
Things like “The Palestinians are simply trying to exist.” are mindless tropes, being as they are both utterly false and also applicable, in their falsity, to both sides of the conflict. Applying them to one side only as you do is worse yet. here’s a hint: the hamas charter doesn’t speak of “just trying to exist.” If you hadn’t gotten past it so quickly, perhaps you’d have noticed that.
Look, basically speaking the charter has to be viewed as somewhere on or between two poles of “just words” and “what they really feel.”
If it’s just words, then we can reasonably ask why the fuck they won’t change the thing, seeing as it is a bit like negotiating for a UN resolution while wearing a “fuck the UN, I will blow it up as soon as I get a chance” shirt.
If it’s what they really feel then we can reasonably ask why people are clamoring for Israel to open its borders and negotiate in good faith with someone who says that. To use a more feminist analogy: Would you go on a blind date with someone who was wearing a “NO just means ‘give ’em another beer and find a deserted road” t-shirt?
In either case, only an idiot would ignore it.
hf: I am not sure I understand your question.
Susan England: See, this is where I start to throw my hands up. Not because I disagree with you, but because fundamentally I agree with you–and I want to be clear I do not support what Israel is doing now, and I think they should stop, and I recognize that I am talking about something here that is theoretical, but I can because I am not now in Israel or Gaza, and if I were in Israel or Gaza I would not now be asking this question–and I understand that asking it is a luxury; and I would not be asking it if I were right now protesting in front of the Israeli embassy, etc. and so on. But I can ask this now so I am going to: given Hamas’ charter and stated aims, from whom, from where, on whose behalf could Israel, if it negotiated with Hamas, count on guarantees that Hamas would give up the goals stated in its charter? Because Hamas’ charter is not only in response to Israel’s occupation; it is also an expression of a kind of Islamic nationalism that, frankly, is not so different from some of the forms of religious Zionism that I have heard articulated over the years from, among others, the settlers in Israel who are so problematic.
Well, Israel’s invading Gaza now, according to Yahoo, claiming they won’t kill innocent civilians but of course they do. Sometimes I think the difference between the two is that the terrorists come out and say what they are going to do and the Israelis just kill civilians and say otherwise. With them, it’s always accidental.
I remember once a woman born in Palestine but who lives here now showed me photos of the destruction of her relatives’ home by bombing and he had emailed them to her and not long after that, she was interrogated by the FBI over those photos. Now if someone emailed destructive pictures from damage in Israel would they be treated like that?
The difference between “World Zionism” and “Islamic Universalism” is the borders where it supposed to end. The most militant Zionist I know would be happy to extend the borders of Medinat Yisrael to their historically largest bounds. The most militant Islamist I know won’t be happy until the entire planet is one big Islamic Caliphate.
The situation in Gaza is very different from that in the West Bank. In the West Bank there is a lot of space for Israeli settlers to build illegal settlements. In Gaza, not so much. To some extent I think that justifies the outrage of Gazans, but when I see people from the West Bank protesting a security fence that has been very effective at reducing suicide bombings by West Bank residents, I’m not sure the inhabitants of the West Bank are all that lily pure either.
The bottom line, for me, is that until Israel has a much longer period of peace than it has experienced in almost 61 years of existence, there will always be some on Israel’s side who feel war is justified, even if it is pointless and counter-productive.
really? I’d say taht the difference between the two is that Israel tries to protect Israeli civilians (who hamas tries to kill), and Israel also tries to protect Hamas’ civilians (who Hamas also tries to kill.) To me, that’s a pretty big moral difference. Isn’t it for you?
In Gaza, Hamas hides its military and terror operations in civilian settings to make it more difficult to attack them. So in this case, Israel actually sent warning notices to a variety of civilians before it started the attack at all.
Whether or not Israel had elected to invade, the warning calls were at a cost to israel, as they gave hamas a heads up. Nobody will ever know exactly, but down the road it’ll cost israel–in lives, or rockets, or whatever.
And as the air assault has continued, Israel continues to attempt to avoid civilians. Some listen; some do not.
Or perhaps you’re talking about the issue of proportion? People are misusing the term in this instance. You don’t measure proportion by the dead bodies, unless you are trying only enact proportional vengeance for deaths (as does Hamas.) If you are (as is israel) trying to achieve an objective (like “stop the missiles” or “destroy the arms depots” or “destroy the bomb workshops”) then the question is one of proportionality w/r/t to the objective.
You can claim the objective is unethical, of course. I have talked with folks who think that “stop the missiles” or “destroy the arms depots” or “destroy the bomb workshops” are not valid objectives for israel. Similarly, i have met people who think “kill the jews” or “send more suicide bombers” are valid objectives for hamas. I don’t think you’re in either of those camps, though.
In all seriousness, however, the fact that Israel has killed as few civilians as it has, especially since Hamas seems to intentionally make it likely that civilians will die, is a mark of great care on the part of israelis. If the number seems high to you, you should check other statistics for wars.
I am actually fairly amazed at the tactics which Israel uses to attempt to prevent civilian casualties; i have ceased to be amazed/depressed at the tactics Hamas uses to increase them. (the fact that their charter speaks about martyrs may have something to do with it)
things were looking about a thousand percent more positive under fatah than with hamas
And it looks like Israel helped create Hamas in order to fight Fatah. What makes you think killing Hamas, in a way that seems calculated to infuriate Palestinians in general, will work any better?
I have talked with folks who think that “stop the missiles” or “destroy the arms depots” or “destroy the bomb workshops” are not valid objectives for israel.
That depends entirely on whether or not you accept the conclusion that Hamas was already stopping the violence. Do you have reason to doubt the linked data or its implication?
Maybe if that’s what was really going on and if you could place this particular incidence of mutual violence in a nice little vaccuum completely devoid of past history and current living conditions. If we’re talking about “morals”, then it shouldn’t be limited to the disproportionate violence seen here.
Israel tries to protect them yet killed at least several hundred. Y I’ve seen my own country use the same arguments for killing children in Afghanistan and Iraq among other places, killing people at weddings, killing people in hospitals, schools and saying, the terrorists are hiding there and then it turns out that these were just schools, hospitals, weddings and children. It’s just sounding like more of that.
And I’m not favorable really towards one or the other but this action is just disgusting.
Yes and no. I don’t think it is accurate to use here, insofar as it appears to suggest that the current action is taken at a time of low Hamas violence when in fact the Hamas attacks had just skyrocketed following Hamas’ announcement that the truce was over.
There is also some history to suggest that Hamas and its ilk do not necessarily stop violence, but merely focus their efforts on other violence: i.e. perhaps the rockets go down, because they are busy building smuggling tunnels to get the stronger, longer range rockets for the next set of attacks. There’s a difference between “stop fighting” and “pause to retarget and reload.”
The question of whether “stop the rockets being fired” is a valid objective has to be linked to whether there are, or are not, rockets being fired, right?
FurryCatHerder:
You are, of course, correct. And that asymmetry does make a big difference.
I believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only end when one side commits the equivalent of genocide on the other.
Sailorman: I don’t think it is accurate to use here, insofar as it appears to suggest that the current action is taken at a time of low Hamas violence
Guardian, following the links from the page with the chart:
Now, I don’t know where the writer got that last clause after the comma. And Israel naturally claimed justification, saying, “the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away.”
The chronology as I understand it goes like this.
Years ago, Israel started a plan for “disengagement” from Gaza that sounded like a great idea on the surface. Meanwhile, the main architect of the plan had this to say about it:
But Israel recently negotiated with Hamas, going through Egypt for some reason, and reached a truce. One side would end rocket attacks, while the other would open border crossings.
Hamas, to all appearances, tried to keep their end of the bargain. Israel did not. (Funny story about that.) It seemed like they did try to evacuate illegal settlements, following a construction boom in early 2008, but if so they had limited success.
The two sides apparently disagree about what happened next. Maybe Hamas did plan to capture Israeli soldiers, maybe they built a tunnel to make sure Israel couldn’t starve them, maybe there was no tunnel and the info came from Ahmed Chalabi.
Israeli soldiers followed their orders and, doubtless believing themselves defenders of Israel, invaded Gaza.
Hamas and Israel, following impeccable Dalek or Death-building-a-swing logic, declared war on each other.
Doug S wrote: I believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only end when one side commits the equivalent of genocide on the other.
One side? I suspect both of them will “let nothing that breathes remain alive,” that both sides will keep killing each other until nothing will grow in the radioactive wasteland that was once “Holy”. At this point, I just want them to stop doing it with our money. Call it disengagement.
Doug,
I think you are a troll. The alternative is more unpleasant than I care to contemplate.
Ever notice that there is no list of palestinian organizations like the list of Jewish orgs above. No palestinian human rights org speaking out against violations.
That is because doing so means you are labeled as a collaborator and are murdered by your palestinian brethren.
It is all well and good to cry and complain about things, but you have to have a partner to negotiate with. Hamas is an organization run by ideology. It wouldn’t matter if Israel did nothing. Hamas would still come after them because they refuse to accept it.
Ideological wars are not won by being nice. It is a different way of thinking than in the west. Be nice and you end up being seen as weak.
I Am Woman, I Am All Women
By Elaine B. Holtz
I am woman, I am all women, and I go beyond color, religion, country or political party.
I am woman, I am all women and in my womb since the beginning of humankind I have provided a space for the children of the earth to grow and develop.
It has been through my pain that a child is born and it is through my body and nurturing that those born of me have survived.
I am woman, I am all women and I am tired.
I am tired of the polluters who take away from the health of my children, my grandchildren and all future generations.
I am tired of the warmongers who take away my young children who are born pure and innocent and turn them into killers.
Killers who kill their own kind and are killed in the name of I do not know what anymore.
I am tired of the greed that creates lack for far too many and abundance for far too few.
I am tired of those who rule continually telling me what is right for my body and that they know what is best therefore making choices for me.
I am tired of the women who sell their souls so they can participate in a mans world, one that is full of fear and destruction.
I am tired of seeing my off spring in countries close and far away destroying all that is needed to sustain the life of all my children.
Those innocent children who are born free only to fall into experiences that create hunger, disease created by humankind’s greed.
A man plants the seed of life deep within me; the great mystery takes that seed into my womb and creates all that has been created.
I am tired of men taking the pleasure in the planting while denying all that I have created what it is entitled to.
I give birth to human beings, not Jews, not Catholics, not Muslims, not Buddhist, not black, not white, not yellow or red.
I am tired of those divisions and I want life to be cherished and valued, I want all life on this our Mother Earth to be cherished and valued.
My soul gets weary and tired and my being becomes angry as I think about those huge bellies and blank stares of children subject to lack because of greed their needs go unnoticed and are deemed unimportant.
Who decided there should be have and have nots when we all belong to and have a stake in our home, our Mother Earth.
All goods, all profits come from our Earth and I ask all mothers, “How can you allow your son or daughter to deprive another mother’s sons or daughters their right as humans, as children of this earth, their right to freedom, food, water and shelter?”
How can you allow your son or daughter to kill another mother’s sons or daughters in the name of what?”
I ask women, I ask mothers, I ask grandmothers, I ask fathers, tell your children to drop those guns, tell your children to work for love and peace and equality.
Tell your children who are dropping bombs on others mothers children to STOP and STOP NOW.
Oh what it must feel like for a mother to hear the planes overhead and watch the silver bullets drop from the sky.
Oh what it must have felt like for a mother to see her child die because of lack of water, begging for help on the bridges of Louisiana during hurricane Katrina.
Oh what it must feel like to be a mother listening to her children cry for food or water and none is there.
Oh what it must feel like to be a mother watching her child die because there is no medical treatment or money for that treatment.
As women we must rally together and see there is no them, there is no us, there are only women and children just like us.
We are all one in need.
I am woman, I am all women and in my womb a child is created.
©2005 Elaine B. Holtz
Jack, have you even been to the area of the world being discussed? spoken to the people involved?
Let me clarify a little:
1) It is possible for the conflict to continue, without final resolution, for many decades to come. The Hundred Years’ War between England and France lasted a full 116 years.
2) If, through demographic changes, Jews become a minority in Israel itself, lose all meaningful political power, and the end result is that Israel becomes at least as Islamic as Lebanon is, that would likely be a Palestinian victory roughly equivalent to genocide – Israel would no longer have any kind of mass culture that could be correctly called Jewish, and given the way Jews are treated in Arab Muslim countries today, it might not have many Jews either.
If nothing changes, in the long run, there will be a one state solution, and that state will be a Palestinian state. Israel has yet to survive as long as the Crusader States did, and its chances of surviving the 192 years that the Kingdom of Jerusalem did in are slim at best.
Trackback:
Dead Air Church: All the children are insane
Thanks so much for this link round-up!
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » What We Talk About (And Don’t Talk About) When We Talk About (And Don’t Talk About) antisemitism and Israel - 1
Pingback: What We Talk About (And Don’t Talk About) When We Talk About (And Don’t Talk About) antisemitism and Israel - 1 « It’s All Connected…
Pingback: Richard Jeffrey Newman - What We Talk About (And Don’t Talk About) When We Talk About (And Don’t Talk About) antisemitism and Israel — 1