Juan Williams firing

NPR: The Diane Rehm Show
Juan Williams
October 26
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-10-26/juan-williams?page=7


First, THE comments:

Williams responded: "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Williams also warned O'Reilly against blaming all Muslims for "extremists," saying Christians shouldn't be blamed for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.

from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130712737



I have a few different things I'm thinking. Two that differ quite a bit and one that is not too important.

I'll start with the superficial one. Muslim garb. Tee hee. That makes me want to giggle. Maybe not so superficial when you consider stereotypes and how they play into prejudice...

With that out of the way, lets move onto a few things that stick out to me.

Ok. I'm going to start with a defense of sorts, then move to the other direction, hoping that all these things that popped into my head can make some sort of sense.

One might say he's brave for stating that he's afraid of people dressed in traditional dress. It's not really PC to judge a book by its cover, but really he can't be wrong necessarily for stating his opinion. That's how he feels. He either wasn't thinking or bravely opened himself up to criticism.

In the clip that was played, he did say that this opinion doesn't justify profiling or denying mosque building. It appears as he says- he was trying to reign in O'Reilly. Now, reigning that guy in at all means you're probably still in the abyss, but slightly less so, but he makes a point.

Having said all that, I don't think he should have stated his fear on the air. On The Diane Rehm Show, she tries to get him to examine his roles as journalist for NPR and commentator for Fox and he kind of talks around it. I think he was in a precarious situation balancing those two roles and failed.

Another reason he shouldn't have gone there, even with the disclaimer that his fear doesn't justify discrimination, is that people DO use this fear as the basis for discrimination, especially lately. The Park 51 mosque thing and Quran burning and the infamous survey was educational in this regard. I also learned what some people I know thought about Muslims that I wish I didn't.

I mean, just think. When or if you hear that a white person is afraid of black people, what do we think? It isn't PC. We might not think a lot of them. We might think they need to be educated and talk to black people so that they can see that people are people and there are common threads among us all. I have this same reaction as I do to people afraid of black people as I do people afraid of Muslims or "Muslim garb." ( Jeans and scarves--ooooh. Scary. :( )

This fear of black people has been used to discriminate and that's not ok. Same for Muslims. Unfortunately, it seems it will take us a bit longer to figure that out. It seems people are more accepting of judging Muslims by the small percentage of extremists who use religion to recruit to fulfill their political ambitions than to judge all black people or all Jews by whatever stereotype comes to mind.

His comments in the times we live in now are inflammatory and are just going to feed the fear and give it more of a voice and higher profile. The comments about not using the fear for discrimination are irrelevant in the present time given how the majority of Americans feel (and know) about Muslims. See the polls below.

I guess it's not really the fear of the group that's really wrong. I mean, that's your feeling. What you do with that fear and your feelings is the really important thing. Do you ask questions and find out about this group? Do you talk to them despite your fear to find out what is prejudice and what is real? Or do you retreat and believe all of the junk email forwards, Fox News commentators and movie stereotypes and freely spew them forth as though you are an expert on the topic?


***Links to the polls I mention or reasons why I think Americans think it's PC to hate Muslims:

Poll: Americans think "Muslim" means someone they dislike
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/19/obama_muslim_poll

Poll shows more Americans think Obama is a Muslim
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/18/AR2010081806913.html

TIME Poll: Majority Oppose Mosque, Many Distrust Muslims

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011799,00.html

Palestinian statehood imminent??

Palestinians renew threat to seek UN recognition
Jordan Times
October 26, 2010
http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=31267

One possibility would be asking the United Nations to recognise a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, territories Israel occupied in the 1967 Mideast war.

That would not dislodge the Israeli military from the West Bank, dismantle the 120 Jewish settlements there or give Palestinians free access to East Jerusalem. But it could isolate Israel and change the diplomatic equation.

Now, I like the sound of that last sentence. But, if the Palestinians get any small piece of what they deserve or some form of justice, it will isolate Israel and change the diplomatic equation. One state will produce a more familiar form of apartheid, after all.

Of course, Netanyahu said only direct talks would produce peace. Hmmm. What, then, was the Gaza disengagement? Was that through direct talks? How was Israel formed?? Did Israel talk to Palestinians about that? Direct talks (i.e. filtering any national ambitions through Israel's sieve) are fine for Palestinians, but Israel is above all of this and must control any and all outcomes?

I've often thought scrapping talks and declaring a state should be the way to go, especially if you're going for two states. The only one who doesn't recognize Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory is Israel, who considers it Israel. They really shouldn't encounter too many problems... Except the US's unreasonable and predictable objections.

This seems like a bold move for Abbas, who has lacked backbone in dealing with the US and Israel. This article speculates that it's only a threat to move things along or pressure Israel. I hope they can make good on this if they need to. I think it could be the only way they will get anything from Israel.

***

And on a sort of related note, an UNRWA person telling Palestinians to not count on a state; just work on assimilating into whichever country took you in. I wonder if he is commenting on how likely Israel is to allow a state or on what he thinks Palestinians have a right to do...

The formatting was crazy on this email (below), so I got rid of it. Now I have to fix it, but maybe it won't be too annoying to read:

November 1, 2010
For Immediate Release

ACTION ALERT: DEMAND THE IMMEDIATE DISMISSAL of UNRWA OFFICIAL ANDREW WHITLEY
Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition is shocked and dismayed that a senior UNRWA official, Andrew Whitley, made a statement to the National Council of US-Arab Relations on October 21, 2010, that the Palestinian refugees should not entertain the "cruel illusion" that they will ever exercise their inalienable Right of Return and that they should start considering "their own role in the societies where they are", or elsewhere. This statement is a grave breach of duty and betrayal by Whitley of the trust vested in UNWRA by the world community and, particularly, by the refugees themselves. As a UN official, Mr Wiltley undermined the integrity and the credibility of UNRWA and exposed himself as the enemy of the people he is supposed to serve. In 1948, The UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194 which calls for the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes, and affirmed this resolution 110 times so far. This same resolution created UNCCP to repatriate the refugees. UNRWA was established in accordance with Resolution 302 which, in paragraph 20, requires UNRWA to uphold Resolution 194. Thus, while the UN affirms every year the call for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands of origin, in order to reverse the ethnic cleansing of 1948, this UN official has called for the perpetuation of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian refugees; such ethnic cleansing is a war crime according to the Rome Statute of 1998. ACTION

Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition calls on all its members, supporters and people of conscience to write to His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon, The Secretary General of the United Nations to demand the immediate dismissal of Mr. Andrew Whitley.

SAMPLE LETTER

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
The Secretary General of the United Nations

Your Excellency,

I was shocked and dismayed that a senior UNRWA official, Andrew Whitley, made a statement to the National Council of US-Arab Relations on October 21, 2010, that the Palestinian refugees should not entertain the "cruel illusion" that they will ever exercise their inalienable Right of Return and that they should start considering "their own role in the societies where they are", or elsewhere.

While the UN affirms every year the call for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands of origin, in order to reverse the ethnic cleansing of 1948, this UN official has called for the perpetuation of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian refugees; such ethnic cleansing is a war crime according to the Rome Statute of 1998.

Therefore I call on your Excellency

1. To dismiss Andrew Whitley from his UN position immediately
2. To censor him for his breach of his duties as UNRWA official and disavow his statements.

Such measures are necessary to maintain the integrity of the UN's main agency, UNRWA, and the confidence of all people, especially the Palestinian refugees, in this unique agency.

Sincerely

Your name
Address
Telephone number

Please address messages to: inquiries@un.org and cc f.grandi@unrwa.org; c.gunness@unrwa.org; s.mshasha@unrwa.org; j.ging@unrwa.org; r.cook@unrwa.org; s.lombardi@unrwa.org; r.hearn@unrwa.org; b.shenstone@unrwa.org; a.whitley@unrwa.org; l.takkenberg@unrwa.org; maher.nasser@unvienna.org

Please cc us at alerts@al-awda.org on all your correspondence Until Return,
Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition
PO Box 131352
Carlsbad, CA 92013, USA
Tel: 760-918-9441
Fax: 760-918-9442
E-mail: info@al-awda.org
WWW: http://al-awda.org/

Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition (PRRC) is the largest network of grassroots activists and students dedicated to education and advocacy for the restoration of Palestinian human, national, legal, political and historical rights in full with particular emphasis on the right of Palestinians to return to their homes and lands of origin from which they have been dispossessed since 1948. PRRC is a not for profit tax-exempt educational and charitable 501(c)(3) organization as defined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the United States of America. Under IRS guidelines, your donations to PRRC are tax-deductible. To donate, go to http://www.al-awda.org/donate.html and follow the instructions. To become a member, go to http://www.al-awda.org/membership.html

New book- 'suicide terrorism due to occupation'. Go figure. And Israel's child abuse.

Wow. Accounts of Israel electrocuting children and threatening them with rape. Some people can't fathom why people would commit a suicide bombing. I'd submit that it could start there. I mean, when you're brutalized (beaten, threatened with rape, family's home vandalized, etc) by a foreign military power from the age of 12 for waving or throwing stones or walking down the "wrong road," one could easily get a sense that there will be no hope and no justice. Ever. Doe this treatment automatically get better when they turn 18? No, it's worse. Since they're adults, Israel can get away with some degree of mistreatment. They get away with it for the kids, so one can only imagine what happens to adults.

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/10/israel-shooting-and-electric-shocking.html


*** *** ***

And on a related note, here is a guy who now has evidence for the theory I bought into ("It's The Occupation, Stupid" as the saying goes) rather than the "Muslims want to kill us all" explanation for terrorism.

Understanding Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It
NPR, Talk of the Nation, October 11, 2010
http://news.wvpubcast.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=130492404

Palestinians Reject Israeli Offer on Settlement Freeze

Palestinians Reject Israeli Offer on Settlement Freeze
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11519969

Right on! I hope they don't fold on this.

On some issues, I'm a bit conflicted, like armed resistance vs non-violent resistance. I mean, I do support non-violence, but you have to have boatloads of popular support and even more international support to make this go anywhere. And what about the fact that Israel is allowed self-defense without question in all of its forms (arresting and holding children and innocents, using human shields, building walls on other peoples' land, building and protecting settlements on others' land, making people perform at checkpoints, etc), but you are not allowed to support self-defense (called armed resistance or terrorism, not self-defense) for Palestinians. I think non-violence can work, but there are obvious problems and inconsistencies that aren't really ever allowed into the conversation. Unless you want to be considered a terrorist, which since I've said this piece, you now think I am.

Back to the issue at hand. I'm not conflicted on this. No one should recognize Israel as Jewish until there is an independent Palestine (an actual one, not Netanyahu's "vision"). This kind of thing rules out a one secular state solution, which would be the best option (IMO) for all. Maybe not the most palatable at first, but has the best chance of providing equal rights for all- settlements would be irrelevant, Jews and Palestinians could enjoy right of return, everyone could go to all holy sites, etc.

The offer for Israel made this week is classic " (Barak's) generous offer" material. Israel makes a grand statement that it will now comply with international law- for 3 months- except in some areas- and if, most importantly, Palestinians recognize Israel as Jewish. Since it is becoming more well known that Palesinians do in fact recognize Israel and don't in fact want to push it into the sea, as the myth goes, Israel has upped the ante- now, recognize it as Jewish. Now this presents some problems. What happens to you and your rights given this recognition, the loyalty law, and the fact that there is no constitution to guarantee your rights (which Israel claims to give to all equally, but facts on the ground show otherwise)? If you are Palestinian Israeli, will you be "encouraged" to move from your home in some way. What protections are there?

Settlement freeze for 3 months in return for giving up your rights and maybe agreeing to be ethnically cleansed. Doesn't seem very generous to me. For recognizing a Jewish state, they should at the very least get an independent state, not a piddly partial temporary settlement freeze- but that still leaves the ominous implications for non-Jews...

Flipping us the Israeli peace sign

There is a lot of talk about the restarted peace process and the differing opinions on how great things are in the West Bank or how dismal, depending on from which side of the fence you are looking. I'm undecided on whether the talks will go anywhere. One thing is clear. Israel is flipping us what I will euphemistically call the Israeli peace sign.


This link referenced these two items below, the US Passport and the 1951 Treaty of Friendship. The link is old, but the problem of Israel mistreating US citizens persists to this day.

http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=1968

***
The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_passport#Passport_message

***

The 1951 Treaty of Friendship could explain the reason for the continual reference to an "unbreakable bond" between the US and Israel. I have tried and failed to understand, but perhaps we are obligated by contract. I wonder if we are obligated to abide by it even if they don't? Too bad it's just another agreement they don't bother to honor. I'd say we do a pretty good job- listen to Congress and look at how much we spend on them, how much intelligence we share and how many violations of international law we overlook.

“to travel therein freely, to reside at places of their choice; to enjoy liberty of conscience…and to bury their dead according to their customs”

prohibits “unlawful molestations of every kind”

guarantees U.S. citizens “the most constant protection and security.”

http://tcc.export.gov/Trade_Agreements/All_Trade_Agreements/exp_005440.asp

***

Now, for the reality. My father-in-law was "hassled" this week on his way out of the West Bank to Jordan by Israel. So I go online and check out what exactly the State Department has to say about our dearest friend and ally and its obligations. Essentially, Israel is supposed to treat US citizens equally and grant the right to travel freely, but don't expect it and basically there's nothing the US can do to make the situation better. Some friend!

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1064.html

This doesn’t sound at all like “pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection” or “to travel therein freely, to reside at places of their choice; to enjoy liberty of conscience” :

U.S. citizens are advised that all persons applying for entry to Israel, the West Bank, or Gaza are subject to security and police record checks by the Government of Israel, and may be denied entry or exit without explanation.

If you are “suspected” of being Middle Eastern or Muslim origin, look out. Just the terminology used gives you the idea that that’s your crime.

If you’re a missionary- forget it. People often make it sound like Arab countries are the only ones who don’t allow proselytizing. Wrong.

And if you’re an activist- you might as well be an Arab or a terrorist- they are synonymous in Israel.

And if you bring electronic equipment- laptops, cameras, etc, prepare to have it confiscated, probably returned, and likely damaged.

If you’re Palestinian, they won’t recognize you as a US citizen (below, possible=certain):

“It is possible that Israeli authorities would consider as Palestinian anyone who has a Palestinian identification number, was born in the West Bank or Gaza, or was born in the United States but has parents or grandparents who were born or lived in the West Bank or Gaza. Any such U.S. citizen may be required to travel to Israel using his or her PA passport, regardless of whether he or she holds U.S. citizenship. Without the PA passport, such Americans may be barred from entering or exiting Israel, the West Bank or Gaza, or they may face serious delays at the ports of entry.”

Read the US Passport and 1951 Treaty of Friendship. Dissonance.

Quiver Full

For reference:

Psalms 127

³ Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward.
⁴ Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one’s youth.
⁵ Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them; They shall not be ashamed, But shall speak with their enemies in the gate.


I heard a story on NPR's The Story about the Quiver Full movement (No Longer Quivering). I didn't know it had a name. I had just thought of this as a characteristic of radical borderline cultish Christians, along with prairie wear, long hair, and beliefs that are much more narrow than the Bible (and claiming the rule is from God), reminiscent of Pharisees.

I know I'm entering dangerous territory. I'm not questioning anyone's family planning, nor do I hate kids or question those who want a ton of them. I personally think large families are great. What I'm questioning is if one should abandon God-given reasoning skills in achieving it or if achieving it should be the primary goal. Is it Biblical to have as many kids as possible or to use our knowledge of our bodies and situations to try to some degree to make a decision in this area or are they equal?

I have always approached family planning thinking about how many would we would like, then tempering that with how many we think we can give a good start in life. It goes without saying that children are a blessing from God. No question. Some approach this topic as "leaving it up to God". I guess I have always assumed that people who said that still thought about finances and family dynamics in saying that. I mean, even if you don't use chemical or other birth control, we know enough about science today to be able to more or less control whether or not you're going to have 1 or 2 or 20.

In listening to this The Story, I got a different impression of "leaving it up to God." The Quiver Full movement's interpretation of that is to I guess ignore the body's signals and have as many kids as humanly possible. I guess God will give you as many as you are supposed to have- 2 or 20? It is an interesting and certainly different approach than I am used to. I don't think I am just trying to justify my own view is correct when I say that it seems like that interpretation is akin to using the passage in Matthew 6 (verse 25-34) to say that we don't have to go to the store for food and clothes (God will drop it on your doorstep) or using the many verses in Proverbs about wisdom extending one's life to jump from the 20th story of a building and not expect to die.

I realize the intent is to fill that quiver, be pleasing to God, and put your family's needs above your own (career, a desire not to have 20 kids, etc). Not bad things at all. I have no doubt that a large family would teach one to work hard, be frugal and how to "play well with others." I just don't know that the verse says that you should have as many kids as humanly possible to be pleasing to God. Or that having 20 is more pleasing to God. Or that those with 1 or 2 kids have an empty quiver. Or that choosing to aim for 1 or 2 is against God. Or that you should ignore the health of the child or children or the mother and just trust that God wants you to keep having kids. I don't know for sure if the Quiver Full folks believe this stuff or not; the issues came to mind when I heard this story (and switched on TLC reality TV). I think interpreting a full quiver as having as many kids as you possibly can is taking it a bit to the extreme. (Much like their view on the roles of men and women...) The main point is, I think, about kids being a blessing, not about having as many as God wants you to have vs how many you want to have or whatever. I'm still not sure I understand the movement. I'll just stop here.

These movements are so intriguing. I mean look at the Amish. They are against cars and buttons. They live as though they are in the 1800s. Why not go farther back than that? This isn't where innovation started. Why choose that time? Anyway, I'll save that for a another time. :)

Loyalty oath up for a vote??

I said in the previous post that guaranteeing Israel’s Jewish character is as good as campaigning for ethnic cleansing. The offer is back on the table to codify a preference for Jews into law in this so called democracy.

This, while Israel is being congratulated by Congress for being so gracious as to come to the peace table to wait on those Palestinians again. When will we see things for what they are? We are a little like the abused wife- the skewed view of reality, the return again and again to the source of much shame and violence (though the violence is not against us so I guess that helps us perpetuate this alternate reality).



May 2009, Israel rejected this party's demand for a loyalty oath.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/ministers-reject-yisrael-beiteinu-s-loyalty-oath-bill-1.276996



October 2010, Israel will vote on it.

Lieberman: Zoabi is the reason we need a loyalty oath
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=190519

Cabinet to vote on Israeli loyalty oath
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/10/06/2741167/cabinet-to-vote-on-israeli-loyalty-oath


***

A few things that came to mind while thinking about pledging loyalty to an exclusively Jewish state, while being denied your own:

As Avishai observes in his deeply incisive book The Hebrew Republic: "You cannot live in Hebrew and expect no repercussions from its archaic power. You cannot live in a state with an official Judaism, in addition to this Hebrew, and expect no erosion of citizenship. You can, as most Israelis do, speak the language, ignore the archaism, and tolerate the Judaism. But then you should not expect your children to understand what democracy is." (p369-370)
--From the book, Ambivalence, by Jonathan Garfinkel

This is a video interview:

Levy: Israel needs to decide whether it's going to have an ethnocracy or a democracy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-3NFxR-4O8&feature=player_embedded


***
Israel has never treated Israeli Palestinians equally, but this loyalty oath would put that into law. Its kind of in contradiction to its Declaration of Independence where it declares equality for all races and religions, etc. If they had a set of laws, like a Constitution, we could go to that to protect the rights of all, but they don't have that so we will continue to generously support this preference by law for Jews only.

Some people believe Israel is always reaching out the hand of peace. When Israel refuses to extend equal rights to all its citizens, how can we expect them to do right by those not in its borders???


***

A few more items on Israel and democracy. I'm not just trying to hate on Jews. It's an interesting question.

Is Israel a Democracy?

The American Prospect

Dec 4, 2009
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=is_israel_a_democracy

Israel's slipping democracy

CSMonitor.com

Sep 24, 2008

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0924/p09s03-coop.html

William Cook: Israeli Democracy, Fact or Fiction?

Counterpunch

Jan 25, 2003
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook01252003.html

Israeli Palestinian peace process- one idea and Congress' non-starter

The Impending Collapse of Israel in Palestine

http://mwcnews.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5563&Itemid=126

Don't sign anything; wait for Israel to collapse.

I don't know that I agree, but it is certainly a different take on this issue. I agree in that at least then they'd be on more equal footing and more likely to come to a viable agreement...

The CIA has recently given Israel 20 years before this would happen, if the article’s claim is correct. They’ve all wasted 22 already. Can they wait out another two decades?

Interesting article, though. Not that the US would let Israel collapse without draining our resources first...so this is not really a real option anyway.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

And on that note, we have the most recent unhelpful (and uninformed) move by Congress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue:

http://peacenow.org/entries/feinstein_letter

Pro-peace Senate letter ( I take issue with this title :) )

It opens like this:

“As steadfast supporters of Israel and the U.S.-Israeli relationship, we are writing to express our support for the start of proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on ending the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the active participation of U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell.”

Why must everything start this way?? Members of Congress must pledge or demonstrate their state’s undying love and ties to Israel before they can say anything about the region. It must be in the orientation proceedings. It never fails. They must reaffirm Israel’s right to self-defense before saying anything about Palestinians rights to even things like food and water. Is this really where our priorities should be?

The first problematic piece: “It will solidify Israel's identity as a Jewish, democratic state by giving it safe and secure borders.”

Here, we fall right in line with Netanyahu’s and other right wingers’ demands and prejudge or rule out a path to peace. Why should we ignore the one secular democratic state idea? This is the best chance for all to have access to holy sites, freedom and equality. I am sympathetic to the idea of a Jewish homeland as the UN set forth originally. It was, however, never intended for Jews to set up an exclusive state, probably for good reason. In order to keep that majority in this region, there will have to be legalized ethnic cleansing of some sort(s). I am all for having a provision or guarantee in any one state agreement that makes sure that when either Jews or Palestinians are the minority, that they are protected, represented, given rights and guaranteed a certain minimum of land or something like this. Guaranteeing Israel’s Jewish character is as good as campaigning for ethnic cleansing. Or it will be soon.

Attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah are mentioned as obstacles in this letter, but attacks are often in areas not controlled by the PA; they are Israeli controlled. This is often blamed on Abbas, though. Interestingly, Netanyahu's foot dragging isn't alluded to, nor the fact that he chose to embrace such people like Lieberman who are in fact settlers (part of the problem) and terrorists who make public statements that undermine peace and call into question Israel's desire for peace and value placed on human life and rights.

This probably sums up the Congressional mood, bias, and distance from the facts the best:

“We applaud Prime Minister Netanyahu for committing to direct talks and we urge you to press President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to reciprocate. “

It makes no sense, but this is the way the Israeli Palestinian conflict is always depicted in the US and Israel. Israel is the one looking for a partner, always stretching out the hand of peace, always has the men of peace; Palestinians are refusing generous offers, returning good faith with terrorism, always the last ones to the table.

This time it was different. Palestinians have a very pro-US moderate in Abbas, they have been working on institutions of government- as best one can under occupation, they have been ready to come to the table since Obama was elected, if not before. Netanyahu, on the other hand, only recently conceded to the two state solution, if you can call his version (permanent occupation) a real solution. He also chose some very strange allies in Lieberman and others from that end of the spectrum if he is truly looking for peace. They are settlers and terrorists; part of the problem.

If they are part of this, then why not let Hamas in and legitimize them? Israel in many cases is doing what Hamas does to innocent people. The only difference is, Israel’s operations are on a large scale, they are UN members, they have a state, they call it security, and it is anti-Semitic to criticize them. None of these things actually make what they do any more right than Hamas, but I guess they are reasons we can’t call them on it and make them as accountable as Hamas.

For related posts on Avigdor Lieberman and Benjamin Netanyahu, see the right side key words...

The High-Fructose Corn Syrup Debate

I'll probably get more hate mail for this than the Middle East posts. :)

I hope I don't get sued by the corn industry. I could be perceived to be quite anti-corn. Remember Oprah with the beef disparagement?

Having taken a nutrition class and more than a few science classes, I have a huge problem with myths surrounding food and weight loss.

The pet peeve:

People incessantly trying to make the point that HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup) is no worse than sugar; they’re chemically practically the same!

Yahoo’s on HFCS’s side. The link that started this post:

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/food/6-biggest-lies-about-food-busted-2391419

While this is technically true, there are so many reasons that HFCS deserves to be demonized. This myth is definitely one best left alone- at least until we can talk about all of the facts and not just stop at – HFCS is exactly like sugar. I'm totally fine with people thinking it's the devil. Though, not technically correct, it's infinitely less annoying than people who are virtually fans of the stuff.

To be fair, though, some of the anti-HFCS articles and blogs go a bit far and pin all our problems on this one substance. I’m not going along with all of that, but to say that it’s the same as sugar makes me snicker and want to say something sarcastic.

Along with the campaign to defend HFCS, there is a name change campaign. It won’t sound nearly as processed. And it will now have “sugar” in the name. The article mentions it will join the ranks of Phillip Morris/Altria and Blackwater/Xe and that is such a great analogy, really. They’re all trying to sell the same old poison by just changing the name. It will probably work. We love being lied to.

http://www.prwatch.org/node/9453

Speaking of snickering...The corn industry’s ad campaign:

http://www.thekitchn.com/thekitchn/video/tv-watch-new-high-fructose-corn-syrup-ads-063040

What can you say? Sugar-coating the truth. Sickeningly sweet.

Both sides do have some valid points, but I’m definitely for kicking the HFCS habit.

It is said to be sweeter than sugar. If this is true, then it would make it worse since we definitely don’t eat less of it, we actually eat and drink more of it according to statistics.

You might call me a liar, but I can attest to the different taste. Mexican Coke rocks.

Of course HFCS isn't the only thing that is driving the obesity numbers up, but I'd have to say it's a big factor. It makes convenience food more convenient and cheaper.

Maybe part of what bothers me is that the government is part the problem. You'd think they'd want to promote healthy eating for their constituents well being and for lower heath care costs, etc, but they're more concerned with economics.

I realize that it is our choice to eat junk or not, but I don’t think it’s fair to let the corn industry get away with marketing this as just as good as sugar. Just like Vitamin Water and various unnecessary supplements sold at sports nutrition stores shouldn't be allowed to claim health benefits (if you're not regulated by the FDA, like most of thse supplements, you can say basically whatever you want on those packages). Britain has better rules for this and has, I think, succeeded somewhat with Vitamin Water at least in banning some misleading ads.

And then there’s the political aspect. Sugar vs corn industry. US vs the world- in this case- Central America. I write a lot about the actions of the US in the Middle East. In comparison to the Israel-Palestine issue, what we have done in (mostly to) Central America will make you physically ill. Think School of the Americas where we helped out the death squads. Think banana plantations. Gringo. Literally- “green go”. Americans go home. That’s where the not-so-endearing term for us Yankees came from. I don’t think it is unfair of them to think ill of us. We very much deserve it.

A few sites/blogs that explain the political aspect a little:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0498d.asp

http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2006/01/24/tariffs_and_subsidies_the_literal_cost_o

A few more links:

Common sense advice from the Mayo Clinic. They admit the conflicting data sets on how unhealthy it is. One interesting note was that some studies that “prove” it isn’t less healthy than sugar or a cause of obesity are sponsored by the beverage industry. You always have to look at the funding for this-- and drug studies.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/AN01588

Corn subsidies make unhealthy food choices the rational ones

http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-09-21-op-ed-corn-subsidies-make-unhealthy-food-choices/

http://childhoodobesitynews.com/2010/06/10/high-fructose-corn-syrup-bad-news/

Halfway down, Goodman asks him why he’s ‘going after HFCS’ :

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/14/omnivores_dilemma_author_michael_pollans_new

Agree or Delete

Not the most American concept, but how many times have you seen it (it was especially funny on the Obama is a dictator one)? But we've heard it before. If you disagree with the Iraq invasion (or don't love the job Bush did or fill in the blank), you can pack up and move elsewhere.

You see this in your inbox a few hundred times a year. Maybe you've even sent one in your lifetime. They are a challenge in more ways than one, at least for me.

I think it is a little much to ask and maybe unfair- agree or delete. You get to give me a (second hand) dissertation on some political topic or problem with our society and I have to delete it if I don't like it or don't agree? I agree that this is probably wise, since me saying anything, as enlightening as it may be, is just going to get under your skin and cause a problem between us (supposedly I know you and this matters if I am on your mailing list). This may be going out on a limb, but you should care what I think if I am on your mailing list; I care what you think. I may not agree, but I care.

You did send it right to my inbox, so some thought does go into that- or it should. I don't think you should email something to someone you wouldn't say to their face. If we said agree or shut up a the end of any talk or comments we gave in real life, I suspect we'd have an epidemic of broken noses or worse in the country. :) I don't think I'd ever have the guts to say it to anyone- not just because I don't believe in the concept.

The fact that it comes to my inbox from someone I see in the real world is to me like you sent me a personal note or did say it to my face. I probably shouldn't take a mass email that way, but that's the measure by which I send or forward email, so I expect others to think the way I do. I know I shouldn't. That's bad form on my part, a generalization.

Maybe if "agree or delete" didn't appear, I wouldn't feel so compelled to reply... No, if it's an urban legend or just so wrong I'm probably going to want to reply to set the record straight. I should reply, after all. It was addressed to me. Isn't silence complicity or agreement? Isn't that the point of agree or delete? To eliminate opposition and lay claim on" right" even in the face of the facts?

Every time I get one, I struggle between the wisdom of deleting and the meaning behind deleting it. Maybe I can reply, but keep it short and as free of snark as I can. Maybe that's not wise, either. But is having people going around thinking you agree with all of this nonsense floating in cyberspace wise? It borders on a lie. That's not who I am.

Or perhaps this is more of an email ettiquette problem- saying (aggressive) things online that you wouldn't say in person, etc- rather than one of silencing dissent or lack of civility in our culture or whatever else...

I give up for now. Problem not solved.

Netanyahu wants Pollard in exchange for settlement freeze??

What?

I'll say it again. WHAT???

Settlements were a topic in the peace talks. They were considered a precondition at one point. Now, Netanyahu wants to free a spy who was jailed by the US for spying on us on a grand scale before he will halt illegal settlement building. For a few more months. Then who knows what he'll demand.

In a universe where truth and justice were important, the deal would be: Israel, stop building settlements (and other illegal activity) and remove all Israelis from Occupied Territory or lose all financial benefits from us. In the Middle East, it's Israel's game, not one involving truth or justice- quite the opposite. They make the rules. They are above the rules and laws.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/20/israel-spy-release-settlement-freeze


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/world/middleeast/21israel.html?_r=1


Guess he doesn't care about Shalit anymore. Crazy. Sometimes I don't know whether an authoritarian regime like Iran is talking or Netanyahu when I hear some of the things he comes up with. This has got to be one of the most absurd stall tactics I've seen yet.

I mean, why does Netanyahu need a concession from us?? I thought we were the mediators of peace between Israel and Palestinians. They should be giving us stuff. Isn't that the way a bribe works? And what in the world does Jonathan Pollard have to do with Middle East peace?? That guy should be walking on eggshells with all the violations of international law and human rights Israel has committed, not making outrageous demands! I guess it shows us how certain that 2 or 4 billion dollars per year to Israel is. If they actually succeed in getting absolutely anywhere- concession, acknowledgment, anything but a big fat NO WAY- on this Pollard thing, we might as well pack up and go home. We will have proven totally ineffective and detrimental to the process.

The infamous quote might just be true if Israel can make such wild demands of the mediator, be in violation of law with no consequences, and still be guaranteed loads of money:

"every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."

Sabra and Shatila/ Mossad posing as US intelligence

Two ADC reports, one about the atrocity 28 years ago and one more about crazy, rampant, ignored Israeli spying:




28 Years Later, Sabra and Shatila Remembered

Washington, DC | www.adc.org | September 16, 2010 — Today, Sept. 16, marks the 28th anniversary of one of the bloodiest and most brutal massacres of our time. On Sept. 16, 1982, shortly after Israeli troops seized control of west Beirut, the right-wing Lebanese militia forces operating under the direction of Israeli forces massacred over one thousand defenseless men, women and children in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps.

During the massacre, Israeli troops were in full control of the area in which the Sabra and Shatila camps are located. They allowed the militias into the camps, prevented refugees from fleeing for their lives, and lit the night sky with a continuous series of flares as the killing raged for almost 3 days. The Israeli government‘s own commission of inquiry into the affair, the Kahan Commission, found that Israel was responsible for the massacre. Senior Israeli officials who were found responsible for the massacre continued to hold high governmental and political posts in Israel. Ariel Sharon, who directed the 1982 Israeli attack on Lebanon, was forced to resign after the Commission concluded that he bore personal responsibility for the massacre, and should never hold public office again; in 2001 Ariel Sharon became a prime minister. General Amos Yaron, commander of the Israeli occupying forces in the Lebanese capital of Beirut during the massacre, became a director-general of the Israeli Defense Ministry.

Palestinians who survived are still haunted by the memories of the massacre. The untreated wounds are still open, and questions of why no one has been punished are still unanswered.

Sara Najjar-Wilson, President of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), said “The Sabra and Shatila massacre demonstrates the tragedy of the Palestinian refugees, who have been dispossessed from their homeland for over 62 years. This tragedy is an example of the need for a just settlement of the refugee issue based on the Right of Return, which is enshrined for all refugees in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Right of Return of the Palestinian Refugees, as specifically addressed in UN Resolution 194, should be implemented.”

See Related Article:
28 Years After the Massacre at Sabra-Shatila by Dr. Franklin Lamb



****************************************************************************



Grave Concern Regarding Israeli Intelligence in the U.S.

Washington, DC | www.adc.org | September 7, 2010 - The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) expresses grave concern over allegations that Israeli Intelligence agents are targeting Arab and Muslim Americans, posing as U.S. Federal Agents. The activity was recently reported in a Washington Post Article by Jeff Stein. Such activity will have a negative impact on the trust between Arab and Muslim Americans with the U.S. Federal Government. ADC calls on the Department of Justice, Department of State, and other appropriate Federal agencies to thoroughly investigate any instances of individuals, including foreign nationals, falsely identifying themselves as a U.S. government official.

ADC reminds community members, citizens and non-citizens, that you are entitled to have an attorney present in the event someone who identifies himself or herself as a government official and approaches you for questioning. You do not have to answer any question, and your refusal to answer cannot be used against you. You do not have to allow agents to enter your home without a warrant. If the agent claims to have a warrant please demand to see it. Further, please ask to see the credentials of the government official, ask the agent’s name and a business card, and call the FBI Field Office and ask for verification.

ADC will continue to monitor these reports. If you or someone you know has been approached by anyone identifying himself or herself as a government official, but you suspect or question the identity of such official, please feel free to contact the ADC Legal Department at 202-244-2990, or legal@adc.org.

ADC Research Institute (ADC-RI) | www.adc.org
1732 Wisconsin Ave., NW | Washington, DC | 20007
Tel: 202-244-2990 | Fax: 202-333-3980 | E-mail: media@adc.org

Religious Intolerance

The Park 51, or more famously, 'Ground Zero Mosque' has brought to light American Christian- Muslim relations. I really thought things should be better, not worse than just after 9/11. Obama's election brought the first hints, but recent events really sealed it.


Religious Intolerance in the US
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-09-09/religious-intolerance-us

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-09-09/religious-intolerance-us/transcript

Today's show (Sept 16, 2010), is supposed to have religious leaders talking about Islam in America. I want to check that out as well.

Some interesting points were made about what people said and believed about Catholicism around the time of JFK's election.

From Norman Vincent Peale about Kennedy:

"Faced with the election of a Catholic, our culture is at stake."

"It is inconceivable that a Roman Catholic president would not be under extreme pressure by the hierarchy of his church to accede to its policies with respect to foreign interest, and that the election of a Catholic might even end free speech in America."

People say the same about Muslims today, but in less polite language and in more sweeping and dramatic tones. The end of free speech is pretty dramatic, though. I'll give him that.

Also on the Diane Rehm Show they talked about Catholics being prevented from holding office. I have read elsewhere about colonial times and various denominations would discriminate against the other in this way. On the show, they talked about in Nebraska in the '20s they shut down Lutheran schools because they read the Bible in German and apparently in Philidelphia there was a fight about which part of the Bible you read.

***

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/26/colleague_of_nyc_taxi_driver_stabbed

When I initially heard about this, I was horrified that it was 9/11 or Park 51 backlash. Then I thought, this sounds a bit like post traumatic stress. It did say he was embedded with US troops in Afghanistan, but he was a film student, not a soldier. Not that he can't get PTSD. Some details don't really fit with PTSD as far as I know.

He's got to "bring Abdallah through the checkpoint." That sounds like PTSD. "Consider this a checkpoint" sounds like he knows what he's doing, though, not like he thinks he's in Afghanistan. And afterwards, he claimed he was trying to rob the taxi driver, so that doesn't sound like PTSD. I'm no expert, though. I'm definitely not saying he shouldn't have to pay for seriously wounding the taxi driver either way. He definitely should serve time and get help if needed. I just half wonder if there isn't a PTSD issue or if you could tell if he was faking it.

***

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning

http://abcnews.go.com/US/pastor-terry-jones-calls-off-koran-burning-ground-zero-mosque/story?id=11594495

Guy wants to burn Qurans. Guy links it to the Park 51 mosque. Is this terrorism? Hate speech? Is it yelling fire in a crowded theater? Protected speech? Is it right or wise or obligatory for a Christian to do?

This verse was mentioned in support of burning Qurans:

"Act 19:18-20 Many also of them that had believed came, confessing, and declaring their deeds. And not a few of them that practised magical arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all; and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of the Lord and prevailed."

My answer:

I don't think this is an example that we should burn every writing that is against God. That's going beyond what is written. An equivalent situation in my mind was if we had a mission in this country or another and converted a whole slew of Muslims to Christianity and they decided they would bring their Qurans, which represents something they once believe true but they now know is false, and burn them. That would have significance to them and perhaps signal to others that they have made a change. Maybe it would give them confidence. Who knows. My point is that the "pastor" in our current situation is in a very different position than the Acts 19 situation. He's burning something he never believed in to make some political point or provoke others or make money for his Dove Institution.

While burning books is certainly legal, I'm not a fan of that type of protest (burning books and flags) for myself. I personally know I could say more on a sign (I have). I seriously doubt his intentions. I don't think it helps the cause of Christ unless former Muslims do this without prompting as something they feel they need/want to do. All this aside from what Obama and Patraeus have said about the potential to harm troops. People have urged the press to censor itself about all types of news in order to not harm the troops or don't criticize the war or Bush or whoever because it will embolden terrorists. Why can't the "pastor" do this as well?

I mentioned reaching out to Muslims and teaching them, but the "pastor" also needs the truth. That's through what lens I want to look at things. Politics and human behavior are endlessly interesting, but we need to be about the business of teaching.

---
Another one I posted elsewhere:

The Quran burning stunt was pretty much either political or due to his problem with Muslims/Arabs.

Scheduling it for 9/11 says he thinks all Muslims are terrorists. It's political.

If it was false teaching he was worried about, he'd be burning the Book of Mormon, writings of John Calvin, other false Christian books and teachings. He'd be burning porn, books and movies that glorify breaking the law and homosexuality including mafia flicks, vampire stuff and such. There is a lot to burn if that were his purpose, but he chose the Quran to single out. Hmmm. I mean, most Christians know and speak it loudly that the Quran is false teaching. Seems like if you want to make a real statement instead of just make Muslims afraid and mad, you'd burn something that Christians accept, but that can cause our ruin. Lottery tickets. Money. iphones. Whatever. A popular one has been books that contain cuss words or sex scenes that kids are required to read in school. Make your congregation wear plain clothes or uniforms to make a point about materialism. There is a ton you could do if you wanted without provoking people and "making a point" that people already know well.

On Friday or Saturday it was said said he called it off and it was linked to Park 51 changing it's location.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/10/pastor-terry-jones-quran-burning

I don't know whether this was an afterthought for Mr. Jones or if this was the original purpose; I found out about it late in the controversy. And we're back. The Great Mosque Debate. He thinks all Muslims are terrorists. It's political. It's not just about calling attention to false teaching. Burning is an act that could go terribly wrong. It seems less in line with the Christian teachings of preaching the gospel to all the world and living peaceably with all men as much as depends on us.

---
Living with Muslims would be refreshing, especially in America. Why can we not appreciate that? They share our value of modesty. More so. They don't drink. There are more Christians who do. Homosexuality and premarital sex would be looked down upon as in the days our parents and grandparents remember fondly. They fast for a whole month and Christians are supposed to fast. The fast helps them think about the less fortunate and they are supposed to give to the poor as well during this time. This is familiar Christian territory as well. Their culture and religion values hospitality highly and they practice it often and enthusiastically. This is something Christians, and Americans for sure, can be lacking. Instead of our hospitality, we're known for being loud mouthed and culturally tone deaf. Christians and Muslims share close to the same belief in women being equal before God yet having different roles than men in worship. Culture in America has largely gotten rid of the value placed on men taking care of women and cherishing them, but this is alive and well in the Arab world.

I'm just saying that they have more in common with us than we Christians are willing to admit. People who have less in common, some denominations, pro- choice people, people into "sexual freedom", people who get drunk every weekend, people caught up in various sins in our community we make peace with (they're Americans, we have to work with them, hate the sin not the sinner, etc) and live with and may even be friends with- we don't go around burning things and provoking them and making fun of them or demanding that it is incumbent on them to make it clear that they mean us no harm and won't indoctrinate our kids, and if they don't it's ok for us to assume this and other horrible things about them.

Christians tend to be pretty hostile to Muslims and that bothers me. I'm not saying we should bend Biblical doctrine or convert to Islam. Absolutely not. But the hostility I just don't understand. Especially if you haven't asked them what they believe and what their opinions on things are. And even then why not disagree and leave it at that like you would your coworker who is of a different Christian denomination or different political party with whom you completely disagree?

The Thumb in the Chili of Middle East Peace Talks

Or the fly in the ointment. Or the fly in the chili.

The terrorist the US wants to embrace. If there was an Avigdor Lieberman on the Palestinian side, there would be no talks, the US would cut them off an demand they get rid of him, they would allow and facilitate attacks on his life even! Since he's a Jew, we'll "embrace" him.

I'm talking about Avigdor Lieberman.

"I do not believe that a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinians is possible within a year, nor even during the next generation,"

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/09/20109654947618925.html

***

And if this isn't a self fulfilling prophecy, I don't know what is!

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has promised to veto any extension of the building freeze, and said that not only is peace with the Palestinians unachievable, but that it an unattainable goal that would not be reached within a year, or even within a generation.

http://www.linktv.org/scripts/episode_transcript.php?episode=mosaic20100907


He doesn't think peace is possible in his generation because he's working for the opposite.

We can't say that Israel doesn't want peace, but when faced with leaders like this, what other conclusion can one draw? Combine that with the good standard of living, freedom (for Jews) of Israelis vs Palestinians and you have a good recipe for the status quo. Can we say no partner for peace? No. That would be a non-starter. I'm a pessimist and trying to shut down discussion. And besides we're talking about Israel, not Palestinians. There are certain things you can and have to say when talking about one or the other.

This speaks to his lack of leadership skills. On top of being a terrorist, that is. And by terrorist, I mean a more recent variety than the run of the mill Jewish terrorist turned Israeli statesman of the Irgun/Stern Gang/etc type. If leaders can't inspire hope and say peace is possible now, the public certainly will follow suit.

Book: Ambivalence

He may be ambivalent about his faith and he may have been ambivalent about his girlfriend before he got dumped, but about Israel I'm not so sure. He's definitely proud of himself for making a Palestinian friend and for eventually asking and answering questions most Jews manage to suppress and ignore- even the ones living in Israel. He finds out his view of history learned at his Canadian Zionist school was a lie (propaganda, indoctrination, IMO). He's haunted continually by this composite character representing the school like a true victim of serious semi-successful brainwashing. He's got several composite characters and dead people or those not in the country speaking to him. It was creative and kind of fun, but in a memoir, I'm not sure I liked it.

He does have some breakthroughs. There were in fact people on the land (Israel) before them (Israeli Jews) and Palestinians didn't leave of their own free will and did in fact want to come back. Also, he learns that not everyone hates Jews and there is such thing as Palestinians and the map of Israel he had burned in his brain as a child was wrong. I think he still holds onto the lie that it was the Jews who made the desert bloom, though. What is shocking is how I hear people constantly bemoan the fact that Palestinians are being indoctrinated to hate Jews in textbooks and schools, while there is nothing about this propaganda Jews learn in school, not just in Israel, but all over the world (and the fact that for Palestinians it is illegal to learn about their own history or literature, etc).

Interestingly, at Jonathan's home synagogue, the men and women are separate and the women can't touch the Torah and men and women can't touch each other. I found it kind of funny given the fact that there has been so much press lately about mosques and how people believe Islam is the problem, after all, look how they treat women- separate to pray. Callers to radio shows justify their ill feelings for the mosque in NY due to this separation which doubtless many Jews in NY (and all over the world) also practice!

When he talks to other Jews about his questioning of what he's been taught, he seems to oppose them, but does so as though he tossed a coin and he doesn't know why he's saying what he's saying. When he talks about his orthodox friends, he longs for the faith they have and admires them greatly, which is not so bad. What they say about Palestinians bothers him (also good), but not in the way Rana's acceptance of suicide bombing does- he's ready to end that friendship.

The fact that his friend, Rana, supports suicide bombing as a general concept shocks him. Funny when you think of his heroes in Israeli history who were responsible for some pretty horrible things, but such is the contradiction that is Israel. When he finds out about this, he wonders why he can question his faith and position, but she can't. He also says at some point that they both have had to question their Israeli educations and she found it almost as hard as he did to criticize and question her education and (for her) Israeliness. I wonder if he thinks the Jews could have won their state with non-violence. Does he regret that they used violence so that he can freely (and cheaply if he'd taken one of Israel's many offers to Jews) travel at the expense of so many lives long gone and so many under occupation?

He visits a community, Oasis of Peace, where Israelis and Palestinians live together equally, but he calls this fabricated peace rather than a choice or an alternative, as they consider it. He goes with an activist whose group is intent on posting signs telling of the state's real history, or at least a sanitized version letting people know of the Palestinian villages that Israel tried to erase. He's not terribly critical of them, but it is clear that while he seems glad he knows the truth, he doesn't really want to get involved in educating others and seems on the fence about the whole thing- he may not be as happy to know the truth as I thought.

The real peace, is the one in the Shimon-Abu Dalo residence, he thinks. I disagree. They hate each other, but they don't kill each other. It's the reason for his trip to Israel. He wants to write a play about it and goes to do research and to find out about the nagging questions relating to what he learned in school. He inexplicably goes to see Divine Intervention at the Toronto Film Festival, meets Rana who tells him about this house. I hope he made a great play because I don't think his trip was too enlightening for him otherwise. When Palestinians would talk history with him, he wouldn't be able to concentrate either because the IDF was shooting or low blood sugar or whatever. He did seem to conclude that his Zionist education was a bit biased and maybe not factually correct. But he wants it to be. He wants the faith of those people and to not ask questions. He admires his "War of Independence" heroes (maybe just remembering as a child?) and how kibbutzim were instrumental in the war. He can't let go of the Jewish state idea, which precludes equality and democracy, even though he kind of understands that implication.

He does less analysis and more general reporting of Israeli attitudes than some memoirs. One such experience that sticks out is how in his visit to the kibbutz, I and apparently he, expected pretty liberal attitudes about Palestinians and was surprised. He asked them if they would let Palestinians live in the kibbutz, given their values and claims of interacting with Palestinians. They weren't forthcoming. When they bragged about going to the West Bank, it was not really in a Palestinian village as they had said and it was owned by Palestinians serving Jewish patrons.

I've been able to get my hands on far more Jewish memoirs than Palestinian ones. This one was pretty good. It didn't make me nearly as mad as Prisoners by Jeffery Goldberg; I was mildly disappointed. He was able to reverse some Zionist brainwashing and begin thinking for himself. He was ashamed of himself for doing this, though, and seemed to want to want the faith of people who thought Palestinians were dogs. He made some Palestinian friends and asked some questions, but he still seems to think they are guilty or responsible for the mess they are in. He does seem to be for cooperation and peace and not so obsessed with the Holocaust (like American Jews) and manufactured victimhood that it causes moral blindness.

Maybe we'll have to wait for Israel to allow Palestinians freedom of movement and to study their history and write about it without it being illegal for Palestinian memoirs to become more widely available.