Pro­duc­ing con­tent on the Web since 1995.


some say­ings of ר‘משבצונה“ל

For many years I have worked hard, and strug­gled with mas­ter­ing virtuous. Now, in addi­tion, I’m work­ing on becom­ing more virtual.
This is an expres­sion of that effort.
* * * * * * *

השיבנו ה‘ אליך ונשובה חדש ימינו
כעוד לא היו
* * * * * * *
ומביא גאלה…
לצאצאיהם

Add to Technorati Favorites

twitter / rebmark

Bookmark and Share

All pho­tographs are by Mark Hurvitz unless they are obvi­ously not.

The pho­tos in the ban­ner at the top (only a shal­low sliver of a much larger photo) are either from our home or our trav­els and are offered for their beauty alone (though a brain-teaser for me: “Where was that?”).

st. paintings

At least three col­ors of painted mes­sages on the pave­ment. By the time there are three col­ors that fit within the photo, none can have any “mean­ing” what remains is the pattern.

3 pavements

Three pave­ments poured next to each other (con­tigu­ous), but not at a prop­erty line.

what's the difference between 48 and 11?

back then

I under­stand that dur­ing the first half of the 20th cen­tury not even the major­ity of world Jewry sup­ported a nation­al­ist solu­tion to Jew­ish exis­tence. Jew­ish work­ing class move­ments were gen­er­ally non-Zionist and many of the “lead­ers” of world Jewry were inter­na­tion­al­ists, look­ing for inter­na­tional solu­tions. Why, then, should I be sur­prised that the Pales­tin­ian peo­ple did not rec­og­nize nation­al­ism as potent force in their own approach to moder­nity? As I wrote in a leaflet I pub­lished in 2002:

Who Are the Palestinians?

  • We con­sider Pales­tine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been sep­a­rated from it at any time. We are con­nected with it by national, reli­gious, lin­guis­tic, nat­ural, eco­nomic and geo­graph­i­cal bonds.

    Res­o­lu­tion adopted by the First Con­gress of Muslim-Christian Asso­ci­a­tions; Jerusalem, Feb­ru­ary, 1919 at a meet­ing to choose rep­re­sen­ta­tives for the Paris Peace Conference

  • There is no such coun­try [as Pales­tine]! “Pales­tine” is a term the Zion­ists invented! There is no Pales­tine in the Bible. Our coun­try was for cen­turies part of Syria.

    The words of Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, local Arab Leader to the Peel Com­mis­sion (which came up with the sug­ges­tion to par­ti­tion the Land of Israel) in 1937

  • There is no such thing as “Pales­tine” in his­tory, absolutely not.

    Tes­ti­mony of dis­tin­guished Arab-American his­to­rian, Prince­ton Uni­ver­sity Prof. Philip Hitti, before the Anglo-American Com­mit­tee 1946

  • Pales­tine was part of the Province of Syria… polit­i­cally, the Arabs of Pales­tine were not inde­pen­dent in the sense of form­ing a sep­a­rate polit­i­cal entity.

    Arab Higher Com­mit­tee rep­re­sen­ta­tive to the United Nations at the Gen­eral Assem­bly, May, 1947

  • It is com­mon knowl­edge that Pales­tine is noth­ing but south­ern Syria
    Ahmed Shuqeiri (later chair­man of the PLO) to the Secu­rity Coun­cil (a few years later)

The Pales­tin­ian peo­ple did not care about or build a national move­ment until Israel acquired con­trol of the West Bank and Gaza fol­low­ing the Six-Day War in 1967.

Now that Pales­tin­ian nation­al­ism is a force, the Pales­tini­ans must rec­og­nize the right of the Jew­ish peo­ple to its national move­ment: Zionism.

Together, the two peo­ples can share the land.

coulda shoulda”

So… (as I pub­lished in another leaflet at that time):

why not this?

why not this?

Accord­ing to United Nations Par­ti­tion Plan of 1948 a Pales­tin­ian state was cre­ated at the same time as the State of Israel

It offered a lot more ter­ri­tory than the Camp David pro­pos­als of 2000!

which came first…

the nation or the state?

That’s a hard one to answer, as the Wikipedia arti­cle on “nation state” makes clear. I thought I could learn some­thing about the pre­de­ces­sor of the mod­ern nation state by look­ing at the con­cept of “the peo­ple” or “peo­ple­hood”. But even here the ideas are scat­tered. The Wikipedia has arti­cles on “Jew­ish Peo­ple­hood” which has its ori­gins in the Bib­li­cal con­cept of עם ישראל, expressed in early Rab­binic times as “Kol yis­rael are­vim zeh bazeh – All Israel are respon­si­ble for one another.” [Tal­mud She­vuot 39a] and is sim­i­lar (prob­a­bly a cog­nate word) to the Mus­lim con­cept of أمة‎ “Ummah” and that idea is not all that far from the Eng­lish word “folk”.

So, when Pales­tin­ian Author­ity Pres­i­dent Mah­moud Abbas stood before the United Nations Gen­eral Assem­bly on Sep­tem­ber 23, 2011, I won­dered where he and his pre­de­ces­sors had been back in 1948! I imag­ine that oth­ers said “Nyah nyah, lost your chance.” But I am in favor of there being a State of Pales­tine along­side a State of Israel.

Pres­i­dent Abbas’ address to UN; 1,585 view­ings as of mid­night 20110923 [part 1]

Pres­i­dent Abbas’ address to UN; 302 view­ings as of mid­night 20110923 [part 2]

Pres­i­dent Abbas’ address to UN; 304 view­ings as of mid­night 20110923 [part 3]

text of Pres­i­dent Abbas’ address

I do, how­ever, want to com­ment on this small part:

It is a moment of truth and my peo­ple are wait­ing to hear the answer of the world. Will it allow Israel to con­tinue its occu­pa­tion, the only occu­pa­tion in the world?

Uh, Turkey, the cur­rent great defender of the Pales­tini­ans, occu­pies Cyprus, China occu­pies Tibet; do those not count? The Wikipedia arti­cle on occu­pied ter­ri­to­ries enu­mer­ates many others.

Will it allow Israel to remain a State above the law and account­abil­ity? Will it allow Israel to con­tinue reject­ing the res­o­lu­tions of the Secu­rity Coun­cil and the Gen­eral Assem­bly of the United Nations and the Inter­na­tional Court of Jus­tice and the posi­tions of the over­whelm­ing major­ity of coun­tries in the world?

Why doesn’t any­body repeat­edly com­plain about the Turk­ish or Chi­nese occu­pa­tions, so there could be res­o­lu­tions they would reject? Or why was there no out­cry at the UN when using car­pet bomb­ing, Rus­sia destroyed much of Grozny or when Turkey kills scores of Kurds?]

Excel­len­cies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I come before you today from the Holy Land, the land of Pales­tine, the land of divine mes­sages, ascen­sion of the Prophet Muham­mad (peace be upon him) and the birth­place of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him)

Um, at the time, it was known as the King­dom of Israel or the Roman province of Judaea. What about Ahab king of Israel (peace be upon him) does he not count? Or, would men­tion­ing him (and his title, I could men­tion so many more, but Ahab is attested to by the world pow­ers of his day) fal­sify Abbas’ claim to “the Holy Land, the land of Palestine”?

to speak on behalf of the Pales­tin­ian peo­ple in the home­land and in the the Dias­pora, to say, after 63 years of suf­fer­ing of the ongo­ing Nakba

Ah hah! So it’s not “the occu­pa­tion of the ‘West Bank’”, but the very cre­ation of Israel that is the issue to Abbas. He’s let the cat out of the bag!:

Enough. It is time for the Pales­tin­ian peo­ple to gain their free­dom and independence.

Well, yes, so why did not the Pales­tin­ian peo­ple accept the offer in 1948 and United Nations Gen­eral Assem­bly (yes, the same group before which he deliv­ers these remarks) Res­o­lu­tion 181?!

kuruth monolith

kurkh mono­lith of shal­maneser iii men­tion­ing ahab king of israel

i am no fan of bibi either

Prime Min­is­ter Netanyahu’s address to UN; 304 view­ings as of mid­night 20110923

text of Prime Min­is­ter Netanyahu’s address

pan­der­ing

I won­dered to whom Netanyahu was speak­ing when his open­ing remarks to the Gen­eral Assem­bly dealt with the ter­ror­ist attacks of Sep­tem­ber 11, 2001 and he then went on to use the phrase “mil­i­tant islam” five times in the first eigh­teen para­graphs. Was he direct­ing his con­cerned remarks to the many Islamic states that are mem­bers of the UN, or was his audi­ence the Amer­i­can public?

Yossi Verter writes in his col­umn in Haaretz Nobel no, Oscar yes

In 1978, when it was learned that Prime Minister​ Men­achem Begin had won the Nobel Peace Prize, for­mer prime min­is­ter Golda Meir​ remarked: “He deserves a Nobel?” adding that what he really deserved was an Oscar.

If Golda were still with us, she could have res­ur­rected her com­ment, this time with jus­ti­fi­ca­tion, with regard to Prime Min­is­ter Ben­jamin Netanyahu over his speech to the United Nations Gen­eral Assem­bly on Friday.

Netanyahu began and ended his speech with calls for nego­ti­a­tions. Towards the end of his talk he seemed to address Mah­moud Abbas directly:

In two and a half years, we met in Jerusalem only once, even though my door has always been open to you. If you wish, I’ll come to Ramal­lah. Actu­ally, I have a bet­ter sug­ges­tion. We’ve both just flown thou­sands of miles to New York. Now we’re in the same city. We’re in the same build­ing. So let’s meet here today in the United Nations. (Applause.) Who’s there to stop us? What is there to stop us? If we gen­uinely want peace, what is there to stop us from meet­ing today and begin­ning peace negotiations?

Did Netanyahu call Abbas on his cell phone after the ses­sion? If not, why? If he did, what was Abbas’ response? Why have we not heard any­thing more about this? Or, was this no more than a form of grand­stand­ing on Netanyahu’s part?

show busi­ness

I’m not the only one who has been crit­i­cal of the pre­ten­sions of these lead­ers. Jeremy Ben-Ami, the founder of J Street, “the polit­i­cal home of the pro-Israel pro-Peace move­ment” appeared on the Col­bert Report:

Jon Stew­art sat­i­rized what it might take for Pales­tine to be admit­ted to the UN:

duplic­ity squared or goose and gander

There are enough half-truths and full lies tossed around to make one cry.

In his arti­cle Ori­gins of the Pales­tin­ian Uni­lat­eral Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence, Jonathan Schanzer writes exten­sively on all the diplo­matic maneu­vers (from upgrad­ing diplo­matic mis­sions to full recog­ni­tion of state­hood by numer­ous coun­tries) over a six-year period, as a lead-up to have Pales­tine admit­ted as a state at the UN, and then, in his final para­graph he wonders:

What Pales­tin­ian lead­ers plan to do in the after­math of their maneu­ver at the UN remains to be seen. Their options range from a legal cam­paign to a series of non­vi­o­lent protests to a full-blown vio­lent intifada. Regard­less of which path they take—and it could be a combination—this ini­tia­tive marks a new phase, now six years in duration,

and com­plains:

[that] Pales­tin­ian lead­ers have for­saken diplo­macy in exchange for a posi­tion that may keep them at odds with Israel for many more years to come.

I think he means to state that they have for­saken nego­ti­a­tionswith Israel.

And what is so wrong with what Abbas has done? Is this not, as out­lined by Samuel Moyn in his arti­cle: “Face the Nations; By ask­ing the United Nations to ful­fill their national aspi­ra­tions, the Pales­tini­ans are fol­low­ing a script Israel’s founders wrote in the 1940s” anal­o­gous to what the pre-State lead­ers of Israel did in 1948? And has not Israel made a whole series of uni­lat­eral actions? Aside from build­ing set­tle­ments in “dis­puted ter­ri­tory” there’s with­drawal from Gaza. Is not what’s good for the goose also good for the gander?

imag­ine a more pos­i­tive outcome

It’s not as though nobody knew this was com­ing. As Schanzer made clear, a request for full mem­ber­ship in the UN has been in the works for six years. Even Pres­i­dent Obama had hoped for an inde­pen­dent, sov­er­eign state of Pales­tine by this time.

As a friend men­tioned to me: “You gotta won­der how things would play out if Israel shocked the world by sup­port­ing the Pales­tine res­o­lu­tion at the UN and vowed to do every­thing it could to imple­ment it peace­fully.” I think (as usual) Bibi made a big mis­take in not agree­ing to this. A para­graph in an arti­cle in The New Yorker “Mem­ber­ship Dues” by Steve Coll sug­gests the per­fect lead-up to the present situation:

Last year, Pres­i­dent Barack Obama, in his annual speech to the Gen­eral Assem­bly, devoted con­sid­er­able atten­tion to the Pales­tin­ian cause. He declared, in sup­port of renewed talks with the gov­ern­ment of Israeli Prime Min­is­ter Ben­jamin Netanyahu, “We can say this time will be dif­fer­ent,” adding, “If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agree­ment that will lead to a new mem­ber of the United Nations—an inde­pen­dent, sov­er­eign state of Pales­tine.” But that hope has not yielded a work­able plan. Many Pales­tin­ian lead­ers have there­fore con­cluded that it may be impos­si­ble to achieve state­hood through nego­ti­a­tions with Netanyahu. Their pes­simism is well grounded; the evi­dence sug­gests that he seeks only to fob off the Pales­tin­ian Author­ity, as well as his allies in the United States and Europe, in order to buy time to bankroll more set­tle­ments on the West Bank, which will change the con­tours of the con­flict. Nor is there any sign that Israeli domes­tic pol­i­tics will soon yield a coali­tion dif­fer­ent from the type Netanyahu over­sees, in which uncom­pro­mis­ing, expan­sion­ist par­ties hold deci­sive influence.

but, you know, it prob­a­bly doesn’t matter

Because, as in the orig­i­nal title of Asso­ciate Pro­fes­sor of Mod­ern Arab Pol­i­tics and Intel­lec­tual His­tory at Colum­bia Uni­ver­sity, Joseph Massad’s arti­cle in Al Jazeerz: “Either Way, Israel Wins”.

Whether the UN grants the PA sta­tus as a state or refuses to do so, either out­come will be in Israel’s interest.

But, of course! It almost makes me appre­ci­ate the rea­son­ing of Netanyahu. The com­ments to the arti­cle, well, I only read the first few of at least 18 pages. They’re a bit hard to take (I sorted by old­est first). I encour­age you to steel yourself.

I still believe it should and can be different.

back in “the ‘60s”

Yes, while I was alive in 1948, I have no rec­ol­lec­tion of that time. I do recall, how­ever, wear­ing these two but­tons together on my lapel dur­ing the early ‘70s (which was a con­tin­u­a­tion of “the ‘60s”). I sensed then, and still believe now that the two, no not directly depen­dent one on the other, go hand in hand. I can’t tell another peo­ple how to achieve its own self deter­mi­na­tion. How­ever, when there is no more Arab ter­ror against Israel and its cit­i­zens, more Israelis will feel free enough to encour­age and want true self deter­mi­na­tion for Pales­tini­ans. And, so, it con­tin­ues to pain me that these two “cousins” can­not seem to get their act together and “share their toys”.

image.jpg

SelfDeterminationForPalestine-300x300.png

Date:

1974

1970s

Size:

3.8

3.8

Pin Form:

straight

straight

Print Method:

cel­lu­loid

cel­lu­loid

Text:

STOP

ARAB

TERROR

Self

Deter­mi­na­tion

for Pales­tine

your lapel buttons

Many peo­ple have lapel but­tons. They may be attached to a favorite hat or jacket you no longer wear, or poked into a cork-board on your wall. If you have any lay­ing around that you do not feel emo­tion­ally attached to, please let me know. I pre­serve these for the Jew­ish peo­ple. At some point they will all go to an appro­pri­ate museum. You can see all the but­tons shared to date.

2 comments to what’s the difference between 48 and 11?

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>