|
http://seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp
This?
• We, reserve combat officers and soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces, who were raised upon the principles of Zionism, sacrifice and giving to the people of Israel and to the State of Israel, who have always served in the front lines, and who were the first to carry out any mission, light or heavy, in order to protect the State of Israel and strengthen it.
• We, combat officers and soldiers who have served the State of Israel for long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal lives, have been on reserve duty all over the Occupied Territories, and were issued commands and directives that had nothing to do with the security of our country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our control over the Palestinian people. We, whose eyes have seen the bloody toll this Occupation exacts from both sides.
• We, who sensed how the commands issued to us in the Territories, destroy all the values we had absorbed while growing up in this country.
• We, who understand now that the price of Occupation is the loss of IDF’s human character and the corruption of the entire Israeli society.
• We, who know that the Territories are not Israel, and that all settlements are bound to be evacuated in the end.
• We hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight this War of the Settlements.
• We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.
• We hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defense Forces in any mission that serves Israel’s defense.
• The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose – and we shall take no part in them.
reply by
John Calvin
4/2/2002 (19:58)
reply top
Or this?
A Prophetic Message from the Past: Excerpts from an 'Open Letter to Prime Minister Begin Urging Israel's withdrawal from the Occupied Territories and Warning of a Future Disaster'
by Professor Jacob Talmon, 1980
Introductory note by Philip C. Wilcox, Jr., President, Foundation for Middle East Peace:
After the election in 1977 of the Zionist-Revisionist Likud government in Israel, then Prime Minister Menachem Begin launched an aggressive campaign of settlement building in the West Bank, indicating his intention to impose permanent Israeli rule the occupied territories, which Begin and his right wing ideological allies regarded as part of Israel's patrimony. Although the settlement movement was in its infancy at that time - there were less than 10,000 settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, along with 50,000 in East Jerusalem -- some Israelis recognized the danger settlements and a policy of permanent conquest of the Palestinians would pose to Israel's security and democratic character.
In 1980, Professor Jacob Talmon of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, a renowned Israeli authority on Zionism and modern nationalism, wrote a remarkable open letter to Prime Minister Begin. Citing the lessons of history, Talmon warned that settlements and an attempt to dominate the Palestinians in the name of Jewish nationalism would produce a disaster for Israel and betray Jewish values. He described Israel's attempt to subjugate the Palestinians as a 'distorted imperialist formulation of nationalism' that had brought many other nations to grief and he described this effort as a 'time bomb' for the future of Israel. Talmon warned: 'Let us not compel the Arabs to feel that they have been humiliated until they believe that hope is gone and they must die for Palestine.'
The following excerpts from Talmon's message confirm its prophetic quality today, when settlements and the attempted perpetuation of Israeli control over the occupied territories threaten to create a state of permanent, violent conflict. (These excerpts are from the full version of Prof. Talmon's letter printed in Creating Facts: Israel, Palestinians and the West Bank, by Geoffrey Aronson, -------)
*********
'We are facing a situation in which the rule of law and order in on the point of collapse, with a …phenomena which makes a mockery of the dream of the revival of Jewish sovereign independence…
There is nothing more contemptible or despicable than the use of religious sanctions in conflicts between nations and states. The young man from Gush Emunim who in the Elon Moreh appeal argued crudely, and ostensibly courageously and honestly, as a refusing to be untrue to himself, that he and his friends wanted to settle in the place they had chosen not for reasons of national security but because God had commanded the Israelites to inherit the land of Canaan-I wonder whether this young man had any idea of the Pandora's box which he was opening: wars of religion cannot be resolved by compromise, by give a little and take a little, and this young man was inviting the declaration of a jihad by the faithful of Islam…
Mr. Prime Minister, with all due respect to the head of the government and the fellow historian, allow me to inform you on the basis of decades of research into the history of nationalism, that however ancient, special, noble, and unique our subject motives are, the striving to dominate and rule, at the end of the twentieth century, a hostile foreign population which is different in its language, history, culture, religion, national consciousness and aspirations, economy and social structure-is like the attempt to revive feudalism.
The question is not a moral one. The project is not practically possible, nor is it worth the price-as France, for example, learned in Algeria. Nor is the Soviet analogy relevant: we have neither the physical power nor the spiritual and moral toughness required for the job. The only way in which nations can exist in our day-disappointingly and ironically enough-is by separation. God himself and nature and history had already divided Eretz Yisrael before it was divided by human decree. The determined opposition to a hereditary status of inferiority may well be the powerful motive force impelling individuals, classes, and nations to action in the modern era. The subjection of one nation to another, i.e., political inequality, leads inevitable to social and economic inferiority, since the ruling nation, motivated by feeling of tribal solidarity and fear of a rising against their rule, will try to restrict the growth and power of the subject population, denying them access to office and responsibility to sensitive posts, and, of course, to any activity defined as 'subversive.' The combination of political subjection, national oppression and social inferiority is a time bomb…
Isn't settlement the soul of Zionism? and what's the difference between Degania in 1913 and Elon Moreh in 1980?-that's the question asked in order to silence the critics of the settlements. If we haven't the right now, with what right did we settle then? Those who are confused by these arguments should be reminded that history is a succession of changing circumstance, and not a recapitulation of the past-a task reserved for antiquarians. It is a mutual relationship between objective changes and human ingenuity. Loyalty to historical tradition does not involve a neurotic dependence on past examples…
Marx's comment about the tendency to repeat the same actions in situations outwardly similar, but which are in reality essentially different, is well known: the first repetition is tragic, the second farcical. The same can be said about the comparison between Kinneret, Ein-Harod, and the fortified settlements established at the beginning of the Yishuv, and the improvisations masquerading as 'settlements' today. Those who establish them are not immigrants who somehow, with great with great difficulty made their way here, slipping over borders and crossing seas, fleeing from savage enemies and the danger of destruction. Today's 'settlers' depend on tanks, helicopters, and airplanes. They came to demonstrate their presence to show their muscles, and not to plow, to sow, and to plant. Rather than being a desperate attempt to hold on to the homeland, today's settlements are political acts, whose main purpose is to determine who will be the rulers. The settlers' slogans, 'showing the Ishmaelites who is boss here', 'putting the Arabs in their place', well express their purpose.
Any reference to the settlements is from the onset a reference to a military struggle. It will be extremely difficult to stop the creation of a situation involving a frontal confrontation between the two peoples in a narrowly delimited area, under conditions of land shortage, using methods which recall so well agrarian conflicts between the privileged English settlers and the Irish tenants, the Prussian policies toward the Polish peasantry on Prussian territory, the same miserable combination of discrimination, tricks, bribery, confiscation, compulsion, expropriation-and, on the other hand, agrarian revolt and repression by military police…
Since the state does not-or cannot dare-initiate settlements at a pace that would satisfy certain of its citizens, a fanatical 'avant-garde' has sprung up that takes upon itself a national mission to embody the vision of generations. The historic pledge has been transmitted to them so that they are permitted-even obligated-to act without consideration for a fainthearted government whose laws are-to them-meant for the heathen; whose judges do not command their respect; and for whom opponents are traitors to the nation…
This century has sad experience with groups 'chosen by the nation', or 'class representatives' who took it upon themselves to save the nation, their mission sanctioned by divine will. Such mission permitted them to tread underfoot laws of the state and human morals.
The demand of the hour is, according to them, to rouse the people into a mystical national fervor in order to oppose foreign influences and the pluralism represented by the wider world; in short, to adopt the symbols of nationalism…This distorted imperialist formulation of nationalism flooded The European states at the close of the nineteenth century… Only a hairsbreadth separated this denial of universal humanism and rationalism from the theory of race; and such a transition was not long in coming…
Dear Mr. Prime Minister… The welfare and security of Israel are my concern. No less important is the character of the people and culture for which the State of Israel is sanctuary. I have misgivings that the attempt to rule over 1¼ million Arabs against their will may bring about a demoralization which will disgrace our finest dreams of spiritual and national renewal. Not only will the effort to annex the territories not provide security; it will weaken the capacity to protect ourselves from our neighbors' hostility and the opposition of the nations.
Anyone not blinded by fanaticism can make a long, saddening list of unthinkable acts perpetrated by Israelis, whether as isolated individuals or groups-as retribution, preventive action or under the notion that it is a mitzvah [a good deed] to judge the defenseless (let the wise suffice with a hint)… Let us not compel the Arabs to feel that they have been humiliated until they believe that hope is gone and they must die for Palestine.
…the Six-Day War assumes the character of one of those victories that Nietzsche called crueler than defeat. The effort to hold the conquered territories proves itself to be not the crowning point of our history, but rather a trap, a burden not to be borne without degradation, corruption, and perhaps even collapse.
As opposed to his disciples, Jabotinsky acknowledged that if 'our faith is deep, so is theirs'. (note: the Arabs') He refused to believe that they would sell the 'future of their land' for a bowl of pottage, since every people with a land will fight against colonization by those of another race who come without…
You will agree with me, Honored Prime Minister, that we have reached a critical juncture in our policy. The nation is split into two camps. One-convinced of an international conspiracy to create a PLO state orbiting the Soviet Union that would seek to annihilate Israel-demands that we multiply the settlements, creating an uncompromising policy of daring activism; such is the sole means of averting catastrophe. The second camp believes that a one-time opportunity has been opened for us to arrive at peace with our neighbors; efforts to expand and fortify our domination over the population in the territories will bring about the loss of any chance for a peace agreement and will open the door to unfathomable dangers.
…As dates become more and more pressing, so extremism mounts between the two rival parties and within the Israeli populace. The danger of civil war between Arabs and Jews, and Jews and fellow-Jews, hovers over us.
Mr. Prime Minister-your responsibility to the faith of your youth and your sense of a historical mission to convey to later generations the 'fathers' legacy' in its entirety-appear more and more, in the eyes of the majority of the nation, as obsessional wishes which have no possibility of realization. They are a stumbling block source of catastrophe…
1/24/02
http://www.fmep.org/analysis/talmon_prophetic_message_from_past.html
reply by
John Calvin
4/2/2002 (20:08)
reply top
there is also this:
Former Israeli Shin Bet Head Speaks up for Peace
Excerpts from an interview by Le Monde of Ami Ayalon, former Director of Shin Bet, the Israeli internal intelligence and security agency.
FORMER SHIN BET HEAD SPEAKS UP ON NEED FOR PEACE, PART I: Ami Ayalon, who served as head of the Israeli internal security service, Shin Bet, from February 1996 to May 2000, gave a powerful interview to Le Monde at the end of December. During the course of his conversation with reporter Sylvain Cypel, he said, 'In Israel, nobody is dealing with reality anymore. It is the consequence of a flawed perception of the peace process and of the failure of Camp David. The Israelis were provided with a one-sided version: 'We were generous and they refused.' This is ridiculous. And everything that follows from this misperception is flawed...Since the 'turning point' of September 11th our leaders live in a state of euphoria. Finished are the international pressures on Israel-the way is open, they believe. This view obscures the consequences of our holding onto the Palestinian territories. And not only on the moral plane. Our state, in the spirit of its founders, has a reason to exist only if it furnishes a homeland for the Jewish people and if it is democratic. From these two perspectives, time is against us! Demographically, it [time] works for the Palestinians, and politically, in favor of Hamas and the settlers. But to fight against Hamas, it is necessary to evacuate the settlers, whose proximity with the Palestinians strengthens the hatred. Among the Palestinians, the weight of the Islamists is growing, and also that of the intellectuals who long favored the idea of two states, but now are saying 'since the Israelis will never evacuate the settlements, well, eventually there will be a binational state.' But I absolutely don't want this. This would no longer be a Jewish state. And if it remains a Jewish state, dominating an Arab population, it will no longer be democratic.' (Le Monde, 12/22/01)
FORMER SHIN BET HEAD SPEAKS UP ON NEED FOR PEACE, PART II: Ami Ayalon continued, 'Whatever the mistakes of Arafat, the Palestinian people will continue to exist. As long as the issue is not resolved, the region will not know stability. Only a Palestinian state will preserve the Jewish and democratic character of Israel...People here [in Israel] say that the Palestinians behave like 'madmen.' It is not madness, but a bottomless despair. As long as there was a peace process-and therefore the prospect of an end to the occupation-even with Netanyahu, Arafat could maneuver, incite violence or repress it to better negotiate. When there is no longer a peace process, the more one kills the terrorists, the more their camp gains strength. Yasir Arafat, contrary to what is hammered into us, neither prepared nor launched the Intifada. The explosion was spontaneous-against Israel, due to the absence of hope for the end of the occupation; and against the Palestinian Authority, its corruption, its impotence. Arafat could not repress it. What differentiates between [Arafat] appearing as a collaborator with the Israelis or as the head of the national liberation is the existence of the political process. Without it, Arafat cannot fight against the Islamists nor his own supporters. The Palestinians would end up hanging him in the public square.' (Le Monde, 12/22/01)
http://www.fmep.org/analysis/shin_bet_head_speaks_for_peace.html.
and this:
As reported in my local paper this morning(3.29/02)
'Raul Hilberg, professor emeritus at the University oif Vermont, is a poltical scientist and expert on the holocaust. He believes that the best interests of the nations involved create nothing but a contradiction-one not readily solved.
Hilberg's advice to the Arabs: 'Takes what you can, but insist on more than was offered. You don't want isolated places, you want a cohesive land which is not crisscrossed by Israeli patrols and Israeli posts.'
His advice to the Israelis: 'The incursions are not something a government can tolerate. The first and foremost responsibility of any government is the protection of its citizens from such activities.'
Thus, the contradiction.
'It is clear to me that the next year, the next year and the year after that, there can be no peace', Hilberg said. Thursday's offer, he predicted, 'will be forgotten in a month.'
reply by
Raquel
4/2/2002 (20:54)
reply top
It is none of those, it is the one that begins withBy Assaf Oron
Passover Eve, 2002
Dear People,
Yesterday I was informed of an interesting phenomenon: a
peace-supporting Jewish organization called Tikkun published an ad
in favor of us, the Israeli reservist refuseniks, and was immediately
bombarded with hate mails and phones from other American Jews. What
ís more interesting is that even other Jews considering themselves
supporters of peace have denounced the Tikkun ad, to the extent
that some of the Tikkun Advisory Board members are resigning in
order to minimize the personal damage to themselves. This has so
saddened, alarmed and angered me, that I find myself setting aside
a half-day at the eve of Passover, and writing this open letter to
you all. As is my habit, it is quite long, so please bear with me.
Most of the 'civilized' attacks, so I understand, were seemingly
aimed at this or that detail of the Tikkun ad. This is nothing new
to me. Over the past two months since we came out with our own ad,
Iíve heard and read so many specific arguments about specific
aspects of our act. They range from petty nit-picking to plain
ludicrous, and each and every one of them can be refuted to dust
in a matter of minutes. But the moment you refute them, new specific
arguments sprout up like mushrooms. It is clear that there is
something very general and non-specific behind all this criticism.
Therefore, if you allow me, I will start from the general and only
later turn to a couple of these specific issues.
The general theme is the tribal theme. A very very loud voice (and i
n Israel nowadays, it is the only voice that is allowed to be fully
heard) keeps shouting that we are in the midst of a war between two
tribes: a tribe of human beings, of pure good ñ the Israelis ñ and
a tribe of sub-human beings, of pure evil ñ the Palestinians. This
voice is so loud, that it has found its way even to the op-ed pages
of the New York Times (William Safire, March 24 or 25). To those who
find this black-and-white picture a bit hard to believe, the same
voice shouts that this is a war of life and death. Only one tribe
will survive, and so even if we are not purely good, we must lay
morality and conscience to sleep, shut up and fight to kill--or
else, the Palestinians will throw us into the sea.
reply by
John Calvin
4/2/2002 (21:04)
reply top
magazine@tikkun.org
this is the publication of Rabbi Lerner in Berkeley Califonia. recently buying advertising space in the N.Y. Times decrying the occupation. I get their newsletter.
Want to do something? Join the TIKKUN COMMUNITY. Membership: $120/yr.
(students and very verylow income: $40) includes a subscription to
TIKKUN Magazine. Go to www.tikkun.org Then, call your local
media and insist that they represent our perspective--and ask them
to call Liat at 415 575 1200 to get a balanced perspective on the
Middle East mess, a perspective that recognizes that both sides
have created this mess and both sides continue to make immoral
choices to keep it going. We call upon the US and the UN to
intervene and protect both sides from each other, and for both
sides to END THE VIOLENCE and for Israel to END THE OCCUPATION.
Chag sameyach. RabbiLerner@tikkun.org
|
|