Sept.-Oct. 2002:
9/11 One Year Later...
...And What To Do About It
Palestinian Refugees
Women in Black
Colombia Peace
Letters
WRL News

Homepages:
War Resisters League
The Nonviolent Activist

Activist Letters

Israel: A Pacifist View
As a pacifist and a Jew, I was very pleased by the editorial on the Middle East in the May-June Nonviolent Activist. The two letters protesting the statement in the July-August were very distressing, however, because the authors of them misinterpreted both WRL’s position and the facts of the tragedy.

First, contrary to Stan Kohls’ assertion, the NVA did call for “mutual recognition” of “Israel’s statehood” and “the right of Palestinians to have a state.” Kohls’ call for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state should be no more acceptable to the world community than recognition of other countries as Arab states, no matter whether the terms are used for religious or cultural purposes, if, indeed, the two could be separated. Universal human and civil rights require universal pluralism, not a world composed of countries whose laws are based on the narrow, sometimes discriminatory, values of a only a segment of their population.

Second, several of the statements made by Neil D. Isaacs in his letter are even more problematic. He asserts that the Israelis have not targeted Palestinian civilians. Witness the Israeli leveling of entire towns full of poor old people and children to “root out” a few suspected terrorists who may or may not really live there. Witness Israel’s many bombings of buildings filled with civilians, which resulted in the deaths of at least several hundred Palestinians, perhaps none of whom had any connection at all to terrorists. And, perhaps most egregious, witness Israel’s isolation of Palestinian towns, which has left thousands of civilians imprisoned in their homes with no food, no water, no medical care, no life-giving resources of any kind. Is this not terrorism equal to that of the Palestinian suicide bombers? Ask the Palestinians cowering in their homes whether their fear is any less than the fear of Israelis who no longer want to venture into the street for any reason at all.

Further, the Israeli settlements that Isaacs champions were created largely by forcibly evicting the Palestinians already living on the West Bank and by annexing land that was not part of the original parcel of land granted Israel in 1948. How pacifists—and Jews who celebrate the more charitable admonitions of the Old Testament—can sanction these settlements, developed with the blood of another oppressed people, is beyond my understanding.

If I have any problem with the NVA editorial, it is that the statement could have made additional useful recommendations. I believe that both Arafat and Sharon need to step aside so that more peace-minded, reasonable and conciliatory leaders can be elected to negotiate in good faith, for as long as necessary, to ensure secure states for both Israel and Palestine. I also think that an international, impartial and universally respected body of mediators needs to take control of the negotiations, again remaining on the job until a peace accord is signed and implemented. And, finally, not only do I agree with the NVA’s position that no country should ship arms to the Middle East, but I suggest that all heads of state (our own George W. Bush included) refrain from taking sides, even verbally, to end the flow of oratory that each side uses as justification for its acts of war and to lower the heat of the rhetoric in general.

—Wendy Schwartz
New York City

Nonviolent Defense
Since you seem to have been getting so many negative letters about your coverage of nonviolent resistance by Palestinians to the Israeli occupation, I thought I would send a positive letter thanking you. With the mainstream media focusing on the suicide bombers, it’s important that someone present a picture that counters these stereotypes. It’s sad that so many otherwise progressive Jews are so steadfastly supporting Israel—a testament to both the power of the mainstream media and the emotional scars that thousands of years of persecution have left on the Jewish people.

To those Jews (and others) who honestly believe that Israel and not the Palestinians are the wronged ones in this conflict, I have a proposal: If you are reading this magazine, presumably you are either pacifists or highly sympathetic to pacifism. I would suspect that you would then agree that Israel’s militaristic response to attacks is not helping the situation any (just as I would argue that the suicide bombers and even the guerrilla groups not targeting civilians are not helping the situation any). What about the possibility of Israel defending itself nonviolently, through a program of nonviolent civil defense?

Doubtless many of you have obligations here in the United States, but perhaps some of you are free to travel to Israel. Why not go there and try to organize groups advocating nonviolent civil defense (as the International Solidarity Movement has gone to the Occupied Territories to try to create space in which Palestinians can engage in nonviolent resistance)?

It seems to me that even if we can’t agree on which side has been wronged, this might lead to a situation that would satisfy the concerns of both sides. Israel would have a means of self defense—and would presumably withdraw from the Occupied Territories, since a nonviolent occupation would be a contradiction in terms.

In such a climate, some system of dialogue could be established to deal with remaining grievances, like the Palestinian right of return, claims to reparations by both sides, the future of the settlements, the allocation of resources like water, etc. Such a process seems far more in accord with pacifism specifically and progressive values generally than uncritical support of the Israeli government.

—Matthew Williams
Somerville, MA

Iraq and the Middle East
Only George W. Bush is in a position to make peace in the Middle East, but he doesn’t seem to be interested; his Number One issue is to get Saddam Hussein. He talks about weapons of mass destruction—can he prove that? That is just an excuse to attack Iraq. If there are no weapons of mass destruction, then the United States has no right to kill innocent people and destroy cities. Bush has no right to criticize the countries he calls the “axis of evil,” since it is the United states that has the most dangerous (nuclear, chemical, etc.) weapons in the world.

I have a feeling Bush wants a war victory to get re-elected in two years. If he were to get rid of Saddam Hussein, his second term would be assured. What a price the people of Iraq have to pay so Bush can remain in the White House for another four years!

It would be wiser if Bush would concentrate on peace in the Middle East. Give the Palestinian people back their land that Israel took in 1967 so they will have freedom, rights, jobs and a future—then young people won’t sacrifice their lives to become suicide bombers. Ariel Sharon should stop bulldozing hundreds of Palestinian homes. People from the United States should not move to the West Bank and build homes—they have a homeland and jobs and should stay here. Even an Israeli television producer said on 60 Minutes, “The biggest problem is the American settlers.”

I do hope Congress will vote on Iraq. Bush has no right to attack a country without the approval of Congress.

—Ann Fleming
Elmira, NY