Dreadful D Words

From The Israeli Insider

The Dreadful D Words
By Bishop Mary Ann Swenson and Dr. Nur Amersi April 29, 2008


Divorce, dissolution, divestment: These are words that spell the end of a relationship and of what might have been -- through time and patience -- a meaningful and inspiring marriage.

We know how often this happens to people we know, and so it is happening at this moment to the State of Israel. Like meddling in-laws, we, the world community, sit in the family room voicing our interests in the couple's future, yet the minute we sense marital discord, we rush for the exit or take sides and fan the flames.

Israel has a population of 7.2 million -- 76 percent Jews, 20 percent Arabs and 4 percent immigrant workers. The Israeli-Arab citizenry breaks down as 82 percent Muslims, 9 percent Christian and 9 percent Druze. All these groups live together in an intricate array of diverse ancestry, professional ties and domestic dependence. Each citizen has a vote in the functioning democracy that is the State of Israel, and by extension a voice at the family table of the Knesset.

The entire world debates how to intervene in this contentious and vociferous marriage, whose every dispute we mostly hear second-hand from the world media. Do we continue to support Israel, even though we know there are serious domestic disputes and inequities? Should we divest from, abandon, a world leader in high-tech, biotech, medical and environmental enterprises that benefit the world? In our desire to punish the couple, or one partner, do we ultimately punish ourselves?

These were some of the questions we sought answers to when we joined the Los Angeles Religious Leaders Delegation in an interfaith mission to Rome, the Vatican, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in January 2008, a group of Jews, Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians and a Muslim.

Israeli society is far more complex than we had envisaged. With the exception of the Druze and Bedouins, the Christian and Muslim Arab citizens of Israel identify themselves as Palestinian by nationality and Israeli by citizenship. Nowhere is this glass partition more apparent than in Jerusalem, where we experienced the psychological barrier between Arabs and Jews. Although many Israeli-Arabs earn more than their counterparts in other Middle Eastern countries, their wages and the social services they receive in Israel are not on par with Israeli Jews. This Israeli-Arab minority needs to be nurtured, ensured equal social status and accorded full civil rights and municipal services.

According to Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, who covers the West Bank and Gaza for various publications and with whom we met, the employment discrepancy can be attributed to two factors: a lower level of education in the Arab work force, resulting in skills more suited to lower paying jobs, and anti-Arab employment discrimination, at all levels of business sectors. Toameh -- respected by both Israelis and Palestinians -- outlined proposed solutions to the problem, noting that the Israeli government is prioritizing educational reform in the Arab sector, and making genuine efforts to increase Arab employment in higher-paid professions.

As a Christian and a Muslim, who ourselves would be minorities in Israeli society, we believe our most constructive role should be to support responsible investment in Israel, not punishment through divestment actions destined to backfire.

Rather than divestment, we support investment -- financial and otherwise -- in Israeli enterprises that address social and economic inequalities, enable joint business enterprises, increase employment among the Arab population, and offer high-quality social services to underprivileged and minority citizens. Such enterprises are seeding the ground for a flourishing, mutually beneficial society for Israelis and Palestinians.

For example, at Tel Aviv's Bialik-Rogozin School, at-risk students from lower socioeconomic level Jewish and Arab families and children of immigrant workers harmoniously coexist in a project partially funded by Cisco Systems. Children find a safe haven at Bialik-Rogozin, and receive a quality kindergarden through 12th-grade education. At Mishkenot Ruth Daniel Multicultural Center in Jaffa, Jewish and Arab teenagers interact socially and engage in a variety of social justice projects together, many of which benefit Palestinians in the West Bank.

We also came to understand how successive corrupt Palestinian leaderships have fed the political, economic and humanitarian crisis in the territories. Any wishful thinking that divestment will lead to military calm along Israeli-Palestinian borders is strategically flawed. The present war of attrition between Israel and self-governing Gaza has been instigated and sustained by the extremist Hamas leadership whose charter calling for the eradication of Israel harms the very people it claims to serve, malnourishing the nascent Palestinian state which otherwise has the support of virtually the entire international community.

On the occasion of Israel's 60th birthday, we believe people of good will should turn away from the destructive D words of Divorce, Dissolution and Divestment, and work instead for peace, security and happiness for both Israelis and Palestinians. We believe in supporting the prosperous marriage that can result from targeted investment and economic partnerships between the respective states, and between their many peoples.


Views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.


© 2001-2004 Koret Communications Ltd. All rights reserved.

Bishop Mary Ann Swenson and Dr. Nur Amersi Bishop Mary Ann Swenson oversees 390 United Methodist Congregations in Southern California, Hawaii, Guam and Saipan. Dr. Nur Amersi is the executive director of the Afghanistan World Foundation.

Actually this is one of the better opinions i have seen from folks with an opposing view point.

The only thing I would add is that this article does not address a critical reason there is a growing movement of Boycott Divestment and hopefully in the near future Sanctions against Israel, its illegal occupation of Palestine and and its apartheid system of rule and its illegal transfer of its citizens to occupied land in defiance of the 4th Geneva convention and numerous UN resolutions as well as its illegal wall/barrier which its own courts have ruled against.

I do not think there would be as much support for a BDS campaing if Israel was strictly a racist state which did not allow the over 7 million Palestinian refugees and internally displaced to return to their original homeland.

The only thing I would add is that this article does not address a critical reason there is a growing movement of Boycott Divestment and hopefully in the near future Sanctions against Israel, its illegal occupation of Palestine and and its apartheid system of rule and its illegal transfer of its citizens to occupied land in defiance of the 4th Geneva convention and numerous UN resolutions as well as its illegal wall/barrier which its own courts have ruled against.

- Israel's occupation of the West Bank is not illegal. One can call it immoral or racist (those are subjective -- and vulgar -- labels) but calling it illegal is very questionable. UNSC 242 should be read more carefully.

- Israel did not and does not "transfer" its citizens into the West Bank. They move there on their own. This an important distinction when citing the 4th Geneva Convention. This does not mean that the entirety of Israel's settlement enterprise is pragmatic -- now or thirty years ago when it began. It does, however, tell us that international law is twisted to legitimize a decades old anti-Israel ideology.

- Even if they did "transfer," which in international law is a very specific act, this does not defy the 4th Geneva Convention, which sought to outlaw the practice (commonly used by the Nazis and the Soviets) of shipping political opponents and other undesirables to slave or work camps in each country's occupied territories.

- As for defying numerous UN resolutions, you're right. Who doesn't understand that much of the UN's agenda has been hijacked by a grotesque anti-Israel bias?

- Israel's Supreme Court ruled that parts of Israel's barrier should be re-routed to ease burdens on Palestinians, but viewed the barrier itself (as well as parts that jut past the sacred Green Line) necessary and just. Reading the court opinions are very instructive.

- Calling it a wall is more political than an innocent miswording. 95% of the barrier is a fence. The few parts that are a wall were built to stop Palestinian sniper fire -- which has killed both Israeli Jews and Arabs. Militant leaders themselves have publically lamented the effectiveness of the barrier in keeping out would-be bombers.

- That the ICC rules it illegal does not, according to international law, make it illegal. It's an advisory opinion, and this -- from a court with a sad history of politically-motivated decisions outside of Israel-Palestine -- counts for little.


I do not think there would be as much support for a BDS campaing if Israel was strictly a racist state which did not allow the over 7 million Palestinian refugees and internally displaced to return to their original homeland.

Generally, there are two types that support BDS against Israel:

- Anti-Zionists; People who reject Israel's legitimacy and work to undermine it as a Jewish state. Since Israel was and will stubbornly remain Jewish in character, this is prolonging the bloodshed. We must remember now, Jews are not just a religion, but a people [comparable to other peoples] who seek self-determination. These people would obviously support BDS if Israel had never gained control of the territories in '67.

- People who may accept Israel's legitimacy, but believe that Israeli can and should be pressured to withdraw from the West Bank; people who believe this withdrawal will bring about the long sought peace; people who rarely miss a chance to place mock quotes around Israel's "security" concerns, legitimate concerns that are obviously paramount to withdrawal and a future Palestinian state.

Bassem is right in this regard. This second group (anti-West Bank occupation) adds more people to a growing, but still small, group of BDS campaigners.


In addition:

Most Palestinian refugees -- living in Gaza and the West Bank are already in their homeland -- namely Palestine. What is meant by "original" homeland?

That UNRWA designates as "refugees" descendants of Palestinian refugees is vulgar. It's basically complicit in this cycle of self-victimization. After all, Israel doesn't keep the refugee camps standing, nor does it prevent Palestinians from moving out of the camps. Palestinian and other leaders do these things -- and this is really not in dispute.

As the flight of Palestinians took place 60 years ago, a more accurate number for actual refugees is in the tens of thousands, and decreasing every year. That the number increases defies a few tenets of physics, anatomy, let alone the concept of inheritence. It's unclear how, logically, a Palestinian child can inherit refugee status.

Importantly, that Palestinians are kept as refugees are one of the most cruel political maneuvers in history -- and there are a growing number of Arab commentators writing about this and strategy of suffering Palestinian leaders inflict on their own people as a cause to demonize Israel.


If anyone, including Bassem, is interested in why Israel's hold on the territories in not illegal, or generally has questions about the application of international law to the conflict, or would like an elaboration on the Palestinian death strategy, please don't hesitate to ask. I've already emailed Bassem detailed information on these topics months ago. I could easily copy and paste from them.