Politics

Skylar Lindsay 

The Moderate Voice 

JERUSALEM — “So welcome, American, to Palestine,” Bashar says as he taps his hand-rolled cigarette into the ash catcher on an unlit hookah. “What do you know about Palestine?”

In the American public that I know, we hear almost any question about Palestine or Israel as intrusively provocative or overly political. The Clinton Democrats’ platform on the subject is predictable and it demonstrates a paralysis: conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the American public is stuck or non-existent. We “don’t want to get into it.”

The trouble is, we already are: America has been “into it” by supporting Israel economically since the 1950s and militarily since the 1960s. U.S. military aid to Israel is around US$3 billion per year, totaling US$121 billion since World War II (without adjusting for inflation). “Tax dollars at work” arguments aside, unwavering support for Israel is a basic tenet of mainstream U.S. foreign policy talk.

This isn’t news. But when the American public tries to talk about the conflict, we are heavily influenced, if not stopped outright, by having to confront our implicit support for Israel. Given a pre-assigned role in such a long and deep conflict, we stall out: our government appears to have determined who is “right” among Israelis and Palestinians, or at least who it is geopolitically advantageous to support. This starting point inherently pressures American citizens to either stand with their government by default or be absolutely certain about their own conclusion.

As a result, those in the American public who try to “get into it” begin at what can be a very murky level of analysis: we search doggedly for an objective moral conclusion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We look to ethical measurement as a prerequisite to a just peace process: if only we were to wheel in the scales of justice, it would become clear who is “in the right” (other than the current Israeli government).

This scales-of-justice conversation involves a lot of talk about “proportionality”: the question of whether a retaliation for this or that act of violence was proportional and appropriate.

But why do we try to weigh violence against violence? No one suggests that Israelis and Palestinians might find reconciliation by equalizing levels of brutality. Would the two sides repent their respective wrongdoings and bring the walls tumbling down – architecturally and psychologically speaking – a-la-Joshua at Jericho? Would this ethical balancing make international peace efforts more effective? Maybe if we could just measure things out until “right” and “wrong” materialize, Quartet Reports and the French peace initiative would bring resolution.

This emphasis on proportionality does, however, introduce the power of understanding scale and numbers in Israel-Palestine.

Palestinians and Israelis live under our magnifying glass but we still struggle to have a grounded conversation about what actually happens here. The first step out of hand-wringing inertia is to talk. An obvious topic to talk about is the violence one side committed against the other, even if this is a kind of ethical voyeurism. We find this easy because we can use the “crimes” committed by the Palestinians as a frame of reference to evaluate the morality of “crimes” committed by Israelis, and vice-versa.

A less judgmental and potentially more valuable form of comparison, however, would be to take the who, where and what of the conflict and make them concrete and comprehensible.

First, where: Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories take up an area slightly larger than New Jersey (just over 10,700 square miles). The West Bank is a little smaller than Delaware. Gaza is a close in size to Philadelphia but slightly more densely populated (1.8 million Palestinians live there). We know New Jersey. We can picture two Delaware and Philadelphia-sized pieces inside of it. This is a thin strip of land, much of which is desert.

For a flashpoint in the conflict, the Old City of Jerusalem is tiny. It is similar in size to downtown Hamilton, NY, where I went to college – about one square kilometer. It takes just a few minutes to walk from the Western Wall – literally the westernmost wall of the plaza around Al-Aqsa – to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre – the site of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.

Who: Israel has roughly the same population as New York City (8.5 million people). The number of Arabs in Israel is slightly smaller than the number of African Americans in New York (1.7 million). The population of the West Bank is close to the population of Chicago proper – 2.8 million.

This is a starting place for a conversation in the American public that is currently stalled. And this is a conversation that, amid the election circus, we need to be having. From talking about who and where, let’s move on to the what without appointing ourselves the arbiters of justice. We already know where that leads and we don’t have time. It also might not be our place.

As Bashar, a young Palestinian put it to me, “Nineteen years of this s–t. I am so tired.”

There has to be a way to start a dialogue – not between Israelis and Palestinians, but between American citizens. There has to be, if we hope to help the international community go beyond hand-wringing and finger-shaking. There has to be, if the United States will ever seriously evaluate its relations with Israel.

Source: themoderatevoice.com

by James J. Zogby

Arab American Institute 

I grew up watching both parties’ conventions. Television networks covered them from beginning to end. Oftentimes, because the outcome was not assured, there was drama and tension. During the past several decades, conventions have lost their excitement. With the nominees known and the platform decided in advance, the events have become something akin to infomercials for the nominees and the party. As a result, television coverage has been limited to a few hours, or less, each night. And viewership has declined. This year, however, might be different, though maybe not in a good way or, at least in the way party leaders might hope for. This is because there are competing dynamics currently driving and dividing American politics and both will be on display over the next two weeks when Republicans and Democrats gather for their quadrennial conventions in Cleveland and Philadelphia.

In the first place, there is the hyper-partisanship that has created a disturbingly toxic political environment. The parties talk past each other and embarrassingly vitriolic rhetoric, once found only on the margins of our politics, has come to define our everyday political discourse. Add to that the fact that Congress is so paralyzed that many White House appointments remain in limbo and reasonable efforts to pass legislation making needed reforms go nowhere.    

Not only is there a deep division between the parties, but as we witnessed during this past primary season, Republicans and Democrats are fractured within.

With Donald Trump’s victory assured, traditional conservatives have, as one leader recently observed, “lost control” of their party. For this, they have only themselves to blame. During the past eight years, they fed the beasts of xenophobia and hatred of “all things Obama”. The monster they created has turned and has now devoured them.

While some conservatives held out hope for a “dump Trump” movement at the convention, that effort was defeated when the party’s Rules Committee quashed their designs. In one clear sign of Republican division, for the first time in recent history, none of the living former Republican presidents or presidential nominees (the two George Bushs, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney) will be in attendance. Some disgruntled delegates may follow suit and stay away. Who will be there, at this point, is anybody’s guess. And if Trumps’ opponents do go, it is uncertain how they will react. 

It, therefore, remains to be seen how the GOP Convention will unfold. Will it be an orchestrated Donald Trump made for TV variety show? Or will the dissidents still find a way to make their presence felt?   

Even without any disruption inside the convention hall, the scene outside promises to be tense as the many component elements of the social movement harnessed by Trump will square off against their equally aroused and passionate opponents. Cleveland is tense. It is a majority African American city that has had its share of controversial incidents of police violence. Add to that demonstrations sponsored by, among others, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-gay, and pro-gun groups (and their opponents) and you have a potentially combustible mix.

The most worrisome news is that because Ohio has an “open carry” policy and provides for licensed individuals to carry concealed weapons–we have an “accident” (or better, a tragedy) waiting to happen. In anticipation of unrest, the city has emptied its jails, moving prisoners to other locations, and there will be a massive deployment of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies throughout the city.  

Just a few days after Cleveland, Democrats will gather in Philadelphia to formally nominate Hillary Clinton as their candidate for President. With Bernie Sanders’ endorsement of Clinton and his decision not to continue his challenge by introducing minority planks to the party platform, party regulars were relieved—hoping for their own version of a peaceful made for TV convention. But, despite Sanders’ move toward unity, it would be important to note that fissures remain.

The Sanders candidacy was not an ordinary Democratic campaign. It was a social and political movement that brought together liberal Democrats and a number of progressive movement groups and activists with no strong ties to the party. While other candidates lose, endorse, and fade away, neither Sanders nor his followers appear to be interested in following this path.

It is important to note, that these movement activists will be in Philadelphia and will be both inside and outside of the convention. Inside, they will be among Sanders 1,900 delegates and outside, they will be demonstrating in the hundreds of thousands against unfair trade agreements, for universal health care, for racial justice and against police violence, for immigrant rights, and for Palestinian rights. These are the issues that drew activists to Sanders. While he can correctly claim that his campaign had a direct impact on the making the Democratic Party’s platform more progressive, it remains to be seen whether activists will find that sufficient or whether they are willing to follow Sanders in supporting the party’s nominee and believe that she will implement their progressive agenda. And so it is likely that in addition to demonstrations outside the convention, there may be signs of discontent within the hall.

In any case, despite the best efforts of the organizers of both the Cleveland and Philadelphia affairs, the unexpected may occur. Stay tuned.

Source: www.aaiusa.org