Dear Mr. President,
It's been two years since Operation Cast Lead, since the Gaza war, since the brutal asymmetrical violence that left thousands dead, injured or homeless. This will likely be my last letter to you about Gaza, at least for 2010. I haven't heard any practical solutions for the people of Gaza from your administration, nor have I heard much in the way of insistence that Israel find an alternative to the utterly unlivable status quo. The peace talks that have now fallen apart, at their most ambitious, their most hopeful, did not include a framework for Gaza. The people of Gaza cannot continue living as they have been, they cannot be expected to raise yet another generation to call a prison camp home. Two years of endless stalemate haven't made Israel safer and they haven't made Gaza any more livable.
I wonder if you have asked yourself how this ends. How it will look when the war is finally over and the lines on the map are final. When every one has a flag and a seat at the UN. What will that entail? What will it look like, how will it be fair, what role will we play? Most importantly- how do we get there? If we already know these things, why aren't we doing it? It will be hard. People will be upset, compromise will not be easy. Friends and allies will be offended and alienated and you will be called any number of nasty names for your trouble. But it has to be done. Progress has to be made. The situation cannot stand.
Looking into 2011 and 2012, I know that re-election will overshadow any foreign policy goals that might not play well on FOX news. I wonder what you would do if no one were watching, if what they said didn't matter, if all the voices were silenced and you had only your own conscience to answer to. At some point, it isn't about the past, it isn't about politics, it isn't even about racism, it's just people; people killing, hurting, starving, oppressing other people and the people who look the other way and let it happen.
I don't want to be one of those people. I don't believe that you do, either.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Day 359- Christmas in Beit Lahm
Dear Mr. President,
Your faith teaches that today's celebration is marking the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. Christians from around the world will be making pilgrimages to the tiny church of the Nativity, lighting candles and saying prayers, passing through the apartheid wall that confines Palestinians in the West Bank. When I visited this church in the shimmering heat of high summer, we walked past walls still scarred by bullet holes from 2002 gun battles between Israeli troops and Palestinian fighters. Perhaps, not being Christian myself, I failed to experience the reverence I was meant to feel for the site of Jesus' birth, but I could not separate my horror at the grotesque oppression (and it's violent legacy) of the residents of Bethlehem from my respect for the teachings of Christianity's central figure.
For all of those American Christians who are today sitting in churches, saying their prayers or singing carols, I hope that the harsh restrictions on the freedoms and opportunities of those, like Jesus, guilty of the unforgivable crime of having been born in Bethlehem are not forgotten. It seems so unjust that Christ's disciples are happily celebrating his birth when the citizens of his birthplace, Muslim and Christian alike, live under occupation in fear and confinement. Christmas may be a time of celebration, but I would hope that remembering the reason for this holiday and the ongoing (and overlong) fight for basic human rights for Palestinians might not be so easily disentangled.
I hope that you have had a good and peaceful holiday, despite the burdens of your office. As an individual with rather more control over the fate of those living in Bethlehem, I hope you, at least, have not forgotten them today.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Two well-written pieces on this can be found at Ma'an news and at Al-Jazeera. I urge all of you to read them.
Your faith teaches that today's celebration is marking the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. Christians from around the world will be making pilgrimages to the tiny church of the Nativity, lighting candles and saying prayers, passing through the apartheid wall that confines Palestinians in the West Bank. When I visited this church in the shimmering heat of high summer, we walked past walls still scarred by bullet holes from 2002 gun battles between Israeli troops and Palestinian fighters. Perhaps, not being Christian myself, I failed to experience the reverence I was meant to feel for the site of Jesus' birth, but I could not separate my horror at the grotesque oppression (and it's violent legacy) of the residents of Bethlehem from my respect for the teachings of Christianity's central figure.
For all of those American Christians who are today sitting in churches, saying their prayers or singing carols, I hope that the harsh restrictions on the freedoms and opportunities of those, like Jesus, guilty of the unforgivable crime of having been born in Bethlehem are not forgotten. It seems so unjust that Christ's disciples are happily celebrating his birth when the citizens of his birthplace, Muslim and Christian alike, live under occupation in fear and confinement. Christmas may be a time of celebration, but I would hope that remembering the reason for this holiday and the ongoing (and overlong) fight for basic human rights for Palestinians might not be so easily disentangled.
I hope that you have had a good and peaceful holiday, despite the burdens of your office. As an individual with rather more control over the fate of those living in Bethlehem, I hope you, at least, have not forgotten them today.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Two well-written pieces on this can be found at Ma'an news and at Al-Jazeera. I urge all of you to read them.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Day 357- Busses and bulldozers
Dear Mr. President,
I wrote a few days ago about the upcoming ad campaign in protest of the Israeli occupation of Palestine on buses here in Seattle. Even as I expressed my trepidation at the prospect of seeing my opinion represented I was hesitant about, I was, in a small way, a bit thrilled to see the campaign taking up the tools of our opposition to spread awareness. Since then, however, several things have happened. First, the David Horowitz Freedom Center (the name likely offers all the necessary explanation as to the group's purpose, but for my readers unfamiliar with David Horowitz, he's the despicable mind behind such classics as "The 101 most dangerous academics in America" and other twists on the idea of freedom.) proposed matching the 12 pro-Palestine buses and raising it to 25 busses bearing signs that say "Palestinian War Crimes: your tax dollars at work." Then King County Metro decided maybe the whole thing was a terrible idea and banned all non-commercial ads.
Ok. I have to get my head around the fact that David Horowitz is a bigoted, racist scumbag. I need a minute. All right, I'm mostly over that. His disciples, in inverting the message of the original ad, have not only created something that doesn't make even a little sense, they've demonstrated exactly why I don't like this form of outreach. One of my coworkers put it quite well tonight, saying that the venue didn't allow for the nuanced discussion necessary to change any one's mind. Beyond that, while I'm disappointed to see the city caving to backlash, I understand why public transit might not be the best battleground for the Israel/Palestine debate in America.
My frustration is mainly with the feeling that support for the Palestinian cause, something that can't be found in the White House, the State Department, congress or on any ballot, that has been stigmatized to be tantamount to anti-semitism, terrorism, extremism, is so inflammatory it can't even be presented to the public without causing a controversy. The Israeli occupation is bolstered when we go shopping, when we pay our taxes when we cast our votes. Israel is the 16th wealthiest country on the planet, the largest recipient of US foreign aid (more than the rest of the world combined) protected by US veto power at the UN, and still a sign on the side of a bus (or 12) in Seattle is too much of a threat for the occupation's fiercest advocates to permit.
So the busses will keep selling us movies or clothes or hamburgers. The bulldozers will keep demolishing houses. The settlements will sprawl. Maybe an ad campaign can't change that, either, but I don't believe that silencing discussion and dissent is going to help solve a situation that cannot continue for long. As President, you probably don't care what's happening on local transit advertisement, but I think that this incident speaks to a larger, national fear of approaching this issue. So long as our White House continues to stifle frank conversations and to lead with the example of avoidance, impotence and spineless complicity in the human rights abuses carried out by our ally, I don't see how individuals or grass roots organizations will ever find the an appropriate forum to say what needs to be said.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I wrote a few days ago about the upcoming ad campaign in protest of the Israeli occupation of Palestine on buses here in Seattle. Even as I expressed my trepidation at the prospect of seeing my opinion represented I was hesitant about, I was, in a small way, a bit thrilled to see the campaign taking up the tools of our opposition to spread awareness. Since then, however, several things have happened. First, the David Horowitz Freedom Center (the name likely offers all the necessary explanation as to the group's purpose, but for my readers unfamiliar with David Horowitz, he's the despicable mind behind such classics as "The 101 most dangerous academics in America" and other twists on the idea of freedom.) proposed matching the 12 pro-Palestine buses and raising it to 25 busses bearing signs that say "Palestinian War Crimes: your tax dollars at work." Then King County Metro decided maybe the whole thing was a terrible idea and banned all non-commercial ads.
Ok. I have to get my head around the fact that David Horowitz is a bigoted, racist scumbag. I need a minute. All right, I'm mostly over that. His disciples, in inverting the message of the original ad, have not only created something that doesn't make even a little sense, they've demonstrated exactly why I don't like this form of outreach. One of my coworkers put it quite well tonight, saying that the venue didn't allow for the nuanced discussion necessary to change any one's mind. Beyond that, while I'm disappointed to see the city caving to backlash, I understand why public transit might not be the best battleground for the Israel/Palestine debate in America.
My frustration is mainly with the feeling that support for the Palestinian cause, something that can't be found in the White House, the State Department, congress or on any ballot, that has been stigmatized to be tantamount to anti-semitism, terrorism, extremism, is so inflammatory it can't even be presented to the public without causing a controversy. The Israeli occupation is bolstered when we go shopping, when we pay our taxes when we cast our votes. Israel is the 16th wealthiest country on the planet, the largest recipient of US foreign aid (more than the rest of the world combined) protected by US veto power at the UN, and still a sign on the side of a bus (or 12) in Seattle is too much of a threat for the occupation's fiercest advocates to permit.
So the busses will keep selling us movies or clothes or hamburgers. The bulldozers will keep demolishing houses. The settlements will sprawl. Maybe an ad campaign can't change that, either, but I don't believe that silencing discussion and dissent is going to help solve a situation that cannot continue for long. As President, you probably don't care what's happening on local transit advertisement, but I think that this incident speaks to a larger, national fear of approaching this issue. So long as our White House continues to stifle frank conversations and to lead with the example of avoidance, impotence and spineless complicity in the human rights abuses carried out by our ally, I don't see how individuals or grass roots organizations will ever find the an appropriate forum to say what needs to be said.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Day 353- Spring Break!
Dear Mr. President,
This week I'll be applying to join the US Boat to Gaza, (the ship you probably recall is named after your book.) It may not be the most conventional way to spend spring break, but I think that it's exactly as self-indulgent as I'm willing to be. I have no idea what the odds are of me being selected to actually go, but I suspect that I'll always regret it if I don't at least apply.
Even if I don't make it to Gaza in 2011, the discussion of the gaza blockade has taken to the sides of city buses right here in Seattle. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. While I wholeheartedly agree with the message and support the intentions of those running the ads, I don't know how effective this is as a strategy. Is $1794 better spent on an ad campaign that might not change any minds, or would it have been better used to send help to the people affected by the policies being protested? The awareness created might be considerable, but I'm not sure it will lead to the public outcry necessary for any substantive policy change.
When I lived in DC, the metro tunnels were routinely home to issue ads. One was the picture of a baby (presumably Palestinian( wearing a pro-hamas headband, and said "This child could grow up to be a: ( ) Doctor ( ) Lawyer (x) Terrorist" (The ad can be seen here thanks to flickr user louko.) The ad made my blood boil. I have visceral reactions every time I passed by it. Targeting the blameless children of this conflict seemed especially sickening, and to have it shouting at me from every wall every day of my commute ensured that I began and ended each work day so angry I could barely speak. The very nature of advertising made discussion or argument or dissent with the people placing the ads impossible. I think my intense reaction to these ads has made me hesitant to feel any joy at seeing ads supporting my views. I understand that the very effective (and well-financed) tactics of the Israeli lobby and PR organizations need to be balanced somehow, but I don't feel great about sinking to their methods.
The most I can hope for is conversation. If it gets people talking, thinking, questioning the policies supported by their taxes (often without their knowledge) I will swallow my objections and applaud the efforts of the organization purchasing the ads. The argument that a controversial, thought-provoking ad like this one is at least better than another Macy's ad is not lost on me, either. Do you think this is a helpful or appropriate forum for foreign policy conversations?
I should probably go work on my application. I know you don't agree with the mission of the US boat to Gaza and you could certainly never support it publicly, but I hope that, even if it is only in private, you find a moment to consider your own responsibility for the people who end up on this ship and for the policies that have made such an organization necessary.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I encourage all of my readers interested (and fully aware of and prepared for the risks) to apply to the US Boat to Gaza. If you don't want to go yourself, a financial donation will help purchase supplies to deliver to the people of Gaza, as well. Other great gift ideas for those concerned with social justice can be found in Nicholas Kristof's latest New York Times column, or on etsy.com
This week I'll be applying to join the US Boat to Gaza, (the ship you probably recall is named after your book.) It may not be the most conventional way to spend spring break, but I think that it's exactly as self-indulgent as I'm willing to be. I have no idea what the odds are of me being selected to actually go, but I suspect that I'll always regret it if I don't at least apply.
Even if I don't make it to Gaza in 2011, the discussion of the gaza blockade has taken to the sides of city buses right here in Seattle. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. While I wholeheartedly agree with the message and support the intentions of those running the ads, I don't know how effective this is as a strategy. Is $1794 better spent on an ad campaign that might not change any minds, or would it have been better used to send help to the people affected by the policies being protested? The awareness created might be considerable, but I'm not sure it will lead to the public outcry necessary for any substantive policy change.
When I lived in DC, the metro tunnels were routinely home to issue ads. One was the picture of a baby (presumably Palestinian( wearing a pro-hamas headband, and said "This child could grow up to be a: ( ) Doctor ( ) Lawyer (x) Terrorist" (The ad can be seen here thanks to flickr user louko.) The ad made my blood boil. I have visceral reactions every time I passed by it. Targeting the blameless children of this conflict seemed especially sickening, and to have it shouting at me from every wall every day of my commute ensured that I began and ended each work day so angry I could barely speak. The very nature of advertising made discussion or argument or dissent with the people placing the ads impossible. I think my intense reaction to these ads has made me hesitant to feel any joy at seeing ads supporting my views. I understand that the very effective (and well-financed) tactics of the Israeli lobby and PR organizations need to be balanced somehow, but I don't feel great about sinking to their methods.
The most I can hope for is conversation. If it gets people talking, thinking, questioning the policies supported by their taxes (often without their knowledge) I will swallow my objections and applaud the efforts of the organization purchasing the ads. The argument that a controversial, thought-provoking ad like this one is at least better than another Macy's ad is not lost on me, either. Do you think this is a helpful or appropriate forum for foreign policy conversations?
I should probably go work on my application. I know you don't agree with the mission of the US boat to Gaza and you could certainly never support it publicly, but I hope that, even if it is only in private, you find a moment to consider your own responsibility for the people who end up on this ship and for the policies that have made such an organization necessary.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I encourage all of my readers interested (and fully aware of and prepared for the risks) to apply to the US Boat to Gaza. If you don't want to go yourself, a financial donation will help purchase supplies to deliver to the people of Gaza, as well. Other great gift ideas for those concerned with social justice can be found in Nicholas Kristof's latest New York Times column, or on etsy.com
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Day 339-All in
Dear Mr. President,
Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has stated that he will dissolve the Palestinian government and force Israel to take responsibility for the West Bank. Abbas is clearly a much better poker player than I would have given him credit for.
If Israel does not stop settlement construction, Abbas would be wise to follow through on this threat. Abbas is correct when he says that he cannot be expected to lead, to be responsible for a territory he has no real control over. Israel bears little of the financial or regulatory responsibility for its occupation, and forcing the government to pay (literally and figuratively) for its policies is the only way to compel change. The threat may frighten Israeli leadership enough to get an actual settlement freeze or could pave the way to a more just single-state solution, should the Palestinians begin lobbying not for statehood but suffrage.
I certainly don't envy the headache Prime Minister Netanyahu must be suffering as a result of this announcement.
With Israeli and Palestinian firefighters working together to battle a forest fire, I hope that government officials on both sides recognize the potential for all of the people in this region to live side by side, to work together, in peace. It can happen, but such an outcome is absolutely contingent upon civil rights, economic stability and personal security for all people, regardless of race, religion or ethnicity. It cannot happen under occupation, and I am glad that Abbas, at least, recognizes this. I hope that peace talks resume in a manner that is fair and respectful of both sides, but, should the intractable commitment of the Israeli right to continue the construction of the settlements prove to be insurmountable for Netanyahu, I fully support the return of administrative responsibilities for the West Bank to the Israelis. Palestinians have long been punished (often violently) for the actions of extremists within their midst while Israel has empowered, protected and elected their own fundamentalists. The price of this hypocrisy ought to be the social, financial and political burden of the occupation and oppression supported by those fundamentalists and spearheaded by settlers in the face of international law, the interest of peace and basic common sense.
Abbas has slid his chips across the table. Netanyahu must go all-in with him, or fold and face the consequences. As Israel's ally and an advocate for peace, (not to mention a leader familiar with the costs of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan,) I'm sure you can appreciate just how difficult Netanyahu's decision will be. Netanyahu should learn from history, freeze the settlement construction and return to the table for peace talks more willing than ever to compromise for the sake of peace. Call your friend, Mr. President, and tell him it's time to fold.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has stated that he will dissolve the Palestinian government and force Israel to take responsibility for the West Bank. Abbas is clearly a much better poker player than I would have given him credit for.
If Israel does not stop settlement construction, Abbas would be wise to follow through on this threat. Abbas is correct when he says that he cannot be expected to lead, to be responsible for a territory he has no real control over. Israel bears little of the financial or regulatory responsibility for its occupation, and forcing the government to pay (literally and figuratively) for its policies is the only way to compel change. The threat may frighten Israeli leadership enough to get an actual settlement freeze or could pave the way to a more just single-state solution, should the Palestinians begin lobbying not for statehood but suffrage.
I certainly don't envy the headache Prime Minister Netanyahu must be suffering as a result of this announcement.
With Israeli and Palestinian firefighters working together to battle a forest fire, I hope that government officials on both sides recognize the potential for all of the people in this region to live side by side, to work together, in peace. It can happen, but such an outcome is absolutely contingent upon civil rights, economic stability and personal security for all people, regardless of race, religion or ethnicity. It cannot happen under occupation, and I am glad that Abbas, at least, recognizes this. I hope that peace talks resume in a manner that is fair and respectful of both sides, but, should the intractable commitment of the Israeli right to continue the construction of the settlements prove to be insurmountable for Netanyahu, I fully support the return of administrative responsibilities for the West Bank to the Israelis. Palestinians have long been punished (often violently) for the actions of extremists within their midst while Israel has empowered, protected and elected their own fundamentalists. The price of this hypocrisy ought to be the social, financial and political burden of the occupation and oppression supported by those fundamentalists and spearheaded by settlers in the face of international law, the interest of peace and basic common sense.
Abbas has slid his chips across the table. Netanyahu must go all-in with him, or fold and face the consequences. As Israel's ally and an advocate for peace, (not to mention a leader familiar with the costs of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan,) I'm sure you can appreciate just how difficult Netanyahu's decision will be. Netanyahu should learn from history, freeze the settlement construction and return to the table for peace talks more willing than ever to compromise for the sake of peace. Call your friend, Mr. President, and tell him it's time to fold.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Day 335- Dating advice from some one who really sucks at it
Dear Mr. President,
I'm really terrible at dating. I'm making my peace with this, slowly. I tend to make all of the classic missteps- I come on too strong when I should be cautious, I get too frightened or shy when I should be bold and direct. I panic unnecessarily and I talk way too much. I'm secretly convinced that if I were tiny and blonde and traditionally feminine I'd have no more problems, but I'm sure that being this insecure is just as unattractive wrapped in tiny, blonde packages. The advice I get from friends can be succinctly summed up: calm down, be brave, and stop acting so desperate.
Reading through the Wikileak diplomatic cables, and reading the latest news from the non-existent Isreali/Palestinian peace talks, I can't help but notice how we could really apply this advice to foreign policy. America seems alternately too aggressive and too passive, quick to throw itself without shame at allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and completely prone to panic over Iran. (Oh, and we definitely talk too much.) American foreign policy shouldn't seem this desperate. James Zogby has an eloquent essay discussing the highly illogical (and counter-productive) strategy of bribing Israel with aid money, arms sales and UNSC vetoes in order to get them to agree to abide by international law. Despite our boasting of our military, economic and moral prowess, we seem too cowed to stand up even to the countries we call our friends.
Sure, it's easy for me to give advice that I'm too thick-skulled to follow, but, seriously, one of us should start showing some self-respect, and soon. I'm thinking that it's a much bigger deal if America keeps getting pushed around on the international stage (or making a complete fool of itself) than it is if I stay single for a few more years. So, in full acknowledgement of my own hypocrisy, I think that you (and Secretary Clinton) need to calm down, be brave, and stop acting so desperate. The United States is a superpower (for now) and we ought to remember that, and use our clout responsibly. We should expect our allies to live up to their human rights obligations to their own citizens and to their neighbors. We should not sensationalize the threat posed by rogue states like Iran and North Korea, but should calmly and rationally rally the international community against these threats. It might be easier if we were tiny and blonde and popular like Switzerland, instead of the world's police, but I think we could manage our awkward and often unlikable tasks with a lot more dignity. Maybe America will still end up as whatever the country equivalent of a 40-year old spinster with tons of cats is, but at least we will conduct ourselves abroad with something like self-respect.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I'm really terrible at dating. I'm making my peace with this, slowly. I tend to make all of the classic missteps- I come on too strong when I should be cautious, I get too frightened or shy when I should be bold and direct. I panic unnecessarily and I talk way too much. I'm secretly convinced that if I were tiny and blonde and traditionally feminine I'd have no more problems, but I'm sure that being this insecure is just as unattractive wrapped in tiny, blonde packages. The advice I get from friends can be succinctly summed up: calm down, be brave, and stop acting so desperate.
Reading through the Wikileak diplomatic cables, and reading the latest news from the non-existent Isreali/Palestinian peace talks, I can't help but notice how we could really apply this advice to foreign policy. America seems alternately too aggressive and too passive, quick to throw itself without shame at allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and completely prone to panic over Iran. (Oh, and we definitely talk too much.) American foreign policy shouldn't seem this desperate. James Zogby has an eloquent essay discussing the highly illogical (and counter-productive) strategy of bribing Israel with aid money, arms sales and UNSC vetoes in order to get them to agree to abide by international law. Despite our boasting of our military, economic and moral prowess, we seem too cowed to stand up even to the countries we call our friends.
Sure, it's easy for me to give advice that I'm too thick-skulled to follow, but, seriously, one of us should start showing some self-respect, and soon. I'm thinking that it's a much bigger deal if America keeps getting pushed around on the international stage (or making a complete fool of itself) than it is if I stay single for a few more years. So, in full acknowledgement of my own hypocrisy, I think that you (and Secretary Clinton) need to calm down, be brave, and stop acting so desperate. The United States is a superpower (for now) and we ought to remember that, and use our clout responsibly. We should expect our allies to live up to their human rights obligations to their own citizens and to their neighbors. We should not sensationalize the threat posed by rogue states like Iran and North Korea, but should calmly and rationally rally the international community against these threats. It might be easier if we were tiny and blonde and popular like Switzerland, instead of the world's police, but I think we could manage our awkward and often unlikable tasks with a lot more dignity. Maybe America will still end up as whatever the country equivalent of a 40-year old spinster with tons of cats is, but at least we will conduct ourselves abroad with something like self-respect.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Day 318-It's not murder, it's a metaphor
Dear Mr. President,
While reading an article about the way our brain reacts similarly to the literal and metaphorical feelings of pain and disgust, I cam across this passage about Palestine and Israel:
This got me thinking about the military aid offered to Israel in exchange for a 90-day extension of the settlement freeze. The terms of the freeze are largely symbolic; settlement construction could continue in East Jerusalem, the ostensible future capitol of a Palestinian state, and no extension of the freeze would be requested after 90 days. The objections to this plan from the Israeli right are largely symbolic, as well. It makes me wonder how much we'd be willing to pay for symbolism. 3 billion a year in aid? Unlimited cover at the UN? What about any potential future peace in the region?
The deal you've offered is trading just that. You've sent a message to the Palestinians that they have 90 days to make peace and after that they are on their own. No US support for Palestinian statehood unless it is on Israel's terms. No US diplomatic pressure to keep the settlements from expanding again in 90 days. The unconditional agreement of those new bombers, which the US will provide to Israel regardless of a peace deal being signed or not. It's an offer so good, it should have it's own infomercial. The unfairness of the whole situation, and the utter absurdity of the Israeli right balking at such an offer is mind-boggling.
Instead of settling for symbolism, why didn't you decide to leverage our special relationship for an agreement that would have practical results? It seems as though you'd settle for the illusion of progress so long as it makes every one (except, of course, the Palestinians) feel better and look good, rather than a less popular, more difficult long-term plan that will actually hold Israel responsible for curtailing settlement activity? Instead of trading away a guarantee to do everything in our (not inconsiderable) power to prevent recognition of Palestinian statehood by international organizations, why wouldn't we threaten to do everything in our power to support it, if Israel doesn't follow international law? I just don't understand.
I would never argue that this conflict is simple or that achieving peace won't be a complicated process. But when lives and homes and the basic human rights are at stake, we can't afford to sacrifice the protection of these things for the sake of symbolism. Water rights, housing demolitions, settlements and security are practical points of disagreement that must be addressed seriously and with respect to the needs of people on all sides. Instead you have practically increased Israel's capacity for violence and symbolically granted the political cover to wield it with impunity. Symbolically, and practically, this was a total failure.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
While reading an article about the way our brain reacts similarly to the literal and metaphorical feelings of pain and disgust, I cam across this passage about Palestine and Israel:
in a world of sheer rationality where the brain didn’t confuse reality with symbols, bringing peace to Israel and Palestine would revolve around things like water rights, placement of borders, and the extent of militarization allowed to Palestinian police. Instead, argues Axelrod, “mutual symbolic concessions” of no material benefit will ultimately make all the difference.
This got me thinking about the military aid offered to Israel in exchange for a 90-day extension of the settlement freeze. The terms of the freeze are largely symbolic; settlement construction could continue in East Jerusalem, the ostensible future capitol of a Palestinian state, and no extension of the freeze would be requested after 90 days. The objections to this plan from the Israeli right are largely symbolic, as well. It makes me wonder how much we'd be willing to pay for symbolism. 3 billion a year in aid? Unlimited cover at the UN? What about any potential future peace in the region?
The deal you've offered is trading just that. You've sent a message to the Palestinians that they have 90 days to make peace and after that they are on their own. No US support for Palestinian statehood unless it is on Israel's terms. No US diplomatic pressure to keep the settlements from expanding again in 90 days. The unconditional agreement of those new bombers, which the US will provide to Israel regardless of a peace deal being signed or not. It's an offer so good, it should have it's own infomercial. The unfairness of the whole situation, and the utter absurdity of the Israeli right balking at such an offer is mind-boggling.
Instead of settling for symbolism, why didn't you decide to leverage our special relationship for an agreement that would have practical results? It seems as though you'd settle for the illusion of progress so long as it makes every one (except, of course, the Palestinians) feel better and look good, rather than a less popular, more difficult long-term plan that will actually hold Israel responsible for curtailing settlement activity? Instead of trading away a guarantee to do everything in our (not inconsiderable) power to prevent recognition of Palestinian statehood by international organizations, why wouldn't we threaten to do everything in our power to support it, if Israel doesn't follow international law? I just don't understand.
I would never argue that this conflict is simple or that achieving peace won't be a complicated process. But when lives and homes and the basic human rights are at stake, we can't afford to sacrifice the protection of these things for the sake of symbolism. Water rights, housing demolitions, settlements and security are practical points of disagreement that must be addressed seriously and with respect to the needs of people on all sides. Instead you have practically increased Israel's capacity for violence and symbolically granted the political cover to wield it with impunity. Symbolically, and practically, this was a total failure.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Day 314-Diplomacy or Professional wrestling?
Dear Mr. President,
Weird things are happening. A few days ago I saw a headline that read "Obama leads world chorus against Israel plan for Jerusalem." I was surprised by the implications of this headline, but I sort of brushed it off as typical media sensationalism. Then I saw the Huffington Post article describing the way you "slammed" the settlement activity. I read over your remarks. Nothing about them evoked the image of a pro-wrestling move, or, for that matter, a chorus of condemnation. Calling the settlements not helpful isn't exactly strong condemnation, or at least not the kind that would warrant this sort of media language.
It is incredibly surreal to see the right wing and the Israeli Prime Minister criticizing you for being too tough on Israeli settlement activity when, from my perspective, you haven't said or done nearly enough. It's one of those stories told so consistently that it begins to make me doubt my own perception. I think it's also indicative of how unacceptable criticism of Israeli policies, (even international law-breaking, immoral, hypocritical policies,) has become in our national discourse.
I think what you said about the settlements in East Jerusalem was right on the mark. Especially while Palestinian homes are being bulldozed in the same part of the city, there should be no new settlement activity. Palestinian leaders have already demonstrated a patient commitment to this peace process, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they do not have equal partners in the Israeli leaders. While Palestinians crack down and temper the extremists in their midst, Israelis are electing and empowering their own.
I know that you place a high importance on the state of US-Israeli relations. I just don't believe that true allies get this up in arms over such small criticism. The Israeli government is never going to make the tough calls necessary to a successful peace without strong urging from the US. I sincerely hope that your remarks indicate a toughening of our line against settlement activity, and a move away from the unconditional support that perpetuates and excuses the kind of oppression preventing peace in a region that needs it so badly.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Weird things are happening. A few days ago I saw a headline that read "Obama leads world chorus against Israel plan for Jerusalem." I was surprised by the implications of this headline, but I sort of brushed it off as typical media sensationalism. Then I saw the Huffington Post article describing the way you "slammed" the settlement activity. I read over your remarks. Nothing about them evoked the image of a pro-wrestling move, or, for that matter, a chorus of condemnation. Calling the settlements not helpful isn't exactly strong condemnation, or at least not the kind that would warrant this sort of media language.
It is incredibly surreal to see the right wing and the Israeli Prime Minister criticizing you for being too tough on Israeli settlement activity when, from my perspective, you haven't said or done nearly enough. It's one of those stories told so consistently that it begins to make me doubt my own perception. I think it's also indicative of how unacceptable criticism of Israeli policies, (even international law-breaking, immoral, hypocritical policies,) has become in our national discourse.
I think what you said about the settlements in East Jerusalem was right on the mark. Especially while Palestinian homes are being bulldozed in the same part of the city, there should be no new settlement activity. Palestinian leaders have already demonstrated a patient commitment to this peace process, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they do not have equal partners in the Israeli leaders. While Palestinians crack down and temper the extremists in their midst, Israelis are electing and empowering their own.
I know that you place a high importance on the state of US-Israeli relations. I just don't believe that true allies get this up in arms over such small criticism. The Israeli government is never going to make the tough calls necessary to a successful peace without strong urging from the US. I sincerely hope that your remarks indicate a toughening of our line against settlement activity, and a move away from the unconditional support that perpetuates and excuses the kind of oppression preventing peace in a region that needs it so badly.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, October 29, 2010
Day 302- Emotional and academic
Dear Mr. President,
A few days ago my class was visited by an Israeli guest lecturer. I tried to go in with an open mind, especially because I knew the professor places a huge importance on human rights and is sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle for self-determination. Throughout the lecture, I found myself getting angrier and angrier. His attempts at objectivity were so obviously colored with the comfortable, academic detachment that I find so frustrating. Reducing events and issues that represent tangible suffering, blood, death and disenfranchisement to abstractions might lead to calmer discourse, but it doesn't do justice to the people not lucky enough to pretend it's all just an academic exercise. At the end of the lecture, he opened it up for questions and was gracious, if a bit dismissive, about my views on the unsettling rise of the radical Israeli right wing.
I fully admit that, for all of my academic energies devoted to Palestinian issues, I have a much deeper and much more immediate emotional reaction. I don't apologize for or regret this; witnessing injustice against real people is an emotional and not an academic experience. But I also recognize that my emotional reactions may not be as useful to those who are struggling with that injustice as some one else's more detached and rational response. It makes it difficult for me to listen to people like this professor make statements about his optimism for the peace process, so long as people let go of the "irrational" idea of a right of return. I've been to Dheisheh refugee camp and seen the way that refugee status still affects the day to day lives of my friends who grew up there. The idea that they have no claim to the homes their ancestors were forced out of, that their future aspirations can be swept aside and dismissed as irrational gives me a visceral reaction to the callousness of this detachment.
I also have to constantly question my role in all of this. Can I help, at all? I have to question how much of my desire to work in Palestine is fulfilling a selfish need to belong and feel useful, and how much is actually a desire to be part of the solution, an honest desire to fight injustice. Do I have the skills necessary? Is it enough just to bear witness, or do I have a responsibility to do more? I ask myself these things every day, as I discuss, explain, argue or learn more. And I don't have any answers; continuing the peace talks without a settlement freeze seems like political suicide for Abbas. A unilateral bid for recognition from the UN seems like it would lead to war. Discussing a one-state solution is tantamount to anti-semitism in modern American discourse, and even mentioning the role that Hamas might play in the peace process is enough to undermine one's credibility with so-called moderates from Israel and America.
I can't discuss these options without thinking about the tangible, personal way they will affect Palestinian people. Maybe that makes me a poor academic. I think that losing sight of the human cost of political decisions costs us our humanity, and I would rather keep mine than perfect a more dispassionate debate style. I think that the academic and political spheres need more compassion and more empathy, not less. Even if it makes certain lectures more difficult to sit through, and certain articles more difficult to read. That difficulty is nothing compared to the struggle of actually living with the bleak reality of the facts on the ground. You're well-known for your calm, cool approach to heated situations. I appreciate this about you, even if it at times frustrates me. I'm certain that, no matter how cool your exterior reactions may seem, these issues must affect you on an emotional level as well. Do you feel like the sheer number of problems around the world, the overwhelming amount of suffering causes you to become desensitized to it all? Or do you keep your emotions in check in order to keep every one else calmer?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
A few days ago my class was visited by an Israeli guest lecturer. I tried to go in with an open mind, especially because I knew the professor places a huge importance on human rights and is sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle for self-determination. Throughout the lecture, I found myself getting angrier and angrier. His attempts at objectivity were so obviously colored with the comfortable, academic detachment that I find so frustrating. Reducing events and issues that represent tangible suffering, blood, death and disenfranchisement to abstractions might lead to calmer discourse, but it doesn't do justice to the people not lucky enough to pretend it's all just an academic exercise. At the end of the lecture, he opened it up for questions and was gracious, if a bit dismissive, about my views on the unsettling rise of the radical Israeli right wing.
I fully admit that, for all of my academic energies devoted to Palestinian issues, I have a much deeper and much more immediate emotional reaction. I don't apologize for or regret this; witnessing injustice against real people is an emotional and not an academic experience. But I also recognize that my emotional reactions may not be as useful to those who are struggling with that injustice as some one else's more detached and rational response. It makes it difficult for me to listen to people like this professor make statements about his optimism for the peace process, so long as people let go of the "irrational" idea of a right of return. I've been to Dheisheh refugee camp and seen the way that refugee status still affects the day to day lives of my friends who grew up there. The idea that they have no claim to the homes their ancestors were forced out of, that their future aspirations can be swept aside and dismissed as irrational gives me a visceral reaction to the callousness of this detachment.
I also have to constantly question my role in all of this. Can I help, at all? I have to question how much of my desire to work in Palestine is fulfilling a selfish need to belong and feel useful, and how much is actually a desire to be part of the solution, an honest desire to fight injustice. Do I have the skills necessary? Is it enough just to bear witness, or do I have a responsibility to do more? I ask myself these things every day, as I discuss, explain, argue or learn more. And I don't have any answers; continuing the peace talks without a settlement freeze seems like political suicide for Abbas. A unilateral bid for recognition from the UN seems like it would lead to war. Discussing a one-state solution is tantamount to anti-semitism in modern American discourse, and even mentioning the role that Hamas might play in the peace process is enough to undermine one's credibility with so-called moderates from Israel and America.
I can't discuss these options without thinking about the tangible, personal way they will affect Palestinian people. Maybe that makes me a poor academic. I think that losing sight of the human cost of political decisions costs us our humanity, and I would rather keep mine than perfect a more dispassionate debate style. I think that the academic and political spheres need more compassion and more empathy, not less. Even if it makes certain lectures more difficult to sit through, and certain articles more difficult to read. That difficulty is nothing compared to the struggle of actually living with the bleak reality of the facts on the ground. You're well-known for your calm, cool approach to heated situations. I appreciate this about you, even if it at times frustrates me. I'm certain that, no matter how cool your exterior reactions may seem, these issues must affect you on an emotional level as well. Do you feel like the sheer number of problems around the world, the overwhelming amount of suffering causes you to become desensitized to it all? Or do you keep your emotions in check in order to keep every one else calmer?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Day 297- Israel and the rest of the world
Dear Mr. President,
Eric Cantor has proposed separating US aid to Israel from the rest of the foreign ops budget. Israel already receives an obscene amount of aid, especially in comparison to the rest of the world, and Cantor's proposal is clearly an attempt to safeguard that funding while Republicans seek to cut or abolish aid to other countries all together. Funding a wealthy country's brutal occupation (and insulating the taxpayers of Israel from the true costs of their government's policies) is clearly a high enough priority that Cantor and other Republicans have realized they can't go after foreign aid without safeguarding Israeli aid.
Your administration has already promised $3 billion a year to Israel in aid- a decision I have objected to often enough to accept that we're never going to see eye to eye. However, I believe that you, like me, want to see the aid we send to other countries for agriculture, infrastructure, health and education projects increased, or, at the very least, maintained. If Cantor is successful at disentangling the Israeli aid from the rest of the foreign ops budget there will be nothing to stop Republicans who would see it cut. Foreign aid represents about 1% of our budget and places us well below most developed nations in terms of the amount spent as a percentage of GDP. Jeopardizing this funding further by distancing it from the most politically acceptable segment of our foreign ops budget will not improve America's image abroad, it won't help us to reach the millenium development goals and it absolutely will not make American's safer. As much as it disgusts me to admit this, the stigma against backing off on our support for Israel does help protect the rest of the foreign ops budget. And while I have no problem admitting that I would be happy to see our aid to Israel reduced and even outright suspended, I do not wish to see the rest of the foreign aid money affected.
I think that there are a number of improvements that might be made to the amount of money we spend on projects abroad, and the way that money is spent. Given that my own views are so far outside of the mainstream, I don't expect, realistically, to ever see them in practice. And so expediency compels me to compromise. If we must continue spending $3 billion a year funding Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, we should at least also continue funding the education, infrastructure and health projects in developing countries around the world, as well. Dividing the appropriations imperils the funds that would go to nations unable to lobby congress as effectively as Israel. I hope that you do all you can to see that Cantor's proposal does not go into effect.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Eric Cantor has proposed separating US aid to Israel from the rest of the foreign ops budget. Israel already receives an obscene amount of aid, especially in comparison to the rest of the world, and Cantor's proposal is clearly an attempt to safeguard that funding while Republicans seek to cut or abolish aid to other countries all together. Funding a wealthy country's brutal occupation (and insulating the taxpayers of Israel from the true costs of their government's policies) is clearly a high enough priority that Cantor and other Republicans have realized they can't go after foreign aid without safeguarding Israeli aid.
Your administration has already promised $3 billion a year to Israel in aid- a decision I have objected to often enough to accept that we're never going to see eye to eye. However, I believe that you, like me, want to see the aid we send to other countries for agriculture, infrastructure, health and education projects increased, or, at the very least, maintained. If Cantor is successful at disentangling the Israeli aid from the rest of the foreign ops budget there will be nothing to stop Republicans who would see it cut. Foreign aid represents about 1% of our budget and places us well below most developed nations in terms of the amount spent as a percentage of GDP. Jeopardizing this funding further by distancing it from the most politically acceptable segment of our foreign ops budget will not improve America's image abroad, it won't help us to reach the millenium development goals and it absolutely will not make American's safer. As much as it disgusts me to admit this, the stigma against backing off on our support for Israel does help protect the rest of the foreign ops budget. And while I have no problem admitting that I would be happy to see our aid to Israel reduced and even outright suspended, I do not wish to see the rest of the foreign aid money affected.
I think that there are a number of improvements that might be made to the amount of money we spend on projects abroad, and the way that money is spent. Given that my own views are so far outside of the mainstream, I don't expect, realistically, to ever see them in practice. And so expediency compels me to compromise. If we must continue spending $3 billion a year funding Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, we should at least also continue funding the education, infrastructure and health projects in developing countries around the world, as well. Dividing the appropriations imperils the funds that would go to nations unable to lobby congress as effectively as Israel. I hope that you do all you can to see that Cantor's proposal does not go into effect.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Day 293- Hypothetical questions
Dear Mr. President,
You're speaking at my school tomorrow. I don't think you'll be taking any questions from the audience, and, if you are, it is unlikely that I'll be lucky enough to ask one. Still, I thought it might be useful to pose a few, even if they are about as practical as shouting into the darkness and waiting for a response more coherent than another spinning echo.
Mr. President, you say that the Republican partisan minority is holding up the legislative process through the filibuster, when not a single filibuster has been staged during the legislative session. Why have you not directed Democratic leadership to force the Republicans to follow through on their threats and given the American people a clear demonstration of who is responsible for the hold ups?
Mr. President, your political opponents seem determined to paint you as anti-Israeli no matter what you do. If nothing will please them, why not take an actual stand against the brutality and injustice perpetrated by the Netanyahu government? You could increase our credibility as an honest broker in the peace talks and make a stand against human right violations, a seeming win-win, considering the political capital is going to be spent either way. So why not change the tactic that hasn't worked for any past American President trying to help create peace?
Mr. President, you've made the convincing argument that allowing Republican's control of the legislative branch will return our country to the disastrous policies of the bush era. While this "lesser of two evils" tactic might convince a few independents, why have you risked alienating the liberal base of the democratic party by dismissing our legitimate complaints about policy compromises that represent real hardship for real people as "griping and groaning"?
Mr. President, when Republicans lost control of congress and the White House in 2006 and 2008, the party soul-searching that followed led to a dramatic return to the angriest voices of their far-right base, the Tea Party. If liberal Democrats want our elected officials to stand up for our beliefs and interests, will it take the same kind of losses in November and in 2012?
Mr. President, the wars in Iraq, (in all but name,) and Afghanistan continue. Guantanamo bay remains open. How can America lead the world toward peace and a greater respect for human rights while we continue these immoral (and, I would argue, strategically failed) efforts?
Mr. President, at a town hall meeting not long ago, you were told by a woman that she was tired of trying to defend you to those who had lost their faith in you. I, too, am tired of being disappointed and tired of being ignored. I believe that your job is more difficult than any one in this room can possibly fathom, and I am certain you are even more tired and even less prone to complain about it. I will continue defending you, sir, I have not lost my faith. Thank you for all that you've done for our country, and please, don't confuse my constant (and continuing) criticism of your policy for cynicism, apathy, or betrayal. I still have hope that you can do better, that you have the right idea, and that you need a supportive, open-minded and informed electorate. So I guess I don't have a questions as much as I want to say that as disappointed as I am in you, I'm way more disappointed in the rest of us.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
You're speaking at my school tomorrow. I don't think you'll be taking any questions from the audience, and, if you are, it is unlikely that I'll be lucky enough to ask one. Still, I thought it might be useful to pose a few, even if they are about as practical as shouting into the darkness and waiting for a response more coherent than another spinning echo.
Mr. President, you say that the Republican partisan minority is holding up the legislative process through the filibuster, when not a single filibuster has been staged during the legislative session. Why have you not directed Democratic leadership to force the Republicans to follow through on their threats and given the American people a clear demonstration of who is responsible for the hold ups?
Mr. President, your political opponents seem determined to paint you as anti-Israeli no matter what you do. If nothing will please them, why not take an actual stand against the brutality and injustice perpetrated by the Netanyahu government? You could increase our credibility as an honest broker in the peace talks and make a stand against human right violations, a seeming win-win, considering the political capital is going to be spent either way. So why not change the tactic that hasn't worked for any past American President trying to help create peace?
Mr. President, you've made the convincing argument that allowing Republican's control of the legislative branch will return our country to the disastrous policies of the bush era. While this "lesser of two evils" tactic might convince a few independents, why have you risked alienating the liberal base of the democratic party by dismissing our legitimate complaints about policy compromises that represent real hardship for real people as "griping and groaning"?
Mr. President, when Republicans lost control of congress and the White House in 2006 and 2008, the party soul-searching that followed led to a dramatic return to the angriest voices of their far-right base, the Tea Party. If liberal Democrats want our elected officials to stand up for our beliefs and interests, will it take the same kind of losses in November and in 2012?
Mr. President, the wars in Iraq, (in all but name,) and Afghanistan continue. Guantanamo bay remains open. How can America lead the world toward peace and a greater respect for human rights while we continue these immoral (and, I would argue, strategically failed) efforts?
Mr. President, at a town hall meeting not long ago, you were told by a woman that she was tired of trying to defend you to those who had lost their faith in you. I, too, am tired of being disappointed and tired of being ignored. I believe that your job is more difficult than any one in this room can possibly fathom, and I am certain you are even more tired and even less prone to complain about it. I will continue defending you, sir, I have not lost my faith. Thank you for all that you've done for our country, and please, don't confuse my constant (and continuing) criticism of your policy for cynicism, apathy, or betrayal. I still have hope that you can do better, that you have the right idea, and that you need a supportive, open-minded and informed electorate. So I guess I don't have a questions as much as I want to say that as disappointed as I am in you, I'm way more disappointed in the rest of us.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Day 285- Water
Dear Mr. President,
Tonight I'm writing a paper on the inequality of water access for Palestinians as compared to illegal Israeli West Bank settlers. Papers like this are difficult to write, because I've seen the inequality I'm writing about, I've seen the suffering that results from it, and the nature of the assignment requires that I write in dispassionate abstract terms. I want to write about the disbelief I felt when I realized that water doesn't always come out when a faucet is turned on during dry summer months. The way we walked through the July heat and the settlements loomed above us from the hilltops. The contrast between their swimming pools and irrigated orchards and the dry land. I can write about the disparity in water consumption and the unfairness of consistent availability and subsidized rates enjoyed by settlers, but it doesn't feel personal enough.
Water is incredibly easy to take for granted, growing up the Pacific Northwest. More than enough of it falls from the sky. Even more flows from the mountains and still more waits just underground. It is always green here, I am always able to take long, hot showers and I have never once had water shut off because there just wasn't enough. In Palestine, I felt like I was waiting for weeks, expecting rain that would never come. While I was away, Seattle had it's own hottest, driest summer weeks, but the green trees, the lush gardens and the car washes never suffered the want of a single drop. On the fourth of July a woman not much older than me spent all afternoon bringing up water from her well and heating it so that I and the other girls I walked with could wash once we arrived at her home that evening.
How do I explain that in an academic paper? How do you explain it? When you ask representatives of these two peoples to come together and talk about peace, do you ever consider that one side lives on 70% of the WHO's estimate for basic water needs, while the other lives on 300%? Do you ever consider that, in 27 years, Israel had granted permits for only 16 new Palestinian wells, a number that doesn't even begin to keep pace with the number rendered useless by drought in that same time, let alone the increasing demand of a growing population?
International affairs are complicated. The nuances of peace negotiations are surely more complicated than some one like me can appreciate. But water is simple. Water is basic, a necessary component of survival, health and economic stability. Access to water is something that no one should be denied because of their race, religion or nation of origin. Palestinians are already kept off of 60% of the West Bank controlled by the IDF because of settlements, settler roads, or military zones, specifically because of their status as non-Jews. That their access to water resources is similarly (and in fact, more dramatically) curtailed makes Israeli apartheid practices even more offensive.
I'm going to try to distance myself enough to write this paper without emotion. But I can't help feeling deeply ashamed of my own lifestyle, as I do so. Americans consume water at a rate unmatched in the rest of the world, and we do so as we support the denial of even basic water access to others. Some days I feel so incredibly hopeless, I just don't know where to even begin working toward making it better.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tonight I'm writing a paper on the inequality of water access for Palestinians as compared to illegal Israeli West Bank settlers. Papers like this are difficult to write, because I've seen the inequality I'm writing about, I've seen the suffering that results from it, and the nature of the assignment requires that I write in dispassionate abstract terms. I want to write about the disbelief I felt when I realized that water doesn't always come out when a faucet is turned on during dry summer months. The way we walked through the July heat and the settlements loomed above us from the hilltops. The contrast between their swimming pools and irrigated orchards and the dry land. I can write about the disparity in water consumption and the unfairness of consistent availability and subsidized rates enjoyed by settlers, but it doesn't feel personal enough.
Water is incredibly easy to take for granted, growing up the Pacific Northwest. More than enough of it falls from the sky. Even more flows from the mountains and still more waits just underground. It is always green here, I am always able to take long, hot showers and I have never once had water shut off because there just wasn't enough. In Palestine, I felt like I was waiting for weeks, expecting rain that would never come. While I was away, Seattle had it's own hottest, driest summer weeks, but the green trees, the lush gardens and the car washes never suffered the want of a single drop. On the fourth of July a woman not much older than me spent all afternoon bringing up water from her well and heating it so that I and the other girls I walked with could wash once we arrived at her home that evening.
How do I explain that in an academic paper? How do you explain it? When you ask representatives of these two peoples to come together and talk about peace, do you ever consider that one side lives on 70% of the WHO's estimate for basic water needs, while the other lives on 300%? Do you ever consider that, in 27 years, Israel had granted permits for only 16 new Palestinian wells, a number that doesn't even begin to keep pace with the number rendered useless by drought in that same time, let alone the increasing demand of a growing population?
International affairs are complicated. The nuances of peace negotiations are surely more complicated than some one like me can appreciate. But water is simple. Water is basic, a necessary component of survival, health and economic stability. Access to water is something that no one should be denied because of their race, religion or nation of origin. Palestinians are already kept off of 60% of the West Bank controlled by the IDF because of settlements, settler roads, or military zones, specifically because of their status as non-Jews. That their access to water resources is similarly (and in fact, more dramatically) curtailed makes Israeli apartheid practices even more offensive.
I'm going to try to distance myself enough to write this paper without emotion. But I can't help feeling deeply ashamed of my own lifestyle, as I do so. Americans consume water at a rate unmatched in the rest of the world, and we do so as we support the denial of even basic water access to others. Some days I feel so incredibly hopeless, I just don't know where to even begin working toward making it better.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, October 4, 2010
Day 277- Why the peace talks will not continue
"President Barack Obama rises at the UN and calls for a further moratorium on building in the settlements, as if it’s a crime for peaceful people to have children and add rooms to warm and hospitable homes." Shmuley Boteach, Jerusalem Post
I'd like to know if the peaceful people of East Jerusalem having their houses bulldozed are entitled to these things? Or the Bedouins? Settlement expansion is part of the same manifest-destiny mentality that makes people like Mr. Boteach feel entitled to the entire West Bank. And I wouldn't call this an act of peace.
Dear Mr. President,
Rumor has it you've been writing your own letters lately. I don't know if this account is true or not, but I do believe that you are desperate enough to continue the peace talks that you would make the offer you're rumored to have made to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Increasing our aid money, our weapon sales, our UN-veto frequency in exchange for a 2-month extension on the settlement freeze might seem like a good deal. Let's be honest, the US was going to veto those resolutions, sell those weapons and send that money anyway. I'm sure you still will, and so is Netanyahu, which is why he rejected your offer. I suppose in this sense you had nothing to lose by making it.
But the nature of your offer to Netanyahu highlight the utter foolishness of our policy toward Israel. Unconditional veto of UN resolutions? What does that say about our respect for the UN, the Security Council, or the process of seeking international justice? That no matter what Israel does, the US will use our veto to defend it. I suppose I was foolish to think that your administration had more respect for the UN than the previous one, but it really is disappointing to see how little you care for the institution and its purpose. Your alleged offer makes it clear that Israel may commit whatever human rights violations it sees fit and count on US support. Just like your reaction to the Mavi Marmara. Or the Goldstone Report. Or the Gaza war. Just like your complete lack of outrage over the cold-blooded murder of Palestinian children by Israeli troops. Your policies make it impossible to defend your administration against those on the left who wonder what the point of voting is, any more.
So the settlements will expand. The peace talks will break down. You can't ask President Abbas to abandon his already fragile legitimacy for peace talks that Israel has done nothing to indicate sincerity about. I am sorry, if not surprised. This is why it doesn't matter if you really made that offer to Netanyahu or not. The US cannot continue to pretend to play an honest broker while being this cozily in bed with one side of these negotiations. If you are serious about peace, if you want to earn your Nobel or secure your legacy or if you honestly want to ease the suffering on both sides of this conflict and leave the world a little safer for Sasha and Malia than you have to cease the charade of neutrality. The US can be neutral, it can be an honest broker and can lead both sides to a just and peaceful future. But it has to be more than just lip-service. We have to end the funding of Israel's occupation forces and insist that the Israeli people pay the bill themselves. We have to end our unconditional defense of Israel to the world and base our positions on the values of the United States of America- respect for human life, human rights, and for international law. We have to stop selling weapons to a regime that targets civilians and stop giving tax breaks to us groups funding illegal settlements. If we can practice real neutrality, we can achieve real peace.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I'd like to know if the peaceful people of East Jerusalem having their houses bulldozed are entitled to these things? Or the Bedouins? Settlement expansion is part of the same manifest-destiny mentality that makes people like Mr. Boteach feel entitled to the entire West Bank. And I wouldn't call this an act of peace.
Dear Mr. President,
Rumor has it you've been writing your own letters lately. I don't know if this account is true or not, but I do believe that you are desperate enough to continue the peace talks that you would make the offer you're rumored to have made to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Increasing our aid money, our weapon sales, our UN-veto frequency in exchange for a 2-month extension on the settlement freeze might seem like a good deal. Let's be honest, the US was going to veto those resolutions, sell those weapons and send that money anyway. I'm sure you still will, and so is Netanyahu, which is why he rejected your offer. I suppose in this sense you had nothing to lose by making it.
But the nature of your offer to Netanyahu highlight the utter foolishness of our policy toward Israel. Unconditional veto of UN resolutions? What does that say about our respect for the UN, the Security Council, or the process of seeking international justice? That no matter what Israel does, the US will use our veto to defend it. I suppose I was foolish to think that your administration had more respect for the UN than the previous one, but it really is disappointing to see how little you care for the institution and its purpose. Your alleged offer makes it clear that Israel may commit whatever human rights violations it sees fit and count on US support. Just like your reaction to the Mavi Marmara. Or the Goldstone Report. Or the Gaza war. Just like your complete lack of outrage over the cold-blooded murder of Palestinian children by Israeli troops. Your policies make it impossible to defend your administration against those on the left who wonder what the point of voting is, any more.
So the settlements will expand. The peace talks will break down. You can't ask President Abbas to abandon his already fragile legitimacy for peace talks that Israel has done nothing to indicate sincerity about. I am sorry, if not surprised. This is why it doesn't matter if you really made that offer to Netanyahu or not. The US cannot continue to pretend to play an honest broker while being this cozily in bed with one side of these negotiations. If you are serious about peace, if you want to earn your Nobel or secure your legacy or if you honestly want to ease the suffering on both sides of this conflict and leave the world a little safer for Sasha and Malia than you have to cease the charade of neutrality. The US can be neutral, it can be an honest broker and can lead both sides to a just and peaceful future. But it has to be more than just lip-service. We have to end the funding of Israel's occupation forces and insist that the Israeli people pay the bill themselves. We have to end our unconditional defense of Israel to the world and base our positions on the values of the United States of America- respect for human life, human rights, and for international law. We have to stop selling weapons to a regime that targets civilians and stop giving tax breaks to us groups funding illegal settlements. If we can practice real neutrality, we can achieve real peace.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Day 271- Jimmy Carter
Dear Mr. President,
I've been a particular fan of former President Carter since he wrote his book Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid. His courage in speaking frankly about human rights abuses so many other American leaders are happy to ignore impressed me. When I heard today that he'd taken ill, I was worried, but it sounds as though his book tour will resume. I'm glad that he's healthy enough to continue, especially because his tour include as stop at my own bookstore, on a night I work. While the events staff have hinted that making a "Jimmy Carter's #1 fan 4 life" T-shirt might not exactly convey the appropriate level of decorum, I will be nonetheless enthusiastic for the President's visit.
Other news today has reminded me why President Carter's willingness to speak out about the oppression of the Palestinian people is so important. The results of the autopsy of Furkan Dogan, the Turkish-American boy who was executed by Israeli soldiers on the Mavi Marmara reveal that he was fatally shot in the face while already lying down and wounded. It's heartbreaking evidence of the violent way Israel's government is willing to respond to the threat posed by humanitarian activists. I'm sure your administration has seen the forensics report, and the findings of the UN mission. I hope that you find the courage President Carter has displayed, and call out these continued human rights violations for what they really are.
Tonight my thoughts are with President Carter, wishing him a speedy recovery, and also with you, in the hopes that you do not lose sight of what is really important.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I've been a particular fan of former President Carter since he wrote his book Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid. His courage in speaking frankly about human rights abuses so many other American leaders are happy to ignore impressed me. When I heard today that he'd taken ill, I was worried, but it sounds as though his book tour will resume. I'm glad that he's healthy enough to continue, especially because his tour include as stop at my own bookstore, on a night I work. While the events staff have hinted that making a "Jimmy Carter's #1 fan 4 life" T-shirt might not exactly convey the appropriate level of decorum, I will be nonetheless enthusiastic for the President's visit.
Other news today has reminded me why President Carter's willingness to speak out about the oppression of the Palestinian people is so important. The results of the autopsy of Furkan Dogan, the Turkish-American boy who was executed by Israeli soldiers on the Mavi Marmara reveal that he was fatally shot in the face while already lying down and wounded. It's heartbreaking evidence of the violent way Israel's government is willing to respond to the threat posed by humanitarian activists. I'm sure your administration has seen the forensics report, and the findings of the UN mission. I hope that you find the courage President Carter has displayed, and call out these continued human rights violations for what they really are.
Tonight my thoughts are with President Carter, wishing him a speedy recovery, and also with you, in the hopes that you do not lose sight of what is really important.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Day 268- BDS? Droid Does.
Dear Mr. President,
I got a smartphone because it seemed like a good idea at the time. After owning it for a few weeks, I realized that my already troubling addiction to the internet was getting completely out of hand. I still haven't figured out a reasonable balance, or summoned the self-restraint to limit my usage. Despite my mixed feelings about this technology, I had to smile when I saw the story of the Israeli bloggers against illegal settlements who developed an app to let consumers find out if their purchases come from West Bank settlements.
President Abbas has already warned Israel that the negotiations will fall apart without the continuation of the settlement freeze. These Israeli bloggers are acting responsibly to demonstrate their objection to these illegal settlements by changing the way they spend their money (and by helping others to do the same.) I think a theme of my political philosophy, almost surely lifted shamelessly from your own writing, is that the way we spend our money reflects our values as individuals and as a society. The BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) campaign against the Israeli occupation is an effective, non-violent strategy for expressing opposition to injustice. These same settlements are officially opposed by your administration. Economic sanctions have been used by the US to nonviolently oppose the human rights abuses of unjust regimes around the world. The US should officially adopt a policy making it illegal to import or purchase goods produced by Israeli West Bank settlements, or to provide material support to these settlements which are illegal under international law and a major roadblock to our stated foreign policy goal of a viable, sustainable peace between Palestinians and Israelis.
I was pretty reluctant to type that last sentence. Not because I don't believe it. Not because I don't think you already know it's the right thing to do. I think that if we are serious about our foreign policy goals we ought to write laws and spend our money in a way that reflects this. My reluctance comes from my general preference to leave that choice up to the consumer. I don't enjoy being told where I can and cannot spend my own money, and it isn't something I'd want to impose upon another person, no matter how convinced I am of the necessity of such an imposition. Unfortunately, the difficulty faced by the average consumer trying to determine the origins of their purchases is significant enough to prevent all but the most conscientious from doing so. Official policy is the only way to ensure that consumers are aware of what they are buying and what those purchases support. I call for such a policy without the faintest hope that the political will exists to implement it. Even encouraging consumers to makes this decision on their own would be an act of political suicide. But until your administration is prepared to do more than gently discourage settlement activity, it will continue and it will dismantle any hope of real peace for Palestinians and Israelis. For those of us who aren't willing to wait for our leaders to find the moral courage such a stand would require, well, at least now we've got an app for that.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I got a smartphone because it seemed like a good idea at the time. After owning it for a few weeks, I realized that my already troubling addiction to the internet was getting completely out of hand. I still haven't figured out a reasonable balance, or summoned the self-restraint to limit my usage. Despite my mixed feelings about this technology, I had to smile when I saw the story of the Israeli bloggers against illegal settlements who developed an app to let consumers find out if their purchases come from West Bank settlements.
President Abbas has already warned Israel that the negotiations will fall apart without the continuation of the settlement freeze. These Israeli bloggers are acting responsibly to demonstrate their objection to these illegal settlements by changing the way they spend their money (and by helping others to do the same.) I think a theme of my political philosophy, almost surely lifted shamelessly from your own writing, is that the way we spend our money reflects our values as individuals and as a society. The BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) campaign against the Israeli occupation is an effective, non-violent strategy for expressing opposition to injustice. These same settlements are officially opposed by your administration. Economic sanctions have been used by the US to nonviolently oppose the human rights abuses of unjust regimes around the world. The US should officially adopt a policy making it illegal to import or purchase goods produced by Israeli West Bank settlements, or to provide material support to these settlements which are illegal under international law and a major roadblock to our stated foreign policy goal of a viable, sustainable peace between Palestinians and Israelis.
I was pretty reluctant to type that last sentence. Not because I don't believe it. Not because I don't think you already know it's the right thing to do. I think that if we are serious about our foreign policy goals we ought to write laws and spend our money in a way that reflects this. My reluctance comes from my general preference to leave that choice up to the consumer. I don't enjoy being told where I can and cannot spend my own money, and it isn't something I'd want to impose upon another person, no matter how convinced I am of the necessity of such an imposition. Unfortunately, the difficulty faced by the average consumer trying to determine the origins of their purchases is significant enough to prevent all but the most conscientious from doing so. Official policy is the only way to ensure that consumers are aware of what they are buying and what those purchases support. I call for such a policy without the faintest hope that the political will exists to implement it. Even encouraging consumers to makes this decision on their own would be an act of political suicide. But until your administration is prepared to do more than gently discourage settlement activity, it will continue and it will dismantle any hope of real peace for Palestinians and Israelis. For those of us who aren't willing to wait for our leaders to find the moral courage such a stand would require, well, at least now we've got an app for that.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, September 24, 2010
Day 267- Trust
Dear Mr. President,
Your speech to the UN general assembly about the prospect of peace between Palestine and Israel was difficult to hear, even as it was unsurprising. The way you glossed over any mention of violence by Israel against Palestinians demonstrated to any one listening that the United States continues to turn a blind eye to the very real suffering Israel has inflicted. It is so insulting to refuse even to acknowledge the needless loss of life and senseless destruction of Israel's occupation while using the most manipulative imagery possible to condemn the rockets fired from Gaza. ("This time, we will think not of ourselves, but of the young girl in Gaza who wants to have no ceiling on her dreams, or the young boy in Sderot who wants to sleep without the nightmare of rocket fire.") You perpetuate the idea that Palestinians might be oppressed, but Israelis live in constant fear of their lives- conveniently ignoring the inarguable fact that dramatically more Palestinians die at the hands of the Israeli military than Israelis are killed by Hamas. To allow that disparity to go unacknowledged while condemning Palestinian violence is the kind of gross misrepresentation of reality that I usually expect from FOX news.
While I admire your optimism in believing that the peace talks should continue even if the settlement freeze is allowed to expire, I don't see how you can reasonably ask the Palestinians to accept this. These peace talks are based on the idea that each side can trust their enemy to hold to its promises, to keep its word. That kind of trust is the only way any agreement will be reached or any lasting peace could ever be established. Stepping up construction on illegal settlements in territory that any reasonable final agreement will have to belong to the Palestinian state is the ultimate confirmation of the Palestinian's fears that Israel's appetite for land will never allow them a state of their own. (I say stepping up and not resuming because the settlement freeze has only slowed construction and never actually stopped it.) The Palestinians have, for six decades, watched their land erode to Israeli control. They have seen it taken by military force, by racist and unjust laws, by the construction of the apartheid wall. They have seen their neighbors and their children shot for harvesting crops on their own land. They have seen their water supplies dwindle to water Israeli crops. They have seen roads diverted around settlements that certain races are not allowed to drive on. They have been choked off from relatives living on the wrong side of arbitrary lines or with ID cards of the wrong color. They have had attempts at commerce and education foiled by checkpoints and blockades. It is a miracle that the current Palestinian leadership has summoned the good faith to talk, to suspend disbelief and allow for the hope that the land they have now might remain in Palestinian control. Allowing settlement construction to continue is a testament by the Israeli government that it has no interest in peace. That it has no intention of allowing the Palestinians their own state. It is a betrayal of trust these negotiations will not recover from.
You may ask all you wish for the talks to continue even if the freeze expires. It will come to nothing. You are likely using every diplomatic tool in your repertoire to try and convince the Netanyahu administration to extend the freeze as an act of goodwill. As Israel's closest ally and largest provider of military aid, our influence ought to be enough to accomplish this. I think, however, so long as you continue to demonstrate that we will not be practically tough on our ally, that we are not willing to revoke the military aid and to do more than verbally admonish their worst acts, Israel has no incentive to take the US or the peace talks seriously. I was a skeptic from the beginning about these talks, but you have asked us to hope. You asked us to trust that these men negotiating are serious about peace because they see it is their moral obligation and in the interest of their people. Trusting words is difficult in the best of circumstance, but trusting those words in the face of actions and policies that directly contradict them is downright foolishness. Israel must demonstrate a willingness to give up many of these settlements, that they can be trusted to obey international law and the terms of any future agreement. Expanding settlement construction now will only prove that the trust of the Palestinian people was in vain.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Your speech to the UN general assembly about the prospect of peace between Palestine and Israel was difficult to hear, even as it was unsurprising. The way you glossed over any mention of violence by Israel against Palestinians demonstrated to any one listening that the United States continues to turn a blind eye to the very real suffering Israel has inflicted. It is so insulting to refuse even to acknowledge the needless loss of life and senseless destruction of Israel's occupation while using the most manipulative imagery possible to condemn the rockets fired from Gaza. ("This time, we will think not of ourselves, but of the young girl in Gaza who wants to have no ceiling on her dreams, or the young boy in Sderot who wants to sleep without the nightmare of rocket fire.") You perpetuate the idea that Palestinians might be oppressed, but Israelis live in constant fear of their lives- conveniently ignoring the inarguable fact that dramatically more Palestinians die at the hands of the Israeli military than Israelis are killed by Hamas. To allow that disparity to go unacknowledged while condemning Palestinian violence is the kind of gross misrepresentation of reality that I usually expect from FOX news.
While I admire your optimism in believing that the peace talks should continue even if the settlement freeze is allowed to expire, I don't see how you can reasonably ask the Palestinians to accept this. These peace talks are based on the idea that each side can trust their enemy to hold to its promises, to keep its word. That kind of trust is the only way any agreement will be reached or any lasting peace could ever be established. Stepping up construction on illegal settlements in territory that any reasonable final agreement will have to belong to the Palestinian state is the ultimate confirmation of the Palestinian's fears that Israel's appetite for land will never allow them a state of their own. (I say stepping up and not resuming because the settlement freeze has only slowed construction and never actually stopped it.) The Palestinians have, for six decades, watched their land erode to Israeli control. They have seen it taken by military force, by racist and unjust laws, by the construction of the apartheid wall. They have seen their neighbors and their children shot for harvesting crops on their own land. They have seen their water supplies dwindle to water Israeli crops. They have seen roads diverted around settlements that certain races are not allowed to drive on. They have been choked off from relatives living on the wrong side of arbitrary lines or with ID cards of the wrong color. They have had attempts at commerce and education foiled by checkpoints and blockades. It is a miracle that the current Palestinian leadership has summoned the good faith to talk, to suspend disbelief and allow for the hope that the land they have now might remain in Palestinian control. Allowing settlement construction to continue is a testament by the Israeli government that it has no interest in peace. That it has no intention of allowing the Palestinians their own state. It is a betrayal of trust these negotiations will not recover from.
You may ask all you wish for the talks to continue even if the freeze expires. It will come to nothing. You are likely using every diplomatic tool in your repertoire to try and convince the Netanyahu administration to extend the freeze as an act of goodwill. As Israel's closest ally and largest provider of military aid, our influence ought to be enough to accomplish this. I think, however, so long as you continue to demonstrate that we will not be practically tough on our ally, that we are not willing to revoke the military aid and to do more than verbally admonish their worst acts, Israel has no incentive to take the US or the peace talks seriously. I was a skeptic from the beginning about these talks, but you have asked us to hope. You asked us to trust that these men negotiating are serious about peace because they see it is their moral obligation and in the interest of their people. Trusting words is difficult in the best of circumstance, but trusting those words in the face of actions and policies that directly contradict them is downright foolishness. Israel must demonstrate a willingness to give up many of these settlements, that they can be trusted to obey international law and the terms of any future agreement. Expanding settlement construction now will only prove that the trust of the Palestinian people was in vain.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Day 266- 100 days
Update: It turns out due to an error earlier in the year this should actually be called "99 days" oh well. Live and learn, eh?
Dear Mr. President,
The measure of a presidency is often taken by the accomplishments of the first 100 days. I think this is silly. You've got to allow at least a few days to find all the light switches and figure out how to navigate the west wing, right? Not to mention all the the thanking people for their help getting you elected, the waiting for congress to remember that no one in the country knows who they are after election season ends, and, of course, the post-victory poll numbers can't be taken that seriously. But I have 100 days left to write to you this year, and I want to make my last 100 letters count. In 100 days, I want to think that my country will be different. I want to think it will be stronger, economically, and that the Bush-era tax cus will be allowed to expire. I want to think that it will be a freer, and more fair country, where gay and lesbian Americans will be allowed to openly serve in our military and marry whomever they please. I want to think that our image abroad will be improved by the closure of Guantanamo bay, the end of combat in Afghanistan, and that truly fair-minded American leadership in the Palestinian/Israeli peace talks will help create a stable, free and secure Palestinian state. We might also be a greener nation, with an end to harmful agricultural subsidies, a robust new energy policy and heavier federal investment in making our national infrastructure more environmentally friendly. Every single one of these things is possible in 100 days. (I may also wish for socialized health care and higher education, but I recognize those things can't happen in 100 days.) All of this can happen. And while my cynical, realistic side believes that none of these things will be accomplished in so little time, the part of me that still hopes for a better future believes that your next 100 days can be just as important and productive as your first 100 days, or the 100 days that will come after December 31st. And, while I have 100 letters left to write, you can bet that I'm going to bug your more than ever about every single one of these goals.
2010 has been kind of a rough year for you and your presidency. But it's got 100 days left, and that's plenty of time to turn things around and change the way this year and your administration is remembered by history. I hope you make them count.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
The measure of a presidency is often taken by the accomplishments of the first 100 days. I think this is silly. You've got to allow at least a few days to find all the light switches and figure out how to navigate the west wing, right? Not to mention all the the thanking people for their help getting you elected, the waiting for congress to remember that no one in the country knows who they are after election season ends, and, of course, the post-victory poll numbers can't be taken that seriously. But I have 100 days left to write to you this year, and I want to make my last 100 letters count. In 100 days, I want to think that my country will be different. I want to think it will be stronger, economically, and that the Bush-era tax cus will be allowed to expire. I want to think that it will be a freer, and more fair country, where gay and lesbian Americans will be allowed to openly serve in our military and marry whomever they please. I want to think that our image abroad will be improved by the closure of Guantanamo bay, the end of combat in Afghanistan, and that truly fair-minded American leadership in the Palestinian/Israeli peace talks will help create a stable, free and secure Palestinian state. We might also be a greener nation, with an end to harmful agricultural subsidies, a robust new energy policy and heavier federal investment in making our national infrastructure more environmentally friendly. Every single one of these things is possible in 100 days. (I may also wish for socialized health care and higher education, but I recognize those things can't happen in 100 days.) All of this can happen. And while my cynical, realistic side believes that none of these things will be accomplished in so little time, the part of me that still hopes for a better future believes that your next 100 days can be just as important and productive as your first 100 days, or the 100 days that will come after December 31st. And, while I have 100 letters left to write, you can bet that I'm going to bug your more than ever about every single one of these goals.
2010 has been kind of a rough year for you and your presidency. But it's got 100 days left, and that's plenty of time to turn things around and change the way this year and your administration is remembered by history. I hope you make them count.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, September 17, 2010
Day 260- SMART Grants, napkins and sea shores
Dear Mr. President,
Today has been a great day. First, I'd like to thank you for a bit of good news I received today. Instead of taking out the small subsidized loan I'd been offered this year, I've just been awarded a National SMART grant. This is incredibly reassuring. The loan I was planning to take out this year wasn't huge compared to my total debt, but I'm still happy to avoid borrowing at all. I know I am incredibly lucky to be given this grant, especially when so many other students in my situation are seeing their debt levels continue to rise dramatically. I'm so grateful for the help.
Also today, I received a letter from my friend serving in the Peace Corps. I miss hearing her voice and seeing her every day. I miss our pancake mondays, our walks around greenlake and our heated political discussions that usually devolved into a general discussion about how much we want to marry Jon Stewart. I love reading her letters and hearing the details of her life in Burkina Faso, but I think part of her letter to me was actually meant for you:
.jpg)
It says: "I stole you a napkin from the embassy =) There is a sweet picture of Obama hanging in the embassy. It makes me so happy to see it. I'm still proud he's our president."
I don't think I could say it any better.
The last thing that made today great was this story a friend sent me on facebook about Israeli women helping Palestinian women sneak across the border for illegal day trips to the beach. A quote from one of the brave Israeli women interviewed struck me as particularly moving. "We want more Israelis to realise that there is nothing to be scared of. We want more people to refuse to accept the ideology that keeps us apart – and to just refuse to be enemies."
There is nothing to be scared of. I refuse to accept divisive ideology. I refuse to be enemies.
These are powerful, wise words. And the simple act of taking these Palestinian women and their children to see the ocean shows how ordinary citizens can fight injustice through simple acts of kindness. I think maybe these women should replace Netanyahu and Abbas for the peace talks. Something tells me they'd make a lot more progress.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Today has been a great day. First, I'd like to thank you for a bit of good news I received today. Instead of taking out the small subsidized loan I'd been offered this year, I've just been awarded a National SMART grant. This is incredibly reassuring. The loan I was planning to take out this year wasn't huge compared to my total debt, but I'm still happy to avoid borrowing at all. I know I am incredibly lucky to be given this grant, especially when so many other students in my situation are seeing their debt levels continue to rise dramatically. I'm so grateful for the help.
Also today, I received a letter from my friend serving in the Peace Corps. I miss hearing her voice and seeing her every day. I miss our pancake mondays, our walks around greenlake and our heated political discussions that usually devolved into a general discussion about how much we want to marry Jon Stewart. I love reading her letters and hearing the details of her life in Burkina Faso, but I think part of her letter to me was actually meant for you:
.jpg)
It says: "I stole you a napkin from the embassy =) There is a sweet picture of Obama hanging in the embassy. It makes me so happy to see it. I'm still proud he's our president."
I don't think I could say it any better.
The last thing that made today great was this story a friend sent me on facebook about Israeli women helping Palestinian women sneak across the border for illegal day trips to the beach. A quote from one of the brave Israeli women interviewed struck me as particularly moving. "We want more Israelis to realise that there is nothing to be scared of. We want more people to refuse to accept the ideology that keeps us apart – and to just refuse to be enemies."
There is nothing to be scared of. I refuse to accept divisive ideology. I refuse to be enemies.
These are powerful, wise words. And the simple act of taking these Palestinian women and their children to see the ocean shows how ordinary citizens can fight injustice through simple acts of kindness. I think maybe these women should replace Netanyahu and Abbas for the peace talks. Something tells me they'd make a lot more progress.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Day 243- A patriot in opposition
“There were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq’s future.”
"In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation. Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar -- Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own. Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be travelling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead."
President Barack Obama 8/31/2010
Dear Mr. President,
I thought your speech tonight struck an appropriate and difficult tone. With talks between President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu coming up, I've read several articles praising your ambitious foreign policy goals, even as dismaying violence and hateful rhetoric keep cynics confident in their doubt. After so many years of being sold violent and short-sighted mistakes as the only way to protect ourselves, I can see why there is a reluctance to accept your words on face value. Is the war in Iraq really over? Did it just get a new name? Are the Israel/Palestine talks in good faith, or just more show? I don't feel confident enough to say for sure. Even your reference to American soldiers in the wars of our history, wars which you claim were fought "to see that the lives of our children are better than our own" unsettled me. How did the Vietnam war improve the lives of the next generation of American children? How will the war in Iraq?
There are unjust wars and our country has been involved in several. While I understand the nobility of the soldiers who fight for us, I grow tired of the men who send them to fight lying to them and to us about why they are fighting. The Iraq war is one of the most obvious modern examples of this. The hundreds of thousands dead in this war did not die so that their children would lead better lives; they died because men with enough power were blindly and violently desperate for more. While I respect that the world you inherited and the complex nature of your job requires that you see this conflict differently than I do, I wish that you had not been so quick to link waging of war to our survival as a nation.
I may never have children. If I do, I cannot accept that their wold will be improved through war. That more killing and violence and suffering and lies will make them safer or happier or more fulfilled. I want to believe that the goals you've laid out in Iraq and in Palestine are alternatives to the violence of previous Presidents. I want to believe that you have more than words of praise for the soldiers sent out to do the dirty work of empire. That instead of trying to convince us the death and ruin was for a nobel cause, you will first see that our soldiers are not sent out to kill and to die in vain. This is how I believe our country and the rest of the world will be best served by your Presidency. I don't yet know if I can trust you to this end, but I still have hope.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
"In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation. Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar -- Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own. Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be travelling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead."
President Barack Obama 8/31/2010
Dear Mr. President,
I thought your speech tonight struck an appropriate and difficult tone. With talks between President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu coming up, I've read several articles praising your ambitious foreign policy goals, even as dismaying violence and hateful rhetoric keep cynics confident in their doubt. After so many years of being sold violent and short-sighted mistakes as the only way to protect ourselves, I can see why there is a reluctance to accept your words on face value. Is the war in Iraq really over? Did it just get a new name? Are the Israel/Palestine talks in good faith, or just more show? I don't feel confident enough to say for sure. Even your reference to American soldiers in the wars of our history, wars which you claim were fought "to see that the lives of our children are better than our own" unsettled me. How did the Vietnam war improve the lives of the next generation of American children? How will the war in Iraq?
There are unjust wars and our country has been involved in several. While I understand the nobility of the soldiers who fight for us, I grow tired of the men who send them to fight lying to them and to us about why they are fighting. The Iraq war is one of the most obvious modern examples of this. The hundreds of thousands dead in this war did not die so that their children would lead better lives; they died because men with enough power were blindly and violently desperate for more. While I respect that the world you inherited and the complex nature of your job requires that you see this conflict differently than I do, I wish that you had not been so quick to link waging of war to our survival as a nation.
I may never have children. If I do, I cannot accept that their wold will be improved through war. That more killing and violence and suffering and lies will make them safer or happier or more fulfilled. I want to believe that the goals you've laid out in Iraq and in Palestine are alternatives to the violence of previous Presidents. I want to believe that you have more than words of praise for the soldiers sent out to do the dirty work of empire. That instead of trying to convince us the death and ruin was for a nobel cause, you will first see that our soldiers are not sent out to kill and to die in vain. This is how I believe our country and the rest of the world will be best served by your Presidency. I don't yet know if I can trust you to this end, but I still have hope.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Day 238- Talk
Dear Mr. President,
I talk too much. Ask any one who knows me. I talk out loud, I talk online, I talk in writing. I speak when I should be silent. I process things out loud in conversations with others. Even when there are no answers, even when I have no better option besides wait and see what happens, I will keep talking about things just to keep myself calm. What I mean to say is that in general I am a fan of talking. When it comes to countries talking, especially when talk is substituted for violence or oppression, I'm almost always going to think it's a good idea. I do think that direct talks between Israel and Palestine are necessary and that the steps taken by your administration recently are at least well-intentioned.
Still, I have to say that today's Op-ed from former ambassador Martin Indyk is way off of the mark. His forced optimism about upcoming negotiations is painfully evident in his biased and poorly reasoned argument. He cites as a reason for optimism the low number of Israeli deaths due to terrorism in the last two years, (eight), but neglects to mention the number of Palestinians killed at the hands of Israelis in the same time period, (1,497.) I can see why this information wouldn't fit into his roses and sunshine picture, but that he doesn't even mention the recent decrease in Palestinian deaths (which are down to about 100 since the end of Operation Cast Lead) as a factor is telling that he doesn't consider them to be as significant as the Israeli deaths. Indyk also declares "The demolition of Palestinian houses there is also down compared with recent years." without any supporting evidence or statistics to place such a statement in context. In 2010 about 232 homes have been demolished so far, though that number does not include the four Al-Araqib demolitions. (In case there is any confusion I don't mean 4 houses, I mean the entire Bedouin village has been demolished 4 times.) While that is a significant decrease from the more than 5,000 demolitions in 2009, I think the number is still large enough to make Mr. Indyk's readers uncomfortable with citing it as a hopeful indicator.
I don't want to sound this cynical, and I do hope that these talks find success, however unlikely it may seem. Talking to one another is the best option for all parties. Until the true power dynamics are discussed plainly, however, I fear these talks will be all for show. I think true indicators for optimism would be an end (not just a superficial easing) to the blockade of Gaza, withdrawal of the illegal settlements in Hebron and throughout the West Bank, and anything resembling a workable solution for the long-suffering populations of refugees still living in camps. Those would give me hope that talk might lead to peace. Instead, I think that this is all an elaborate performance designed to boost confidence in your administration's foreign policy and to allay Israeli concerns at their waning American support. I hope that I'm wrong. I hope that this time talk leads to actual change, but I've yet to see any signs to inspire real optimism.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I talk too much. Ask any one who knows me. I talk out loud, I talk online, I talk in writing. I speak when I should be silent. I process things out loud in conversations with others. Even when there are no answers, even when I have no better option besides wait and see what happens, I will keep talking about things just to keep myself calm. What I mean to say is that in general I am a fan of talking. When it comes to countries talking, especially when talk is substituted for violence or oppression, I'm almost always going to think it's a good idea. I do think that direct talks between Israel and Palestine are necessary and that the steps taken by your administration recently are at least well-intentioned.
Still, I have to say that today's Op-ed from former ambassador Martin Indyk is way off of the mark. His forced optimism about upcoming negotiations is painfully evident in his biased and poorly reasoned argument. He cites as a reason for optimism the low number of Israeli deaths due to terrorism in the last two years, (eight), but neglects to mention the number of Palestinians killed at the hands of Israelis in the same time period, (1,497.) I can see why this information wouldn't fit into his roses and sunshine picture, but that he doesn't even mention the recent decrease in Palestinian deaths (which are down to about 100 since the end of Operation Cast Lead) as a factor is telling that he doesn't consider them to be as significant as the Israeli deaths. Indyk also declares "The demolition of Palestinian houses there is also down compared with recent years." without any supporting evidence or statistics to place such a statement in context. In 2010 about 232 homes have been demolished so far, though that number does not include the four Al-Araqib demolitions. (In case there is any confusion I don't mean 4 houses, I mean the entire Bedouin village has been demolished 4 times.) While that is a significant decrease from the more than 5,000 demolitions in 2009, I think the number is still large enough to make Mr. Indyk's readers uncomfortable with citing it as a hopeful indicator.
I don't want to sound this cynical, and I do hope that these talks find success, however unlikely it may seem. Talking to one another is the best option for all parties. Until the true power dynamics are discussed plainly, however, I fear these talks will be all for show. I think true indicators for optimism would be an end (not just a superficial easing) to the blockade of Gaza, withdrawal of the illegal settlements in Hebron and throughout the West Bank, and anything resembling a workable solution for the long-suffering populations of refugees still living in camps. Those would give me hope that talk might lead to peace. Instead, I think that this is all an elaborate performance designed to boost confidence in your administration's foreign policy and to allay Israeli concerns at their waning American support. I hope that I'm wrong. I hope that this time talk leads to actual change, but I've yet to see any signs to inspire real optimism.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
