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
Showing posts with label apartheid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apartheid. Show all posts
Sunday, December 5, 2010
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, July 12, 2010
Day 193-One State
Dear Mr. President,
The "threat" of the one-state solution has long been tossed about in discussion of the fate of Palestine and Israel. I find myself ambivalent on the subject. In some respects I think it is a good idea; it would end the apartheid system of segregated "Arab" and "Jewish-only" neighborhoods and streets (at least in the law, though, obviously, de facto segregation would likely continue.) It would incentivize working together, learning from one another, and mutual respect, as both Palestinians and Israelis became responsible for the fate of their country. I think it might also mitigate the inequitable resource usage, especially regarding water. It would help both sides, economically and educationally. It would offer legitimacy of each in the eyes of their current enemy's allies.
On the other hand, I worry about the backlash. Ethnic and religious violence on a larger scale. I don't imagine the leaders of the Likud party (or even Labor) being too eager to share their nuclear launch codes (and other military secrets) with the leaders of Fatah, or the PFLP, or Hamas. The military would certainly have a had time adjusting, and the mandatory service for all citizens might need to be reconsidered. It would be ugly, difficult, maybe even bloody, for at least another generation. I, for one, am not confident enough in the outcome to be comfortable calling for a solution that would lead to more lives lost. But doing nothing is also a choice, and the status quo of slow partition is also ratcheting up the body count.
In an International Relations course at Boise State University, one the best professors I ever had gave us an assignment. He divided us into three teams- A, B, and the UN. We were given a map, with different symbols for resources and different concentrations of ethnic groups A and B. He said, every one divide up the map, let's see what we end up with. Needless to say, a heated and unresolved argument ensued. Had we been dividing anything besides land, I would have said, let team A divide it up, and let team B pick their half first. But land is not a heard of cows. Land has history, people's homes, holy sites, cemeteries. I never thought to suggest that we forget the partition all together, and neither did any of my classmates. Looking back, I wonder if, at least in simulation, it would have been a wise idea.
I know that your administration is publicly opposed to the one-state solution. But I'd like to know what your ideal endgame looks like. What outcome can you imagine as best? I think, no matter where you draw the borders, Israel and Palestine will have to work together, rely on one another, trust one another, to a degree that does not yet seem possible. South Africa today did not seem possible during the years of apartheid, either. And it has been a long and bloody road to a present that is yet far from ideal, but I don't think that a South Africa White and a South Africa Black would have been a better solution. What are your thoughts on the one-state solution, Mr. President? I don't believe it isn't something you've given thoughtful consideration. Have you, entirely, rejected the possibility? If so, what was your reasoning for doing so? How do you envision the region, ideally, in 10 years? In 50? What does a solution look like, to your mind?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
The "threat" of the one-state solution has long been tossed about in discussion of the fate of Palestine and Israel. I find myself ambivalent on the subject. In some respects I think it is a good idea; it would end the apartheid system of segregated "Arab" and "Jewish-only" neighborhoods and streets (at least in the law, though, obviously, de facto segregation would likely continue.) It would incentivize working together, learning from one another, and mutual respect, as both Palestinians and Israelis became responsible for the fate of their country. I think it might also mitigate the inequitable resource usage, especially regarding water. It would help both sides, economically and educationally. It would offer legitimacy of each in the eyes of their current enemy's allies.
On the other hand, I worry about the backlash. Ethnic and religious violence on a larger scale. I don't imagine the leaders of the Likud party (or even Labor) being too eager to share their nuclear launch codes (and other military secrets) with the leaders of Fatah, or the PFLP, or Hamas. The military would certainly have a had time adjusting, and the mandatory service for all citizens might need to be reconsidered. It would be ugly, difficult, maybe even bloody, for at least another generation. I, for one, am not confident enough in the outcome to be comfortable calling for a solution that would lead to more lives lost. But doing nothing is also a choice, and the status quo of slow partition is also ratcheting up the body count.
In an International Relations course at Boise State University, one the best professors I ever had gave us an assignment. He divided us into three teams- A, B, and the UN. We were given a map, with different symbols for resources and different concentrations of ethnic groups A and B. He said, every one divide up the map, let's see what we end up with. Needless to say, a heated and unresolved argument ensued. Had we been dividing anything besides land, I would have said, let team A divide it up, and let team B pick their half first. But land is not a heard of cows. Land has history, people's homes, holy sites, cemeteries. I never thought to suggest that we forget the partition all together, and neither did any of my classmates. Looking back, I wonder if, at least in simulation, it would have been a wise idea.
I know that your administration is publicly opposed to the one-state solution. But I'd like to know what your ideal endgame looks like. What outcome can you imagine as best? I think, no matter where you draw the borders, Israel and Palestine will have to work together, rely on one another, trust one another, to a degree that does not yet seem possible. South Africa today did not seem possible during the years of apartheid, either. And it has been a long and bloody road to a present that is yet far from ideal, but I don't think that a South Africa White and a South Africa Black would have been a better solution. What are your thoughts on the one-state solution, Mr. President? I don't believe it isn't something you've given thoughtful consideration. Have you, entirely, rejected the possibility? If so, what was your reasoning for doing so? How do you envision the region, ideally, in 10 years? In 50? What does a solution look like, to your mind?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Day 188- Walls
Dear Mr. President,
Today I've been thinking a lot about walls. Right now it feels like it's about 1,000,000 degrees in my apartment, so, while wondering what to write to you, I got more than a little agitated. I know what I want to write. I want to write about PM Netanyahu's visit. But writing to you about foreign policy is a lot like banging my head against a wall. I write, impassioned and angry and sometimes in tears. I feel better. I print or copy the letter, address the envelope and affix postage. I wait. Weeks later, I receive a form letter from your office thanking me for writing. I hold this form letter in my hands as the headlines scroll up my screen. More people are dead. Or arrested. Or homeless. Or starving. And we welcome the Israeli Prime Minister and assure the world that our policies of absolute support will continue. And the IRS hands out tax breaks to donations that support the very settlements we claim to have stopped. And I bang my head a little more hopelessly, each day.
But walls are not just for banging one's head in frustration. Walls keep us safe from the elements, they support roofs, they keep us warm and sheltered and make caves or holes in the mud more like homes. There are a number of walls in Gaza that have been knocked down over the past few years. Knocked down by bombs, knocked down by bulldozers and knocked down by nature. But still, the material to rebuild them is forbidden. But because cooking spices have been permitted through, the Israeli government is praised for their efforts. The list of banned items may be shorter, but normalcy, or the kind of economic stability that would help create a stable society, are still too threatening to be permitted past the checkpoints.
And still other walls are only to divide. To divide people from other people, to divide land and power and resources, to confine or exclude or dominate. Sometimes they make a nice canvas. I've even heard these walls make great projector screens, in a pinch.
Don't worry about that dull thumping noise, Mr. President. Even when it's 1,000,000 degrees, and I'm hopeless and frustrated and so angry I could cry, I still live on the side of the figurative Wall that allows me to live inside my walls and bash my head against them. I'm one of the lucky ones.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Today I've been thinking a lot about walls. Right now it feels like it's about 1,000,000 degrees in my apartment, so, while wondering what to write to you, I got more than a little agitated. I know what I want to write. I want to write about PM Netanyahu's visit. But writing to you about foreign policy is a lot like banging my head against a wall. I write, impassioned and angry and sometimes in tears. I feel better. I print or copy the letter, address the envelope and affix postage. I wait. Weeks later, I receive a form letter from your office thanking me for writing. I hold this form letter in my hands as the headlines scroll up my screen. More people are dead. Or arrested. Or homeless. Or starving. And we welcome the Israeli Prime Minister and assure the world that our policies of absolute support will continue. And the IRS hands out tax breaks to donations that support the very settlements we claim to have stopped. And I bang my head a little more hopelessly, each day.
But walls are not just for banging one's head in frustration. Walls keep us safe from the elements, they support roofs, they keep us warm and sheltered and make caves or holes in the mud more like homes. There are a number of walls in Gaza that have been knocked down over the past few years. Knocked down by bombs, knocked down by bulldozers and knocked down by nature. But still, the material to rebuild them is forbidden. But because cooking spices have been permitted through, the Israeli government is praised for their efforts. The list of banned items may be shorter, but normalcy, or the kind of economic stability that would help create a stable society, are still too threatening to be permitted past the checkpoints.
And still other walls are only to divide. To divide people from other people, to divide land and power and resources, to confine or exclude or dominate. Sometimes they make a nice canvas. I've even heard these walls make great projector screens, in a pinch.
Don't worry about that dull thumping noise, Mr. President. Even when it's 1,000,000 degrees, and I'm hopeless and frustrated and so angry I could cry, I still live on the side of the figurative Wall that allows me to live inside my walls and bash my head against them. I'm one of the lucky ones.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, June 11, 2010
Day 162- Is it a stomach bug, or is Chuck Schumer talking agin?
Dear Mr. President,
Senator Schumer has inspired me. Instead of just a tepid boycott of Arizona, let's close off the borders, (I'm sure we can get Mexico's cooperation on this from the South.) We can keep out all but the most essential medical supplies and some food. (No potato chips though, at least not until we get some heat from the international community.) We'll allow a few Arizonans out, if they need medical treatment, but they'll need to apply for permits and not be on any lists of registered voters. You see, I think their immigration law is indicative of a dangerous trend of radicalized, religiously-based extremism, and, as Sen. Schumer propses, we ought to "strangle" them, (economically, of course,) until the population can be made to see the error of their votes.
If it works in Arizona (and, I'll admit, the obesity rates might mean it will be years before the blockade has any real effects,) we can put this into use anywhere we see these dangerous trends; if Carly Fiorina wins a Senate seat, we should definitely do the same to California, though obviously the coastline will make it more difficult. What about Massachusetts? The people electing Scott Brown should definitely be punished for their poor decision making skills. If we don't really have the troops to keep these rogue states in check, or to effectively restrict travel in and out of them, maybe we could consider building a few more walls? After all, many Arizonans have family living in other states, and it's important that we make sure they don't become agents of their radical relatives.
I know many of your legislative proposals have been controversial, but I'm confident this would satisfy at least 98 members of the Senate (and John McCain really shouldn't count, anyway. He's never satisfied with sanctions, he'll be calling for a regime change.) It can even be spun as a jobs bill! Imagine all the employment opportunities for construction workers to build a wall around an entire state! I know, Arizonans might devise a tunnel system to smuggle Ensure in from Mexico, but we've got bombs for that, I'm sure. Knock down a few retirement centers, and once they realize no building materials will be forthcoming, they'll be scrambling to vote for whoever you tell them to.
Anyway, Mr. President, I'm sure that Senator Schumer will not be worried about the White House calling his words reprehensible, but you might want to reassure him, just in case.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Senator Schumer has inspired me. Instead of just a tepid boycott of Arizona, let's close off the borders, (I'm sure we can get Mexico's cooperation on this from the South.) We can keep out all but the most essential medical supplies and some food. (No potato chips though, at least not until we get some heat from the international community.) We'll allow a few Arizonans out, if they need medical treatment, but they'll need to apply for permits and not be on any lists of registered voters. You see, I think their immigration law is indicative of a dangerous trend of radicalized, religiously-based extremism, and, as Sen. Schumer propses, we ought to "strangle" them, (economically, of course,) until the population can be made to see the error of their votes.
If it works in Arizona (and, I'll admit, the obesity rates might mean it will be years before the blockade has any real effects,) we can put this into use anywhere we see these dangerous trends; if Carly Fiorina wins a Senate seat, we should definitely do the same to California, though obviously the coastline will make it more difficult. What about Massachusetts? The people electing Scott Brown should definitely be punished for their poor decision making skills. If we don't really have the troops to keep these rogue states in check, or to effectively restrict travel in and out of them, maybe we could consider building a few more walls? After all, many Arizonans have family living in other states, and it's important that we make sure they don't become agents of their radical relatives.
I know many of your legislative proposals have been controversial, but I'm confident this would satisfy at least 98 members of the Senate (and John McCain really shouldn't count, anyway. He's never satisfied with sanctions, he'll be calling for a regime change.) It can even be spun as a jobs bill! Imagine all the employment opportunities for construction workers to build a wall around an entire state! I know, Arizonans might devise a tunnel system to smuggle Ensure in from Mexico, but we've got bombs for that, I'm sure. Knock down a few retirement centers, and once they realize no building materials will be forthcoming, they'll be scrambling to vote for whoever you tell them to.
Anyway, Mr. President, I'm sure that Senator Schumer will not be worried about the White House calling his words reprehensible, but you might want to reassure him, just in case.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Day 160- Apartheid
Dear Mr. President,
Apartheid, like genocide, is not a word to be thrown around. It is too powerful, its history too bloody, to use lightly. It has been invoked quite a bit this week, be it because it's been banned or because the situation in Gaza has drawn the condemnation of Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, or because Barney Frank's unintentional irony has just gotten downright embarrassing. When President Carter used the word, he was accused of anti-semitism. I'm sure that, were you to use it, you'd be called the same, probably even worse. "Unsustainable" seems to be as provocative as the White House is willing to get.
Unsustainable. This clean, ambiguous term seems to imply that the problem isn't that Israel is abusing its power, depriving people of their rights, and subjugating millions of people based on their religion or ethnicity, but that the system isn't practical. It's not a moral objection, but a pragmatic one. I agree with the White House that the situation is unsustainable. I also agree that it's apartheid. One cannot see the divided roads in Hebron, or the stark loom of the wall and not be moved by the injustice of it all. I'm glad that you met with Mr. Abbas today, and I think the aid package is, at least, a tangible demonstration of good faith, though I think that ending our military aid to Israel would be a better use of our money, and, in the long run, more helpful to the Palestinian people. I suppose, at the end of the day, I don't care what you call the injustices of the world, so long as you act to end them. I want to believe that we are taking steps in the right direction, and that progress, even slowly made, is more important than the words you use to describe the situation.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Apartheid, like genocide, is not a word to be thrown around. It is too powerful, its history too bloody, to use lightly. It has been invoked quite a bit this week, be it because it's been banned or because the situation in Gaza has drawn the condemnation of Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, or because Barney Frank's unintentional irony has just gotten downright embarrassing. When President Carter used the word, he was accused of anti-semitism. I'm sure that, were you to use it, you'd be called the same, probably even worse. "Unsustainable" seems to be as provocative as the White House is willing to get.
Unsustainable. This clean, ambiguous term seems to imply that the problem isn't that Israel is abusing its power, depriving people of their rights, and subjugating millions of people based on their religion or ethnicity, but that the system isn't practical. It's not a moral objection, but a pragmatic one. I agree with the White House that the situation is unsustainable. I also agree that it's apartheid. One cannot see the divided roads in Hebron, or the stark loom of the wall and not be moved by the injustice of it all. I'm glad that you met with Mr. Abbas today, and I think the aid package is, at least, a tangible demonstration of good faith, though I think that ending our military aid to Israel would be a better use of our money, and, in the long run, more helpful to the Palestinian people. I suppose, at the end of the day, I don't care what you call the injustices of the world, so long as you act to end them. I want to believe that we are taking steps in the right direction, and that progress, even slowly made, is more important than the words you use to describe the situation.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Day 69
Dear Mr. President,
While it is gratifying to see that Vice-President Biden has condemned the announcement of new settlements in East Jerusalem, it would be nice if this condemnation carried with it any tangible consequence. If even some of the estimated $2.5 billion dollars we give to this already wealthy and economically stable country were contingent upon respect for human rights or international law.
I've written you many times about my views on the way Palestinians are treated by their occupiers. I may be just an ordinary citizen, my experiences admittedly limited to a single trip to the region, but I am not the only American who feels this way. It is so easy to maintain the close relationship we have bought and paid for. Is is easy to talk about mediation and negotiation and fairness while signing the checks that buy the instruments of oppression. It is so easy to condemn policies while we continue to fund them. But you didn't run for President to do what is easy. You did not come to perpetuate the status quo. You ran on a platform of change, you demonstrated your willingness to speak frankly about tough issues and to explore, thoughtfully, their nuances. Why have you abandoned these principles entirely in Palestine? Why is a verbal and practically inconsequential reprimand from the VP all that comes from this latest encroachment on Palestinian land? Why are we silent on so many other, even more grievous offenses?
Don't send me another form letter about this, Mr. President. I'll forgo the talking points. I want you to say something, anything, that helps me make sense of it. Tell me why Palestinians don't deserve basic rights, free movement, and freedom from oppression. Tell me why a person's religion should determine where they are allowed to live. Tell me why we're funding this occupation at an increasing rate each year, why criticism and questioning are equated with sedition and betrayal. Tell me when we decided that a Palestinian life was worth less than an Israeli one.
If you can tell me these things, Mr. President, I'd love to hear from you. Otherwise, please save the paper. Vice President Biden earned my respect today for speaking frankly to the Palestinian audience alongside Abbas, but words are so cheap in such situations. 1600 new settlements will be built in East Jerusalem; another piece of the future Palestinian state lost because Israel is already powerful enough to take whatever it wants. How many words do you think Vice President Biden's condemnation would have to contain to rival the financial, political and military support that come with it? Maybe 2.5 billion?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
While it is gratifying to see that Vice-President Biden has condemned the announcement of new settlements in East Jerusalem, it would be nice if this condemnation carried with it any tangible consequence. If even some of the estimated $2.5 billion dollars we give to this already wealthy and economically stable country were contingent upon respect for human rights or international law.
I've written you many times about my views on the way Palestinians are treated by their occupiers. I may be just an ordinary citizen, my experiences admittedly limited to a single trip to the region, but I am not the only American who feels this way. It is so easy to maintain the close relationship we have bought and paid for. Is is easy to talk about mediation and negotiation and fairness while signing the checks that buy the instruments of oppression. It is so easy to condemn policies while we continue to fund them. But you didn't run for President to do what is easy. You did not come to perpetuate the status quo. You ran on a platform of change, you demonstrated your willingness to speak frankly about tough issues and to explore, thoughtfully, their nuances. Why have you abandoned these principles entirely in Palestine? Why is a verbal and practically inconsequential reprimand from the VP all that comes from this latest encroachment on Palestinian land? Why are we silent on so many other, even more grievous offenses?
Don't send me another form letter about this, Mr. President. I'll forgo the talking points. I want you to say something, anything, that helps me make sense of it. Tell me why Palestinians don't deserve basic rights, free movement, and freedom from oppression. Tell me why a person's religion should determine where they are allowed to live. Tell me why we're funding this occupation at an increasing rate each year, why criticism and questioning are equated with sedition and betrayal. Tell me when we decided that a Palestinian life was worth less than an Israeli one.
If you can tell me these things, Mr. President, I'd love to hear from you. Otherwise, please save the paper. Vice President Biden earned my respect today for speaking frankly to the Palestinian audience alongside Abbas, but words are so cheap in such situations. 1600 new settlements will be built in East Jerusalem; another piece of the future Palestinian state lost because Israel is already powerful enough to take whatever it wants. How many words do you think Vice President Biden's condemnation would have to contain to rival the financial, political and military support that come with it? Maybe 2.5 billion?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Day 55- National Heritage
Dear Mr. President,
Sunday's announcement by the Israeli government to include the Ibrahimi mosque on a list of heritage should be strongly condemned by your administration. The city of Al-Khalil, or Hebron, is already suffering because of the 500 illegal settlers and their armed, government-sponsored military escorts who hold the city hostage. I have been to Al-Khalil, Mr. President, and until you can say the same, you cannot imagine the infuriating stranglehold that the settlers have on this city. The roads have endless checkpoints, making driving in the old city almost impossible. The marketplace has to be covered with a net, to catch the garbage thrown down by the settlers. Certain areas are entirely off limits to the Palestinians who have lived there for generations.
The old woman who hosted our group in her home lived on the boundary between H1 and H2, the city, and the settler-only area. She could no longer use her front door to come and go, because it opened on to a settler road. From her home we watched settlers pass along the road, some boys carrying Uzis, along with their books, to school. We could see the IDF camps on the rooftops of shorter buildings, they pointed their guns at us and ordered us off of her roof, where she was showing us the view of the cemetery where her ancestors were buried, not one block from her home, but off-limits to her now, because she is Palestinian.
Mr. President, I understand the contentious nature of Jerusalem, of parts of Israel, of settlements close to the 1967 borders. But Al-Khalil is the largest city in the West Bank and it is no where near the green line. The settler presence there is entirely composed of the most radical elements; the site itself remains scarred by the legacy of a 1996 massacre of 29 innocent Muslims- the killer lies enshrined in a settlement nearby, his headstone praising him for "giving his life for Israel." This is not a gray area. This is a clear violation of law and common decency; an occupation tantamount to apartheid and a city of almost 200,000 terrorized by 500 criminals and the military sent to protect them.
I am certain that the language I use in this letter will be dismissed as hysterical. But let me say very plainly that I am, if anything, understating the disgusting conditions for the residents of Al-Khalil. And stepping in to condemn the Israeli's move to claim an even greater hold on a city that, under any reasonable two-state solution will have to be entirely Palestinian, would only help the US appear reasonable. This is the kind of injustice that we cannot accept, that must be remedied, if peace is ever to exist between the two nations.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday's announcement by the Israeli government to include the Ibrahimi mosque on a list of heritage should be strongly condemned by your administration. The city of Al-Khalil, or Hebron, is already suffering because of the 500 illegal settlers and their armed, government-sponsored military escorts who hold the city hostage. I have been to Al-Khalil, Mr. President, and until you can say the same, you cannot imagine the infuriating stranglehold that the settlers have on this city. The roads have endless checkpoints, making driving in the old city almost impossible. The marketplace has to be covered with a net, to catch the garbage thrown down by the settlers. Certain areas are entirely off limits to the Palestinians who have lived there for generations.
The old woman who hosted our group in her home lived on the boundary between H1 and H2, the city, and the settler-only area. She could no longer use her front door to come and go, because it opened on to a settler road. From her home we watched settlers pass along the road, some boys carrying Uzis, along with their books, to school. We could see the IDF camps on the rooftops of shorter buildings, they pointed their guns at us and ordered us off of her roof, where she was showing us the view of the cemetery where her ancestors were buried, not one block from her home, but off-limits to her now, because she is Palestinian.
Mr. President, I understand the contentious nature of Jerusalem, of parts of Israel, of settlements close to the 1967 borders. But Al-Khalil is the largest city in the West Bank and it is no where near the green line. The settler presence there is entirely composed of the most radical elements; the site itself remains scarred by the legacy of a 1996 massacre of 29 innocent Muslims- the killer lies enshrined in a settlement nearby, his headstone praising him for "giving his life for Israel." This is not a gray area. This is a clear violation of law and common decency; an occupation tantamount to apartheid and a city of almost 200,000 terrorized by 500 criminals and the military sent to protect them.
I am certain that the language I use in this letter will be dismissed as hysterical. But let me say very plainly that I am, if anything, understating the disgusting conditions for the residents of Al-Khalil. And stepping in to condemn the Israeli's move to claim an even greater hold on a city that, under any reasonable two-state solution will have to be entirely Palestinian, would only help the US appear reasonable. This is the kind of injustice that we cannot accept, that must be remedied, if peace is ever to exist between the two nations.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
