Dear Mr. President,
I should probably preface this letter with a warning; I haven't slept much at all this week, finals are making me crazy, and I'm currently getting my kicks by deliberately misleading the rude customers who keep approaching me in the cafe and treating me like I work here. (Ok, I do work here. But they don't know that. I'm just trying to study and drink coffee in peace. I am not a directory.) I'm a little off today, and more than a little sick of most of the human race. Perhaps it is this black humor that has me so enjoying the latest Daily Show segment on your approval rating of the American people.
That's right. Your rating of us. Right now it has to be pretty low. We're capricious, apathetic, lazy (physically and intellectually) we want you to do everything and we don't want to have to pay for any of it. Also, we're all right, all of the time. Even when we disagree with each other (and ours past or future selves.) While Jon Stewart & crew's point seems to be about public whims over health care and taxes, I read an op-ed today from Roger Cohen that says basically the same thing about foreign policy. "President Barack Obama had virtually no domestic constituency for his attempt to denounce the continued growth of settlements as unacceptable and as undermining a two-state peace at its core: land."
While I do think that some of the blame belongs to you and probably even more belongs to congress, I'm a big fan of the blame-the-voters-for-being-idiots strategy, too. And not just because they keep confusing the cafe counter with the information desk and being rude about it to boot. Because our economy couldn't possibly be this bad, our military this extended into wars this ridiculous, our jails this full and our reality TV shows this popular if a significant part of the population wasn't quite so dumb. (Before my libertarian friends get all upset, I know there are "good liberals" in the stupid category as well. I've met them. One of them called me a fucking zionist whore in comments on this blog.) So, yes, it's our fault, too. You probably shouldn't take our opinions or our approval too seriously, since clearly we don't know what the hell we're doing. We can't even distinguish a counter full of people eating and drinking coffee from a staffed information desk.
Ok, this letter has clearly veered far enough outside of seriousness for me to go back to studying. I guess what I mean to say is don't let the stupidity, the caprice, the apathy and the ignorance get you down. It could be worse; you could be working retail.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label settlements. Show all posts
Showing posts with label settlements. Show all posts
Friday, December 10, 2010
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
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
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
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
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Day 83- Jedi chess
Dear Mr. President,
It appears as though the press corps is giving Robert Gibbs quite a rough time about your meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. This is one of those moments where, watching from the outside, being privy to nothing but what the media and the White House reveals, I have to concede I don't know enough to be certain about what you're doing. It seems as though you might be taking private steps toward toughening our stance on Israeli settlement activity. It seems as though you might be leveraging this latest incident into legitimate efforts at peace talks. But this could just be speculation.
Not long ago, when the battle for health care reform seemed to be getting the best of you, Jon Stewart said "I can’t tell if he’s a Jedi master playing chess on a three-level board way ahead of us, or if this is kicking his ass." I sometimes feel the same way about our Middle East policy. I know that my letters often include unbridled anger, disappointment and outrage. I know that, even if you make radical steps toward restarting the peace process, our foreign relations with Israel will likely still be too close for my comfort. I understand, Mr. President, that we will probably never agree on this. I think that my role as your constituent is to continue asserting my position, asking for more than I expect you to do, in the hopes of somehow balancing the AIPACs of the world. Much of my argument is based on the premise that there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs, and that gross oppression of human rights is an example of the latter. I do understand that the nuanced world we live in does not often lend itself well to absolution, and that you may be justifying certain means to an end I can't see or understand yet.
What I mean, sir, is that while I may be sick with grief at the death and suffering, at the injustice and oppression, while I may be exhausted with the fight and frustrated with our hypocrisy, I have faith that you know what you're doing and that you know what is right. I do not surrender my judgment to your own, but I do believe it is possible that you're seeing more than you're willing to let on.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
It appears as though the press corps is giving Robert Gibbs quite a rough time about your meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. This is one of those moments where, watching from the outside, being privy to nothing but what the media and the White House reveals, I have to concede I don't know enough to be certain about what you're doing. It seems as though you might be taking private steps toward toughening our stance on Israeli settlement activity. It seems as though you might be leveraging this latest incident into legitimate efforts at peace talks. But this could just be speculation.
Not long ago, when the battle for health care reform seemed to be getting the best of you, Jon Stewart said "I can’t tell if he’s a Jedi master playing chess on a three-level board way ahead of us, or if this is kicking his ass." I sometimes feel the same way about our Middle East policy. I know that my letters often include unbridled anger, disappointment and outrage. I know that, even if you make radical steps toward restarting the peace process, our foreign relations with Israel will likely still be too close for my comfort. I understand, Mr. President, that we will probably never agree on this. I think that my role as your constituent is to continue asserting my position, asking for more than I expect you to do, in the hopes of somehow balancing the AIPACs of the world. Much of my argument is based on the premise that there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs, and that gross oppression of human rights is an example of the latter. I do understand that the nuanced world we live in does not often lend itself well to absolution, and that you may be justifying certain means to an end I can't see or understand yet.
What I mean, sir, is that while I may be sick with grief at the death and suffering, at the injustice and oppression, while I may be exhausted with the fight and frustrated with our hypocrisy, I have faith that you know what you're doing and that you know what is right. I do not surrender my judgment to your own, but I do believe it is possible that you're seeing more than you're willing to let on.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
