CANARABIA FIND PEACE?

It seems like the ultimate antithesis to the peaceful ways of Canada is the region that some people call Israel, and others call Palestine. Canada is not completely isolated from these troubles. At the Nova Scotia Multicultural Festival I saw that both the Canadian Jewish community and the Canadian Palestinian community had maps of the Holy Land, and each was claiming all of it as their own, the root of the conflict.

If Canadian citizens have ties to these nations, thus making these nations an extension of Canada, then it means that Canada is at war with itself. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are Jewish, and have long-established roots in their communities. They have no problem identifying both as Jewish and Canadian. They regularly take pride in both labels, with a sense of loyalty and duty expressed towards both.

From the Facebook group of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs Israel has a Canada Park established by the Jewish National Fund of Canada, as a token of friendship. I like the name but am troubled by the fact that Canada Park is built on land outside of Israels official borders, where Palestinian villages once stood before being demolished in the 1967 war, when Israel began the occupation of the West Bank. If I had lived in one of those villages I might take offense. There are definitely plenty of Arab Canadians and other Canadians sympathetic to the displaced Palestinians, who criticize the Canadian government for its relationship with Israel.

The JNF is one of many organizations representing the Jewish Diaspora in Canada and around the world. These groups engage in activities like outreach and community service. Many of them also take up the banner of supporting the state of Israel, seeing it as vital to their Jewish identity that they stand up for it.

From the Facebook group for Magbit Canada The UJA (United Jewish Appeal) Federation of Greater Toronto holds an annual Walk with Israel. It is a fundraising event that also offers people a chance to show a sense of Israeli patriotism in parade-like fashion. Were this money going to be used to supply weapons for the Israeli Defense Forces, I can see how that could be seen by many as controversial. But instead the money goes to environmental causes and underserved communities in Israel, making it philanthropic in nature. However the 2010 walk was attended by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was given a Toronto Maple Leaves hockey Jersey with his name emblazoned on it. Netanyahu is a man completely unapologetic for any Palestinians who have been, or will be displaced, so I think his presence could again make the event controversial. Near the beginning of this book, I expressed my annoyance with Mr. Thomas Naylor repetitively claiming that the United States government was controlled by the Israeli lobby. But I would have to be blind not to see that the U.S. has a bias in favoring Israel in the Middle East conflict. And there are lobbyists advocating for Israel within the U.S, government, but there are various lobbying groups, and though they all have influence it doesnt mean they control the government. Instead, I explain our bias in the fact that many of the people in the United States see Israels culture as sharing what we consider our Judeo-Christian heritage. Just as Russia sided with its fellow Slavic nation of Serbia in World War I, we feel a sense of ethnic solidarity. Some in Canada have this same sense towards Israel, and it is obvious who they often vote for. The government of Stephen Harper has made it clear where it thinks Canadas loyalty should lie. Surprise, surprise, he thinks they should echo the U.S. government in taking a heavily one sided view towards the conflict. Harper supported Israels 20082009 attack on the Gaza Strip, which resulted in the deaths of a hundred times more Palestinian civilians, than the Israelis killed in the rocket attacks from Hamas that instigated the battle. Harper also opposed a UN resolution to lift the blockade that has cut off Gaza from the world. Along with the U.S. and Israel, he boycotted the 2009 World Conference Against Racism, after the 2001 conference in Durban South Africa became

critical of Zionism. He also agreed to have Canada represent Israeli interests in Venezuela, after Chavez cut off diplomatic relations with the Jewish state. Harper certainly does not reflect the sympathies of many Canadians however. There have been large scale protests in Canada against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. Some in these protests have expressed support for organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, which I fear could only increase Islamaphobia among other Canadians. Both the politically conservative Canadian Islamic Congress and the Canadian Arab Federation have urged the government to take Hezbollah and Hamas off the list of terrorist organizations.

Logos for the Canadian Arab Federation and the Canadian Islamic Congress Together, the CIC and the CAF held an essay contest in 2008 on the subject of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. This of course raised objections by the politically conservative Jewish group Bnai Brith Canada, showing how Canadians could be divided between themselves based on their different cultural ties to far off lands. In 2002, The Jewish Hillel at Concordia University organized a visit by the once and future prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu. Protests of his visit on September 9 culminated in a riot. The Middle East was over 5000 kilometers away and yet by local Canucks taking sides, it was almost as if the streets of Jerusalem were placed in the middle of Montreal. How the hell are we to find peace there if there is conflict over here? IN SEARCH OF UNIVERSAL JUSTICE There is so much selectivity on both sides when seeing both injustice, and justifiable grievances. It is almost impossible to find a solution that seems fair to everyone. Many have proposed solutions that were seen by one side as going too far and by the other side as not going far enough. Whoever proposes such actions from one side or the other will probably be seen as a traitor, caring about their enemies more than they care about their own. If a man like Ariel Sharon, one of the most hawkish Israeli politicians, could have decided to pull out of the Gaza Strip be rest assured that it was not out of love for the Arabs. Many Israelis saw this action as a betrayal. Some went so far as to call him a Nazi. I found this ironic, because there are many Palestinians who would agree with this assessment. It would not be easy to find common ground for two conflicting groups. Although not as intense as the rift between the Israelis and Palestinians, there has been animosity

between Anglo-Canadians and French Canadians. For his efforts to bring them together in harmony, Sir Wilfred Laurier was accused of being too British by fellow French Canadians, and too French by British Canadians. Sometimes I fear that the closest agreement you can come up with is being mutually despised by everyone. No matter where you stand relative to this conflict, your view will be skewed. Some will no doubt assume that I am more in favor of the Israelis. They might even point to my history of active participation in Jewish community events as evidence of my bias. At the same time some on the pro-Israel side will probably assume I am favoring the Palestinians, and am perhaps even anti-Semitic, simply because I do not share all of their views in their entirety. Most people are biased even if they dont realize it. When I heard a woman say that no one could deny that Israel was an illegal state, I had to wonder if it was just an amazing coincidence that she herself was Palestinian. Neither can I swear that my views on the conflict would be no different if I had a Jewish girlfriend or an Arab girlfriend. Biases in perceptions of universal justice are everywhere, even by those who claim to truly have equal concern and love for all sides. For someone who has no close familial or social ties to anyone on either side of the conflict it is easy for them not to take any events in the Middle East too personally. I would rather hear the opinions of people tied to both sides. Discordia was a brilliant documentary, made by Ben Addleman and Samir Mallal about the fallout from the Concordia protests. An Arab-Bedouin member of the Israeli Defense Forces might be well received in a synagogue, but I am guessing that most Arabs would view him as an Uncle Tom, and it would be unrealistic to expect all Arabs to adopt his point of view. At the same time, I have seen pictures of activists in Toronto protesting against the annual Walk with Israel that included Heredi Jews from Neturei Karta, a group that believes that Zionism is in violation of Torah, the following picture comes from their website.

They carry the Palestinian flag, and join with the Arab-Canadian protestors in denouncing Israel as a terrorist state. I have to wonder though if a lot of these Arab protesters that they were standing shoulder to shoulder with would still hold the same opinions of Israel if they themselves were Jewish. Israelis in the ultra-conservative Likud Party think a fair peace deal would involve the Palestinians just handing over all their land and leaving. Though had they been raised Muslim their vision of a just peace would most likely be like that of Hamas. We can not expect other people to show more passivity and humility than ourselves. Also, martyrs or Uncle Toms should not be quick to assume that it is possible for everyone on their side to show as much humility and passivity as they show themselves. Founded in 2008, Independent Jewish Voices Canada is a national human rights organization whose mandate is to promote a just resolution to the dispute in Israel and Palestine through the application of international law and respect for the human rights of all parties. (ijvcanada.org) Independent Jewish Voices takes the brave and lonely stand of not letting the JNF, Hillel, UJA, or any other mainstream organization of define for them how they must express pride in being Jewish. They are not afraid to be critical of Israels actions, but the manifestations of that justifiable criticism can sometimes be more alienating than necessary.

Photo from the Facebook page for the Canadian Boat to Gaza I notice that in this photo of a Palestine Solidarity protest in Montreal that there is no sign of the Canadian flag. This could alienate Canadian patriots who could have been convinced to support them otherwise. I also notice that the only Israeli flag shown has been defaced, which could alienate a lot of Jewish people who are not ready to choose between supporting Israel and supporting the rights of the Palestinians at Israels expense. Thankfully there are other options for being a peace activist.

Canadian Friends of Peace Now (CFPN) is the only mainstream Jewish organization in Canada dedicated entirely to promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace on the basis of the two-state solution. (peacenowcanada.org) This group (Canadian Friends of Peace Now) takes the radically moderate stance of supporting an Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territories, but still making it possible for Israelis to believe in Zionism. For other activists, Zionism remains a fourletter word however. THE INHERITANCE OF SHAME Holocaust denial is the most extreme example of historical revisionism but it is far from the only one. Deir Yassin proves this. Deir Yassin was a Palestinian village where over 100 unarmed men women and children were killed by Jewish soldiers in the early days of Israels independence struggle. Many members of the Jewish community are quick to attack anyone who supports this remembrance movement. These same people would be offended by anyone who tried to cover up the memory of the Holocaust, and I think therein lies a bit of incongruence. To use the Deir Yassin massacre as an excuse to hate someone for being Jewish would be wrong, as it would be wrong to use the Holocaust as an excuse to hate someone just because they are German. Denying history is never the answer though. The truth of history should be acknowledged, but we should avoid drawing the wrong conclusions from it. That is why it is important that nations which have had members commit a crime against humanity be the first to acknowledge it. People from any nation can play the role of villain and they should consciously try to avoid falling into that category. This makes it harder for others to denounce an entire nation. Israel should therefore, for its own national interests, be the first to recognize the massacre at Deir Yassin, and other examples of injustice committed in the name of their country. To help promote the principle that historical atrocities can not be used to condemn their nation in its entirety, one of the most productive courses of action for Israel might be to be vocal in stating that the mass slaughter of Armenians at the hands of soldiers of the Ottoman Empire does not mean that the citizens of the modern Turkish Republic should have to grow up thinking less of themselves. Armenia wants Turkey, and the rest of the world, to recognize these mass killings by Ottoman soldiers as genocide. Perhaps then one of the most productive things the Armenians could do is to speak up about the injustice of the Azerbaijanis who were dislocated during the war to occupy Nagorno Karabahk, a predominantly Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan. Azerbaijanis are certainly upset from this, but the best way for them to raise awareness about this injustice might be to condemn the expulsion of the sizeable Armenian community from Baku, the capitol of Azerbaijan.

It would certainly seem to be in the interests of Turkish national pride for them to avoid the sense of shame many people have long put on Germany for the Holocaust. The most productive thing Turkey might then do to avoid this fate would be if they become vocal in stating that no Germans from the post-Hitler generations should be born ashamed of themselves. Standing up for the Germans might also help the marginalized Turkish minority residing in Germany. Serbia is reluctant to officially recognize the slaughter of Bosnian Muslims in the 1990s as genocide, just as Turkey is in regards to the Armenians. I propose that the Serbian government be given responsibility, not for determining if the ethnic war in Bosnia was a case of genocide, but if the war on the eastern frontier of the Ottoman Empire was. The Turkish government meanwhile, would be given the task of determining on behalf of the Serbian government, if the attempts at ethnic cleansing of the Bosnian Muslims could be considered genocide. Finally, the best thing that people in the Arab world could do to help shed light on the historical grievances of the Palestinians, and crimes against humanity like those committed in Deir Yassin, would be to very publicly acknowledge and condemn the Holocaust. It is easy to condemn acts of horrific violence committed against yourself, or people you see as being like yourself. The real test of whether you are a true believer in universal justice is if you can condemn injustices done to a group of people you feel have wronged you. For Palestinians to attract more sympathy from the Jewish community, when they talk about the injustice of being driven from their homes, they should also speak out against the injustice of the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries in retribution for the founding of the state of Israel. This chain of events would promote a principle, and its a principle that would be to the benefit of all the nations of the world, including Israel. That principle being that we should learn to recognize the inhumanity that humans are capable of, so that none of us ever stop trying to hold our people (all seven billion of them) up to a higher standard. HISTORY OR MINE? Regardless of the side of the debate, you will find plenty of volunteers eager to explain the history of the Palestine-Israel conflict. They assume that the historical facts will speak for themselves. Like Fox News, they say that they will leave you to decide who is right. They are confident that you will decide that they are. I remember, even as a child, being bombarded by television commercials for competing telephone companies and brands of soda. They always seemed to show proof that they were undeniably the right choice, even though their competitors seemed to have just as much proof that they were. So, from a young age I became sensitive to bullshit, and became unwilling to take any accounts at face value. Like with soda, any account will make it seem undeniable who is right and who is wrong in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Not surprisingly, you can somehow draw

different conclusions from either the pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian account. What is strange is that there is very little lying in the accounts given. All of the historical events mentioned probably did happen. It is the commentaries that are added to the accounts that emphasize, de-emphasize, and occasionally omit, certain facts that make it seem like there are two different histories somehow existing simultaneously. The truth of the past is presented like a straight line. It is the accounts given of history that creates an optical illusion on that straight line like in the following examples.

Which line is longer? Neither. The different commentaries given to historical accounts act like the diagonal lines, making the straight line of the past seem like it is obvious that either the Israelis or the Palestinians are undeniably in the right or wrong. Both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian accounts of history usually make it sound like their side has nothing but justifiable grievances, with justified reactions to those grievances, while the other side has done nothing but commit unjust, unprovoked actions against them. Every act of their side is interpreted as being purely defensive. I think you would be more likely to make 50 flips of a coin, and have it come up heads each and every time, then have either of these accounts be 100% true. History, even recent history of the past hundred years or so, is extremely complicated, and it would take a library of books to tell it in its entirety. Any other account of events will be abridged, and whoever is doing the editing often omits those times when the coin toss turned up tails. The truths from history are often used to support illusions. I have heard it argued that the land in the Middle East has always belonged to the Israelis or the Palestinians, and that somehow the presence of the other is just a brief interruption in history going back thousands of years. A random posting I saw once on a kiosk said that Jesus was a Palestinian. Of all people, I would not see Rabbi Jesus as one to so quickly take solid sides in such a conflict, and who really knows what titles he used? After all, in the end they are still just words. Events of the past, if presented in the right way, can make it look like either the Israeli or Palestinian sides have done nothing but concede to the other. I have heard Israelis who described their dealings with the Palestinians as a give-take relationship where we give and they take. Israels withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula is used to say that the state of Israel has already conceded too much territory to the Arabs. The Sinai Peninsula was only occupied for 15 years and the population there was always predominantly Arab. The following series of maps try to give the impression that Israel has been more than fair when it comes to sharing the land.

http://the-end-time.blogspot.com/2011/05/incredible-shrinking-israel.html All of these maps are accurate, but their presentation is still meant for deception. Although it was once part of the British Mandate of Palestine, the territory east of the Jordan River was never under Israeli control, nor promised to them. The Balfour Declaration was a very vague statement meant to get Jewish support for Britain during World War I. This series of maps also conveniently leaves out the time between 1922 and 1973, when Israel quickly doubled its land area following independence in 1948, and then in 1967 tripled the land area it controlled. If the purpose of these successive maps is to paint Israel as doing nothing but sacrifice it seems more convincing to leave out that period of time. I would also like to note that this map comes from a Christian fundamentalist source, and they always seem to side with Israel and try to ignore the fact that there are Palestinians that are Christian. It should also be noted that the creator of this website is a doomsayer, convinced that we will see the biblical apocalypse in our lifetime, despite a hundred generations of disappointment. Doomsayers believe that the existence of the Jewish state is vital to ensuring the return of Jesus, whom they eagerly await to tell the Jewish people that they are wrong for not worshipping him, and then smite them. But until then, they will express their support for the Israelis. People like the 2012 U.S. Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich have tried to argue that the Palestinians are an invented people, to try and deny that they have

any right to state-hood. People try to claim that the name Palestine was never even used for the land until the 20th Century. I would like to tell people like Mr. Gingrich that those they think of as Americans are also an invented people, but that doesnt make the designation meaningless to the people who apply it to themselves. And regardless of what you call them, the people referred to as Palestinians are human-beings, and that is supposed to mean that they have some kind of inalienable rights. Pro-Palestinian sources might agree with me for pointing out these attempts to rewrite the truth, but I think it is fair to also call them out for their own attempts to give history a twist. A sequence of maps is also used to show Palestine looking like it has been continuously eaten away by an aggressive take-over, which has never been in a state of remission. Websites supporting the Palestinian cause will often show a progression of historical maps like this:

International Middle East Media Center www.imemc.org/attachments/sep2011/palestine_shrinking.jpg Again, each of these maps is accurate, but what they are implying is not. Like the other succession of maps, they are used to make it seem like the only story to tell is the never-ending loss of territory from one side to the other. The difference is where the gaps in history are. In this case, they ignore the period between 1967 and 1999. Had they bothered to include this period of time, they would have shown that by the end of 1967 the green area of the map would have disappeared completely (since the white area represents areas that Israel has controlled but that may not have ever been officially annexed, and that continued to have an Arab majority the whole time). It is only later that the green areas shown in 1999 were given to the control of the Palestinian Authority.

These green clumps on the most current map look like the last dying embers of the Palestinian nation. Some could also think of it as a new hope rising from the dead, but that only works if you point out that Israel once occupied this land in its entirety. If the point of these maps is to perceive Zionism as a disease that never lets up then it is better to leave that part out. I am not pointing out these historical omissions to make the claim that current grievances by the Palestinians are unfounded, or that they should be eternally grateful for Israel giving them back a few scraps of land. But giving such an obviously skewed picture of recent historical events could be used by others to try and discredit Palestinian nationalism. I have found these series of maps depicting progressive loss of land to the Israelis reposted on multiple websites dedicated to supporting Palestinian rights. Most of those websites are legitimate, and motivated by humanitarianism. However, I have also seen these maps recreated on a website by a group entitled Jew Watch. In their logo, they not-so-cleverly combine the Star of David with the Hammer and Sickle, because they see communism and Zionism as the same force for tyranny, and show a picture of Leon Trotsky from the Zionist USSR to depict their point. Never mind the fact that many older Arab nationalists once looked to the Soviet Union for inspiration and support, or that Stalin took advantage of Russian anti-Semitism to denounce Trotsky. I also cant help but note some of the other people who have tried to claim that the Jews were all communists, namely Hitler. Even if I am not a conspiracy theorist, I can almost believe that this Jew Watch could be some kind of COINTELPRO effort to try and discredit the Palestinian rights movement. It certainly helps to promote the claim that anyone who tries to criticize Israel must be anti-Semitic, so it is important for all of the legitimate Palestinian rights groups to quickly condemn this website. In any case, most of the people alive today were not alive when these recent historical events with their multiple interpretations took place. And there are certainly no people left alive from the days when Abraham was alive, so you cant get any first hand accounts if it was his son Isaac that he was prepared to sacrifice, as the Israelis believe, or his son Ishmael, as the Muslims believe. History from Biblical times is therefore the easiest history of all to twist into whatever form serves you best. Arguments over whatever happened in those days, to prove who the land belongs to, are as fruitless as trying to find the end point of a circle. You can search forever without finding anything. Therefore, I do not want to use any Biblical arguments about history, because they can only distract us from the larger truth. That truth is that whatever happened to other people down through the centuries, the needs of all of them put together are less important than the rights and the needs of the people alive right now. If this proves anything it is that Palestine, like Israel, is a word, and the rocks and hills and rivers that make up the land are more permanent than the names given to it.

*** It is common for supporters of Israel to claim that people who are critical of it are being anti-Semitic. What is troubling is that anti-Semitism really does exist, and is wide spread. It is because that anti-Semitism is a reality that accusations of being anti-Semitic should not be made like the boy who cried wolf. Human rights advocates are sick of claims of anti-Semitism being used to explain every criticism of Israel, and it only makes it harder to recognize instances of true anti-Semitism. Another fact that refutes the argument that all critics of Israel are anti-Semitic is that some of its critics are Jewish. Aaron Mate was a Concordia student featured in the movie Discordia, and you can see other Jewish students claiming he is a self-hating Jew because of his outspoken criticism of the state of Israels actions. Aarons father, the son of Holocaust survivors, was himself an advocate for Palestinian rights, and like Irshad Manji, a Muslim who defends Israels right to exist he has faced death threats from members of his own community for his self-criticism. Aaron Mate was also accused by his friends in the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign as not going far enough. When Aaron disapproved of the Concordia Student Unions suspension of Hillel, he was accused of not showing solidarity with the CSU. One of his Palestinian associates said that it was not enough for him to stand with them, but he needs to be standing behind them. The truth is that in a free country he can stand wherever he wants, and if half of the people in the Jewish community showed half of his level of commitment for Arab rights, Palestine would already be free. It takes a lot of courage to be radically moderate. I dont think that there are many who would be willing to stand where Aaron was standing. I question if a lot of the Palestinians who said he should get behind them would have been willing to do it if they were Jewish. It makes me wonder how many more Aarons and Irshads there would be if there was just a little less pressure on them to take sides. I have also wondered how much more support there would be for environmentalism and animal rights issues if groups like PETA were not so quick to alienate themselves from people who shared most of their views, but God forbid enjoyed a burger now and then. Likewise, I wonder how many more people from the Jewish community would speak up against the abuses faced by the Palestinians, if there were not so many scenes at protests of burning the Israeli flag. There are injustices committed in the Middle East that anyone with a conscience, if forced to acknowledge, would agree are wrong regardless of their own nationality. Most Israelis and their supporters do not take the time to face the inexcusable insults that the Palestinians have to put up with, like the children of Israeli settlers harassing Palestinian women and children on their way to school, even getting physical with them while Israeli soldiers stand by and watch uncaringly.

palestinemonitor.org No matter how many injustices the Jewish people have suffered over the millennia, or how great the argument to defend the existence of the Jewish state, this action above, and the inaction of the soldiers, does (less than) nothing to help Israel. I only saw evidence of this injustice myself because I went to a teach-in where the general consensus was that the state of Israel must cease to exist. Just like the mistake of not separating calls for legalizing industrial hemp from calls to legalize marijuana, if the message for Palestinian rights is treated as inseparable from calls to destroy the Jewish state, most Israelis will never hear that message. During times of conflict, whenever there are innocent victims, people say that they will do what they must to protect themselves, often not questioning if some victims were avoidable. Hence, an injustice becomes easy to ignore in their eyes. Less obvious is the misfortune that this causes the perpetrators. There are some serious national concerns for the state of Israel about loosing its moral credibility to the rest of the world, as well as not making the wisest choices about securing its own safety. These misfortunes are probably less obvious because many Palestinian rights advocates make the same mistake that the Likud voting bloc does. They treat the well-being of their opponents as having no correlation with their own welfare. Just as many Israelis might fill their arguments with calls of self-defense to ignore those times when someone has kicked an old Arab lady, spit on a child, or burned someones olive grove, many Palestinians might fill their own arguments with calls of self-defense to ignore those times when the actions or language of some Palestinians has been atrocious. Ignoring it only makes it easier for Israelis to use self-defense arguments, ignoring crimes committed in the name of their country, which makes it easier for Palestinians to do the same, and around and around we go.

actwestnashville.com Again, not helping anyone, except maybe the Likud Party at election time Such language and actions are in especially poor judgment, since the Palestinians have sympathizers coming from all different kinds of people. There are some advocates for Palestinian rights who are Jewish, but feel no sense of affinity for Israel. This means that those Jews that do care about the Jewish state are more likely not to question the actions of the Israeli government, and even more likely to fail to realize when those actions are self destructive. More Jewish people would join them if they were offered more of a chance to stand for the human rights of the Palestinians while not having to denounce Israel in its entirety. I am impressed by those who can have the humility to show care and compassion for those that are different from themselves. But I am more impressed by people who not only manage to have care and compassion for others while maintaining it for themselves, but who can also recognize when helping others can help themselves. Israel probably is aware, like anyone who has ever studied economics, that everything has a cost. In the name of defending the nation, Israel would probably always agree that the cost is worth it, as any nation naturally would, even if that cost is getting the Palestinians and most other nations to despise you, and to try the patience of some of their closest allies. That is how Israel comes to terms with the negative worldwide reaction to their seizure of the flotilla in 2010 that was trying to bring supplies to the isolated Palestinian enclave of Gaza. Israel naturally feels that the opinions of the other nations of the world must come second to their own security. One thing that you try to keep in mind in economics is that just because everything has a cost does not mean that you should loose sight of trying to minimize that cost. While playing the national defense card to justify all of its actions to the scrutiny of the global community Israel must critically assess its own actions to determine if they are making the wisest choices possible. Even if the Gaza Flotilla was carrying weapons (it wasnt), would it have not made more sense to wait to intercept it until it had entered into Israels territorial waters? Attacking them out in the middle of the Mediterranean just made their actions look like an illegal act of international piracy.

Here is a picture from rabble.ca of the Canadian boat that was going to join the second Freedom Flotilla in 2011. It was prevented from leaving port in Greece. Furthermore, in Israels aerial bombardment of Gaza, have they really done all that they could to make sure that innocent civilians were not killed? I understand being upset about rocket attacks by Hamas killing Israelis, but when your counterattack causes a hundred times more civilian deaths on the Palestinian side it still makes you look bad. The Israeli government doesnt seem to ask itself these questions. Perhaps most people who ask these questions do not make the safety of Israel priority number one, but Israeli politicians still must try and make the wisest choices for the sake of the country. Israelis might say that the Palestinians and their international supporters have also failed at having the responsibility to make the wisest choices for their sake of their cause. They might say this only to take attention away from their own failures, but they are still right. Many Palestinian advocates have not considered how to minimize their own costs. People on the Freedom Flotilla had a right to be upset with the IDF, but attacking Israeli soldiers with hammers as soon as they boarded might not have been a good idea. It made it easier for the Israelis to falsely justify their own violent response that lead to the deaths of several Turkish nationals. Also, horrific terrorist acts might be orchestrated by a violent fraction of Palestinians, but everyone else struggling for their freedom should always be the first to condemn them, and the loudest. PLAYING ISRAELS ADVOCATE/ PLAYING PALESTINES ADVOCATE A lot again goes unsaid for fear that it will go against the progressive liberal principles of supporting universal peace and justice. But what we remain silent about could make the difference between getting a lot more Jewish support for Palestinian rights and letting hard-line Israeli nationalists maintain a monopoly on patriotism. It might be time to think as hard as we can of possible ways that it might be possible to defend the existence of Israel. This can help our own arguments, by helping to

make them strong enough to convince people besides ourselves that we are right in supporting Palestinian rights. If we can do that we might be able to offer a third option between the extremes of Jews who would otherwise get behind people like Netanyahu. We live in a very diverse world. The world would be missing a huge part of its soul without the existence of the Arab and Islamic cultures. Their presence, most prominent in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, and Central and South East Asia, contributes greatly to the human legacy. Remember that I said that sometimes a culture is only visible if there is a place where their nation can be concentrated enough to form a majority. When Anglophones complain about the language laws in Quebec they are probably not looking at the point of the view of the Quebecois, because their own Anglo culture is predominant just about everywhere else in North America. Where else on the continent do French speakers form the majority? Taking that same logic, ask yourself where other than Israel do Jewish people make up the majority? Where else is there a state that has Hebrew as an official language? What other national flag has the Star of David represented on it? Also, note how many national flags have the Crescent Moon of Islam on them.

From the Facebook page of the UJA Federation of Greater Toronto What if instead of several countries, there was only one country where Arabs were in the majority, where Arabic was the only official language (it is an official language in Israel alongside Hebrew) and Islam was the state religion? If to keep that Arab nation visible they needed a small piece of land taken out of a much larger area where a more populace culture predominated, would they not see that as justified to help promote diversity in the world? Do WASPS or Arabs know how it would feel for there to be no where in the world where most of the people share their culture?

Also, consider the fact that most Arab citizens of Israel would rather maintain their current citizenship than be put under the authority of another Arab government. But for arguments sake, we must also consider why others do not look fondly on Israel. From other perspectives, the state of Israel is often viewed like a splinter, a foreign object stuck in the body. Almost all Arab lands were once under foreign rule. It was foreign rule that permitted the creation of this non-Arab state on a part of their land, so its existence is going to feel like a lasting reminder of the insult of colonial rule. The state of Israel has received most of its support from the Western World. This is probably because when we see Israel, we see ourselves. I think even the kinds of folks who have traditionally not liked Jews so much will still often support the state of Israel. Conservative Christian support, despite how they might disguise it, is not done out of love of Jews, but hatred of Muslims. They can only support Israel as long as the neighboring countries seem more foreign. If every state in the Middle East other than Israel had a Christian majority, there is no doubt that these same Bible-thumpers would view the Jewish state the same way Hamas does. Another thing that makes Israel easy for people in the West to accept is that we dont feel like we had to give up any of our own territory to create it. It is created on land that otherwise would not have been seen as a part of Western civilization, so its existence seems like a bonus that costs ourselves nothing. Imagine an alternative history where the before the Moors pulled out of Spain, or the Ottomans pulled out of the Balkans, they had taken advantage of the opportunity to establish a Jewish state in Europe. In the Caliphates of old, Sephardic Jews found a home that was a lot more tolerant towards them than Europe was to the Ashkenazi Jews. Just as the Ashkenazi Jews were strongly influenced by Western customs, so have Sephardic Jews been influenced by North African ones. Such a Jewish state would have seemed like a lasting reminder of the invasion of the caliphates into Europe, and they would still be perceived as Arab in nature, and probably unwelcome by the Crusaders. You have to admit, many of us in the west have probably not taken the time to think about how we would perceive Israel if we were to see the Arab culture as our own. I find that this is much like how many peoples stance on abortion is influenced by their lack of a uterus. *** No one should have to leave the place they have lived their entire lives, and always called home, because of the language they speak, the tone of their skin, or the religion they belong to. This is true regardless of where they are, or what their color/language/religion is. This means that it is an injustice for either Palestinians or Jews to be forced into relocation. I have heard so many things said in defense of the Jewish state, and can think of so many for myself. Looking at the macrocosmic level, there seems to be no limit to how

many biblical justifications are used to defend Israels existence, and there is a list almost as long concerning the history of persecution of the Jewish people, and the size difference between the land occupied by Israel, and the land controlled by Arab states. There are certain microcosmic truths that might easily get hidden, but can never become less true by macrocosmic truths. One of these is that, despite all the reasons that can be given to make a case for Israel, and no matter how many times the Israeli state or innocent civilians have been the victims of terrorist attack, harassing Palestinian children is wrong. It is completely unjustifiable. It is true that I can not claim to know what it would feel like to have a friend or close family member killed in a suicide bombing, but even if I did, it would not make these hateful actions okay. No matter what other opinions you may hold about issues concerning the rightful status of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, no matter what your opinions of the Palestinian right to return are, can we at least all agree on the unacceptability of harassing and beating of Palestinian civilians and children? If you really want to speak up in defense of Israel, one of the best things for anybody to do would be to be the first person to condemn such despicable actions. Do not use the failure of any Palestinians to condemn a suicide bombing to take away the focus and condemnation this own microcosmic incident deserves. Every Israeli who maintains any sense of the holy Hebrew commandment of Tikkun Olam (repair the world) should be the first to say that this must stop. Regardless of your own nationality, the nature of this inhumane action really should be considered universally unacceptable. Hopefully from there, it is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to see burning down the olive groves that some Palestinians family had owned for generations is probably not going to accomplish anything positive. No, none of these incidents of disrespect by Israeli individuals should be used to condemn Israel as a whole, but neither should any terrorist attack by Palestinians be used to condemn the Palestinian nation as a whole, but many Israelis do use it as such. Most Arabs have never said God Bless Hitler. You can expect then that each of these instances will not help Israels reputation, so it is in the national interests of Israel to do everything to stop them. Yes, there are those Arabs who are given the benefit of Israeli citizenship, but as history in the United States will show; having citizenship does not guarantee that you will have the rights and respect that you deserve. There seems to be a discrepancy on the part of the Israeli government when it comes to granting building permits to Jewish and Arab citizens. One can not help but notice that the Jewish neighborhoods are usually in much better condition than predominantly Arab towns like Nazareth. There are Arab neighborhoods like Jaffa, which was once supposed to be a Palestinian city in the UN partition plan, where Arabs are often forced out because they can no longer afford to live there, due to discrepancies in income. Those that stay often face harassment from Jewish neighbors trying to drive them out. There is also the issue that there are a lot of Arab

villages in Israel proper that do not officially exist, so the people there do not get the rights of citizenship. It is common in Israel for a lot of people to carry signs saying expel the Arab enemy. There is talk about feeling like the Arab citizens must prove their allegiance, or else leave the country of their birth. It seems like a double standard for such overt racism to be acceptable in Israel, while other western countries that support them adopt more sensitive language about diversity. And on a more personal note, I think after all the shame that they have had placed on them for historical events, I think the German people have a lot of reason to object to there being such acceptable intolerance in Israel. It is true that Arab-Israelis have a higher standard of living than do Arabs in a lot of other states where they are the majority. It is true that even with the income gap, the class differences between Muslims and Jews in Israel is certainly not as great as that between the people who live in the futuristic high rises of Dubai, and the slum dwelling laborers brought in from India who build them. It is true that Israel has a much better established system of law guaranteeing rights than many often authoritarian Arab countries. It is true that Israel was the first country in the Middle East where Arab women were given the right to vote. It is true that there can be a lot to be said on behalf of Israel. Israelis would still be in a much better position to defend their legitimacy if they dont let these truths distract them from what they do wrong. MYTH OR REALITY? THE SOUTH AFRICA PARALLEL

From the Facebook page for Students Against Israeli Apartheid-Toronto Although I have noted some similarities between the social issues in Israel and the social issues in apartheid-era South Africa, to simplify them as being exactly the same is inaccurate. The biggest difference that I can see is that while apartheid never granted full rights of citizenship to any portion of the black community, Israel gives citizenship to

over one million Arabs. Israel is doing something that I suggested the old South African regime could have tried, namely seeming more inclusive while still ensuring a numerical majority of preferred citizens to preserve the political status quo. This does give the Israeli state more legitimacy than the old South Africa. Of course, to someone living in an overcrowded refugee camp, it might be little concession to you that someone who shares your language and religion has the chance at a decent life that you had been denied. Apartheid South Africa put a lot of emphasis on saying that order had to be maintained. If anybody brought up the uncivilized actions the state was engaged in, the government could just reiterate the need to protect their homeland, as if you couldnt have both order and fairness. When groups like the Concordia Hillel say they stand with Israel, as if that is the end of all discussion, with no mention of the occupation of the West Bank, it reminds me a bit of that. It should not be viewed as a choice between preserving peace and order in the Jewish state, and ending the injustices faced by the Palestinians. There is one major parallel between the Israeli government and the old South Africa government that is overlooked. In fairness, it is a characteristic found in just about any state that finds itself in a position of dominance. This characteristic is an overestimation of your ability to hold onto your power indefinitely and as such fails to act on the opportunities presented to them to preserve whatever power for their own group of people they can. Just like the dream of a state where Afrikaner culture could be predominant, the Zionist dream is a ticking clock counting down towards zero. With the exception of East Jerusalem, Israel has never officially annexed the West Bank, which it has occupied since 1967. Therefore, Palestinians born in the Occupied Territories outside of East Jerusalem are not given any of the benefits of Israeli citizenship, even though their lives are largely controlled by the Israeli authorities. Their movement across their own land is regulated by these authorities, who allow an Israeli minority to freely move through it on modern highways cutting through Palestinian land but that are for the exclusive use of Israelis. This gives Jewish settlers easy access to Israel proper, whole the Arabs are subjected to multiple checkpoints, even when just traveling to different points in the West Bank. Israel even maintains control of the aquifers under the Palestinians feet, and rarely grants them permits for wells. A third of Israels water comes from the West Bank, and Israelis use five times more water per capita than the Palestinians (source: National Geographic Oct. 2002). The only way Palestinians get integrated into Israeli society is as a cheap labor class. Israel as a whole might not resemble the old South Africa, but the realities of the West Bank certainly do. Even though they have never officially annexed the West Bank, Israel certainly acts like it is a part of their country. Israeli maps usually depict the West Bank as a contiguous part of their country, just as Quebecois maps often do with Labrador. To reinforce their claim, over 100 Israeli settlements have been built. Even so, 40 years later they remain a minority in West Bank. No matter how many times you say Jordan is Palestine, Arabs in Judea and Samaria are not going to magically disappear.

Israel really needs to either shit or get off the pot. If you are going to continue controlling the West Bank, you need to officially annex it already, and offer all of the people who live there the full freedom of movement, and rights and privileges, as Israeli citizens. This might seem unrealistic, since it would make Jews a much smaller percentage of the citizens of Israel. Well, if they cant give all of the people in the West Bank civil rights while under their control, then they need to withdraw. Israel has withdrawn from West Bank territory, but only partially. Full control by the Palestinian Authority is limited to non-contiguous areas with Israel controlling the corridors between them as well as the most strategically important territory. Since the Israelis and Palestinians are acting like children, it seems reasonable to try and treat them as such and separate them. If one of those children dictates the terms of that separation however, you can guess who is going to end up with most of the toys. If the separation wall Israel has built directly followed the internationally recognized border, perhaps it would be fair. However it is built almost entirely within the West Bank, with twists and turns that divide the land into ridiculous shapes, to let Israel hold onto as much territory as it can, no matter how much it inconveniences the Palestinians. You would think that Israel could at least give those Palestinians living on the same side of the barrier as the Israeli settlements full citizenship, but even that is apparently too much. Just like the apartheid governments efforts at appeasing the international community, the attempts by the Israeli government at appearing fair are not nearly good enough. This is not to say that if the Palestinians were in their position that their proposal would be fair either. Not only do the Palestinians want to see a removal of all of the Israeli settlements within the West Bank, but they also demand the Right of Return for the millions of descendents of the first generation refugees. The Palestinians in the West Bank are not being expected to tolerate a small fraction of the people living in their territory as nonArab, but they expect Israelis to accept a population of refugees so large, that in a democratic system they would no longer be able to control their own government. Others before me have pointed out that within the area controlled by the state of Israel, with its large Arab minority living within its internationally recognized borders and the millions of Arabs living in the occupied territories, in the near future Arab Muslims will be the numerical minority within the territory that Israel controls. When that happens, it will become a lot more difficult to repudiate the accusations from the international community that they are an apartheid state. These arguments could be one of the strongest for allowing the establishment of an independent Palestinian state outside of the control of Israel. However, Israeli nationalists seem to have a bad case of cognitive dissonance, like arrogant Republicans have with global warming. And like Republicans and global warming, they will ignore demographic trends as long as they can, and even when they cant ignore it any longer, they will still maintain the same false logic that

fueled their ignorance, and use it to come up with solutions that wont work. Any efforts will be too little too late. The demographic time bomb might eventually destroy the state of Israel, but this does not equal Palestinian justice. African colonies only gained their freedom after violence has destroyed most of their former infrastructure. I imagine that in the same pattern, an independent Palestine could resemble a larger version of the Gaza strip, with few people living above the poverty line, and the violence of the past occupation so engrained that infighting will continue among rival groups, even if there are no more Israelis. The chaos of war could also ensure that whoever rules over such a territory could be as despotic and dismissive of the populace as the IDF has been in the West Bank. The Israelis would certainly not be in a better position than they are today either, since their state would cease to exist. Neither side will benefit from trying to hold on to the current status quo. This precious time should be used to prepare for the creation of an independent Palestinian state, which will also give the Israelis time to be pre-emptive in ceding land that they can not hold indefinitely, so that there may still be some areas that can maintain a Jewish majority. ONE-STATE TWO-STATE GREEN-STATE BLUE-STATE Many do not want to see a division of the land they consider holy, anymore than a mother would agree to have King Solomon slice their baby in half. I am a bit confused though how it is people always assume that Gods definition of politics is the same as their own. The modern notion of the nation-state is only around 200 years old, and do we think that the boundaries of the land of Abraham coincide with the ones drawn out for the post World War I British mandate? Are we so egotistical that we assume that if we draw a line on a map, that we also draw one in Gods eye? I have to wonder if the two-state solution would be one of those agreements that everyone was happy with, or that no one was happy with. Both the Palestinian and Israeli sides would prefer a unified state that ideally would be known either as Israel or Palestine. Some hope for an agreement of a shared state that will be secular in nature, but that will probably appeal more to whomever feels like they will be able to dominate it, just as a North American Union would appeal more to the U.S. than to Canada. If the choice is seen as between Jewish rule, and non-Jewish rule, most of the support for a secular state might come from non-Israelis. There are already plenty of countries that are secular, as well as many Muslim countries trying to enact Sharia Law. But if there were to be any country that had their laws influenced by Jewish teachings, it would either be Israel, or no-one. Just because a single state is established, with the stated intent of being secular, and equal for all, does not mean that it will be. Israelis might still have economic dominance in a single state, just as white South Africans do after apartheid. And once the concrete walls are replaced by glass ceilings, there might be a lack of willingness to see

the need for affirmative action. There could also be the possibility of eventual Arab dominance, at which point the demand for maintaining a secular state might become less popular. What if the Palestinian equivalent of Robert Mugabe came to power? *** From a Zionist standpoint I could understand wanting to keep all of the territory Israel captured in 1967 (Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, West Bank, and the entire Sinai Peninsula). The territory of the Arab world would still be much larger. That might seem fair to the Israelis, but like the dream of preserving apartheid, it is simply not possible. Even if a Greater Israel were to exist, it would no doubt find the need to designate a portion of the territory they claimed as an autonomous region for Palestinians. South Africa tried this with the Bantustans, but ultimately failed because it kept them too small and dependent. The only hope for being able to sustain a Greater Israel would be if the self governing region granted to the Palestinians was so large that it was like a dual state. The Israelis would have to grant an equal partnership status to the Palestinians, like the Austrian Empire had to give to the Hungarians. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a modern example of such a dual state, shown on maps as being one country, but in two halves that are each pretty much sovereign in all of their affairs, so that the different population groups can feel represented, with the capital city straddling the boundary between them, much like has been envisioned for the future of Jerusalem. Starting from an Arab nationalist standpoint, I can see wanting to consider all of this land in its entirety as theirs. They must face the fact however that every attempt at destroying the Israeli state has proven self-destructive. If they want to see all of this land as part of a Greater Palestine, they must be willing to accept that Arabs will not make up the majority in all parts of it. Even without Israel, Arab countries have already been using Extra National Perceptions to perceive places with non-Arab majorities as a part of their nation, like the Darfur region of the Sudan, or the Kurdish regions in northern Iraq. Likewise, Israelis have also been using Extra-National Perceptions even when they dont count the West Bank as a part of Israel. There is an Arab majority in the Northern Province of Israel where Nazareth is located. Both Israelis and Arabs have already proven that they are able to accommodate the other, without having to sacrifice their own identity. Thanks to the use of Extra-National Perceptions, It might be possible for the Palestinians to have a state, and to define its borders as encompassing all of the area and for Israelis to simultaneously do the same. What do you call this two-in-one state? Different languages use different words to describe the same thing. Peace is Shalom in Hebrew and Salaam in Arabic. Therefore, call the country Palestine in Arabic, and Israel in Hebrew. As for the rest of the world, they can call it Susie for all I care. ***

It is easy for parishioners of a Unitarian church in North America to dream of Israelis and Palestinians living together in harmony, hand-in-hand skipping through a field of daisies. We need to take off those rose-colored glasses. Unlike the U.S.-Canadian border, a border shared by Israelis and Palestinians is likely to be a tense one. That is why I propose that there be some kind of buffer-zone between the two halves. The UN has such a buffer between the Greek and Turkish communities of Cyprus. However, if there was going to be a no-mans land between the Israelis and Palestinians then a lot of people would have to be displaced from what is already a small territory. That is why like the Green Line in Cyprus, this territory should be a place where people from both nations can live together as true equals. This is where I think the idea of a secular state shared by Israelis and Palestinians could be useful. It would be easier to sustain the secular nature of such a state if there is a Jewish state to one side, and an Arab-Muslim state to the other, to accommodate those who see secularism as intolerable. Everyone living within the secular state buffer zone would have dual Israeli and Palestinian citizenship. People in either the Israeli or Palestinian states would have the option of dual citizenship. However, Hebrew would be the primary official language in the Israeli state, Arabic would be the primary official language in the Palestinian state, and both would be given equal status in the secular state. Israelis in the buffer zone could be free to consider themselves and their land as a part of Israel, and Palestinians could be free to see themselves as a part of Palestine. This is not to say that there would no longer be any Arabs living in Israel, or Jews living in Palestine, but they would have to accept that they are in the minority, and see the prudence of encouraging a spirit of coexistence with their neighbors. Whoever lives in the buffer zones should be devoted to peace. Considering the mentality of some Israelis, particularly settlers, it is perhaps best if some do relocate. Hopefully other Israelis with a stronger commitment to progressive politics could find a home here, so that the best of both sides could be represented. The buffer zones also help create an opportunity to at least partially accept the demand for a right of return. Of the millions of Palestinian refugees, surely there are enough who can prove that they are willing to coexist with Israelis, that a number that is at least equal to the number who were originally expelled in 1948, could be invited to live in the secular middle-state. The proceeding map indicates what this arrangement might look like. Hard-line Israeli nationalists might not accept this, just as Afrikaner nationalists never would have accepted ceding control of the eastern half of South Africa. But like the old South African government, time is not on the side of the Likud Party, so this might be the best deal Israel can get in the long run. With hindsight, future Zionists might long for the day when they could have had an arrangement like the one below.

The size of the White Zone could vary from enveloping almost the entire country, or limited to a small strip between the Jewish and Muslim states. The Blue Zone is less like the early Israeli state than the White Zone. There was a strong tradition of secularism among the earlier Zionists. I see that tradition alive in scenes of drum circles taking place on the beaches of Tel-Aviv. Now, the ultra-religious are trying to take over and ruin it for everyone. They are trying to force women to sit at the back of the bus in Israel. They have already forced Reform Jews to go to Cyprus to get married, because Israel will not recognize their weddings. With the White Zone, secular minded Jews would be ensured a refuge from this fanaticism, and marry as they please. People in the White Zone also wouldnt be expected to financially support any ultra-Orthodox that are unemployed because they devote all their time to reading the Talmud. People in the White Zone should also be exempt from conscription, like the ultra-Orthodox are. Secular Jews should realize that their best allies in helping ensure a zone where religion and politics are kept separate would be Palestinian Christians and Muslims who believe in the separation of Mosque and state. The Blue Zone would be more like what the religious-nationalists are trying to make Israel into. I dont think everyone living there should be Jewish, but everyone living there could make the pledge of allegiance to the Jewish state that conservative

Israeli politicians are trying to foolishly advocate for the whole country. Also, regardless of religious affiliation, anyone who lives there should be considered, not by discrimination but rather inclusion, as part of the People. Just as everyone is Irish on St. Patricks Day, regardless of their heritage, everyone living here should be automatically Jewish, whether they practice Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Just as non-practicing Jews have been counted as a part of the tribe, this zone should be an excuse to extend the sense of national-family to others. It used to be common knowledge that historically, being Jewish and being Arab were not mutually exclusive. Historically, there were sizeable Jewish communities spread throughout the Arab world, using Arabic as their native tongue, and as such were Jewish Arabs. Being rejected by the Arab world when Israel was founded, most of these Israeli citizens do not identify strongly with these roots. This secular buffer zone would also be a good place for settlement of Israelis who have ties to the Arab world. For the sake of peace for Israel, they should find volunteers from the Jewish community who are willing to provide a vital bridge between the Arab and Jewish worlds, by living in the buffer zone, and finding a way to identify with the culture and language of the Arab world, but also maintain their Jewish religion, and Israeli citizenship.

Flag for Jewish Arabs Because of its small size, most of the buffer zone around the Gaza Strip would be made out of Israeli territory, perhaps following the lines of the Jewish state that was agreed to in the UN partition plan. However, considering what a small strip of land Israel has between the West Bank and the Mediterranean Sea, I think the buffer between the Palestinian controlled West Bank and the State of Israel should be mostly situated on land in the West Bank. I also think that portions of northern Israel that have an Arab majority should become part of this secular, intermediary state. Many of the Israeli Arabs living there have not expressed a desire to become a part of the political turmoil that has been faced by the Palestinian Authority.

The Palestinians could achieve some compensation for territory ceded to the White Zone by getting some territory from the adjacent Kingdom of Jordan, where there is already a large Palestinian population. In return, Jordan would be made part of a new confederation that included Israel, Palestine, and the secular buffer zone between them. Just as Canada is considered part of the realm of the Queen of England, all of the area in Palestine/Israel, should be considered part of the realm of the King of Jordan, but like in Canada this would be a constitutional monarchy, and Israelis and Palestinians could choose whether or not to acknowledge the King of Jordan as their sovereign. Jordan could also be offered a port in the Gaza Strip, so that they could have open access to the Mediterranean Sea. It would also be easy to provide an access corridor, in the narrow piece of Israeli territory in the Negev Desert to link Egypt and Jordan. As for the Palestinian Right of Return, obviously international law is not enough to make Israel allow several million Arabs to move into their borders. Their refusal might seem prudent for national interests. But considering the popular demand to do so, they could, also for the prudence of national interests, open up the pressure-release valve a bit and let some of them in. After almost seventy years, there is no reason for Palestinians to still be stuck in overcrowded, poorly maintained refugee camps. Israel is right to ask why other Arab countries besides Jordan do not give citizenship to displaced Palestinians, but that does not excuse their own lack of humanitarian action. Even with full citizenship in other Arab countries, many Palestinians would still be stuck in poverty, as many of the nationals in countries like Egypt and Syria are. They would have more opportunities in countries with a higher GDP. Israel has a relatively high GDP, but many still do not consider them a big enough vessel to absorb the whole of the displaced Palestinian nation. Well, if Israel is not big enough, then other developed countries like the United States certainly are. With its large size, and over 300 million people, the U.S. could easily accommodate the Palestinian refugees. And it is not as if they would have to take all of them in, perhaps just a million or so, less than 1% of their current population. Some Palestinians could still return to their ancestral homes in Israel proper. Others could be given citizenship in the wealthier Arab states like Kuwait and the U.A.E. Countries like Canada could certainly also take some in, but considering how much support the U.S. has given to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories, most of the responsibility rests with them. If Americans really say they support Israel, then they should accept this. It also seems like the humane thing to do. As for Jerusalem, it should be one city, with one city council, but with three districts that are almost completely autonomous. Most of what is now West Jerusalem would be directly under Israeli jurisdiction, and house the Knesset. The second district of Jerusalem would become the center of government for the autonomous, secular buffer zone between the Israeli and Palestinian states. It will be made up of some territory from West Jerusalem, but mostly territory from East Jerusalem and from the town of Bethlehem to the south, to encompass a mixed community of Jewish Christian and Muslim residents. Some neighborhoods can be exclaves of the Israeli and Palestinian

states, just like Switzerland has exclaves of Germany and Italy within its borders. Like these other exclaves, there would be no border checkpoints between them. This district of Jerusalem would be the narrow bottle neck of the secular buffer zone. This district would itself have kind of an hourglass shape, as the territory for the Israeli controlled district and the Palestinian controlled districts would both come close to the Old City, which would also be located in the buffer zone, and like the Old City of Quebec, be declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The third district of Jerusalem will be made up of those adjacent areas of East Jerusalem that have a mostly Muslim population, but also be expanded to include the nearby Palestinian towns of Ram Allah, and Al-Quds, and be home to the Palestinian Parliament. A lot of value is attributed to such a small area. Why do you think it is called the Holy Land? It is not because of the holes left by bullets and bombs, although those are plentiful. The most revered territory is Jerusalem, and no place in Jerusalem would be considered more valuable than the Old City, which is divided into the Christian, Armenian, Jewish, and Muslim Quarters. Although the Old City would be inside the buffer zone, the Jewish Quarter could be an exclave for the Israeli state, and the Muslim Quarter would be an exclave for the Palestinian State. Where does the land stop being holy? Does Israel (or Palestine) truly have any real borders, or is all of the land on Gods Earth holy? This also applies to the municipal limits of the city of Jerusalem. You might know where this sacred city is, but can you really define where it is not? Rebbe Menachem Sneerson once said that wherever you find yourself, make that your Jerusalem. Finally there is the Temple Mount, where the ancient Israelis built the first and second temples, and it is said that the prophet Mohammed ascended into heaven. The AlAqsa Mosque, and the Golden Dome of the Rock, currently occupies that space, and only Muslims are allowed to worship there. If the Palestinians are going to sue for peace and justice, the Temple Mount is their biggest bargaining chip. I like the late King Hussein of Jordans idea of having the Temple Mount under the sovereignty of God alone. This could be one of the places where hopefully we let go of giving names to the nameless, such as Israel or Palestine, Jerusalem or Al-Quds, the Temple Mount or Haram-al-Sharif. The Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif can not be contained by the concept of property and mortal ownership. Let it be a place where everyone is truly an equal, not to be distinguished by wealth, nationality, or title. Just as all pilgrims going to Mecca all wear simple and plain clothes, as a reminder that they are not to be differentiated by the outside lives, so should it be here. There should be no differentiation of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Some ultra-nationalist Israelis want to build the Third Temple where the Golden Dome of the Rock now stands. Is this temple to really be dedicated to God, or themselves? It would be a shame to destroy Jerusalems most picturesque building, and besides, it too is meant to be dedicated to God. Where once we found triumph in conquering lands, it would be better here to conquer our own minds. Rather than build different structures on the Temple Mount, how about having different perspectives on

them? For instance, and this might be too radical a concept for some to be ready for, but what if you considered the Dome of the Rock as the Third Temple? You dont have to accept this. I state again that I am just throwing out ideas for the purpose of considering all options for serving a higher purpose. Like religious faith, you only have to choose what beliefs help you lead the best life you can, and maintain peace with yourself and others. Even with my disclaimer, for expressing these ideas out loud I have now probably succeeded in making plenty of enemies on all sides.

I created a Facebook group called Children of Abraham to promote a design for a flag for both Israelis and Palestinians, not to replace their respective flags, but to create one with common ground. Many have rejected this flag, because they see any love for, or even just willingness to coexist with the other side as a betrayal. This reminded me of a time in class when I calmly approached a bee and used my hands to gently guide it towards the window. Many of my classmates interpreted my actions as being for love of bee, but one could find reasoning behind my actions without giving a shit about bugs. I too wanted to avoid anyone getting stung. However, it just so happened that the best way to ensure my own well-being was to take action that would also be to the benefit of the bee, and thus seemed like something that only some rainbow flower child would do. The way forward is not to start by asking anyone to love another people. The first step is not even to desire peace above all else. The first step is to love your own people. I know it seems as though that is what leads people to war in the first place, but if your love for your people is genuine then surely you would love them enough to avoid any action that would inevitably harm them. In the name of loving our own, we should be willing to see all options that we can take to help ourselves, even when the best option is an action that we think only a pussy or an Uncle Tom would take. A bee dies after it stings someone, so coincidentally it would have been prudent of the bee not to sting anyone unless it had to. We must ask ourselves when we are acting like bees, and taking actions in the name of our own welfare that could harm us.