Palestine: More Discussion, Not Less
Item: With the November 2006 publication of his book, Palestine Peace not Apartheid, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter has received some extremely negative reaction. Some critics are up in arms because Carter uses the word “apartheid” in reference to Israel, which they think unfairly evokes the cruel, racist regime of South Africa. In his book, Carter writes, “Utilizing their political and military dominance, [Israeli leaders] are imposing a system of partial withdrawal, encapsulation, and apartheid on the Muslim and Christian citizens of the occupied territories. The driving purpose for the forced separation of the two peoples is unlike that in South Africa—not racism, but the acquisition of land. There has been a determined and remarkably effective effort to isolate settlers from Palestinians, so that a Jewish family can commune from Jerusalem to their highly subsidized home deep in the West Bank on roads from which others are excluded, without ever coming into contact with any facet of Arab life.” In addition, Carter describes the hardships and injustices Palestinians face under the brutal Israeli military occupation that will mark its 40th year this June. While some critics have accused Carter of bigotry and anti-Semitism for these descriptions, he has said he wanted to spark a lively discussion on a taboo subject in the U.S. political mainstream.
Item: Several months before Carter’s book hit the stores, two U.S. academics, John Mearsheimer from Harvard and Stephen Walt from Chicago, published a long, critical essay on the Israel lobby (which, it should be noted, is not a Jewish lobby, given the enthusiastic support for Israel by well known Christian evangelists and leaders). The authors argue that the power of this lobby is crucial in determining U.S. support for Israel and ought to be debated. The authors state, “Thanks to the Lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians. This situation undercuts Washington’s efforts to promote democracy abroad and makes it look hypocritical when it presses other states to respect human rights. US efforts to limit nuclear proliferation appear equally hypocritical given its willingness to accept Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which only encourages Iran and others to seek a similar capability.” For such views, these authors, too, have been subjected to ad hominem attacks and accusations of anti-Semitism.
Item: In February 2006 the New York Theater Workshop, an Off Broadway Theater, decided to “postpone” an upcoming production of a one-woman play, My Name is Rachel Corrie. The play is based on the journals, letters, and emails of an American college student, Rachel Corrie, who was bulldozed to death by an Israeli soldier in the Gaza Strip in March 2003 as she was trying to prevent the demolition of a doctor’s home. After having polled the local Jewish community in New York, the theater director decided to drop the play as the community wasn’t sufficiently prepared and the political context of Rachel Corrie’s story might take away from the art of the play. One playwright, Walter A. Davis, observed, “I’m sure that Rachel Corrie would be glad to hear that the artistic quality of her words is being preserved from the taint of politics and that the beauty of her prose transcends the political context in which she penned her impassioned commitment to an ethic of human responsibility.”
It would appear that Jimmy Carter, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and the Rachel Corrie play have touched such a nerve and make some people so uncomfortable that these individuals have to be discredited and this play shelved.
SLU Solidarity with Palestine believes that we need to have more perspectives and discussions on the Israel-Palestine conflict, not less. To that end of robust and respectful discussion, we are offering the SLU community Palestine Awareness Week the last week of January, with events each evening, Monday through Friday.
On Tuesday we welcome Professor Norman Finkelstein to address the roots of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the prospects for peace. In his recent book, Beyond Chutzpah, Finkelstein states, “Looking back after two decades of study and reflection, I am struck most by how uncomplicated the Israel-Palestine conflict is.” Isn’t he going against conventional wisdom, which repeats how intractable and hard to fathom this conflict is? We invite you to come hear his argument, and ask him your tough questions.
We are also pleased that two SLU alumnae will be sharing their experiences doing peace and human rights work in the West Bank. On Thursday evening, Jennifer Presson (Nursing, 2004) will speak of her work this past summer and fall with Palestinians in forming the Palestine Solidarity Project to protect their land. On Friday evening, Magan Wiles (Theater, 2004) will present a multimedia drama of why she went to Palestine and what she witnessed in a Palestinian refugee camp.
We as a university community need to break out of the SLU bubble to become more aware of one of the more dramatic public issues of our time: How to bring justice and peace to Palestine and Israel. Some may want to inhibit this discussion. Some might shy away from it, believing it too divisive or controversial. But we would all do well to ponder the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right.”
The above was published in SLU’S University News on Friday 26 January 2007.