A Response to the "Open Letter from American Jews to Our Government"

The full-page ad that ran in today's Chronicle (Jan. 21,2003) on page A7 was a true achievement on behalf of American Jews and hopefully a significant step forward in communicating to our government and to other Jewish Americans, such as those who people AIPAC and JINSA, that U.S. foreign policy towards Israel must change.

I think perhaps the most significant part of the ad was the statement "The U.S. bears a special responsibility for the current tragic impasse, by virtue of our massive economic and military support for the Israeli government : $500 per Israeli citizen per year. As American Jews who care deeply about the long-term security of Israel, we call on our government to make continued aid conditional on Israeli acceptance of an internationally agreed two-state settlement."

Personally, I think the one-state solution is the most humane solution by far. When South Africa became a true democracy, it didn't break up into one country for whites and one country for blacks. Neither did the U.S. break up into two countries after the Civil War, and forced segregation was made illegal. The two-state solution is still leads to a form of apartheid inevitably, and involves uprooting people, and moving them according to religion, more than anything, which is discriminatory. Before Zionism arrived in Palestine in the 1880s, Muslims, Jews and Christians all lived together in relative harmony literally as neighbors, without borders. It was the exclusionary, Jewish supremacist nature of Zionism which caused the conflict more than anything in the region, which involved ethnic cleansing then and which is continuing up to now in this moment in time.

I think it is very obvious, that as the letter mentioned, "Foreign troops may well be required to enforce it (the change), and they must be prepared to accept casualties." Witness even the resistance of the renegade settlers by the IDF to abandon their makeshift settlements on Palestinian private property, never mind a broader, sweeping change, whether it is dismantling settlements and / or allowing the Palestinians to return to their ancestral homeland in Palestine-Israel.

The letter mentioned a partition along the pre-1967 borders, which would allow the Palestinians only 22% of the land which was once all theirs. Why not share the land as equals? That would be truly fair. It is possible. It has been done before.

There not should be any limitations on the "right to return" of the Palestinian refugees. It is not possible to offer fair "financial compensation" for Palestinian refugees, except on a strictly voluntary basis. How can one put a price tag on one's beloved homeland? This is impossible for many Palestinians, I am sure. Palestinians have a living, breathing and dying connection to the land going back many generations, whereas most American Jews really don't. And let's face it, America's a great place to live, and there is no real need for another homeland, if you are really an American. I believe emphatically that all Palestinian refugees must be allowed their right to return to their ancestral homeland of Palestine-Israel as it is their right according to UN Resolutions, International Law and world opinion.

The one-state solution with a strong Bill of Rights and Constitution, with equal rights for all regardless of religion, ethnicity, race or sex, is an alternative that, disappointingly, American Jews often overlook and disregard, even though it is obviously the most humane and progressive solution of all. It is also most in keeping with our American ideals and what activists have fought to achieve in this country. The two-state solution is actually a regressive solution. Sending in peace-keeping troops is absolutely necessary for either solution to oversee the transformation to curb the violence, especially the state-sponsored Israeli terrorism, which has wreaked far more damage on the Palestinians and their property than the hapless Palestinian suicide bombers have in return to the Israelis.