Washingtonpost.com: Live Online

Elections in Israel
Palestinian Perspective
With Ali Abunimah
Co-founder of Electronic Intifada, VP of the Arab-American Action Network
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003; 11 a.m. ET

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon won a decisive victory in Israel's election Tuesday, gaining an overwhelming endorsement for his harsh military crackdown on the Palestinian uprising and his tough response to terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Palestinians living in the Israeli controlled West Bank cannot vote, though the election will have a profound impact on their lives and the future relations between Israelis and Palestinians. What is the response of the Palestinian Authority and other Palestinian organizations seeking to create a Palestinian nation in the Middle East?

Ali Abunimah, co-founder of Electronic Intifada and the vice president of the Arab-American Action Network, was live from Amman, Jordan on Wednesday, Jan. 29, at 11 a.m. ET, to discuss the Palestinian perspective of the Israeli elections.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

St. Paul, Minn.: Does it really matter who wins the Israeli election? It was Labour who ethnicly cleansed Palestinians from 415 villages in 1948, and while Likud are certainly more overt about confiscating Palestinian land when they are in power -- and Sharon's past and recent history both gives additional serious reasons for concern -- from a Palestinian perspective are there any fundamental differences between the two?

Ali Abunimah: The outcome of the elections makes absolutely no difference to ordinary Palestinians. Why? What is needed to end this conflict and bring peace and security to both peoples is a clear and genuine decision by Israel to completely end the occupation and allow Palestinians to live in freedom either in an independent Palestine or in a single state in which all Israelis and all Palestinians enjoy equal human and political rights. Up to now, no Israeli party or government has proposed this, and certainly none of those competing in this election. Amram Mitzna's Labor Party offered nothing but warmed over Oslo ideas and fell far short of committing to a complete end to the occupation and the removal of all colonies from occupied land. Labor did not even commit to stop building settlements let alone removing those that it helped build. Hence a Labor victory would at best simply have restored the illusion of a "peace process," while Israeli bulldozers continued to demolish homes and build settlements.

The outcome of the elections does make a difference to some of the discredited Palestinian Authority officials who hoped that a Labor victory might lead to their own personal rehabilitation, and thus a renewal of the prestige and privileges that they enjoyed in the "good old days" of Oslo. But for Palestinians on the ground, the secular trend towards increasing repression and violence by Israeli occupation forces has grown steadily over the past sixteen years regardless of which party has been in power. For example, the violence and collective punishment used by "dovish" Labor prime minister Ehud Barak was far more vicious than that used by the "hawkish" Likud prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when he was in power. Barak also built more settlements than Netanyahu according to reliable reports.

Remember, until a few months before the election, the Labor party ruled in a happy coalition with Sharon, and the hand that signed the Sharon government's orders to carry out dozens of war crimes and death squad killings was that of Labor party leader and defense minister Fuad "Benjamin" Ben-Eliezer. Why should Palestinians suddenly put hope in such a party?

Texas: Why is it that Arabs can occupy land larger than 1000 Israels yet the Arabs insist on taking Israel, too? Do you people really think its that great an injustice for Jews to have a tiny piece of land for thier own?

Ali Abunimah: Do you think it is fair for Texans to occupy all that land? Why don't you give Texas to Israel instead? The Palestinians have a right to live in their native land and not be kicked out like garbage just because someone else is stronger and think their own God loves them more. All humans are equal and all have the same rights. How would you like it if someone came and took your house and threw your family out and said "there are 49 other states for you to live in, so pick up and go to New Jersey"?

Brooklyn, N.Y.: Let me get this straight: the Palestinians are upset that Israel is currently in their towns and cities, yet do nothing to stop the violence that brought them there? Did the world forget that on September 28, 2000 there was not a single Israeli soldier in Bethlehem and Ramallah? Today, as Abu Mazen pointed out, those cities are in ruins. Could it be the wave of violence against Israeli civilians had a direct effect on the actions of the Israeli army? Would it also not follow that opposite actions by the Palestinian terrorists could similarly have a reverse effect on the Israeli military? Could it be any simpler? If the Palestinians end the Intifada, the Israeli soldiers will withdraw from the Palestinian cities. If that occurs, Sharon will be forced to offer the Palestinians a viable state, and if he does not, Israel's citizens will elect a leader who will offer such a deal. Israel is willing to give, but only if the other side is willing to accept.

Ali Abunimah: To answer your question, allow me to quote from an article I wrote recently call "On Violence and the Intifada":

"While it must be reaffirmed that Palestinian attacks targeting Israeli civilians must stop immediately, one has to forget all of history to believe that these operations are what stand in the way of progress towards a peaceful solution, and are not in fact simply a symptom of the violence and despair of life under endless occupation. Peace, after all, must be made during conflict.

From the beginning of Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967, through the first Intifada into the early 1990s, there were no suicide bombings. Before the first Intifada, Israel had near quiet in the Occupied Territories. Liberal Israelis were content to use Palestinians as a cheap source of labor, and to visit their occupied towns and cities at weekends to enjoy the superior hummus. Meanwhile, Labor- and Likud-led governments assiduously built the infrastructure of military occupation and colonization with the explicit purpose of making a withdrawal impossible....

According to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, from the beginning of the first Intifada in 1987, until the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993, Palestinians killed a total of one hundred Israeli civilians, half of them inside the Occupied Territories. During the same period, Israeli occupation forces and settlers killed more than 1,160 Palestinian civilians -- more than eleven Palestinians for every Israeli. Israel's lethal response to the civil protests of the first Intifada are what "armed" or "militarized" the conflict inside the Occupied Territories. Israel's violence against a generation during the first Intifada, its grim desert concentration camps (now reopened for business) and its systematic torture, sowed what is being reaped today.

Neither the cheap and easy occupation that Israel enjoyed prior to the first Intifada, nor the vastly better security that Israelis had, ever induced Israel to loosen its military dictatorship over the Palestinians, or to slow the pace of violent land confiscations and colony construction."

In other words it has always been the case, as it is today, that the vast majority of the violence is directed from Israel towards the Palestinian people, and this is still the case today. It is totally hypocritical of those who call on the Palestinian people to stop violence to maintain the pretense that Israel -- the invading, occupying power, which rules the occupied territories solely for the benefit of its colonists -- is somehow only engaged in "self-defence."

Molde, Norway: Dear Mr Abunimah,
I fear that the United States and Israel, intend to use the coming war against Iraq -- which, not so incidentally, will constitute a Crime against the Peace according to International Law -- to remake the map of West Asia, and, in particular, that the Israeli government will utilise the occasion to ethnically cleanse at the very least the whole the occupied West Bank and the Gaza of Palestinians. Do you find my fears exaggerated, or do they in your view represent a realistic appraisal of the type of planning that is now going on in Washington and Jerusalem?

M. Day, PhD, MD

Ali Abunimah: It is a fact that parties which openly advocate the crime of genocide against the Palestinians (the ethnic cleansing or in Israeli parlance "transfer" of all the Palestinians) did rather well in the Israeli election (Moledet, National Union), and previously sat in the Israeli cabinet. I would say that the risk that Israel will attempt such an atrocity has increased, but it is hard to put odds on it. It will not be easy for Israel to do it, but nor can we count on the international community to do much to stop it. It is only responsible that we pay attention to what pro-ethnic cleansing Israeli leaders are saying and take them at their word when they call for war crimes and mass ethnic cleansing.

Glenmont, Md.: If an arab state of Palestine is created in Israel, then shouldn't arab states such as Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Algeria and others also be required to carve out sections of their territory for jewish states to be created and allow the 900,000 Jews they expelled the "right of return?"

Ali Abunimah: You are correct that hundreds of thousands of Jewish Arabs were encouraged or forced to leave their native Arab countries both by Israel and Arab states between 1949 and the late 1950s. In some cases they left voluntarily, in other cases, official and popular intimidation inflamed by the Israeli-Arab conflict forced them out, and in other cases, particularly in Iraq, Israeli and Zionist saboteurs carried out anti-Jewish campaigns in order to make Jews feel unsafe so they would go to Israel. Regardless of why these Jews left, they have an absolute right to return to their native Arab homes, and to recover any private property that was unjustly seized from them. They should also have their citizenship and all their rights restored to them.

Amman, Jordan: With Sharon back in power, isn't it about time that the palestinians elect a new leader to replace the now defunct Arafat? Surely there are men of excellent caliber among the Palestinian leadership. The main name that comes to mind is that of Dr. Mustafa Barghouti who seems to hold the respect of many Palestinians.

Ali Abunimah: It was clear to many Palestinians that they needed new leadership long before the United States and apologists for Israel suddenly became champions of Palestinian "reform." The problem is that Israeli military dictatorship makes democracy impossible. Palestinians were due to hold elections on Jan 20th, but Israel decided to make these elections impossible. Even if they had gone ahead, it is unlikely they would have really been democractic. Because for true democracy you need civil society, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, the freedom to organize and so on. Israel had systematically destroyed Palestinian civil society, attacked and closed down schools and universities, arrested, imprisoned and tortured thousands of political activists and assassinated political leaders. Obviously democracy cannot exist under such circumstances.

Derwood, Md.: Isn't it true that the Palestinan Authority will never be a "democracy"? How can Arafat transform his third-world dictatorship into a democracy? Can Palestinians vote for someone other than Arafat?

Ali Abunimah: Palestinians living under Israeli military dictatorship can;t vote for anyone, not even Arafat, because....they live under military dictatorship.

Washington, D.C.: Will the Palestinian Authority ever hold an election of their own, or will they join the long line of Arab dictatorships?

Ali Abunimah: They did hold an election in 1994, and wanted to hold one again on January 20. The Israeli military rulers of the occupied territories canceled it however.

Vienna, Va.: Ali,

What is the general reaction in Jordan to Sharon's victory?

Ali Abunimah: Among the people I have spoken to there is little surprise or disappointment. In the past people used to see more of a difference among the Israeli parties. Today they tend to see them all as part of a whole. Given the amount of bad news that comes daily, especially the nearly daily bombing of Palestinian neighborhoods, and near daily killing of children, like 7 year-old Ali Ghureiz who was killed by an Israeli tank shell in Gaza on Sunday, people aren't paying much attention to Israeli politics. They are also very worried about and opposed to a war against Iraq, so that is a very big issue.

Alexandria, Va.: What is the international law on Israeli settlements and how are these being financed?

Ali Abunimah: The United Nations Security Council has ruled countless times that Israel, the occupying power in east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, is bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Article 49 of this convention (i'm quoting by heart here), "the Occupying Power shall not transfer parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies." The Convention also states clearly that forced removal of the native population, demolition of homes, pillage and looting of private property are strictly prohibited. Hence the entire international community, even the United States, agrees that Israel's colonies in the Occupied Territories are illegal. By continuing to build and maintain these colonies, Israel is in material breach of numerous, binding Security Council resolutions. The settlements are in large part financed by the US taxpayer, because it is clear that Israel could not afford to maintain either the settlements or the military occupation that supports them, without billions of dollars in free money from hard working Americans every year. Here is something to think about: every Israeli man, woman and child gets free health care, and the settlers have a higher standard of living than any other Israelis. Meanwhile, 44 million Americans who pay for this have no healthcare at all.

Washington, D.C.: Israel's economy is a shambles, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's inciteful tactics (like the bombing of a crowded Gaza apartment with a one-ton bomb, killing 14) have clearly done nothing to improve Israel's security. Why did the Israeli public re-elect Sharon? How long can Israel sustain these tactics before going back to the negotiating table?

Ali Abunimah: Why did the Israeli public reject the so-called "peace parties"? This is a good question.

The Israeli Labor party and left generally, discredited and destroyed themselves by lying both to the Palestinians and to the Israeli people. To the Palestinians, Labor said it wished to withdraw from the Occupied Territories and make peace. Instead, during the years of the so-called peace process, Labor governments doubled the number of Israeli colonists squatting on occupied Palestinian land. To the Israeli people, the Labor party said "you can have peace and security without really giving up the occupation, without really dismantling the settlements, without really ending our domination of millions of Palestinians, and without ever acknowledging Israel's primary responsibility for the expulsion and exile of three quarters of the Palestinian population in 1947-48, and without ever redressing those injustices. The biggest lie nurtured by the Israeli left is the totally discredited myth that at Camp David, Israel made a "generous offer" that Arafat refused, thus launching the Intifada. The Israeli left clings to this fiction in order to absolve itself of the primary responsibility for missing the chance offered by the historic compromise the Palestinians made in 1993, when the PLO recognized Israel and agreed to a Palestinian state in just twenty-two percent of Palestine/Israel, even though just a few decades ago Palestinians owned more than 90% of the land and were the overwhelming majority of the population. Labor missed this chance and chose settlements instead of peace. For this it seeks to blame the Palestinians, a people whose levels of malnutrition have reached those of Congo, and whose entire, devastated economy barely adds up to what Israel spends on settlements alone in a single year.

So now a traumatized and deceived Israeli public believes that they gave "peace" a chance and they were rewarded only with terror. In reality, the Palestinians never had a single day of freedom, a single day without torture, a single day without bulldozers plowing up their land, a single day without occupation forces controlling every aspect of their lives. But during the Oslo years, Israelis didn't want to hear about it. They wanted to believe that the occupation was over and peace would be at hand just because Israel had subcontracted some of the dirty work of occupation to Arafat.

I refer you to Electronic Intifada's "Debunking Six Common Israeli Myths" for detailed analysis of the Camp David myth and other issues.

Redland, Md.: Is the Palestinian Authority a free-society that respects freedom of speech and the rights of womens and minorities? Why does the Palestinian Authority draft constitution state that Islam
is the official religion when there are 50,000 Palestinian Christians?

Ali Abunimah: Why is Israel a "Jewish state" when 20% or more of its population are not Jews? I oppose all established religion and would not want an eventual Palestinian state to have any official religion. Having said that, Christians are an integral part of Palestinian society and the Palestinian struggle for freedom, and the importance of Christianity as part of Palestinian society, history and culture cannot be overstated.

Washington, DC: While you attack the Israelis' democracy, will there ever be a comprehensive condemnation by the Arab-American establishment of the complete and utter lack of democracy in the Arab League?

Ali Abunimah: I don't know what a "comprehensive condemnation is." If I asked you if there would ever be a "comprehensive condemnation of Israel's war crimes by the Jewish American establishment, what would you answer?"

Look, the Arab American community, just like every other community in North America is extremely diverse. People debate these issues all the time. And we do call for democracy all the time. I just watched a really interesting panel discussion on Al-Jazeera with a number of Arab Americans discussing President Bush's State of the Union speech. There were several sharp criticisms of the lack of democracy in Arab states. This is entirely common.

Bethesda, Md.: Of the various coalitions being discussed in Israel, which (if any) do you think is most likely to lead to productive discussions between Israel and the Palestinians? Perhaps the secular coalition (Likud+Labor+Shinui)?

Ali Abunimah: I do not see any coalition combination that will lead to productive discussions between Israel and the Palestinians. none of the parties support the minimum that is required for peace: a genuine, complete end to the occupation (as opposed to simply disguising the occupation as Barak proposed verbally at Camp David). I think that peace will only come with international intervention to require Israel to end the occupation, or when Israel's disasterous policies wreak such economic and moral havoc on Israeli society that the occupation can no longer be sustained.

Lexington, Kentucky: When the Palestinians hold elections, they are also elections that profoundly impact on the daily life of Israelis, so why are you presenting the issue that Palestinians cannot vote on Israeli elections as something out of the ordinary?. Mexicans don't vote on US elections nor Palestinians on Israeli elections nor Israeli on Palestinian elections. Just grow up.

Ali Abunimah: I said that Palestinians can't hold their own elections because Israel rules them by military dictatorship. Perhaps you misunderstood me.

St. Louis, Mo.: In a best-case scenario, given the parties and politicians currently active in Israel, who would you have liked the Israeli public to have voted?

Ali Abunimah: As a Palestinian, I do not arrogate to myself the right to pick Israel's leaders, unlike Israel which feels it has the right to pick the leaders of the Palestinians. I do not see this as a problem of leaders. It is about issues: will Israel end its military dictatorship over the Palestinians and stop seizing and colonizing their land? If yes, there will be peace, if not conflict will continue for ever.

Chicago Ill.: When was the last democratic election held in Jordan?

Ali Abunimah: The last parliamentary election held in Jordan was, I believe, in 1997. It certainly was not completely democratic although the elections which have been since 1989 held were a step in the right direction. Right now the parliament is dissolved and no new date for elections has been set. This is very unfortunate and democratic elections ought to be held as soon as possible.

New York, NY: Everyone could notice there's an inequality between the Israeli army and the Palestinians. To avoid Palestinians to use desperate measures such as human bombs in suicide operations, wouldn't it be better to either impose an arms embargo on both Israel and the Palestinians, or provide the Palestinians with an equal amount of arms as the Israelis so that they can offer proper protection for its own civilians? What would your advice be?

Ali Abunimah: The best thing would be for the international community, and the United Nations Security Council to enforce international decisions requiring an end to Israel's occupation peacefully. In the absence of that, the Palestinian people have an absolute, internationally recognized right to resist military occupation (although, and I want to emphasize, this does not include attacks on any civilians). Obviously if Palestinians had access to adequate means to defend themselves against Israel's hi-tech army, they would not resort to the sorts of low-tech weapons they use. In the best case Israel would abandon the path of violence that it has chosen since it began its rule over the Palestinians, and Palestinians would reciprocate.

New York, NY : You believe Israel is violating numerous "binding Security Council" resolutions in regards to settlement construction. But not a single resolution pertaining to Israel is under Chapter VII of the UN Charter or any other Chapter which creates binding resolutions. So how exactly is Israel violating binding resolutions?

Ali Abunimah: This is a legal fiction created to excuse the United States of its double standard where it uses war to enforce resolutions against Iraq, while rewarding Israel with my hard-earned money for violating binding resolutions. As well as all the Security Council Resolutions, the Fourth Geneva Convention is binding, and the 15 "High Contracting Parties," which include the United States are legally bound to take action against parties, like Israel, that violated it.

Washington, D.C.: Do you thing the Bush administration will be more - or less - likely to grant Israel's request of $14 billion in increased military aid and loan guarantees to the government of the reelected and re-indicted war criminal?

Ali Abunimah: That depends on whether U.S. tax payers sit back quietly and let it happen.

Ali Abunimah: A few of the questioners seem eager to point out the lack of democracy in the Arab world. That's absolutely fine with me, since I support democracy everywhere. But let's take a look at Israel's "democracy" too, since we are so often told it is the "only democracy" in the Middle East.

The facts are these: Today there are about ten million people living under Israeli rule in Israel, and the Occupied West Bank and Occupied Gaza Strip. About half of these people are entitled to vote in Israeli elections. Of those who can vote, more than one million are Palestinian citizens of Israel who are discriminated against legally and in every sphere of economic and social life. Another 3.5 million people -- Palestinians in the occupied territories -- live under a brutal Israeli military dictatorship with no human rights at all. None. Period. They are not even citizens of the state that rules them by military force alone. Military dictatorship is absolutely the worst form of tyranny. Israeli journalist Gideon Levy asked in Ha'aretz on 27 January:

"What sort of democracy is this, if exactly half the state's residents don't benefit from it? Indeed, can the term "democratic" be applied to a state in which many of the residents live under a military regime or are deprived of civil rights? Can there be democracy without equality, with a lengthy occupation and with foreign workers who have no rights? And what about the racism?"

His answer: "Democracy exists only for the state's (proven) Jewish residents. That is, for about 5.3 million people, half of the 10.6 million people who live here. They are the only intended beneficiaries of the rule of law, freedom of expression, civic freedoms, equality before the law and a fair and just legal system."

Prior to the election, Israel's Central Election Commission banned two Arab parties from competing in the elections allegedly because of statements their leaders had made, while at the same time allowing the candidacy of a violent, pro-ethnic cleansing settler leader. This decision, which would have destroyed even the facade of democracy that Israel puts on, was reversed by Israel's high court.

This latest election revealed the extent of the corruption in Israel's political system, and the personal corruption of Sharon and his two sons Gilad and Omri. Israel is in sum a country that rules millions of people by military force, denying them any basic rights. At the same time, it allows a privileged sub-group to enjoy political rights based on their membership in the ethno-religious ruling group. Some people have called this "ethnocracy" rather than democracy. Another term for it is apartheid.

St. Louis, Mo.: Does the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip facilitate the popular support for Islamic Jihad and Hamas? And if so, how? Also, is there reason to believe that the popular support for these organizations promotes the agenda of Israel's political right-wing?

Ali Abunimah: Obviously if you brutalize millions of people, rob them of their land, demolish their homes, torture them, imprison them by the thousands, shoot them down like stray dogs and say you are doing all this because God is your real estate agent, you are going to fuel the most extreme movements. Hamas and Islamic Jihad came into being after the occupation began. Hizbullah was created in Lebanon to fight the Israeli occupation. Occupation incites against itself and fuels hatred, because occupation is hatred. Occupation is violence. The argument that "the occupation can only end when the violence ends" means in effect that the occupation is self-justifying and will last forever.

Sarajevo, BiH: Dear Ali Abunimah:

As someone whose worked in both the Palestinian and Israeli areas, let me say that I really hope both sides will find peace soon. It's a tragedy and waste of time for all concerned.

Here's my question: what practical next steps are there? I oftentimes find myself in arguments with others about this issue, and in the end I find we were basically both on the same side all along: two independent states (with a lot of contentious details to work out). But, I wonder if the peace process is doomed because some members of both sides don't really believe in having two states living together?

Ali Abunimah: Both sides? Remember that the Palestinians committed themselves to a state in only east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These areas form just 22% of historic Palestine, which until 1948 had an overwhelming Palestinian majority, and in which Palestinians owned 90% of the land. So Palestinians made an enormous historic compromise, essentially abandoning the lands from which three quarters of their population were expelled or fled. Instead of gratefully accepting this unbelievable generosity, Israel's response has been that even this is too much for the Palestinians, and Israel has continued to colonize these areas. The Palestinians explicitly accepted this compromise and recognized Israel in 1993. Israel by contrast has rejected it and continued to build and bulldoze every single day.

Today there are roughly five million Jews in Israel/Palestine and five million Palestinians. Soon Palestinians will once again be a clear majority. Either Israelis and Palestinians must embrace eachother and live in one democratic state, like White and Black South Africans did, or Israel must genuinely end the occupation. So far neither solution has ever been on the table, and more and more Israelis are seeking to hide from this fundamental choice by supporting such ideas as ethnic cleansing. I'm sorry if that answer is not terribly practical.

Arlington, Va.: Why is it that we hear so much about the lack of a Palestinian state, while the world ignores the lack of a Kurdish state? There are more Kurds in the world than Palestinians.

Ali Abunimah: I am not particularly wedded to the idea of a Palestinian state for the sake of it. I am however entirely committed to Palestinian freedom, human rights and full equality. If that can be achieved by Israelis and Palestinians living together in one united, democratic state encompassing all of Israel/Palestine that is absolutely fine with me. But since it is Israel that insists on a "Jewish state," which gives special rights to Jews and treats everyone else as second class citizens, the only way Palestinians can achieve their rights in their homeland is by seeking a state of their own.

I absolutely support the human and political rights of Kurds in exactly the same way as I support those of Palestinians. Kurds ought to be able to achieve full human and political rights in Turkey, Syria, Iran, etc. If they cannot, or they are not permitted to then perhaps they ought to have a state.

Falls Church,Va: Just wanted to let you know that I find EI to be a valuable resource, and a way of getting perspectives of events from newspaper all over the world. I find it ironic that the English version of the Israeli paper Ha'aretz, lets us know more about what Israel is doing to destroy Palestinian society than our own press in the United States.

Ali Abunimah: Thank you. For those who haven't yet done so, please do visit The Electronic Intifada. We all work hard to put it together, and so its really rewarding to read comments like yours.

Jackson, Miss.: How can anyone even pretend to seek reasonable policies from the US government, when so many of its key officials, and so many of the major media executives, are Israeli-Americans? (FYI, it would be better to use this label instead of "Jews," tends to invoke fewer/different emotions.)

Ali Abunimah: I think it is wrong in all cases to stereotype people because of their ethnicity or membership in one or another group. Remember that some of the bravest voices against the cruel injustices perpetrated by Israel have been Jewish and Israeli. When we make blanket statements like this we not only perpetrate the sorts of injustice that are routinely committed against Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims, but we make those brave voices even more difficult to hear and make dialogue impossible. We also disempower ourselves when we believe that any group has magical power that cannot be penetrated or resisted. Remember, we are opposing ideas, deeds and policies, not human beings.

No group has a monopoly on bad conduct or good conduct.

Ali Abunimah: A few final words: the situation is very bleak, but not hopeless. We should never give in to despair. I still believe that a devastating and unnecessary war in the region can be avoided, but we all need to speak out. We need to remember that here in Jordan, back in the U.S., over in Palestine, Israel, Iraq, everywhere, the vast majority of ordinary people don't want war. The way to peace and security is not through war, occupation, death squads, suicide bombings, but through justice. Justice comes when the strong share with the weak. In the Israeli-Palestinian context it means Israel must give up its monopoly on power and come to terms with the people in whose homeland it was established. The Palestinian offer of a far-reaching compromise in which Palestinians have a tiny state in the West Bank and Gaza is still on the table. But it won't remain viable for long as Israel continues to spread its colonies all over the place. Will Israel have the courage to grasp this last chance before it becomes a total apartheid state? Will Israel's friends have the courage to push it in the right direction? We will know soon enough. In the meantime, thank you all for your questions, and I hope to be back here again soon.

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay Tuned to Live Online:
Broder on Politics, Noon ET
Federal Diary Live, Noon ET
Pop Talk: David Segal, Noon ET
State of the Union: Arab Reaction, Noon ET
Color of Money Book Club, 1 p.m. ET
State of the Union: The Nation's David Corn, 1:30 p.m. ET
Israeli Elections, 2 p.m. ET
Dirda on Books, 2 p.m. ET
Israeli Elections, 3 p.m. ET

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

| |



	<img SRC="washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/redesign/adv_discusssion.htm" width=125 height=110 border=0>