Israeli Jewish voices oppose US veto regarding settlements

[Disclaimer: The following is a critique of a political decision regarding a current world situation. The situation is admittedly multi-layered and complex and the author recognizes that there are those who would disagree with his presentation of the facts surrounding the situation. The author insists that this not be read as unqualified support for one side and unqualified condemnation for the other. Rather, fairness and justice for all parties involved is the goal...and that cannot happen without confronting specific acts of injustice when they arise, whether it be in the form of Palestinian-based terrorist attacks or Israeli-based apartheid measures.]

This past weekend, the United States used its veto power on the UN Security Council to oppose a UN Resolution which would call for an end to Israeli settlements in Palestinian land, settlements such as the one Republican hopeful Mike Huckabee spoke at and unconditionally praised a few weeks ago.

These type of settlements are at the heart of current peace proposals and have been roundly condemned by nearly every member of the international community...including many voices from American and Israeli Jews!

Here is an incredibly poignant talk given to Christians by American Jewish Psychologist Mark Braverman which shows the dangers of such unconditional support of the Israeli government, particularly by Christians (it is WELL worth listening to!!)

Likewise, writing for the Israeli paper Haaretz, author Gideon Levy voices the following criticisms of this most recent US decision to support Israeli settlements:

The first veto cast by the United States during Obama's term, a veto he promised in vain not to use as his predecessors did, was a veto against the chance and promise of change, a veto against hope. This is a veto that is not friendly to Israel; it supports the settlers and the Israeli right, and them alone.

The excuses of the American ambassador to the UN won't help, and neither will the words of thanks from the Prime Minister's Office: This is a step that is nothing less than hostile to Israel. America, which Israel depends on more than ever, said yes to settlements. That is the one and only meaning of its decision, and in so doing, it supported the enterprise most damaging to Israel.

Moreover, it did so at a time when winds of change are blowing in the Middle East. A promise of change was heard from America, but instead, it continued with its automatic responses and its blind support of Israel's settlement building. This is not an America that will be able to change its standing among the peoples of the region. And Israel, an international pariah, once again found itself supported only by America.

This should have disturbed every Israeli. Is that what we are? Alone and condemned? And all for the continuation of that worthless enterprise? Is it really worth the price? To hell with the UN and the whole world is against us?

We can't wrap ourselves in this hollow iron dome forever. We must open our eyes and understand that if no country, aside from weakening America, supports this caprice of ours, then something fundamental is wrong here.

Israel, which is condemned by the entire world but continues merrily on its way, is a country that is losing its connection to reality. It is also a country that will ultimately find itself left entirely to its fate. That is why America's decision harmed Israel's interests: It continued to blind and stupefy Israel into thinking it can go on this way forever.

A friendly U.S., concerned for Israel's fate, should have said no. An America that understands that the settlements are the obstacle should have joined in condemning them. A superpower that wants to make peace, at a time when Arab peoples are rising up against their regimes and against the U.S. and Israel, should have understood that it must change the old, bad rules of the game of blanket support for the ally addicted to its settlements.

A friendly America should have mobilized to wean Israel of its addiction Only it can do so, and it should have started, belatedly, at the Security Council on Friday.

But promises of change and of real concern for Israel are one thing, and diplomatic behavior is another: another automatic veto, as if nothing has changed. Obama or George W. Bush, there's no difference. When Ambassador Susan Rice said that the draft resolution risked hardening the positions of both sides and could encourage the parties to refrain from negotiations, she misled. She knows that what prevents negotiations and hardens positions is continued building in the settlements.

...

Moreover, this veto was not cast during ordinary days. These are days of boiling lava in the region. If there were a responsible government in Israel, it would have stopped settlement building long ago - not only to deflect fire from Israel, but to promote an agreement that has never been more vital for it.

If the U.S. had been a responsible superpower, it would have voted for the resolution on Friday to rouse Israel from its dangerous sleep. Instead, we got a hostile veto from Washington, shouts of joy from Jerusalem and a party that will end very badly for both.

Unlike pop-theologies which hinge upon continued warfare and blatant disregard for individual human lives, true friends of Israel and followers of the Jewish Messiah from Nazareth should pray against--and speak out against--injustices done in the name of God...even when it's done by allies.

Would such settlements be tolerated in any other country in the world? Perhaps a thought experiement might help...

Imagine that the UN decided that all of the eastern seaboard of the United States was to be returned to Native Americans. As a result, all other Americans are forced by military means to flee to Canada or Mexico. The rest who do not wish to be Canadian or Mexican citizens are quarantined in Nebraska and Kansas. This goes on for decades while descendents of Native Americans from Latin America and South America and everywhere else in the world emigrate. Americans are not happy about this, but there is relative peace with the occasional conflicts over the decades. Then, the descendents of Native Americans, citing their ancestors original possession of all the land in America begin building settlements in Nebraska and Kansas and use the land, civil services, and resources that had been partitioned off for Americans of non-native descent. The international community realizes that this is not acceptable and put pressure on the Native Americans to stop building such settlements and allow Americans to have their own country in Nebraska and Kansas. But China, who has always supported the Native reclamation of America and supplied all of their military might refuses to condemn the settlements and uses veto power that it has been given by the UN at its inception to stop any declaration of the rights of non-Native Americans in Nebraska and Kansas. 

Of course no analogy is 100% accurate and the above is quite condensed and oversimplified, I concede. However, the main point is that nowhere else in the world would actions such as the Israeli settlements in Palestinian lands be tolerated or condoned by the US.

And so many Americans wonder why many throughout the world see us has hypocrtical and unjust?

It seems that TRUE love for Israel and REAL desire for peace should necessarily entail opposition to Israeli settlements in Palestinian lands, should it not?

Additional resources for Jewish and Christian voices of opposition to settlements and true peace and reconciliation in the Middle East can be found at:

http://www.withgodonourside.com/

http://www.musalaha.org/

The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions

B'Tselem

http://www.holylandtrust.org/

Churches for Middle East Peace

Middle East Concern