Dear Honorable Senator Dick Durbin: Part II

Dear Honorable Senator Durbin,

I would like to thank you and your staff for your response to my previous letter. It was apparent that the topic and intent of my letter were understood, and I appreciate your efforts to address my concerns. Furthermore, I am glad to hear that we are both concerned about the “tragic cycle of violence” and that we both hope that diplomatic measures can be taken to bring about a more equitable arrangement than what currently exists.

That said, I would like to point out a few notable word choices in the letter as way of warning. Sometimes words are carefully chosen out of political necessity. At other times, words are used without consideration, thereby revealing biases that even the writer may not be aware of. It is not up to me to determine which of these holds true in the current context. I am here simply to point them out.

The first notable choice is the use of word however in the following sentence “However, these goals [i.e. Palestinian safety, sovereignty, and democracy] cannot be achieved at the expense of Israel’s sovereignty or the safety of its citizens.” The use of this word not only negates the assertion in the previous sentence (i.e. that Palestinians have rights), but it also presupposes that the goals of Palestinians and the goals of Israelis are at odds and, thus, Palestinians must acquiesce. Sometimes, a period should be a period. Palestinians have rights. Israelis have rights. These rights extend to the point where they intrude on the rights of the other. Enough said.

The second point I would like to address is the use of modals, in particular the words must and should. You state that Hamas must reject terrorism and bombings but that Israel should take steps to address illegal settlements and improve the daily lives of Palestinians. As in your previous statement, the onus appears to be wholly on the backs of the Palestinians and, in particular, on Hamas. Palestine must comply, must accept the resolutions and must abide by cease-fire agreements. Israel should strongly consider curbing their activities. At what point will we demand that Israel fulfill its obligations as set out in various ceasefire agreements? At what point will Israel be told to comply with international law and basic humanitarian rights? For example, when will Israel be told (rather than encouraged) to ease restrictions on border crossing? In 2005, the border crossing into Gaza became even more guarded, leading to a slow strangle of the Gazan economy and viability and an increasing dire humanitarian crisis. One can only assume that this tightening was in retaliation for the democratic election of Hamas. And let us not forget the “security” wall, which was deemed illegal by the international courts, the expansion in Jerusalem in violation of Security Council orders, or the numerous illegal settlements breaking up the West back, despite UN Resolutions denouncing them and Israeli internal reports admitting their illegality.

One final point, as we consider this particular sentence and what Hamas must do. I take issue with the general supposition that Hamas is the barrier to peace. Although I can appreciate the desire not to encourage terrorism, the argument that Hamas cannot be involved in peace talks is simply absurd. It sounds like nothing more than a repeat of what was said about Arafat and the PLO. They too were deemed terrorists and, hence, unapproachable, but this terrorist designation itself may be suspect. It may be hard to distinguish between an organization opposing armed occupation and a bunch of thugs, but in the current case, the occupation is apparent, as are the arms of the militaristic superiority of the occupier. The UN recognized the right of peoples to struggle against armed occupation back in the mid-80s, thereby allowing some wiggle room for Palestinian resistance. Although this doesn’t grant blanket approval to violent struggle, it does allow for the right to confront imperialistic forces. Still, even if we determine that Hamas is a thuggish, terrorist group, its incorporation the peace process is necessary for progress. If the conflict in Northern Ireland taught us nothing, it taught us that the surest way to peace is through talks with one’s enemies. Only when the IRA was brought into peace talks was any sustainable progress made. Thus, even if Hamas is a terrorist organization, not talking to them will serve only to impede a peaceful resolution.

Overall, the word of the day must be equality. Each group has suffered deeply. Each side has significant and valid grievances. Each faction must be held equally accountable. If Israel has the right to protect its people with white phosphorus and D.I.M.E bombs, then perhaps Hamas has the right to protect its people with Qassam rockets and suicide bombings. Though I would prefer more peaceful forms of resistance, such as those used by the Women in Black in Israel and the strikes and boycotts used by Palestinians during the first Intifada, we seem to be living in less patient times. However, we must still pursue the path of equality and justice, until we can find the road of mercy. Either violence is never an acceptable form of justified struggle, or it equally acceptable from both sides of a conflict. Either everyone can ignore agreements and laws, or no one can.

Thank you again for your time and for attending to my comments and concerns. I hope that soon we will not need to discuss the conflict between Israel and Palestine because a peaceful resolution has been achieved. Until then, I will continue to address what I feel are lapses in logic and morality, lest we become absurd or hypocrites.

Yours truly,
MJL