By Nermeen Murad
The Jordan Times
September 14, 2009
I don’t know exactly when and how the word “normalisation” came to signify visiting occupied Palestinian land or dealing with Palestinians.
Ever since I can remember I have heard or read statements from professional associations lambasting one party or another for “normalising”. Of course I have yet to hear these professional associations lead a campaign on anything that has to do with their mandate as unions representing the rights of professionals, but that is another story for another day.
Back to normalisation. A trip by Jordanian journalists to the Israeli occupied West Bank has somehow been categorised as normalisation. The Jordan national football team holding friendly games with its Palestinian counterpart has also been apparently lodged under the heading of normalisation. A planned trip of Jordanian engineers to a conference in the West Bank in support of Palestinian engineering is being held contingent on the issuing of visas from the Palestinian Authority and not the Israeli embassy.
It really bothers me that the anti-normalisation camp has been allowed to indoctrinate the Jordanian people into believing that it would somehow be treason if we interacted with Palestinian institutions and attended or held events on their land.
Even if the price of maintaining that interaction and consolidating Arab presence in the West Bank does mean that we allow Israeli stamps on our passport, it is a small price to pay in return for lifting the isolation imposed on Palestinians by their occupier and now, it seems, perpetuated by, I believe, the well-meaning anti-normalisation camp in Jordan.
Why can’t Jordanian journalists visit the territories occupied by Israel and reiterate their Arab identity, and refuse to bow to the Israeli occupiers or give them the leeway to corner the Palestinians on their own without our support?
Why don’t our journalists regularly go and report on the atrocities committed against the Palestinians in the name of occupation? Why can’t our football, basketball, tennis and all other sports teams regularly visit and train with their Palestinian counterparts?
I also want to understand what would happen if instead of going to Sharm El Sheikh for the Eid holiday we went to Jerusalem and got to know exactly what is going on there and to our relatives, friends, family friends, ex-family friends, colleagues’ families and friends.
Why can’t we continue to cross over regularly and stay in their hotels, eat in their restaurants, buy their products, spend our money for them and in their support? Every single one of us, regardless of our origin, has a connection to someone who lives on Palestinian land and who would appreciate our support, whether moral or financial.
Under the headline of avoiding normalisation, we have left the Palestinians to fend for themselves for decades and have given them very little tangible moral support to help them stand fast in the face of an intimidating, racist and prolonged occupation.
We have to understand that the Palestinians are feeling strangled, isolated, shunned and alone in their struggle with Israel. It isn’t enough to maintain slogans denying Israel’s existence while burying our head in the sand so as not to see that it really does exist. Not only does it exist, it is also systematically building walls around the subjugated Palestinians to keep them apart from the rest of the world; and we appear to aid its objective by building “anti-normalisation” walls which further institutionalise their isolation.
The only way that people who want to see Palestine liberated can really contribute to the cause is by helping the Palestinians not only withstand the occupation but also flourish, morally and economically, despite the occupation. Palestinian businesses must profit, Palestinian schools and universities must educate and produce new generations of well educated and forward-looking individuals, and the Palestinian labour market must find outlets for work in Arab-owned factories and construction projects.
Palestinians must be given hope for a better future. Arabs must be the ones who give them that hope but not through a jihad that massacres more Palestinians than Israelis or by staying away from the occupied lands for fear of a stamp on our passports. We must normalise our relations with the Palestinians and their institutions.
Showing posts with label relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relations. Show all posts
Monday, September 14, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Candidly speaking: There may be worse to come (and my comments)
By Isi Leibler
The Jerusalem Post
August 25, 2009
President Obama's naïve efforts to appease the Arabs by bullying and distancing the United States from Israel has backfired. However despite increasing unease extending to some of Obama's most fervent supporters, the administration has yet to signal any change in policy.
The futility of trying to appease tyrannies is evident everywhere; the thuggish behavior of the Iranian regime toward its own people makes a farce of Obama's efforts to reason with Ahmadinejad; in response to unilateral US overtures to the Syrians, President Assad visited the Iranian president, congratulated him on his bogus reelection and declared that their alliance had never been stronger; the North Koreans displayed utter contempt for Obama's friendly outreach; Arabs states all responded negatively to Obama's entreaties to provide a few crumbs of recognition in return for Israeli concessions; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was publicly humiliated by the Saudi Foreign Minister, who insisted there was nothing to negotiate unless Israel accepted all Arab demands.
The Palestinian response was even more noxious. Clearly emboldened, the Fatah General Assembly displayed contempt for any initiative that could further the peace process. Their intransigence again demonstrated the absurdity of the notion that this corrupt and duplicitous leadership could be a genuine peace partner. There were even elements of surrealism when the Fatah Assembly unanimously accused Israel of having assassinated Arafat and provided standing applause for a mass murderer.
They decreed that unless Israel acceded to all their demands, no further negotiations would take place and they could renew the "armed struggle." Far from encouraging Arab moderation, Obama's tough approach to Israel simply bolstered the hardliners.
The facts on the ground today make prospects for peace more remote than ever. The only clear message emerging from the Fatah Congress is that, as with Hamas, elimination of Jewish sovereignty in the region remains its ultimate objective. Were that not so, Mahmoud Abbas would have accepted Ehud Olmert's offer, which virtually granted him all his territorial demands and even hinted at a compromise over the Arab right of return.
Obama's advisers must have been bitterly disappointed when their diktats against Israel backfired. Indeed, their one-sided demands and bullying tactics can take credit for having created a rare consensus among the Israeli public, which today overwhelmingly supports Netanyahu.
To add to Obama's problems and despite predictions to the contrary, American Jewish leaders have begun to openly challenge some of his policies. There is a growing unease even among some Jewish Democrats that Obama is betraying the unequivocal undertakings he made during the elections to faithfully preserve the alliance with Israel.
This was exemplified in remarks made by Howard Berman, the influential Democratic chair of the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, who in a closed meeting with Jewish leaders explicitly criticized the Obama administration's pressure on Israel over settlements. Berman said Abbas was now "waiting for the US to present him Israel on a platter". Steny Hoyer, the Democratic House majority leader visiting Israel, made similar comments at a Jerusalem news conference.
OBAMA MUST also have been stunned when his friend and loyal supporter Alan Solow, the Chairman of the Presidents Conference representing 52 major American Jewish organizations, condemned his demands to limit Jews settlements in Jerusalem and its suburbs.
In a full page New York Times advert Abe Foxman of the Anti Defamation League stated "The problem is not settlements, it's Arab rejection...Mr. President, it's time to stop pressuring our vital friend and ally". David Harris of the American Jewish Committee expressed similar feelings to a Congressional group. Whilst usually ritually reiterating their belief that Obama would not abandon Israel, Jewish leaders have begun openly criticizing the administration's behavior toward the Jewish state.
Obama's standing with American Jewish activists plummeted further when, contemptuously dismissing a rare virtually unanimous Jewish protest, he personally participated in the ceremony honoring former Irish president and 2001 UN Durban hate-fest convener Mary Robinson with the highest human rights award in the US. This was perceived as yet another manifestation of Obama's new love affair with the UN and its anti-Israel affiliates.
It must also have been disappointing for Obama's Jewish advisers promoting the J Street line when they became aware that despite expensive media promotions, opinion polls indicated that most Jewish activists remained contemptuous of the left-wing Jewish fringe groups urging Obama to force Israel to make further concessions.
However, as of now, while continuing to avoid any initiative which could irritate the Arabs, the US is maintaining its heavy-handed approach toward its erstwhile ally, Israel. While a face-saving compromise may soon eventuate, appreciating the unprecedented backing he currently enjoys from his constituency, Netanyahu would be unwise to capitulate to Obama's demands.
Alas, irrespective of the settlement issues, there may be worse to come from this administration. After Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's recent warm meeting with Obama in Washington, he effusively praised the policy changes introduced by the president and hinted of further impending "positive" US initiatives.
There are also chilling predictions that without prior consultations with Israel, Obama intends to unilaterally submit a US plan for a comprehensive settlement at the UN or elsewhere. It is rumored that this plan would use as a starting point the irresponsible offers made to Abbas by Olmert during the death throes of his tenure — offers which would unquestionably have been repudiated by the Knesset and people of Israel in a referendum. Such a move would be an unprecedented betrayal of a long-standing ally.
UNTIL SUCH time as a genuine Palestinian peace partner emerges, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu cannot be expected to create a miraculous magic plan which would bring about a comprehensive final settlement. But his task now must be to preempt a disastrous imposed settlement by the Americans.
In doing so he must he speedily identify the red lines which his government, backed by the vast majority of Israelis, would never contemplate crossing.
To this end he should also marshal the support of the mainstream American Jewish leadership and encourage them to convey to their president that they too have red lines. They have already begun to signal that they will not remain passive if their government attempts to unilaterally impose a solution which could endanger the Jewish state.
The Jerusalem Post
August 25, 2009
President Obama's naïve efforts to appease the Arabs by bullying and distancing the United States from Israel has backfired. However despite increasing unease extending to some of Obama's most fervent supporters, the administration has yet to signal any change in policy.
The futility of trying to appease tyrannies is evident everywhere; the thuggish behavior of the Iranian regime toward its own people makes a farce of Obama's efforts to reason with Ahmadinejad; in response to unilateral US overtures to the Syrians, President Assad visited the Iranian president, congratulated him on his bogus reelection and declared that their alliance had never been stronger; the North Koreans displayed utter contempt for Obama's friendly outreach; Arabs states all responded negatively to Obama's entreaties to provide a few crumbs of recognition in return for Israeli concessions; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was publicly humiliated by the Saudi Foreign Minister, who insisted there was nothing to negotiate unless Israel accepted all Arab demands.
The Palestinian response was even more noxious. Clearly emboldened, the Fatah General Assembly displayed contempt for any initiative that could further the peace process. Their intransigence again demonstrated the absurdity of the notion that this corrupt and duplicitous leadership could be a genuine peace partner. There were even elements of surrealism when the Fatah Assembly unanimously accused Israel of having assassinated Arafat and provided standing applause for a mass murderer.
They decreed that unless Israel acceded to all their demands, no further negotiations would take place and they could renew the "armed struggle." Far from encouraging Arab moderation, Obama's tough approach to Israel simply bolstered the hardliners.
The facts on the ground today make prospects for peace more remote than ever. The only clear message emerging from the Fatah Congress is that, as with Hamas, elimination of Jewish sovereignty in the region remains its ultimate objective. Were that not so, Mahmoud Abbas would have accepted Ehud Olmert's offer, which virtually granted him all his territorial demands and even hinted at a compromise over the Arab right of return.
Obama's advisers must have been bitterly disappointed when their diktats against Israel backfired. Indeed, their one-sided demands and bullying tactics can take credit for having created a rare consensus among the Israeli public, which today overwhelmingly supports Netanyahu.
To add to Obama's problems and despite predictions to the contrary, American Jewish leaders have begun to openly challenge some of his policies. There is a growing unease even among some Jewish Democrats that Obama is betraying the unequivocal undertakings he made during the elections to faithfully preserve the alliance with Israel.
This was exemplified in remarks made by Howard Berman, the influential Democratic chair of the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, who in a closed meeting with Jewish leaders explicitly criticized the Obama administration's pressure on Israel over settlements. Berman said Abbas was now "waiting for the US to present him Israel on a platter". Steny Hoyer, the Democratic House majority leader visiting Israel, made similar comments at a Jerusalem news conference.
OBAMA MUST also have been stunned when his friend and loyal supporter Alan Solow, the Chairman of the Presidents Conference representing 52 major American Jewish organizations, condemned his demands to limit Jews settlements in Jerusalem and its suburbs.
In a full page New York Times advert Abe Foxman of the Anti Defamation League stated "The problem is not settlements, it's Arab rejection...Mr. President, it's time to stop pressuring our vital friend and ally". David Harris of the American Jewish Committee expressed similar feelings to a Congressional group. Whilst usually ritually reiterating their belief that Obama would not abandon Israel, Jewish leaders have begun openly criticizing the administration's behavior toward the Jewish state.
Obama's standing with American Jewish activists plummeted further when, contemptuously dismissing a rare virtually unanimous Jewish protest, he personally participated in the ceremony honoring former Irish president and 2001 UN Durban hate-fest convener Mary Robinson with the highest human rights award in the US. This was perceived as yet another manifestation of Obama's new love affair with the UN and its anti-Israel affiliates.
It must also have been disappointing for Obama's Jewish advisers promoting the J Street line when they became aware that despite expensive media promotions, opinion polls indicated that most Jewish activists remained contemptuous of the left-wing Jewish fringe groups urging Obama to force Israel to make further concessions.
However, as of now, while continuing to avoid any initiative which could irritate the Arabs, the US is maintaining its heavy-handed approach toward its erstwhile ally, Israel. While a face-saving compromise may soon eventuate, appreciating the unprecedented backing he currently enjoys from his constituency, Netanyahu would be unwise to capitulate to Obama's demands.
Alas, irrespective of the settlement issues, there may be worse to come from this administration. After Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's recent warm meeting with Obama in Washington, he effusively praised the policy changes introduced by the president and hinted of further impending "positive" US initiatives.
There are also chilling predictions that without prior consultations with Israel, Obama intends to unilaterally submit a US plan for a comprehensive settlement at the UN or elsewhere. It is rumored that this plan would use as a starting point the irresponsible offers made to Abbas by Olmert during the death throes of his tenure — offers which would unquestionably have been repudiated by the Knesset and people of Israel in a referendum. Such a move would be an unprecedented betrayal of a long-standing ally.
UNTIL SUCH time as a genuine Palestinian peace partner emerges, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu cannot be expected to create a miraculous magic plan which would bring about a comprehensive final settlement. But his task now must be to preempt a disastrous imposed settlement by the Americans.
In doing so he must he speedily identify the red lines which his government, backed by the vast majority of Israelis, would never contemplate crossing.
To this end he should also marshal the support of the mainstream American Jewish leadership and encourage them to convey to their president that they too have red lines. They have already begun to signal that they will not remain passive if their government attempts to unilaterally impose a solution which could endanger the Jewish state.
Below are some excerpts from Mr. Leibler’s article above with some comments and questions:
Their [Fatah's] intransigence again demonstrated the absurdity of the notion
that this corrupt and duplicitous leadership could be a genuine peace
partner.
Mark says:
Strange — or perhaps ironic — that so many in the Palestinian and Arab commentariats, and especially among Hamas supporters, also described the Fatah leadership as “corrupt and duplicitous.”
They [Fatah] decreed that unless Israel acceded to all their demands, no further
negotiations would take place and they could renew the "armed struggle." Far
from encouraging Arab moderation, Obama's tough approach to Israel simply
bolstered the hardliners.
The great writer Isaac Asimov had one of his characters in the Foundation Trilogy say that “consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.” I don’t think that Mr. Leibler lacks imagination — but he is certainly inconsistent. For if I read many of his previous columns and articles correctly, according to Mr. Leibler what Obama or Israel do or don’t do is not going to change the behavior of Arab hardliners, who apparently constitute 99.999 percent of all Palestinian leaders.
The only clear message emerging from the Fatah Congress is that, as with Hamas,
elimination of Jewish sovereignty in the region remains its ultimate objective.
Were that not so, Mahmoud Abbas would have accepted Ehud Olmert's offer, which virtually granted him all his territorial demands and even hinted at a
compromise over the Arab right of return.
However, later in the article Mr. Leibler states:
It is rumored that this [Obama’s] plan would use as a starting point the
irresponsible offers made to Abbas by Olmert during the death throes of his
tenure — offers which would unquestionably have been repudiated by the Knesset
and people of Israel in a referendum.
So, in other words, it wouldn’t have mattered if Mahmoud Abbas had accepted Ehud Olmert’s offers because they “would unquestionably have been repudiated by the Knesset and people of Israel in a referendum.” Perhaps Mr. Abbas was perceptive enough to recognize that and wanted to save himself the resulting political and personal humiliation?
Or perhaps Mr. Abbas, once again, "missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity" because the United States, even under the Bush administration, would have leaped to pressure Israel into accepting a peace plan based on those offers. However, assuming Mr. Leibler’s scenario would have been correct, Israel would then have placed itself in the position of being the intransigent naysayer.
At which point, Mr. Leibler would have written of the administration of George W. Bush (as he is now writing about the Obama administration):
Such a move would be an unprecedented betrayal of a long-standing ally.
It seems that there are always those who inevitably say at some point during the lifespan of every U.S. presidential administration (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama):
Such a move would be an unprecedented betrayal of a long-standing ally.
As Casey Stengel used to say: "You can look it up."
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Israelis and Palestinians are the best of enemies
By Joharah Baker
The Daily Star (Lebanon)
August 18, 2009
Israelis and Palestinians will undoubtedly go down in history as one of the world’s most bitter arch enemies. To the world, the word “Palestinian” is automatically associated with “Israeli” and vice versa. However, a crazy thing has occurred as a result of both this hostility and of the fact that the two peoples live in such close geographic proximity. In many ways, we know each other better than anyone else.
This thought occurred to me the other day in a taxicab coming back from a West Jerusalem shopping mall. The taxi driver was Jewish Israeli but spoke Arabic (albeit with a heavy Hebrew accent) almost perfectly. When he heard me speaking both English and Arabic to my children, the driver asked me a question I often get: “Where are you from?” Feeling a bit mischievous, I decided to give an answer I knew would pique his attention. “From Palestine. Where else?” I answered.
He was slick, I have to give him that. Barely missing a beat, he asked: “Where from Palestine?”
“Jerusalem, I am from Jerusalem,” I answered. I felt a tiny bit of satisfaction as the words left my mouth. Saying I am from Jerusalem, Palestine to an Israeli Jew always boosts my sense of pride like nothing else.
My taxi driver turned out to be polite and didn’t try to “correct” me by saying that Jerusalem was Israel. Only an Israeli would understand that I, as a Palestinian, was making a strong political statement by saying I was from Jerusalem, Palestine, especially since I was speaking to an Israeli.
As the small talk continued, another quirky exchange occurred. “Where did you learn your Arabic?” I asked. “The army,” he said, probably trying to provoke a response just like I had a moment earlier. “I speak with the same accent as you.”
“Really? You must have served in the Occupied Territories and learned your Arabic from those you occupied,” I answered, wanting to push the envelope just a bit. He smirked, shook his head and said nothing.
These kinds of exchanges between Palestinians and Israelis are surreal. In any other atmosphere, I would never find myself talking casually to an ex-Israeli Army soldier. Moreover, if he was in military garb in my West Bank village I would view him in one light only — my occupier. But being in a taxicab on my way back to East Jerusalem, we were customer and driver and there was room to make sly innuendos that only an Israeli would understand.
“Al Hamdullillah” said one Israeli journalist during a workshop in Italy after finishing his meal, using the common expression of Palestinian Muslims. “Thanks be to God.” In the same conversation, when I was asked if I spoke Hebrew, I answered with a slight laugh, “Only checkpoint Hebrew. I know things like ‘Go,’ ‘Show me your ID card,’, and ‘It’s closed.’” This made the Israelis at the table smile uncomfortably but laugh with the crowd all the same.
Such anecdotes illustrate the highly entangled relationship between Israelis and Palestinians. First and foremost, we are “enemies,” the oppressed and the oppressor, occupied and occupier. All other expressions of the relationship are overshadowed by this fact. But we are enemies whose paths intersect and overlap to the point that we know how to “push each other’s buttons.” Israeli soldiers understand how to drive a Palestinian man over the edge by insulting his wife, mother or sister, using Arabic curses.
Palestinians have also learned key Hebrew curses, which they use at the exact moments to send Israeli soldiers into a rage. In public international forums, Palestinians and Israelis can sit at the same table, eating hummus Arabic-style by scooping it up with a bite-sized piece of bread. But once the familiar gesture turns into a conversation, they butt heads because Israelis claim hummus as their own food (disregarding the fact that not only Palestinians but Jordanians, Lebanese, Syrians and pretty much all Arabs have been eating the food for centuries, before Israel was even created).
If peace ever does prevail, Palestinians and Israelis will have no problem getting acquainted. Once the Palestinians are settled in an independent, sovereign Palestine and the occupied-occupier relationship is put to rest forever, the familiarity between the two peoples will come in handy when the neighbors need to settle normal affairs between states. Saying I am from Jerusalem, Palestine will become a mere stated fact rather than a political statement said to an adversary.
But we have a long way to go before then. Right now, conversations like the one I had with the taxi driver will remain just that. A seemingly light exchange with tense political undertones between people on opposites sides of a bitter divide.
Joharah Baker is a writer for the Media and Information Program at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mip@miftah.org. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration the Common Ground News Service (www.commongroundnews.org) with permission from MIFTAH.
The Daily Star (Lebanon)
August 18, 2009
Israelis and Palestinians will undoubtedly go down in history as one of the world’s most bitter arch enemies. To the world, the word “Palestinian” is automatically associated with “Israeli” and vice versa. However, a crazy thing has occurred as a result of both this hostility and of the fact that the two peoples live in such close geographic proximity. In many ways, we know each other better than anyone else.
This thought occurred to me the other day in a taxicab coming back from a West Jerusalem shopping mall. The taxi driver was Jewish Israeli but spoke Arabic (albeit with a heavy Hebrew accent) almost perfectly. When he heard me speaking both English and Arabic to my children, the driver asked me a question I often get: “Where are you from?” Feeling a bit mischievous, I decided to give an answer I knew would pique his attention. “From Palestine. Where else?” I answered.
He was slick, I have to give him that. Barely missing a beat, he asked: “Where from Palestine?”
“Jerusalem, I am from Jerusalem,” I answered. I felt a tiny bit of satisfaction as the words left my mouth. Saying I am from Jerusalem, Palestine to an Israeli Jew always boosts my sense of pride like nothing else.
My taxi driver turned out to be polite and didn’t try to “correct” me by saying that Jerusalem was Israel. Only an Israeli would understand that I, as a Palestinian, was making a strong political statement by saying I was from Jerusalem, Palestine, especially since I was speaking to an Israeli.
As the small talk continued, another quirky exchange occurred. “Where did you learn your Arabic?” I asked. “The army,” he said, probably trying to provoke a response just like I had a moment earlier. “I speak with the same accent as you.”
“Really? You must have served in the Occupied Territories and learned your Arabic from those you occupied,” I answered, wanting to push the envelope just a bit. He smirked, shook his head and said nothing.
These kinds of exchanges between Palestinians and Israelis are surreal. In any other atmosphere, I would never find myself talking casually to an ex-Israeli Army soldier. Moreover, if he was in military garb in my West Bank village I would view him in one light only — my occupier. But being in a taxicab on my way back to East Jerusalem, we were customer and driver and there was room to make sly innuendos that only an Israeli would understand.
“Al Hamdullillah” said one Israeli journalist during a workshop in Italy after finishing his meal, using the common expression of Palestinian Muslims. “Thanks be to God.” In the same conversation, when I was asked if I spoke Hebrew, I answered with a slight laugh, “Only checkpoint Hebrew. I know things like ‘Go,’ ‘Show me your ID card,’, and ‘It’s closed.’” This made the Israelis at the table smile uncomfortably but laugh with the crowd all the same.
Such anecdotes illustrate the highly entangled relationship between Israelis and Palestinians. First and foremost, we are “enemies,” the oppressed and the oppressor, occupied and occupier. All other expressions of the relationship are overshadowed by this fact. But we are enemies whose paths intersect and overlap to the point that we know how to “push each other’s buttons.” Israeli soldiers understand how to drive a Palestinian man over the edge by insulting his wife, mother or sister, using Arabic curses.
Palestinians have also learned key Hebrew curses, which they use at the exact moments to send Israeli soldiers into a rage. In public international forums, Palestinians and Israelis can sit at the same table, eating hummus Arabic-style by scooping it up with a bite-sized piece of bread. But once the familiar gesture turns into a conversation, they butt heads because Israelis claim hummus as their own food (disregarding the fact that not only Palestinians but Jordanians, Lebanese, Syrians and pretty much all Arabs have been eating the food for centuries, before Israel was even created).
If peace ever does prevail, Palestinians and Israelis will have no problem getting acquainted. Once the Palestinians are settled in an independent, sovereign Palestine and the occupied-occupier relationship is put to rest forever, the familiarity between the two peoples will come in handy when the neighbors need to settle normal affairs between states. Saying I am from Jerusalem, Palestine will become a mere stated fact rather than a political statement said to an adversary.
But we have a long way to go before then. Right now, conversations like the one I had with the taxi driver will remain just that. A seemingly light exchange with tense political undertones between people on opposites sides of a bitter divide.
Joharah Baker is a writer for the Media and Information Program at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mip@miftah.org. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration the Common Ground News Service (www.commongroundnews.org) with permission from MIFTAH.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
