NEXT LEFT NOTES (SDS), Letter to Hillary Clinton

[Hardrada]

Next Left Notes Is A News Magazine Devoted To Direct Action

A Letter To Hillary Clinton


By David McReynolds





David McReynolds - longtime Socialist and War Resister


July 21, 2006

To: Senator Hillary Clinton Senate Office Building Washington DC

Dear Senator Hillary Clinton,

The tragedy of Lebanon - and the whole Middle East - almost defies words. Iraq, a matter on which you have been slow to take a stand, has now clearly become a civil war. And in Lebanon we are witnessing the destruction of a a nation because of the limited actions of Hezbollah. The difference beween the actions of Hezbollah, originally taken against the Israeli military, and the actions of the State of Israel against the people of Lebanon is so great that, as you know, the issue of war crimes has now been publicly raised by United Nations officials.

I do not expect much from our political leaders. People get elected not because they have shown some remarkable courage, or special wisdom, but because they have correctly gauged where majority opinion is. In this sense, political leaders are followers, and it is our own fault if we expect something from you which you cannot deliver. It is only rarely, as with John Murtha, that we see someone who normally would hold positions so different from my own, shift on a matter such as Iraq. But Murtha is an old man, toward the end of his political career. You are still very much at the beginning of yours.

In this sense, the unconditional support you have given to Israel comes as no surprise. If you were the Senator from another state, which had a smaller Jewish voting population, and a larger Arab voting population, your positions would, of course, be different. (It doesn't mean they would be better - just that they would be different).

I do, however, as one of your constituents, exercise my right of petition, as a reminder that not all voters in this state support your positions.

Why are we shocked if Syria or Iran supply weapons to Hezbollah when the US supplies the weapons with which Israel attacks the people of Lebanon? Why are we surprised, given the history of Israeli actions - the invasion of Lebanon by Sharon in 1982 - that there is deep hostility to Israel on the part of the Islamic population there? How can we be surprised that, under the bombardment by Israel, the bulk of the population of Lebanon, not only the Muslims, now support Hezbollah?

Military action rarely leads to political conversion. In World War II, when Allied air strikes had leveled the cities of Germany (as I could see first hand in 1951 on my first visit to Europe), the Germans did not waver in their support of Hitler. In Israel today, the population supports their government - the rockets from Hezbollah are not changing the minds of the Israeli public. Why should anyone expect Hezbollah to change its mind because of the Israeli attacks? (And at this point, from what I can gather from independent news reports, Hezbollah is not even being defeated militarily).

It was disturbing to hear the reports of your willingness to appear alongside the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations at a rally in support, not of peace, but of further and stronger Israeli military action. I do not think the opinions of New Yorkers are unanimous in support of Israel. I know that while the majority of the Jewish voters do support the Israeli actions, there are a great many Jews here who are deeply shocked, and that in Israel itself there is a vocal opposition to the government.

Those of us who are familar with the history of the Middle East conflict know that, as is true of most conflicts, there is justice on both sides, and there have been errors on both sides. There are good people in Israel, as there are in Hezbollah, Hamas, and elsewhere in the Arab world. In political terms I feel much closer to the freedoms of Israel for women, for gays and lesbians, for the open political dialogue, for the fact that, while Israel is a Jewish State (which, as a secular person, I deplore, just as I deplore Ireland being a Catholic State), all religions can be freely practiced.

I contrast these freedoms with the intolerance in many parts of the Islamic world. But I also know that within Israel, for decades now, there has been a virtual apartheid state in Gaza and the West Bank, that Israel is committing something close to "cultural genocide" against the Palestinian people. And that, for any of us who treasure the long history of social justice which has been transmitted to us by Judaism, Israeli behavior there cannot be defended. Nor can the air strikes hitting civilians in Lebanon.

It is easy for you to defend Israel - you will not lose an election in New York for doing so. But what is easy may not be right, or wise. Students of history know that the Christians established "Crusader States" in Palestine, some of which lasted longer than Israel has. In the long stretch of history to come - a hundred or two hundred years from now - is it really likely that the unconditional defense of the military actions of Israel today will insure its survival, or guarantee its eventual demise?

When Israel developed the nuclear bomb, was this not the real beginning of the race for weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East? Would Israeli interests not be better served if it worked for a nuclear free Middle East? When I hear our media talk so freely of the "terrorists" and our government talk of "terrorist states", would it not be wiser to recognize that what one side believes is terrorism the other side believes is legitimate resistance? If your hope is to moderate the actions of the Arab states, should you not be moving in the direction of changing the level of dialogue from the shrill noises made by the current deplorable excuse for the US Ambassador to the United Nations?

Finally - knowing that my letter is but one drop of water falling on stone, but knowing also that enough drops of water wear down the strongest stone - is it not likely that Israel will listen to wisdom only when the US ends all military and economic aid to it? Eventually one hopes that the influence of groups such as AIPAC, which have been involved in spying on this country, and which keep almost all members of Congress in terror, will fade as broader public discussion about Israel takes place. It is our job to help build a political movement which is strong enough that for the sake of your own political future you will be free to take actions which, I am convinced, you wish now that you could.

It has long since become obvious that the vast majority of Jews in the world do not see Israel as their homeland, do not desire to move there, and that while I urgently hope for the survival of Israel, and peace for its people, I wish as much also for the Palestinians and the Lebanese.

Your position is not one that lends itself to bridging the gap between the hostile parties there. I hope that in the future you realize that a more critical view of the State of Israel may, in reality, be a much greater service to the people of Israel. Peace depends on greater honesty of dialogue than the Israeli government has shown - or our own political leaders have displayed

Sincerely,

David McReynolds
Home


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next Left Notes
(c) 2004,2006 Thomas Good

Verbatim copying and distribution of entire articles is permitted
without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved.