This
section
gives
a
taste
of
the
perspective
of
Habonim
Dror
North
America.
It
includes
writings
and
teachings
of
our
influential
scholars
and
our
elected
leaders.
It
also
has
Veida
resolutions
that
the
constituency
of
this
movement
passed
that
concern
Israel
and
Palestine.
Jamie Levin, Mazkir Tnua, Speaks Concerning the Current Crisis in Israel
Veida IX 1997: Proposal 5: Let’s Put the “PAL” back in Palestinian
Veida X 1999: Proposal II-Six: Palestinian Refugee Compensation
Veida XI 2001: The Wrong of Return
Veida XI 2001: Reaffirmation of Convictions
Veida XI 2001: Reaffirming Support For Israel
Veida XI 2001: Separating Pro-Israel from Pro-Israeli Government
Veida XI 2001: Reaffirming Education About the Occupation
As
Mazkir
Tnua,
I
have
been
privy
to
numerous
discussions
over
the
past
few
months
concerning
the
current
crisis.
I
would
like
to
explore
some
intriguing
insights
that
have
appealed
to
me.
Unfortunately
none
are
able
to
resolve
the
current
conflict
in
its
entirety
but
they
offer
a
platform
for
further
discussion
in
the
movement.
The
first
perspective
takes
as
its
starting
point
an
analysis
of
the
current
situation;
that
the
uprising
began
due
to
the
frustration
of
the
Palestinian
people.
Though
the
Palestinian
Authority
controls
3
million
people
(90-95%
of
the
population
of
the
territories)
they
only
control
40%
of
the
land.
The
West
Bank
resembles
a
piece
of
Swiss
cheese,
bisected
by
Israeli
military
access
roads
and
checkpoints.
This
leads
Palestinians
to
constantly
come
across
the
Israeli
military
in
daily
life.
The
continual
delays
in
the
Oslo
process
have
frustrated
many;
initially
intended
as
an
interim
agreement,
Oslo
is
far
behind
schedule.
As
well,
Palestinians
have
seen
Israeli
settlements
expand
since
negotiations
began
seven
years
ago
(total
population
of
settlers
in
the
occupied
territories
has
nearly
doubled
since
the
Oslo
process
began
seven
years
ago).
Many
Palestinians
simply
don’t
see
the
changes
that
were
promised
in
the
peace
process.
As
well,
a
power
struggle
has
emerged
within
the
Palestinian
society
since
Oslo.
Tension
between
those
that
led
the
PLO
from
exile
seven
years
ago
(i.e.,
Arafat)
and
those
that
fought
during
the
Intifada
(i.e.,
Marwan
Barghuti
the
head
of
the
Tanzim
paramilitary
group
that
has
led
many
of
the
battles
with
Israeli
troops)
have
fanned
the
flames
of
discontent.
The
people
that
led
the
initial
Intifada
are
in
a
struggle
to
exercise
power
from
the
exiles
who
currently
control
the
Palestinian
Authority.
Barak
offered
far
reaching
concessions
to
the
Palestinians
at
the
Camp
David
summit
hosted
last
summer
by
President
Clinton.
But
against
this
backdrop
it
is
easy
to
understand
why
an
accord
was
never
reached
and
why
an
uprising
began.
What
nature
has
the
uprising
taken?
Is
this
a
riot?
No,
a
riot
is
a
demonstration
gone
out
of
control.
Is
this
a
mob?
No,
the
violence
has
aims
and
goals.
One
must
only
surf
the
web
or
watch
CNN
to
learn
that
popular
Palestinian
perception
views
this
recent
spate
of
violence
as
a
guerilla
war,
a
war
of
attrition
against
Israeli
occupation.
The
peace
process
was
intended
to
bring
both
sides
together
at
the
negotiating
table
as
neighbors
who
must
learn
to
coexist.
Since
the
conflict
began
many
people
loyal
to
both
sides
have
waged
a
campaign
of
blame.
Does
laying
blame
stem
the
violence?
Is
it
constructive?
Both
the
Palestinian
Authority
and
the
Israeli
government
bear
responsibility
for
the
current
uprising.
The
question
for
forward-minded
people
should
not
be
who
to
blame.
Such
questions
distract
attention
from
saving
lives
by
pushing
forward
the
agenda
of
self-determination
for
both
Jews
and
Palestinians.
Israel
has
remained
in
the
territories
for
34
years
because
of
security
considerations.
The
events
of
the
past
few
months
have
demonstrated
that
Israeli
security
is
no
longer
being
served
by
its
presence
in
the
West
Bank
and
Gaza
Strip.
In
the
event
that
continuing
negotiations
don’t
yield
results,
a
radical
agenda
must
be
offered
to
concerned
policy
makers.
A
radical
option
is
to
unilaterally
withdraw
from
the
territories
as
a
gesture
of
reconciliation
to
the
Palestinians.
Israel
would
welcome
a
Palestinian
state
based
on
those
things
that
were
agreed
upon
at
Camp
David
(i.e.,
80%
of
the
Israeli
settlements
would
be
annexed,
there
would
be
a
small
number
return
for
the
Palestinian
refugees
while
the
rest
would
seek
compensation).
Israel
would
retain
everything
that
wasn’t
agreed
upon
(such
as
Jerusalem)
for
further
negotiations.
As
a
state,
the
Palestinians
would
be
able
to
negotiate
as
an
equal
partner
in
exchange
for
peace.
Any
unilateral
actions
must
be
made
in
the
spirit
of
reconciliation.
They
must
be
made
to
ensure
Israel’s
security
while
supporting
the
Palestinian
right
to
self-determination
if
we
are
to
expect
future
negotiations
to
be
held
in
good
faith.
There
is
clear
danger
in
attempting
to
separate
from
the
Palestinians
and
isolate
them
until
they
are
forced
to
negotiate;
this
type
of
policy
would
backfire
on
Israel.
Less
comprehensive
actions
may
also
be
prompted.
For
example
the
evacuation
of
contentious
Israeli
settlements
in
Palestinian
population
centers.
As
Progressive
Zionists,
the
Chaverim
of
Habonim
Dror
must
continue
the
dialogue
of
peace.
The
agenda
of
self-determination
for
both
peoples
must
not
be
forgotten.
Questions:
·
Is
the
“unilateral
withdrawal”
plan
that
Levin
describes
the
only
viable
option
that
Israel
has
right
now?
·
Would
it
be
the
best
moral
option?
·
Should
HDNA
endorse
this
option?
By
Martin
Buber
By
a
genuine
peace
we
inferred
and
still
infer
that
both
peoples
together
should
develop
the
land
without
imposing
its
will
on
the
other.
In
view
of
the
international
usages
of
our
generation,
this
appeared
to
us
to
be
very
difficult
but
not
impossible.
We
were
and
still
are
well
aware
that
in
this
unusual—yes
unprecedented
case,
it
is
a
question
of
seeking
new
ways
of
understanding
and
cordial
agreement
between
the
nations.
Here
again
we
stood
and
still
stand
under
the
sway
of
a
commandment.
We
considered
it
a
fundamental
point
that
in
this
case
two
vital
claims
are
opposed
to
each
other,
two
claims
of
a
different
nature
and
a
different
origin
which
cannot
objectively
be
pitted
against
one
another
and
between
which
no
objective
decision
can
be
made
as
to
which
is
just,
which
unjust.
We
considered
and
still
consider
it
our
duty
to
understand
and
honor
the
claim
which
is
opposed
to
ours
and
to
endeavor
to
reconcile
both
claims.
We
could
not
and
cannot
renounce
the
Jewish
claim;
something
even
higher
than
the
life
of
our
people
is
bound
up
with
this
land,
namely
its
work,
its
divine
mission.
But
we
have
been
and
still
are
convinced
that
it
must
be
possible
to
find
some
compromise
between
this
claim
and
the
other;
for
we
love
this
land
and
we
believe
in
its
future;
since
such
love
and
such
faith
are
surely
present
on
the
other
side
as
well,
a
union
in
the
common
service
of
the
land
must
be
within
the
range
of
possibility.
Where
there
is
faith
and
love,
a
solution
may
be
found
even
to
what
appears
to
be
a
tragic
opposition…
It
seems
to
me
that
God
does
not
give
any
one
portion
of
the
earth
away,
so
that
the
owner
may
say
as
God
says
in
the
Bible:
“For
all
the
earth
is
Mine”
(Exod.
19:5).
The
conquered
land
is,
in
my
opinion,
only
lent
to
even
the
conqueror
who
has
settled
on
it—and
God
waits
to
see
what
he
will
make
of
it.
I
am
told,
however,
I
should
not
respect
the
cultivated
soil
and
despite
the
desert.
I
am
told,
the
desert
is
willing
to
wait
for
the
work
of
her
children:
she
no
longer
recognizes
us,
burdened
with
civilization,
as
her
children.
The
desert
inspires
me
with
awe;
but
I
do
not
believe
in
her
absolute
resistance,
for
I
believe
in
the
great
marriage
between
man
(adam)
and
earth
(adamah).
This
land
recognizes
us,
for
it
is
fruitful
through
us:
and
precisely
because
it
bears
fruit
for
us;
it
recognizes
us.
Our
settlers
do
not
come
here
as
do
the
colonists
from
the
Occident
to
have
natives
do
their
work
for
them;
they
themselves
set
their
shoulders
to
plow
and
they
spend
their
strength
and
their
blood
to
make
the
land
fruitful.
But
it
is
not
only
for
ourselves
that
we
desire
its
fertility.
The
Jewish
farmers
have
begun
to
teach
their
brothers
the
Arab
farmers
to
cultivate
the
land
more
intensively;
we
desire
to
teach
them
further:
together
with
them
we
want
to
cultivate
the
land—to
“serve”
it,
as
the
Hebrew
has
it.
The
more
fertile
this
soil
becomes,
the
more
space
there
will
be
for
us
and
for
them.
We
have
no
desire
to
dispossess
them:
we
want
to
live
with
them.
We
do
not
want
to
dominate
them,
we
want
to
serve
with
them…
Taken
from
a
compilation
of
Buber’s
work
entitled
Israel
and
the
World.
This
essay
was
written
in
the
context
of
an
open
letter
to
Mahatma
Ghandi.
Questions:
·
Does
Martin
Buber’s
plan
for
coexistence,
and
his
implication
of
bi-national
statehood,
conflict
with
traditional
Zionism?
·
Does
it
conflict
with
HDNA’s
definition
of
Zionism?
By
Rachel
Jenkins-Stevens
Peace
in
Israel,
PA
controlled
territories,
and
the
occupied
territories
is
not
possible
without
each
peoples
coming
to
a
deeper
understanding
of
the
other’s
history
and
present
story,
and
acceptance
of
the
other’s
permanence
and
validity
within
the
region.
It
is
the
responsibility
of
HDNA
to
further
this
understanding
in
North
America
with
our
own
members.
If
we
are
to
promote
peace
with
the
tnua
it
is
not
enough
to
learn
and
teach
only
the
Jewish
and
Israeli
stories
about
the
Middle
East,
and
to
ignore
the
voices
of
Palestinians.
It
is
not
enough
to
tell
just
the
liberal
Jewish
version
of
the
Palestinian
story.
I
propose
that
the
parties
involved
in
the
organization
of
HDNA
Israel
programs
(MBI
and
Workshop)
include
Palestinian
sources
and
materials
for
the
chinuch
aspects
of
these
programs,
such
as
seminar
leaders,
speakers,
texts,
museums,
historical
sites
etc.
An
effort
should
also
be
made
to
implement
Palestinian
sources
at
machaneh
if
at
all
possible.
Friendly
Amendment:
Include
Israeli
Arabs,
Druze
and
Bedouin
into
the
proposal.
Questions:
·
Do
you
think
this
is
an
important
move
for
the
movement?
·
Why
is
it
important
to
learn
about
Palestinian
history
and
to
learn
the
Palestinian
collective
story?
Joe
Mullin
and
Alexis
Kort
Whereas
the
state
of
Israel
is
currently
involved
in
a
Peace
Process
meant
to
create
a
just
and
lasting
peace
in
the
Middle
East;
Whereas
an
integral
part
of
this
peace
must
be
just
compensation
for
Palestinian
refugees;
Let
it
be
resolved
that
HDNA
recognizes
and
calls
for
the
state
of
Israel
to
recognize
the
right
of
Palestinian
refugees
to
return
to
their
former
homes
And
the
recognition
of
this
right
and
compensation
of
refugees
are
integral
to
creating
a
just
peace
and
should
be
outcomes
of
the
peace
process.
Jake
Passel
and
Danna
Gutman
Whereas
Habonim
Dror
North
America
is
a
Progressive
Labor
Zionist
movement
that
has
consistently
supported
a
just
solution
to
the
Arab-Israeli
conflict,
Whereas
the
Israeli
Labor
Party
and
the
Labor
Zionist
movement
have
consistently,
as
expressed
by
such
prominent
figures
as
Ehud
Barak
and
Yossi
Beilin,
rejected
the
call
for
return
of
Palestinian
Arab
refugees
to
the
State
of
Israel,
Whereas
an
influx
of
Palestinian
Arab
refugees
into
the
state
of
Israel
would
drastically
disturb
the
stability
and
progress
of
the
Israeli
economy,
Whereas
an
influx
of
Palestinian
Arab
refugees
would
threaten
Israel’s
character
as
a
Jewish
Democratic
State,
Whereas
HDNA
has
itself
participated
in
the
development
of
settlements
on
the
sites
of
abandoned
Arab
settlements-
e.g.
Gesher
Haziv,
Ma’ayan
Baruch,
Kfar
Blum,
Ravid,
Urim,
etc.,
Whereas
HDNA
recognizes
that
Palestinian
refugees
are
a
people
that
have
been
living
under
oppression
in
squalid
conditions
and
that
this
situation
gives
rise
to
understandable
anti-Israeli
sentiment,
Let
it
be
resolved
that
HDNA
replaces
its
resolution
calling
for
the
return
of
Palestinian
Arab
refugees
to
Israel,
supporting
instead
just
compensation
which
will
come
from
Israel,
but
not
exclusively
from
Israel.
Whereas
Habonim
Dror
is
a
decidedly
Progressive
Zionist
Youth
Movement
even
during
these
extended
times
of
crisis
and
tragedy
in
the
Middle
East;
We
the
members
of
Habonim
Dror
reaffirm
our
commitment
to
the
following:
Ending
violence
and
terrorism,
which
are
counterproductive
to
actualizing
peace;
Both
people
must
return
to
negotiation
and
compromise;
The
creation
of
a
Palestinian
State
based
on
a
just
and
lasting
peace
and
mutual
recognition
of
self-determination;
The
easing
of
restrictions
and
end
of
collective
punishment
on
the
Palestinian
People
Palestinian
people
(Ruth
Stevens)
especially
with
regards
to
the
practice
of
home
demolitions;
The
creative
division
of
Jerusalem
as
a
capital
of
two
nations;
The
end
of
settlement
expansion
and
dismantling
of
provocative
settlements;
An
end
to
the
occupation
of
the
West
Bank
and
Gaza
Strip;
We
support
the
creation
of
a
responsible
and
democratic
Palestinian
government
(Zack
Goelman).
Therefore,
be
it
further
resolved
that
Habonim
Dror
be
vocal
and
active
in
the
pursuit
of
these
convictions
in
North
America,
Israel,
and
globally.
Mimi
Oziel,
Ruthie
Garelik,
Sam
Heller,
Steph
Goldberg,
Lilah
Rubin,
Amir
Tsemach,
and
Sam
Ruskin.
Whereas
Habonim
is
a
Labor
Zionist
Youth
Movement,
which
has
always
been
supportive
of
equality
in
Israel.
Whereas,
Habonim
Dror
has
the
aim
of
upbuilding
the
state
of
Israel
as
a
progressive
egalitarian
society,
a
spiritual
center
of
the
Jewish
People.
Whereas,
Habonim
Dror
calls
for
aliyah
and
an
active
involvement
in
Progressive
Zionist
and
Jewish
issues
in
the
Diaspora
Whereas,
Israel
is
a
country
primarily
supported
by
Jews.
Therefore
be
it
resolved
that
Habonim
Dror
North
America
should
reaffirm
define
and
vocalize
to
its
chanichim
in
peulot
(Roni
Zacsh)
its
support
for
the
state
of
Israel
as
stated
in
the
aims
of
Habonim
Dror.
Questions:
·
Why
do
the
chaverim
of
HDNA
feel
the
need
to
“reaffirm”
our
beliefs?
Ben
Meiselman
Whereas
Progressive
Labor
Zionism
supports
the
definition
of
Israel
as
a
necessary
central
physical
space
for
the
Jewish
People
Whereas
actions
and
policies
carried
out
by
the
Israeli
Government
are
often
in
conflict
with
the
ideals
of
HDNA
Let
it
be
resolved
that
HDNA
is
definitively
Pro-Israel
regardless
of
its
stance
on
a
given
Israeli
government.
This
means
that
even
while
disagreeing
with
policies
of
the
government
HDNA
will
forever
recognize
and
promote
Israel’s
rights
as
a
sovereign
democratic
nation.
Veida
XI
2001:
Reaffirming
Education
About
the
Occupation
Hollis
Architel,
Jamie
Beran
Whereas
HDNA
is
a
Progressive
Zionist
movement
committed
to
social
justice;
Whereas
HDNA
strives
for
peace
and
the
cessation
of
violence;
Whereas
occupying
another
nation
is
ultimately
a
situation
that
must
end,
given
our
hope
for
peaceful
coexistence
with
our
neighbors;
Whereas
in
the
face
of
the
ongoing
(Brian
Cohen)
Intifadah,
we
often
neglect
to
be
sensitive
to
the
plight
of
the
Palestinian
people
who
suffer
from
the
occupation,
and
we
fail
to
realize
that
the
occupation
is
greater
in
scope
than
settlement
activity;
Therefore,
be
it
resolved
that:
We
reaffirm
than
an
emphasis
should
be
placed
on
learning
about
the
occupation
(including
learning
about
closures,
etc),
even
despite
ever-changing
circumstances
in
the
Middle
East;
And
we
urge
that
in
machanot,
Ken
peulot,
in
MBI
and
on
Workshop
(Shawn
Guttman)
we
do
not
lose
sight
of
our
Progressive
Zionist
ideals,
and
that
we
confront
this
issue,
however
difficult
it
may
be.
Questions:
·
Is
it
important
for
us
to
direct
educational
focus
on
the
occupation?
·
Will
this
take
away
from
more
important
chinuch?