Thanks for a good law, Mister President.

Bush_signs_in_ADA_of_1990
I realize George H.W. Bush leaves behind a complicated legacy. The infamous Willie Horton ad during his campaign is a fairly shameful blotch.
 
However, I would like to thank his family for the bipartisan courage it took to sign the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into law. 
 
The ADA was a tremendous source of help growing up in a Deaf household. It enshrined several protections to ensure equitable access to important institutions — medical professionals, government, law as well as accessing public facilities.
 
It was the ADA that formed much of my fire as a youth. A common refrain from me was, “Listen, Hospital Social Worker. If you don’t get this ASL interpreter lined up for my father or mother while they’re here, you need to go ahead and call your risk management office right now so they can know you just put the hospital up for a lawsuit.”
 
I was a precocious youth.

The ADA was not without its opposition — and from very shocking places. The Association of Christian Schools International (!) decried it, saying the ADA labeled religious institutions as “public accomodations” and would require their places of worship to make costly accessibility accomodations. Similarly, the National Association of Evangelicals (!) called it an improper intrusion of the Federal government for providing protections for hiring practices of Disabled workers.

Beyond the religious, the ADA also endured criticism from Greyhound Bus lines, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses all claimed it would be “an expensive headache to millions” and “a disastrous impact on many small businesses struggling to survive.”

My hope is that those who led such opposition have realized they were on the wrong side of history and have softened their heart to such important pieces of social justice legislation.

When President Bush signed the ADA into law on July 26, 1990, he made the following remarks:

“I know there may have been concerns that the ADA may be too vague or too costly, or may lead endlessly to litigation. But I want to reassure you right now that my administration and the United States Congress have carefully crafted this Act. We’ve all been determined to ensure that it gives flexibility, particularly in terms of the timetable of implementation; and we’ve been committed to containing the costs that may be incurred…. Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.”

That is what a President should sound like.

Thank you to Patrisha Wright, the blind activist we called the General for marshalling the campaign to lobby for the ADA. Thank you to Justin Whitlock Dart, Jr and the honorable Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) for the final authorship of this landmark bill.

It is important that we have a government that continues to fight for the people, to correct the natural and inherent injustices of both nature and mankind and continues to enshrine important protections to ensure all citizens have fair and equitable access to the very things that enable us to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Sincerely,
Harlan Rosen, CODA
Jawn-ish

Confronting Conflict, or, Let’s Talk About the Marc Lamont Hill Situation

DISCLAIMER: I am a staunch Zionist and my politics tend to be liberal/progressive. I will be writing from a Zionist’s perspective – cultural and religious. My views are my own and do not reflect the views of any organization, synagogues, rabbanim or other Jews – either in America or in Israel.  In the most simple of descriptions, Zionism refers directly to Jewish statehood/self-determination. Vox has a pretty decent write-up about Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflcit which can be found here: https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18080010/zionism-israel-palestine

CONTEXT: On 28 November 2018, the well-known scholar, activist and news media contributor Marc Lamont Hill gave a speech at the United Nations as part of the United Nation’s “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people.” These remarks came after what I understand to be a powerful experience in the State of Palestine a short time prior. Mr. Hill a Philadelphia-based award-winning author and outspoken, engaged member of the African American community. He commands respect as well as controversy. The FULL TEXT of Mr. Hill’s remarks at the United Nations may be found here at the Arab Studies Institute’s ezine, Jadaliyya here: http://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/38202?fbclid=IwAR33_cJdR2jNAA9ze87ERiZPWhFTsT_5NLPfuj7M0AFFnfTrOGagb7P9b6E

 

I recommend you read Mr. Hill’s remarks in their entirety first. The consequence of his remarks was being released from his CNN Contributorship contract – leading many to believe either Mr. Hill was censored, done dirty, or unfairly treated. My commentary is neither a defense nor an indictment. It is a conversation.

First and foremost, we need to tackle the glaring controversy in Mr. Hill’s following statement:

“For this reason it is indeed ironic and sad that this year also makes the 70th anniversary of the Nakba, the great catastrophe in May 1948 that resulted in the expulsion, murder, and to date, permanent dislocation of more than a million Palestinians. For every minute that the global has articulated a clear and lucid framework for human rights, the Palestinian people have been deprived of the most fundamental of them.”

There is an important distinction that needs to be made – that distinction is where your perspective is.

In 1947 to 1948 war broke out in what was the former “Mandatory Palestine” (which you should understand as the “British Mandate of Palestine” – after World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Allied powers essentially divvied up what we know as the Middle East and forced entirely different ethnic groups / religious groups / cultures / peoples into ham-fisted nation states that didn’t exist. Iraq, Iran, Transjordan (and now simply the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) are all relatively “modern” countries and only exist as a result of World War I).
The Palestinian side refers to this war in Arabic as “al-Nakba” – which in English, translates to “The Catastrophe.” The Jewish side refers to this war in Hebrew as “Milkhemet HaShikhrur” which in English means “The War for Liberation.” In other words, the catastrophe for the Palestinian side was when the Jews decided they’d rather be in business for themselves especially after the string of persecutions that all occurred Europe and the Middle East throughout the 19thand 20thcenturies.

In other words, when Mr. Hill calls this the Nakba, he is coming from the perspective that Jewish independence is a bad thing. He is also coming from the perspective of lives lost by Palestinian Arabs, the Egyptians, and the Arab League’s strategic defeat. What you should also know about this war is that it wasn’t simply a side versus a side. It was a war in which the near-entirety of the Arab world attempted to outright crush and destroy the Jewish communities living in the Mandate of Palestine. The Arab League had a far larger and far more formidable army at the start. The other key piece of context you need to know is that the 1947-1948 War was precipitated by the United Nations General Assembly vote for the Partition Plan of Palestine – an attempt to create two Nations literally overlapping each other. An independent Arab state and an independent Jewish state. For the Jews, this was as much a war for survival as it was for independence. For the Arabs in the form of the Arab Liberation Army and the Army of the Holy War (religious Arab military from Egypt) their condition for victory was simple: if you throw all of the Jews into the sea, then you don’t need TWO nations. You just need ONE.

The conclusion of the war on 20 July 1949 resulted in two simultaneous expulsions. First, the expulsion of Palestinian Arabs from the now-established State of Israel AND the expulsion of Jews living in Arab and Muslim countries. In other words, Israel’s neighbors essentially said, “You have a State now? Great – get the hell out and go there instead before we kill you.”

The advantage the expelled Jews had is that they had a place to move to – the fledgling (and under threat) State of Israel. This was not an advantage that the Palestinian people could have. Gaza was controlled by Egypt, and they merely viewed the Palestinians as refugees. Jordan was controlled by the West Bank. No effort by the Arab nations were made to help Palestinian statehood in the two regions originally stipulated by the United Nations partition plan to be for the Palestinian state. This changes much later on in modern history, but bear with me.

Key to understanding the State of Israel is the acknowledgment that it is the Jewish State. This means that the Jewish religion and the Jewish people are referred multiple times in the State of Israel’s Basic Laws (Israel’s own Constitution). Mr. Hill refers to how these Laws – while far from perfect – can negatively impact Israel’s population of Arab citizens (these are Arabs who have full Israeli citizenship and are protected by Israel’s laws):

“While the Universal Declaration for Human Rights says that all people are “born free and equal in dignity and rights,” the Israeli nation state continues to restrict freedom and undermine equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel as well as those in the West Bank and Gaza. At the current moment, there are more than 60 Israeli laws that deny Palestinians access to full citizenship rights, simply because they’re not Jewish. From housing to education to family reunification, it is clear that any freedoms naturally endowed to all human beings are actively being stripped away from Palestinians through Israeli state craft.“

Mr. Hill does not mention other countries that have a state religion – or even countries that operate as a theocracy. Christian countries are as follows: Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, certain cantons of Switzerland, Greece, Bulgaria, Finland, Georgia, Denmark, Iceland, the U.K., Scotland and Vatican City (a theocracy) to name a few. Some countries that recognize Islam as their official religion are largely Arab countries. Iran is Shi’a theocracy. Buddhism is the official religion of Bhutan, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Sri lanka, the Tibetan Government in Exile, and Lamykia. Until 2015, Nepal was the world’s only Hindu state. It is now a secular country. The State of Israel is the only country on this Earth that defined in its laws as a Democratic Jewish state. It means it follows numerous norms of Western democracy, but Judaism is found in its flag and official trappings. Hebrew is the official language of the State of Israel – but it also recognizes English and Arabic as essential languages. Did you know nearly every public sign in Israel is typically written in Hebrew, English, AND Arabic? It is only Israel, Mr. Hill. That is our one and only refuge.

Mr. Hill also neglects to mention that Israeli Arabs serve in every portion of Israeli government. One of the major parties in the Knesset (the Israeli parliament) is the Joint List – which is essentially the Arab party. That means there are Arab politicians in Israel. There are also Arab judges. However, Mr. Hill is correct in the following way: the recent Israeli nation-state law simply enshrines that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people. Critics say that this is counter to the basis of the Israeli legal system as well as its Declaration of Independence by institutionalizing inequality. It is true that the State of Israel provides privileges to Jews that it does not afford its non-Jewish citizens – for example, the Right of Return and the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will promote its establishment and consolidation. The Sabbath and Jewish festivals are established days of rest in the State – perhaps Mr. Hill would also find problem with the way Christmas Eve and Christmas Day is treated in the United States.

Mr. Hill should also know that the fourth basic law of Israel, which deals with language, enshrines Arabic language as a special status – essentially recognizing it. Mr. Hill would argue this is discriminatory toward the Palestinian people. I will not sugar coat things – many Palestinians have some pretty raw deals in the occupied territories. Living in Gaza sucks and it sucks hard. Having to go through security checkpoints just to get to work because your job is in the State of Israel blows. Racism, prejudice, corruption, and abuse happen within the State of Israel. Unfortunately for humanity, these things happen in every country. Unfortunately for Palestinians, they get one of the rawest deals of all – and that deal is due to a whole lot of bad decisions and bad policies that the United Nations created and enacted. Some of that raw deal is also due to the Netanyahu administration. This itself is a lengthy conversation.

While Mr. Hill points out many of the accurate injustices and sufferings of the Palestinian people, he neglects to mention similar suffering felt by their Jewish counterparts. Mr. Hill does not mention that in January of 2018, a Palestinian teenager illegally entered Israel and stabbed a pregnant Israeli woman. Or in the same week of that January, a Palestinian man infiltrated the home of 38-year old Dafna Meir in the Jewish settlement of Otniel – which is south of Hebron and stabbed her to death while her eldest daughter watched before fleeing. Meir was a mother of six. Those six no longer have a mother – she bled to death on her own kitchen floor.

This is not an isolated incident. Bloodshed happens constantly. Why did Dafna Meir deserve to be murdered in her own home? Or in September of 2018, when Ari Fuld was stabbed to death as he patronized a mall in the West bank? These murders are not simply an average crime statistic. They were both politically motivated as well as racially motivated. These are all normal people, just trying to live their truest expressions of Judaism and Jewish solidarity and self-determination. In other words, Mr. Hill, these victims are among MANY who died for simply wanting to be a Jew in the Jewish homeland.

I hope by now the sheer amount of nuance, complications, outright shittiness, and horribleness that mires the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has existed since right before the establishment of the State of Israel is clear to you. On both sides, there is a true hunger for lengthy peace and co-existence. Mr. Hill did not recognize the peace plans that Yasser Arafat walked away from. Mr. Hill does not recognize the numerous attempts made by the State of Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories in full – only to be responded to by rockets from the Palestinian side.

This is a thorny, shitty situation where there appears to be no clear way for anyone. The peace process has been going on for decades and the only peace that has been achieved is Israel’s peace with Egypt and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. That we have not attained peace between two nations, the right of both Jewish and Palestinian self-determination, and sovereignty of two separate states does not mean one should give up. The work of justice is highly difficult and at times, truly impossible to achieve. But that does not give us license to simply do nothing. It simply gives us the peace of mind to know that even as we are involved in this work, we may not be the ones who complete it.

Unfortunately, Mr. Hill ends with a very powerful and very hurtful message:

“So as we stand here on the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the tragic commemoration of the Nakba, we have an opportunity to not just offer solidarity in words but to commit to political action, grassroots action, local action, and international action that will give us what justice requires. And that is a free Palestine from the river to the sea.”

The unfortunate truth to Mr. Hill’s last statement is that a Palestine “from the river to the sea” does not just mean the destruction of the State of Israel – it also means the destruction of Jewish lives.

I understand, Mr. Hill, that you had a powerful experience in Palestine. I do not wish to diminish what you experienced and felt; in fact, I wish to acknowledge it. I myself had a very powerful experience in the State of Israel. The best way I can describe it to you is akin to the ways the comedians Richard Pryor and David Chappelle felt when they visited Africa. Imagine an entire country where everyone looks, acts, prays, thinks, and lives like you do. And now imagine coming from a country where you have to work very hard at honoring your people, a country that sometimes casts suspicions on you and condones words and actions that hurt you. What you should be aware of, Mr. Hill, is that our beliefs are partially the result of a very careful manipulation by both states. We are meant to be emotionally involved – we are meant to be spiritually involved – and we are meant to be fashioned into passionate fighters for our respective sides. Mr. Hill, as a Jewish American activist and as a Zionist, I do not wish to be at odds with you. Instead, I would much rather be at the table with you and tackle the very difficult issues of justice, equality, and equity.

Mr. Hill, we have a lot in common. We are both from a persecuted people. We both live in a country that does not permit us a truly full, unblemished and equitable existence. The tragedies that befall Black America are the same tragedies that befall Jewish America, international Jewry, Jewish Israel – and yes – Palestinians.

We are all in a struggle for freedom, for dignity, for equity and for a better tomorrow. We would all be better off if we chose to work together, rather than against each other, for many of our obstacles are the exact same. When we recognize love for our own people, and from that love, love for our neighbors, that will be what brings us to the table.

The truth of the matter is that we all deserve dignity – and unfortunately, due to myriad reasons, we ain’t getting it. And one of the reasons we are not getting it is because we are made to be divided from each other – by powers that profit while we struggle and are killed by simple truth of our respective birthright and culture.

Mr. Hill, you were let go from your well-deserved and well-earned CNN contributorship. You are also the professor at a University named after a member of the Philadelphia Jewish community who are just as passionate and just as committed. We are all tremendously hurt by your assertion of “from river to sea.” That is tantamount to calling for our death. I do not know about you, Mr. Hill, but I have no interest in revisiting the pogroms and persecutions that have consumed whole branches of my family tree and the families of Jews all over the world.

Do you know the extent of harm that your words brought? Only you have that answer.

Did you deserve to lose your lucrative contract with CNN? Do you deserve to have your livelihood stripped away from you?

I do not know. Frankly, I am not sure that the penalty that you incurred – that many before you, who have said hurtful things publicly – is a just penalty. You are a highly accomplished individual who has earned all of your accolades, your wealth, and influence. In the public outcry, I think our side lost an opportunity for a teachable moment to help us both return to the table. Instead, your voice was shouted down and a metric shit ton of ill will has just flourished between our respective communities. An ill will that I do not believe any of us really want.

I am sorry you lost one of your sources of income, Mr. Hill. I am conflicted. Can one take critical positions toward the policies and laws of the State of Israel? Yes, of course. That is how free will and free speech work. Mostly to the benefit of you and I; but sometimes to our detriment when it comes to benefitting the groups that hate the both of us and have no hesitations about letting us know how much they hate us. Unfortunately, you veered into a moment of calling for the death of Jews in the State of Israel. And brother, that hurts.

Black lives matter. Palestinian lives matter. Jewish lives matter. And a lot of the crappiness that has erupted between our respective sides demeans the innocent lives lost as well as the lives of Jews and Palestinians alike who take self-determination seriously.

Let us be allies in the work of peace, justice and love, Mr. Hill. Not enemies.

Respectfully,

Harlan Rosen

Jawn-ish