logo
Letters to the Editor: Palestinians' ‘right to self-determination' needs to be considered too

Letters to the Editor: Palestinians' ‘right to self-determination' needs to be considered too

To the editor: Guest contributor Mark Brilliant makes his opinions clear but fails to convince ('Anti-Zionism is antisemitism — university leaders settle the question,' July 21). His assertion regarding the House testimony ignores how the Trump administration has punished students and researchers at schools that failed to toe its line.
Brilliant claims anti-Zionism is 'denying to the Jewish people the right to self-determination.' Here is the question he should ask: Is Zionism a denial of the Palestinians' right to self-determination? Further, were the Palestinian people treated fairly by the partition of their land?
Should we continue to support Israel's 70 years of gradual seizure of more Palestinian land in the West Bank, its intention in the long run to prevent the Palestinians from ever having a state of their own and the violence that has ensued as both side's extremists fight for their 'rights'?
Is the revulsion many of us feel about how Israel is slaughtering civilians in Gaza 'anti-Zionism' or human decency? Few Americans question Israel's right to exist, but many question the senseless violence of its government in response to the senseless violence of Hamas.
Michael Snare, San Diego
..
To the editor: Brilliant takes an affirmative response to a gotcha question ('Is denying the Jewish people their rights to self-determination … antisemitism? Yes or no?') and leaps to his desired conclusion: that the university officials agreed that anti-Zionism is antisemitic. But he is wrong when he says that the Jewish right to self-determination is the textbook definition of Zionism. In fact, Zionism is the movement to establish a Jewish state in biblical Israel.
I believe everyone has a right to self-determination, so I might have answered the gotcha question affirmatively too. But no one has the 'right' to occupy land where others live just as no one has a right to seize homes and orchards, to tell people where they must live and that they can't leave or to deny others their right to self-determination by basing democratic rights such as the right to vote or the right to travel on one's ethnicity. And, of course, no one has a 'right' to bomb hospitals and starve children. It is not antisemitic of me to say so.
Clyde Leland, Berkeley
..
To the editor: In response to Brilliant's op-ed that equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, I would like to point out that people who criticize Zionism probably don't object to Jewish rights to self-determination or statehood. The problem is real estate. The Bible may have promised the land of Israel to the Jews, but if you look at things from a strictly historical perspective, a lot more non-Jews have lived on the land in question than Jews. Many of the people who established the state of Israel came from Europe (for admittedly good reasons) and pushed the native Arab population into refugee camps where it's lived for the last 70-odd years.
Now government officials in Israel and the U.S. are talking openly about completely removing this population. That's ethnic cleansing, and as uncomfortable as it is for many to admit, it's hard to see that ethnic cleansing is not intrinsic to Zionism. You can't establish a Jewish state in a place where other people already live without kicking those people out. That's what people don't like about Zionism. If you could take away the mandatory Arab eviction part, I don't think anybody would have a problem with it.
William Griffith, Oxnard
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Canada will recognize a Palestinian state in September, the prime minister says
Canada will recognize a Palestinian state in September, the prime minister says

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Canada will recognize a Palestinian state in September, the prime minister says

TORONTO (AP) — Canada will recognize a Palestinian state in September, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced on Wednesday, the latest in a series of symbolic announcements that are part of a broader global shift against Israel's policies in Gaza. Carney convened a Cabinet meeting to discuss the situation in the battered Palestinian territory. He said it came after he discussed the crisis with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer who announced a similar move on Tuesday. Leaders are under mounting pressure over the issue as scenes of hunger in Gaza have horrified so many across the world. 'The level of human suffering in Gaza is intolerable,' Carney said. 'Canada intends to recognize the State of Palestine at the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in September 2025.' Carney said the intention is predicated on the Palestinian Authority 'holding general elections in 2026 in which Hamas can play no part, and to demilitarize the Palestinian state.' It wasn't immediately clear how much of a condition Carney's caveat represented — an election in the wrecked strip is not likely anytime soon. Pressure to formally recognize Palestinian statehood has mounted since French President Emmanuel Macron announced that his country will become the first major Western power to recognize a Palestinian state in September. As with France and the U.K., Canadian recognition would be largely symbolic, but it's part of a broader global shift against Israel and could increase diplomatic pressure for an end to the conflict. More than 140 countries recognize a Palestinian state, including a dozen in Europe. Macron's announcement last week made France the first Group of Seven country — and the largest in Europe — to take that step. Canada has long supported the idea of an independent Palestinian state existing alongside Israel, but has said recognition should come as part of a negotiated two-state solution to the conflict. Solve the daily Crossword

Top lawyers warn Starmer recognising Palestine could breach international law
Top lawyers warn Starmer recognising Palestine could breach international law

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Top lawyers warn Starmer recognising Palestine could breach international law

Sir Keir Starmer's pledge to recognise a Palestinian state could break international law, an influential group of peers has warned. Some 38 members of the House of Lords, including some of the UK's most eminent lawyers, have written to Attorney General Lord Hermer about the Prime Minister's announcement. As first reported by the Times newspaper, the peers warned that Sir Keir's pledge to recognise Palestine may breach international law as the territory may not meet the criteria for statehood under the Montevideo Convention, a treaty signed in 1933. On Tuesday, Sir Keir announced the UK could take the step of recognising statehood in September, ahead of a major UN gathering. The UK will only refrain from doing so if Israel allows more aid into Gaza, stops annexing land in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire, and signs up to a long-term peace process over the next two months. Hamas must immediately release all remaining Israeli hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and 'accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza', Sir Keir also said. In their letter to Lord Hermer, the peers said Palestine 'does not meet the international law criteria for recognition of a state, namely, defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states'. There is no certainty over the borders of Palestine they said, and no single government, as Hamas and Fatah are enemies. Lord Hermer has previously insisted that a commitment to international law 'goes absolutely to the heart' of the Government's approach to foreign policy. In their letter seen by the PA news agency, the peers added: 'You have said that a selective, 'pick and mix' approach to international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience. 'Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the Government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law.' Among the respected lawyers to have signed the letter are Lord Pannick – who represented the previous government at the Supreme Court over its Rwanda scheme – as well as KCs Lord Verdirame and Lord Faulks. Some of Parliament's most prominent Jewish voices, including crossbench peer Baroness Deech, Labour's Lord Winston and the Conservatives' Baroness Altmann, have also put their name to the letter. Former Conservative cabinet ministers Lord Pickles and Lord Lansley have also supported it, as has Sir Michael Ellis KC, a former Conservative attorney general and the only non-peer whose name appears on the letter as seen by PA. The peers' intervention follows condemnation of Sir Keir's announcement by Emily Damari, a British-Israeli women who was held captive by Hamas for more than a year. The PM is 'not standing on the right side of history' after his pledge to recognise a Palestinian state, she said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meanwhile claimed it 'rewards Hamas's monstrous terrorism'. But ministers have insisted the step is important and is not an example of gesture politics. 'This is about the Palestinian people. It's about getting aid in to those starving children,' Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said on Wednesday morning. Asked directly whether the release of hostages by Hamas is an explicit condition of Palestinian recognition, Ms Alexander told BBC Radio 4: 'We will be making an assessment in September and we expect Hamas to act in the same way as we expect Israel to act.' She later added: 'We're giving Israel eight weeks to act. If they want to be sat at the table to shape that enduring peace in the region, they must act.' Sir Keir had been coming under pressure from MPs to recognise statehood, and last week more than 250 cross-party members signed a letter calling on him to act. Elsewhere on Wednesday, Palestine Action's co-founder won a bid to bring a High Court challenge over the group's ban as a terror organisation. Huda Ammori is challenging Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws, announced after the group claimed responsibility for action in which two Voyager planes were damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20.

Brown University inks deal with Trump admin to restore funding: What's in the agreement?
Brown University inks deal with Trump admin to restore funding: What's in the agreement?

USA Today

time13 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Brown University inks deal with Trump admin to restore funding: What's in the agreement?

Brown will not pay a fine to the federal government. Instead, the Rhode Island university said it would donate $50 million to workforce development organizations in the state. Brown University has reached a deal with the Trump administration to restore more than $500 million in federal funding to the school and close three government investigations into its campus. The compact, which Brown's president announced July 30, came exactly one week after the White House entered into a separate unprecedented agreement with Columbia University and levied fines against that school, Brown's peer in the Ivy League, totaling more than $220 million. Unlike the contract with Columbia, Brown won't pay money directly to the government. Instead, the university in Providence, Rhode Island, committed to providing $50 million in grants to workforce development organizations across the state over the next 10 years. There were other stipulations, however: The university said it would commission a survey on campus life to its Jewish students. It also said it would hand over admissions data, broken down by various factors including race, in an annual report to the federal government (a provision included in the Columbia agreement as well). Read more: The details of Columbia's extraordinary $220 million deal with Trump Brown also promised to comply with President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at benning transgender athletes in women's sports. And the university said its medical facilities would not facilitate gender-affirming care for minors. In exchange, the Trump administration promised to reinstate payments for active research grants at the university and restore its ability to compete for new federal grants and contracts. In a statement announcing the deal Brown President Christina Paxson emphasized that the agreement does not give the government any authority to "dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech." Read more: Ivy League colleges face a reckoning after Columbia's Trump deal "The University's foremost priority throughout discussions with the government was remaining true to our academic mission, our core values and who we are as a community at Brown,' she said. Linda McMahon, the secretary of the Department of Education, said in a statement, "the Trump Administration is successfully reversing the decades-long woke-capture of our nation's higher education institutions." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store