Mourning, again.
And then: Want to unite the Jewish people? Lots of luck. Below, you will find some - just some - of the currently 24,300 items that come up when you Google "reactions to yeshiva killings." The blogosphere careens all over the place, and I begin with some reasonably (if largely unreasonable) examples, most neither requiring nor deserving comment. I turn then to a few of the more substantial responses and consider their meaning and import.
From "The Jewish Community of Hebron," apparently by one David Wilder: "Earlier today I spent a couple of hours with journalists from Finland, questioning me about our presence in Hebron and in Judea and Samaria. I stressed to them that the enemy we are facing are nothing more than wild animals; only animal can perpetrate such horror attacks. Tonight another one of these animals escaped from his cage and, let loose in civilization, attacked, as does a wild lion or tiger.
"I continue hearing on the radio reports how the police and security are continuing to prepare for tomorrow's 'Friday prayer on Temple Mount' referring of course, to Arab, Islamic prayer. I do not understand why the Israeli authorities are going to allow these prayers to take place, especially taking into account that according to the latest reports, the terrorist who perpetrated the murder tonight is a resident of Jabal MuKaber, a neighborhood in east Jerusalem. The first thing that should have been announced tonight is that those prayers, on Temple Mount, are canceled. The second announcement should be that any and all 'peace talks' with the Arabs are suspended until further notice. Third, the Knesset should meet in special session and pass a law which will allow immediate suspension of Knesset members who incite the enemy and who celebrate such murderous attacks as we've witnessed tonight."
From Ynet News: In Gaza City, residents went out into the streets and fired rifles in celebration in the air after hearing news of the attack on the seminary.
From Obadiah Shoher, a blogger: "It is outrageous when Jews kill others. It is normal when others kill Jews. The government never liked yeshiva students, anyway. The attack by an East Jerusalem Arab reinforces the government's policy of divesting from that troublesome area. The mass murder also gives Israeli government a bit more of international acquiescence in the Gaza invasion.
"It takes a lot of bravery and hatred to conduct a mass shooting alone. Doubt that? Look at how many Israelis stood up to shoot Shimon Peres, whom just everyone despises? The lack of hatred, the lack of courage... So how an Arab villager did manage such a horrendous but nevertheless brave act?
"His hatred was twofold. Generally, he hated Jews who, he honestly thought, stole his land. His village was in Muslim country before, in Jewish country now. No amount of Israeli propaganda can change that fact. And all the liberal education that Jews bestowed on him taught the Arab one thing: that nationalism is noble and the country is worth fighting for. The Jews imagined they taught the Arab their history, but he readily applied their doctrines to his own history.
"Then, it was the Arab labor. The yeshiva employed the Arab as a driver. That was a shame for Rav Kook's disciples. Religious Jews, of course, treated their Arab driver a bit better than a swine. They were masters, he was, to put it mildly, a worker. Someone who lacks the divine soul which Jews have. No doubt, he was treated politely - but with unmistakable disdain which he couldn't fail to miss. Not that the Jews were wrong to treat him thus; they were wrong to employ a despised human being - who could be reasonably expected to hit back one time.
"As the Arab's family told journalists, he was depressed by news of the Israeli invasion of Gaza and massive killings there. And his attitude, though factually wrong, is understandable: Israel daily sends signals of having no right to this land. The government abandons Judea and Samaria, Jerusalem, the Temple Mount. Step by step, Palestinians reclaim 'their' land: Schem, Hebron. Even the Jews, the leftists, agree that Arabs are right and join their demonstrations. Israel ran from Gaza and jailed the Jews who protested that move. How could Israel be possibly right in invading Gaza now, in killing the Arab's brethren? That they bombarded Sderot and Ashkelon with rockets is irrelevant. They only demanded forcibly what is rightfully theirs and what the Zionist state refused them: the Palestinian statehood. Even Zionists have long agreed to Palestinian statehood, but now wickedly drag the negotiations. And so in the Arab's eyes, Hamas was right to shell Israel, to get what is rightfully theirs, what even Zionists have conceded is the Palestinian land."
On Monday, Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik on Monday asked Attorney General Menachem Mazuz to order the demolition of the mourner's tent set up by the family of the terrorist that killed eight yeshiva boys last week, as well as the demolition of his family's home.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was told on Sunday that he is not welcome to visit the Mercaz Harav religious school in Jerusalem, where eight students were killed Thursday when a Palestinian gunman opened fire on a crowded library. The yeshiva informed Olmert of its decision in response to the prime minister's request to visit the school in the wake of the attack. In its message, the yeshiva said its decision was not final, but emphasized that their wish was 'to save him and us the embarrassment.'
On Sunday, Education Minister Yuli Tamir was ejected from the Mercaz Harav religious school during her visit there after students called her a "murderer" and "Oslo criminal." The Ha'Aretz report: "Tamir first visited the middle school, where students outside shouted at her to leave. The school's head rabbis asked that Tamir discontinue her tour, but she insisted on visiting the yeshiva high school as well. Tamir met some 30 rabbis and students, who said the attack had made them feel much less safe. During the hour-long meeting, Tamir's interlocutors criticized government policies toward the national-religious sector, both politically and in terms of funding. 'In spite of the disagreements, this is a sad time, when everyone feels love and sympathy,' Tamir told her listeners. Some students protested Tamir's invitation, calling it 'sycophancy.' During the meeting, dozens of students gathered outside the yeshiva to protest her presence, saying she consistently 'harasses the religious sector.' A plastic bottle thrown towards the education minister hit one of her security guards in the back. Tamir was escorted safely back to her vehicle by police. The head of the middle school, Rabbi Yerachmiel Weiss, told Ha'aretz after the incident that 'many students find the government's political prospects - be it the division of Jerusalem or evacuating outposts, which for some means being driven out of their homes - very distressing. While there were some who slammed her visit, we told them everyone has the right to hold their own worldview, and we were pleased that the minister came.' Tamir said Sunday evening that 'outside the library people gathered. They shouted, behaved inappropriately and ruined the atmosphere of grief. Sadly, some people cannot distinguish between politics and bereavement.' 'When I was invited, I didn't hesitate for a moment,' Tamir added. 'Unfortunately, I feel that some people, hopefully only a handful, cannot transcend their propensity for incitement, even in times of mourning.'
The Government announced on Sunday the imminent construction of 730 new apartments near Givat Ze'ev and some hundreds more in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Kidmat Zion. Eli Yishai [head of Shas] said to Ha'aretz Tuesday that "Kidmat Zion is located one and a half kilometers from the Western Wall. Any way you look at it - we're talking about Jerusalem. There is no reason to freeze it. After eight people killed, we should build 100 apartments for every person killed. I have maintained contact with the interior minister, and I will also speak to the prime minister, so that the construction plan is approved as quickly as possible."
From "Israpundit": "The terrorist was a 25-year-old Israeli Arab citizen, complete with an Israeli ID card (teudat zehut), a resident of a neighborhood in the eastern section of the capital, who had driven children and adults back and forth from schools in the city - including the yeshiva. He was known and trusted. And therefore not suspect.
"Many Palestinian Authority Arabs and Israeli Arabs work for and together with Jews in this country and there are still some Jews who have not yet learned to hate. Now the question is: Which of their friends and workers can be trusted, truly?"
From "4international," a website devoted to "defending Israel, defending Jews against antisemitism, support for Serbs, unity of Serbs and Jews ," by one Felix Quigley: "The account which Dadon [the yeshiva student who was the first to shoot at the terrorist] was giving to the Media was not just telling what happened but how and why it happened. He was going behind and beyond the event to incriminate the false political programme of the traitors of Labour and Kadima, and others such as Oz, who have refused to defend the Israeli people against Fascism. He continues: 'Dadon was interviewed on various television and radio channels and told his story. When describing what the terrorist was wearing, Dadon emphasized that he was armed with a Kalachnikov rifle that was given him by 'our President Peres and by the Olmert government.' The interviewers invariably tried to cut him off. Later, the official news report by government-run Israel Radio left him out of its reports, announcing only, 'An IDF officer who lives near the Yeshiva heard the shots, came to the scene and shot the terrorist to death.' That report still appeared on its internet site late Friday morning.
"One reason for this closing down of the truth by the Government and the Media is pretty obvious. The Israeli state is ruled by a reactionary political element which is based on the idea that, if you are nice to Fascists, they will respond to your kindness and be nice back to you. It is also ruled by a similar political element which is hostile to Jewish nationalism, and since the Jewish religion is interconnected and interlaced with Jewish nationalism, it is hostile as well to Judaism."
From "The Yeshiva World": "Today's Jerusalem Post translated an Arabic editorial which appeared today in the Kuwaiti newspaper, 'Al-Wata.' The writer shockingly writes harsh criticism of the Merkaz Massacre on Thursday night. Excerpts of the article: 'The attack at the yeshiva was a barbaric murder of eight children who were engaged in religious study. This odious and inhuman terror attack exemplifies the extremist and inhuman path of the terror organizations Hamas and Hezbollah.' Contrasting the terror attack with the IDF's operations in the Gaza Strip, the writer explains that 'there is no link between a murderous terrorist act and the inadvertent killing of civilians in response to the firing of rockets by Hamas.'
And on and on and on: Justifications, rationalizations, calls for revenge, the blogosphere a place where every person can have his/her six minutes of infamy.
Bernie Avishai, at bernardavishai.com, consistently among the most interesting sites, tells a different kind of story: Herewith, some excerpts: "Sidra [Bernie's wife] and I could only look at one another, the words Jabel Mukhaber numbing us like Novocain. For we had been to the town several times during the past few years, as part of a citizens' group supporting its residents' petition to change the route of the security wall, a wall now cutting through the town, pinching off and isolating one of its neighborhoods, Sheik Sa'ad.
"We have been hosted by Jabel Mukhaber's families and community leaders, who had warmly fed us and expressed their gratitude. We had collected signatures, neighbors for neighbors, on Emeq Refaim, the main commercial street near our home, perhaps a seven minute drive from Jabel Mukhaber. Just a month ago, we had been at a session of Israel's High Court, as the lawyer for the town, Giath Nasir, had presented the case against the route of the fence once again.
"For the record, the residents of Jabel Mukhaber, as residents of East Jerusalem, living inside the wall, are not citizens of Israel. They hold blue identity cards, which the Israeli TV anchors casually assumed Palestinians covet, and which supposedly made them Israeli by some kind of historical inertia. These Palestinians do have certain privileges: the residents of Jabel Mukhaber (though not, ironically, the residents of Sheik Sa'ad, which the wall is supposed to impede, and from which the murderer did not come) have unrestricted access to Israel.
"East Jerusalem residents qualify for social security, health care, and so forth, so most neighboring Palestinians do covet the blue card, which hardly makes them Israelis or grateful to Israel. They also inhabit a kind of legal twilight zone. They may vote in municipal elections, which most boycott. They feel trapped. Jabel Mukhaber is a scar on the map, a world away from adjoining Talpiot, and mostly neglected by the Jerusalem municipality, whose Israel's government haphazardly quadrupled after 1967.
"What I remember most about the time I spent in the town was one conversation I had with an older man, who told me sadly that much of his family has abandoned it, but also told me with pride that one son, in his early 20s, was now studying in New York. A picture stood behind him; the young man was formally posed, but was wearing, oddly, an Islanders hockey sweater. The murderer, Alaa Abu Dheim, was himself barely 20 years old, and had been arrested by Israeli authorities four months ago, then released two months later. He had been a driver for Mercaz Harav. He had become, in his way, 'very religious' and had not been sleeping, his family said. His family hung out Hamas flags yesterday, as a sign of mourning, which the police immediately took down.
"Alaa Abu Dheim's act was sociopathic. That is obvious enough. Directed, or even just rationalized, by Hamas leaders, it was a crime against humanity. I mean the humanity of this benighted young man, as well as that of the young students he killed. Nothing Hamas has said - that Mercaz Harav is a center of settler ideology or that the Israeli army had killed civilians in going after missile launchers in Gaza the week before - can justify, or even explain, really, how a young man throws away his life in an ecstasy of violence, murdering people he might well have driven around in recent months.
"It brings to mind, in a kind of horrible symmetry, the influence of settler leaders on a depressed, fanatic youth by the name of Eden Natan-Zada who - during the week before the Gaza disengagement, having drawn close to followers of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane on the settlement of Tapuach - boarded a bus in the Israeli Arab town of Shfaram and opened fire with an automatic rifle, killing four people, and injuring twelve, before he was himself beaten to death by the mob that surrounded the bus. The founders of Tapuach and the current bosses of Gaza are true brothers.
"And I confess to feeling remorseful that I supported Giath Nasir's claim that Jabel Mukhaber's residents, having never participated in violence, did not constitute a security threat. For I never really believed an attack like this was impossible, nor could any seasoned observer be surprised by it. It was Jabel Mukhaber I was thinking of when I wrote in Slate in 2004 that the conditions of young people in East Jerusalem were a kind of Miracle-Gro for random sociopathic behavior, that Israel's security fence would eventually encourage more atrocities than it foils.
"Some imagine the wall a hedge against peace talks failing - or, indeed, an alternative to negotiating seriously at all. It is actually trapping nearly over 250,000 Arab residents of Jerusalem in a nether world they will not accept. 'The problem with the government's logic,' I quoted Middle East scholar Menachem Klein, 'is that entrapped Palestinians will fight; they have nowhere to go.' And now we know what fighting means: that one (then two, then three) in a hundred young men will spurn the New York Islanders and seek, instead, an ecstatic death. Friday morning my barber told me - vindicated, he thought -- that the attack only proves what is wrong with the ninety-nine who did not attack. 'They teach their children to kill us from birth,' he said. This morning Benjamin Netanyahu told Israeli radio that the attack proves Israel has nobody to deal with, that where the IDF vacates, Hamas will come, and talk of peace really means missiles from the West Bank. And what of Israeli Arabs, if things continue in this way?, he was asked. Netanyahu continued answering in a confident tone, and I can't for the life of me remember what he said."
What is quite likely the most elaborate response comes from Danny Gordis, which we've here been denied permission to reprint, despite our readiness to publish it in its entirety with appropriate credit. Gordis, senior vice president and academic dean of the Shalem Center* in Jerusalem, argues that its secularism has cost the country its sense of purpose, and that without such a sense it has reverted to pre-independence neuroses: "We don't defend ourselves because we're no longer sure that it's really worth the casualties on our side that preventing these attacks on our sovereignty would require. So we allow ourselves to grow comfortable being sitting ducks, and find ourselves exactly where we were a century ago. Kishinev morphs into Sederot, and very few people see the irony, or the utter shame, and shamefulness, of what's transpiring here."
"So we sit. And civilians keep getting targeted, and keep dying. And soldiers die. And Israeli towns become ghost towns. But George Bush most supports us, so we feel better. And the charade with Abu Mazen permits us to continue hallucinating about the possibility of peace, to pretend that the Palestinians aren't simply an utterly failed people that will never make peace in our lifetimes or those of our children, so we feel even better."
It's a bitter piece that Gordis, whose essays are widely circulated in America, has written. Ironically, it seems to oppose the teaching of Rav Abraham Isaac HaCohen Kook, the founder of Mercaz Harav (indeed, for whom the yehsiva was named after he died - "the yeshiva of the Rav"). Kook's distinction was his blending of modern - even secular - Zionism with traditional halachic Judaism. He was the first Chief Rabbi of what was then still Palestine; he died in 1935. His son became the godfather of the religious settler movement, but it is not at all clear that the sins of the son should be visited upon his father.
But Gordis is convinced that an Israel shorn from its religious roots, an assimilated Israel, cannot sustain the sense of purpose that will enable it to - to what? Apparently, to defend itself by giving up on any peace process. By carpet-bombing Gaza? By not taking world opinion into any account? By spurning moral restraint?
Olmert has a different strategy, one that increasingly seems afflicted by bi-polar disorder: Speak peace, practice provocation. His response to the yeshiva killings? Announce new housing starts in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. His response (principally, more likely, Ehud Barak's) to talk of a truce with Hamas? Target terrorists in Bethlehem. And so it goes, miserably, endlessly, fatally.
................................
*The Shalem Center, founded in 1994, describes itself as "a Jerusalem-based research and educational institute
dedicated to developing and transmitting ideas in the areas most crucial to the intellectual and public life of the
Jewish people. In carrying out its mission, the Center engages in research, education, and publications in areas
that include Jewish moral and political thought, Zionist history and ideas, Biblical archaeology, democratic theory
and practice, strategic studies, and economic and social policy." It is a major beneficiary of Sheldon Adelson's
philanthropy. Adelson, the third wealthiest man in America (casinos), is a fervent right-winger, and the Center is,
in effect, a right wing think tank (among its foundation board members are William Kristol, Natan Sharansky, Leon
Kass and Ronald Lauder) with aspirations not only to establish a new kind of discourse in Israel but also to
becoming a full-fledged institution of higher education.
Two days after the yeshiva attack, Israel announced renewed construction of hundreds of homes in the West Bank town of Givat Ze'ev and authorized hundreds more in East Jerusalem. So much for the Road Map; so much for Israel's explicit commitments at the Annapolis conference last fall. Zionism, then, as an act of spite; Zionism to keep a fractious coalition together; Zionism to satisfy those in the religious camp who are as far from "shameful Jewish passivity" as can be.
Tweet
Email a friend
feed
twitter
facebook
Leonard, I really feel your pain in this posting. I find the most interesting one that of Daniel Gordis. However, I think you really are missing the point of what he is saying, but that shouldn't surprise me because of your statment that the "sins of the son (of Rav Kook), i.e. the settlement of Judea/Samaria, should not be visited upon the father". It is here that the gulf between the various viewpoints that are dividing us are expressed. Mr Schulman says the whole Zionist enterprise is illegitimate, you say that Jewish settlements built before 1948 (or 1967) were "moral" or "legitimate" but not those afterwards, and Rav Kook's son says there is no difference between anything on either side of the pre-1967 Green Line, and the Jewish settlements in Judea/Samaria are just as legitimate, if not more so, because that area is the true cradle of the Jewish people (e.g. Hevron, Jerusalem, Shechem, etc).
The reason I find Gordis's so interesting is that he comes from the "Establishment" of the Conservative Movement in the United States which has a reputation (whether justifiably or not) for being "lukewarm" towards everything. Thus, I find it surprising that he comes down strongly against the secularist mentality in Israel.
I think I understand what he is saying (I only read your excerpt, I didn't read the whole thing but I think I got the idea) and I see why you don't understand it.
Religious Jews are not seeking perfect solutions for our problems. The Jews have been described as "the enternally dying people", i.e. people have been writing us off for millenia. People ask "how can the Jews keep going when there is so much antisemitism??","how can religious Jews reconcile their faith with the Holocaust and other such suffering?", "how can Judaism survive if their is so much assimilation?", "how can the Jews maintain themselves if they are so badly divided?"
Yet we have survived, and we are even flourishing. I don't view the situation pessimistically in the long run, but I am frustated just like Gordis is in the short run. I agree with Gordis, there is NO prospect that the Arabs will agree to a contractual peace with Israel and their hate is not going to be abated by Israel making concessions. Amnon Rubinstein wrote perceptively this week in the Jerusalam Post that Arab/Muslim hatred for Israel and worldwide antisemitism has GROWN as Israel has made more and more concessions and pursued the illusory "peace process".
Thus, the first order of business is for the Jewish people to understand that this is the situation. Fortunately, after 30 years of peace illusions that started after the Yom Kippur War (i.e. if we just sit down with the Arabs and agree to withdraw to the pre-67 lines, peace will be within reach), most Israelis now realize there isn't going to be a formal peace with the Arabs. This is a start...the argument now is over what to do about it. (I do realize that bloggers like Bernard Avishai and Gershom Gorenberg, for example, do believe it is possible to reach peace, but they all base this on assumptions that the Arabs will give up basic demands like the "Right of Return" which they keep insisting they will NOT compromise on ).
What I say is that once the Arabs see that violence and terror is NOT going to get them anything, like it did from Oslo and the destruction of Gush Katif, they will realize it is futile for them to keep fighting. Sure, Bernard Avishai notices that the Arabs hate us...they hated us in 1967 (Jews in divided Jerusalem who understood Arabic heard the loadspeakers in the Mosques across the dividing wall in east Jerusalem screaming "cut the Jews throats!" when the Six-Day War broke out). The Arabs hated the Jews during the 1948 War of Independence...this is what led to 6000 Jews being killed and numerous atrocities like the massacre of the 78 Jews in the Hadassah Hospital convoy. There was Arab hatred in the massacres of Jew in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-1939. The point is that we Jews had to learn to defend ourselves. Thus, the Arabs view those who think giving up Judea/Samaria will solve the problem as people who are simply throwing a bone at them to try to pacify them with what is far less than what they think they are entitled to.
Once Israel STANDS FIRM, refuses to make political concessions while doing everything it can to improve the lives of the Arabs of Judea/Samaria economically , then EVENTUALLY, after a long period, things will calm down and Israel's security presence in Judea/Samaria can be drawn down to much lower levels, the roadblocks can be removed and free movement of the Arab population can be restored. This was indeed the situation during the "Israeli occupation" period of 1967-1993..a minimal Israeli military presence in the Arab populated areas, economic growth and free movement of the Arabs, including between Judea/Samaria and Gaza which is impossible today. (Jerusalem Post Journalist Khalem Abu Toameh stated this in a speech in the US that was reported in the paper recently). Once the Arabs see that their terror and violence is counterproductive, they will learn that peaceful pursuits are more rewarding then their current death cult which is driving them to a political dead end. Yes, a lot of hate has built up and the Islamic extremists movements like HAMAS, HIZBULLAH, added to Iranian and Syrian troublemaking will make it difficult and time consuming to relax the situation, but this is what will happen in the end. Religious Jews have been taught to be patient, have faith, not to expect everything to be accomplished in one generation...and it is the secular population's loss of these values that Gordis is pointing out has caused much frustration and despair which is simply stoking the violence. O
Lenny shalom,
Thanks for the plug, especially being first. But next time, please include the web address. There might be those persuaded to read the entire article (and actually agree with it.) [http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/2625]
With blessings from Hebron,
The "apparently one" David Wilder
All,
In 1984 Jesse Jackson made the observation that peace would be more likely in the Middle East if the Jews would only try harder to assimilate into their environment. I think that Leonard's excerpts from the Judean blogosphere illustrate that the assimilation project is well advanced.
We have yeshivot mixing nationalism and Orthodox (or unorthodox)religion, condemning the national authorities as secular traitors, and preaching sectarian and ethnic hatred. Unfortunately the Israeli state is bankrolling these madrasat (or whatever the plural of madrasa is)through the budget in a way that would make the Saudis proud.
Now Mr. Ben David assures us with the conviction of the true believer that if only Israel will stop making concessions and claim all of Eretz Israel everything will eventually come right. Now that the Iran-Iraq war is a distant memory, and the sectarian squabbling between the Taliban and the Islamic Republic of Iran is over, maybe the conflict between the Islamist Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the Yehudist groups in Hebron, Kiryat Arba, and Jerusalem can take their place.
Just a quickie to Mr. Ben David:
It is not that "the Jews have been described as an ever-dying people," suggesting as you continue that it is others who have so described us. The term was coined by Simon Rawidowicz, a distinguished Jewish historian, and he claimed that is how we see ourselves. In a different version, Salo Baron spoke of "the lachrymose theory of Jewish history," meaning the tendency of the Jews to interpret things dourly.
I have no idea what Amnon Rubenstein is talking about. What concessions? Is withdrawing from occupied land a "concession"? Look at it for a moment, if you can, from the Arab standpoint. They see Israel as an expansionist colonial power. They, too, read the blogs and see the vitriol.
Mr. Wilder: NO one calls me "Lenny."
If we have cared about Arab perspective, we should have stayed in Germany.
Apparently, European settlers in North America cared not a bit about the Native Indians' opinion.
If Jews have no rights to Hebron, where Abraham bought the first land plot in Canaan, where King David had his capital, then surely we have no right to Tel Aviv, which was built in 1905.
So make up your mind: either we are the rightful owners of the land, or the robbers who took it from Arabs. You cannot take a high moral ground by saying, Let's steal only a little from Arabs, let's steal only Tel Aviv but give up Hebron and Schem.
Danny,
It is time we all took a hard look at claims that go back to the time of the Patriarchs ( particularly associated with Gods promises to Abraham, and Biblical stories about Abraham’s travels, and actions).
Modern archeological work in Israel (see the excellent, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, “Unearthing the Bible”, 2002, and many others) , Biblical studies, and the study of the Ancient Near East (Ugarit, Emar, Mari...) have now shown that much of the early material in the Bible is best understood as myth, deliberate political propaganda or late-written oral tradition. It is one thing to say: This I believe, and I can respect that. It is an entirely different thing to claim ownership of land in Israel on the basis of statements in the Hebrew Bible. This is not credible.
Obviously, you haven't been to Hebron and never saw the extensive archaeological digs.
1. If Jews, as you imagine, have no right to Hebron, what's the Arab right to it?
2. If Jews have no right to the land, what is the moral basis of "occupying" a part of it for that beach which some call "Israel"? If Jewish leftists were honest in the least, they would have to say: We are thieves, we took the Arab land, now we return it and go back to Munich.
Danny,
The settler's arguments for living in Hebron are much weightier than yours.
Your arguments referring to Avraham-avinu who bought property in Hebron in prehistoric times, and to David-hamelekh who kept a temporary capital in Hevron are deeply vulnerable. Avraham-avinu bought property from some people who already lived in Hebron. What about THEIR rights? Besides, Avraham-avinu did not establish a state then; his descendants went to Egypt and lived there for a considerable time. This would show our forefather (and the forefather of the Arabs) in rather a questionable light.
Many Jews bought properties in various places in the world, including ancient Babylon, and even ancient Rome, not to speak about ancient Alexandria and slightly less ancient medieval Spain. Also in Los-Angeles. In no place the very fact that some Jews bought properties entitled them to proclaim there a Jewish rule. Would they (we) act this way, the peoples of the whole world would annihilate the Jews already before Ezra and Nehemiah came back to the Land of Israel (the story goes that it was a very probable development and we only narrowly escaped that development. However, we hardly learned the lesson…).
The argument with David-hamelekh is weak too: if he, the adored monarch, abandoned Hevron, than you could do it too.
The problem of leftists robbing the Arabs is right only partly. It is probably achingly true that many Arabs have been forcefully evicted from their homes and lands during the War of Independence (the bitter Naqba), under the quasi-leftist leadership of Mapai. The Zionist project himself did not come to rob the Arabs of their sovereignty. It came here under the patronage of the British, who also helped the Arabs to establish their states here. The British did not establish here their colonies, but worked as a mandatory power, with widest possible international recognition. The power that ruled the whole region BEFORE the British was the Ottoman Empire, whose main people by no means can be counted as an original population of this area. To reduce the whole argument to the question who stole from whom the land here is a gross oversimplification of the situation, and fits only people who openly admit that they do not want to think.
The argument for keeping the Jewish settlements (in the name of Israeli state) comes, Danny, from the proposition that it is the will of God. This is the only viable proposition. Ask your seniors. Behind this proposition one can find a long theological and historical trail, with its deep emotional yearnings. These yearnings are sincere, and theoretically one should respect them. However, here lies its heavy impudence (chutzpah). The people who think and feel this way are sure that their feeling is more important than the feelings of other people – Jews and Arabs alike. In their inner circles, many of them strengthen themselves by exercising utter contempt to everybody else. This is deeply wrong.
You will continue to believe in your conviction, Danny, no matter what, because otherwise you will risk to inflict to yourself a deep social wound. However, other people have to see clearly, what is the meaning of such a position. May God help you.
Danny,
For the sake of clarity, I will ignore some bizarre points you bring up and get to the central issue.
Israel has a big problem, but so do the Palestinians. There is no need to go back to the quagmire of “initial ownership.” In fact, even the Arab League has put forward solutions that are much more pragmatic. Israel will do well to pursue an active and rapid peace process with Abbas, conditional on peace with all Palestinians.
Or, to put the matter somewhat differently: Let's, for the sake of the argument, accept that the Jews are the "rightful" owners of the land. Actually, delete the quotation marks around "rightful." One is not obliged to exercise every right one has. The fact that I have the right to commit suicide does not require me to commit suicide. So merely establishing a right does not lead to a political conclusion. In fact, some of us believe that if you, Danny, were to lead your people -- our people -- to the exercise of their right, that would be suicidal.
There's another disturbing flaw to your argument. You say if Hebron is not ours, than Tel Aviv is not ours. That was what Begin used to say, quite often. Guess who agrees, wholeheartedly, with that formulation? Hamas, which says aha, since you don't have a right to Hebron, then, by your own admission, you have no right to Tel Aviv.
Folks, can we try to keep our posts a bit shorter? I don't want anyone to feel pressed to truncate his/her argument, but -- well, let's put it this way -- you have the right to go on and on, but it would be well were you to exercise some self-discipline in pursuing that right.
Fer crissakes, there is a genocide going on and you Jews sit around arguing who did what to whom first and who has the right to the land? The land belongs to humanity - it wasn't god who gave it. If you all don't get beyond this nonsense soon, there won't be an Israel to fight over. Short enough?
Eugene: In fact, too long. Your way with words here is a dead end. I am determined, as best I can, to keep the tone in this space civil. Provocative, fine. "You Jews?" No.
I agree w. Eugene.
(and with Leonard.)
I don't understand how this can continue, re: Palestinian land/s being broken up by illegal settlements... further frustrating their (Palestinians) hopes for peace as well as Israelis. Israel must stop these incursions! Plain and simple. And why must I dig up this information in America when it is readily available in Europe and Israel. Overseas there is discourse about these sensitive issues... why is America so afraid to broach the subject? Why are Americans so ready to throw the 'anti-semite' insult as soon as someone has another opinion? It's like censorship.
(pls forgive my English grammer, not so good!)
Leonard,
Apologies for having offended you. But since when is "you Jews" an uncivil statement? Your objection confirms Amy Mann's cri de coeur. Isn't it about time we call a spade a spade? Indeed, in America any criticism of Israeli policy is answered with accusations of anti-Semitism. Let us not shut down dissent. Paradoxically, dissent is much more tolerated in Israel than in the U.S.
I am amazed that people like Amy still think the Arabs want peace with Israel. HAMAS says quite explicitly they don't want it, FATAH says they theoretically want peace but they constrain it with unnacceptable conditions like Israel being required to accept the Palestinian "Right of Return", which Abbas repeatedly insists he won't compromise on.
Let's be honest, if tomorrow, Abbas, Kings Abdullah of Saudia Arabia and Jordan and Assad were to appear in Jerusalem to address the Knesset, Sadat-style and say that the Arab world would be willing to make peace with Israel on condition that Israel withdraw completely to the pre-67 lines (presumably, "guarantees" would be made to allow Jews continued access to the Western Wall which would then be under Arab rule) and Israel accept the Palestinian "Right of Return" with the Arabs agreeing to limit it to, say, 500,000 actually returning, ANY Israeli gov't, even one of the so-called "right" would have to accept those terms.
So then why don't the Arabs make this gesture? BECAUSE THE ARAB WORLD REJECTS PEACE WITH ISRAEL ON ANY TERMS.
I believe I stated this before, but I will repeat it...I heard former Foreign Minister official Alon Liel, who is a close friend of MERETZ's Yossi Beilin say that the Egyptians oppose ANY peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians since they view this as damaging their interests and position in the Middle East. The Egyptians have immense influence because they control the border between Gaza and Sinai. HAMAS couldn't have taken over Gaza without at least tacit support from Egypt. The Egyptians, and the rest of the Arab world are quite satisfied with the current "war of attrition" because they feel that, in the end, Israel will collapse, as indeed Olmert himself said ("Israel is doomed if we don't reach an agreement to set up a Palestinian state"). So the current situation will continue regardless of all the handwringing of outside observers. The question is how to manage this situation. I outlined my view in the first comment here.
Amy, Eugene:
I have wondered about some of these things myself. The blogs, in general -- present company largely excepted -- seem to invite extravagant vituperation. Perhaps the freedom it offers people who have felt themselves stifled, or some perverse definition of cleverness, encourages the furies. I now and then check the blogs on my weekly column in the Forward, and am regularly dismayed at the ad hominem-ness of the bloggers, their eagerness to dismiss, insultingly, the person with whom they are disagreeing -- in this case, sweet and cuddly me.
Opposition to Israeli policies as a cover for -- or, for that matter, a goad to -- antisemitism? Yes, it is out there, for sure. But the readiness of some people and institutions to label all such opposition antisemitic? Also, and very much, out there. That is one reason it is important for people "within the camp" to speak up and speak out.
I'm reluctant to personalize this, but it seems to me that not many years ago, my own critical appraisal of Israeli policy was accepted, however reluctantly, by the "establishment" because my Zionist credentials were known to all. I'd paid my dues, and then some, my attachment to Israel was manifest, my arguments with Israel were measured. And then there arose a new generation which knew not Leonard. Credentials, biography, dues -- dismissed, either through ignorance or arrogance or indifference. So, for example -- a current example, the responses to my current column in the Forward -- the kind of language that's used on line is unrestrained.
C'est la vie. My skin has become thicker over the years, even as my confidence that I "know" the Jews has diminished.
What one needs to survive the ugliness is an array of friends who see things roughly as you do, so that you don't feel yourself a voice crying in the wilderness. I am blessed by friends and colleagues who are kindred spirits.
Eugene -- "you Jews" is a way of separating yourself from the community. If that's what you mean to do, well and good -- but then you cease to be one of "us," become one of "them." During the Yom Kippur confessional, we don't ask forgiveness for the sins "they" have committed, but for the sins "we" have committed. There's great wisdom in that, I think. Calling a spade a spade is surely acceptable -- but it is our spade. That doesn't mean that I feel myself at one with, say, the settlers, or that I find it pleasant to exchange opinions with our fundamentalists -- say with those who think that because they believe God promised the land to the Jews, no other argument has merit or is required. What it does mean is that I am not going to abdicate my sense of responsibility for the Zionist enterprise, leave the battlefield (and the victory) to them. I am going to insist not only on the wisdom of my views but on their authenticity -- and on my undiluted right to express them as tellingly as I can.
Those are just some reactions to "you Jews." A different kind of reaction follows from your calling a spade a spade, which sounds perfectly reasonable until you use it to call a miserably failed policy "genocide." We've been over that before. In my view, while you advocate calling a spade a spade, what you in fact go on to do is to call a trowel a spade.
The question of how Israel should respond (effectively) to the rockets launched from Gaza is a real question that cannot be solved by slogans. Well deal with that here very soon.
A good day to all.
Leonard,
“there is a genocide going on and you Jews sit around arguing (this and that ...)”
I found this offensive. Schulman apparently wanted the conversation to be about the Gazan “geocide”, and clearly it wasn’t going that way. The characterization “you Jews”, not you “heartless people”or you whatever people, morphed into the racist, “you Jews”, as if it was our Jewishness that was the cause of not minding “the genocide” Schulman wanted. It seems to me rage showing up as verbal abuse.
Meir,
In what sense is "you Jews" abusive? I, too, am Jewish. I don't take offense at being identified as Jewish. Would it have pleased you more if I had said,"we Jews"? After all, it is we Jews who are posting all these arguments. There was nothing racist in my use of this expression. It is your own insecurity that seems to be at fault. Your reaction is exactly that of those who accuse anyone who criticizes Israeli policies as anti-Semitic. I am certainly not that. Though I'm sure you think I am.
All,
Sorry for the personal aside, above. I'll try to confine my posts to the subject from now on.
Eugene,
Since you recently promoted me from applied physicist to auto-proctologist, I think I should share my gut reaction.
Most participants in these conversations believe that both the Israelis and the Palestinians are complicit in their own needless suffering. Most of us are looking for ways to cure this situation or we are looking for new information or analyses that can help us to find a way to make a positive contribution. I don’t recall you suggesting any constructive action or providing any new information. Why are you participating in this conversation?
There is a group in Ann Arbor that styles itself “Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends.” They picket outside our Conservative shul, sporting such signs as “Zionism is Nazism.” They interrupt University programs and even get into trouble with our very liberal police force. Their approximately 20 members were the majority of the Middle East Task Force of our Interfaith Committee for Peace and Justice (ICPJ), but they were so rabid that they were thrown out. They have so offended many Jews who would otherwise be working for and contributing money toward a fair negotiated peace that these Jews have completely turned away from the subject. They have so offended the general public that almost all of the Jewish, Christian and Buddhist clergy have issued a letter condemning them, and the Moslem clergy are silent. Meanwhile, the Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends are very satisfied with themselves, enjoying the attention that they get and celebrating what they consider to be their prophetic righteousness.
Eugene, what are your objectives? What are you doing to achieve them? Are you having a positive or negative effect?
Mr. Ben-David,
In your post #1 you quote Amnon Rubinstein, “ … Arab/Muslim hatred for Israel and worldwide antisemitism has GROWN as Israel has made more and more concessions ….” Of what concessions are you and Mr. Rubinstein thinking?
Mr Levitt-
You yourself have provided the answer---look, for example, at that group you mentioned "Jewish Witnesses". Ariel Sharon said that giving up Gush Katif and destroying the Jewish communities that existed there would make everyone love Israel. Did that pacify this group? Did it end rocket fire from Gaza into Sederot? There is much more virulently-expressed antisemitism today than there was in the 1970's and 1980's before Israel did what the "progressives" were always demanding, i.e. recognizing Arafat and the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people". There has been far more terrorism in Israel since Oslo than there was before, and the infamous Durban conference in 2001 occurred after Israel offered an almost complete withdrawal from Judea/Samaria/Gaza. Israeli concessions simply stoke the fires of antisemitism and Arab/Muslim rejectionism, the theory is "you see they are weak, if we keep up the pressure they will give up more". Whatever we offer, it is never enough.
Mr. Ben-David,
Thanks for your response, but I don’t understand.
The withdrawal from Gaza was the furthest thing from an Israeli concession. From the October 8, 2004 Haaretz article “Top PM Aide: Gaza Plan Aims to Freeze the Peace Process,” we have the following:
"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Haaretz.
"And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."
Weisglass, who was one of the initiators of the disengagement plan, was
speaking in an interview with Haaretz for the Friday Magazine.
"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde," he said. "It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."
Asked why the disengagement plan had been hatched, Weisglass replied: "Because in the Fall of 2003 we understood that everything was stuck. And although by the way the Americans read the situation, the blame fell on the Palestinians, not on us, Arik [Sharon] grasped that this state of affairs could not last, that they wouldn't leave us alone, wouldn't get off our case. Time was not on our side. There was international erosion, internal erosion. Domestically, in the meantime, everything was collapsing. The economy was stagnant, and the Geneva Initiative had gained broad support. And then we were hit with the letters of officers and letters of pilots and letters of commandos [refusing to serve in the territories]. These were not weird kids with green ponytails and a ring in their nose with a strong odor of grass. These were people like Spector's group [Yiftah Spector, a renowned Air Force pilot who signed the pilot's letter]. Really our finest young people."
Durban had nothing to do with Israeli generosity (words that can only be used by people with great imaginations) and everything to do with Arab oil and Saudi money, augmented by Jewish Israeli contempt toward and discrimination against their fellow Arab Israeli citizens.
The idea that we can’t negotiate if we are weak and we don’t have to negotiate if they are weak is mentioned in every instance of international conflict. However, it soon becomes evident to both sides that weak or strong if we don’t negotiate, we will all pay an unacceptable price in lives and treasure. This is the truth behind the efforts of both Olmert and Abbas.
Yaakov Ben David,
You present a partial vision. In verbal terms, Israel occasionally presents suggestions to withdraw partially from the territories (the only one who honestly did not suggest such proposals was Yitzkhak Shamir. However, he remained in office for six contiguous years and his intransigence was well absorbed by the western world as the true position of Israel. Alas, it is not a wrong impression).
To return to verbal proposals: the everyday life in the territories, Israel's military (in fact, violent) behavior and our support of the settlers testify to the point that Israel does not intend seriously to withdraw from Judea and Samaria.
You speak about verbal proposals on ideological level, but other people speak about what happens in real life. In real life – I say it with sorrow and pain - Israel deteriorated into what is justly perceived by any decent person as a malevolent force. In such atmosphere any talk about Jewish rights in Judea and Samaria causes only to harsh retorts against these "Jewish principles". This way we are going to loose everything, i.e. also the Sovereign state of Israel (Elohim yishmor), and it is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable.
To mention that the State Department accepted Israel's vision of Judea and Samaria as "disputed territories" is to hope that such an acceptation would provide Israel with the necessary survival kit. It is deeply wrong, and anybody with the slightest feeling of the international order can grasp it.
Dear Mr. Fein,
Accept my utmost spiritual support for your brave standing in front of sharp, shallow, enraged and rude talkbacks in the "Forward". You mention that close friends provide spiritual strength to endure such "criticisms". People of your outlook in Israel need the same kind of mutual support. The local life is full of day-to-day struggles that cause the great majority of people to choose conformist behavior. Such behavior is perceived as a best short-time strategy for a "reasonable" life. The life of the majority of Israelis is a life of constant tension and frequent distress. It causes people to harbor grievances and rage. Many take the dark side of Judaism (and there is a dark side of Judaism) and "strengthen" themselves in their existential rage. In such circumstances the elevated benevolence is rare and even perceived as ludicrous. Perhaps this makes you feel that you "do not recognize your-fellow Jews" as well as you used to do in the past.
But the life can be sustained only through benevolence. The rage of extremists (placed either here or in America) should not put into shadow your approach.
Mr Plavin and Mr Levitt-
You might have heard that a few months ago Dov Weisglas came out and said that the statements Mr Levitt quoted were NOT true, and that Sharon intended a large withdrawal from Judea/Samaria after he had been reelected...he admitted these earlier statements were made in order to get the "Right" to go allow with the destruction of Gush Katif.
Do you think it was easy to destroy 29 flourishing settlements, the lives of thousands of people and flush BILLIONS of shekels down the toilet, all just for a fake? This was a major sacrifice and caused pain to a lot of people and yet the "progressives" simply dismiss it as phony thing to pull the wool over people's eyes? Did Weisglas really think Sharon was going to live forever and that no one would look at the unilateral destruction as a precedent? You are proving the point I made...no matter what concessions Israel makes, it is never enough, Israel never gets any credit for it, all the original grievances remain.
The Haaretz article quoted in my just previous post revealed that the withdrawal from Gaza was a manipulation of Israeli public opinion as well as of the American and other national governments.
Tom, I have heard it said that the vaunted superiorities of Protestants relative to Catholics in Northern Ireland and of Whites relative to Negroes in the American South were in large part manipulations to divert Protestant labor and poor white farmers, respectively, from their real interests. Is this correct in your view? Was there a significant parallel in South Africa?
Does anyone have an idea whether publicizing the history of the manipulation of Israeli public opinion by the Israeli Government would have a unifying and salutary effect visa vis Israeli support for two-state negotiations?
Yaakov Ben David,
Your last entry bears evidence both of unbending faith and epistemological tragedy.
I think all Israelis (including the Arabs), and all of the Palestinians (!) have been deeply shattered seeing the eviction of the settlers from Ghaza and from Northern Samaria (I do not speak about Amona eviction, which is a different story).
You may be assured: people around – including all kinds of capricious leftist journalists – cannot accept the reckless attitude of the government toward the re-employment of those among the evicted who are now helpless (let us not confuse this with re-accommodation, which is another story).
You are thousand times right: the evicted should receive far better treatment.
Their personal sacrifice should be publicly more deeply acknowledged by the governmental officials. Alas, this is the culture of our government in our times – it does not respect the spirit of our citizens. Such is the attitude to the Shderot and Ashqelon residents too, and to the invalids, and to the poor and to those who suffer.
However, you raise additional point: according to you the settlers went to settle in Judea and Samaria because they believed Israeli government that this is a right and sound move (it is not entirely true statement). In accordance to your vision, after many years – in 2003- 2005 - it became clear that Sharon and his factotum Weissglass are swindlers who used their governmental power to evict the pure patriots out of their homes, after causing many of them to settle in the territories in the first place.
At this moment I would like to ask you: did you try to understand why out of almost 6 millions Jews of Israel only 400.000 (including the many children) live in the territories, most of them being religious? Why others did not follow to live there, in spite of being bombed in Qyriat Shmona and Shderot, and in Maalot?
Perhaps YOUR answer would be that those people are "ktanei-emuna", and that is "our curse", and because of such lack of vision "Israel looses".
May be in view of your last entry you could now consider another interpretation? Here it is: the majority of Israeli Jews are Zionists, i.e. believers in political statehood.
They never believed that to settle in the territories was a right thing to do, no matter what Galili, Alon, Tabenkin, Begin, Sharon, Shamir and Zambish said. For them the word of Israeli government is not an embodiment of entire truth. There is a world around too, and it should be counted too. They saw the most precious thing in preservation of the State.
They believed in international law, the one that – with all its deficiencies – permitted the Israeli state to be established. They have been dismayed to see how the international standing of Israel was eroded by settlements that all – I repeat – ALL have been a product of nasty intra-political manipulation of naïve burning feelings of the settlers by governments that did not respect them exactly as they do not respect now those in need, Jews and Arabs alike. The Zionist-inclined citizens of Israel look know with astonishment how the nationalist rage of settlement-movement destroys Israel's legitimacy.
But our governments did not posses such lyrical emotions to burden their actions. They worked "out of interest" which is cold. As you know.
The only thing our governments miscalculated was that the burning emotions of the settlers could once grow to be stronger than the decision-making-will of our governments. That is the colossal stupidity that accompanies our irresponsible power-echelons. And that is the greatest danger for Israel's existence.
Dear Mr. Levitt,
Please excuse me for answering the question not addressed to me,
Your idea is brilliant – albeit mainly for the Jews in the USA with a "burning feeling of Jewish nationalist rage". One does not have to write entire books on such a subject, because in today's atmosphere hardly anyone with the "burning heart" would have patience to read it. Better to publish articles. However, - most probably you know about it perfectly well – Israel has its own brave and courageous (and noble hearted) journalists who publish articles that unmask the dark motives of our political culture.
The problem is WHO, people of what profile, read those revelations. But this is another topic.
Joel,
That is a Marxist interpretation by people who fail to see ethnic or sectarian differences as real or important. It is true that unionist workers in NI have been badly treated by the establishment. The Catholic working class is fast closing any remaining gap with the Protestant working class because Catholics have been taught to value education. Now in the 1940s and 1950s there may have been the possibility of working class solidarity in large cities like Belfast, the nonsectarian NI Labour Party had several representatives in Belfast from the 1940s to the 1960s. But the NILP collapsed starting in 1971 after the conflict started. The war was really a working class war and both sides saw their identity in ethnic and sectarian rather than in class terms. This is true of conflicts throughout the world. And NI has one of the few examples of a successful general strike--by unionist workers in 1974 that brought down the power-sharing government.
Those who see things in class terms will argue that "real interests" are defined by class. Those who see things in ethnic or racial or national terms will not find this argument persuasive. So far very few workers have moved to protect their "real interests" as defined by Marxists.
In South Africa white workers benefitted from apartheid, which deprived black workers of bargaining power when they entered white areas and reserved skilled jobs for whites. This gave the white working class an artificial standard of living beyond its level of education or skills.
Ya'akov,
I guess that you are probably familiar with Ze'ev Jabotinsky's famous essay "The Iron Wall" (if not read a summary of it in Avi Shlaim's book by the same name). Shlaim contends, that even though Jabotinsky was the ideological nemesis of the Labor Zionists, they adopted his "Iron Wall" strategy. Unfortunately, the wall was expanded to include the Palestinian territories and thereby let the most implacable of Israel's Arab enemies within. Israel has two ways basically of repairing this deficiency. First, it can engage in removal or to use the Hebrew term "transfer." But Israel doing this is not as easy as the U.S. doing this in the 19th century or the Soviet Union doing it in the 20th century. Both of these countries were/are continental superpowers with no real regional competitors. For Israel to act like a superpower is like a drunk man getting behind the wheel of a car and acting like a sober man--it has serious consequences. Second, Israel can offer a peace treaty to the Palestinians that would demilitarize the territories while maintaining its own military superiority over the Arabs. Thus, the Iron Wall is maintained and the enemy is no longer within. If we take the third alternative, the continuation of the status quo, we risk the viruses of Palestinian nationalism and Islamism spreading further to the Israeli population as they have already begun to do.
Mr. Plavin: Thanks. Truth is, the main reason I am such a fervent supporter of Israel's "peace camp" is not (alas) that I imagine my paltry efforts on behalf of peace will make a difference, but because I realize the loneliness of the peaceniks in Israel and want them to feel they are not alone. I realize how crazy-making the situations has been and remains.
Tom: I long ago wrote/said that "sooner or later, there will be a Palestinian state next to Israel, and the sooner that happens the more control Israel is likely to have over the conditions under which such a state is created." I no longer believe that Israel will be able to insist that Palestine be demilitarized. Some barrier to heave equipment, but not much beyond that. Time is not on Israel's side.
I am going to try a new post tomorrow, Tuesday latest.
Thanks to you all.
Leonard,
Your reply to Mr. Plavin is right on. Hail to the peaceniks.
Re your reply to Tom: I no longer believe Israel has any intention of allowing a Palestinian state next to Israel. Voluntarily or not, there must be a one state solution ala Ilan Pappe. See his latest article on his web site. "Time is not on Israel's side." Indeed.
Looking forward to your new post.
Mr Schulman:
Have you actually given any thought to your rather Olympian pronouncements and what effect they would have on those of us down here on the ground?
You say "voluntary or not, there must be a one-state solution ala Ilan Pappe".
Why do you assume that having a single unitary state would end the conflict? We would have here a Middle Eastern multi-confessional, multi-ethnic state, something like Lebanon or Iraq. How are they working out? How well are they serving as a precedent for what you want.
If you claim that Ilan Pappe wanting this gives it some sort of legitimacy, I should inform you that he is considered a fringe crank here in Israel, EVEN AMONG THE POST-ZIONIST LEFT. Uri Avnery opposes him. He is not taken seriously either in politics or as an academic. He is a polemicist, period.
Now, you say it has to be implemented, either "voluntarily or involuntarily". Speaking for myself, I know I and many people I know would never acquiesce to this. What are you going to do...convene the UN and try to pass a resolution that says "Resolved...that Israel, the Jewish State must be eradicated for the 'good' of the world"? How do you think that would go over with everyone?
Maybe 1% of the Jewish population here would support it. How are you going to impose it? With armed force? What if we fight back? Maybe you want to send a NATO force? Maybe have the Germans lead it? (they have shown enthusiasm in the past for such tasks).
You know, the US DID try in the recent past to do what you want..i.e. resolve moral problems...so they invaded Iraq in order to impose the kind of state you envision for us here. Did you support that? This is the same thing you are advocating. How is that working out?
Mr. Ben-David,
I assure you, I do not consider my pronouncements "Olympian." I claim no god- given insights. Further, I do not ADVOCATE a one-state solution, it is merely what I believe will necessarily come about as a result of Israel's intransigence in this conflict. Ilan Pappe may be a crank to people like you, but some of us in the West are quite thankful for the education he has been giving us about the history of your country. Both, Uri Avnery and Pappe have allowed us to look at both sides of the debate over the one-state/two-state solution with clearer eyes. Both have excellent arguments. Given the current circumstances, I feel Pappe will probably be correct in the end.
Please do not get me started on the US' attempts to solve "moral" problems. I certainly would never advocate following their lead. Actually, it is they who are influencing Israel's own errors.
Yaakov Ben David,
I can understand your feelings toward Mr. Schulman's attitudes, supported – in his own words – by Ilan Pappe's explanations of our reality.
I can fully support your description of Ilan Pappe as a "timhoni", a lonely stranger even among the Israeli ultra-left.
However, and in spite of Mr. Schulman's aberrant (and for my taste quite offending) style of self-expression, I am afraid he feels quite clearly what we refuse to detect, due to our persuasions: that Israel has already missed its long-term chance for sovereign existence in its present form (even without the territories).
I think we all have to accept this as an extremely worrying, but important information.
I personally hope we still have a chance to escape the trap we stepped so recklessly into.
However, in order to do it (and to save ourselves) we would have to change our national value-system. Knowing our people, I can only sigh: through our national stubbornness historically we have frequently chosen not to change, but to loose (and I am not speaking about the countless victims of such a cause). I personally still have a hope, but the road for assured survival clearly does not pass through areas of your, Yaakov, vision.
I would like to add, however: I appreciate your courage and resolve to participate in a forum where your views are largely unsupported.
this post is fantastic replica omega watches 8-)))
thx great work newbienudes xxx
hi it's mona ;) thx watch pinktube
nice work thx blowjob dudetube
Excellent work, Nice Design russian teen sex 69002