Q: Prime Minister Netanyahu promised that his speech of June 14 would provide a detailed response to President Obama’s recent statements on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Did it?
A: Yes and no.
Q: Can you be more specific?
A: Alright, first the “yes.” He began by saying, “Let’s begin negotiations immediately without preconditions.” And it is true, as has been widely reported, that Netanyahu used the term “Palestinian state,” twice explicitly and once by implication. The explicit statements: First, “It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarized.” And then, “If we receive this guarantee” — a guarantee from “the international community, led by the United States” of Palestine’s total demilitarization — “and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.” Finally, by implication: “In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government.”
Q: That’s a real breakthrough, coming from Netanyahu, isn’t it?
A: Hardly. The first mention is cast in the negative. The second suggests that a peace agreement awaits at some indeterminate future time. And the third, with its reference to mutual respect — well, mutual respect between a nuclear power with a mighty army and a radically demilitarized state next door is almost surely wishful thinking — or, more likely, formulaic speaking.
Q: Isn’t the international guarantee of Palestine’s demilitarization a “precondition” to negotiation?
A: Maybe. Here and elsewhere in the speech, it’s not clear whether he is talking about agreements that have to be reached before there can be meaningful negotiations or demands that Israel would bring to the negotiating table. The fact is that the importance of Palestine’s demilitarization has been widely assumed ever since the notion of a two-state solution was first put forward. The two ideas are intimately linked; it is clear that each is contingent on the other. Yet the prime minister did not say, “In principle, we accept the idea of a two-state solution, so long as Palestine accepts that it will be demilitarized.” Instead, he asserts that “On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed.” So he wants the Palestinians to say “uncle” before Israel says “cousin.”
Q: Alright, then, his endorsement of a two-state solution seems choked. What psychological need does Israel have for a “public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people”? Doesn’t most of the world already accept that?
A: Indeed it does. Israel wants it not for psychological reasons but for legal reasons. That’s why the word “binding” is there. What such recognition binds the Palestinians to, as Netanyahu says, is a very practical consequence: It implies “a clear understanding that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel’s borders. For it is clear that any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel’s continued existence as the state of the Jewish people.”
Q: Israel’s quarrel with America hinges on the settlement question. What did Netanyahu have to say about that?
A: What he chose not to say turns out to be as revealing as what he did say. What he said was “we have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.” That is largely meaningless, since many if not most of the existing settlements have large tracts of land, much of it expropriated from Palestinians, that have yet to be developed. So there can be very substantial construction within existing settlements. And what he didn’t say is anything at all about the hundred or so illegal outposts that Israel long-since promised to remove but that have yet, with a handful of exceptions, to be touched.
The “natural growth” controversy is a separate matter, though it is worth noting that somewhere between a third and two-fifths of the growth in settlement population during the last decade hasn’t been “natural” at all. It has been the result of heavily subsidized in-migration, not family expansion. The problem here is that Israel has grown so accustomed to doing what it wants to do in the settlements, no matter what it has publicly promised, begetting only an occasional “tsk tsk” from the Americans, that it cannot easily deal with the fact that the Obama administration means to insist that its promises be kept.
Q: Anything else?
A: Lots more, but the day is short. Best to leave the parsing for others and take the speech as a whole. As a whole, it accomplished what Netanyahu evidently wanted to accomplish: To lay down so many markers, attach so many poison pills to his call for peace, that nothing has changed, peace is no closer.
None of which is to say that the Palestinians have, for their part, dealt wisely or honorably with the issue of peace. They have in fact made it easy for Israelis to be skeptical, if not downright cynical, about living side-by-side in two states. They cannot and will not be taken as a serious partner until they manage to halt the incitement that has long infected them. But in the meantime, there is a proposal on the table, the Arab League/Saudi proposal, that offers a useful starting point for serious negotiation. What a shame that Netanyahu didn’t shock his audience by giving a speech one sentence long: “We welcome the Saudi proposal, and are ready to begin negotiations around it tomorrow morning.” That would have changed everything.
Blessed are the peacemakers, we’re told — not those who drape themselves in the language of peace while dancing on its grave.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Why a Rabbi Should Not Marry Outside the Faith
Tapping Into Growing Lure of Hidden Jewish Heritage
Montreal's First Jewish Mayor Michael Applebaum Hit With Corruption Charges
Getting In Face of Ultra-Orthodox on Need for Real World Education
Barbra Streisand Is Butt of Anti-Semitic Joke
You've successfully signed up!
What is missing in your analysis, Mr Fein, is the basic question of the very possibility of peace. Perhaps, you indicate that you do believe that peace is achievable when you mention the Saudi proposal, commenting that its acceptance "would have changed everything". However, neither side to the conflict really believes that it could be resolved in our generation. There are constant negotiations, of course, and so it will be for many years to come. There is no choice, since this is the demand of the outside world - but the negotiations are simply a part of conducting the conflict.
The conflict is greater than the sum total of its grievances. In simpler terms, one could theoretically solve each and every declared grievance (borders, settlements, refugees, Jerusalem, etc) - and the conflict would not be solved. All these grievances, large and small, are the result of conflict - not its cause or its driving force.
There is, actually, one very big misunderstanding. The Jewish side has always been interested in some sort of compromise. This always has been so - surely when we perceived ourselves to be weak (accepting the partition proposal of 1947), but also after spectacular and impressive victories (the 1967 war). The Palestinian side of the conflict is interested in "justice" (their understanding of justice), not compromise. It cannot view any arrangement as final, since the entire Jewish narrative (peoplehood, connection to this land, the memory of the Temple) is regarded as fiction and hence "unjust". Israel is not going to make the concessions needed for a peace arrangement unless the arrangement is final (i.e. end of conflict). The Palestinian side cannot promise an end of conflict since the conflict is greater than the sum total of all its grievances.
But even in terms of declared grievances, the conflict cannot be solved. The demand that the descendants of refugees be allowed to settle in Israel is, for the Arab side, self-evident (also in the Saudi proposal). The code, Mr Fein, is in the term "a just solution to the refugee problem". For the Arab world, there is only one "just solution". This, indeed as you pointed out, is the reason that the Arabs reject accepting Israel as the Jewish nation-state.
And in terms of political reality today, what about the Hamas mini-state in Gaza? A theoretical peace treaty between Netanyahu and Abbas still would leave the conflict alive. Hamas intends to continue the struggle with Israel even after the founding of a Palestinian state on the West Bank - even if all the refugees return to Israel and Jerusalem is in Palestinian hands. I assume that you have read intently the Hamas Charter. Perhaps, you also noticed that this was declared by PM Isma'il Hanieh at the press conference in the very presence of former president Carter.
Mahmoud Abbas was quoted in the Forward last week as saying that life is good on the West Bank, hence the Palestinians can wait patiently. He has made it very clear that he views this conflict as continuing indefinitely. It is, after all, a very low-intensity conflict, hence indeed everyday life is quite tolerable. His spokesman, Mr Ariqat, announced after the Netanyahu speech that Israel might have to wait 1000 years for a Palestinian negotiation partner. These announcements are not necessary in order to understand the conflict. Anyone who reads Arabic knows that the Palestinian society sees the struggle as multi-generational. Still, for those who can understand the world only in English, here was a little glimpse into Palestinian reality.
"Dancing on the grave of peace" was an improper definition of Netanyahu's speech. Here, Mr Fein, your language is too extreme. Any Israeli PM would be only eager to go into Jewish history as the one who resolved the conflict. Netanyahu is no different. He understands the dangers of war, and he personally has paid the price of conflict, as I'm certain you know. For the time being, he has to conduct the affairs of conflict, and that was the purpose of his Bar-Ilan speech. You have condemned Palestinian incitement. That's good. However, it is worthy of comment as to why Palestinian incitement is a way of life (and will never be ended). They are also conducting a conflict. Since it is a very long conflict with no end in sight, AND it's by nature a very low-intensity conflict (otherwise it would be impossible to keep it going indefinitely) - there is a "danger" that the normalcy of everyday life will bring animosity to an end. The incitement is meant to keep the animosity alive in the strategic thinking that victory will be ultimately achieved in the distant future.
In the editorial of the Forward this week, a contrast is made between Obama's Cairo speech and Netanyahu's Bar-Ilan speech. Bibi's speech is a "missed opportunity". According to the Forward, Netanyahu should have taken upon himself some of the blame for the suffering. "Contrast that with the statesmanlike words spoken by President Obama in Cairo, as he sought to validate Muslim concerns about America and the West, while at the same time forcefully challenging the Muslim world to drop its own prejudices and destructive behaviors". Sorry, but the Forward is being overly enthusiastic about Obama. The president didn't have the courage to present our side of the conflict to his attentive audience. Perhaps he doesn't even know it. Israel is the result of the Holocaust, he claimed - reinforcing the Arab narrative that foreigners have been forced upon them by the evil-doings of others. Is this a view of statesmanship? Without liking or supporting Netanyahu, at least he told the world with pride who we are: an ancient nation that has deep roots in its own soil.
The Forward's editorial attacking Israel's Prime Minister, and its claim that he failed to "acknowledge Israel’s role in Palestinian suffering", and Fein's expected anti-Israel exposition on his speech, are by now all-too expected by Forward readers.
Other posters can take the time to dissect and expose the falsehoods in these anti-Israel polemics. ... and point out that Obama is the most anti-Israel president in history.
Suffice it to say that Mr. Fein is a far-left virulent anti-Israel propagandist, and reflects the true colors of the "Jewish" Forward.
Let it be simply be noted that the Forward never misses an oppportunity to miss an opportunity to support Israel and the Jewish people.
Yehuda,
"There is, actually, one very big misunderstanding. The Jewish side has always been interested in some sort of compromise."
This is disingenuous. Look at the logo of the Irgun before the founding of Israel. You see a picture of not just what is now Israel, but all of what is now Jordan and the Palestinian territories as well. Furthermore, a gun is superimposed on the picture. The fact is that many Jews wanted all of the British Mandate of Palestine and only reluctantly accepted partition in the end for pragmatic reasons.
Bibi's speech was brilliant, masterful, very statesmanlike. He laid it all out, and finally put the onus on where it belongs - on the desk of the Palestinian Muslims, who recently sent out innocent, beautiful horses to be killed because, hey that's what they are all about.
He also said that Jews have the right to live and build on their own land, while conceding that there would be no more settlements.
There has been NO peace since Oslo, despite numerous concessions, handing over land, releasing scores of prisoners and even "Disengagement" - and all of it is the Palestinian's fault, NOT Israel. The Palestinians are entitled to nothing more, and they should be thankful its Bibi and NOT me in the PM chair over there. Otherwise, Gaza would have been a radioactive paved parking lot a long time ago, especially after 3 years of rocketing Sderot and the vicious kidnap and detention of Shalit. Of course the pro-Palestinians like Lee and neo-Nazis like DE Teodoru won't say a thing about that.
Bibi was brilliant and pragmatic, this despite the scorn of a Fein, the stupidity and pro-Palestinian views of the coward sitting in the White House, and yes, the anti-Semitism of the Lees.
Alan,
You're just like Frank. You don't offer any sort of rebuttal to anything I say, all you do is call me an anti-Semite. This shows that you're coming from a point of weakness.
Actually, Lee, your argument is disingenuous. In my original note, I gave two examples: the 1947 UN Partition Plan and the 1967 war. In 1947, the Jewish side accepted the Partition Plan (that was my example of acceptance of compromise out of a position of perceived weakness). In the wake of the 1967 war, the Israeli government offered to return the the vast majority of the newly occupied territories in exchange for a peace arrangement (that was example of willingness to compromise even in the position of spectacular victory). You bring up the Irgun as a counter-argument. Yes, it's true that they wished to establish a Jewish state by force on both sides of the Jordan River. (Moreover, you could have also mentioned the even smaller Stern Group which wanted to re-establish the Temple and the Kingdom of Israel). However, the VAST majority of the pre-state Yishuv, as I'm quite certain you know very well, was loyal to the elected leadership of the Yishuv. This leadership, mostly of the socialist parties, decided to accept partition. Your focusing on the small minority groups that broke off and refused to accept the authority of the elected leadership is simply misleading (disingenuous) or perhaps just nitpicking.
More importantly, my argument was that both sides today do not believe that peace is at hand. Both sides understand that they are managing a multi-generational conflict with no end in sight. Strangely, in all your reactions, you don't debate main points - the actual essence or ideology that one presents. Your attitude is always to "catch someone" with a statement that could be presented as "not-quite-100%-accurate" - and hence the whole argument can be dismissed without further debate. Since we have debated in the past, I know that you don't ordinarily present YOUR point of view. It would, indeed, be much more interesting to hear your insight into the conflict, to hear your positions. With whom do you identify? What policy do you think would be wiser?
I also don't like the name-calling in these talkbacks. Perhaps it is a sign of weakness as you claim, or perhaps is a kind of rudeness. I don't know. But your keeping your positions and ideologies to yourself also leaves the impression of a kind of weakness.
Yehuda,
"Your attitude is always to "catch someone" with a statement that could be presented as "not-quite-100%-accurate" - and hence the whole argument can be dismissed without further debate."
Yehuda, when you debate issues in a public forum, you shouldn't complain if others seek to take issue with your facts. If you don't like this, then don't take part in the debates. And in my view, what I said did not merely make your statement "not-quite-100% accurate." The Irgun and Lehi were not insignificant organizations on the "Jewish side"--certainly Menachem Begin wouldn't have thought so. Sometimes "small minority groups" can play a critical role in outcomes, particularly if they are more determined and violent than the more moderate majority.
Furthermore, while you did give "two examples," you said "The Jewish side has always been interested in some sort of compromise." The conflict over Palestine did not begin in 1947--it goes back to the late 19th century. So all of the time since then should be fair game in assessing whether this is true or not. You could have said "most Jews" rather than "the Jewish side," which is very vague and general.
And finally, you seem not to understand how debates usually work. They usually involve detailed disputes over specific points, not constant reiterating by the participants of their general ideological stances. And when you criticized me for this before, I stated how I felt. It seems that since you didn't like what I said, you keep repeating your old criticism and say that I'm too particular about facts. I "nitpick" because it's important to be as accurate as possible concerning emotional issues such as this.
The Forward's Leonard Fein is on the "Advisory Council" for radical anti-Israel J STREET!
http://jstreet.org/supporters/advisory_council
The faux "Jewish" Forward is an extreme leftist anti-Israel web site! It is a fifth column against in America propagandizing against American support for Israel.
Fein is an extremist far-left anti-Israel propagandist. About "J Street":
....
Bogus 'Zionist' Israel-Bashers
... J Street (is) a new group initially funded by the Jewish tycoon George Soros who had achieved notoriety for demonizing successive Israeli governments irrespective of their political leanings.
J Street and another radical group, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, proudly announced that they had succeeded in persuading 11,000 of their members to bombard the White House with e-mails urging Obama to stand firm against Netanyahu.
During the Gaza offensive, J Street condemned the action against Hamas as "disproportionate." Refusing to "pick a side" and identify "who was right and who was wrong," it applied moral equivalency to both parties proclaiming that "we recognize that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right and wrong... While there is nothing 'right' in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing 'right' in punishing a million and a half already suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists amongst them."
J Street also opposes Israel's efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Despite the fact that Israelis of all political opinions are united on this issue, J Street members were e-mailed and urged to actively lobby against a bipartisan congressional resolution calling for tougher sanctions to be applied against Iran.
The radical groups also resurrected the bogus anti-Semitic charge of "dual loyalties," warning Jews that by continued "blind" support of Israel, they risked alienating the American public and would be condemned for displaying greater loyalty toward Israel than the US. They were almost hysterical in their condemnation of Jews who exercised their rights to protest against the proposed appointment of the fiercely anti-Israel Charles Freeman to head the National Security Agency. IPF spokesmen went so far as to explicitly state that being an anti-Israeli fanatic was insufficient grounds for barring a person from assuming a senior administration role.
If there was any doubt about J Street, its endorsement of the British anti-Semitic play Seven Jewish Children, effectively a contemporary blood libel, placed it squarely in the camp of those seeking to demonize the Jewish state. It justified its support on the grounds that the play would promote "rigorous intellectual engagement and civil debate on which our community prides itself."
J Street and IPF also seek to slander and undermine AIPAC, the highly effective pro-Israel lobby group, depicting it as an extreme right-wing and hawkish body although it has consistently promoted the policies of all Israeli governments, including the dovish administrations preceding Netanyahu.
In an environment in which global anti-Semitism and demonization of Israel are beginning to make inroads into the United States, the potential of such radical groups to destabilize the standing of Israel should not be underestimated.
Never before has the Jewish community faced a situation in which organizations presenting themselves as Zionists shamelessly lobby their president to pressure the democratically elected government of the Jewish state to make concessions which could have life and death implications for its citizens.
Not that anti-Jewish Jews are a new phenomenon. Jewish communists were bitterly opposed to the campaign to liberate Soviet Jewry and defended state-sponsored anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. But they were marginalized and regarded as pariahs by the Jewish community. The problem in the US is that the established Jewish leaders decided to ignore these organizations, mistakenly believing that confrontations would be construed as attempts to restrict freedom of expression and would transform the radicals into martyrs.
But the issue of freedom of expression is a red herring. Any Jew is entitled to express his beliefs, no matter how nauseating or deviant such views may appear to the majority. That certainly applies to those arguing in favor or in opposition to settlements. Surely the red lines are being crossed when, as distinct from expressing views, American based organizations claiming to "love" Israel aggressively lobby the US government to pressure it to make concessions that could place lives at risk. To tolerate such groups within the framework of the Jewish community provides them with an aura of respectability to which they are not entitled. Alas, today some of these groups already attend administration briefings on a par with the recognized mainstream organizations.
Furthermore, failure to confront these Israel bashers has already provided the general media with grounds to suggest that American Jewish support of Israel is collapsing. That has certainly encouraged the Obama administration to intensify its pressure on the Netanyahu government. It may also cause some weak-kneed Jews to distance themselves from Israel to avoid confronting a popular American president.
There are even ominous mutterings predicting a possible replay of what transpired during World War II, when fearing a confrontation and bedazzled by president Franklin Roosevelt, Jewish leaders lacked the courage to protest against the indifference of the US government to the Nazi extermination of the Jews.
Now, as never before, when the beleaguered State of Israel confronts Iran, potentially one of the greatest existential threats since its creation, the support of American Jews is crucial.
A united Jewish community should marginalize the anti-Israeli radicals and urge Obama (who received 80 percent of its votes) to stand by commitments made to Israel by previous US administrations in the same manner as the Netanyahu government is obliged to adhere to undertakings made by previous Israeli governments. A strong Jewish stand in this direction could effectively tip the balance in averting a catastrophic major rift between the US and Israel.
.....
I have been reading the Forward for some time, and have been appalled by the anti-Israel bias, not only in its Editorials, but of its "columns" and "news" articles.
It has become painfully clear that the Forward is an insidious far-left anti-Israel propagandist - and now I learn that it is part and parcel of J Street, a radical leftist enemy of the Jewish State of Israel.
Frank,
If you hate the Forward so much, why keep posting here? I certainly don't post on the message boards of publications or organizations I hate.
"US rabbis laud PM's policy speech"
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184871752&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
But Lee, if the glove fits, you wear it.
And...you are an anti-Semite, even if you claim Jewish birth. Adam Gadahn, Osama's pet little "Jewish" American Al Qaeda boyfriend, Emanuel, Wexler, Axelrod, Jeremy Ben-Ami, MJ Rosenberg and of course Soros are no different than you. You can be Jewish and be a self-hater.
But in your case, you're a pathetic kool-aid drinking goosestepper. And by the way, its still America, and if you post here, we of course can do the same, boy-chik.
Lee - Actually, it isn't an issue of not liking what you said. We all nitpick in such debates. However, in addition to nitpicking, it is enlightening to hear some originality - to hear something that only you would have said.
A point that you raised in your first comment to me was: "The fact is that many Jews wanted all of the British Mandate of Palestine and only reluctantly accepted partition in the end for pragmatic reasons." Yes, that's true. Also today, as we see in Netanyahu's Bar-Ilan speech, he reluctantly accepted partition for pragmatic reasons. I sense that you see such reluctancy as a negative trait - as if the "reluctant" acceptance of partition in 1947 is not worthy of praise. Obviously, it is. Decisions are very difficult, and a wrong step can be fateful. No one can know ahead of time what would be the best line of action. When, in the end, a correct (albeit reluctant) decision is made, it deserves a word of praise.
Alan and Frank - There is a common denominator in your positions and in the positions of those whom you criticize with such strong language (Mr Fein, J Street, and others). You are all passionately involved in a central issue of Jewish history - but only from a distance. You all know what's best for Israel, but you have no intention of sharing the real responsibilities for the outcome of this incredible drama. All in all, Israel is an important aspect of your Jewish identity - but there is another identity, the American identity, that seems to be MUCH more important. Perhaps, you could put things in their right proportions. All of you are debating an issue that is of secondary importance in your lives - i.e. debating what's best for someone else.
This should be required reading for anyone interested in understanding why there has been no "peace" between the arabs and Israel:
....
"Interesting Times: THE GREAT ARAB REFUSAL"
There is something bizarre about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Everyone assumes, naturally, that it is about Israel giving something that Palestinians want - a state. But what it really is about is the Arab world giving the Jewish people what it wants - a state.
That makes no sense, you might say. After all, Israel exists, Palestine doesn't. How could the conflict be about people who don't have something giving it to people who do? The answer lies in a simple fact of history: The Arab war against a Jewish state not only predates Israeli control over the territories ostensibly in dispute but began before the founding of Israel itself.
"The attacks against us began in the 1920s, escalated into a comprehensive attack in 1948 with the declaration of Israel's independence... and climaxed in 1967, on the eve of the Six Day War," Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Sunday. "All this occurred during the 50 years before a single Israeli soldier ever set foot in Judea and Samaria."
That must have changed, you chime in. At some point Israel must have flipped from being the state deny-ee to being the state denier. Doesn't most of Netanyahu's own party still claim that a Palestinian state would be existential threat? If Israel is not the obstacle, why did Netanyahu have to be dragged into grudgingly supporting a two-state solution? Let's step back a bit and ask another question: What is meant by a "two-state solution"? In Western eyes, the idea is a simple one. The conflict comes from the lack of a Palestinian state. Create a state; end the conflict.
This would be a slam dunk except for one thing. What if the Palestinians see a state of their own not as the beginning of peace but the continuation of war? Quit being paranoid, the world responds. Israel is a regional superpower, and Netanyahu just said that a Palestinian state would have to be demilitarized.
The rub, however, lies not in demilitarization. Savvy Palestinian spokesmen say that's not a problem. The rub is Netanyahu's second "tough" (as media reports call them) condition: "a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people."
Now we have finally drilled down to the essence of the conflict, and it's not Israel but the Arab world that is out of step. Look at the official White House reaction to the Netanyahu speech: "The president is committed to two states, a Jewish state of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic homeland of both peoples." This is what Palestinians are for, right? Actually, no, this is what even Abbas and other "pro-peace" Arab leaders vehemently reject.
"A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean?" Mahmoud Abbas asked in an April 27 speech in Ramallah. "You can call yourselves as you like, but I don't accept it and I say so publicly." Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said that calls for recognition of a Jewish state are attempts to "abort" the peace process. "Netanyahu Threatens Peace" was the headline in the Saudi-owned Al Hayat, while Lebanon's Assafir claimed that the speech was "like a declaration of war."
The Arab world has never accepted either part of President Barack Obama's straightforward statement: that Israel is a Jewish state and that it is there not by chance or even because of the Holocaust but because it is the Jewish people's "historic homeland."
WE SEE that the great Arab refusal that began almost a century ago continues today. While the West takes it for granted that "mutual recognition," as the road map and Oslo agreements put it, is the bedrock of peace, the Arab side seeks a Palestinian state without accepting the existence of a Jewish people, let alone a Jewish connection to its historic homeland.
If further evidence of this refusal were needed, the claim of a "right of return" embodies the Arab attempt at obtaining a 22nd state without accepting the single Jewish one. If Palestinians have a permanent "right" to move to Israel, in what sense have they accepted Israeli sovereignty? How can they claim a right to move to Israel while not only denying the right of Jews to move to Palestine, but assuming that it must be ethnically cleansed of all Jews?
Obama is right that the Arab-Israeli conflict is in dire need of truth telling. And every time he uses the words "Jewish state" and "Jewish homeland" he is chipping away at the essence of the conflict. But there is an even more basic, underlying truth to be told: that the Arab world can end the conflict any time it wants.
This is what Obama should have said to the Arab world in Cairo: "End the conflict. Who is stopping you? If you truly accept Israelis, talk to their leaders, stop denying their history and connection to the land, you will have a Palestinian state faster than you can shake a stick." I understand that Obama thinks that the harder he pressures Israel on settlements the more likely the Arabs are to cooperate. But this is exactly backward. Direct pressure on Israel is always taken by the Arabs as an excuse to do nothing
The smart way to pressure Israel is to put the onus on the Arab side. Why? Because the slightest Arab movement toward peace turns any Israeli government into putty. "Looking back, I confess that well-formulated peace plans are not enough," President Shimon Peres admitted in a recent op-ed. "What brought about the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, signed in 1979, was a journey of less than an hour - the time it took Anwar Sadat to fly from Cairo to Jerusalem. This hour changed... creat[ing] a turning point far more powerful than outside pressure."
The Arab-Israeli conflict is just not symmetrical, no matter how often assorted peacemakers adopt an "evenhanded" approach. After 1967, the Arab states realized they could no longer openly call for Israel's destruction, so they hit on the idea of demanding a Palestinian state - without mentioning that they weren't willing to accept a Jewish state in return.
Now Netanyahu, grudgingly, and Obama, dilutedly, have called the Arab bluff. This has been obscured by Netanyahu's foot-dragging and Obama's fight-picking (with Israel), but the fact remains that it is now the Arab world that has been cast in the role of odd man out.
saul@jpost.com
Preventing Iran - the enemy-di-tutti-enemy of peace - from going nuclear remains the single greatest prerequisite for peace. The much easier yet no less important step is to systematically expose the great Arab refusal, thereby placing asymmetrical responsibility for the conflict on the Arab side. Pressure on the Arab side is a two-fer, because Arab gestures "deliver" Israel; pressure on Israel is a no-fer, because it reduces pressure on the Arab side.
saul@jpost.com
Can you believe it? The Forward's editorial is still attacking Israel's Prime Minister, Netanyahu ("Bibi's Missed Opportunity"). Is there no end to its depravity? The Forward never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity to support the Jewish State of Israel. What lefty loonies!
Its the arabs, including the "palestinians" who simply do not want a peace. They want to destroy Israel, while using the antisemites, including the Forward, to force Israel to commit suicide:
This, from far-left Ha'aretz!!!
....
THEY DON'T WANT A STATE By Israel Harel
From the Palestinians's refusal to sit down with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even after he recognized their right to a state - which is historic considering this is Likud's leader - it appears (again) that their overall goal never was, and apparently never will be, a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state.
They do want a Palestinian state, but much more they want there to be no Jewish state. Therefore, back in 1937, when the first partition plan was presented, they rejected proposal after proposal by the British, the Jews, the United Nations or the Americans for a two-state solution. They never made their own proposal.
Because there is support here and abroad for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, the Palestinians, who have misled their supporters about their real intentions, can present themselves to the world as peacemakers, backed by the most prominent Israeli and foreign media, and blacken the name of Israel even while carrying out bloody suicide attacks.
Netanyahu's recognition, which agonized him so, hit the Palestinians like a bolt out of the blue. From now on, they fear, they will have to reveal their real intentions. After all, if they are sincere about their agreement to the formulation of "two states for two peoples," and their state will now be the state of the Palestinian people also by Likud's consent, the formula's basic logic requires them to recognize the other state, Israel, as the state of the Jewish people.
Only a few minutes after Netanyahu's address, minutes in which the most visceral feelings were at work, the Arab nation's representatives took to the airwaves. Out of an uncontrollable urge, they lifted the veil from their real intentions. In Umm al-Fahm and Ramallah, in Damascus and Cairo, they rejected with outright hostility Netanyahu's demand that they recognize Israel as the Jewish people's national home. The prime minister granted recognition to a Palestinian state, but did not condition his recognition on a similar move by the Arabs recognizing Israel as the state of the Jewish people.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, without doubt the senior Arab statesman, declared that the Arabs would not recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat joined in, declaring that the Arabs would not grant such recognition even in a thousand years. Such are the wages of unilateral Israeli recognition. If the Palestinians had wanted a state, they could have acted according to the following (very worthwhile) scenario. They could have said that recognition by Netanyahu of a Palestinian state is not enough, but it is a basis for negotiation. After all, they know that the United States, Europe and their supporters in Israel, of course, will put enormous pressure on the Israeli government, which in the end will make concessions in almost every area, including a concession on the demand that the Arabs recognize Israel as the national home of the Jewish people.
After all, quite a few Jews and influential institutions support their refusal in this matter. The Israel Democracy Institute, which was awarded the Israel Prize, refuses adamantly to include such a clause - that Israel is the national home of the Jewish people - in its proposed constitution, for which it received the award.
Nevertheless, even with the sharp sword of truth at their necks, some Jews refuse to give up their illusions. They, too, were quick to blame Netanyahu for the Arabs' refusal to shake the outstretched hand this time as well. And because that has been the way of such Jews throughout the generations, the galut - the exile - has lasted so long, the birth pangs of redemption are so hard and the blame always falls on their own people.
Frank - The article by Yisrael Harel, besides its political argument, uses terminology that is quite foreign to the American Jewish mindset. Not too long ago, I had a visitor from American - one of my cousins. When I used the term "exile", referring to the Jewish communities outside of Israel, she raised an eyebrow in total astonishment: "Exile? What exile? We don't live in an exile." The whole concept was totally foreign to her even though she's quite an intellectual. Yisrael Harel also uses the term "birth pangs of redemption". The redemption of the Jewish people is more than just a prayer from the siddur - it appears in the 1948 Declaration of Independence. I'm a bit more than incredulous that your identification with the quoted article includes the cultural aspects therein. The center of your world, just like those whom you attack so fiercely, is in the USA.
Yehuda,
Thank you for your thoughtful note. If you meant "Aliyah", contemplated it and chose not to, for many reasons too vast to list here and fuel the Lee's and other Jew-haters of the world. Suffice it is to say that I want a Jewish state, and Israel has been OUR Jewish state since almost the beginning of time, to survive.
Also, I strongly believe that Jews in the Diaspora, thinking Jews, not the brain dead, willing goosesteppers of Left (they all forgot what Stalin did to us, especially former Commie Howard Zinn), play a big role in keeping Israel alive. Think about it. Right now, many of us, mostly of course the 22 percent who voted for McCain are putting pressure on Democrats (too bad it wasn't enough to prevent 900 mil of our taxpayer dollars going to Hamas, but hey, their Messiah Chimp seems to think Hamas is more important than General Motors) to stand up to the chickenmanure in the White House, or face possible defeat in the next elections. We intend to ensure, along with the Evangelical Christian allies so long pooh-poohed by Leftist arsepickers, that Israel has a voice.
As far as my own credentials go, Yehuda, Hmmmmm. Only almost 10 years service (Hasbara volunteer) for the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles, and an officer in the L.A. Chapter of Americans for a Safe Israel in that same time period.
Alan,
"But Lee, if the glove fits, you wear it."
So you're no different than those who say anyone who criticizes the U.S. in any way is "anti-American." Is there any conceivable criticism of Israel someone could make and not be an anti-Semite, in your view?
How sad to read all the previous comments by a host of brainwashed backers of Zionist colonialism!
Nothing the Arab world does is enough for them.They wish the Palestinans will just disappear and let the Jews grab all the land of Palestine!
"A Land without people fora people without land" is firmly embeded in evry Zikonised jewish minds!
The problem with Alan and Frank is that they are part of the seditious rot that is a cancer eating away at both the Jewish communities in Medinat Yisrael and Chutz L'Eretz. I proudly stand with my President and his bold plan to bring peace to the Middle East. Thank G-d we have someone in the Oval Office who puts what's right first and is willing to stand up to the dual loyalists in AIPAC, AFSI, the ADL, and all of the other treasonous organizations that claim to lobby for Jewish interests in this country.
I've had it with the Arutz 7 crowd. I'm sick of their invalidations and am proud to support J Street. You dish out your horrible insults time and time again when it is high time that you take a hike and disappear like the Edsels that you are!
Sephardiman - It really is unpleasant when talkbacks are insulting. However, your answer to Frank and Alan is also insulting name-calling. In opposition to all those "dual loyalists", you apparently see yourself as a loyal American "who puts what's right first". Well, if you are so loyal, then you should be willing to accept that which the constitutional law in the USA accepts - the right to lobby. I would imagine that you don't object to someone else's lobbying (Cuban or Armenians or Arabs, etc). It should be noted that your president is not superman. Like all American presidents, peace negotiations in the Middle East are very important; yet like all American presidents, he cannot resolve the conflict. The conflict has not yet been correctly defined. How can one find a solution to a conflict that still defies definition?
"Not a Zionist" has an interesting view of history. Colonialism is a project that serves a mother country. What is the mother country of the modern State of Israel? Where did its Hebrew language come from? Well, just for the sake of debate, let's just agree that Israel is a colonial project of Galicia, and we'll further agree that our Hebrew language has its roots in the Cracow area. Another colonial project, an English project, took place in North America, which today is an English-speaking land. Those colonialists, as opposed to the more modest Galicians, grabbed an entire continent, totally destroying the native civilization - and then bragged about it in hundreds of films. Now comes along "Not a Zionist", enjoying the fruits of his stolen land, and he points a finger at others. We, the Jews of Israel, are the continuity of Jewish history on its own native soil and in the ancient language of this country. If colonialism is really a topic on the "Not a Zionist" agenda, well, there are many communities that deserve his criticism. His agenda, however, is animosity to Israel, not protesting colonialism.
Lee - you're absolutely right that criticism of Israel is not antisemitism. Moreover, as I have noted about your style of debate, you haven't really expressed yourself in this week's exchange of comments, revealing your world view and ideology. So the accusations of Alan or Frank are really nonsense, based on nothingness. I should add, however, that there are indeed some people out there who do hide an antisemitic agenda by focusing on criticism of Israel. But, criticism of Israel is, generally speaking, a positive phenomenon. We ourselves are a very self-critical people in Israel. The criticism is actually a source of strength, and a sign that we really care.
Dr. Salla Sultan, an Egyptian cleric living in the United States stated onAl-Nas TV on December 28, 2008, “America, which gave Israel everything itneeded in these [Gaza] battles, will suffer economic stagnation, ruin,destruction and crime, which will surpass what is happening in Gaza.” Hethen vowed, “the U.S. will suffer more deaths than all those killed in thisthird Gaza holocaust. This will happen soon.” These words were spoken inAmerica by a man who is trying to become a citizen. Does this not horrifythe public and our leaders? Is this the so-called religion of peace that weare trying to appease? Peace, according to Webster’s Dictionary, means a state of calm and quiet orfreedom from disturbing thoughts or emotions. For Muslims this meanscessation of resistance to Islam. Qur’an 8:38-40 says, “O believer. Fightthem until there is no more oppression and until the whole Deen (Way ofLife) is for Allah alone.” According to this interpretation, Peace existswhen Islam rules politically and religiously and its principles are the lawsof the land. But, this Shari’a (Islamic) law is not compatible with ourConstitution.
I echo the comments of Sephardiman. I am proud that 78% percent of Jews voted for Obama. I can reveal another secret. A similar percentage of American Jews no longer care about Israel. We care more about the restaurants of Paris (including ones that serve bacon), the castles of Germany, the cathdrals of England, and the museums of Rome more than we care about a pathetic Mediterranean backwater. I have never been to Israel and will visit it after I visit Haiti, Eastern Congo, and Somalia. I support J street and Israel Policy Forum because they are doing the Jewish community a great service by trying to prevent Israel from embarassing us. I support Ahmadinejad and his efforts to obtain nuclear weapons as a effort to teach zionists some humility and bring them into norms of international behavior. I am against these massive demonstrations in Tehran because they will only bring bloodshed. I predict that in a few years, we can see both Obama and Ahmadinejad winning Noble Peace Prices for standing up to zionism San Francisco is my Jerusalem
Yehuda-I appreciate your desire for a civil discourse but as you can plainly see the Alans of the world, not to mention this cretan "Rabbi Tony Jutner", aren't capable of facilitating one. Therefore, we in the sane camp need to give them back in kind what they dish out. That is the only language they understand. They are reminscent of antebellum southern slave holders who cried "abolitionist" or "black Republican" whenever any one up North, or as William Freehling has shown in his work quite a few in the South as well, but then took great offense when the majority of Americans said "Yesh Gvul" to the slavepower and voted Lincoln in as president in 1860. Yes, they have a right to lobby and we have a solemn obligation to fight them at every turn and drive these money changers from the temple of the American Republic.
Rabbi Jutner-For the record I support the pro-democracy demonstrators in Tehran and only wish, as a columnist in Ha-Eretz recently pondered, that Israelis would take a cue from them and take to the streets to demand an end to their government being held hostage by settler hooligans, charedi religious extremists, and corrupt interest groups.
yawn
First of all, Spehardiman, I have the courage to use my own name. Second of all, cretin is not spelled "cretan". Your comments are hardly civil and I resent being called a cretin. Paradoxically, the right is more honest than you are because they know that the Palestinians will not be fobbed off by a few crumbs. They believe and rightly so, that Tel Aviv is also a settlement. The only demonstrations should be for a stimulus package to resettle israelis in lands without people such as Nevada or the Australian outback. I find it remarkable that you need to resort to classic Christian antisemitism in your remark about driving moneychangers from the Temple. It casts doubt on whether you are Jewish, much less Sephardi. In terms of the "spontaneous rallies in Tehran, the sooner we recognize that Ahmadinejad is the lawful president of Iran, the less egg on our face we will have when we negotiate with him
Rabbi Jutner-I'm quite Jewish and quite Sephardi and since you are a cretin you don't deserve any civility. What's the matter? You verkramptes can dish it out but you can't take it? That's typical of the Arutz 7 crowd. You are quick to cry "anti-Semite" when it is your destructive views that put the Jewish people at risk.
It's a rather standard requirement of American rabbinic students to study one year in Jerusalem. So our rabbi's claim that he has never been to Israel is more than odd. Moreover, bragging about not having seen Jerusalem, certainly one of the most important cities in all of human history and civilization, is like bragging about one's own ignorance. Anyway, wishing that Iran acquire nuclear weapons in order to teach "some humility" is in truth a call for mass-murder of Jews. Our rabbi should note that there is a real fear that Al-Qa'ida might get its hands on the nuclear weapons of Pakistan. This is the same Al-Qa'ida that attacked NYC in 2001, if the learned rabbi is in need of a little reminder. In such a case, I would imagine that our rabbi, a supporter of extreme hatred if it seems to be focused on Israel, will learn his lesson about ancient Israelite prophecy (which he should have learned in Jerusalem): Ki ruah yizra'u, ve-sufatah yiqtzoru (they who sow wind will reap its storm). See Hosea 8:7.
Sephardiman appears to be left wing and Rabbi Jutner appears to be really left wing. While I believe that Rabbi Jutner is anti-zionist and Sephardiman is nominally zionist, I believe that Rabbi Jutner is trying to find areas of agreement with Sephardiman. While Rabbi Jutner is kooky, I believe that he has won this current debate with Sephardiman for the following reasons 1) Sephardiman lost his cool, while Rabbi Jutner did not 2) Sephardiman claims that Rabbi Jutner is a right winger (Artuz 7 crowd). There is no evidence of this 3) Sephardiman uses a yiddish term "verkramptes" to go after Rabbi Jutner 4) In Rabbi Jutners online presence, there is no evidence of him calling anyone an anti-semite
Final score Rabbi Jutner 1, Sephardiman 0
Mr. Fong-First of all I'm not left wing. I am for the "Common Good", in the tradition of Alexia Kelly's group. Second it strikes me that "Rabbi Jutner" is a fraud, an Arutz 7er just trying to stir up the pot. The term "verkrampte" isn't Yiddish at all. It's Afrikaans and refers to the hardliners, like Andries Treurnicht and Albert Hertzog, who resisted even the token reforms of apartheid offered by the Vorster and Botha governments in the '70's and '80's. It is most appropriate here in referring to the peace rejectionist camp. Finally, I am a Religious Zionist and my son is an active member of his local Bnei Akiva chug.
You claim that Rabbi Tony Jutner is a Arutz 7er (whatever that is) and is not a true left winger. Can you provide any evidence for this assertion? We shouldnt squelch other opinions because we disagree with them. Your comments have been pretty inflammatory "dual loyalty" and "driving moneychangers from the Temple". If I made these comments, I would be called an anti-Semite.Qols response to Rabbi Jutner was more effective
Mr. Fong-That's just the point you should be able to have this conversation without fear of being called an anti-Semite. Arutz 7 is the pro-settler website/former radio station, hence my generic term for that camp.
I think the good "Rabbi" is trying to make a play on the non-Zionist, progressive, and very Jewish historian Tony Judt. No "Rabbi" would seriously suggest that San Francisco was the authentic Jewish homeland or that most Jews only care about restaurants that serve bacon. Frankly, this is some young "yeshiva" oriented chap, who thinks he is being amusing, when in fact he is coming off as a fool.
Obama is daily proving himself to be an enemy of the Jewish people.
It is now being reported in the Jerusalem Post that the Obama/Clinton State Department are now including EAST JERUSALEM as part of what they are claiming to be "settlements" and are insisting be included in a "settlement freeze":
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184902559&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Jerusalem, the heart and soul, and eternally undivided capital of the Jewish State of Israel, is now being called a "settlement". Anyone paying attention to Obama's presidential campaign will recall that he twice pronounced (the first being at an AIPAC conference) that, ... "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." He lied.
American Jews need to realize that they voted for the most anti-Israel president in history, and lobby their representatives, and demand of their Jewish leaders, that they fight back and stand up for the Jewish State of Israel. No matter what your parochial politics may be, Obama is engaged in a broad-based attack on Israel. He lied to you during his campaign, as did Clinton. It is "crunch" time for Jewish Americans who support Israel. Make your voices heard.
Dear "Sephardiman" I am not a yeshiva student. I am a progressive rabbi in San Francisco who believes that the Jewish people do not deserve a state until they have perfectged themselves. Morally, the Palestinian people stand head and shoulders above us. However, you are a curious specimen. On the one hand, you call yourself a religious zionist, which is a term for right wing extremism. On the other hand, you admire Tony Judt, Walt and Mearsheimer, who I admire as well. A religious zionist who admires antizionists is as realistic as a pregnant virgin.Next time u are in San Francisco, come worship at my shul and get acquainted with New Judaism
Rabbi Jutner-It is refreshing to see that you are after all authentic!
Unfortunately, Religious Zionism was hijacked by the Settler movement after 1967. Being a Religious Zionist does not mean you must identify with the hardline Arutz 7 narrative. Indeed, there still is a group called OzVeShalom/Netivot Shalom in Israel and elsewhere, composed of Religious Zionists who reject the rejectionist message.
I like Tony Judt. He is a brilliant historian. (I loved his work "Postwar", the best summary of post 1945 Europe out there.) And there is, sadly enough, a great deal of truth in what Mearshimer and Walt are saying in their writings. I think, as an Open Orthodox Jew, we can't be closed minded to different ideals simply because we aren't comfortable with everything the messengers have to say.
I'm sorry to have misjudged you. If I'm ever in SF, I just might stop by your Bait Knesset. All the best.
Frank- I have made my voice heard. I emailed President Obama this very week and told him how much I admired his courage in standing firm towards guiding Israel and Palestine to a just and democratic peace. I will continue to do so, despite efforts by your element to vilify the President of the United States!
And mind you I voted for Chuck Baldwin last year for President altogether.
As for East Jerusalem, if the hotly debated issue of Rome could be resolved by creating two sovereignties over the Eternal City, Italy and the Vatican, why can't a similar deal be worked out for Jerusalem? Even Menachem Begin was quite willing, during his tenure as Israel's prime minister, to give the various Christian churches some sort of political sovereignty over their holy places in Jerusalem.
Sephardiman - I imagine that you have read Tony Judt's article in the NY Times Book Review a few years ago. In this article, he defined Israel as "an anachronism". The state was founded in the 20th century, at a time when the nation-state idea had supposedly ended already. Israel, by his definition, is out of step with time and should not have been founded. This is, of course, very bad history (even though, strangely, you see him as a "brilliant historian"). So many nation-states have been established since the founding of Israel (Estonia, Slovakia, Macedonia, Croatia, Russia, Ukraine to name just a few from the 1990's - and there will be yet others). His ideology is that there shouldn't be an Israel, and therefore his "historic analysis" is meant only for our little nation-state.
Moreover, even if Israel were different than others - so what? Being unique is part of the Jewish experience, even from the point of view of Diaspora Jewry.
No, Yehuda I had not read that piece by Prof. Judt.
Sephardiman - You've expressed some agreement with Mearshimer and Walt. I wouldn't know why. They have claimed that the pro-Israel lobby has forced the US government to adopt policies contrary to its own best national interests. How can one even imagine that the USA could be manipulated so? The US government doesn't even recognize that WEST Jerusalem is part of the State of Israel. What kind of manipulative Jewish lobby can't even get the American government to recognize even the Green Line part of Jerusalem as Israeli territory? Let's take even more serious topics into consideration. During the Nazi era, the US government adamantly refused to change its immigration policy. During the Holocaust itself, nothing could be done to get the Americans to bomb the railroad lines or the death camps. Vital Jewish interests were not at all a part of American war considerations. You would imagine that the American Jewish community would have had the lobbying capability to manipulate the government to act contrary to its own original war policies - and act in the best interests of the Jews. It turns out that American Jewry has no such capability. The Mearshimer and Walt book, therefore, is about as convincing as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Finally, Sephardiman, you express a theoretical willingness to visit a SF synagogue of a "rabbi" who brags about never having set foot in the Land of Israel, preferring to visit Somalia. Prof Judt finds it wrong that a Jewish nation-state was founded. Mearshimer and Walt see Jews "pulling strings behind the scenes" in opposition to the best interests of others. What is the common denominator of all this? You are enchanted by people who are saying that there is something inherently wrong with the Jews as a collective experience. I understand that you apparently have your own definition for your declared ideology ("religious-Zionist"). Whatever that definition may be, it certainly should include the self-evident understanding that we Jews are good and normal people who take pride in their role in the drama of human history.
Yehuda-Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
1) Having read Mearshimer and Walt, I think there is a great deal of truth in what they are saying. We don't have to agree with people in order to recognize that some of what they have to say has merit.
2) You have to admit that if Rabbi Jutner's synagogue actually exists, it would make for quite a service! Let's hope the Kiddush there is decent and hopefully kasher.