Here’s the context: A few days after the Thanksgiving holiday, at a party he attended reluctantly, he met and chatted up a young woman. Somewhat to his surprise, she gave him her phone number. A few days later, he called her and arranged a dinner date for December 28. Having asked around about her, he’d learned, among other things, that she was an ardent Zionist. Determined to make a terrific impression, he figured he’d best bone up on Israel, about which he knew virtually nothing. So he started following news reports, of which there were quite a few. Thus primed, he picked her up on the 28th and headed to one of his favorite restaurants, where they had the following exchange:
He: “Some weekend, huh? The Israelis really let Hamas have it.”
She: “It’s horrible. It’s so endless, so needless, so pointless.”
He: “Well, maybe this time Hamas will learn its lesson. They can’t just shell Israel day-in, day-out and expect the Israelis to swallow. I mean, what’s Israel supposed to do?”
She: “Yeah. That’s the official line. ‘We had no choice.’ That’s what they always say.”
He: “I don’t understand. I thought you were a Zionist. Are you saying Israel did have a choice? What kind of choice? There were more than 300 rockets and mortar shells fired from Gaza into Israel in just this last week, almost 3,000 in the last year. The Israelis warned Hamas over and over, and Hamas did nothing to control the firing. You can’t seriously believe that Israel didn’t have the right to respond?”
She: “I’ll tell you what I think. If you tuned in a week ago, or a month ago, then for sure you’re right. Tactically, the Israelis had to do what they did. No country can allow its citizens to be threatened every day by rockets. But if you tuned in five years ago or, better yet, 20 years ago, which I was too young to do — but I’ve read the history — or better yet 40 years ago, before you and I were born, well, then it’s a very different story. You’re looking at one month in a story that’s been going on for 487 months; you’re looking at one droplet in an ongoing tsunami. Look just at the droplet, and Israel’s totally right; look at the tsunami, and nobody’s blameless. Forty-one years of missed opportunities, of terror and misery, of reciprocal stupidity, of random killing and purposeful killing and collateral killing, of dead kids and dead women and dead flowers and dead hopes.
“You know what? Hamas was co-founded in 1987 by Ahmed Yassin, a quadriplegic who spent his paralyzed life confined to a wheelchair and guiding what he called ‘the armed resistance’ against Israel — the Qassam rockets, the suicide bombings, the whole rotten bloodletting. By the time the Israelis assassinated him in 2004, he was nearly blind. But they’re all half-blind, they’re all paralyzed.
“And yes, dammit, I am a Zionist. I hope and I pray and I sort of expect that my kids will be Zionists, too, and their kids as well. But my God, I am so afraid of how they will react when they watch the documentaries that tell the whole truth about these days, about these years. Can anyone seriously believe that today’s attacks will solve anything? So maybe, just maybe, there’ll be a renewed cease-fire. Excuse me, but that’s not a solution, it’s a respite. You think during their time-out people will come to their senses, decide there’s a better way? C’mon, give me one shred of evidence, one precedent that justifies your thinking that.
“But let’s be clear about one thing: I want a Jewish state. I want a democratic Jewish state. I want a democratic Jewish state that is safe, that is at peace with its neighbors. It’s just that I don’t think Israel’s leaders have a clue as to how to get there, any more than I think the Palestinians do.”
He: “Alright, enough. Let’s say I agree with everything you’ve said. But what you haven’t said is what you would do.”
She: “I’m not sure that’s the right question to ask. If you put the question that way, then Israel’s action makes perfect sense. Hamas fires rockets on Friday, Israel bombs on Saturday and Sunday. Logical. But my grandmother used to say, ‘Beware of logical conclusions that don’t make sense.’ The question you need to ask is how to put an end to the miserable reality, how you can change the rules of the game. What Israel is doing now is just an enhanced version of its standard response — more planes, more bombs, bigger bombs. What’s the end game? What’s the strategy?”
He: “Funny you put it that way. That’s exactly what Ehud Barak said in his interview with Fox News — ‘Our intention is to totally change the rules of the game.’”
She: “I’m impressed; you’re really up on this stuff. But I don’t think Barak and I are talking about the same game. He wants a longer cease-fire and no more rockets and no more tunnels for smuggling in weapons and explosives. But look what’s bound to happen: Israel bombed the best targets in what it calls its ‘target bank’ on the first day, and by the third or fourth day it’ll be bombing sub-prime targets, and there’ll be more and more dead and wounded bystanders, and Fatah won’t be able to maintain its dialogue with Israel, and the new law and order in Jenin will fall apart, and every ounce of benefit Israel may wring from all this will be buried under a ton of new anger, new hatred.”
He: “Wow! I didn’t know a Zionist could talk this way. How about another drink? How about New Year’s Eve?”
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.
Claims Conference Chief Knew of $57M Holocaust Fraud Probe Earlier 
Top Dog: Who Makes the Best Kosher Hot Dog in America?
Why Do Jews Intermarry at a Much Higher Rate Than Others?
End Orthodox Monopoly on Jewish Marriage in Israel
Boston Bombers Pal Slain in Florida Eyed in 'Jewish' Triple Murder
You've successfully signed up!
And here we are on New Year's Eve, with no signs of anything like a new game in sight.
The solution for this is easy. Jews must recognize that they have no more historic claim to Palestine than they do to the Philippines or Peru. Once they recognzie this, they can move to places where they have historic claims, like Las Vegas or Kiev. We wont bother you then. If you want peace, leave.
Mr Fein puts in the mouths of his characters the oft-repeated belief of "forty-one years of missed opportunities". This quote assumes two points: First of all, this is a conflict born in the Six-Day War of 1967; and secondly, the the conflict could have resolved if different actions would have been taken during these passing forty-one years. The first assumption is simply silly. It's hard to understand how any serious observation of the conflict could possibly determine the 1967 war as a point of reference. But, actually, the second assumption is the key to "understanding" the absurd first one. The supposed missed opportunities for peace are meant to indicate that there really is a solution to the conflict - but in order to believe that there is a solution, it would be so much easier if one pretends that the conflict began in 1967. Such a forty-one year old conflict can therefore be defined. It's "simply" about the capture of territory, and it's about a policy of settlements. Now, once the conflict has been defined, the solution can be reached (evacuate territory, remove settlements). Sadly, Mr Fein, the conflict is not forty-one years old, and it cannot be so readily defined. It has always been - and it always will be - a conflict about legitimacy. The non-acceptance of Jewish legitimacy is the explanation for the Arab Rebellion of 1936-9 (a violent protest of the continuing rise of the Yishuv) or the rejection of the Partition Plan of 1947 (a violent attempt to prevent the founding of a Jewish state) are just two examples that show that the real topic on the agenda is legitimacy. Certainly, the short comment of Raed Kami would indicate that in his eyes legitimacy is the obvious topic behind the conflict. It's apparently comforting to pretend that another conflict is taking place - a conflict that is depended solely on Israel's actions - but it's quite pointless. It's also interesting to note Mr Fein's question: "What’s the end game? What’s the strategy?" Could you imagine someone asking the English during their epic struggle against Nazi Germany: "What’s the end game? What’s the strategy? You are ruining the chance for dialogue by bombing your fanatic enemy..." Well, Israel is under attack, and her end game or her stategy in wartime seems to be an attempt to defeat her very extreme and unreasonable enemy. Is that so difficult to understand, Mr Fein? Finally, the definition of the character as an "ardent Zionist" is just a bit too much to tolerate. Out of fairness to those Jews who actually shoulder the burdens of Jewish existence in the Land of Israel, perhaps we should define those who have chosen to live here as the "ardent" ones. After all, words are supposed to have some real meaning to them. An "ardent" person who carries no real burden as a result of his ideological beliefs is about as impressive as writing a critique of this latest war without offering any real suggestions for the reading public's consideration.
The line in this article of "new anger, new hatred" is a criticism that, strangely, is only directed at Israel. One never hears that the random shooting of rockets at Israeli towns or the sending of suicide bombers might increase hatred and animosity towards Palestinians. However, any measure that Israel takes in her defense is often presented as increasing the hatred and the anger towards herself. If Mr Fein would have a clear view of how Israel and Jews are portrayed in Arabic-speaking societies, he wouldn't fear the possibility of an increase of hatred. The level has been stable throughout the many years of conflict. However, the very raising of the imbalanced picture (that the conflict brings about anger only on one side) is an indication of a built-in discrimination even of the most liberal, open-minded reporter. It's as if the emotions of the Arab side can be manipulated and controlled, as if they are inherently different than others under the pressures of armed conflict.