Sheldon Dan http://jta.org/user/profile/31095 en-us rcsillag@jta.org Copyright 2009 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Ari H--I have a feeling that you are accepting the Arabs' statements at face value. Unfortunately, we also need to look at what the Arabs say to their own people and at what they said in their own meetings. It is well-known that the Arabs say one thing for Western audiences and another in Arabic. If there has been "pressure" placed on the Arabs, apparently they refuse to yield to it. On the other hand, Israel is expected to give the Arabs all they want in exchange for "peace." You claim that Netanyahu hasn't stopped settlement construction, so the Arabs aren't obligated to do something to advance the peace process. I thought the Road Map specified actions BOTH sides were supposed to take. Even if Israel's weren't "sufficient" to the other side, it was still more than the Palestinians actually did. Now there is an effort to go to the final status issues, even when the Palestinians still haven't fulfilled the minimal obligations they agreed to. Let's get the Palestinians to fulfill the obligations Savitsky listed, and then we can talk about a settlement freeze. I don't think Israel has any more to prove after withdrawing completely from Gaza. At least this showed Israel's good faith. Unfortunately, AFTER Israel left the area, the region was showered with rockets. Is this a taste of what we can expect should Israel agree to the Arab demand to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders? You seem to object to the Arabs making even a small overture to Israel and accepting Israel's demands. Yet you seem to want Israel to give the Arabs anything they want. That doesn't sound like negotiation to me. If the Arabs can demand "everything," why can't Israel? I think it is clear who doesn't want peace, and it isn't who you think. I think Savitsky and the other "Orthodox" writers may have a better grasp on what is needed for peace than you do, Ari. Unfortunately, I don't think we will see peace for the foreseeable future, the efforts by all parties notwithstanding. And I think the evidence is clear who is at fault here. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Archie1954, I resent the implication that American Jews have a dual loyalty. We ARE loyal Americans, but we are also members of the Jewish people--and we are loyal to both. Certainly, the USA is the greatest country in the world, where the greatest experiment in government has continued uninterrupted since 1789. However, as a loyal American, I have the right to criticize my country's policies, and in regard to Israel I have grave concerns about them. To imply that Israel's right to exist is solely based on the Holocaust ignores the long history the Jewish people have had on this land. Unfortunately, the president and the world would rather ignore this inconvenient fact. However, we will not ignore it. I don't think the best interests of the USA coincide with the Arab countries, and it would be better if our president recognized that both sides have requirements (possibly irreconcilable) that will have to be addressed if a true peace agreement is to be reached. Regardless, under no circumstances should the USA be dictating to Israel what it should do--the true negotiations should be bilateral between Israel and the Palestinians, and the Palestinians must be prepared to accept a lot less than they want, but this is what is meant by a peace between enemies. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Sorry, Norman, but I disagree strongly with the comment "We aren't members of the same tribe." Whether you like it or not, we ARE members of the same tribe. Yes, some of the observances of the haredim aren't what some of us would like, but if you don't want to go to one of those hotels, there are plenty of others in Israel that will accommodate you. I am seriously worried about your dividing us up into "mainstream" and "non-mainstream" Jews. I sometimes wonder if "mainstream" is often translated into "secular." Therefore, if one is even somewhat religious (not even "dati" but "masorti" in the language of Israeli Jews), some people would lump this person into the "non-mainstream" category. I submit that just because the majority of Israelis may identify as secular doesn't mean that they should run roughshod over the non-secular, just as the haredim should respect the fact that the majority of Israelis are non-haredim (although they don't have to like it). I think we all have to recognized that Israel is a special country in our eyes and in the eyes of the world. Ultimately, it CAN'T be a country like all others. It is called the Holy Land for a reason. As uncomfortable as it makes some of us, we may have to accept that we Jews cannot necessarily do anything we want in Israel, because we do have to live with one another as Jews, and both the religious (including the haredim) and the secular have to accept each other as Jews (this does not mean forcing each other to approve of the other's actions, but managing to respect the differences). 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 All right, if Ms. Whitson wants Israel to relocate the settlers within the 1967 borders (which are NOT recognized borders, merely cease-fire lines) and compensate Palestinians for their losses, then the Arab countries should compensate the Jews who lived in their lands for centuries (about the same population as the Arabs who were displaced in 1948) for THEIR losses. Lots of luck. She cites the Geneva Convention, but the applicability of this is disputed. She also cites the ordeals the Palestinians go through. Has she thought that if some of those Palestinians didn't commit suicide bombings, shoot rockets into Israeli territory, etc., there would be no need for those checkpoints? I will state again that these 1967 borders were merely cease-fire lines. They are NOT "secure and recognized borders" called for in UN resolutions. And I might remind everyone that Resolution 242 required withdrawal from "territories," NOT "all" or "all the" territories. In a final settlement, these borders are to be negotiated, and they were not anticipated to be the same as the 1967 borders. The Palestinian apologists can complain all they want, but at best the West Bank is "disputed," not "occupied" territory, and it should be determined through honest negotiations where the border should be. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 On the contrary, the Palestinians and the Arab world have everything to do regardless of what the Israelis do with the settlements. They are obligated by the Road Map to actually take action to stop the terrorism and incitement, including in their educational institutions, regarding the conflict. Unfortunately, it seems that their idea of "peace" is different from ours, so it's not likely that even if Israel did freeze the settlements that would make a difference in their stand. The commenter would have us believe that Israel is the criminal in this situation. On the contrary, Israel did not illegally settle this land; many other sources have indicated that these settlements are legal under international law. Jordan, in fact, illegally seized the West Bank; it was captured in war by Israel in 1967. The actual ownership is in dispute at best, since the West Bank was part of the Palestine mandate, which was meant to be a Jewish country. The justification for Jews being in this land is that it is indeed the land promised to the Jews in Biblical times. Sadly, we are hearing the Palestinian narrative repeated. What seems to be ignored is that it is the Arabs (and the Palestinians in the immediate area) that have "systematically brutalized" the Jews, first in Arab countries where they lived for centuries, then in Israel. It's time for a proper settlement of this conflict, but surrendering everything and getting nothing in return is not the answer--the Arabs have to fulfill their commitments before Israel does more for them. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Apparently the Republicans and the RJC aren't the only ones who use "divisive language." Sadly, it seems that Jews may be not as smart as they think, especially when they conflate Jewish "values" with Democratic party principles. Especially when there is a lot of political correctness surrounding Democratic party policy, I wonder if it is really smart for us to be aligned 80% with any one party. What is really disturbing is that one commenter thinks that this is the mindset of all Christians. I think that to paint everyone with the same brush invites trouble when someone else does that to us. I suspect these commenters, with the "Democrats good, Republicans bad" mentality, still think this is the Democratic party of FDR and JFK. Frankly, I think that these days we should be more independent than we are. The state legislator shouldn't have said what he said. But I am equally concerned with the comments from my fellow Jews. Some people seem so biased toward one political party that they cannot see that this is reprehensible regardless of which political party made the comment. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Maybe people like Peace Now and their supporters need to see exactly why we Jews are fighting to live in precisely that part of the world. Why else would we be risking the rage of Arabs and the rest of the world (and possibly the United States as well)? If the Palestinians really wanted a state, they could have had it when 75% of the Palestine mandate was cut out for an Arab state! Or they could have had it in 1947 with a partition plan that the Jews, disappointing as it would have been with the results, accepted! Or they could have had it after the 1967 war if their brethren had not issued the famous Khartoum "Three Nos"! Frankly, I have had it with the Palestinians and their demands. If they are suffering, it is their own fault, the fault of their leadership, and the fault of the Arabs in general. If they truly want peace, let them live in their state and leave us alone in ours--the one state where we should be able to live in peace. Unfortunately, they will not leave us alone due to the mistaken belief that they must have all of Palestine, which they are not entitled to. Frankly, I don't care if the rest of the world (and our president) is ticked off, if the rest of the world wants a real peace, they had better listen to the settlers and their allies as well as the Palestinians. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 You gotta be kidding. Some peace plan! No matter whether it means de facto war, Israel has to reject this and demand that peace be negotiated on its terms. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 In regard to Jordan taking responsibility for the Palestinians on the West Bank and Egypt for those in Gaza: Has it occurred to anyone that the separation of 75% or so of the original Palestinian mandate (i.e., the current country of Jordan) is the Arab Palestinian state? If Jordan is indeed not open to Jews to live, then it follows that the remainder of the Palestinian mandate should be the Jewish state (i.e., Israel including the West Bank). Since Jordan is majority Palestinian, maybe recognizing this is the key to settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--there is an Arab Palestinian and a Jewish Palestinian state--two states for two peoples. Let the Palestinians choose between their Arab state and Israel (recognizing that they would be a minority in the latter, although their rights would still be more than in any Arab country). The borders would be much more secure than the pre-1967 borders everyone is forcing Israel to go back to, and the Palestinians could manage their affairs and the Jews in Israel could manage theirs, and we could move on to other things. Unfortunately, this is too obvious. The parties involved (mainly the Arabs and the world community) won't want to see this and we will continue to spin our wheels. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Archie1954, Do you really think that the Jews just happened to pick on this particular piece of land 61 years ago for their state? There must be a good reason for this particular spot, and it is: The Jews were there first. There was a Jewish commonwealth, as described from Abraham to the destruction of the Second Temple. The Jews never ceded their claim to the land, although they were expelled from it. The Palestinians aren't the natives here; many Arabs settled in the area only after the Jews began to settle there and improve it. (For example, Mark Twain's writings describe how empty the land was, which would not have been the case had the Arabs actually possessed the land and cared for it.) Like it or not, this is the Jewish homeland. Maybe the Arabs should do something in order to advance the cause of peace. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 I respect the fact that Rabbi Waskow does want peace in the Middle East and I am sure he is well-intentioned. However, the detractors' comments ("borderline racism" aside) need to be addressed. Issue 1, the "comprehensive" peace agreement, would be desirable if certain factors didn't work against it. Such an agreement has to address Israel's concerns, not just the Arabs' concerns, which is all I seem to be hearing about. There is no doubt that Israel would welcome a peace among its neighbors, but it must be peace in the real sense of the term, and it must be based on Israel being recognized as a Jewish state (the national homeland of the Jewish people). The Palestinians want to have Palestine recognized as their homeland, but the reluctance to extend the same recognition to the Jews may make this comprehensive peace impossible. Issue 2, the comprehensive peace conference, has been tried before. I think it was called the "Madrid conference," and unless things change from that time, this type of conference is also doomed. Issue 3, the unified Palestinian government, is essentially impossible unless Hamas gives up its desire to eliminate the state of Israel. Even if there is such a unity government, Fatah still has the same sentiments, even though it takes a moderate line for Western listeners. No encouraging prospects there. Issue 4, the "settlements," is not really the issue. Maybe the U.S. government takes this stand because it does not want to alienate the Arabs. But taking this position (note the reference to "Israel proper") essentially means going back to the situation pre-1967, which is a nonstarter. Especially with respect to Jerusalem, we already know what happened for nineteen years, and we don't want to go back to those days. Instead, the Arabs should acknowledge that we will not be going back to the 1967 borders and make peace with an Israel which will take in some of the settlement blocs and keep a united Jerusalem as Israel's eternal capital. Unfortunately, the Palestinians seem to care more for continuing the conflict than for reaching a settlement that would actually require them to make a sacrifice for peace. Issue 5, resettlement of Palestinians in their own state, may be the only one that I completely agree with Waskow with (outside of using U.S. money). If the Palestinians want to settle inside Israel, they will have to accept that they will be a minority within Israel (although their civil rights, while not ideal, are more than they would have in any Arab country). If they really want to be recognized as Arabs/Palestinians, they would have to settle in the Palestinian state or other Arab countries. Either way, Israel should not have to change the nature of their state to accommodate them. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 I am not an apologist for "the behaviours of the Israeli state all around the world." However, I am a proud Zionist and I also have facts to back up my opinions of the Middle East. I wonder if, on the face of it, you may be one of those who won't "debate the issue, but attack the person you are opposing." I respect the fact that you disagree with people who support Israel (and that includes the "settlers"), but that doesn't mean that you are correct. You may need to research the issue more thoroughly before you condemn the settlers/Israel supporters for their positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am not supporting the juvenile antics of some protesters...REGARDLESS of whether they are more in line with Mr. Edwards' position or Mr. Hicks'. However, the Geneva conference (for some reason, they are insisting on calling it the Durban conference) was a disgrace, and it wasn't a conference against racism at all; it was an excuse for some to display anti-Zionist (and I would call it anti-Semitic; the language would fit) passions while ignoring true racism. More power to those countries who boycotted or walked out. This world needs to wake up to real problems. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 I have to disagree. Even if the rate was 91% in Eisenhower's time and 70% in Reagan's, 50% is still too much. I think that kind of marginal rate will backfire. The real problem is that Congress is spending money on a lot of things that maybe they weren't meant to spend under the Constitution. We wouldn't be talking about raising taxes if we weren't spending on all these things. Reagan was right to lower the taxes, and I fear potentially higher rates under Obama. Let's truly begin addressing the types of spending that we are doing today, and leave the marginal tax rates alone, as well as the deductibility of deductions. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 So what if the Likud-led government pursues a "right-wing" agenda? Did the existing "left-wing" agenda get us anywhere? I think we need to think beyond these labels. Frankly, I don't care if the rest of the world hates us. If we are doing the right thing, it doesn't really matter. It's time Labor and everyone else realize that Israel is facing a threat to its existence (in other words, it's 1948 again) and unless Israel is willing to make the rest of the world respect (if not love) it, I have grave doubts about Israel's future if it continues as Kadima led it. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Just because some of us are concerned for Israel and had problems with this appointment doesn't make us "Israel-firsters" and "schmucks." Freeman's past comments were legitimate areas for concern about how fair his assessments could be--the comments about Israel being to blame for the entire Palestinian problem and even being the cause of 9/11 show a bias that could not be overlooked. Maybe those who believe that an all-powerful "Israel lobby" controls U.S. government should "get real." Which side do the critics really want to be on? Hamas makes no secret of their wish to murder every Jew in Israel--I think that's anti-Semitic on its face. This is not just anti-Zionism. This is something uglier--a suggestion that Israel has to just "take it" and not defend themselves for fear that critics like Freeman and even certain Jewish critics--who may be well-meaning--will come down hard on Israel. Everyone has the right to their opinion on Israeli policies--I don't always agree with them. The problem is that this criticism doesn't seem to be made with respect to other problems in the world, and someone who has these kinds of prejudices is not suited to be appointed an intelligence chief at this time. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 To the al-Arabiya column: Legitimate criricism of Israel is not anti-Semitism. This is not legitimate criticism. Apparently, the columnist thinks that Israel should take rocket after rocket and not respond. But the moment Israel does respond, it deserves criticism. The problem is in the nature of the criticism. It goes beyond criticism of Israeli actions and demonizes Jews as well. And the fact that Jews at these universities join in the protests does not make it any less so. As for Reverend Tutu, just because he says that the Israeli treatment of Palestinians is "apartheid" does not make it so. It doesn't matter that Tutu is South African; there are many South Africans who would think otherwise. There is no comparison with apartheid South Africa; the Palestinians want to murder Jews rather than live peaceably with them. "The students that identify with Center-Left ideals" cannot be anti-Semitic? Unfortunately many with Center-Left ideals can and are. I am sorry, but I don't buy it. There are anti-Semitic Jews, and that is the saddest thing of all. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Yes, Netanayhu faces a moment of truth. It's time for the world to realize that there are alternatives to the "two-state solution." The two-state solution had its chance, when the Israelis believed that the Palestinians were serious about changing their ways. Now that we know otherwise, Israel has no obligation to keep the agreements made under these conditions. Not Oslo, not the Road Map, not any of these agreements. Yes, the "international community" says that Israel is still obligated to fulfill the two-state solution. Who says? Would any other country that was betrayed like this hold themselves to these agreements? We proved our good faith by withdrawing from Gaza. Did that bring peace? Of course not. That showed that the two-state solution was not important to the Palestinians. Only the destruction of Israel was. I have had it with those who say the two-state solution is the only way. Some say the only alternative is a one-state solution or an "apartheid" situation. Garbage! There is another way that the international community doesn't seem to acknowledge: honest negotiations where the Palestinians as well as Israel have to give something. And the Palestinians have to give Israel recognition as a Jewish state, within defensible borders. Unfortunately, I am not optimistic that Hillary Clinton, President Obama, Senator Mitchell, the UN and the EU, and everyone else will acknowledge this. So we may be spinning our wheels unless Netanyahu demands that the world find an honest settlement of the issue, regardless of what the world thinks. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 And if Netanyahu does not push the peace process, where is the downside? Why is it necessary to push the peace process when it is clear that the Palestinians--even Mahmoud Abbas--don't really want peace? What would be so bad about standing on principle and standing up to the United States government as well as world opinion? There was a time in Israeli history when the Israelis did what they had to do. They may not have been well-liked, but they were respected. Now, they are not well-liked and not respected. Who needs a peace process that damages Israel and in fact does not produce peace? Unfortunately, Livni represents the people who got us into this mess in the first place. Many of us really thought Oslo would lead to peace. We wanted to believe that the Palestinians (then led by Arafat) really could change. We even left Gaza to the Palestinians. Not only did that not get us peace, it led to the missiles in Sderot and (finally) retaliation, which may be neutralized because Israel cannot bring itself to destroy Hamas once and for all. Maybe it's for the best that Israel is led by Netanyahu and the right-wingers. We may all be surprised by how it can lead to more self-confidence for Israel and a real peace based on BOTH sides' requirements, not just the Arabs'. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 I have to agree with Sharansky and disagree with both Rosenberg and Peter Wedlund. We went through all those years with U.S. Presidents, including the first George Bush and Clinton, demanding that Israel go along with what really proved to be not in Israel's interest. Rosenberg cites Bush's standing up to Yitzhak Shamir, and within months, Shamir "was out of office." Whether or not this was the cause, I think in retrospect Shamir was right to be skeptical about the peace process. We then got Rabin, and you know the history of Oslo. About Carter's supposedly making Menachem Begin "cave," I'm not so sure about that. Begin stood up to Carter; giving back the Sinai had lower risk than giving back the West Bank and Gaza. To Peter: I think you are naive about Israel's supposedly "extreme positions" on the "settlements" and "bombing in response to Palestinian anger." Did NOT doing anything about the rockets reduce Palestinian anger? For that matter, are there really any "moderate" Palestinian voices? I think that the Palestinians will still want to destroy Israel, and Jews, even if we gave them everything they want. There is no cycle of violence. There is Arab and Palestinian reneging on their agreements (with the LACK of peace that results) and there is Israeli self-defense (in my opinion, long overdue and with suffering on the Israeli side) that only with regret causes Palestinian casualties. I think it is high time that Israel stand up to Palestinian, U.S., and world pressure and say NO, firmly and unequivocally. I think if Obama sees that Israel means what it says, even if the so-called "hawkish" leaders may have acted differently in the past, he will have no choice but to wait until the Palestinian side is truly ready to negotiate in good faith for peace. We're wasting our time until that point. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Now is the time to stop delaying the Embassy's move to Jerusalem. Regardless of what other countries say, Jerusalem is the eternal and undivided capital of Israel. It is time the world recognized the fact, which, as the author pointed out, is each country's right to decide regarding the location of its capital. Sheldon Dan 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00