This is a series of 6 emails exchanged over 4 days, March 21-24, 2010, between my friend Shelly and his good friend, Dan that live near each other in Ra’anana, Israel and attend the same synagogue. Danny is originally American, Shelly originally Canadian, and both are committed to living in Israel as an expression of their Jewish identity. Their differences on Israel’s West Bank settlements are an example of an important family debate now going on, which may have some interest for others. Since Shelly began the correspondence, He let Danny have the last word. If anyone wishes to see the Anshel Pfeffer article referred to in the first note, check the Ha’aretz site for March 19, 2010.
March 21, 2010
It is well-known that there is a deep controversy in Israel between supporters and opponents of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. And you know that I have opposed the settlements from their very beginning, on both moral and practical grounds.
One thing that anyone involved in a political debate should do is to accept responsibility for the consequences of their position. The hardest part of advocating Israel’s separation from the Palestinians, and the “two-state solution” to our conflict, is the security aspect. The experience of the period since Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza is the proof positive adduced by settlement supporters that any withdrawal from the West Bank will be suicidal, and will subject our population centers and international airport to the whims of Palestinian terror, including missile bombardment by so-called “renegade” groups. Any attempts at legitimate interdiction and self-defense will be met with the same hypocritical international condemnation as the Gaza incursion of January, 2009. Israel thus has no choice, in their view, but to hang on until the Palestinians renounce terror. Some even make the argument that continuing to develop the settlements will provide Israel more bargaining chips to negotiate with some day, when the other side is finally ready.
We cannot and must not evade the heavy implications of this argument. Appearing cavalier about Israel’s legitimate security needs is precisely what has hurt the Israeli Left more than any other single factor, and helped reduce them to their current inferior situation. The great majority of Israelis, including even some residents of the settlements, would willingly relinquish the territories if only their concerns about basic security could be assuaged. But of course the problem is that there is no quick fix, no simple, comprehensive solution, no risk-free option.
Nonetheless, that is the burden of the anti-settlement camp. For example, we cannot deny that international peace-keeping or agreement-policing forces have not proved effective in the Middle East. The withdrawal of the UN force in Sinai at Egypt’s arbitrary demand prior to June 1967 demonstrated the fragility of that body. And the UN forces supposed to implement the disarmament of southern Lebanon following our last engagement with Hezbullah have proven worse than useless, as Hezbullah now reportedly has more than doubled, if not tripled (or more) its previous arsenal of missiles aimed at Israel. The only credible international alternative will have to be a NATO force, with much more authority and military power to enforce the terms of an eventual agreement – as they have done in the former Yugoslavia.
Ultimately, an agreement will need to provide for elaborate surveillance systems (under Israeli control), clear casus belli definitions and provisions for Israel’s “hot pursuit” prerogatives in deterring terrorist attacks, in addition to the international force. The Government of the new Palestinian state will have to accept and implement responsibility for preventing any hostile activity originating in its territory or through its airspace, and to know that Israel will actively and legitimately defend herself if it fails in that endeavor.
This is imperfect and does not hermetically cover all risks, but it does offer the best chance we have to stabilize our situation and to begin a long process of normalizing relations with the Palestinians, which is ultimately the best long-term input to our security. No less importantly, it enables us to combat the increasing international isolation and delegitimization which are tightening a noose around Israel’s throat, and hampering our efforts to resist the growing Iranian nuclear menace, which is our most significant security concern. There will always be some people and regimes for whom Israel can do no right, but this approach offers the best options for defending ourselves dynamically and aggregating the support of the world’s democratic countries, where we can make our case for legitimate self-defense.
Turning to the other side of our internal debate, the supporters of the settlements cannot deny the costs of their position. These include the progressive endangerment of Israel’s most critical strategic relationship, with the United States; deepening international diplomatic isolation; steady erosion of the relationship with American and the rest of Diaspora Jewry; and further degradation of Israel’s health, education and welfare systems as unimaginably huge resources are diverted every year to expanding the settlements and their infrastructure. And there are at least two more major costs, often overlooked.
One is the relentless increase in the price Israel will eventually have to pay in order to evacuate those settlements reverting to the Palestinian state in the eventual, possibly imposed peace agreement. This will be reckoned in human and economic terms, of lives uprooted and ruined; homes, farms and industries lost; valuable infrastructure abandoned; and – the real nightmare – in terms of bloodshed, as some unknown quantity of extremists among the settlers decide that they are not bargaining chips and will not evacuate peaceably. The Gaza withdrawal was badly managed and traumatic enough. A West Bank withdrawal has the potential to be horrific. Adding to its already massive dimensions goes beyond folly to the point of catastrophic criminal negligence, the forcible compounding of a totally foreseeable calamity.
The other is the long-term, corrupting effect on Israeli society and culture of occupying the Palestinians and suppressing their resistance to that occupation. I left this for last, because it is probably the hardest to argue, though its harmful effects can be seen as clearly as the writing on the wall. It can be measured in the levels of violence in our society, the cynicism of our youth, the alienation of our intellectuals, the confusion of our Zionist ideals, and the steady attack on our democratic institutions. The occupation of the Palestinians is not the sole cause of all these ailments, but it is surely one of the most significant.
When looked at this way, hanging on to the settlements, let alone further expanding them, is no stand-pat or safe status quo option. It is rather a wild, maniacal gamble with a losing hand. The point is made even more clearly when settlement advocates make explicit, as logically they must, their opposition to the two-state solution, which is the sole international-legal and practical-political basis for the existence of a Jewish state. Unquestionably, the interests of the settlements are directly contradicted by the creation of a Palestinian state, hence their necessary negation of the two-state format. And that is exactly the tragic point at which so many of the settlers, who represent some of the highest levels of self-sacrifice, creativity and commitment in this country, turn themselves objectively into enemies of the one Jewish state we do have. That State’s essential interests become subordinated for them to those of the settlements, and of the fantasy, messianic state of their Biblical reveries.
We must awaken from this toxic nightmare before striding into the abyss. We really do need the help of our clear-thinking friends to return us to reality, and to the pragmatic Zionism by whose virtue Israel came into being and survived.
The attached article from Friday’s Ha’aretz (March 19, 2010) makes the point in current political terms. It was written by Anshel Pfeffer. He is not only not a strident left-wing ideologue, he is actually a former yeshiva student and a deeply committed Jew. Warm wishes to all of you for a very joyous Pesach holiday.
Sincerely,
Shelly
Dear Shelly,
As you know, I always read with great interest your letters on the current state of affairs and your take on them. I appreciate your honest attempts to come to an understanding of the issues facing us from both “sides”. I would like to take a few moments to reflect on and analyze some aspects of your latest letter.
In one breath you correctly point out the massive security risks of ceding our heartland (which topographically overlooks the entire coastal plain and our major population centers as well as containing water resources of equal magnitude to the Kinneret) to the Palestinians and the sheer folly of reliance on any “international peacekeepers” as we have sadly much bitter experience in how pathetically inadequate such forces are and have been. This security “challenge” as you put it, is the main obstacle that the “peace now” camp has failed to address in any cogent way and therefore you posit, this is the reason for their (peace now’s) failure to advance their cause of ceding these lands to the Palestinians in order to achieve the long sought after goal of “peace” with the “Palestinians”. Yet having rightly made the case, you then turn around and assume that NATO can somehow be brought in to magically solve all the inadequacies of past international peacekeepers and we can then all relax and let them “handle things”.
If one takes just a moment to really look at this glossy “solution” one cannot help but come to the realization that this is a highly rosy expectation, particularly when one looks at who it is they (NATO or some other force) will be “monitoring/policing”. The Palestinian authority is far from being a transparent, democratically elected and responsible governing body.
It is one in fact one of the most corrupt kleptocracies on the planet which intimidates its “constituents”, has not allowed a free press, proper due legal process, women’s or gay rights, nor has it made over for the duration of its entire existence any real attempt at building the basic necessary institutional mechanisms or (judicial, educational, law enforcement, civil rights, financial budgetary oversight, public welfare etc.) bodies necessary to maintain the bare minimum requirements of a civilized, free society.
Additionally, due to its massive failures in all the above, it enjoys very little current popularity among its “populace “and would in fact have already been totally removed from power by the extremist Hamas organization were it not for its constant propping up by the American, European, and of course Israeli governments. Additionally, as you yourself acknowledge, compounding this security nightmare are the plethora of other “Palestinian” extremist groups which are not under its(the PA’s) control (i.e. payroll).
Yet you naively believe that all this will somehow be “solved” by NATO? Or “smart” fences? Rockets fly over these quite easily. On a clear day you can see the entire coastline from Ashdod to Holon from Moshe Zar’s house in the Shomron which is not even twenty minutes by car from Ra’anana-a lot shorter by missile. (I’ve been on his large flat roof myself-from it is like shooting fish in a barrel).
Added to this is the sober realization that once you cede territory-there is no “going back”. In the last thirty years Israel has never “retaken” lands it has relinquished. Something to seriously ponder the next time to take off or land at Ben Gurion airport.
I will only mention in passing the civil trauma of uprooting nearly 600,000 Jews who live over the “green-line” (The Obama administration makes no distinction between East Jerusalem and Judea and the Samaria- a position made crystal clear in the last few days).
It is also important to note from a historical perspective that the conflict with the “Palestinians” did not begin in 1967 with the “occupation”, but as you know, began even before the establishment of the State of Israel. You fail to mention this other equally important “failure” of the “peace now” camp-namely their simplistic and historically inaccurate portrayal of the conflict as having sprung up de novo after 1967. Of course this false portrayal of history is absolutely vital to allowing them to blame everything on the “occupation” post 1967- with the obvious solution to the entire conflict being the removal of said immoral “occupation”. Such simplistic and false narratives and the reliance upon them to promote any agenda-no matter how superficially appealing they may seem, is not becoming of mature, intellectually honest adults.
Do you really honestly believe that the conflict will “end” with the end of the “occupation” of lands post 1967?
Finally, you state that the “two-state solution” … is the sole international-legal and practical-political basis for the existence of a Jewish state.
I would beg to differ with you on this point. Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish people. It is our historic birthright. The “Palestinians” cannot make such claims-they utterly lack the historical proof which we have in abundance. All one needs do is take a shovel to any part of this land (on either side of the “green line” to prove that point).
The world did not “give” us Israel, nor is its legitimacy based on international “recognition”. It is ours, because we, its sons and daughters never gave up on our dreams of Zion for two thousand years, and were willing to sacrifice our lives and fortunes to return and be nurtured in its bosom. From this ancient rock and soil flowed the genius of our people to enlighten man, and our renewal in it as a sovereign people in modern times continues to offer mankind a lasting source of hope and enlightenment.
As we approach the historical remembrance of our people’s subjugation and deliverance from foreign domination, we are very cognizant of the fact that as a people we are enjoined to respect the “stranger” for we were strangers in a strange land. We seek peaceful coexistence with all men (and women), but we are not obligated to cut our own throats.
Best wishes to you and yours, this Passover,
Danny
Dear Danny,
Strategic depth is only one aspect of security, whose importance is mitigated by missiles and military technology. It is still relevant, of course, but doesn’t have the same importance as in the past. A country’s security is much more about its relationships, with its neighbours, its enemies, its allies, with its own citizens. And in today’s wired world, it is also about public opinion – that maddening, often manipulated, capricious entity which influences so much. The battle over public opinion is a critical one, and we have no choice but to win it, because our margin for error is so thin.
You devote considerable attention to the dangers of relinquishing strategic depth and to the failings of the Palestinians and their leadership, and I agree with much (not all) of what you say. I mainly dispute the priority you attach to it. For example, it’s not hard to agree that it would be better to have strategic depth around the vulnerable mid-section of Israel. But the unavoidable questions have to be addressed as well: At what price? And if the price involves even greater dangers to Israel’s security, then what are the alternatives? That gets you into the hard but necessary task of cost-benefit analysis. This is a deadly serious pursuit, and it is far more important to be smart than it is to be right. Translation: What appears superficially to be right turns out on more careful examination to be badly counter-productive.
Our generation has the awesome responsibility of protecting and sustaining the Jewish state. We know that our ancestors in ancient Israel had – broadly speaking – a problem similar to ours, for all the differences. They, too, were a small country trying to work out a survival strategy in a world dominated by one or two superpowers and various regional powers. And our ancestors blew it, big-time, making wrong calls at key points, and worsening their weakened situation through internal rivalries and hatreds. Like them, we are not fully independent – no one is, for Heaven’s sake! – and we have to constantly survey our environment and evaluate it correctly in order to survive. Yes, of course it is important what the Jews do, but it is equally important what the goyim think. Like it or not, that’s reality.
You kindly remind me of the Jewish rights to this land. I don’t know how much you consider the rights of our Palestinian competitors, who as it turns out were here, and are obviously not leaving, any more than we are. Those Jewish rights didn’t do us much good for about 1900 years, until we organized a national movement, started building the Yishuv, and learned how to play the international political game (Balfour Declaration, etc.).
Without the Torah and the devotion of our forefathers to Zion, there would be no Israel today. But neither would Israel exist if not for the UN Partition Resolution of Nov. 29, 1947. Nor, we could add, would the Yishuv have developed in the face of local Arab opposition were it not for the coverage supplied by (and for all our justified grievances against them and their White Paper) – the British Mandate! The UN Resolution wouldn’t have done the trick either, if the Yishuv and its leadership hadn’t organized to defend itself against the invading Arab armies. Nor might that effort have succeeded were it not for the goodwill of many non-Jews in Europe and elsewhere after WW2 (what the goyim think again) who helped smuggle refugees and procure arms, mobilize support and even volunteer for Machal, nor without the Soviet acquiescence (for power-game reasons of their own, to be sure) in Czechoslovakia’s crucial sale of arms and warplanes to Israel in 1948. Nor, many years later during the Yom Kippur War, would our chances have been very good without the massive re-supply by the Americans at a critical juncture.
All I’m trying to illustrate is that our rights and commitment are necessary but not sufficient conditions for Israel’s survival. Without the essential support of the U.S. and most of the world’s other democratic powers, we couldn’t make it. No one can, on their own. A central strategy of our enemies is to isolate us internationally, to make their lies about Israel as an apartheid state become a self-fulfilling prophecy, to turn us into a pariah among nations with no support – and then to finish us off. Anything we do which facilitates this scenario – and the West Bank settlements play directly into that trap – is a mortal danger to Israel’s basic security.
Israel’s most important security threat today stems from Iran, both from its developing nuclear capacity and its sponsorship of hostile proxies, such as Hezbullah and Hamas. The essence of our situation is that we can sell legitimate self-defense, but we cannot sell occupation, annexation and ethnic cleansing. The latter is precisely how more and more of the world views our obsessive pursuit of the settlement project, and every new house, road and neighbourhood we carve into the West Bank (which for everyone but us includes East Jerusalem). It is willful blindness to ignore or dismiss that. And when we call that settlement expansion our natural right or self-defense, all we do is degrade both concepts. Yes, the Jews have rights in Eretz Yisrael, but if they insist on dispossessing even more Palestinians than were already displaced in 1948 and 1967, then why should those rights be respected? And if self-defense means evicting Palestinians from their homes and farmers from their orchards, maybe it is just a smokescreen for more land grabs and ethnic cleansing? And maybe Israel is “crying wolf” about the Iranian bomb, which they would never actually use in an attack! If we imagine that many people of goodwill and no particular animus against Israel aren’t seeing it exactly that way, then we are kidding ourselves.
In one sense, this is an exercise in comparative paranoias – except that our enemies are very real. I mean to say: Our disagreement is over what represents the greater threat to Israel’s future. For you, it is about Arab missiles and terror attacks and the atrocious track record of the Palestinian leadership. For me it is about Israel’s growing international isolation, the erosion of its ties with critical allies and with Diaspora Jewry, and the internal demoralization and corruption of our country coupled with its external delegitimization.
I relate to the security dangers entailed in the rise of a Palestinian state, for which I think we do have remedies, even if they are not perfect (what is?). For example, I raised the subject of international peacekeepers because every draft of potential terms between us and them has always included that factor. But please make no mistake: Like you (I assume), my main faith is in Tsahal, in which I and my 4 sons all serve(d), and that’s why I included guidelines for its freedom of action in our defense. But if we are going to have peacekeepers, I do think it preferable that they be from NATO rather than the UN, based on past experience. The risks are undeniably substantial, but they are less threatening than those I raised in the settlements scenario, which you did not address. Of course, that is your prerogative, but then who is taking the greater risks with Israel’s interests and security needs?
Some of our fellow Israelis have fallen into a dangerous confusion between means and ends. The settlements for them have become the all-encompassing goal, and without them – the apocalypse! No State of Israel, no army, no anything. Alternatively, some of them have convinced themselves that Israel has no chance of surviving militarily without retaining control of the West Bank, in which endeavour the settlements are supposedly critical. Even that is highly debatable, as most settlements are sitting targets requiring extensive resources to defend – military liabilities, not assets. There are also extremists among us, whose numbers are sadly not as small as they used to be, who believe that the Arabs must be driven out of the West Bank by force, and who commit crimes against them, their homes, flocks and orchards, which should shame any self-respecting Jew. Can they seriously be depicted as peripheral deviants, rather than the inevitable products of four decades of occupation and deranged pseudo-messianic demagoguery? They are one more example of the writing on the wall, from which we dare not avert our eyes.
These are terrible, dangerous errors, and they lead directly to negation of the two-state solution. That negation takes a chainsaw to the branch we all sit on. It is truly reminiscent of Jewish extremists and false messiahs in different ages whose fatal misjudgements cost us so dearly. I knew years ago when I encountered the old PLO slogan of replacing Israel with a “secular, democratic state”, that this was our enemies’ clever euphemism for destroying my country. I never imagined that I would encounter it again, in a bizarre variation, from those with some of the greatest patriotic devotion to Israel, which is a supreme and tragic irony.
Do you think that Greater Israel, decidedly NOT democratic or secular, with a large and under-privileged Palestinian minority (fast approaching majority status) that understandably resists this condition and is barely controlled by an increasingly repressive police apparatus, do you think that such a totally foreseeable outcome would NOT be a grotesque disaster and an utterly unstable nightmare that would make this place unlivable? Can you not see that this is the inevitable consequence of further building up the settlements and adding to their population, leading to more rationalizations for extending Israeli control over them and surrounding areas, and deepening Palestinian resistance to them?
Both attempts to force a one-state solution, the Palestinian and the Jewish, are a recipe for catastrophe. Partition, as it used to be called, or the two-state solution, is the only practical chance we have for a Jewish state. Separation from the Palestinians is one of Israel’s most critical strategic needs, and the same is true for them. The Palestinian state to arise at Israel’s side will either continue to be an enemy, in which case we shall defend ourselves appropriately, as we have in the past; or perhaps it may confound pessimist expectations and turn into a neighbour. I don’t know whether the entrepreneurial class represented by Prime Minister Fayyad, with its attempts to create viable economic and civil institutions, will prevail over the Fatah kleptocrats and the Hamas fanatics. That is obviously up to the Palestinians, though we have a huge interest in the ascendancy of the former.
For all the reasons cited in this answer to you, and in my first piece, I conclude that freezing the settlements and consolidating them into areas with a chance of being included in the State of Israel in a final agreement, is in Israel’s critical interests. Expanding them further is a terrible crime – against ourselves! – and materially increases the dangers of inter-Jewish bloodshed later on. Everything I have advocated in the above is based on my understanding of Israel’s needs and best interests.
This has been a pragmatic discussion about means, but I have to say a word about ends. Much of this comes down to what sort of state and society we want to build here. I don’t believe you want Israel to be undemocratic, increasingly dominated by religious fundamentalism and invested in repressing another nation living in our midst or in figuring out ways to expel them, more and more like the revolting apartheid label our enemies are trying to besmirch us with. We must recognize not only how perilous that is, but also how much of a betrayal of the Zionist vision which brought us here. I take seriously your aspiration that the renewal of Jewish sovereignty in our ancestral homeland should serve as an inspiring example of hope and enlightenment to all mankind. We must not allow it to be distorted into a cruel parody of those worthy dreams. The Bible should be our inspiration, but it cannot provide the detailed blueprint for the state we build and protect. We have to leave something for the Messiah to do, and concentrate on learning well how to avoid repeating the tragic mistakes of Jewish history.
Warm wishes to you and all our friends for a chag kasher ve’same’ach,
Shelly
Dear Shelly,
From the gist of a good portion of what you say it is obvious to me that you are under a very deep misconception of the reality on the ground in Judea and Samaria. Expansion of Jewish settlements does not in any way necessitate the usurpation of any “Palestinian” villages, cities, homes or rights. I don’t know if you have actually been there (I have on numerous occasions), but I can assure you that there is plenty of empty land (not farmed or lived on) between the Jewish and Arab populations in Yehuda and Shomron (in fact the unused “empty” land is the vast majority of the territory) and so this idea that Jewish settlement expansion can only come at the expense of the local Arab populations is a myth propagated by the “peace now” camp in order to push forward their psychologically distorted views and agenda. If the above is true (I will be happy to show you the true reality “on the ground” myself) then what real objection is there to further expansion of the Jewish population in these areas except racism? (by the Arabs against the Jews) No responsible Jewish member of any of the regional councils of Yehuda and Shomron has ever called for “ethnic cleansing” of the local Arab populace (your attributing to them these motives or plans is unfair). What is true is that the Palestinian Authority leaders and numerous Moslem religious leaders continually have and continue to call for the “ethnic cleansing” of the local Jewish population in these areas (the reality is exactly the opposite). Why is that?
Which brings us to the next big myth. The dire demographic necessity frequently touted (according to the Left and many in the center) of jettisoning Judea and Samaria in order to preserve the Jewish majority needed to maintain a Jewish democratic State of Israel. Please view Yoram Ettinger’s numerous articles and the published demographic results of respected demographic studies by accredited American University demographers who reveal the distorted numbers and outright lies on which this whole demographic myth is based!
Finally, I am not naïve as to the political realities of what is termed real politik. No individual and certainly no nation-state is an island, particularly not the tiny State of Israel.
Unfortunately, the present political reality is very much based as you rightly put it on the perceptions of the world at large and the history of how those perceptions and opinions came to be formed. World opinion is not created or shaped in a vacuum. We, the Jews living here (and abroad) are very much a part of the shaping and creation of those very perceptions and opinions. Israel and the Jewish people as a whole has done a terrible job in putting forth our case and the moral right of our being able to settle here on both sides of the “green line” . This is divorced from any debate on the final political sovereignty issue.
There is no Jewish problem living side by side with the Arab population on either side of the “green line” nor has there been since the founding of the state (as an example, all road signs in Israel are in Hebrew, English and Arabic!- even the U.S, doesn’t put up road signs in for example, Spanish ). We do ourselves a deep injustice when we capitulate the moral high ground to our “adversaries”. If only we could all see the truth of that, our united stand against the Arabs’ moral hypocrisy (they refuse to allow Jews to live in any area they “control” and in fact proudly proclaim this) would go a long way to help reshape the false perceptions and facts disseminated by the “peace now” camp for many years which you yourself and the larger world have bought into, and who knows, maybe begin to change the perception and opinions of the world at large on this very critical issue for all of us who live and raise our families here.
Chag Sameyach to us all,
Danny
Dear Danny,
I think our exchange has run its course, and I will close with this last response to your note of March 23rd. My relationship with you is a lot more important to me than persuading you about politics, and it is hard to discuss things we both feel so strongly about without getting personal. I’m not worried about copying others, and have also shared our correspondence with other friends and family members. I did so after removing any reference to your name, for two reasons. One is that I had not requested your permission, not that I think you would have minded any more than me. The other is that I wanted to focus on the exchange of ideas, not on personalities.
Disputing my analysis and interpretations is fine, but you don’t attempt that. You rather choose denial, which solves nothing and obstructs facing reality. Israel needs better than that. There are two national groups here, Arabs and Jews, and any attempt to ignore the national aspirations of the Palestinians is doomed to failure. Would you or I settle for a situation in which they did to us exactly what we are doing to them in the West Bank? Would we call it anything other than occupation, and our attempts to remove it anything other than legitimate resistance? If it looks like a duck, etc., etc. Moreover, the entire world sees it that way, including very significant portions of the Jewish people in Israel and in the Diaspora. To pretend that this is not occupation is dangerous self-deception. To imagine that there can be a benevolent occupation is another myth that crumbles sooner or later. It could be argued that we have no choice but to occupy for military self-defense reasons, but then we revert to the cost-benefit analysis I tried to sketch earlier. To deny that we are occupying is futile.
The demographic arguments are a red herring. For one example: a growing component of the rising Jewish birth rates is comprised of the Haredi community, i.e. that part of the Jewish population which opposes the very existence of the Jewish state and refrains from serving in its army or participating in much of its society and economy. But even that is not the point. It is an argument from desperation, which suggests that even in a one-state solution, we can still outnumber the Arabs. Even if it were true, or true for awhile longer, does that have any meaning? Is anyone seriously suggesting giving the Arabs of the West Bank their civil rights, including the right to vote as equals? The leaders of the settlement project and their political backers have absolutely no such intention and we both know it. For if they did, and the Arabs were only 40 or 45% of the population, not a majority, the result would still be chaos.
Our problem is not a lack of unity which supposedly damages the effectiveness of our public relations. Occupation is not marketable. Supporters of the settlements are approaching a great moment of truth, and I hope they face it squarely. They will have to decide whether to unite with other Israelis in consolidating and reinforcing the one Jewish state we do have, or to continue pursuing the settlement fantasy (with or without the Greater Israel ideology underlying it) while denying or ignoring the harm it causes Israel’s interests. For far too long, they have succeeded in blurring the distinction – indeed the contradiction – between those two things. But we’re now at a tipping point, and the fate of the two-state solution, which means the existence of the Jewish state, lies in the balance.
The settlers are my opponents in this crucial debate, and they are also my brothers, except for the extremist minority among them, who shame us all. I pray that they decide to come home, before it is too late. All the best,
Shelly
Dear Shelly,
For me, it is always refreshing to discuss these vitally important issues in an open and intellectually honest manner, and I have no problem with your using my name. Additionally, as you know, on a personal level I respect you and regard you as a sincere human being and a good Jew (in the highest moral sense of our tradition) and even though the issues we have been discussing can be very emotionally charged, I have never, nor would I ever, take anything you have or might say in the future on these issues in a negative personal way.
I agree with you that our exchange has been productive and pretty much run its course and I ask you to forgive me if I simply end it with the following few very brief observations.
If only there was a large group or movement or political body of people on the Palestinian side who would have demonstrated their political will and the kind of rational thinking and behavior that you and I take for granted as part of our socio-political/ethical upbringing and world-view over the past two or three decades, I think a lot of the issues we are grappling with today would be moot or at least severely mitigated.
Sadly, this is so far from the societal and political reality that exists today, and has existed for so many years amongst the Palestinian populace, that it is really difficult to see any societal or political mechanism to remedy this abysmal and ongoing state of affairs.
Normalized relations requires normalized thinking actions and the political determination or will to achieve them. One cannot responsibly brush this issue aside
One last observation on “occupation”. To occupy another’s legally owned land by force of arms is immoral. Even the U.N. (resolution 242) recognizes that Judea and Samaria are “contested” lands, meaning that no official sovereignty or “ownership” is, or ever was, legally recognized or established by any international legal body in regards to these territories. Therefore your use of the word “occupation” is legally and therefore also morally incorrect.
Having said that, do the local Arab populace in Judea and Samaria deserve the right to govern themselves from a moral perspective ? Yes! Does that moral obligation require them to be allowed by the State of Israel to assert national/political sovereignty rights? No! There are many examples of other minorities living in nation-states in the world today that have been given local autonomy and no international body or self-proclaimed moral pundits cry out in righteous indignation against the moral injustice of these nation-states failing to allow these minorities to fulfill their “national” aspirations or “destiny”.
We Jews have unfortunately fallen into the trap of trying to be more “righteous” than anyone else (we all know the roots of this psychological pathology). If there was a sane Palestinian society and political body to deal with, maybe we could allow ourselves this luxury. Under the current circumstances, doing so is not only foolhardy, but dangerously irresponsible.
Given our deep and tragic recent past and the bitter lessons learned from it, we as Jews (at least a good number of us) have finally come to see the world and our place in it. When it comes to our defense, we can only rely on ourselves and our ability to think both rationally, soberly, and pragmatically as to how to deal with the many dangers that sadly continue to surround us.
Maybe one day, we could afford ourselves the luxury of your ideas and proposals. As impatient as we all are, we must come to our senses and realize, that day has not arrived.
Your friend,
Danny
