Advertisement
Jewcy Book Club
Welcome Authors
Benyamin Cohen
& Matthew Rothschild
who are posting all week.
Coming up:
- 12/08: Seth Greenland
Israelis Getting Nervous After Barack Obama Says U.S. Must Reject "Unwavering Pro-Likud Approach to Israel" |
|
| The candidate says “we need tikkun olam in Washington.” | |
 by Bernard Avishai, February 28, 2008 |
|
TAGS:
It
would be understandable if Barack Obama were frustrated by responses to
his candidacy in parts of the American Jewish community. Last Sunday, he met with a hundred communal leaders in Cleveland. He used the occasion to clarify matters, speaking with both characteristic grace (“we need tikkun olam
in Washington”) and, at times, the kind of syntax you produce when
straining to sustain characteristic grace. (You can read the
remarkable, if rough, transcript of the Sunday meeting here; it was released by the Obama campaign to the Jewish Telegraph Agency.)
Obama
decried “guilt by association.” He distanced himself from Zbigniew
Brzezinski, who endorsed his Iraq policy, but who also endorsed the
Walt and Mearsheimer book on the Jewish Lobby, which Obama does not
endorse (“I’ve had lunch with him [Brzezinski] once, I’ve exchanged
emails with him maybe three times”). He distanced
himself, more affectionately, from his retiring pastor, Jeremiah
Wright—a man “from a different generation”—who has expressed admiration
for Louis Farrakhan (“hey, don’t any of you have an uncle who says shvartza?”).
In his final debate with Hillary Clinton in Cleveland, Obama reaffirmed America’s special relationship with Israel and denounced Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism yet again. Then he added, letting in more fresh air:
“You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans, who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South. And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.”
None of this should obscure the novelty in Obama’s comments to the meeting in Cleveland last Sunday. He asked if we can hope to move peace forward or secure Israel if we cannot look for solutions that are “non-military or non-belligerent.” He said he admires the debate in Israel, he said, where views of the Palestinians are often “more nuanced” than in the US. “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community,” Obama lamented, “that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, that you're anti-Israel. And that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel.”
YOU’D THINK OBAMA’S stance would be welcomed in Israel, and by the peace camp especially, but even the liberal Haaretz can’t hide its anxiety. The paper’s Washington correspondent, Shmuel Rosner, is exercised by Obama’s insinuation that he would, of all things, find it difficult to work with Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, whom most of the paper’s columnists otherwise revile. It could be interpreted “as meddling in Israel's internal politics,” Rosner wrote, immediately adding (and as if to add to the incoherence of his misgivings) that Bill Clinton had problems with Netanyahu, too, while Israelis have themselves meddled in American electoral politics.
But this reflects a more general disquiet, which is not simply about a suspect foreign policy team, or the allegedly tortured relations between African-Americans and Jewish Americans. For most Israelis, even liberal Israelis, things have always boiled down to a single question which their politicians and diplomats have posed since Harry Truman recognized the Jewish state over the objections of his Secretary of State, George Marshall. Is this American a friend of Israel?
THIS QUESTION IS meant in a particular way, reflecting how Israelis view the attitudes of gentiles more generally. Israeli
political culture understandably preserves a memory of European
anti-Semitism the way America preserves the king’s suppression of
liberty. Israeli writers and journalists instinctively
project a world in which American gentiles do not like Jews deep down,
the way boardrooms do not like insurgents, and jocks do not like
book-worms. (The fact that evangelicals say they “love” Jews is hardly reassuring on this score.)
Besides, Israel’s journey to political power was at least as “improbable” as Obama’s movement has been. Zionism, too, had to change Western minds in the shadow of unspeakable racism; some of Zionism’s gains meant losses to others. So Israelis take for granted that to sympathize with its dilemmas, one has to feel the justice of Israel’s founding in one’s gut. They assume that sympathy does not come naturally to others—especially not since 1967, and not to those who may have historical grievances of their own against Western prejudices.
Nevertheless, the question—are you a friend of Israel?—was never a particularly good one, and Obama is right not to be suckered by it. He did not quite say so, but he is shrewd to imply that if friendship means unconditional support it has become positively dangerous for Israelis and Palestinians both: it means, in effect, being a friend of the Israeli right. The more serious question for any incoming American president is, rather, are you a friend of peace? And are you prepared to act as if peace in the region is an American interest, which it inarguably is?
TO UNDERSTAND THE danger, you have to understand a peculiar dynamic in Israeli politics—something I have written about often before, but cannot be emphasized enough. First, although details still need to be worked out, the contours of a peace deal are not really mysterious. Bill Clinton’s bridging “parameters,” along with Arab League proposals of 2002, resolve the core issues: borders, Jerusalem, security guarantees, recognition, and refugees. Almost two-thirds of Israelis endorse this deal.
But,
second, the Israeli right-wing that opposes the deal is deeply
implicated in the settlement project, either as settlers, or as
ideological supporters of Greater Israel, or as ultra-Orthodox acolytes
of Jerusalem. The Jewish 
residents of Jerusalem are overwhelmingly in this camp. If
a referendum on the deal were put to Israelis, it is likely that the
vast majority of greater Tel Aviv would vote for it, while an even
larger majority of greater Jerusalem would oppose it. It
is widely understood that thousands of settlers would resort to
violence, if necessary, to resist the kind of evacuation we saw in Gaza.
Third, Israelis understand this threat to their social fabric and are appalled by the prospect. Indeed, the same polls that show a majority for the peace deal, also show this majority collapsing when you have to split the country to get it. No Israeli prime minister will be accorded the personal authority to precipitate divisions of this kind. Imagine how much harder it will be for a political fixer like Olmert to stand up to his opposition for the sake of a Palestinian leadership that can so easily be discredited as insufficiently popular, or not trustworthy, or (in some cases) connected to past terror attacks.
WHICH BRINGS ME to the main point. The only way to get us out of this conundrum is to get American sponsorship for the deal itself. America (along with the EU) need to stop saying that they cannot want peace more than the parties themselves. America certainly needs peace between Israelis and Palestinians if it going to rebuild its relations with the Islamic world as it is exiting its misadventure in Iraq.
But just as important, if America shows itself first and foremost a friend of peace, it will actually strengthen the Israeli leadership. It should be clear to all Israelis that this is American policy, and that opponents of the deal are risking relations with Washington—that the risk of temporary disunity is less than the risk of ultimately alienating American public opinion.
If what you mean by being a friend of Israel, in other words, is that you remain reticent regarding what a just outcome looks like, or, say, refrain from putting pressure on the Israeli government to accept international forces in Palestine, then you really mean that you are a friend of the status quo, which will bring the Likud back to power. A president who is a friend of peace will also be a friend of the majority of Israelis who are trying, at last, to bring change. This is Obama’s promise, it seems, and long overdue.
*Cross-posted at BernardAvishai.com
Forty weeks and 5 days of hell was just the start
Shmuel Rosner discusses meritocracy and other fairy tales with...
Our guide to doing the New Year right
Why is an organization offering Jewish families $50,000 to relocate...
Nadav Schirman discusses his new documentary, The Champagne Sp...
| Dev Blog | Privacy | FAQ | Contact | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | Submissions |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
Yehudit
Your article begs a number of questions, to wit: Do the Palestinians need any strongarming at all? Is any of this their
fault? Is there anything they need to stop doing before peace can be
made? Are they poor helpless victims of Israeli aggression or do they have, you know, agency? And backers with nonpeaceful agendas?
I ask because presumably this peace would be made between Palestinains and Israelis. I know, you can retreat to that kneejerk excuse for excusing excreble behavior, "we must criticize ourselves first." But is anyone on the Palestinian side criticizing themselves first, maybe with these questions? (But we know the answer - that rule only goes one-way. israel and America must criticize themselves first, and everyone else must criticize America and Israel first.)
You can't honestly talk about a peace settlement without talking about all parties. Because the dynamic among them is the most important thing. Your article reads like Israel lives in a vaccuum. Actually, Israel lives next to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and Hamas and Fatah and the PLO in the Palestinian Territories, which before being won by Israel in a defensive war, were part of Jordan and Egypt. They are all parties in some way, not to mention Iran. I mean, the Palestinians are the tip of the spear, it's not about them. Israel has their interests at heart more than their "friends," and that's embarrassing.
"...The Jewish residents of Jerusalem are overwhelmingly in this camp. If
a referendum on the deal were put to Israelis, it is likely that the
vast majority of greater Tel Aviv would vote for it, while an even
larger majority of greater Jerusalem would opposeit......"
Might that have anything to do with Jerusalem being in closer range to PLO Kassams? Especially if Olmert gives away East Jerusalem?
"....America
certainly needs peace between Israelis and Palestinians if it going to
rebuild its relations with the Islamic world as it is exiting its
misadventure in Iraq......"
That's what they want you to believe. And that's why all the countries and loose territorial bodies surrounding israel keep raising the goal posts, so that it never happens, so they can continue to make excuses for their own dysfunctional societies."We can't change our feudal government and give women the right to vote and translate more books into Arabic and stop enabling suicide bombers and stop invading our neighbors, until Israel and Palestine make peace." "We must continue to hate America until Israel and Palestine make peace."
Why do people tolerate this kind of blackmail? Just because they have oil?
"....Arab League proposals of
2002..."
Did they actually recognize Israel's right to exist in those proposals, because I got the impression that they didn't. There is this new Arab declaration of Human Rights which pledges to eradicate Zionism, so I don't think so.
"....It should be clear to all Israelis
that this is American policy, and that opponents of the deal
are risking relations with Washington—that the risk of temporary
disunity is less than the risk of ultimately alienating American public
opinion....."
Well, if I was an Israeli with any self-respect at all, and America tried to strong-arm me like that, I would tell America to go jump in a lake. And I assume you live in some elitist lefty enclave, because you do not understand the average American. strong-arming Israel will alienate Americans from their own government, not from Israel. Americans can see what's in front of them: IEDs, suicide bombers, Kassams, Saudi oil blackmail, fanatics who kill their daughters for looking at boys and make worldwide riots over a political cartoon, preachers calling Jews bacteria and reviving medieval blood libel stories, jihadis videotaping slowly sawing off heads and burning people alive. Do you know who Rage Boy is?
Then they look at Israel. First of all, Israel isn't doing any of those things. Instead, Israel takes good care of their holy places instead of blowing them up, doesn't massacre tourists, has hot chicks in bikinis with guns, is surrounded by enemies, is breathtakingly multicultural, is the world's leader in biomedical innovation, and the internal secular-religious tensions are pretty mild compared to the ones in the Arab world.
Americans can connect the dots.
Which presidents had the most animosity to Israel? Which ones only had one term? This is not the shadowy Jewish mafia pulling the strings, this is the fact that the mindset which thinks Israel is the problem is the same mindset that doesn't govern well in other ways.
So Obama is not going to get very far with his straight out of the lefty box "Likud" tropes. He says he's for change, but that stuff is OLD. And that's why the Israeli peace camp isn't swooning. Some of them may want Bill Clinton back again, but most of them are not crazy enough to want Jimmy Carter back again.
And then there's the fact that the number of peaceniks are inversely proportionate to the number of Kassams.
naftali
I'm not talking about Michael Jordan. I know you know how Jordan lost all claims to the West Bank. Do you think if Jordan still had a dog in this fight we would be having this discussion? There would be reasonable, defensible boundaries, there would be room for the Jewish population to expand, and I even think there wouldn't be this active political demand for the West Bank and Gaza to be Judenrein. That is the key to the whole issue of peace. One side (guess which?) insists its territory be Judenrein.
Hell, there might even be--Trade between the two. After 40 years, I don't think that's unreasonable. Unless you are dealing with folks whose whole political point of view revolves around Judenrein. At which point, there is no negotiable solution. Sorry.
Ismail
"One side (guess which?) insists its territory be Judenrein."
There are elements of Palestinian society which may hold such views, but this unhappy fact shouldn't be used to bludgeon all Palestinians, any more than the racist yearnings of Avigdor Lieberman should be attributed to all Israelis.
Regarding Yehudit's concerns: first, it's impudent to insist that the Palestinians perform their mea culpas when Israel is the occupying power in the area. There are individuals among all occupied people who do things they shouldn't, but this doesn't mean we are unable to calculate who's the aggressor and therefore bears greater responsibility for what's wrong. Guess who.
And the suggestion that Palestinian civil society is bereft of self-critique is both ignorant and sadly indicative of the sort of blindness to the humanity of the other which characterizes aggressor nations. Can you really believe that the Palestinians are the only people among all the nations of men that lack internal dialogue about how to address their predicament?
I make no brief for the behavior of corrupt states like Egypt and Jordan (with both of whom Israel seems to get along just fine), but Israel having the interests of the Palestinians at heart? Sorry, but this opinion speaks more to your psychiatric state of mind than your political acumen.
Comments like "won in a defensive war" or references to Olmert "giving away East Jerusalem" reveal the complete contempt for international law in which the more feral proponents of Zionism revel. The war wasn't defensive, territories cannot be won via war, East Jerusalem isn't Olmert's to give.
I agree that we shouldn't give feudal anachronisms and corrupt dictators a pass on their refusal to join the 20th century, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with halting Israel's aggression against the Palestinians-except, of course, that it's always rhetorically useful to keep images of beheadings and dominated women in your audience's mind when you're attempting to deflect attention from Israel's misbehavior.
Regarding Israel's chimerical "right to exist", this is yet another red herring which reasonable people have long recognized as transparent ploy and indicator of massive bad faith. First, no states have a "right to exist"-they are recognized or not. Second, the leaders of numerous Arab states or entities (including, sadly, the stupid Arafat, who gave up his most important bargaining chip in return for nothing) have recognized Israel. Third, which Israel should have a "right to exist"? Can you see how refusing to declare one's borders, which Israel has assiduously done since Al Nakba, might make it a tad problematic for one's opponent to offer recognition? Finally, why on earth should Hamas offer recognition while Israel continues its program of relentless expansion, dispossession et al?
Again, conflating Saudi medievalism and IEDs with Palestinian independence is a favorite Zionist trope, but those of us a functioning cerebral cortex will have none of it.
Regarding the proportion of peaceniks to Qassams, how do you account for the recent Ha'aretz poll showing that the majority of Israelis support talks with Hamas?
naftali
So many points, so many ways for you not to address any of them. I'll confine myself to your response to my observation of Judenrein, that it may not be held by every single Palestinian. But it is certainly held by the power structure, which has always been a criminal enterprise. The Palestinian people, a name I use for brevity only, have suffered far more at the hands of their leaders than they have from the Israelis. Judenrein is an official policy, it is enforced by the police, it is enforced by gangs, it is even a cornerstone of 'law' in the territories. Instead of pointing out that not everyone holds these views, if you were genuinely concerned with peace, you might think of getting those who don't hold to Judenrein, you might think of how to get them to safety--and do it in such a way in which it is not the responsibility of Israel to do so.
That would be helpful. Unless you aren't in the least bit concerned about these folks and you just want to bash on Israel. In that case, I suppose you should just keep bashing on Israel.
END THE ARAB OCCUPATION!
There has never been a Palestinian country, people, culture or language. The "Palestinians" magically appeared in the 1960's invented by the Arabs and Russians. The only solution is for the Arab savages to go back to their land of Arabia. Israel belongs to the Jews!
ChevyNazi
But I just don't think the Pals are gonna be satisfied with Gaza and the West Bank. They want the whole shebang if you ask me!
Jews more than earned the right to have a homeland in Israel! They are the masters of that nation and no one under heaven can judge them as far as I am concerned!!!
naftali
Let's not give away any ammo, especially the kind that doesn't really work. Instead of 'Arab Savages' how about 'Jordanians'? I mean, in 1966, they were Jordanians, right?
Farid Nusseibeh
If a thief steals property and is caught, does he get to divide the property with the victom? No, he has to give back all of his ill gotten gains and pay penalites. Why should the Palestinians recognize Israel when all of Palestine was stolen by the zionists. The only solution to the problem is the Jews must leave. If they go to E Europe or Nevada, they can go in peace
naftali
Tell me the history books that you read, I mean world history books. Because I don't think that's ever happened. After a war, I think they call that conquered territory. And most countries don't give it back. Why is this case different?
But let's say Israel decided to to things differently and give back territory conquered in a war. For instance, in 1967, Israel conquered the Sinai desert from Egypt, and they did return it. They also conquered the West Bank, which belonged to Jordan. Can they give it back to Jordan?
But I must thank you, because you are really helping me make up my mind regarding the presidential election.
Ismail
Naftali-
Your "Judenrein" comments are borderline unintelligible, so it's hard for me to address them, but I think the main point is this: for you to point out the retrograde attitudes of the pathetic collection of quislings known as the "Palestinian Authority" with regard to Jewish presence in the West Bank or Gaza while the infinitely more powerful Jewish state is actually displacing non-Jews from their homes is, sorry, but just crazy-not just wrong, mind you, but crazy.
You may be familiar with the psychoanalytic notion of projection, wherein the mentally afflicted party imputes to another the disavowed impulse that he himself refuses to acknowledge. So it is with Zionists. As they continue a 40 year program of "Arabrein", as they recalculate borders and indulge in similar chicanery (not just in the OPT but even within Israel itself!) in order to maintain Jewish dominance and Arab irrelevance, as one of Israel's main political parties openly calls for the removal of its Arab citizens, and on and on....as all this goes on, we hear folks like you deplore the malevolent intentions of the Arabs towards the Jews. The triumph of the potential over the actual! This degree of indifference to reality is not a political issue-it's a psychiatric one.
The aptly-named ChevyNazi (not having been introduced, I'll just call him Mr. Nazi) is delightfully unburdened by even the merest scrap of concern for notions of political modernity- "...no one under heaven can judge them as far as I am concerned!!!" Refreshing to see such openness about this monarchical attitude towards Israel, an opinion held by more Zionists than care to admit it, I think. Thanks for giving away the game, Mr. Nazi.
"Can they give it back to Jordan?"
Well, not according to Jordan, which supports the opinion of the entire world save the US, Israel and Micronesia that it belongs to Palestine.
"But I must thank you, because you are really helping me make up my mind regarding the presidential election."
You'll be happy to know that, for your purposes, it will make no difference who you vote for. Every major candidate has already presented his or her well-lubricated backside to AIPAC and thereby declared him/herself Israel's bitch.
Of course, naftali and Mr. Nazi sound positively Lockean compared to the other posters, who've obviously skipped their meds.
Herbert Kaine
Ismail. pls respond to Farid Nusseibeh. Do you agree with him? Do most Palestinians agree with him?
naftali
Yeah dude, you didn't understand my point. So I'm sorry all of your writing was for naught. But hey, that's writing some days.
The problem of Judenrein is that while Arabs can live and prosper in Israel, Jews cannot live, let alone prosper (and by live, I mean it so literally I'm a Jehovah's Witness of Webster's Dictionary)in the West Bank and Gaza.
In the US, the proximity between Israel and the West Bank, the border, would be called a "county line", or the "city limits". People can travel both ways without problems, there is commerce between the two places, people get along. People even move from one area to the other, and folks from the county can buy property in the city and develop it as they please. There is no terrorist organizations in, for instance, St Louis County who wantonly attack residents of the City of St. Louis. And in these areas, it is quite common for people to move. They sell their houses and move to another area. For the Palestinians, none of this kind of activity is acceptable. And because of this, there is conflict. Their intentions are quite clear, to kill every Jew that they see--usually Jews who they see as unprotected. So, that's what I mean by Judenrein. They want 'their land' to be completely without Jews.
And Ismail, you really don't know the history of the area if you don't know the story of how Jordan lost its claim to sovereignty, even if they are wrong, to the West Bank. I'm not actually assigning you homework, but it's just something you might feel you need to know. Like I said, if Jordan still had it's claim to the West Bank, even if illegitimate, I believe things could have been worked out between twenty and thirty years ago.
Yasser Arafat never would have entered the picture. The PLO wouldn't have existed in any legitimate form. They would have been Jordanian criminals. I say this because of the incident referred to as Black September.
I hope that clarifies things.
ChevyNazi
I am a proud supporter of Israel. I simply believe that nation has the right to exist. There are something like 20 Arab countries and over 50 Muslim countries.
Jews just want a piece of land the size of New Jersey to call their own. After the hell they've been through the past few thousand years I feel they have more than earned a nation to call their own!
Palestinians do not want a state beside Israel. They want a state INSTEAD of Israel!
Sincerely
ChevyNazi
Agnostic catholic and proud supporter of Israel!
Ismail
Herbert Kaine:
I suspect "Farid Nusseibeh" is a troll. Most of the polls with which I'm familiar indicate a perfect willingness on the part of most Palestinians to co-exist with Jews. For myself, I think the forced displacement of residents of Palestine/Israel is unacceptable, whether those residents are Jewish, Christian or Muslim. My own wish would be for a secular state with equal rights for all citizens in Palestine/Israel. If the Palestinian people express a preference for their own state alongside Israel, I'd support that-it's their country, after all.
I do agree that it's insolent for Israel to expect any deals at all regarding the post-1967 land they stole. Back to the 1967 border, no negotiation. And I think the Palestinians need to be more...errr...Christian towards their former tormentors than the Israelis have been, and allow Jewish Israelis to live, unmolested and with full equality, in the future Palestine if they so choose.
Mr. Nazi:
Agnostic Catholic? Sorry, that's like being a married bachelor. And I will personally strangle the next person who utters the densely stupid trope about the plethora of Arab countries, as though that pedestrian fact bore even a scintilla of relevance to the behavior of Israel. I await your bleats of support when a phalanx of Zoroastrians invades Belgium, explaining that there are, after all, so many other European countries-why on earth are those beery Flemish raising such a fuss?
And how is it that Jews have "earned" to set their nation upon an inhabited land?
Naftali:
Actually, you haven't clarified at all; in fact, your posts get less coherent with each iteration.
Arabs can live and prosper in Israel? Suppose you are an American Jew. A major political party announces its intention to induce Jews to leave, one way or another, in order to more fully Christianize the country. Suppose federal law forbade anyone from marrying a non-US Jew and having his or her spouse join him/her in the US? Would you use the word "prosper"?
And how is it that you believe there are no Jews in the West Bank? Have the settlements been emptied and no one told me? Thank you for being the bearer of such good news! (And before anyone prematurely ejaculates a response, I think that the settlers' departure would be good news not because they're Jews, but because they are largely feral thugs.)
Anonymous
Take back Gaza. The Pals are totally unworthy and pathetic.
An average Jew
Any way you slice it, be you pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian, a rare hybrid of both, or somehow neither (i.e. Ismail's wish for a "secular state" to take the place of Israel, Palestine, or whatever you feel like calling that hotly debated piece of land alongside the Mediterranean Sea sounds like actually attempting to convert this land into the New Jersey that it is often compared to for picturing its size and scale -- good luck with that!), the bottom line of this whole charade is that it is just pitiful that the groups of people who have struggled to call this land "home" throughout any time in history just cannot get over themselves and live together in some degree of peace. Those who call themselves Israelis and those who call themselves Palestinians need to learn how to coexist, regardless of who lives where and who staked a claim to the land 50, 100, 100,000, or 1 million years ago.
I'm sure some of you are bubbling with temptation to call me naive, shred my statement here to pieces depending on what people you have chosen to identify yourself/yourselves with, and then proceed to rattle off various historical and cultural factoids that point fingers at your opposition, but that's just what people do on message boards like this one. Everyone needs a hobby, after all, but it's too bad some people would rather spend every breath they take screaming at someone else instead of doing something productive. Ismail's going to continue to argue his/her side of the story in what he/she perceives to be eloquent terms, and Naftali and whoever else are going to continue to bat the ball right back into Ismail's court in what the media has so expertly cast as an epic stalemate by this point in time, for so many people across the globe sadly turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the horrors of the Arab-Israeli conflict as it continues to rage on, and no one else seems to want to take a sincerely active role to stop it. The talks will continue on these boards and on the macro scale with the political powers that be, but until an unstoppable force unequivocally denies the kind of person we label as a "terrorist"/"freedom fighter" (again, depending on who's side you're on) to acquire weaponry, some lunatic will always be able to kindle the spark that ignites the powder keg and start all the violence up right whereever it left off after anything that could have been an effective diplomatic session for peace.
Personally, I am pro-Israel, and I see no real reason to deny anyone who defines themselves as "Jewish" in any sense of the word the ability to live peacefully in the land recognized as Israel. Likewise, however, I see no real reason to deny anyone who defines themselves as "Palestinian" (or "Arab," "Christian," etc. for that matter) in any sense of the word the ability to live peacefully in that land as well. Would I like to live right next door to either one? Sure, just like any rational human being who prefers a conversation with words rather than Uzis and grenades. The fact of the matter is that it shouldn't matter what the land is called, but it does matter that people of all varieties be able to live together without fear of over-the-top violence and without the constant necessity to have to defend oneself and his/her family against sporadic suicide bombers and smoking rockets lurking around the neighborhood. If Jews or Palestinians alike didn't have to worry so much about the threat of their neighbor deciding to settle an argument by going ballistic with guns and explosives, both sides would probably eventually be able to settle their differences one way or another. I'm not saying everyone needs to be buddy-buddy with each other -- I'm not buddy-buddy with the people who live across the street with me, but then again, I don't pound on their front doorstep and threaten to blow them up if they don't leave just because I saw their house first and I must have it for myself.
Unfortunately for Israel, extremists with itchy trigger fingers would rather kill anyone and everyone, even including themselves, than settle for what they might perceive as a sappy happy ending to an unnecessary conflict, and so the fight goes on. Peace is clearly too girly/gay/(insert thoughtless, belittling, offensive synonym for "wimpy" here) for this sort of people. If there was a way to tie up all of Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever other "terrorist"/"freedom fighter" group there is in the mix (and as much as I personally doubt it, just to play devil's advocate for Ismail's entertainment, there could be some Jewish equivalent to Hamas and Hezbollah hiding somewhere out there that for some reason never makes the headlines, foaming at the mouth in waiting for the perfect moment to execute some maniacal masterplan to blow up Islamic fundamentalists) and shove 'em all in a prison, on the Moon, or somewhere far, far away from the average Jew, Muslim, Christian, etc, everyone would simply breathe a little easier. (Notice that I do not wish death on any sort of extremist militant, for that would make me no better than they are.) Of course, life is obviously not some cartoon or comic where such a thing as banishing the unhinged, gun-toting villain to another place far, far away is possible like this, so instead, people on both sides of the fence need to just stop bickering and team up to find some realistic way of ridding the world of these greedy, bloodthirsty, backwards-thinking idiots.
Respectfully submitted,
An average Jew that prefers peace and learning from their fellow man to endless childlike squabbling and not-so friendly neighborhood suicide bombers
naftali
I think people should just like each other and get along. Thank you for the space to write this.
Ismail
"Ismail's going to continue to argue his/her side of the story in what he/she perceives to be eloquent terms...."
Can there be any doubt that my brawny and, yes, eloquent prose could only be the product of a Testiculo-American?
Anonymous
I'm not sure little lady.
Ismail
Get into therapy. This may work wonders for your gender uncertainty.
Anonymous
That's right little bitch, I'll go do just that. Thanks darlin', bet you smell real sweet.
JewcyCraig
Herbert Kaine
I dont think that Farid Nusseibeh is a troll. He represents mainstream Palestinian society. The fact that Copts cannot live in peace in Egypt, nor Bahai's in Iran, nor Christians in Lebanon or the Palestinian authority, nor Kurds in Iraq augurs poorly for a multiethnic secular state of Palestine. Simply put, there is no history of tolerance and equality in the world of Islam.
I dont believe in the 2 state solution, because the identity of the Palestinian people is tied into conflict with Israel. If Israel had never been formed, there would be no Palestinian people-they would be southern Syrians. Given that, it is silly to expect a people to give up their identity for the price of peace-especially when war is so profitable. The Palestinians, thru the US, UNRWA, and the EU have been given more per capita than any people on earth, and have less to show for it then Kosovo or Rwanda. I think the only realistic solution is the 3 state solution. Egypt gets Gaza, Jordan gets populated areas of the West Bank, and Israel gets the rest
Monosodium glutamate
I would have to agree with Herb. Ismail is asking us to trust the Palestinian people based upon his point of view, when all the evidence shows that the Palestinian people are consistent with what Herb describes. The liberal point of view asks us to ignore history and reality and make peace based upon assumptions that seem pure fantasy. Thats even a bigger leap than immaculate conception or riding a horse from the Al Buraq wall (the Western Wall) to tMecca in a single night