As the Obama administration contemplates what is required to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it had best take into account that reaching an agreement between the parties may not turn out to be the most difficult part. Indeed, it will almost certainly be easier for an Israeli government — any government, left or right — to negotiate a two-state agreement with the Palestinians than it will be to physically remove the 80,000 or so settlers who would have to be relocated in order to implement any agreement.
Ehud Olmert, who preceded Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister, made considerable progress toward an agreement with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. But Olmert was barely able to remove six structures from a single illegal outpost without endangering his governing coalition. Netanyahu’s own current dilemma regarding the Obama administration’s demand to remove outposts and freeze settlement expansion clearly reflects not only his ideological inclinations but, perhaps more importantly, the huge influence of the settlers within the Israeli political system.
True, Ariel Sharon successfully removed settlements from Gaza, using Israeli army and police forces. But that was Sharon, a uniquely determined and capable leader the likes of whom Israel can’t seem to find anymore. And Gaza was a settlement backwater with little religious or historic Jewish significance where only 8,000 settlers lived.
What Israeli leader would be capable of removing at least 10 times as many settlers — roughly the number likely to find themselves on the Palestinian side of a final-status border — from the biblical heartland of the Jewish people in the West Bank: Hebron, Shiloh, Bet El, Elon Moreh? The ridiculously undermanned Israeli police, all 25,000 of them, would not be up to this task. The army, increasingly staffed at the officer and operational level by religious Jews from the settlements who themselves reject a two-state solution, would evade the task in every way possible. And this time around, extremist settlers would be prepared to shed blood to prevent their removal.
One alternative frequently discussed is simply to leave recalcitrant settlers behind and abandon them to their fate inside a Palestinian state. But settler extremists would like nothing better than to rampage against their Arab neighbors, inviting Palestinian forces to attack them and perhaps prompting the Israeli army to return to protect them, thereby destabilizing the nascent two-state solution. No responsible Israeli or Palestinian government could agree to this situation.
If Israel can’t remove the settlers on its own, but can’t leave them behind either, what can be done? Enter the international security force.
The idea of deploying an international security force to support and stabilize an Israeli-Palestinian peace process has long been bandied about. Thus far, however, neither Israelis nor Palestinians have shown much enthusiasm for such a deployment.
Israeli security thinkers, while increasingly willing to accept an international role in dealing with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, have generally argued that an international security force inserted into the West Bank to prevent rocket and suicide attacks against Israel would prove unwilling to fight armed Palestinian terrorists. Instead, they fear it would end up confronting Israeli soldiers if they had to return to the West Bank to stamp out terrorism. Palestinians also tend to reject the idea of an international deployment. They insist that their nascent state must be allowed to maintain order on its own.
Nevertheless, the potential usefulness of an international force should not be dismissed out of hand. Such a force could effectively monitor West Bank demilitarization arrangements and help ensure the smooth operation of Palestinian-Israeli border crossings. But the task that may ultimately end up justifying its deployment is the removal of Israeli settlers.
Certainly, many of the settlers slated for removal under an Israeli-Palestinian agreement would leave peacefully or offer only passive resistance. Surveys show that some could be persuaded to leave today in return for adequate compensation.
But the hard-core of West Bank settlers numbers in the many thousands — and perhaps tens of thousands — and is fanatically messianic. The most extreme elements would fight their fellow Jews rather than abandon what they believe to be theirs by the will of God. And their fellow Jews, whatever their ideological persuasion, would not want to spill their blood, lest “Jewish wars” bring down the whole house.
This would be a sad moment for Jewish sovereignty, brought on by 40 years of willful negligence and at times open encouragement of settler fanaticism by the Israeli mainstream. The hard-core of the settlement movement today endangers Israel as a Jewish state. It prolongs an occupation that has already eroded Israel’s sovereign capacity to deal with the problem.
That’s why the goyim may have to do it for us.
Yossi Alpher is co-editor of the bitterlemons.org family of Internet publications. He is former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University.
I suppose the author would propose sending in the Ukrainian police or German stormtroopers, since they already have demonstrated experience in removing unwanted Jewish "settlers" from areas enlightened people would prefer to be Judenrein!
Oh baby, get ready!! Here come the hordes of rightwing zombies doing the "Nazi Hora" at every mention of ending their illegal Occupation of the West Bank:
"Nazi, Nazi, Nazi [WIGGLE] Nazi, Nazi, Nazi [JUMP] [WIGGLE] [WIGGLE,] [WIGGLE,] [WIGGLE] Nazi, Nazi, Nazi [JUMP]
The reason for the settlers' rabid hatred of Obama is that he's brilliantly succeeded at placing a wedge between the vast majority of world Jewry and the ultra-nationalist movement of authoritarian religious fanatics that continues to hold the rest of Israeli society hostage to the threat of treason and civil war.
It's about time we recognized a couple fundamental truths: first, that the settler movement doesn't have a damn thing to do with providing "security" to the State of Israel. It doesn't. It wouldn't make a bit of difference if every Palestinian on Earth suddenly embraced the non-violent philosophy of Ghandi. The settlers and the Greater Israel crowd in general have two justifications for the Occupation: "God gave it to us," and "We won." Because these rationales are deeply repellent not only to the majority of their fellow Jews, but to the world as a whole, they continue to emphasize the nonsense that the Occupation has something to do with security.
We also must acknowledge the utter speciousness of the claim that "Israel" - as a single entity - wants peace any more than the Palestinians do. Sure, mainstream Israelis want peace, and it's seems a tragedy that the Palestinians didn't grab at the offers extended by Barack, and now, apparently, by Olmert. But the notion that the settlers and the Israeli right desire peace is as ludicrous as the claim that Hamas does; both sides are equally maintained by an endless continuation of armed hostilities. If not, the Israeli right desperately fears the pressure to give up its grubby Biblical empire in the West Bank.
Finally, we need to acknowledge the typical rightwing projection in the relentless accusations that all who oppose the Occupation are somehow "anti-Israel." The truth of the matter is that the settlement movement and the Religious Zionists in general hate Israel with every bone in their bodies. DEMOCRATIC Israel, that is. They detest the notion of an Israel that was founded on the principle of equal rights for Jew and Arab alike, or where a Saudi Arabian-style council of religious fanatics can't tell its citizens what to eat, when to crap, whom to marry, or where to pray. What the Israeli right wants is to destroy the hated Democratic Israel in favor of either Apartheid Israel or Fascist Israel, which is what the state will NECESSARILY become if it either retains control of the Occupied Territories while depriving the Palestinians of basic political and civil rights, or - as the loathsome Lieberman and company want - engaging in mass expulsions of Palestinians and Arab citizens alike.
Thank you very much for writing this.
In discussions about the two-state solution, I have often mentioned that Israel likely is not poltically capable of removing the settlers, for the reasons you describe.
The fact that you are bringing up this difficult issue so clearly and publicly means that we are likely moving past the charade of talking about peace while looking the other way at settlement expansion.
I believe my country will continue to support and help defend Israel, but a final settlement must be made very soon. The process will be painful, but it is the only way Israel can have a future as a Jewish State and avoid becoming a pariah akin to apartheid South Africa.
Why is it the Leftists always talking about peace with Arabs but want confrontation with Jews.The Leftists shot at the Altelana when there was an offer to turn the weapons over the Hagganah,not only that they shot Irgunists while swimming ashore.The Intl force has worked so well in Lebanon for Hezbollah they smuggled in more then 3x the amount of rockets and missiles as they had before.The Spanish troops have captured and turned over to Hezbollah. Lebanese citizens who have helped Israel,many Lebanese army officers.I myself who served 8yrs as U.S. navel Special operations sailor would gladly go to Israel to help the residents of Judea and Samaria and i know other Vets who gladly would be more then happy to help the Jewish people of Judea and Samaria
Only physicall relocation of all israelis in underpopulated areas, ie Nevada, Australian outback, Greeneland will solve the solution. WE will never acknowledge a Jewish claim to stolen Palestine. Their presence in Palestine is an insult to the land
Raed Kami suggests physical relocation of all israelis.
Lets see the Arabs tried that about 1/2 a dozen times in the last last 60 years. Do you have any clue as to how well that worked out?
Since all of your countries are 'failed states' why not get the ant-Semites in the west to do your bidding? Oh THAT is what you are trying.
And Yossi you gonna leave Eretz Yisrael any time soon? It seems like your Palestinian pals don't want you around. You really ought to take your head out of your ...
David S: Israel was not "founded as a democracy" - it was founded as a Jewish state. After the 1948-49 War of Independence, it was decided to give the Arabs a vote. In the context of implementing a partition into two states, it is unconcionable that Jews would be forced to leave the West Bank while Arabs are allowed to remain in Israel.
To David S. The existence of the Jewish people is repugnant to a great deal of the world; including your hero Ghandi. So what.
Let us face it. You do not care if Israel exists at all and you would rather it disappears in the name of world unity or some such nonsense. To give Judea and Samaria to a Palestinian state which will inevitably arm and install missiles and tanks along the natural invasion route is national suicide. The only thing that stands in the way are Jews who live along this invasion route.
If you are so gung ho about expelling Jews put yourself where your mouth is. Volunteer for the job.
I suppose that if Israel's enemies did not have anti-Israel "Jewish" publications like the Forward, they would have to invent them.
The Forward's arguments concerning the Israeli "settlements" are bogus. It repeated these libels in its previous editorial, "Unnatural Growth", where it misrepresented Israel's likely final-status borders, in the unlikely event that the "palestinian" arabs ever actually agree to a real peace. And now it makes up bogus numbers like "80,000."
The areas that this Forward article argues will be arab (Hebron, Shiloh, Bet El, Elon Moreh) will probably not be. In its Editorial, the Forward picked on Bet El (a suburb of Jerusalem, just 11 miles away), as requiring destruction. But According to Avi Dichter, a Knesset member, just a few months ago, while a Minister in Olmert's KADIMA government, the settlement blocs that Israel would retain INCLUDE the Jordan Valley, Ofra-Beit El, Karnei Shomron-Kedumim, and Kiryat Arba-Hebron:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395565931&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Why does the Forward go out of its way to attack the Jewish State of Israel, instead of defending it against the most anti-Israel American administration in history? What is the point of discussing "peace" with the "palestinians" anyway? They will simply continue to refuse to accept a real peace, and will continue to raise their children as little Jew-hating terrorists, they can continue to live the "good life", while waiting for Obama to try to coerce Israel into giving them a terrorist state.
Meanwhile, the Israel-haters (antisemites) can continue to appreciate the Forward, and spew their venom.
As Jews live in practically every country in the world(ex Arab Countries) & Palestinians live in Israel As Full(more or less) citizens.Why can't Jews live in Palestine as part of the "Land of Israel" If they want.
I agree that the settlers will have to be uprooted. But will this "International force of 'Goyim'" have permission to shoot? If the fanatical settlers would rather wage civil war against Israell, they surely wouldn't take it easy onthe "goyim"
There seem to be a lot of idiots who read the forward. The only peace that is likely to actually occur would be one based on present reality.
There will NEVER be peace until the REAL settler Jews are forced to admit their crimes and are totally expelled from the land that they have stolen. The position of the FORWARD ruling circles has nothing to do with peace in Israel. It has everythiong to do with their personal attempts to cover up their own crimes of remaining on land stolen from the native Americans who were genocided in the process. By trying to blame Israeli Jews for living on their own ancestral lands the FORWARD ruling circles hope to deflect attention from their own imperialistic crimes.
Yossi Alpher has always been a self-hating Jew and anti-Israel. The fact that he's affiliated with J Street and IPF speaks volumes about his biases. Of course, he will never have the courage of his convictions, otherwise he would have offered his sorry soul in exchange for Shalit - for peace, of course.
As for this last poster, Bertram aka Mahmud, or are you really Adam Feldman Gadahn, aka Osama's "Jewish" American poster boy? Your post is beneath contempt. The Settlers are real Jews, you're not, buddy. And since you claim to be speaking up for Native Americans, you need to get off their land too - NOW!
David S.,
Your buddy, James Van Bruun, is anxiously awaiting your company in his padded cell. We had better take a Fascist, Jew-hater like you off the streets before another innocent Black or Jew pays the price.
If Israelis listen to Alpher, they'll be speaking in Arabic.
Alpher silent on Arab lies. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80382 Ahmed Qurei says Israel has no history in Jerusalem.
Alpher is the same fool who called Faisal Husseini a moderate. http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/publications/dispatch/betweenthelines/Article-27.html The Late Faisal Husseini: Oslo Is A Trojan Horse In Husseini's last interview with the the popular Egyptian newspaper el Arav in 2001. Husseini said, it is the obligation of all the Palestinian forces and factions to see the Oslo Accords as "temporary" steps or "gradual" goals, because in this way, "We are setting an ambush for the Israelis and cheating them."
Alpher has never said one word of protest to Arab killers.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-singer111902.asp Following the murderous terrorist attack on Kibbutz Metzer, the PLO cold-bloodedly stated on its official website, "We will continue to strike in any place, targeting their children as well." Five innocent Israelis, including a mother and her two little boys, were butchered in that attack, all of them, Fatah said, "Zionist colonizers" killed in a "qualitative operation in the settlement of Metzer." Here's how the official Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat al-Jadida headlined its coverage: "Five Israelis killed in an attack on the settlement Metzer." The report continued, "A Palestinian infiltrated the settlement Metzer and opened fire on the settlers." It is not well known that the Palestinian press frequently refers to towns in Israel, such as Holon and Kiryat Shmona, as "settlements." Besides implying that all of Israel is an illegitimate colonial outpost, such references clearly are brought to justify the killings and distinguish them from terrorism.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby011003.asp After the Tel Aviv massacre on January 12th 2003, where 2 Palestinian homicide bombers massacred 23 Israeli civilians. The PLO web site posted a statement -- celebrating the attacks: "With faith in the calling of holy jihad," it said, "two suicide attackers . . . succeeded this evening to infiltrate the Zionist roadblocks and to enter the heart of . . . Tel Aviv and carried out two consecutive suicide attacks... These suicide attacks caused a large number of fatalities and casualties in the center of the Zionist occupation of our land. We swear before our people that additional suicide operations will occur." That is a view with which much of Arab opinion concurs. ArabicNews.com, for example, datelined its story on the Tel Aviv attack "Palestine-Israel," and reported that the bombings had killed "23 Israeli settlers." Arafat calls Israeli-occupied Ashdod." http://www.ourjerusalem.com/opinion/story/opinion20040328.html Massacre In Ashdod Was Preceded By Constant Palestinian Authority Incitement To Hatred Of Jews ZOA March 15, 2004
Alpher will never protest Arab racism
Arab media explains why Jews must be slaughtered. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/131356 PMW: Jordanian Media Report 'Jews Descend from Pigs' Hana Levi Julian 5/14/09 Jordanian media last week quoted Egyptian clerics who declared that Jews are the descendants of pigs -- the only point of debate was whether they are direct descendants or not.
Yossi Alpher is on the "Advisory Council" and "Israel Supporters" for radical anti-Israel J STREET!
http://jstreet.org/supporters/advisory_council http://jstreet.org/page/israeli-supporters-list
The faux "Jewish" Forward is an extreme leftist anti-Israel web site! It is a fifth column against in America propagandizing against Israel.
About "J Street":
....
Bogus 'Zionist' Israel-Bashers
... J Street (is) a new group initially funded by the Jewish tycoon George Soros who had achieved notoriety for demonizing successive Israeli governments irrespective of their political leanings.
J Street and another radical group, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, proudly announced that they had succeeded in persuading 11,000 of their members to bombard the White House with e-mails urging Obama to stand firm against Netanyahu.
During the Gaza offensive, J Street condemned the action against Hamas as "disproportionate." Refusing to "pick a side" and identify "who was right and who was wrong," it applied moral equivalency to both parties proclaiming that "we recognize that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right and wrong... While there is nothing 'right' in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing 'right' in punishing a million and a half already suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists amongst them."
J Street also opposes Israel's efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Despite the fact that Israelis of all political opinions are united on this issue, J Street members were e-mailed and urged to actively lobby against a bipartisan congressional resolution calling for tougher sanctions to be applied against Iran.
The radical groups also resurrected the bogus anti-Semitic charge of "dual loyalties," warning Jews that by continued "blind" support of Israel, they risked alienating the American public and would be condemned for displaying greater loyalty toward Israel than the US. They were almost hysterical in their condemnation of Jews who exercised their rights to protest against the proposed appointment of the fiercely anti-Israel Charles Freeman to head the National Security Agency. IPF spokesmen went so far as to explicitly state that being an anti-Israeli fanatic was insufficient grounds for barring a person from assuming a senior administration role.
If there was any doubt about J Street, its endorsement of the British anti-Semitic play Seven Jewish Children, effectively a contemporary blood libel, placed it squarely in the camp of those seeking to demonize the Jewish state. It justified its support on the grounds that the play would promote "rigorous intellectual engagement and civil debate on which our community prides itself."
J Street and IPF also seek to slander and undermine AIPAC, the highly effective pro-Israel lobby group, depicting it as an extreme right-wing and hawkish body although it has consistently promoted the policies of all Israeli governments, including the dovish administrations preceding Netanyahu.
In an environment in which global anti-Semitism and demonization of Israel are beginning to make inroads into the United States, the potential of such radical groups to destabilize the standing of Israel should not be underestimated.
Never before has the Jewish community faced a situation in which organizations presenting themselves as Zionists shamelessly lobby their president to pressure the democratically elected government of the Jewish state to make concessions which could have life and death implications for its citizens.
Not that anti-Jewish Jews are a new phenomenon. Jewish communists were bitterly opposed to the campaign to liberate Soviet Jewry and defended state-sponsored anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. But they were marginalized and regarded as pariahs by the Jewish community. The problem in the US is that the established Jewish leaders decided to ignore these organizations, mistakenly believing that confrontations would be construed as attempts to restrict freedom of expression and would transform the radicals into martyrs.
But the issue of freedom of expression is a red herring. Any Jew is entitled to express his beliefs, no matter how nauseating or deviant such views may appear to the majority. That certainly applies to those arguing in favor or in opposition to settlements. Surely the red lines are being crossed when, as distinct from expressing views, American based organizations claiming to "love" Israel aggressively lobby the US government to pressure it to make concessions that could place lives at risk. To tolerate such groups within the framework of the Jewish community provides them with an aura of respectability to which they are not entitled. Alas, today some of these groups already attend administration briefings on a par with the recognized mainstream organizations.
Furthermore, failure to confront these Israel bashers has already provided the general media with grounds to suggest that American Jewish support of Israel is collapsing. That has certainly encouraged the Obama administration to intensify its pressure on the Netanyahu government. It may also cause some weak-kneed Jews to distance themselves from Israel to avoid confronting a popular American president.
There are even ominous mutterings predicting a possible replay of what transpired during World War II, when fearing a confrontation and bedazzled by president Franklin Roosevelt, Jewish leaders lacked the courage to protest against the indifference of the US government to the Nazi extermination of the Jews.
Now, as never before, when the beleaguered State of Israel confronts Iran, potentially one of the greatest existential threats since its creation, the support of American Jews is crucial.
A united Jewish community should marginalize the anti-Israeli radicals and urge Obama (who received 80 percent of its votes) to stand by commitments made to Israel by previous US administrations in the same manner as the Netanyahu government is obliged to adhere to undertakings made by previous Israeli governments. A strong Jewish stand in this direction could effectively tip the balance in averting a catastrophic major rift between the US and Israel.
.....
I have been reading the Forward for some time, and have been appalled by the anti-Israel bias, not only in its Editorials, but of its "columns" and "news" articles.
It has become painfully clear that the Forward is an insidious far-left anti-Israel propagandist - and now I learn that it is part and parcel of J Street, a radical leftist enemy of the Jewish State of Israel.
Even the far-leftist Ha'aretz is capable of publishing the truth - that the reason there is no peace between the arabs and Israel is that the arabs want only to destroy Israel - ("settlements", which are also completely "legal" are just the antisemites' excuse) - the anti-semitic lefties are as bad as the arabs!
THEY DON'T WANT A STATE
By Israel Harel
From the Palestinians's refusal to sit down with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even after he recognized their right to a state - which is historic considering this is Likud's leader - it appears (again) that their overall goal never was, and apparently never will be, a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state.
They do want a Palestinian state, but much more they want there to be no Jewish state. Therefore, back in 1937, when the first partition plan was presented, they rejected proposal after proposal by the British, the Jews, the United Nations or the Americans for a two-state solution. They never made their own proposal.
Because there is support here and abroad for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, the Palestinians, who have misled their supporters about their real intentions, can present themselves to the world as peacemakers, backed by the most prominent Israeli and foreign media, and blacken the name of Israel even while carrying out bloody suicide attacks.
Netanyahu's recognition, which agonized him so, hit the Palestinians like a bolt out of the blue. From now on, they fear, they will have to reveal their real intentions. After all, if they are sincere about their agreement to the formulation of "two states for two peoples," and their state will now be the state of the Palestinian people also by Likud's consent, the formula's basic logic requires them to recognize the other state, Israel, as the state of the Jewish people.
Only a few minutes after Netanyahu's address, minutes in which the most visceral feelings were at work, the Arab nation's representatives took to the airwaves. Out of an uncontrollable urge, they lifted the veil from their real intentions. In Umm al-Fahm and Ramallah, in Damascus and Cairo, they rejected with outright hostility Netanyahu's demand that they recognize Israel as the Jewish people's national home. The prime minister granted recognition to a Palestinian state, but did not condition his recognition on a similar move by the Arabs recognizing Israel as the state of the Jewish people.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, without doubt the senior Arab statesman, declared that the Arabs would not recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat joined in, declaring that the Arabs would not grant such recognition even in a thousand years. Such are the wages of unilateral Israeli recognition. If the Palestinians had wanted a state, they could have acted according to the following (very worthwhile) scenario. They could have said that recognition by Netanyahu of a Palestinian state is not enough, but it is a basis for negotiation. After all, they know that the United States, Europe and their supporters in Israel, of course, will put enormous pressure on the Israeli government, which in the end will make concessions in almost every area, including a concession on the demand that the Arabs recognize Israel as the national home of the Jewish people.
After all, quite a few Jews and influential institutions support their refusal in this matter. The Israel Democracy Institute, which was awarded the Israel Prize, refuses adamantly to include such a clause - that Israel is the national home of the Jewish people - in its proposed constitution, for which it received the award.
Nevertheless, even with the sharp sword of truth at their necks, some Jews refuse to give up their illusions. They, too, were quick to blame Netanyahu for the Arabs' refusal to shake the outstretched hand this time as well. And because that has been the way of such Jews throughout the generations, the galut - the exile - has lasted so long, the birth pangs of redemption are so hard and the blame always falls on their own people.
Frank, Ken Jurist: two words: goyishe kop.
People come before property (including the Wailing Wall). Peace is more important than lebensraum. On this point, AS A REAL JEW, I happily stand with the Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik, z’l, who — in sobering comments all the more remarkable for having been made during the period of euphoria after the triumphant 1967 war — indicated that when it comes to returning land, it is not the rabbis’ (nor right-wing American Jews') opinion, but it is the IDF generals’ (and by extension, the democratically-elected politicians’) opinion which counts; and it is the people of Israel which is holy, not the soil. The people of Israel — their welfare and well-being, safety and security — take precedence. In the now 40+ yr. old words of the RAV, “Our Judaism is not a religion of shrines ... that as dear as the Kotel Hama’arovi (Western Wall) is, the 2 million lives of Jews is more important.” If even shrines are unnecessary, then definitely settlements are! END OF DISCUSSION, shkotzim!
Dear Sir,
not being a settler myself and not harboring any sympathy to the messianic movement, I must, however, point out, that if Mr. Alpher's disastrous suggestion will be ever put into practice, I will regard this "international force" as an occupying army and endeavor to kill as many of them as possible, together with their enablers and collaborators - be they Jewish or otherwise.
Any chance we can find some Goyim to remove Alpher?
The people here who are attacking Alpher don't represent all Jews, or even most Jews.
I agree with J Street:
"we recognize that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right and wrong... While there is nothing 'right' in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing 'right' in punishing a million and a half already suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists amongst them."
The sad experience in the US is this: if you want to get the settlers to move (many of whom are from the US), have a Black family move in on the block.
Dear Yossi Alpher,
As I’ve said many times, I see you as the most astute Israeli analyst of the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Yet I see a serious flaw in your suggestion that an international security force be introduced into the West Bank to remove the hard-core of West Bank settlers. I fully agree with the necessity, but the suggestion is not realistic.
As you point out, the extreme settler elements would fight the Israeli army or police attempting to evacuate them. Even more likely they would (as Jay Tinley pointed out above) fight the international security force. In the face of that, the international community will not constitute such a force.
Where does that leave those of us who above all would love to see the conflict resolved and Israel to be at peace? Not with much. Perhaps the best suggestion that I’ve seen is David Makovsky's piece in Monday’s (June 15) Wall Street Journal - in which he presses for immediate talks on defining Israel's borders as a way to solve the settlements issue.
Comment?
People, you all need to read more articles from more sources before you can claim to know what you're talking about.
As a liberal, proud Zionist and Jew who is a center-left Democrat, I say J Street is a joke.
Settling the Land of Israel is a great mitzvah. May Hashem our G-d protect those courageous families who are reclaiming the Land that Hashem promised his Children. May He give them strength and success over the enemies of the Jewish people. May all the heretics stumble in their evil schemes, and repent their wretched ways.
The original partition did not envision a Greater Israel, and claims to such should have remained in the realm of religious aspiration. Decisions allowing the settlements have resulted in what is now a serious obstacle to peace. The settlements are not the only obstacle to peace, but if they remain rest assured there will be no peace. In the short run, the settlements at best will continue to be flashpoints requiring protection in unfriendly territory. And in the long run, Israel's prospects for survival would seem to require peace.
For years we heard people recoil in horror as it was suggested that the only true alternative is the ousting of Arabs from Israel and the west bank. However, for the same left-wing fascists, forcing Jews out of their homes is not only needed but should be done by an international force? Let no one complain about the issue of transfer. The only difference now regarding the argument is who should be transfered and by whom!
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.