First Sheikh Jarrah, Then Baka?
By Haim Watzman
Mike Huckabee recently made a virulently anti-Zionist remark — and the Jews who accompanied him on his tour of East Jerusalem cheered.
“It concerns me when there are some in the United States who would want to tell Israel that it cannot allow people to live in their own country, wherever they want,” declared the once and future Republican presidential candidate and current Fox News pundit. The statement came after he visited a Jewish settlement, Shimon Ha-Tzaddik, in the middle of the Arab neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah.
For years, Israeli settler organizations have been moving Jewish families into Jerusalem’s Arab neighborhoods, most prominently in Sheikh Jarrah, Ras al-Amud and Silwan. In many cases, the organizations have been buying up Arab property, often in legally questionable ways. In others, they have asserted claims to houses that Jews once owned, but which were occupied by Palestinian families after Israel’s War of Independence left East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule.
The latest hotspot in Sheikh Jarrah is of this second kind. Last May, two Palestinian families were handed eviction orders. The orders resulted from Israeli court rulings that affirmed the Jewish title to their properties, and which voided the tenancy rights of the Palestinian families. Jewish families then entered the houses.
When the Obama administration objected last month that the action sabotaged the peace process, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that “united Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people and of the State of Israel. Our sovereignty cannot be challenged.” Therefore, Netanyahu said, Jews are free to purchase homes anywhere in the city — and, presumably, are thus free to move into Jewish-owned homes in East Jerusalem.
But it’s not that simple. I live in a West Jerusalem neighborhood called Baka. “Baka,” which means “valley” in Arabic, was the name given to the neighborhood by the middle-class Palestinian Arabs who were its original inhabitants. Nearly all of Baka’s Arabs left during the hostilities of 1948. Under the provisions of Israel’s Absentees’ Property Law, these homes became state property. The new Jewish state used these homes to house Jews who had become refugees as a result of the war, among them former inhabitants of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and immigrants from the Islamic world.
Israeli courts have ruled, as they must, according to the letter of the law. The Sheikh Jarrah homes are indeed owned by Jews, while the Palestinians who once owned homes in Baka and other West Jerusalem neighborhoods no longer, under Israeli law, have title to those homes.
But the law is clearly asymmetric — it asserts Jewish claims and negates Palestinian ones on both sides of the city. In West Jerusalem, the state asserts, in essence, that the 1948 war voided prior claims. But it simultaneously asserts that, in East Jerusalem, pre-1948 property rights trump subsequent changes in occupancy, changes that resulted from population movements during and after the War of Independence.
The continuing assertion of pre-1948 Jewish claims to property in East Jerusalem (and the rest of the West Bank) is profoundly anti-Zionist. If the basis for property claims is status quo ante that preceded Jewish political independence, then Palestinians will campaign for the return of their former West Jerusalem homes, as Faisal Husseini, the late Palestinian leader in Jerusalem, explicitly warned in 1995 in response to similar attempts to claim Jewish property in East Jerusalem. If the Jews claim a right of return to their property, the Palestinians will claim a right of return to theirs.
But the War of Independence and the birth of the Jewish state created a fundamentally new situation and, as Israeli leaders have long argued, we cannot simply turn back the clock. That’s why Israelis — including the majority of us who support an equitable accommodation with the Palestinians — firmly reject the Palestinian claim to a right of return to their former homes, neighborhoods and villages in Israel.
Allowing Jews to settle in Sheikh Jarrah is the first step along the road to the end of the Jewish state and the transformation of the Jews, once again, into an embattled and persecuted minority under foreign rule. True Zionists should oppose these settlers.
Haim Watzman is the author of “A Crack in the Earth: A Journey Up Israel’s Rift Valley” (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007) and “Company C: An American’s Life as a Citizen-Soldier in Israel” (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005). He blogs at southjerusalem.com.
Advertisements
Advertisements
The Israeli gov't IS accepting all sorts of property claims within the Green Line. Some Bedouins in the Negev have made deals with the gov't and have been awarded land or generous financial compensation. Who is afraid of what you fear? The principle should be that if Israel gives one ounce of compensation to the original owners of the houses in Baka, for example, then Jews from Arab countries should receive full compensation for their substantial property in Bagdad, Cairo, Casablanca, Tripoli, Damascus, Algiers, Beirut, Tunis, etc, etc. We all know who would come out ahead if there were TRULY a return of property to original owners! We have absolutely nothing to fear. You however, bring up compensating Arabs from before '48 and totally ingnoring the legitimate claims of the Jews from Arab countries, many of whom lost great wealth and received tiny apartments in development towns in peripheral Israel.
SO you are right. The law is asymmetric but NOT in favor of the Jews! According to you, Haim, as long as the Arabs kick the Jews out of a neighborhood, and rename it, then it is an Arab nieghborhood. You start at whatever date is favorable to them. If you did not accept historic rights you would not have moved to Israel! After all, the Arabs DON'T accept the idea of the Jewish people's right to move to this country under the Law of Return.
Lastly, you ignore that the Arabs DID try to wipe us out a few times and failed (Thank God)and if the tables had been turned they CERTAINLY wouldn't be writing editorials like yours and would not be compensating Jews for any of their land lost.
If you really want FAIR and SYMMETRY then the Jews would have been moved into the Arab houses here and the Arabs (of Eretz Yisrael) would have been moved into the Jewish houses all over the Arab world. And that would be the end. Israel would not have had an ongoing conflict with the Arabs. But of course, we have a Judenrein Arab world where people are KILLED if they sell land to a Jew and one Jewish State full of Arabs which might one day become another Arab State through sheer demography.
It seems to me that the Jews have gotten the raw deal. Will the Arabs ever be held accountable for continued aggression against out people in this land? Before 1880, in the 1920's, the 1930's, before '48, after '48, before '67 (when we had NO "territories") after '67 etc., attacking the whole North with rockets, attacking the Western Negev with Kassam rockets and Grad missiles, and the band plays on...
Haim, I think you should set an example for us. Give your house in Baka to a Palestinian and then perhaps occupy an apartment in Paris which was Jewish before the German occupation. That will make everyone happy. Otherwise, you are not putting your money where your mouth is
you are a crazy hypocrite! Nimrod (hard for me to even write such a name) is 100% right. Settlements in the West Bank were never built on land where arabs actually lived (ie ate, slept, etc), but YOU do! I have no idealogical problem with this (and either do most other Jews), but you seem to, so the only thing for you to do is GET OUT!
The term "true Zionist", used at the end of the article, really bothered me. When I read the title of Haim's book ("Company C: An American’s Life as a Citizen-Soldier in Israel"), I wonder if the ideology of Zionism is really clear to Haim. An American's life? Has the Land of Israel drawn an "American" to come and be a soldier and citizen of Israel? Well, obviously, it hasn't. The Land of Israel has enchanted a Jew, captured his heart, and he came to be a citizen-soldier here. In Zionist ideology, the Jews are a single people (a single nation), and their homeland is the Land of Israel. Some Jews might have French citizenship, and others might have American citizenship. But the Jews are not "French" or "American" by national identity - they are Jewish by national identity. Calling himself "American", Haim has adopted the non-Zionist view of the American Jewish experience in which the Jews are part of the American people.
Nimrod and Packer read me entirely backwards, if they really read me at all.Packer also has his facts wrong regarding the WB settlements and the land they have been built on. Ben Levi makes overmuch of the tagline on my book. As with many book titles, it was chosen by my publisher, not by me. But he's also very black and white about identities. Does he object, for instance, to my wife's self-designation as an Iraqi-Israeli Jew? Joan gets caught up in the victimization cycle, as if proving that we suffered more will strengthen our claims. No one argues that the Mizrahi Jews lost money, property, and lives. The question is whether we look to the past or look to the future.
Haim I am not confusing your viewpoint at all. You and Gershon spend all of your time on this blog promoting yourselves as “righteous Jews”. You document the occupation of Palestine by Jews at the same time you live on land that was occupied by Palestinians. You and Gershon have so far been unable to refute the argument made by “phillips brooks” that if land was taken from Arabs in 1967 was stolen, then why was land taken from Arabs in 1948 bit stolen. Religious zionists would have no problem with this. They would say 1) G-d gave us the land, and 2) We won the land in war, and it doesnt matter whether it was 1948 or 1967. States who win property as a result of winning wars generally can decide what to do. Just as Jews have lost title to property in Arab lands (and in Europe after WWII), Palestinians have lost title to property in areas conquered by Israel. If you want to change this age old custom, give your home in Baka to Palestinians (and Gershon should do the same) and move to a house in the 4th Arondissement of Paris. Otherwise, you are not “Righteous Jews” but just old fashioned hypocrites
Nimrod-
Some think we can still give and take land through some form of natural or historic pr religious rights or raw might. But the world has evolved to having a body international law, largely since the end of WW2. We should be thankful for it.
You completely dismiss international law. You completely dismiss that Israel has signed onto international seeking to becoming a member of the UN. You completely dismiss conveniently the bright line has been drawn for all nations, including israel: No territory is to be gained though war.
The 67 war does not confer upon Israel "age old" or "old-fashioned" rights. But Israel has a right to protect it's security . So long as Israel can make that claim legitimately to the world, then there is some justification for occupation and preventing Palestinian self-determination. That excuse is wearing very thin and will wear thinner if Palestinians no longer threaten with organized terrorist acts.
States who gain property through war cannot any longer decide what to do without consequences the likes of which Israel has been largely spared since "67 (which is contrary to claims that the UN and the international community has been unfair to Israel.
But the world has evolved to having a body international law, largely since the end of WW2. We should be thankful for it....did international law prevent the following? 1) The slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda 2) The slaughter in Darfur 3) The massacre of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica 4) The famines of the Sahel 5) The millions killed in the Chinese Cultural Revolution 6) The massacre of the Kurds using chemical warfare and other examples
Yes, I completely dismiss international law, because it is selectively applied and can only really be applied by military force
The 67 war does not confer upon Israel "age old" or "old-fashioned" rights...neither does the 1948 war. International law has not protected Israel, only the hand of G-d and Israel's military might
I was reading the discussion calmly until someone brought up "international law." This is, in itself, an impossibility. Reasons:
1. All citizens must submit to the law of the land. The United States' refusal to adhere to, among other "international law" institutions such as the war-crimes court demonstrate that there is, in effect, no "international law."
Even being a member of the UN does not mean that one must submit to its decisions. Nasser didn't do so in 1967, and Nimrod's list includes many actions that flew in the fact of resolutions passed by the UN.
2. A legislature must pass laws, which are enforced by the police and rest of the executive branch. Who passed these "international laws?" Who voted on them? Or would you prefer to say that "international government" (which is also an impossibility because there can be no government that is larger than group of people/nations who ALL submit to its rule) is a dictatorship? That is the only way that these "international laws" can be ratified.
3. I don't need to list any more reasons because these two are sufficient to show that "international law" cannot exist. But if you want to see more proof, look at the most excellent proceedings of the United Nations, including those in Durban, South Africa.
So "international law" does not exist. The funny part of all of this is that the same people who are calling for "international law," which is the most unevenly applied sets of standards, are also calling for equal treatment of those in other situations... when their ideas of equal treatment are, actually, unequal.
Does anyone REALLY think that the UN has any real power? In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, it was asserted that a law that is not enforced is no law at all. So unless you can show that these "international laws" are enforced thoroughly and effectively by an executive branch (police, etc) then they are, de facto, irrelevant and nonexistent.
The first country to be denied spoils of war was Israel. The first country to make territorial gains (ESPECIALLY considering that these were made in defensive maneuvers) and then endure pressure to return those lands was Israel.
Therefore, 1948 erased all pre-existing claims to the land, and 1967 did the same.
I recognize that the extension of my logic negates, for example, Jewish requests for the return of art to its former owners. It does not, however, negate claims for the return of goods left in bank accounts. Similarly, when the Arabs (I will not call them Palestinians, as Jews were technically Palestinians pre-1948) left their homes, they lost claim to those homes. And when they attacked Israel and their land was taken in a counter-attack, they lost that claim as well.
This article is an obscenity. Again, the extreme far-left anti-Israel Forward publishes yet one more libelous anti-Israel screed, by yet one more bizarre extreme leftist. The Forward's modus operandi is a series of propaganda attacks on Israel by a menagerie of leftist extremists.
Except this time, the author libels one of Israel's staunch friends, Mike Huckabee, by obscenely accusing him of "a virulently anti-Zionist remark". That is an outrageous libel. As typical with "progressives" who utilize the "Big Lie", it is in fact the author who engages in obscene and virulent "anti-Zionist" attacks on Israel. I am ashamed that a purportedly "Jewish" publication would print such offensive garbage.
Governor Huckabee should know that the vast majority of Jews and friends of Israel greatly appreciate his wonderful decent and generous support of Israel, and of the right of Jews to live anywhere they wish in their own country.
As to the nonsense spewed in this anti-Israel screed: It is entirely right, proper, legal, and obviously, "Zionist" for Israel to follow its laws which finally corrected arab theft of Jewish homes in Jerusalem. It is an obscenity to call Jewish homes in Jerusalem (the eternal undivided capitol of the Jewish State of Israel) a "settlement". What kind of "Jew" would make that claim?
One could of course also recite the long tortuous history of Jews losing their homes (and not voluntarily and without legal recourse) in muslim lands, and recently even in Gaza. But what is the point? There is obviously no valid argument that Jews should give up their homes in Jerusalem.
It is ironic that the "author" cites Faisal Husseini for the proposition that the Jews claim of "right of return" (an arab propagandist's description of Jews' right to their homes), would prompt the arab's allegedly converse claim. Ironic, because Husseini needed no pretext: he repeatedly made clear that his "higher", "long-term", "unwavering" goal was to destroy Israel.
Husseini was actively working against a peaceful resolution to the Mideast conflict. He made clear that Oslo was a "Trojan Horse", a tactical move, and that, "our ultimate goal is [still] the liberation of all historical Palestine from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] sea, even if this means that the conflict will last for another thousand years or for many generations."
No, it is the arab's intention to destroy Israel that is "asymmetric". And to argue that Jews living in their own homes in Jerusalem is "anti-Zionist", requires a bizarre contortion that must leave even a "progressive" wondering where he has buried his head.
To put it mildly, it makes no sense to discuss "symmetric" land trades with Arabs who side with the Arab policy of expelling Jews and/or discriminating against, or forbidding Israeli entry, when a territory is under Arab sovereignty. All the Arab countries, without exception, are examples. The newest Arab territory, given to Gazan Arabs by Israel, is yet one more.
Thus, on that background of Arab enmity, if some persist in demonstrations for Arab land claims in the one Middle Eastern democracy with Arab citizens, then reminding readers about claims of Jewish refugees (not "immigrants" as Watzman calls them) from all the Arab countries from which they were expelled is not a "victimization cycle", but simple presentation of facts.
What is missing from these discussions is full disclosure of goals. Arabs, even the most "moderate", have no trouble with their part: they declare that they seek the progressive elimination of Jewish government, sovereignty, and presence of Jews in the Land of Israel. I have no trouble either: I seek to maintain and strengthen Jewish government, sovereignty, and presence of Jews in the Land of Israel. Democracy, and rights as equal as in most Western countries, have followed from that, and I will struggle that that continues.
What does Watzman seek, and in what order of priorities?
Why doesn't Israel simply allow everybody to live where ever that person wants, regardless of skin color, religion, and ethnic heritage? Imagine if Alabama and Mississippi still had racially segregated neighborhoods! The U.S. sent the Feds in to break the resistance of the South against desegregated schools. The same should be done i Israel which is, after all, our 51st state. Also, intermarriage should be heavily encouraged to solve these problems long-term.
What pisses me off about this article (oh and btw, I truly enjoyed reading Watzman's Company C and I recommend it), is that Haim fails to mention the crucial point about this issue. Namely that the two Palestinian Arab families were evicted because after initially paying rent they chose to be derelict with paying their rental fees for 10 years and for those 10 years this issue has been winding its way through the court system. Haim does not tell you in this article that the landlords never even considered trying to evict the other Palestinian Arab tenants in the same complex who pay their rental fees and if they had, the courts would not have issued the eviction notice that the derelict tenants ignored anyways.
And the woman wearing the "say no to ethnic cleansing" in the photo is presumably making the point that legally titled Jewish landlords who rent their suites to Palestinian Arabs are ethnic cleansers if they charge Palestinian Arab tenants rental fees? I wonder if she would hand over any suites she owns to a tenant for free on the sole basis that the tenant happens to be a Palestinian Arab. Somehow I doubt it. Maybe she should wear a shirt that reads: "Zionist Jews always lie and steal, Arabs are always on the side of justice and I am not a bigot or a hypocrite"
Frankly, if Haim knows that -as he writes- "In many cases, the organizations have been buying up Arab property, often in legally questionable ways", why doesn't he write about that?
David Schach- The "extension of your logic" that there is no international law, would allow for any nation or group of nations that can do so, to eliminate Israel or capture or re-capture parts of it's territory .
If there is no international law, and were no enforcement at all, then Iran or any other nation can and would attain nuclear weapons with no consequence, in order to protect it's security.
If there were no international law in operation, then Iraq under Saddam would now hold Kuwait, for instance.
Though it is true that the UN has no military force, it has the ability to approve or not to approve of actions taken by coalitions and allies. The UN represents some higher order. No one can say it is perfect or that international law or government is where it should be. But notice that this is where nations go first to discuss their issues. Notice that UN recognition of nations and UN approval for internationally recognized borders are universally sought.
The UN is only as good as it's members make it. To trash the UN and international law on behalf of Israel is chutzpah. Israel is a tiny, albeit nuclear and conventionally armed, country, that needs the alliances and protection of the international community. It cannot exist as a fortress while holding onto territory that the rest of the world agrees belongs to those who were dispossessed in 48 and 67.
You can cite all sort so of examples of areas where the law is not working or not used or not enforced- but it does not negate this critical issue in a critical part of the world. This conflict has been going on for far too long.
If there is no international law, and were no enforcement at all, then Iran or any other nation can and would attain nuclear weapons with no consequence, in order to protect it's security...there is no impediment to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons
If there were no international law in operation, then Iraq under Saddam would now hold Kuwait, for instance...no, Kuwait was liberated by US soldiers, not international law
It cannot exist as a fortress while holding onto territory that the rest of the world agrees belongs to those who were dispossessed in 48 and 67....if Israel cannot hold onto territory belonging to those displaced in 48, then why can Arabs hold onto Jewish property of Sephardi Jews displaced after 1948 (oops, that never happened)
The UN is only as good as it's members make it...see Durban 1 conference, zionism is racism, etc
To trash the UN and international law on behalf of Israel is chutzpah...more resolutions have been passed by the UN against Israel than against all other nations combined. The near total focus of the UN against Israel has allowed genocide to occur unfettered in the Congo, Bosnia, China, Darfur, Iraq, etc.
This conflict has been going on for far too long...here we agree, but ask yourself whether your actions (and those of AZcowboy) are bringing the conflict any closer to resolution
There is no serious discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without mentioning all the relevant UN Resolutions which are not only the base upon which for formal negotiations rest but favor the establishment of Israel,acknowledge Israel within the 67 borders, and which demand that Israel act responsibly towards those displaced and dispossessed by is establishment. Pointing to other outlaw states, or human rights abuses as some proof that Israel is being picked on or to make a case that Israel should therefore be allowed makes no case at all.
Just think- if the conflict was resolved there would be so much else to focus on and there would be no ganging up and focussing on Israel at a conference about racism.
Tal: "if Israel cannot hold onto territory belonging to those displaced in 48, then why can Arabs hold onto Jewish property of Sephardi Jews displaced after 1948 (oops, that never happened)"
Israel can exist nicely within the green line, more or less- which will be made blue (designating an international border and acceptance) when both sides comes to their senses and the rest, hardliners such as yourself perhaps are left to finish kicking and screaming in the dust. Jews who want to return to their homes in Iraq or elsewhere in the Arab world, or compensated for their losses I am sure will receive some justice accordingly- part of the deal.
There were no "pre-1967" borders! That is one of the huge lies the Arabs made up after their monumental loss in the Six Day War. The fact is, that the Egyptians LOUDLY declared in 1949, when the Armstice (green) line was demarcated, that the Arabs would NEVER consider this line to be a "defacto or dejure" border! It was purely a ceasefire line, and nothing more, and one the Arabs routinely violated year after year from 1950 through 1967. The fact is, borders are delineated only when peace treaties are drawn up. It was historically true between the US and Canada, as well as US and Mexico, and became true between Israel and EGypt as well only when Egypt finally recognized and signed a peace treaty with Israel. The borders were negotiated and the treaty finalized. And that is the only way the border between Israel and any future Palestinian entity of state will come about as well. The 1949 Armistice line is a relic of history smashed by Arab aggression. It cannot serve as the basis for any future border that may come about if the Arabs ever recognize the right of the Jewish state to exist, rather than trying to force the victor Israel to accept the terms of the vanquished, the Arabs. Israel won its wars to date, and does not have to accept the terms that the vanquished choose to impose by fiat, or by tricking the Americans into doing it for them. It's not going to happen.
The "Israel won, Arabs lost; Israel does not have to give up anything" argument is getting more popular with the hotheads. When the brain kicks in and does some thinking perhaps there will be a realization that this stance leaves Israel vulnerable to more war.
Watzman paints himself as some sort of moderate, but his bottom line is spelled out: "But the War of Independence and the birth of the Jewish state created a fundamentally new situation and, as Israeli leaders have long argued, we cannot simply turn back the clock. That’s why Israelis — including the majority of us who support an equitable accommodation with the Palestinians — firmly reject the Palestinian claim to a right of return to their former homes, neighborhoods and villages in Israel."
This was not a matter of happenstance because independence and the founding of a Jewish-dominated and Jewish-favoring segregationist state is the core of Zionist ideology, Palestinians be damned. The quicker Israel extricates itself from this ideological noose, the sooner it will achieve the peace it insists is its due. But it is due nothing simply because it insists on it. It will have to correct its foundational weakness first. Those, like Watzman, who are content to impose such a state on just a portion of the land of Israel are just proportionately less extreme.
Watzman, like his South Jerusalem blog partner Gershom Gorenberg, was born in the United States. They both made aliyah and now carry the banner of 'separate but equal'. This is Zionist fantasyland. You need to look no further than these ideologues to find those who would destroy the Jewish homeland on the anvil of a Jewish state.
I want the Forward's editors to know that I think they are out of line in continuing -- week after week -- to publish obnoxious anti-Zionist articles, including this one by Watzman. It has no news value. It merely expresses a convoluted thought process of an American Jew who wound up living in Jerusalem and feels the Palestinian Arabs are being hard done by. He even notes that the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled against the Arabs in East Jerusalem but he can not accept the rule of law because it is made in Israel!
Watzman has 2 choices - he can write articles urging that the Supreme Court of Israel's decisions be overturned by the government because he doesn't like the Israeli rule of law in the Jewish state or he can leave his Jerusalem home and come back to the States and watch newly-enthroned Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayer play hard and fast with the established American rule of law.
Either way, Watzman is entitled to his stupid Israel-bashing views but the Forward is not entitled to print them. After all, The Forward enticed thousands of American Jews to subscribe to its online edition by stating it was the progressive voice of American Jewry. Well, there is nothing "progressive" about bashing the homeland of American Jewry non-stop.
If the editors and publishers of the Forward can't shed their outmoded Bundist mind-set and come to terms with supporting the survival of the Jewish state, then they should tell their readers so and we will bury your disgusting mocking of the heroic Israeli state once and for all.
When the brain kicks in and does some thinking perhaps there will be a realization that this stance leaves Israel vulnerable to more war....I thought we tried this in Gaza and Southern Lebanon and withdrawal got us more war. Haim and Gershon should consider this fact. If Moskowitz owns the Shephard Hotel, it is far less likely that a Qassam launched from the hotel roof will hit his house built on stolen Palestinian land than if Hamas owns the same property.
Alan Goldstein - I read your comment that the ideology of Zionism is "the founding of a Jewish-dominated and Jewish-favoring segregationist state" - but I just don't understand what it is that bothers you. Holland is a "Dutch-dominated and Dutch-favoring segregationist kingdom". Bulgaria is likewise a "Bulgarian-dominated and Bulgarian-favoring segregationist state". Actually, all states have a segregationist policy: certain people are citizens, and others are foreigners. All states see the interests of their citizens as the highest priority, and all states have an immigration policy in which some outsiders are seen as desirable future citizens and others are undesirable. I've never heard that this is an unusual situation. Quite the contrary - this is still the order of things in this modern world.
For my response, see my new post at South Jerusalem, http://southjerusalem.com/2009/08/where-the-extremes-of-zionism-and-anti-zionism-meet/
As one Israeli op-ed reporter wrote several years ago, the 48 war changed everything. Recall that the Arabs refused two states, and have refused any accommodation since (how many times has Israel offered them a state of their own, or autonomy, only to be rejected?) I recall the 3 nos.
Every war fought by Israel had the possibility of the destruction of the State. There would be no discussion afterward by the Arabs of some sort of final peace with Israel, and a return to the status quo. (Read: the 67 War, by Michael Oren)
The problem with leftist Israelis and leftist, naive Diaspora Jews, is their continued denial of reality, the Arab-Muslim worlds want Israel destroyed, piece by piece, peace by piece, or piece by peace. These Jews still don't get it, and short of some sort of calamity, won't ever. It's in their leftist genes.
How much proof do they need of Arab intent? Iran's Shihabs paraded every year have signs "Next year in Jerusalem". Ahmad repeatedly has called for Israel's destruction. Iran has ignored 3 UNSC resolutions to stop it's enrichment. Hezbollah and Hamas equal Iran's hatred and goal. In spite of UN cease fires..they both ignore the requirements. Iraq's leadership meets with Ahmad. Syria and Iran have mutual defense treaties. Egypt demands Israel dismantle its alleged nuclear reactor and destroy it's missiles (while Egypt has thousands of missile and hundreds of F-16s and thousands of tanks.
I could go on and on and on, with absolute proof of the Arab world's intentions.
And last but not least, look what the disengagement has produced. Every former settlement has been turned into a Hamas terrorist training camp. No former Israeli manufacturing plant is being utilized (bought by rich Jews for the Arabs) to better it's economy.
Fatah recently pronounced it will not recognize Israel.
The Forward is your typical naive US Jewish paper...liberal to a fault, and hopelessly naive about Israeli-Arab relations. They are just as naive about people who hate us. I ask this people, what about we Jews? What about our problems, unfair hiring practices, homes not available for purchase, other discrimination? Who is representing our interests?
Look, let me be frank, if those Jews in Manhattan were facing the daily problems, suicide bombings, suicide roadside bombs, drive-bys, Kassam and Grad rockets..they would be screaming for the US Marines to intervene and like yesterday.
When the Arab world, includng the Palestinians, attacked Israel in 48, 67 and 73, they assumed they would drive the Jews into the sea. They lost. In losing, they lost any rights they had in the former British Mandate. Israel owes them nothing. They are in fact occupying land meant for the Jews as is Jordan.
In fact, Israel is much too kind to them. In stead of hanging people like Barghouti and others, they incarcerate them in a countryclub. Instead of stopping the protests at the fence, they treat these people politely. Instead of acting like Iran towards it's own, they are timid in virtually every aspect of stopping Arab crimes.
There is a movie out now, "Letters from Iwo Jima". In the movie, the Japanese commander states that the island is sacred Japanese soil.
Israel should regard all the land to the Jordan River as sacred and therefore no Arab can be considered an Israeli. That would stop all of this. Jews must be allowed to buy anywhere they choose. It's up to the Arabs to respect their choice.
BTW, the wife may consider herself an Iraqi Jew. She is in fact an Israeli Jew. If she doesn't like it, she should move to Baghdad.
Halachah (law) is like the Ha Tay Vaw, the lage vessel that protected Noach and the family. We are all to be in the Ha Tay Vaw the vessel, the tent, the ark, the temple, the hidden part!
For it is written....Psalm 51...... Behold, thou desirest truth inthe inward parts(heart and mind): and in the ....hidden part.....thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
All of mankind....not just jewish, for it is written......Jeremiah 32..."Iam the LORD, the G-D of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?"
So, my sisters and brothers, who live on this earth, Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And open the gates of your hearts and minds, light it with the flame, that burns in the heart of G-D, let his desire for truth and wisdom be know to you, come let us praise, Ehlohay Haahhavah V'hashalom The G-D of Love and Peace together in the hidden part. For it is written.....The stone (hidden part) the builders rejected has become the capstone (the true foundation back to the garden) the LORD has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes.
Open your eyes, we have been deceived and lied to, generation after generation....Put sin out------G-D in-------turn.
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.