Goldstone yes, Goldstone no, Goldstone yes and no, Goldstone here, Goldstone there, Goldstone everywhere.
An exchange in Jerusalem the other week with a close observer of the Goldstone report:
“I am so tired of talking about Goldstone.”
“Me, too.”
And then, for the better part of an hour, we talk about Goldstone.
The day before, at a dinner party, one retired senior diplomat says, bluntly, “I’ve not read the report, but we deserve it all.”
“Even ‘crimes against humanity’?”
“Yes, all of it. The occupation, nearly 43 years now, what did we expect?”
And the next day, over coffee, a leading journalist argues, vehemently, that Goldstone has greatly and unfairly damaged Israel, provided aid and comfort to Israel’s enemies, to those who are bent upon delegitimizing Israel.
Gently, now; gently. I have no desire to revisit the Goldstone controversy. I want instead to examine two words that are much used and abused these days. The first arises directly from within the Goldstone report, the second from the controversy regarding the report.
Intentionality: I fully accept the insistent assertion by a number of Israelis with whom I have spoken directly on the matter of whether Israel specifically and intentionally targeted innocent civilians during its war in Gaza, as Goldstone suggests. To a person, they have direct access to information regarding Israel’s conduct during the war; to a person, they deny that innocents were targeted. I believe them.
That said, how shall we understand the hundreds of deaths of innocents, be they the 762 noncombatants including 318 minors under the age of 18 that B’Tselem reports, or the 295 uninvolved Palestinians, including 89 under the age of 16, that the Israeli army acknowledges? In my view, given the specific circumstances of the war — the asymmetry of a proficient war machine confronting an elusive and inherently camouflaged enemy, Gaza’s congestion, Israel’s determination to restore the fearsome reputation of the Israel Defense Forces in the wake of the Lebanon debacle of 2006 and to keep its own casualties to a minimum — the number of bystander dead is distressing but not especially surprising. Whether Israel was required by international humanitarian law, which was Goldstone’s analytic framework, to behave differently — say, by putting its own troops at greater risk — is an important question I leave to the experts.
There is a difference between intent and responsibility. In my view, the killings were not intentional as we laypeople use that word. That does not, however, mean that Israel is not responsible. One among the many reasons an independent investigation is so important, even urgent, is to sort these things out, to achieve clarity on the degree and nature of that responsibility.
The other word, given new momentum by the Goldstone debate, is legitimacy — or, more cumbersomely but more precisely, delegitimization. Defenders of Israel have for some time been accusing those who recklessly attack Israel, wildly exaggerating and even concocting its flaws and failures, of being guilty of an effort to “delegitimize” the Jewish state. Lately, the accusation has been directed even at mainstream critics of Israeli policy.
I am not quite certain what delegitimizing Israel means. Does it mean that Israel’s critics seek to eliminate the Jewish state? Plainly, there are those who do. But the vast majority of those who are growingly critical of Israel — I think here in particular of the European Union — do not even hint at putting an end to the Jewish state. Quite the contrary, in fact. They call, ever more urgently, for the implementation of a two-state solution. And in fact a two-state solution is the only way to assure the survival of the Jewish state — a point widely recognized in Israel.
Now, whether Israel deserves the criticism to which it is daily subjected for its alleged reluctance to move more energetically toward a two-state solution is a matter of legitimate debate. But surely it is not the idea of a two-state solution that calls into question Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state. Quite the contrary: Anyone who calls for a two-state solution implicitly recognizes and accepts the validity, the legitimacy, of the Jewish state.
It is those who prattle on about a one-state solution who reject Israel’s legitimacy. These days, the one-staters are in the ascendance. There are those who say that the point of no return has already been reached, that a two-state solution is no longer possible. Others say that midnight, though imminent, is still avoidable. In the Arab world, there is a growing feeling that time is now on its side, that the Jewish state will soon implode as the world gives up on two states living side-by-side in security and peace.
That does not mean that a two-state solution offers a problem-free resolution to the conflict. All we know for sure is that absent a two-state solution, the Jewish state is doomed, while with two states there will be new and perplexing problems and possibly new and dangerous threats as well. Choosing a possible downside over a certain doomside is a no-brainer. We dare not conflate criticism, even impatience, with delegitimization. Who goes there, friend or foe? If for a two-state solution, hence accepting of a Jewish state, then friend.
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.
To post a comment, click to login:
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This looks intentional to me.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf
770. In the late morning of 7 January 2009, Israeli tanks moved onto the small piece of agricultural land in front of the house. Shortly after 12.30 p.m., the inhabitants of that part of Izbat Abd Rabbo heard megaphone messages telling all residents to leave. According to one witness’s recollection, there had also been a radio message broadcast by the Israeli armed forces around 12.30 announcing that there would be a temporary cessation of shooting between 1 and 4 p.m. that day, during which time residents of the area were asked to walk to central Jabaliyah.
771. At about 12.50 p.m., Khalid Abd Rabbo, his wife Kawthar, their three daughters, Souad (aged 9), Samar (aged 5) and Amal (aged 3), and his mother, Hajja Souad Abd Rabbo, stepped out of the house, all of them carrying white flags. Less than 10 metres from the door was a tank, turned towards their house. Two soldiers were sitting on top of it having a snack (one was eating chips, the other chocolate, according to one of the witnesses). The family stood still, waiting for orders from the soldiers as to what they should do, but none was given. Without warning, a third soldier emerged from inside the tank and started shooting at the three girls and then also at their grandmother. Several bullets hit Souad in the chest, Amal in the stomach and Samar in the back. Hajja Souad was hit in the lower back and in the left arm.
Your problem and that of your friend is that you believe like most Jews, religious or not, because so much of Jewishness is tramitted socially, is that you blame your sins for the problems in your life. Sorry but that is an illusion and myth like all religious beliefs. You repeat the false idea that it has been forty three years of occupation that the Arabs are complaining about but that is repeated only because that was a point Israel could have given itself a choice or did it have a choice. The real problem, the real timeline that upsets Arabs began not even in 1947/1948 but when the first European Jews step foot in Israel as zionists. You don't repeat that because Jews fleeing progroms and extermination and fighting the combined armies of the Arabs world doesn't give you the right of self blame short wanting the same thing as the Czar and the Nazis. Now back to 1967, what you believe is an anachronism because even if Israel gave back the land without any of its conditions being met, none of which were, which is why they kept it, what makes you believe that the same situation would not not have continued, thousands upon thousands of Fatach attacks, and additional wars launched from the territories, with the ever increasing level of weapons and organization. The Gaza war would never happened if Israel did not withdraw.
While I have not read the actual Goldstone Report I do understand that Israel does have to held up to a higher standard than its' rather less than admirable neighbors. If she did engage in unwarrented and unnecessary activities she must be called on it even in her precarious position. In this way she can then retain the high moral ground she has been judged upon since 1948. Like the United States she too has a certain responsibility to the world regardless of how difficult it can get in reality. As for her adversaries, I will let the Normans of the world justify and condone their everyday activities that make the Goldstone Report look like a Marx Brothers movie or a Shakesperian tragedy, whatever your choice.
Good article. And, as Leonard Fein indicates, Israel must investigate its actions and figure out how to improve its ability to defend itself while minimizing civilian casualties. It is constantly doing so, because it does seek the moral high ground, not because a cabal on a mission and a "Jewish" fellow traveler named Goldstone say so. Those who support Israel must either help and publicize the internal investigation (probably the best way to "stop talking about Goldstone"), or help to take apart the Report. The investigation can and will involve vigorous debate; the Goldstone Report's fraudulence and lack of professionalism are not subject to debate. They are simply hallmarks of the career of a small man, whose main contribution to justice has been how to distort it in the name of personal ambition. That's his legacy; for those of us who are focused on true tikkun olam, ours will be much better.
"All we know for sure is that absent a two-state solution, the Jewish state is doomed..." Well, if there is one thing that we all know for sure it is the fact that no one knows anything for sure about the future. Mr Fein is a friend of Israel who understands the centrality of Israel in the history of the Jewish people. What he doesn't understand is the mindset of Israel's enemies. If Israel is "doomed" without a two-state solution, then one can be certain that the Palestinian side will not agree to such an arrangement.
I understand from Mr Fein's weekly articles over the years that he sees progress towards a two-state solution as something that depends solely on Israel. If Israel would be "serious" about this solution, it could be achieved. However, reality is quite different. The Palestinian side of the conflict has the will-power to reject a solution, bearing the consequences thereof. Not seeing their strength of resolve is a kind of haughtiness - as if the Palestinians are not really significant. They are significant. They see the conflict as a multi-generational struggle, and ultimately (so they believe) they will be victorious. Mr Fein, unwittingly, has come out in favor of the true Palestinian position: Be stubborn, don't ever allow for any Jewish legitimacy - and eventially Zionism will be defeated. Or, in Mr Fein's wording, "all we know for sure is that absent a two-state solution, the Jewish state is doomed".
This should be our stated position: We are willing to negotiate an end of conflict based on two states for two peoples. However, in the absence of an agreed solution (in the absence of a Palestinian agreement to negotiate an end of conflict that recognizes Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel), we will be able to continue indefitely to bear the burden of life in conflict. Moreover, despite the burdens of conflict, the State of Israel will continue being the most thriving and exciting Jewish community in the history of the Jewish people.
Yehuda , brilliant, thank you for thinking beyond the mindless false platitudes.
Leonard Fein's article is a balanced one and attempts to be fair. But how is it that in the interminable discussion on whether criticism of Israel's violent relationship with the inhabitants of the territories it occupies is legitimate or not, there's seldom any mention of human rights or Israel's responsibility as an occupying power under international law? Israel reached agreement with Egypt and Jordan but for 42 years has found excuses for ignoring Palestinian aspirations for statehood. Why? Simply because it prefers to see the Palestinian problem in military rather than political terms. As a military problem it is "manageable" since Israel can counter rifles and crude rockets with artillery, tanks and planes. On the practical side the policy has permitted more and more Palestinian land to be squatted by Israeli settlers. Operation Cast Lead was an exercise in collective punishment, as is the ongoing blockade of the entire Gaza Strip. The disproportionate number of civilian casualties cited in the Goldstone report speak for themselves but unconditional apologists for Israeli intransigence either blame the victims of the unequal conflict - claiming "they brought it on themselves" - or smear Goldstone, in a transparent attempt to "kill the messenger".
Yehuda et al: 1. I don't believe Israel is exclusively responsible for moving towards a 2-state solution, but I do think it bears the principal responsibility. And I believe that its own ambivalence, close to what the French used to call immobilisme, to 2-states is very damaging. 2. I do not think Israel can hold to the status quo indefinitely. The forces that urge a one-state solution, whether out of malice or out of impatience, gather strength. 3. I conclude, therefore, that Israel ought do everything it can to encourage Palestinian moderates. That may not be enough -- but we cannot know that without having tried.
There will not be a forced solution to the conflict. There will be a two-state solution when both sides agree to end the conflict through partition. There is no principle responsibility or secondary responsibility. The Palestinians, even as the seemingly weaker side of the conflict, have the power to accept or reject a proposal. They have proven their determination to struggle even at the price of absolute defeat. In essence, this is a kind of strength, and so they are equals.
Similarly, there will not be a one-state forced solution either. The world's "impatience" or "malice", Mr Fein, is not going to convince a society to cancel its statehood - and lose control of its ultimate fate. So, if there will not be an agreed end of conflict (one-state or two-state arrangement or some other idea), then the conflict will continue. It's sad, but it's not the end of the world either. We seem to be a very successful and creative society even as the conflict remains unsolvable. Amazingly, the small yishuv of the beginning of the 20th century has risen up as the largest and the most impressive Jewish society in the world - despite the conflict.
You speak of "encouraging Palestinian moderates". Your positions encourage Palestinian rejectionism. You are telling us that the world is losing its patience (with us), and that Israel is "doomed" unless it reaches a two-state solution. You are telling people (the Palestinians) who have endless patience that only for Israel there is no time. Impatience (or malice) of the world, so you try to convince us, works against Israel. However, if you really believe in peace, then you have to apply pressure also on the Palestinians. Telling them that time is working against Israel encourages them to drag their feet, because (according to your good advice) the world will eventually force Israel to sacrifice itself.
Our message has to be the exact opposite. We want a negotiated end of conflict. If, however, it is impossible to arrive at an agreed arrangement - we, too, are an ancient people that has known very difficult times throughout long generations in a very hostile world. We'll continue to survive (and thrive) under the pressures of conflict as we have until now. We can handle the pressures of an impatient world, as well.
Did you notice, Mr Fein, that the Forward editorial came out strongly in favor of improved Hebrew literacy in the American Jewish community?
There is the Qassam and the Al Fajr, but the Goldstone is the most effective weapon of all
While I respect Carlo for his civility and attempt to broaden the prospective of this most tragic situation I really feel that Israel has unjustifiably borne the brunt of the blame for the Palestinian issue. Granted its' settlement policy is much to blame for resentment along with its' retaliation against those who seek her destruction. But that is the crux of the issue. Even in the West Bank where the so-called moderate Palestinian Authority rules, madrassas are widespread as in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan where children are routinely taught to hate Jews enough as to exterminate them. While the security forces have improved Israel still has to send its' own forces into the West Bank in order to preempt potential stikes into its' own county by radical elements. As far as Gaza is concerned it should be pointed out that Hamas was elected directly by the people. They bare responsibility for their government's actions. Hamas still seeks Israel's destruction. She has every right to inspect all humanitarian aid headed for Gaza against any weaponry being smuggled in for obvious purposes. I don't think that is asking too much. While I may seem like an apologist for Israel's reactions I must also emphasize that history going back to the 1920's & 1930's clearly shows that the Palestinians are very much to blame for their current condition. As for human rights violations, I have always acknowledged that Israel must be held to a higher standard than its neighbors. However when they routinely treat their own peoples in the same manner they accuse Israel, then that takes on a whole new dimension, especially when their apologists remain conspicuously silent.
Michael K. - You sound as if you are apologizing for defending Israel ("while I may seem like an apologist for Israel's reactions..."). There is nothing wrong with identifying with one's own and defending one's own. Actually, it is quite normal and praiseworthy. You should note that it is NOT the "settlement policy" (or "retaliation") that is to blame for Palestinian resentment. Their resentment lies in what they perceive as a western "plot" to found a Jewish state in this country. In the propaganda realm, it is very successful to focus on the settlements. It would be much less successful to present a narrative in which they would emphasize, for example, that there is no Jewish connection to this country.
Carlo - There is no Palestinian state, because the Palestinians have no intention at present of founding their state. Statehood can be achieved as part of an end-of-conflict arrangement. This means that their statehood is conditionalized on the acceptance of the legitimacy of Israel as final. For the time being, from the Palestinian point of view, this is out of the question.
Raed Kami - I agree with you that the Goldstone Report is a weapon in the war against Israel. However, you believe that this propaganda weapon, together with the Qassam and the al-Fajr missiles, will ultimately bring about Israel's defeat and disappearance. Your position is "a fight to the end", not compromise or mutual understanding. It's quite sad that you wish for the Palestinians generations of conflict. One would imagine that a real pro-Palestinian activist (one who really cares about them) would encourage the Palestinians to strike a deal and end the conflict. Well, it turns out, as least as far as you're concerned, that there isn't really a "pro-Palestinian" activism. Rather, it is really an anti-Israel activism.
Norman:The former commander of British military forces in Afghanistan,Col.Richard Kemp, in an interview with BBC extolled the IDF's operations during Operation Cast Lead.He held that the IDF as having made more effort to reduce civilian deaths and casualties than any military force in the "history of warfare." Assuming the UN Human Rights repot is accurate,horrible, irresponsible behavior by military types do occur on a regular basis in warfare.I wonder what that UN group would have expressed had it been in existence at the time of Allied bombings in Europe and the Pacific during WW2.The only way to have avoided the alleged tragedy you depicted was for the Hamas and its supporters not to have committed homicide bombings and launched 7000-12,000 rockets and mortars against the Jewish State,slamming into civilian areas and causing enormous psychological damage,physical damage and not a few deaths and injuries.
Yehuda, While I agree that the Palestinians are using the settlement issue as an excuse for their belligerence I don't think it is in Israel's best interest to keep expanding into the West Bank for obvious reasons long analyzed many times over. That is why I may have appeared to "apologize" for some of what I consider excesses on her part. You are right on the money when you say that Israel's very existance is the primary reason behind the current animosity. Ever since the seventh century, Islam has consistantly used the Koran as justification for its' inflated sense of entitlement to every piece of land from Mecca and Medina westward along the coast of North Africa to the Atlantic and then back eastward halfway around the world to Indonesia. To them western civilization is the ultimate curse despite the fact that Mohammed acknowledged Abraham as a prophet.
Now we know that the Goldstone report is full of inaccuracies.
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/world/middleeast/24goldstone.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
Israel Poised to Challenge U.N. Report on Gaza http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/world/middleeast/24goldstone.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
By ETHAN BRONNER Published: January 23, 2010 TEL AVIV — The Israeli military is completing a rebuttal to a United Nations report accusing it of grave violations of international and humanitarian law in its Gaza invasion a year ago. Its central aim is to dispel the report’s harsh conclusion — that the death of noncombatants and destruction of civilian infrastructure were part of an official plan to terrorize the Palestinian population. The United Nations report, by a committee led by Richard Goldstone, an esteemed South African judge, was published in late September and called on Israel to carry out an independent investigation of its conduct of the three-week war. Israel, which had refused to cooperate with the investigation, at first dismissed the report as unworthy of attention. But the government quickly found that the world took it quite seriously and found itself accused of premeditated war crimes. It now considers fighting that charge a priority. “We face three major strategic challenges,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said recently. “The Iranian nuclear program, rockets aimed at our civilians and Goldstone.” The rebuttal will be given to United Nations officials in the coming weeks and its contents will remain under wraps until then. But officers involved in writing the report gave some details. One concerned the destruction of Gaza’s sole flour mill. The Goldstone report asserts that the Bader flour mill “was hit by an airstrike, possibly by an F-16.” The Israeli investigators say they have photographic proof that this is false, that the mill was accidentally hit by artillery in the course of a firefight with Hamas militiamen. The dispute is significant since the United Nations report asserts that “the destruction of the mill was carried out for the purpose of denying sustenance to the civilian population,” an explicit war crime. A second finding concerned the destruction of a wastewater plant, leading to an enormous outflow of raw sewage. The Goldstone report contended that it was hit by a powerful Israeli missile in a strike that was “deliberate and premeditated.” The Israelis say they had nothing to do with that plant’s collapse and suggest that it may have been the result of Hamas explosives. The two cases, along with the destruction of chicken coops, water wells, a cement plant and some 4,000 homes, are crucial building blocks in the Goldstone case that Israel set out to eliminate infrastructure so as to cause intense civilian suffering. The report stated that “the destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces.” It added that Israel waged “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.” Maj. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit, the Israeli military advocate general, said in an interview that those assertions went beyond anything of which others had accused Israel. “I have read every report, from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Arab League,” he said at his desk in the military’s Tel Aviv headquarters. “We ourselves set up investigations into 140 complaints. It is when you read these other reports and complaints that you realize how truly vicious the Goldstone report is. He made it look like we set out to go after the economic infrastructure and civilians, that it was intentional. It’s a vicious lie.” Another senior military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity following regular military practice, said that neither the military command structure nor the government wanted to invade Gaza in December 2008, but felt that the continual rocket attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians forced their hand. The war, he said, followed the least aggressive of three contemplated routes — conquer Gaza and occupy it again as was done in the West Bank in 2002, retake Hamas’s weapons supply routes and hold them to dry out the organization’s arsenal, or attack the Hamas military and state infrastructure and leave. It was the third that occurred. That invasion killed some 1,400 Palestinians and destroyed a great deal of property, including buildings like the parliament’s offices that have no military function. There were accusations of inappropriate weapons use. All that led many human rights advocates, both foreign and Israeli, to accuse Israel of violating international norms. So in November, Brig. Gen. Yuval Halamish, a former intelligence commander, led an investigation that involved scores of interviews of Israeli soldiers and Palestinian witnesses as well as reviewing military videotape and photographs. He submitted his findings to General Mandelblit, who is independent of the command structure but who wears a uniform, offered legal advice on targets before the operation and is widely seen as an insider. The military investigation is expected to argue that while errors were made, Israel is not guilty of any serious crimes. It will argue that the rules of war need to be adapted to the kind of asymmetric warfare Israel increasingly faces: fighting a popular militia that intentionally mixes with the civilian population. Mr. Netanyahu and his government have not decided whether to submit the findings to independent scrutiny, as the Goldstone report specifies. They may do so in a partial way — by asking a group of nonmilitary Israeli jurists to examine the rebuttal but without power to recall witnesses, an approach favored by the military and those close to it. Others say there must be an independent, nonmilitary investigation. “Israel owes it to its own citizens and soldiers, as well as to the victims, to carry out an independent investigation,” said Moshe Halbertal, a professor of Jewish philosophy at Hebrew University and a co-author of the military’s code of ethics. Mr. Halbertal said that he was concerned about persistent reports during the Gaza operation that commanders had a “no risk” policy for their soldiers, which led to the unnecessary destruction of property and the shooting of civilians who were feared dangerous. This is also the view of the organization Breaking the Silence, a group of military reservists who have given testimony about receiving orders in the war to shoot or destroy in ways that violated ethical standards and the military’s own code. General Halamish said in an interview that the army chose not to attack many leaders of Hamas because they lived among children and the elderly. He added that during the operation, Israel withheld fire for three hours a day so food and other aid supplies could be brought into Gaza. During those hours, he said, a quarter of the shooting from Hamas took place. Hamas also ambushed the civilian supply trucks. While many here think that the Goldstone report failed to expose of the practices of Hamas, they are more concerned about their own army’s conduct. Still, virtually no one in Israel, including the leaders of Breaking the Silence and the human rights group B’Tselem, thinks that the Goldstone accusation of an assault on civilians is correct. “I do not accept the Goldstone conclusion of a systematic attack on civilian infrastructure,” said Yael Stein, research director of B’Tselem. “It is not convincing. But every incident and every policy has to be checked by an independent body because the military cannot check itself. They need to explain why so many people were killed.”
I just read that New York Times story and I recommend everyone read it. It's easier to read in the NYT with paragraphs.
If it's an objective examination of the facts, and the evidence for and against the charges, it might show that some of the charges in Goldstone's report are unsupported.
But if it's just hasbara, nobody's going to take it seriously.
The main Forward editorial this week is about the crisis of Hebrew illiteracy in American Jewry. There is never any possibility to comment on the editorials, so I would like to use Mr Fein's column as the place to say a few words of praise to the Forward.
The Forverts was originally a Yiddish newspaper dedicated to socialist ideals, as its German (non-Yiddish) name suggested. Moreover, as a newspaper for Jewish immigrants, it called for the assimilation of Jews into American society. Hebrew achievements would not ordinarilly be the agenda of such a newspaper. Today, socialist ideology is no longer an important issue in the American Jewish community, and obviously assimilation and Americanization are no longer in need of encouragement - they already have happened. Now is the time to start worrying about Jewishness.
The editorial quotes Leon Wieseltier: "Without Hebrew, the Jewish tradition will not disappear entirely in America; but most of it will certainly disappear". Using the exaggerated terminology of Mr Fein in the above article, what the Forward is saying is that American Jewry is "doomed" without a return to Hebrew literacy. Perhaps, in more moderate words, it is being claimed that the Jewish experience has become a mere shadow of itself.
Kol ha-kavod for understanding the magnitude of crisis. The American Jewish public generally sees itself as a tremendous success story. It takes some courage to tell this public that it's not so - that in the realm of Jewish cultural continuity, there is a dismal failure.
Once upon a time (see http://www.forward.com/articles/13987/ ), Mr Fein wrote in a comment to his own article that "calling for a dramatic change in Hebrew achievement in America is, sadly, a waste of breath". Well, I'm happy to discover that the Forward doesn't agree with him. It is a public service of the first order to point out the real crises of Jewish life - in Israel as well as in the Diaspora. What the Forward editorial staff understands is that it is possible to teach Hebrew. All that is lacking is the determination of the Jewish public to make it happen. That determination, Mr Fein, can be motivated by the Jewish press.
Yehuda claims: "There is no Palestinian state, because the Palestinians have no intention at present of founding their state." I would suggest reference to the Saudi plan, among others, based on a return to the 1967 borders, division of Jerusalem, and an agreed solution to the refugee problem. He continues: "Statehood can be achieved as part of an end-of-conflict arrangement. This means that their statehood is conditionalized on the acceptance of the legitimacy of Israel as final." There is unlikely to be an end to the conflict while Israel, imbued with a military mindset, continues to regard the Palestinian issue as a predominently tactical problem, manageable by Israel's superior military technology, rather than a political one, and Israeli zealots continue to pursue their seizure of Palestinian farmland. The recognition-of-legitimacy requirement is a red herring. Where else in international diplomacy has such a demand preceded negotiations between belligerents? In the Cast Lead incursion Israel gave new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare" by achieving, in reprisal for Kassam rocket attacks, a fatal casualty ratio of 100 to 1. Since then it continues to maintain a crushing economic blockade. As a regional military and economic superpower Israel holds all the cards. Even now Palestinian families are being ethnically cleansed in East Jerusalem. Were the circumstances not tragic, the claim that the displaced and impoverished Palestinian people are simply victims of their own rhetoric would be laughable.
I agree, Carlo, this "recognition of Israel" argument is a red herring.
Yassar Arafat recognized Israel. He wished the Jewish people happy new year.
Abbas recognized Israel.
What good did it do them? The Israelis simply said it wasn't enough, and went on to humiliate them.
It just demonstrated to the Palestinians that any Palestinian who tried peaceful approaches to the Israelis would be humiliated.
The Israeli political system is paralyzed. They need outside forces, like an EU economic blockade, to force them to peace.
I respectfully take issue with both Carlo and Norman. While Saudi Arabia did make gestures toward Israel it was never formally recognized by the entire Arab League and litte if any pressure was exterted upon Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Arafat and Abbas paid lip service to it at best. The proof is in the pudding. While the Palestinian security forces on the West Bank have improved Israel still deems it necessary to sent its' own commandos there to prevent potential attacks. The presence and activities of the Madrassas on the West Bank also create suspicion about the sincerity of the socalled Arab Moderates. These are the schools that teach Palestinian children to hate and kill Jews much in the same way Hitler did in Germany in the 1930's. They also exist in Saudi Arabia on a large scale. While it may be necessary for the EU to get involved they will inevitable have their hands full. Israel unfortunately has its' share of Zealots. However the Palestinians have a rather dubious history themselves and must reap what they sew.
Like I said, when Palestinians recognize Israel, the Israeli party line is, "It's not enough."
Likud and Netanyahu demanded "perfect peace," and used any act by any extremist faction as an excuse to resume hostilities, even though they didn't give the Palestinians perfect peace, since the settlers were regularly attacking and killing Palestinian farmers.
You complain about "schools that teach Palestinian children to hate and kill Jews much in the same way Hitler did in Germany in the 1930's." How about the schools that teach Jewish children to hate and kill Palestinians, like the ones profiled on the front page of this week's Forward?
This just shows how the Israelis have a double standard, one for themselves and another for the Palestinians.
"Recognizing Israel" is a red herring.
Norman, you can't expect people to love those who wish their destruction. As for recognizing Israel being a "red herring", you act as if the "Palestinians" have been the total victims at the hands of the Israelis. If anything it is just the opposite. Go back to the 1920's & 1930's and examine the arrogance and self rightousness of the "Palestinian" most of whom emigrated to Palestine around the same time the Jews did. In pre 1967 Israel there are appoximately 1.2 million Israelis Arabs who live there by choice. Why weren't they "expelled" by Israel in 1948? While their status may not be first class (by Jewish Standards) the Israelis have treated them far better than their own bretheren not only in the West Bank and Gaza, but also in the rest of the Arab world. Let the rest of the Arab world absorb these displaced people much in the same way Israel absorbed 900,000 Jews who lived in Arab countries for several thousand years and were either formally expelled or forced to flee from 1948 to 1956. As for the double standard it is the Arabs and Palestinians who take that to a new dimension.
So much discussion from supposedly intelligent people. I will spell it out so that a 5 year old would understand. You cannot keep what you stole. You stole Palestine. Therefore you must return it (pre and post 1967) to its owners. Yes, we recognize israel, the same way that a person with anal cancer recognizes their cancer. It is an obstacle that must be overcome. Until you cough up what you stole, you will rightfully be the target of the worlds opprobrium, despite your antics in Haiti
Mr. Fein has the chutzpa to suggest to Israel Jews to give up everything that they fought for under impending doom. Mr. Fein of course supported black rule in Rhodesia and South Africa, this was suicidal for the future of whites in both countries. Mr. Fein supported probably the free elections in Gaza and now Hamas is in power. If there were free elections which of course Mr. Fein would support, in Egypt there would be the Muslim Brotherhood in power. I am sure Mr. Fein was against the Pahlavis now Khomeinis. Israel gave back the control of the West Bank to the PLO a thousand Jews dead and Israel had to take it back by force. If there was full sovereignty there would soon be all-out war. Mr. Fein lives in the elitist deluded world of a leftist idealogue not the real world of Israelis. Its bad enough when old men like Mr. Fein send young men to fight, but it is sick for US Jews to disarm Israel to fulfill an illogical politically motivated agenda.
Carlo - The Palestinians have no intention at present of declaring statehood. The Saudi Proposal, whether serious or not, does not change the fact that the Palestinians have no intention at present of declaring statehood. And if you have mentioned a peace proposal, what exactly is the Palestinian peace proposal? I have never heard of a Palestinian idea saying that if "x" and "y" are fulfilled, then the conflict with Israel will come to an end. The Palestinians have rejected a number of Israeli proposals for an end of conflict agreement, but they have never come back with their counter-proposal. I'm not even criticizing them. My criticism is focused much more on my own side. I believe that we should insist on hearing the Palestinian counter-proposal before making any further proposals. Carlo, you can rest assured that there will not be a Palestinian counter-proposal - just as you can rest assured that they have no intention of declaring statehood.
According to your understanding of the Saudi Proposal, it includes "an agreed solution to the refugee problem". Let's assume that you have it just right. Well, what is that agreed solution to the refugee problem? What is the "proposal" to Israel? Notice, it's absolutely clear what is means "to withdraw to the 1967 borders", just as it's absolutely clear what it means "to divide Jerusalem". It may also be very clear to them what they mean by "an agreed solution to the refugee problem" - but, interestingly, they do not really propose any proposal. Surely, there is no "agreed solution to the refugee problem".
The recognition of Israel's legitimacy is the very heart of the conflict. You and Norman belittle it (a "red herring") - and yet this is the very essence of conflict. The decision to go to war in 1948 was based on the rejection of Jewish claims to sovereignty in this country. Returning refugees or withdrawing from territory or dividing Jerusalem will not deal with the basic grievance of the Palestinian side - and hence the conflict will not be resolved. Israel has every right to insist that the arrangement between the two sides is final, and that there are no more claims or grievances. This is also the nature of negotiations: every side raises the issues that concern it. The Palestinians will have to address this Israeli concern within the framework of an end of conflict deal (just as Israel will have to address Palestinian concerns).
Raed Kami, just what do mean by "stole"? Perhaps it is the Muslims, using the Koran as justification, who stole all the land they conquered back in the seventh to ninth centuries spreading their gospel of hatred, racism and ethnocentrism halfway around the world complete with forced conversions, slavery, subjugation of women and death to those who resisted. So much for the word "stole". Now for the first time in fourteen hundred years when shoe is on the other foot you then refer to Israel as "anal cancer." I would then say that you have just written the definitive fifteen volume encyclopedia on hubris. The real cancer lies with your perverted mind with an inflated sense to entitlement to every parcel of land you deem to belong to the "followers of Islam".
Israel is illegitimate not because it is unrecognized by a lot of goy states but because it was proclaimed-- in defiance of the plain command of G-d himself-- by a bunch of atheists, agnostics and worshipers of Moloch.
The Torah orders Jews, as penalty for their misdemeanors, to expiate their sins in exile. They are to be good citizens of the countries into which they were cast and await the divine call to return to their homeland. Today more than half the world's Jews, by refusing aliyah in the teeth of enormous incentives and intimidation, implicitly acknowledge that G-d got it right. The 'State of Israel' is a dysfunctional failure, a huge camp for jailers and prisoners subsidized by the USA and despised or loathed by much of the rest of the world.
Gradual social assimilation into the European mainstream, not affecting freedom to worship, was a ground on which quietist, pious Jews and secular socialists and the like could meet and co-exist happily with one another and with their gentile hosts. Then the Zionists, led by the neurotic and megalomaniac Herzl, began to jump the gun. They bribed great powers, chiefly the UK and USA, to assist their designs on the Holy Land. They provoked potential antisemites in Europe and Russia. They cut deals with weaklings who traded their beliefs for the privileges that deface 'religious Zionism' in the 'State of Israel' today. Rabbis betrayed their faith for political power and exemptions.
It was falsely claimed that the Shoah (which Zionism helped to incite anyhow) necessitated the preservation of this rogue state, but its founders had explictly disavowed any such connection before 1967 required a revision in propaganda. During the war Zionist leaders had callously consigned the non- and anti-Zionist majority in European Jewry to the tender mercies of the Germans.
All the disgrace that has befallen the Jewish people since 1948, including the present Pharaonic captivity of Palestinian neighbors, derives from the original sin of G-dless men who thought they knew better than G-d what was best for the Diaspora. So while you can argue from dawn to nightfall about the rights and wrongs and shades of gray in day-to-day conduct of the 'State of Israel', never lose sight of the original sin: its very foundation. All the evils have flowed from that.
www.nkusa.org
Reading Norman's comments is always quite enlightening. One receives a good lesson in the logic of the anti-Israel Jewish intellectual. In order to counter the claim that the Palestinian school system and media are engaged in promoting hatred of Jews, he "asks a question" about the Israeli school system. Notice that he doesn't deny the accusations about the Palestinians. That would be silly, of course. Notice that he doesn't express any criticism of the Palestinian phenomenon either. Anti-Israel people are focused only on Israel, and so they are careful not to criticize her enemies for fear of unwittingly justifying Israel's real concerns. More importantly, notice that he doesn't make a statement about the Israeli school system. That would be silly as well. He merely "asks a question" about some report that he has read. If the report is serious, or if the phenomenon is something very marginal and unrepresentative - well, it doesn't really matter. The "question" frees him from making a statement that could be refuted, but it throws mud on Israel nonetheless.
Most importantly, it is important to see the wider picture of Norman's logic. Countering accusations against Palestinians by referring to a supposedly "similar" phenomenon in Israel frees the supporters of Palestinians from feeling that they support some kind of evil (as if Norman is saying: "it's just like in Israel, so it's normal") - and yet at the same time, the supposed phenomenon in Israel (which has just freed the Palestinians from blame) is a tool for presenting Israel as an aberration.
In another week's debate, when Norman was confronted with the evil intentions of the Hamas Charter, he brushed it all away by saying that charters can be changed. If he could have found some document in Israel in any way comparable to the Hamas Charter, he would have presented it, obviously. Yet, the Hamas Charter is so unique, so evil, so scary - it really stands all alone. So what can poor Norman do? He, obviously doesn't want to be identified with intentions of evil - but it is against the "rules" to condemn Israel's enemies (as noted). So, by saying that "charters can be changed", he disconnects himself from its contents - but he also refrains from condemning Hamas (whom he supports). Well, the charter hasn't been changed, and so Norman's support of Hamas is evil.
David L Nilsson - Once upon a time, Moishe saw his good friend, Yankele, reading an antisemitic newspaper in the city square. "Yankele", cried Moishe, "how can you read such a horrible newspaper?" Answered Yankele: "When I read the Forward, I find out how terrible our situation is. When I read this newspaper, I find out that we control the world!"
When I read your very graphic description of my country, I was wondering if I have been insulted or praised. We are atheists and agnostics who worship the Moloch (personally, I'm an atheist who goes to the temple of the Ba'al and the Ashtoret). You have to admit that one needs intellectual talent for that. We are a dysfunctioning, subsidied society, despised by the whole world - and, yet, we were able to manipulate the US and UK foreign policy through bribery in order to gain control of the Holy Land. I suppose the subsidies were used for the successful bribery. That was indeed quite clever. Imagine - all these years they showed us those silly films about pioneers draining the swamps while singing Hebrew songs.
David L. Nilsson, using your perverted logic, what would you then say about all of the same manipulation in the Koran justifying the Palestinians' actions?
Perhaps Norman and David L Nilsson could get married. They have a lot in common
Norman has called for a EU economic blockade "to force [the Israelis] to [make] peace". How strange it is to see that for pro-Hamas Norman a blockade is a legitimate tool for applying pressure on one's enemy. I'm rather sure that a blockade wouldn't be a legitimate tool in his eyes if it were applied against the Hamas regime.
But there is another more important issue here besides Norman's double standards. I think that the anti-Israel intellectual should give some good advice to the Palestinians based on the Jewish experience. A Jewish society is full of self-criticism. There are real enemies out there and real threats against us. It's not our imagination or some kind of paranoia. And, yet, we are able to analyze ourselves and give ourselves plenty of tough criticism. The Ha-aretz and the Forward are merely two examples of the phenomenon. The founding of J-Street is also quite interesting. They declare themselves to be "pro-Israel", and they express their concern and identification with Israel through tough criticism. Such criticism is often embarrassing - and, yet, it is a positive phenomenon.
Why is it that the pro-Palestinian crowd has no criticism of Palestinian behavior and policy (and no expectation that the Palestinians show some soul-searching)? There is high unemployment in Gaza, for example. The Palestinians will tell you that it is the result of Israel's blockade. A friend of the Palestinians - one who really cares about them - should tell them that violence ("al-kifah al-musallah" - "the armed struggle") has been a failure. It has closed off the border with Israel, causing economic hardship.
Sadly, a "pro-Palestinian" activist is really an anti-Israel activist. The focus is always on Israel - not on the well-being of Palestinians. A real pro-Palestinian activist would try and convince the Palestinians that they have control over their own fate (i.e. they can bring about the end of the conflict). An anti-Israel activist, such as Norman, has no criticism towards the Palestinians. So he'll merely agree with them that they are "victims" who have no control of their lives - and then he'll mislead them into thinking that others will act on their behalf, freeing them from any peace-making responsibility (Norman suggests a EU blockade - he doesn't suggest that Hamas present its end of conflict peace proposal).
Well said Yehuda, I have been saying this all along. The double standard is alive and well. Let the Normans of the world hold the Palestinians and other Arabs up to even half the standards they hold Israel. They may find themselves not only disappointed but totally disillusioned.
Ben Levi: "We are a dysfunctioning, subsidied society, despised by the whole world - and, yet, we were able to manipulate the US and UK foreign policy through bribery in order to gain control of the Holy Land. I suppose the subsidies were used for the successful bribery."
Enough disngenuousness, already. Do you know how much the governing party relies on Jewish contributions and activism? How much of the IDF's budget comes home to USA in defense work? What percentage of Congress members rely on Jewish campaign contributions? (80% of them, by one count.)
It's a 2% minority whose influence on American public opinion, through the media as well as the pocket book, is out of all proportion. The Lobby's machinations cause Congress's abysmal, groveling reflexive adulation of the 'State of Israel', making Washington a laughing stock throughout the world in our neoconized imperial twilight. The suicidal foreign policy is another gift of G-dless Jews to the USA: Israel Uber Alles.
Herzl said Israel would be the one nation where Jews could begin to lead normal lives. His blueprint and his heirs have made it one of the weirdest corners on earth-- a Potemkin village of a country, openly derided by most foreigners who have an opinion of it and hated by not a few. Meanwhile more than half the folks for whom it was designed (including you, Ben, apparenly) won't settle there.
A rogue state, and a failing state. Zionism is a crock. Demography will doom its construct, for all its nukes. Time to start over; listen to Toraic teachings this time instead of the ravings of 19th century blowhards or Middle Eastern and Russian Jews with room-temp IQs in the Knesset.
www.nkusa.org