Learn Some Lessons From Gaza Withdrawal
The Forward’s October 10 editorial, “Ehud Olmert’s Parting Words Dared To Offer Painful Truth,” ignores the consequences of Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines.
The people of Sderot and the western Negev have been suffering ever since Israel withdrew all its civilians, soldiers and military bases from Gaza in 2005. Palestinian armed forces have used settlement areas abandoned by Israel as strategic forward bases from which they launch attacks against our communities.
While there is now a temporary cease-fire, there is no question that attacks on our communities will increase in ferocity when it comes to an end in December.
The danger of future Israeli withdrawals is not to the settlements established after 1967. The threat is that Fatah and Hamas will use any area ceded to them as forward bases from which they will attack the rest of Israel, from Jerusalem to the Ben Gurion International Airport.
This is not a left-wing or right-wing position. This is reality.
Why does the Forward ignore the Gaza precedent of the consequences of Israeli withdrawals?
Noam Bedein
CEO
Sderot Media Center
Sderot, Israel
The Forward takes the convenient view that, since it agrees with Ehud Olmert’s current policy to retreat entirely from Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem and create a Palestinian state, Olmert is right to pursue this policy even though he has resigned.
Untrue.
In democracies, caretaker prime ministers do not even appoint new ministers and heads of departments, let alone initiate new policies and diplomatic initiatives — especially when the public opposes them, as the Israel public does here. A March 2008 Maagar Mochot poll found that 62% of Israeli Jews, on principle, oppose discussing dividing Jerusalem in negotiations with the Palestinians. Moreover, most also believe that there is “very little chance” that signing a final-status peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority — even one that divides Jerusalem — would bring either a cessation of terrorist attacks (69%) or an end to Palestinian claims in Jerusalem (61%).
The Israeli view is based on reality: An An-Najah National University poll from last month showed that 54.3% of Palestinians reject the idea of a Palestinian state living in peace with a neighboring Israel.
Neither democratic practice, Israeli opinion nor Palestinian views lends support to the idea that setting up a Palestinian state in order to produce peace is a policy Olmert should be advancing.
Morton A. Klein
National President
Zionist Organization of America
New York, N.Y.
Orthodox Spoke Out, But Did Yoffie Listen?
With respect to the labor law charges that have been leveled against Agriprocessors, Rabbi Eric Yoffie writes that he has not heard from “the Orthodox community and its leaders” about the importance of ethical treatment of workers (“Orthodoxy’s Kosher Crisis,” October 3).
I think I may know why.
Back in June, shortly after the federal raid on the Agriprocessors plant, the Rabbinical Council of America issued a statement, born of l’affaire Agriprocessors, about the Jewish mandate to treat our fellow human beings, “Jew or non-Jew, rich or poor … legal or illegal immigrants … with fairness and dignity at all times”; the importance of obeying “all of the laws and regulations of the land”; and the need to “show sensitivity to needless animal suffering, preventing it where possible, and minimizing it when unavoidable.”
That same month, in a syndicated column, an Agudath Israel of America spokesperson (that would be me) wrote that “a Jewish business operating in bad faith, violating the law of the land or mistreating its employees deserves tochacha, halachically appropriate criticism. Its actions violate the Torah and carry great potential for ‘chilul Hashem,’ or desecration of G-d’s name.” That theme has been sounded repeatedly and publicly over many years by rabbinic luminaries at the helm of Agudath Israel.
It behooves Rabbi Yoffie, as it does all of us, to withhold judgment about guilt here (and, I would submit, to refrain from calling Agriprocessors’ owners “rapacious”) until the company has had its day in court. But if the rabbi hasn’t heard Orthodox rabbinic voices speak out on the importance of Jewish business ethics, it’s likely because he hasn’t been listening.
Rabbi Avi Shafran
Director of Public Affairs
Agudath Israel of America
New York, N.Y.
A Jewish State Should Protect Jews First
I read with interest the article about “pogroms” perpetrated by settlers against the Palestinians (“After ‘Pogrom’ Israel Debates Who Controls Settler Violence,” September 26).
Ehud Olmert seems annoyed about Jews retaliating. He doesn’t want pogroms against non-Jewish residents. All the talk is about the Israeli army protecting the Palestinians.
Who is supposed to protect the settlers? How many homes have to be burned down? How many children stabbed?
It seems to me that the agenda is to demonize the settlers, so that they can be kicked out like the residents of Gaza, who still have not been rehabilitated as promised. The job of a Jewish government is to protect Jewish citizens first and worry about non-Jews second.
Before Tzipi Livni gives away half of Israel, with nothing in return, I hope she keeps that in mind!
Miriam Edelstein
Nanuet, N.Y.
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.
But why are the settlers there in the first place? The Jewish state should be protecting the Jews inside it, not on someone else's land. The occupation of the West Bank is totally justified in view of the events leading upto it - and I mean from 1918 - yes. But those settlements should be only military outposts, to be dismantled in the event of a peace settlement. And the 54% of Pal;estinians against a 2-state solution should be seen as remarkably positive - by now I would expect it to be 60% +. If such a settlement were to be on the cards and placed before the people, I bet there would be acceptance. Yes, I am very well aware that there may be legal arguments that Israel's presence on the West Bank may not be an "occupation" in the same sense as, say, German occupation of France etc in 1939-45. But let's get real: Israel accepted in 1948 the UN 1947 partition plan and has accepted its international obligations on that basisfrom then on.
In response to Mr. Vogel's comments of 10/12 that the West Bank will be returned as part of a peace settlement as Israel already accepted partition in 1947. Since then multiple wars have been fought while the West Bank was part of Jordan. The issue really isn't settlement though it may be to Israel's advantage to cede heavily populated areas but Arab acceptance of peace with Israel. Let's not forget the lessons of war nor the bitter lessons of failed peace negotiations either. Israel does not have a viable partner in the PA and probably not an eager one at that. Better chance of reaching a 3 state solution with Egypt and Jordan i.e. the Allon plan if not exactly his map. Unfortunately for Israel to advance the peace process and attain secure borders demographically as well as militarily secure Israel will have to carry a big stick. Settlements and check points advance Israel's cause.