Comments on: Obama is right, it’s time for honesty

By: Dr. Alvin H. Arzt

Dr. Alvin H. Arzt — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:42:45 +0000

My daughter, Donna E. Arzt, who passed away on November 15, 2008, published a book, “Refugees Into Citizens
- Palestinians and the End of the Arab-Israel Conflict” (A Council On Foreign Relations Book) in 1997. This book answers many of the questions on solving the Palestinian-Israel situation that is being discussed today.
Donna was Professor of Law at Syracuse Law School and a leader in Human Rights.
When she passed away in November, Syracuse University flew the US flag at half-mast in her memory.

By: Corinna

Corinna — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:50:41 +0000

If you want honesty this is it. There is a Palestinian State – Jordan.
How many Palestinians States does the world want. There is no way on earth you can have a two state soltuion in a country that is the size of Wales. The two state solution was never accepted by the arab world because lets be honest they dont want a Jewish State in the middle east. The palestinian arabs are being used and abused by their own as a thorn in the worlds side to make Israel disappear. The arab world cares little for the palestinian people – what have they done except bring upon them grief and total mental madness.

By: Herbert Kaine

Herbert Kaine — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:44:18 +0000

With respect to Dr Gordis, I think the wrong question is being asked here. The reason Israelis dont think in terms of a West Bank withdrawal is that they have come to realize over the past 9 years that this conflict is not about land, it is about identity. There are 2 conflicting identities. The Jewish/Israeli identity ultimately comes from the Torah, in which the land of Israel is G-d’s gift to the people of Israel. Without this belief, there is no argument to counter Israel being a colonial implant. That is why there is so much “scholarship” in denying Biblical claims to the land of Israel, and why the Jerusalem Waqf is busy destroying Jewish antiquities on the Temple Mount.
The Palestinian narrative is that Israel is a colonial implant based upon an unholy collaboration between Jews, who have falsified a historical claim to the land of Israel (no Kng David, no 1st or 2nd Temples, no Holocaust, etc) and guilt riddent Europe. That is why Arafat couldnt agree to the terms at Camp David, because it would legitimize Jewish claims to at least some of stolen Palestine. No Palestinian leader can agree even to the 1967 borders, because it allows Jews to retain some of stolen Palestine. Therefore Dr Gordis, your question is premature. If there was some semblance that Palestinians would recognize a Jewish state, then we could discuss borders. However, recognizing a Jewish identity in Palestine means negating Palestinian identity. That is where we need to start being honest

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:09:35 +0000

…And couldn’t you find a better picture of Netanyahu?

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:02:57 +0000

Dear Dr. Rabbi Gordis,
Was Netanyahu honest enouh for you? And look what a hogh pogh has already been made of it.
I ask this question: What if the soon to be major minority in (you name it — England France etc.)start to claim that their host country is theirs by right – for whatever reason, what will the hosts say then? Remember that when Gaza and the West Bank were ruled by Egypt and Jordan respectively, there was no complaint of “Palestinian Territory”
Remember too that the Palestine Liberation Movement was started before there was an “occupation”!

By: Perry Scheinok

Perry Scheinok — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:32:49 +0000

Hi David,

Long time no see, not since we were at UJ. The unfortunate thing about it all is that we are not very honest in the United States about our own behavior. I have been constantly asking the following question: What was the difference between Hitler invading the countries he did invade in World War II and our invasion of Iraq? This horrid move has killed thousands and thousands of people for no good reason at all, since the adminsistration knew full well that the excuse to invade Iraq and its WMD was a big lie. Oh yes, once the lie became obvious we started to propagandize the fact that we did it to create a democracy there. Still, as a Shoah survivor I recognize the act for what it was, a horrendous war crime. So why do we bury the entire issue and do not indict Bush and Cheney as war criminals? As long as the current administration is not prepared to do that then the concern about the truth in Israel’s relationship to the Palestinians is not the big issue in my mind. First you clean your own house, then you worry about the other houses on the block. On the other hand, let’s face it. The Arabs have but one thing in mind and that is to destroy Israel. Gaza should have taught us a lesson, and we would be fools not to take that lesson seriously. A 16th century society can’t possibly live peacefully with a 21st century society. The jealousy level is just too great!

By: Loren Sykes

Loren Sykes — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:48:27 +0000

Dear Danny,

Thank you for asking the questions out loud. I am looking forward to hearing your answers, reading the thoughtful answers of others, and trying to put in writing my own answers.

Rav Todot,

Loren

By: Shin He

Shin He — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:47:00 +0000

Are we ever willing to give up the West Bank? Perhaps you should look at the rule book. We never annexed it, nor was it ever awarded to the modern State of Israel by any world body; hell, our greatest allies won’t put their embassies in our capital city because of that. So the first candour/honesty test for us is: you can’t give up something you do not own = one invalid question means we’ve failed it already.

Are we willing to sacrifice access to the West Bank? In a peace deal, there would be no need to ask such a question because access there would be.

Can one just annex land without approval from the international community? Let’s take a look at the Golan. Is our ownership over it recognized by the outside world? No, not one country. Hell, it’s not even recognized by us because returning it to Syria in exchange for peace was actually on our negotiating table recently, wasn’t it? Not even a security risk if the peace is genuine, said Avi Dichter.

Making no change until they deliver the kind of government we know they can’t deliver is perpetuating a brutalizing and brutalized status quo in which the police and the army are obliged to participate to great detriment of their ability to do the jobs each was intended for.

If we intend to stay…. it will never be defensible so if we’re honest about the endgame we will know that and all that remains is to be candid about it. As for working flawlessly in Cyprus, I suggest you look at a history book and not judge by its absence in the news. Negotiations are ongoing as as we speak between Christofias and Talat over a confederation. We’re looking at long-term solutions now, right? No more stop-gaps, right? Not so flawless then. What do you propose to do about the demographic problem if we do a Cyprus and head for one federal state?

Hamastan: what if Jordan or Egypt or Syria turn into Hamastan? Will the West Bank save us? What would save us more, peace with the Arab world in a country that world consensus agrees is ours or filched territory surrounded by enemies that no-one will be willing to defend us against?

Rabbi Gordis, to my mind the only truly honest question asked in your article is the one about moving Jews and Arabs. The rest betray the same wishful thinking, the same delusional muddles between what God promised and what the world gave that have blinded us since 1967.

By: Nobody

Nobody — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:51:12 +0000

@Mike Harris

If we are on asking tough questions, then I would like to take ask one. Admittedly most Israeli Arabs will not agree to be reunited with the future Palestinian state and this is for no reasons of loyalty or sympathy for Israel, but out of purely economic and similar considerations. Given that the right to self determination is generally upheld for minorities who don’t want to stay within a bigger nation, is such a right exists for majorities who want to separate from their minorities by unilaterally moving the border?

By: Mike Harris

Mike Harris — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:29:20 +0000

The problem with moving Arabs out of Israel is that they are citizens of the state in which their homes are located. The residents of the West Bank are, with the exception of those living in the annexed portions of Jerusalem and the Golan, citizens of a country that occupies the land but does not claim it as sovereign territory. So moving settlers back across the Green Line is really not the equivalent of moving Arab citizens of Israel to the PA (and essentially stripping them of their citizenship).
Daniel, I’m not sure if that’s what you are implicitly suggesting, but it seems that way.

An alternative would be what I understand Avigdor Liberman’s proposal to be–adjusting the borders of the State of Israel so that nobody leaves their homes but that residents of the Arab Triangle are now living in the PA. Current Israeli Arab citizens could maintain their rights but all new births/arrivals to that area would become PA citizens.

Speaking of Liberman, while I don’t agree with much of what he says, he seems to be the only person willing to open discussion in the political arena about some of these issues (Daniel of course has just published Saving Israel which certainly addresses them as well– but he’s not in electoral politics, at least not yet.) While a loyalty oath may be somewhat heavy-handed especially if applied only to Arabs, what about universal national service? This applies just as much to the haredim as to the Arab population.