Archive
Hillel’s Message to AIPAC and all American Jews: Now Is The Time To Make A Two State Solution Happen (Part 3 of 3)
|
“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?
And if I am only for myself, then what am I?
And if not now, when?”
|
“And if not now, when?”
Hillel ends his admonition with an imperative: The time is now. And so it is for Israelis and Americans who truly want to preserve Israel as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people. Although it has been said for years that the window of opportunity is closing, like the boy who cried wolf, this time it is really true.
Map of Israel and Territories
There are three major trends in the Middle East which underscore why it is so critical to move boldly and swiftly towards peace. The first is the Arab Spring. Everybody loves democratic uprisings – when they first begin. However, they do not always end up quite the way we hope. The very nature of grass-roots rebellions is that they tend to be short on organization, which opens them up to co-option as things move from the emotional frenzy of demonstrations in the streets to the reality of picking up the garbage in the streets. In Egypt, which is probably the best example of successful regime change, the final outcome is indeed still open to question. But the response of the Israelis seems to be that of delay. In March, we spoke with Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky who had just come back from Israel bearing the message from Israelis leaders that “Now is not the time for action. We need to let things settle down.” While there is some logic in that point of view, the counter argument carries a lot of weight as well. That is, it might make better sense to get an agreement moving farther along (including the support of other world nations) before things blow up around or in the Palestinian territories. In other words, it seems just as likely that spontaneous developments in the region will actually give the Israelis less control at the negotiating table than they have now.
The second factor is the movement towards a unified government that Fatah and Hamas have taken. This took everyone by surprise (by all accounts, Mahmoud Abbas included) and as a result it is not totally clear whether the arrangement will work out or what the results will be if it does. But what is clear from the reaction of the Israeli and American governments is that everyone on this side of the table is scared to death. Although the excuse is that Hamas is a terrorist organization, it seems that the real fear is that no one really understands Hamas’ motivations or its ability to politically control and organize its factions. I am not sure why people are reacting with such repulsion. It seems to me that we should take the advice of that old Texan, LBJ, on this one: “It’s much better to have him (LBJ referring to J. Edgar Hoover) inside the tent pissing out, than having him outside pissing in.” It would certainly be much easier to assess what Hamas is thinking if we met with them rather than to simply turn our backs – which is what both the Israelis and Americans are doing. A former Israeli General once said to me: Never turn your back on a Arab (which by the way, was not said with malice or derision, but simply as honest
advice). So why turn your backs on Hamas? Additionally, the current position gives Fatah nowhere to turn. Simply saying “it’s Israel or Hamas” makes good political rhetoric, but if you think about it, it actually gives additional power to Hamas because they know that Abbas does not have enough political support to reject Hamas at this point in time – so the Israelis haven’t given him a real choice. Under normal circumstances, it might be best to wait to see what happens between these two factions. However, there is a third
factor that overrides this: September.
The Palestinians have slowly and methodically been paving the way to go to the UN in September to seek recognition as a nation of the world. The resolution will first go to
UN Flag
the Security Council where the US will be able to veto it. However, it will then move to the General Assembly for a vote of all of the nations. It is quite likely that they will be able to
get the votes needed to pass the resolution as there are already over 100 countries that have recognized the Palestinian Authority. One Israeli official has been quoted as calling the possibility of UN ratification a “train wreck”, and rightfully so. If Palestine is recognized as a sovereign nation, it totally changes the legal relationship with Israel according to accepted international law. And while many American and Israeli spokesmen have minimized the validity of the vote and its potential impact, that seems to be the naïve point of view.
So, the Arab Spring, the Fatah-Hamas détente, and most importantly, the anticipated Palestinian quest for statehood at the UN, all underscore the fact that time is closing in on Israel’s opportunities to control their own fate. But instead of urgency, what we hear loudest from the American Jewish community is denial. American Jews can stonewall and contend that the Israelis cannot possibly deal with terrorists (although let’s recall that the PLO was the foremost terrorist group in the world at one time) and that there is no one to make a deal with, and that the world is delegitimizing Israel, and that that old UN is once again being anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. We can do that. But that doesn’t stop the clock towards UN declaration of a Palestinian state from ticking. Why do we want to put the fate of Israel and Palestine in the hands of the UN? If we don’t act now to do everything we can to get the Israelis and the Palestinians to the table, we may well leave setting the terms of the agreement to others.
Instead of continually reciting all of the obstacles to peace, we American Jews should do all we can to urge Israel to engage with the Palestinians. And soon. Instead of a wholesale rejection of Hamas, why not be creative? Find some clever way of giving Hamas an out that will allow them to save face with their own people, while providing some assurance to the Israelis that they are moderating. For example, while some in Hamas have maintained their hateful rhetoric, Hamas leader Khalid Mashaal has already indicated his openness to accepting an agreement under certain circumstances. Why shouldn’t Israel use these statements to open the door – even if it’s just a crack?
This is just an example, but if you examine the information being distributed and promoted by the Major American Jewish Organizations, most of it consists of reasons why peace cannot be accomplished. It lists all of the obstacles to peace. Underlying all of this is an unstated (or sometimes stated) assumption that Israel has too much to risk by making peace. But there are two problems with that. First, it fails to recognize that
it is no longer 1948. The relative powers in the region are very different than they were back then. As Hillary Clinton said last year at the AIPAC Policy Conference, the real dangers to Israel lie in demography, ideology, and technology – not from conventional military attack. And secondly, it fails to recognize the very real risks of doing nothing. More former Israeli political and military leaders than you can count have emphasized that the status quo is simply unsustainable.
So, my hope is that my fellow AIPAC members and the rest of the mainstream American Jewish community will go beyond the same old platitudes that give all the reasons that peace is not possible and instead, urge the Israeli government and our elected leaders to make definitive, substantive steps towards peace. It is time to be bold and brave. We Jews are strong enough, we are tough enough, and we are smart enough to cut a deal with the Palestinians that, if well thought out, implemented and monitored, can bring better lives to everyone in the region.
The time is now.
Related articles
- Netanyahu to Outline Peace Plan to Congress (abcnews.go.com)
Hillel’s Message to AIPAC and all American Jews: Now Is The Time To Make A Two State Solution Happen (Part 1 of 3)
|
“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?
And if I am only for myself, then what am I?
And if not now, when?”
|
This statement of simple eloquence seems to be an appropriate guide to how we, as American Jews, should approach the Israel-Palestinian conflict:
“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?”
There is a very visceral connection to Israel for Jews around the world that begins with our historical, Biblical lineage. And whether you are a believer in the divine covenant or a cultural Jew – whether a Jew by matrilineal descent or a Jew by choice – whether an ardent Zionist or an indifferent secularist – there seems to be an intangible link to the land of the matriarchs and patriarchs. There is also a connection created by the sweat and blood of the early Zionists who really did make the desert bloom.
But what is really at the heart of the American Jewish relationship to Israel is the desire and the need to protect its very existence. The number one goal is to protect and preserve Israel as it is envisioned in its Declaration of Establishment: as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people.
The need for a safe haven for Jews is self-evident to even the most skeptical observer in light of the 2,000 years of the Diaspora culminating in Hitler’s attempt at the Final Solution which was met by apparent indifference from much of the world. Although some in the world try to deny the Holocaust, that very denial amply proves the point of the need to preemptively prevent another holocaust by maintaining the state open to all Jews without question. And while some in the West, particularly those of the younger generation, forget or dismiss the reality of anti-Semitism, new currents of this age-old sentiment have been bubbling closer to the surface in dangerous ways. Though most American young people cannot conceive of a return to the explicit anti-Semitism that existed until the last generation or so, history tells a different story. Although we can hope that the trend will not continue to grow, it would be naive to blithely believe that it won’t.
So, even today, the need for a refuge remains very real.
But, the most prominent message (that often drowns out all others) of AIPAC, the Federations, and many other Major American Jewish Organizations is that danger lurks around every corner: Terrorists waiting to blow themselves up killing innocent women and children; missiles amassed at Israel’s border – now with the capability to strike at the heart of Israel’s civilian population; the specter of a nuclear Iran looming ever closer. Unfortunately, they are right. There are very, very real treacherous enemies that will not rest until every “Zionist” is driven into the sea. However, the message conveyed by the Jewish organizations is usually simplistic and absolute. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranians represent the devil incarnate – evil and implacable with the sole goal of wiping Israel off the map. The message preserves the images from 1948 of Israel surrounded by hostile armies ready to cross the border at any moment. The tone is of tense fear often cloaked in the language of righteousness and the an absolutist version of history. Again, it is certainly true that there are a significant number of jihadists in these groups who fit this definition – but it doesn’t take much digging to find examples of the voices of moderation in each of these groups. Ironically, the monolithic characterization actually works to Israel’s detriment.
First, ignoring the moderate voices has the effect of strengthening the more radical elements. Examples of some moderation include the Green Movement and current inter-governmental turmoil in Iran, the voice of Hamas leader Khalid Mashaal
saying that he will conditionally accept an agreement with Israel, and the recognition that both Hezbollah and Hamas have social and political arms which provide necessary services to their populations. Not recognizing these moderate elements only supports the radicals’ contention that the Israeli and American governments are blindly seeking to destroy the Muslim world. It is hard to see how widening the gap between Islam and the West does not increase the influence of the radical Jihadists.
More importantly, simplistic characterizations lead to a dangerously poor understanding of the complexity of one’s enemy, Israel’s geo-strategic situation, and therefore the best ways to avoid attacks as well as the most effective ways to defend against them should they occur. Tactics will always change as facts on the ground change. For example, in a recent conference call, Major General (Ret) Natan Sharoni, a member of the Council for Peace and Security, pointed out (in response to the criticism that President Obama has taken with regard to his explicit public endorsement of setting the borders based upon the 1967 borderswith land swaps) that the importance of “defensible borders” has diminished significantly. The concept of “defensible borders” is really based on a misunderstanding of the current state of military technology and military tactics. What he said was that we no longer have huge armies massed on the border of Israel. In 1948, Israel was threatened by standing armies from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan and Egypt. But today, neither Iran nor Iraq have expeditionary forces. Egypt and Jordan have both signed peace treaties with Israel, and Syria cannot and will not act alone. The inveterate framing of the military threat as that of conventional armies attacking across physical borders is now highly unlikely. Instead, General Sharoni points out that the military threat now comes from 1.Terrorism, and 2.Missiles. Neither of these threats is particularly mitigated by borders per se. In addition, although he did not mention this factor, the logistical
capabilities of 2011 including helicopters, cellular and satellite communication, and naval capabilities, make the military advantage of cutting off Israel’s North and South quite a bit less critical than it was in 1948. And while military strategists and tacticians can certainly debate these assertions, it is precisely the benefit of debate which the mainstream Jewish organizations need to recognize and embrace. Rehashing the old naïve and simplistic phrases that we constantly hear from AIPAC, the ADL, the AJC, et al, prevent a
realistic assessment of the military threats facing Israel.
But there is an even more insidious danger to the Jewish People that arises from the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict: that is the transformation of the State of Israel into a country whose values are no longer representative or even recognizable as “Jewish”. That is to say, Jewish values as expressed in Israel’s Declaration of Establishment: “[Israel] will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” It seems impossible to see how many recent actions and proposals of the current Knesset meet these criteria. I use a simple litmus test to determine whether or not Israel’s actions reflect my personal Jewish values. It is not the legal definition of whether Israel’s actions fit the letter of international law. It is not whether Israel has the right to defend itself (of course, it does). It is not whether some world leader denounces Israeli actions. No, my test is simple. It is called the kishkes test. When I read the newspaper, listen to the news, or see something on TV, do I cringe and feel a deep sense of shame in the pit of my gut – my kishkes? If so, then there is something inherently wrong with the action. Ironically, one of the unshakable demands of the current Israeli government is that the Palestinians unequivocally recognize Israel as a “Jewish state”. By my way of thinking, we need to be even more concerned that Israel recognize itself as a Jewish state in accordance with its Declaration of Establishment.
Hillel’s admonition to be “for myself” rings true in every one of the above contexts with regard to how American Jews should relate to Israel. But Hillel also posits that it is not sufficient to think only of one’s self.
- President Obama’s Middle East Speech Rattles Israelis, Palestinians Alike (newyork.cbslocal.com)
- Great Job: Obama Endorses “Two States For Two Peoples” at AIPAC (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)
Related articles
- Great Job: Obama Endorses “Two States For Two Peoples” at AIPAC (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)
Speaking at Northwestern U, Peter Beinart Blows Away the Crowd
Anyone interested in the Israeli-Palestinian issue who didn’t hear Peter Beinart speak at Northwestern on Tuesday really missed something. Although the headline above looks like everyday hyperbole, if those who were there would have to agree that he captivated the near capacity audience for ninety minutes.
Beinart’s NY Review of Books June, 2010 article The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment sent a shock wave through the American Jewish community. Why this article has become a phenomenon among those who follow Jewish issues is not patently obvious. The ideas in it are not earth shatteringly unique. There are no secret papers uncovered. Not even any shocking off-the-record quotations. Instead, the article is simply so well written, its arguments so well documented, its organization so logical and compact that it strikes the reader (particularly those involved with the major American Jewish organizations that Beinart writes about) full in the chest like a hammer (one might say, a Hebrew Hammer – but that’s another story). And it certainly helps that he brings tremendous credibility as someone who comes from the Center Right, and who practices Modern Orthodoxy.
These same characteristics came through in his speaking. Not only his prepared remarks, but his answers to ad hoc questions were so well structured and economical that the listener was just carried along. It was amazing to me that he could construct responses to questions that were not only logical and understandable, but were chock full of facts, figures and quotations. This is a very rare gift. I have heard him speak several times, and regardless of the content, I find that listening to him speak, how he structures his points and arguments, is analogous to listening to Itzhak Perlman play the violin. Peter Beinart is simply a virtuoso.
But beyond admiring his intellectual and rhetorical abilities, what he is trying to tell us, the American Jewish community, is so very important. His main thesis can be summed up by a quote from that article:
For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.
Those in the Major American Jewish Organizations are at their own peril if they reject his analysis of the schism between today’s Jewish American youth and Israel. Since his article was published in NY Review of Books he has quickly become one of the most incisive commentators on what may turn out to be the most significant crisis in American Jewish history: the disaffiliation, disconnection and delusion of a majority of today’s non-Orthodox American Jewish Youth with Israel, and beyond that to their very Jewishness. Beinart’s ability to boil down complex themes and/or questions into an organized holistic answer – on the fly – is truly a gift. He is knowledgable, thoughtful, logical, insightful, understandable and direct, and quietly passionate. If you were not there, I urge you to be there when he returns. You will not be disappointed.
Word of the Day: “Unprecedented”
The J Street Conference ended today.
There was a lot of good information – straight, no chaser..
There was a lot of insightful analysis.
There was a lot of nuance.
There was a lot of learning.
Most of all there was a lot of energy.
And, if there was one overwhelming theme that permeated the conference, the theme was that we have entered into a period of unprecedented change in the Middle East. Dennis Ross politely characterized as a “Period of Uncertainty”. The implication of this for almost all of the speakers was obvious: with events unravelling so quickly and with little predictability, it is imperative to move the Peace Process along swiftly and strongly.
And, although Ross went on to say that President Obama believes that the world is changing – and will continue to change because there is a new generation of youth rising in the Arab world. And he further believes that we “need to be ahead of the curve”. Further, Ross went on to say that we “can’t get stuck in the unsustainable status quo”. Then, remarkably, he followed that up by saying “Negotiations are the only way forward.” And proceeded to lay out a meager list of activities the Administration was taking that were clearly dwarfed by the gravity of the situation. Essentially, he presented the same concepts that have guided US policy for the past twenty or so years.
Thinking about this, I like to use common sense logic. Let’s examine this. Ross clearly indicated that we are in a period of uncertainty which requires us to stay ahead of the curve. Yet the policy recommendations are essentially the Same Old, Same Old.
Virtually every other speaker agreed about the conditions, but drew a very different conclusion. The conclusion is that time is extremely limited and we need to be pro-active and dynamic with our policies. If not, we shall almost certainly stay behind the curve – which means that eventually the heady perfume of democracy and freedom will waft across the borders into the West Bank and Gaza. As one J Street leader asked me – what will the Israelis do when faced with 100,000 non-violent protesters marching through the streets of Hebron? This no longer seems to be a simply theoretical question – because it is likely that if the Palestinians and Israelis continue with the same Mexican standoff that has been going on year after year, this will be the result. At that point, there will be few good options.
Again, the situation logically calls for a renewed urgency in making some real progress towards peace so that the Palestinian Street can have some hope. But what is the word from Israel? A congressman that just came back today from meetings there was told by the Israelis: “This is definitely not the time for action”. Frankly, I was dumbfounded. The only explanation that I could come up with for this attitude was that the Israeli government continues to feel they can ‘ride out the storm’ – despite the fact that virtually every observer can see that what is happening in the Arab world has taken on a power of its own. It appears that the strongest country in the Middle East – by almost every measure – is being paralyzed by fear. While there are clear risks of taking some bold actions towards solving the problems, given the events of the last 8 weeks, I believe that the risks of doing nothing are much, much larger.
beyondzerosum 