Shalom All,
There is a false perception that AIPAC is somehow an organization of the political right. Anti-Israel groups have worked hard to give people that false impression. Many in the Jewish community, see AIPAC also WRONGLY as an advocate for the Israeli political right. In many ways, Jewish peace groups are responsible for that falsity. One need only look at the depth and breadth of the AIPAC Policy Conference to see the dramatic error in those false conceptions of AIPAC.
AIPAC is a BI-PARTISAN organization seeking to maintain and strengthen the bonds of friendship between the United States and Israel. It DOES NOT advocate for or against specific policies of the nation of Israel. AIPAC's lobbying agenda this year included three things, all of which were sponsored by leading Senators and Representatives from BOTH parties.
First, efforts need to be strengthened to increase the diplomatic pressure put upon Iran to cease its development of nuclear weaponry and to allow its nuclear efforts, regardless of whether they are intended for peaceful purposes as Iran contends or for military purposes as others contend, to be monitored far more closely by the IAEA. Failing this effort, should Iran obtain a nuclear weapon, the Middle East will become a new home for nuclear proliferation as other nations will follow in their footsteps. Additionally, as a grossly destabilizing force in the Middle East, Iran's power and influence would be strengthened, something that bodes ill for the future of the region. To have the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world in possession of nuclear weaponry will enhance the threat that all terrorist organizations backed by Iran pose to Iran's enemies, which includes at the top of the list, Israel and the United States. Furthermore, to have Iran, which has threatened Israel's demise, in possession of the means to execute that plan is simply unconscionable. Thus, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act is being introduced in the House and Senate by leading members of BOTH parties in the hope of achieving an end to Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions short of military action by strengthening sanctions against Iran.
Second, as there is a new administration and new Congress in Washington, there is a desire to reiterate the basic points essential to maintaining a positive working relationship between the United States and Israel regarding the peace process. To that end, a letter was written to President Obama, again with Bi-Partisan origin, asking that the fundamental principles of the peace process be maintained, namely that the US must continue to insist that the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist, that they renounce terror, and that they abide by previous resolutions. This is particularly important considering efforts to form a unity government including Hamas, which does not recognize Israel's right to exist, promotes and practices terror, and refuses to abide by previous resolutions. Additionally, the administration is asked to promote a bi-lateral solution to the crisis between the Israelis and Palestinians with the understanding that imposed solutions have failed to achieve positive results. The parties must negotiate face to face with each other.
Third, maintaining the Security Assistance to Israel and passing the entire Foreign Aid bill is essential. The assistance is vital to Israel's security and since 75% of the money given in aid is spent in the US, Foreign Aid also provides a stimulus to our economy.
These three issues have overwhelming BI-PARTISAN support.
As I listened to the President of Israel, Shimon Peres, once vilified in Israel for his dovish attitudes by its political right and who spent almost his entire speech talking about Israel's pursuit of peace, being shouted down by American Jewish peace protestors chanting "Free Gaza," as if this Nobel Prize winning peace maker wanted something other than freedom for the people of Gaza , I felt strengthened. Peres' voice of peace, honored by AIPAC, was far more powerful than the "peace protesters" voices in support of ignorant hatred. I wanted to call out to those souls blinded by hatred of their fellow Jews, "Free them from Hamas! Free them from hatred!" But, to have interrupted Shimon Peres again would have been to insult the desire for peace, because that desire was the central theme of his speech that day and that desire has been the central theme of his life. Three misguided protestors brought that point home all the stronger.
The first protestor shouted without listening as he said, "It is clear in our eyes that peace may require painful compromises, difficult concessions. Compromises require two conditions. First, peace must be real, lasting, mutually respected. We have to guarantee that our children -- actually, all children -- will be free from war, will breathe the fresh air of peace -- all children, from all nations, from all parties. And then, secondly, peace should enable Israel to protect its people, to realize the fundamental responsibility of a free government, namely to defend its people from harm, to enable them to meet opportunities."
The second jeered without caring as he said, "The same is true for the future of the Palestinian people as well. I say it loudly, because I believe in it more fondly. The Palestinian people have the right to govern themselves. We don't want to be their masters. They have the right to invest their resources, to direct aid to civil high tech, not military rocket -- to books, not bombs -- to their people, so their people can be both free and prosperous, free from fear, free from hunger."
The third stood and blotted out his memory when he remembered, "I can still see with my eyes and feel with my heart when President Sadat landed from Egypt. We thought he came from the moon. If Anwar Sadat had not courageously taken the one-hour flight between Cairo and Jerusalem, I doubt peace would be achieved. We were ready. He showed his readiness."
And at the conclusion of his speech, he might as well have been speaking to those protestors when he said:
Ladies and gentlemen, to know the future you have to remember our history. Calling history is actually remembering the past. But as you know, we are pragmatic people. So when Moses came down from Mount Sinai, he turned to his people and called them. "People, listen, Israel. Shema Yisrael." He asked them -- he asked us to listen, so we shall be able to hear the prophetic message, the mountainous music of peace and justice to this very day. But as you know, we are pragmatists. So the people replied, "We shall do and listen. Naaseh Venishma."
AIPAC is an organization that includes large numbers of Christian supporters of Israel from every ethnicity in America, of every economic level, and of walk of political life. It is an organization for all of those who support Israel's security and advocate for its peaceful future. It's membership does not by any means all agree on the ways to go about achieving those goals, but that membership understands that the friendship between the United States and Israel is essential to them and mutually beneficial. If only more of us listened, perhaps more of us would do the right things. Naaseh v'nishma!
Od yavo shalom aleinu v'al kol Yisrael v'al kol amim.
Someday peace will come for us, for all of the people of Israel, and for all peoples.
-David
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Two States for One People
Shalom All,
I have noticed a trend recently that is exemplified by the article from YNET http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3707501,00.html. Arab leaders are now calling for a two state solution, while OPPOSING one of them being a Jewish state. Rather than calling for a single Palestinian state, Arab leaders advocating for the Palestinian side are PRETENDING to be supporters of "two states for two peoples" by agreeing to "two states." However, their intent is that BOTH states will become Palestinian states. They drop the "for two peoples" part of the statement. This is to be accomplished by insisting on the Right of Return of Palestinians to what is now Israel. As the Palestinians would then only be slightly less than a majority and have a much higher birthrate than the Jewish population, in a manner of short period of time, Israel will end up with a Palestinian majority. Thus, BOTH states would become Palestinian dominated states.
The statements by Abbas are strong indications that he is NOT as moderate as many on the world stage would like him to be. The only difference between his position and Hamas' position is that Hamas is unwilling to wait to eliminate the Jewish state through the Right of Return.
The biggest problem that those desiring peace now face is that Israel seems to have a choice between maintaining a single state in which Jews dominate Palestinians, many of whom live in occupied territories, or agreeing to peace terms under which there will not be a Jewish state into the future. Even the political left is beginning to see this problem. The issue is not simply a question of a one or two state solution, but of "two states FOR TWO PEOPLES" meaning that one of those states would be a Jewish state. Even Ahmadinejad supports Abbas' version of two states in which in essence both would become Palestinian in short order.
Simply put, what is going on now is that leaders who seek the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state are SUPPORTING a TWO state solution, only doing so in such a way that ultimately NEITHER of those states will be Jewish. Their support for "two states" allows them to APPEAR to be moderate, when they are very much not and continue to seek the end of the Jewish state.
They really want two states for one people.
-David
I have noticed a trend recently that is exemplified by the article from YNET http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3707501,00.html. Arab leaders are now calling for a two state solution, while OPPOSING one of them being a Jewish state. Rather than calling for a single Palestinian state, Arab leaders advocating for the Palestinian side are PRETENDING to be supporters of "two states for two peoples" by agreeing to "two states." However, their intent is that BOTH states will become Palestinian states. They drop the "for two peoples" part of the statement. This is to be accomplished by insisting on the Right of Return of Palestinians to what is now Israel. As the Palestinians would then only be slightly less than a majority and have a much higher birthrate than the Jewish population, in a manner of short period of time, Israel will end up with a Palestinian majority. Thus, BOTH states would become Palestinian dominated states.
The statements by Abbas are strong indications that he is NOT as moderate as many on the world stage would like him to be. The only difference between his position and Hamas' position is that Hamas is unwilling to wait to eliminate the Jewish state through the Right of Return.
The biggest problem that those desiring peace now face is that Israel seems to have a choice between maintaining a single state in which Jews dominate Palestinians, many of whom live in occupied territories, or agreeing to peace terms under which there will not be a Jewish state into the future. Even the political left is beginning to see this problem. The issue is not simply a question of a one or two state solution, but of "two states FOR TWO PEOPLES" meaning that one of those states would be a Jewish state. Even Ahmadinejad supports Abbas' version of two states in which in essence both would become Palestinian in short order.
Simply put, what is going on now is that leaders who seek the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state are SUPPORTING a TWO state solution, only doing so in such a way that ultimately NEITHER of those states will be Jewish. Their support for "two states" allows them to APPEAR to be moderate, when they are very much not and continue to seek the end of the Jewish state.
They really want two states for one people.
-David
Monday, April 13, 2009
This Far, No Farther
Shalom All,
David Samuels article http://www.slate.com/id/2215820/ is all too cogent for my taste. He makes a very good argument for why Israel not only might attack Iran, but probably should. That scares me. Samuels also does a superb job of demonstrating why Israel cannot possibly rely on the United States all of the time, or even any of the time.
Where I tend to differ slightly from Samuels is that while he seems to argue that the conflict is for favor of the United States in the Middle East between Iran and Israel, I believe that it is more complicated.
If you go far back, let's say to just prior to WWI. You had the Ottomans in power over much of the region. Then the Brits and the French, who basically left a power vacuum in the wake of WWII. The USSR stepped in then as did the United States. The US and USSR both hoped that Israel would be their ally in the region. Israel seemingly chose the US, which is why the 1956 war in which it was backed by Britain and France against the will of the US startled the US. The US wanted control of the distribution of oil to Europe and Israel had the opportunity to screw that up by handing that control to Britain and France or even to assert its own power over it by controlling the Suez. The US then courted Turkey and placed missiles there in 1961-1962 in order to gain a foothold in the region. But distant battles took its attention away from the Middle East during the Mid-1960s and when Israel was threatened by the Arab armies, the United States sat back and watched. Soviet client states were armed to the teeth and ready to strike, but the US was far more worried about the Persian Gulf and Southeast Asia.
When Israel struck and won decisively, the game changed. Now, Israel was the dominant military power in the region. Direct US power in the region paled by comparison. The US now looked to use Israel's influence to combat Soviet influence, at least until President Carter decided to use Israel's concessions to combat it. US foreign policy for most of the last three decades has consisted of forcing concessions upon Israel while not doing anything in its favor other than vetoing votes at the United Nations and providing it the ability to purchase weaponry. Meanwhile, Israel has become so vastly superior to its enemies militarily that US influence West of the Persian Gulf is largely related to its ability to influence Israel to direct its power.
In the 1980s, the US decided to prevent either Iraq or Iran from achieving dominance by supporting both sides. It backed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the USSR. It exerted influence by maintaining conflicts. Meanwhile, ultimately all of these players were functionally opponents of what the United States wanted, namely future security for the dispersal of oil. The Taliban wanted to end US influence in the region. Both Iraq and Iran wanted to control the flow of oil. Ultimately Saddam Hussein's decision to invade Kuwait tipped the balance to the point wherein the United States had to insert itself into the battle between Iran and Iraq by attacking Iraq. It had to defend Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In other words, Iraq forced the hands of the US into making a decision in a DIFFERENT conflict that had equally bad, if not worse, consequences. The US decided that it had to stop the winner of the Iraq-Iran conflict from becoming a serious competitor for control of the region.
The US ended up turning a conflict between Iraq and Iran into a conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia by removing Iraq from the picture with the US backing Saudi Arabia. Suddenly, many Muslims saw Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam, in the role of US puppet and that more than any US involvement in the Middle East caused radicals all over the region to react and to further radicalize. That the US continues to strongly support Saudi Arabia is not seen by radical Muslims as a positive thing, but as an insult to Islam. The US became their biggest enemy, not their best friend. Striking out or at least acting in some serious fashion against Iran, which is not well liked in most of the Arab and Muslim world, could help.
While there are many reasons that have been suggested for why the United States went back into Iraq and took out Saddam, the only ones that really make any sense have to do with stabilizing the region by maintaining a dominant US presence that directly threatens Iran. Unfortunately, right now, while the US is holding its own in Iraq, it is losing ground in Afghanistan (where it is seeking "moderate" Taliban with whom to bargain, something akin to looking for progressive liberal radical fundamentalists), watching Pakistan (already a major nuclear power) deteriorate into lawlessness while cultivating there the very kind of fundamentalist radical extremism that resulted in 9/11,and is talking nice with the Mullahs of Iran, who cannot but laugh that the United States is crawling to their doorstep so weary from fighting that it refuses to even consider utilizing the massive firepower sitting on its border to force Iran to back down from its nuclear ambitions. It even allowed North Korea to build a nuclear reactor and form a nuclear weapons program in Syria, a nation under the Iranian sphere of influence, after allowing Iraq to build one decades earlier, both destroyed by Israel.
For Israel, whose people have historically endured persecution after persecution and many of whose people specifically endured the torment of the Holocaust when nations that could have fought chose instead to appease, is difficult not to see modern day Neville Chamberlains trying to bargain by giving up modern Sudetenlands, one of which is the 1967 border of the West Bank and the other being Israel's security. I am not calling President Obama, who I believe does support Israel's security, Neville Chamberlain. Rather, I am calling almost all of the leaders of the Western World, Neville Chamberlains. In virtually every discussion of every conflict, leaders around the world from America to Britain, from France to Canada, from Australia to Germany, speak of concessions and appeasement.
Radical extremism, particularly in the Muslim world, but far from solely therein, is being confronted by nations who believe that intolerance should be tolerated as an alternative world-view, that advocacy for freedom, capitalism, and democratic principles are sins of arrogance for which the West should apologize, that the dramatic oppression of women and the persecution of religious minorities are allowable and even valued cultural differences and that the foreign policies of all of those nations in the West should primarily involve making those who wish to destroy them and undermine everything for which they stand happy. This seems most often to be accomplished by abandoning of principles in exchange for easily broken promises. We dangle carrots, rewarding our enemies, giving them confidence to seek more and bigger carrots. "If they are willing to give us that, why not also...?" The opponents of freedom simply up the ante and we repeatedly give in. Freedom is losing around the world to totalitarian and rogue regimes, even to pirates, because we refuse to say "No, or else" and mean "OR ELSE!!!" What ever happened to "This far, no farther?"
This attitude is stifling moderate populations all over the world as they watch radicals make demands and see them granted by those who should be demanding the liberty of the moderates. Those who wish to simply live happy and prosperous lives are abandoned to tyrants and tyrannical regimes. We are not propping up dictators through covert arms shipments as in days of old. Instead we are publicly conceding and appeasing them, allowing them to acquire weaponry and to turn it upon their populations. We appease governments spouting anti-Jewish, not only "anti-Zionist" statements, pretending that if only Israel were willing to join the appeasement game, its enemies who wish for it to have nothing left to concede, not even its very existence, will be sated.
I believe much more strongly than David Samuels that there is a legitimately beneficial relationship between Israel and the United States. I have however long believed that the US could become less of a friend and less of an influence. While I do not believe that is necessarily occurring now, it has clearly been the case that Israel has courted other allies including India, China, and recently Russia. The sale just this past week of Israeli drone aircraft to Russia, the first ever military deal between the two nations, is a strong sign of changing relationships.
Right now, Israel, not the US, is preventing Iran from acquiring the Russian missile defense system. Israel, not the US, has taken out the only nuclear reactors operating outside its borders in the entire Arab world. Only Israel, not the US, is threatening military action against Iran. Only Israel gives Iran even a moment's pause. The US is seen as war weary and unwilling to fight and Europe even more so.
Diplomacy without the real threat that it could end, and that grave consequences would follow, will never work. The phrase is "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Speaking softly without any stick gets you beaten up by the guy with a stick. That is what is happening all over the world today.
The liberty and prosperity of hundreds of millions of people around the world depend upon our willingness to stand up for those things in which we believe. If only when threats come to our borders will we react, we can be assured that threats will come to our borders.
This is not about Israel's role as the dominant ally of the US or the primary focus of our attention in the region. It is fundamentally about the future of freedom and security in our world.
-David
David Samuels article http://www.slate.com/id/2215820/ is all too cogent for my taste. He makes a very good argument for why Israel not only might attack Iran, but probably should. That scares me. Samuels also does a superb job of demonstrating why Israel cannot possibly rely on the United States all of the time, or even any of the time.
Where I tend to differ slightly from Samuels is that while he seems to argue that the conflict is for favor of the United States in the Middle East between Iran and Israel, I believe that it is more complicated.
If you go far back, let's say to just prior to WWI. You had the Ottomans in power over much of the region. Then the Brits and the French, who basically left a power vacuum in the wake of WWII. The USSR stepped in then as did the United States. The US and USSR both hoped that Israel would be their ally in the region. Israel seemingly chose the US, which is why the 1956 war in which it was backed by Britain and France against the will of the US startled the US. The US wanted control of the distribution of oil to Europe and Israel had the opportunity to screw that up by handing that control to Britain and France or even to assert its own power over it by controlling the Suez. The US then courted Turkey and placed missiles there in 1961-1962 in order to gain a foothold in the region. But distant battles took its attention away from the Middle East during the Mid-1960s and when Israel was threatened by the Arab armies, the United States sat back and watched. Soviet client states were armed to the teeth and ready to strike, but the US was far more worried about the Persian Gulf and Southeast Asia.
When Israel struck and won decisively, the game changed. Now, Israel was the dominant military power in the region. Direct US power in the region paled by comparison. The US now looked to use Israel's influence to combat Soviet influence, at least until President Carter decided to use Israel's concessions to combat it. US foreign policy for most of the last three decades has consisted of forcing concessions upon Israel while not doing anything in its favor other than vetoing votes at the United Nations and providing it the ability to purchase weaponry. Meanwhile, Israel has become so vastly superior to its enemies militarily that US influence West of the Persian Gulf is largely related to its ability to influence Israel to direct its power.
In the 1980s, the US decided to prevent either Iraq or Iran from achieving dominance by supporting both sides. It backed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the USSR. It exerted influence by maintaining conflicts. Meanwhile, ultimately all of these players were functionally opponents of what the United States wanted, namely future security for the dispersal of oil. The Taliban wanted to end US influence in the region. Both Iraq and Iran wanted to control the flow of oil. Ultimately Saddam Hussein's decision to invade Kuwait tipped the balance to the point wherein the United States had to insert itself into the battle between Iran and Iraq by attacking Iraq. It had to defend Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In other words, Iraq forced the hands of the US into making a decision in a DIFFERENT conflict that had equally bad, if not worse, consequences. The US decided that it had to stop the winner of the Iraq-Iran conflict from becoming a serious competitor for control of the region.
The US ended up turning a conflict between Iraq and Iran into a conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia by removing Iraq from the picture with the US backing Saudi Arabia. Suddenly, many Muslims saw Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam, in the role of US puppet and that more than any US involvement in the Middle East caused radicals all over the region to react and to further radicalize. That the US continues to strongly support Saudi Arabia is not seen by radical Muslims as a positive thing, but as an insult to Islam. The US became their biggest enemy, not their best friend. Striking out or at least acting in some serious fashion against Iran, which is not well liked in most of the Arab and Muslim world, could help.
While there are many reasons that have been suggested for why the United States went back into Iraq and took out Saddam, the only ones that really make any sense have to do with stabilizing the region by maintaining a dominant US presence that directly threatens Iran. Unfortunately, right now, while the US is holding its own in Iraq, it is losing ground in Afghanistan (where it is seeking "moderate" Taliban with whom to bargain, something akin to looking for progressive liberal radical fundamentalists), watching Pakistan (already a major nuclear power) deteriorate into lawlessness while cultivating there the very kind of fundamentalist radical extremism that resulted in 9/11,and is talking nice with the Mullahs of Iran, who cannot but laugh that the United States is crawling to their doorstep so weary from fighting that it refuses to even consider utilizing the massive firepower sitting on its border to force Iran to back down from its nuclear ambitions. It even allowed North Korea to build a nuclear reactor and form a nuclear weapons program in Syria, a nation under the Iranian sphere of influence, after allowing Iraq to build one decades earlier, both destroyed by Israel.
For Israel, whose people have historically endured persecution after persecution and many of whose people specifically endured the torment of the Holocaust when nations that could have fought chose instead to appease, is difficult not to see modern day Neville Chamberlains trying to bargain by giving up modern Sudetenlands, one of which is the 1967 border of the West Bank and the other being Israel's security. I am not calling President Obama, who I believe does support Israel's security, Neville Chamberlain. Rather, I am calling almost all of the leaders of the Western World, Neville Chamberlains. In virtually every discussion of every conflict, leaders around the world from America to Britain, from France to Canada, from Australia to Germany, speak of concessions and appeasement.
Radical extremism, particularly in the Muslim world, but far from solely therein, is being confronted by nations who believe that intolerance should be tolerated as an alternative world-view, that advocacy for freedom, capitalism, and democratic principles are sins of arrogance for which the West should apologize, that the dramatic oppression of women and the persecution of religious minorities are allowable and even valued cultural differences and that the foreign policies of all of those nations in the West should primarily involve making those who wish to destroy them and undermine everything for which they stand happy. This seems most often to be accomplished by abandoning of principles in exchange for easily broken promises. We dangle carrots, rewarding our enemies, giving them confidence to seek more and bigger carrots. "If they are willing to give us that, why not also...?" The opponents of freedom simply up the ante and we repeatedly give in. Freedom is losing around the world to totalitarian and rogue regimes, even to pirates, because we refuse to say "No, or else" and mean "OR ELSE!!!" What ever happened to "This far, no farther?"
This attitude is stifling moderate populations all over the world as they watch radicals make demands and see them granted by those who should be demanding the liberty of the moderates. Those who wish to simply live happy and prosperous lives are abandoned to tyrants and tyrannical regimes. We are not propping up dictators through covert arms shipments as in days of old. Instead we are publicly conceding and appeasing them, allowing them to acquire weaponry and to turn it upon their populations. We appease governments spouting anti-Jewish, not only "anti-Zionist" statements, pretending that if only Israel were willing to join the appeasement game, its enemies who wish for it to have nothing left to concede, not even its very existence, will be sated.
I believe much more strongly than David Samuels that there is a legitimately beneficial relationship between Israel and the United States. I have however long believed that the US could become less of a friend and less of an influence. While I do not believe that is necessarily occurring now, it has clearly been the case that Israel has courted other allies including India, China, and recently Russia. The sale just this past week of Israeli drone aircraft to Russia, the first ever military deal between the two nations, is a strong sign of changing relationships.
Right now, Israel, not the US, is preventing Iran from acquiring the Russian missile defense system. Israel, not the US, has taken out the only nuclear reactors operating outside its borders in the entire Arab world. Only Israel, not the US, is threatening military action against Iran. Only Israel gives Iran even a moment's pause. The US is seen as war weary and unwilling to fight and Europe even more so.
Diplomacy without the real threat that it could end, and that grave consequences would follow, will never work. The phrase is "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Speaking softly without any stick gets you beaten up by the guy with a stick. That is what is happening all over the world today.
The liberty and prosperity of hundreds of millions of people around the world depend upon our willingness to stand up for those things in which we believe. If only when threats come to our borders will we react, we can be assured that threats will come to our borders.
This is not about Israel's role as the dominant ally of the US or the primary focus of our attention in the region. It is fundamentally about the future of freedom and security in our world.
-David
Thursday, April 2, 2009
What Lieberman Actually Said
Shalom All,
The world's media have taken Avigdor Lieberman's speech and are spouting propaganda around the world, misrepresenting it. I'm not saying that Lieberman's speech was somehow a mushy gushy pacifistic ode rather than a strongly worded one, but neither is it anti-Peace with the Palestinians. That is a FALSEHOOD. What Lieberman said as you will see below is that the Road Map is binding and still the guide for the peace process and that BOTH Israel and the Palestinians have obligations under it that must be followed.
On a personal note, the FIRST obligation that the Palestinians have in the Road Map is to stop attacks against Israel. Israel is not obligated to address any other clauses until that happens. Here is the full text of the Road Map http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989783.stm. The Palestinians have accomplished NONE of their obligations and in fact the situation has worsened from the one they held so that the PA has work to do just to regain the position in which it was when the Road Map was created. Once that is done, Israel was to follow through on its obligations which include ending settlement construction including natural growth, but that obligation is time-based AFTER the Palestinians accomplish a number of tasks of nation building and ending violence against Israel.
I have highlighted some of the text below that I believe is most relevant. The full text of Avigdor Lieberman's speech follows below.
-David
Statement by incoming Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman at the ministerial inauguration ceremony
1 Apr 2009
Good afternoon, honorable outgoing Foreign Minister, honorable Good afternoon, honorable outgoing Deputy Foreign Minister, incoming Deputy Foreign Minister, Director-General Ministry employees, honored guests,
When my fellow students and I studied international relations, and learned what an international system is, we learned that there is a State and there are international organizations and all kinds of global economic corporations. Things have changed since then and, unfortunately, in the modern system, there are countries that are semi-states. It is hard to call a country like Somalia a state in the full sense of the word and the same holds true for the various autonomies in Eastern Europe, in the Balkans and here as well. It is even hard to call a country like Iraq a state in the full sense of the word. And even worse, there are now international players that are irrational, like the Al Qaeda organization. And we can certainly also ask if the leader of a strong and important country like Iran is a rational player.
In my view, we must explain to the world that the priorities of the international community must change, and that all the previous benchmarks - the Warsaw Pact, the NATO Alliance, socialist countries, capitalist countries - have changed. There is a world order that the countries of the free world are trying to preserve, and there are forces, or countries or extremist entities that are trying to violate it.
The claim that what is threatening the world today is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a way of evading reality. The reality is that the problems are coming from the direction of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.
What is important is to maintain global and regional stability. Egypt is definitely an important country in the Arab world, a stabilizing factor in the regional system and perhaps even beyond that, and I certainly view it as an important partner. I would be happy to visit Egypt and to host Egyptian leaders here, including the Egyptian Foreign Minister - all based on mutual respect.
I think that we have been disparaging many concepts, and we have shown the greatest disdain of all for the word “peace.” The fact that we say the word “peace” twenty times a day will not bring peace any closer. There have been two governments here that took far-reaching measures: the Sharon government and the Olmert government. They took dramatic steps and made far-reaching proposals. We saw the Disengagement and the Annapolis Conference.
Yisrael Beiteinu was not then part of the coalition, Avigdor Liberman was not the foreign minister and, even if we had wanted to, we would have been unable to prevent peace. But none of these far-reaching measures have brought peace. To the contrary. We have seen that, after all the gestures that we made, after all the dramatic steps we took and all the far-reaching proposals we presented, in the past few years this country has gone through the Second War in Lebanon and Operation Cast Lead - and not because we chose to. I have not seen peace here. It is precisely when we made all the concessions that I saw the Durban Conference, I saw two countries in the Arab world suddenly sever relations, recalling their ambassadors - Mauritania and Qatar. Qatar suddenly became extremist.
We are also losing ground every day in public opinion. Does anyone think that concessions and constantly saying “I am prepared to concede,” and using the word “peace” will lead to anything? No, that will just invite pressure, and more and more wars. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" - if you want peace, prepare for war; be strong.
We definitely want peace, but the other side also bears responsibility. We have proven our desire for peace more than any other country in the world. No country has made concessions the way Israel has. Since 1977, we have given up areas of land three times the size of the State of Israel. So we have proven the point.
The Oslo process began in 1993. Sixteen years have passed since then, and I do not see that we are any closer to a permanent settlement. There is one document that binds us and it is not the Annapolis Conference. That has no validity. When we drafted the basic government policy guidelines, we certainly stated that we would honor all the agreements and all the undertakings of previous governments. The continuity of government is respected in Israel. I voted against the Road Map, but that was the only document approved by the Cabinet and by the Security Council - I believe it was Resolution 1505. It is a binding resolution and it binds this government as well.
The Israeli government never approved Annapolis, neither the Cabinet nor the Knesset, so anyone who wants to amuse himself can continue to do so. I have seen all the proposals made so generously by Ehud Olmert, but I have not seen any results.
So we will therefore act exactly according to the Road Map, including the Tenet document and the Zinni document. I will never agree to our waiving all the clauses - I believe there are 48 of them - and going directly to the last clause, negotiations on a permanent settlement. No. These concessions do not achieve anything. We will adhere to it to the letter, exactly as written. Clauses one, two, three, four - dismantling terrorist organizations, establishing an effective government, making a profound constitutional change in the Palestinian Authority. We will proceed exactly according to the clauses. We are also obligated to implement what is required of us in each clause, but so is the other side. They must implement the document in full, including - as I said - the Zinni document and the Tenet document. I am not so sure that the Palestinian Authority or even we - in those circles that espouse peace so much - are aware of the existence of the Tenet and Zinni documents.
When was Israel at its strongest in terms of public opinion around the world? After the victory of the Six Day War, not after all the concessions in Oslo Accords I, II, III and IV. Anyone who wants to maintain his status in public opinion must understand that if he wants respect, he must first respect himself. I think that, at least from our standpoint, will be our policy.
The world's media have taken Avigdor Lieberman's speech and are spouting propaganda around the world, misrepresenting it. I'm not saying that Lieberman's speech was somehow a mushy gushy pacifistic ode rather than a strongly worded one, but neither is it anti-Peace with the Palestinians. That is a FALSEHOOD. What Lieberman said as you will see below is that the Road Map is binding and still the guide for the peace process and that BOTH Israel and the Palestinians have obligations under it that must be followed.
On a personal note, the FIRST obligation that the Palestinians have in the Road Map is to stop attacks against Israel. Israel is not obligated to address any other clauses until that happens. Here is the full text of the Road Map http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989783.stm. The Palestinians have accomplished NONE of their obligations and in fact the situation has worsened from the one they held so that the PA has work to do just to regain the position in which it was when the Road Map was created. Once that is done, Israel was to follow through on its obligations which include ending settlement construction including natural growth, but that obligation is time-based AFTER the Palestinians accomplish a number of tasks of nation building and ending violence against Israel.
I have highlighted some of the text below that I believe is most relevant. The full text of Avigdor Lieberman's speech follows below.
-David
Statement by incoming Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman at the ministerial inauguration ceremony
1 Apr 2009
Good afternoon, honorable outgoing Foreign Minister, honorable Good afternoon, honorable outgoing Deputy Foreign Minister, incoming Deputy Foreign Minister, Director-General Ministry employees, honored guests,
When my fellow students and I studied international relations, and learned what an international system is, we learned that there is a State and there are international organizations and all kinds of global economic corporations. Things have changed since then and, unfortunately, in the modern system, there are countries that are semi-states. It is hard to call a country like Somalia a state in the full sense of the word and the same holds true for the various autonomies in Eastern Europe, in the Balkans and here as well. It is even hard to call a country like Iraq a state in the full sense of the word. And even worse, there are now international players that are irrational, like the Al Qaeda organization. And we can certainly also ask if the leader of a strong and important country like Iran is a rational player.
In my view, we must explain to the world that the priorities of the international community must change, and that all the previous benchmarks - the Warsaw Pact, the NATO Alliance, socialist countries, capitalist countries - have changed. There is a world order that the countries of the free world are trying to preserve, and there are forces, or countries or extremist entities that are trying to violate it.
The claim that what is threatening the world today is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a way of evading reality. The reality is that the problems are coming from the direction of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.
What is important is to maintain global and regional stability. Egypt is definitely an important country in the Arab world, a stabilizing factor in the regional system and perhaps even beyond that, and I certainly view it as an important partner. I would be happy to visit Egypt and to host Egyptian leaders here, including the Egyptian Foreign Minister - all based on mutual respect.
I think that we have been disparaging many concepts, and we have shown the greatest disdain of all for the word “peace.” The fact that we say the word “peace” twenty times a day will not bring peace any closer. There have been two governments here that took far-reaching measures: the Sharon government and the Olmert government. They took dramatic steps and made far-reaching proposals. We saw the Disengagement and the Annapolis Conference.
Yisrael Beiteinu was not then part of the coalition, Avigdor Liberman was not the foreign minister and, even if we had wanted to, we would have been unable to prevent peace. But none of these far-reaching measures have brought peace. To the contrary. We have seen that, after all the gestures that we made, after all the dramatic steps we took and all the far-reaching proposals we presented, in the past few years this country has gone through the Second War in Lebanon and Operation Cast Lead - and not because we chose to. I have not seen peace here. It is precisely when we made all the concessions that I saw the Durban Conference, I saw two countries in the Arab world suddenly sever relations, recalling their ambassadors - Mauritania and Qatar. Qatar suddenly became extremist.
We are also losing ground every day in public opinion. Does anyone think that concessions and constantly saying “I am prepared to concede,” and using the word “peace” will lead to anything? No, that will just invite pressure, and more and more wars. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" - if you want peace, prepare for war; be strong.
We definitely want peace, but the other side also bears responsibility. We have proven our desire for peace more than any other country in the world. No country has made concessions the way Israel has. Since 1977, we have given up areas of land three times the size of the State of Israel. So we have proven the point.
The Oslo process began in 1993. Sixteen years have passed since then, and I do not see that we are any closer to a permanent settlement. There is one document that binds us and it is not the Annapolis Conference. That has no validity. When we drafted the basic government policy guidelines, we certainly stated that we would honor all the agreements and all the undertakings of previous governments. The continuity of government is respected in Israel. I voted against the Road Map, but that was the only document approved by the Cabinet and by the Security Council - I believe it was Resolution 1505. It is a binding resolution and it binds this government as well.
The Israeli government never approved Annapolis, neither the Cabinet nor the Knesset, so anyone who wants to amuse himself can continue to do so. I have seen all the proposals made so generously by Ehud Olmert, but I have not seen any results.
So we will therefore act exactly according to the Road Map, including the Tenet document and the Zinni document. I will never agree to our waiving all the clauses - I believe there are 48 of them - and going directly to the last clause, negotiations on a permanent settlement. No. These concessions do not achieve anything. We will adhere to it to the letter, exactly as written. Clauses one, two, three, four - dismantling terrorist organizations, establishing an effective government, making a profound constitutional change in the Palestinian Authority. We will proceed exactly according to the clauses. We are also obligated to implement what is required of us in each clause, but so is the other side. They must implement the document in full, including - as I said - the Zinni document and the Tenet document. I am not so sure that the Palestinian Authority or even we - in those circles that espouse peace so much - are aware of the existence of the Tenet and Zinni documents.
When was Israel at its strongest in terms of public opinion around the world? After the victory of the Six Day War, not after all the concessions in Oslo Accords I, II, III and IV. Anyone who wants to maintain his status in public opinion must understand that if he wants respect, he must first respect himself. I think that, at least from our standpoint, will be our policy.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Why Labor joined Likud
Shalom All,
Many have asked why in the world the Labor Party would join what otherwise appears to be a Right leaning coalition. While the Israeli political arena is generally ridiculously complex, the answer to this question is relatively simple. It results from four things.
First, when the coalition appeared to be Likud and Kadima, the Labor Party had everything to gain by going into the opposition. In fact, Ehud Barak and Labor would have led the opposition. There would have been nothing at all to gain by joining the coalition because surely Kadima would have taken all of the major portfolios in the government that might have been of interest and concessions to Labor would have been non-existent. On the other hand, with Kadima joining the opposition, there was no chance that Labor would have much of a voice there. Ehud Barak would have played second fiddle to Livni. Labor's voice would have been overwhelmed by Kadima's. Thus, with Kadima in the opposition, there was far less to gain for Labor by remaining there. Suddenly, at least consideration of joining the government made sense.
Second, Netanyahu offered Labor and Barak specifically more than they could legitimately have desired. His party has grossly disproportionate power in this government and his voice will now be much stronger. Barak will speak for the left, not Livni. Barak will also be the Defense Minister which will make Israel much stronger in dealing with Iran.
Third, enabling Netanyahu to form a government without National Union removed the far right radical Zionist settlers from the coalition, significantly weakening them and allowing the coalition to avoid giving concessions to them which could and likely would have worsened relationships with the Palestinians, with Israeli Arabs, and with the international community.
Fourth, the Labor party, believe it or not, actually CARES about Israel and its future. Yes, this coalition may go no where. Ambiguous policies required in order to form this broad a coalition will lead to nothing radical happening. That said, when radical is bad, my friends, you're better off without it.
There is no real hope for a lasting peace to be forged between Israel and the Palestinians in the next few years. There isn't even a Palestinian government that speaks for Gaza AND the West Bank with whom to negotiate. Hamas is being rearmed by Iran and Iran is working to acquire nuclear weaponry.
The demand that Netanyahu continue on the road to peace is, at the moment, the wrong thing to do. The road is impassible, bridges have been washed out and will take time to rebuild. Netanyahu and this government need to be respectful of the road upon which they travel, to not do damage to what has already been created in the process, for certain. However, continuing forward on that road is just not possible now. Demanding that it do so will not move the process forward without killing the process entirely (and many people with it) as the two sides plummet from those washed out bridges into the torrents of violence.
What Israel and those desirous of peace need now is a cooling off period and this government is well suited for that.
-D
Many have asked why in the world the Labor Party would join what otherwise appears to be a Right leaning coalition. While the Israeli political arena is generally ridiculously complex, the answer to this question is relatively simple. It results from four things.
First, when the coalition appeared to be Likud and Kadima, the Labor Party had everything to gain by going into the opposition. In fact, Ehud Barak and Labor would have led the opposition. There would have been nothing at all to gain by joining the coalition because surely Kadima would have taken all of the major portfolios in the government that might have been of interest and concessions to Labor would have been non-existent. On the other hand, with Kadima joining the opposition, there was no chance that Labor would have much of a voice there. Ehud Barak would have played second fiddle to Livni. Labor's voice would have been overwhelmed by Kadima's. Thus, with Kadima in the opposition, there was far less to gain for Labor by remaining there. Suddenly, at least consideration of joining the government made sense.
Second, Netanyahu offered Labor and Barak specifically more than they could legitimately have desired. His party has grossly disproportionate power in this government and his voice will now be much stronger. Barak will speak for the left, not Livni. Barak will also be the Defense Minister which will make Israel much stronger in dealing with Iran.
Third, enabling Netanyahu to form a government without National Union removed the far right radical Zionist settlers from the coalition, significantly weakening them and allowing the coalition to avoid giving concessions to them which could and likely would have worsened relationships with the Palestinians, with Israeli Arabs, and with the international community.
Fourth, the Labor party, believe it or not, actually CARES about Israel and its future. Yes, this coalition may go no where. Ambiguous policies required in order to form this broad a coalition will lead to nothing radical happening. That said, when radical is bad, my friends, you're better off without it.
There is no real hope for a lasting peace to be forged between Israel and the Palestinians in the next few years. There isn't even a Palestinian government that speaks for Gaza AND the West Bank with whom to negotiate. Hamas is being rearmed by Iran and Iran is working to acquire nuclear weaponry.
The demand that Netanyahu continue on the road to peace is, at the moment, the wrong thing to do. The road is impassible, bridges have been washed out and will take time to rebuild. Netanyahu and this government need to be respectful of the road upon which they travel, to not do damage to what has already been created in the process, for certain. However, continuing forward on that road is just not possible now. Demanding that it do so will not move the process forward without killing the process entirely (and many people with it) as the two sides plummet from those washed out bridges into the torrents of violence.
What Israel and those desirous of peace need now is a cooling off period and this government is well suited for that.
-D
Monday, March 9, 2009
Why many of our Liberal Christian friends are against us
This article was posted by me to inform leaders in Jewish-Christian relations about the threat to Jewish-Christian relations posed by Sabeel, which is an organization active throughout the United States in advocating against Israel and leading divestment initiatives among church based groups and colleges and universities. It is THE organization behind virtually every major divestment initiative going on in the US today.
This specific article was written in response the posting of Melanie Phillips article about Stephen Sizer's church in England, which surprisingly to her was anti-Israel. It was, as you will see below, far from surprising to me or anyone else in the Jewish community who has dealt with Sabeel.
-David
Shalom All,
I do not find it at all surprising that some member churches of the Church of England should be taking anti-Zionist positions that border on anti-Judaism, if not crossing that line. Such attitudes among not only Anglicans but others are in no small part due to the efforts of Sabeel and its founder Canon Naim Ateek. I even found out that Stephen Sizer's church is an organizational member of Sabeel's network http://www.fosna.org/files/fosna/documents/FriendsOfSabeel_Brochure-2009.pdf as are many other liberal Christian churches.
Sabeel, an organization whose theological basis is the application of Liberation Theology to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has been advocating divestment from Israel for many years. Through its publications and programming around the world, particularly at North American universities, it promotes divestment and anti-Zionist views in general. It is through Sabeel that many leaders of the Anglican Church have become anti-Israel. Sabeel believes that there should not be a Jewish state and that all of the land should be Palestine and Palestinian. Under the guise of "peace," Sabeel promotes an anti-Israel agenda that often crosses the line into anti-Judaism.
One of the better treatment's of Sabeel's anti-Jewish and not just anti-Zionist perspective comes from NGO-Monitor concerning a Sabeel conference in Boston in 2007 which you may find at
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/data/images/File/sabeel_conference_101107.pdf
For example (from the NGO Monitor article:
Use of anti-Semitic imagery [standard anti-Jewish New Testament imagery]
Naim Ateek employs anti-Semitic theological themes and imagery in his speeches and publications, as reflected in his 2001 Sabeel "Easter message": "it seems to many of us that Jesus is on the cross again with thousands of crucified Palestinians around him. […] The Israeli government crucifixion system is operating daily." In a February 2001 sermon, Ateek intimated that Israel was responsible for the death of Jesus (the Palestinians) as infant, prophet and messiah: "Israel has placed a large boulder, a big stone that has metaphorically shut off the Palestinians in a tomb. It is similar to the stone placed on the entrance of Jesus' tomb…" [Footnote 7] In his book Justice and Only Justice, Ateek uses classical anti-Semitic distortions, comparing modern Jews, who "embrace violence, contrary to God’s will," to their "immoral" ancestors. The book claims that Jews now repeat, with “exact precision,” their ancestors’ "murderous sins." [Footnote 8]
7 Message available on Sabeel website: http://www.sabeel.org/old/reports/easter01.htm8 Naim Stifan Ateek, Justice and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY, U.S.A., 1989. p.106.
Rabbi Kaufman continues:
And WHAT A SURPRISE, guess whom the NGO Monitor pointed out was leading the UK's divestment campaign for Sabeel??? "Rev. Stephen Sizer (Vice Chair of Friends of Sabeel UK and the major proponent of replacement theology) has led the campaign to enforce the Church of England's Synod vote for divestment." Sizer is the very minister whose church is discussed by Melanie Phillips in the article "Beware the new axis of evangelicals and Islamists." The use of passion plays as a traditional and easy way to portray Jews as evil is also part of Sabeel's grand plan. If you look at Sizer's church website, for example, you will note that he is promoting a trip to Oberammergau for the 2010 play.
Sabeel's ideology spreads easily throughout liberal churches in the West who seek out Arab Christian voices to speak at their conventions and at colleges and universities wherein funds are used to bring in Sabeel-backed speakers. For Christian groups, when they want to know about what is going on in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, who better to inform them than their Palestinian Christian brethren? For university students wanting to know about the problems from a Palestinian perspective, who better than Sabeel, willing to send them an emissary? For college students bombarded by anti-Israel hate speech which has become a major part of the peace movement, who better than to bring in Sabeel, representing Palestinian Christians? Thus, Sabeel and Ateek are given entree while Israel's supporters are often excluded from the dialogue. Thus, national and regional conventions as well as college campuses are often dominated by anti-Israel speakers while not inviting anyone interested in presenting counter arguments much less adept at countering those arguments presented by Sabeel, which functions as an anti-Israel lobbying organization to liberal English speaking Christians.
In recent years, in Iowa, such events have taken place around the state with numerous Sabeel backed or associated speakers appearing at universities and colleges throughout the state as well as at local church backed programs. Certainly what is true here is happening elsewhere as well.
At a Sabeel conference held here in Iowa at Coe College, neutral non-Jewish observers from the college belatedly apologized to the local Jewish community about what they felt were anti-Semitic aspects of the program put on by Sabeel. See http://blog.camera.org/archives/2005/10/college_religio.html .
To put it bluntly, Sabeel and Naim Ateek argue that the Palestinians are Jesus and that the Jews are crucifying Jesus again. It is vital to note that most Christian supporters of Sabeel have no clue about the anti-Judaism that is a strong part of Sabeel's teaching and philosophy, but do support its efforts to achieve peace. For example, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) pointed out that Ateek's ideas could be seen as anti-Jewish when he came to speak at a local church in Los Angeles and the church's leadership was offended at the visit being criticized. Please see http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/camera_sabeel_and_the_jewish_journal_20080201/ . After all, here was a man who preaches non-violence and ostensibly desires peace.
My colleague, Rabbi Eugene Korn of AJC, has addressed Sabeel, Ateek, and the problems of applying Liberation theology to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the past in an excellent article written in 2005 which may be found at http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/1494/ .
Canon Ateek sees Hamas for example as a movement connected to his Liberation Theology http://zionistsout.blogspot.com/2008/10/sabeel-founder-ateek-speaks-in-detroit.html . He and Sabeel both act as if violence used against Israel is entirely legitimate, but violence used by Israel to defend its population is entirely illegitimate. Sabeel promotes the Palestinian cause against Israel as if the entirety of the blame for the problems between the two peoples is Israel's. And Sabeel's voice in Anglican Church circles as well as those of other liberal Christian groups is very strong.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu has also taken up the cause of Sabeel and repeatedly demonizes Israel as an apartheid state as if those Palestinians actively at war with Israel should be treated as peaceful citizens of ISRAEL. This is far from the case with black South Africans under Apartheid, who were, or should have been, treated as citizens of South Africa with equal rights. Tutu delivered the keynote address at last year's Sabeel Conference in Boston http://www.wrmea.com/archives/Jan_Feb_2008/0801059b.html and is pictured on the organization's header on its website http://www.fosna.org/.
Those who present Israel as an Apartheid state are advocates for a SINGLE STATE solution in which Israel is eventually eliminated and the Palestinian territories become, along with Israel, part of a single nation of Palestine. While on the surface, Sabeel supports Israel's right to the pre-1967 border, it demands the right of return to ISRAEL for Palestinian refugees. Of course, that would threaten the nation's very existence and certainly undermine its ability to be a Jewish state. The ultimate goal of its policies is to undo the creation of Israel as a Jewish state, but stating that publicly would result in it being called "anti-Jewish" and thus it refrains from doing so.
Since forcing Israel to bring in hundreds of thousands of people hostile to Jews (many of which wish to eliminate Jews from the face of the earth) into the Jewish state would also threaten the very lives, much less prosperity, of those Jews living there, it is not unreasonable to call this argument anti-Jewish even if there is no desire to eliminate the Jewish state. In my mind, the right of return TO ISRAEL by those hostile to its existence as a Jewish state and possibly even hostile to the existence of its Jewish citizenry is not a legitimate point of view for those who desire peace for Jews living in Israel. Yet, many among those truly desirous of peace, not considering the consequences to Jews, advocate for exactly that and act as if they seek peace for both peoples.
Right now, the destructive force in the relationship between Christians and Jews in the Anglican Church is Sabeel, just as it is becoming such a destructive force in the debate concerning Israeli-Palestinian issues in other liberal Christian churches. Sabeel is one of the major challenges to Jewish-Christian relations in my interactions with many groups including the ELCA, the UCC, the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian churches and the WCC. In addition, left wing Jewish groups such as B'tselem and Brit Tsedek v'Shalom along with Rabbis for Human Rights and other peace groups in their opposition to Israel's policies have enabled Sabeel to claim to be a neutral force for peace with Jewish supporters while at the same time advocating for anything but the peace of Israeli Jews and coexistence between a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state. Notably, such Jewish groups find little support among the Israeli electorate.
Many of Sabeel's supporters do not really understand all of Sabeel's stands and simply see it as a PC means to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and hopes of peace. These supporters are incorrect in their assessment of Sabeel and unfortunately they are dramatically growing in number. There is significant fear that those influenced by Sabeel's theology and latent, if not overt, anti-Judaism will have growing influence over the foreign policies of Britain, Canada, and the United States regarding their policies concerning Israel.
-David
This specific article was written in response the posting of Melanie Phillips article about Stephen Sizer's church in England, which surprisingly to her was anti-Israel. It was, as you will see below, far from surprising to me or anyone else in the Jewish community who has dealt with Sabeel.
-David
Shalom All,
I do not find it at all surprising that some member churches of the Church of England should be taking anti-Zionist positions that border on anti-Judaism, if not crossing that line. Such attitudes among not only Anglicans but others are in no small part due to the efforts of Sabeel and its founder Canon Naim Ateek. I even found out that Stephen Sizer's church is an organizational member of Sabeel's network http://www.fosna.org/files/fosna/documents/FriendsOfSabeel_Brochure-2009.pdf as are many other liberal Christian churches.
Sabeel, an organization whose theological basis is the application of Liberation Theology to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has been advocating divestment from Israel for many years. Through its publications and programming around the world, particularly at North American universities, it promotes divestment and anti-Zionist views in general. It is through Sabeel that many leaders of the Anglican Church have become anti-Israel. Sabeel believes that there should not be a Jewish state and that all of the land should be Palestine and Palestinian. Under the guise of "peace," Sabeel promotes an anti-Israel agenda that often crosses the line into anti-Judaism.
One of the better treatment's of Sabeel's anti-Jewish and not just anti-Zionist perspective comes from NGO-Monitor concerning a Sabeel conference in Boston in 2007 which you may find at
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/data/images/File/sabeel_conference_101107.pdf
For example (from the NGO Monitor article:
Use of anti-Semitic imagery [standard anti-Jewish New Testament imagery]
Naim Ateek employs anti-Semitic theological themes and imagery in his speeches and publications, as reflected in his 2001 Sabeel "Easter message": "it seems to many of us that Jesus is on the cross again with thousands of crucified Palestinians around him. […] The Israeli government crucifixion system is operating daily." In a February 2001 sermon, Ateek intimated that Israel was responsible for the death of Jesus (the Palestinians) as infant, prophet and messiah: "Israel has placed a large boulder, a big stone that has metaphorically shut off the Palestinians in a tomb. It is similar to the stone placed on the entrance of Jesus' tomb…" [Footnote 7] In his book Justice and Only Justice, Ateek uses classical anti-Semitic distortions, comparing modern Jews, who "embrace violence, contrary to God’s will," to their "immoral" ancestors. The book claims that Jews now repeat, with “exact precision,” their ancestors’ "murderous sins." [Footnote 8]
7 Message available on Sabeel website: http://www.sabeel.org/old/reports/easter01.htm8 Naim Stifan Ateek, Justice and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY, U.S.A., 1989. p.106.
Rabbi Kaufman continues:
And WHAT A SURPRISE, guess whom the NGO Monitor pointed out was leading the UK's divestment campaign for Sabeel??? "Rev. Stephen Sizer (Vice Chair of Friends of Sabeel UK and the major proponent of replacement theology) has led the campaign to enforce the Church of England's Synod vote for divestment." Sizer is the very minister whose church is discussed by Melanie Phillips in the article "Beware the new axis of evangelicals and Islamists." The use of passion plays as a traditional and easy way to portray Jews as evil is also part of Sabeel's grand plan. If you look at Sizer's church website, for example, you will note that he is promoting a trip to Oberammergau for the 2010 play.
Sabeel's ideology spreads easily throughout liberal churches in the West who seek out Arab Christian voices to speak at their conventions and at colleges and universities wherein funds are used to bring in Sabeel-backed speakers. For Christian groups, when they want to know about what is going on in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, who better to inform them than their Palestinian Christian brethren? For university students wanting to know about the problems from a Palestinian perspective, who better than Sabeel, willing to send them an emissary? For college students bombarded by anti-Israel hate speech which has become a major part of the peace movement, who better than to bring in Sabeel, representing Palestinian Christians? Thus, Sabeel and Ateek are given entree while Israel's supporters are often excluded from the dialogue. Thus, national and regional conventions as well as college campuses are often dominated by anti-Israel speakers while not inviting anyone interested in presenting counter arguments much less adept at countering those arguments presented by Sabeel, which functions as an anti-Israel lobbying organization to liberal English speaking Christians.
In recent years, in Iowa, such events have taken place around the state with numerous Sabeel backed or associated speakers appearing at universities and colleges throughout the state as well as at local church backed programs. Certainly what is true here is happening elsewhere as well.
At a Sabeel conference held here in Iowa at Coe College, neutral non-Jewish observers from the college belatedly apologized to the local Jewish community about what they felt were anti-Semitic aspects of the program put on by Sabeel. See http://blog.camera.org/archives/2005/10/college_religio.html .
To put it bluntly, Sabeel and Naim Ateek argue that the Palestinians are Jesus and that the Jews are crucifying Jesus again. It is vital to note that most Christian supporters of Sabeel have no clue about the anti-Judaism that is a strong part of Sabeel's teaching and philosophy, but do support its efforts to achieve peace. For example, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) pointed out that Ateek's ideas could be seen as anti-Jewish when he came to speak at a local church in Los Angeles and the church's leadership was offended at the visit being criticized. Please see http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/camera_sabeel_and_the_jewish_journal_20080201/ . After all, here was a man who preaches non-violence and ostensibly desires peace.
My colleague, Rabbi Eugene Korn of AJC, has addressed Sabeel, Ateek, and the problems of applying Liberation theology to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the past in an excellent article written in 2005 which may be found at http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/1494/ .
Canon Ateek sees Hamas for example as a movement connected to his Liberation Theology http://zionistsout.blogspot.com/2008/10/sabeel-founder-ateek-speaks-in-detroit.html . He and Sabeel both act as if violence used against Israel is entirely legitimate, but violence used by Israel to defend its population is entirely illegitimate. Sabeel promotes the Palestinian cause against Israel as if the entirety of the blame for the problems between the two peoples is Israel's. And Sabeel's voice in Anglican Church circles as well as those of other liberal Christian groups is very strong.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu has also taken up the cause of Sabeel and repeatedly demonizes Israel as an apartheid state as if those Palestinians actively at war with Israel should be treated as peaceful citizens of ISRAEL. This is far from the case with black South Africans under Apartheid, who were, or should have been, treated as citizens of South Africa with equal rights. Tutu delivered the keynote address at last year's Sabeel Conference in Boston http://www.wrmea.com/archives/Jan_Feb_2008/0801059b.html and is pictured on the organization's header on its website http://www.fosna.org/.
Those who present Israel as an Apartheid state are advocates for a SINGLE STATE solution in which Israel is eventually eliminated and the Palestinian territories become, along with Israel, part of a single nation of Palestine. While on the surface, Sabeel supports Israel's right to the pre-1967 border, it demands the right of return to ISRAEL for Palestinian refugees. Of course, that would threaten the nation's very existence and certainly undermine its ability to be a Jewish state. The ultimate goal of its policies is to undo the creation of Israel as a Jewish state, but stating that publicly would result in it being called "anti-Jewish" and thus it refrains from doing so.
Since forcing Israel to bring in hundreds of thousands of people hostile to Jews (many of which wish to eliminate Jews from the face of the earth) into the Jewish state would also threaten the very lives, much less prosperity, of those Jews living there, it is not unreasonable to call this argument anti-Jewish even if there is no desire to eliminate the Jewish state. In my mind, the right of return TO ISRAEL by those hostile to its existence as a Jewish state and possibly even hostile to the existence of its Jewish citizenry is not a legitimate point of view for those who desire peace for Jews living in Israel. Yet, many among those truly desirous of peace, not considering the consequences to Jews, advocate for exactly that and act as if they seek peace for both peoples.
Right now, the destructive force in the relationship between Christians and Jews in the Anglican Church is Sabeel, just as it is becoming such a destructive force in the debate concerning Israeli-Palestinian issues in other liberal Christian churches. Sabeel is one of the major challenges to Jewish-Christian relations in my interactions with many groups including the ELCA, the UCC, the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian churches and the WCC. In addition, left wing Jewish groups such as B'tselem and Brit Tsedek v'Shalom along with Rabbis for Human Rights and other peace groups in their opposition to Israel's policies have enabled Sabeel to claim to be a neutral force for peace with Jewish supporters while at the same time advocating for anything but the peace of Israeli Jews and coexistence between a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state. Notably, such Jewish groups find little support among the Israeli electorate.
Many of Sabeel's supporters do not really understand all of Sabeel's stands and simply see it as a PC means to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and hopes of peace. These supporters are incorrect in their assessment of Sabeel and unfortunately they are dramatically growing in number. There is significant fear that those influenced by Sabeel's theology and latent, if not overt, anti-Judaism will have growing influence over the foreign policies of Britain, Canada, and the United States regarding their policies concerning Israel.
-David
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Two States?
Shalom All,
Watching Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell meet with heads of state and promise to reinvigorate the peace process is simply painful. It is not that I do not wish to see peace. I am an advocate for a two state solution...ultimately. ULTIMATELY is the important word here. Two states are simply not possible right now. One of them cannot function as a state because it cannot even function as a semi-state. The other has a government that cannot survive (politically) the battles necessary to bring about two states. When utopianism meets realism, utopianism cannot be victorious.
There are now calls for Egypt and Jordan to take over Gaza and the West Bank respectively. Personally, I believe that may be the only logical solution to what is a crisis at the moment, but good luck in getting Egypt and Jordan to buy in. Gaza needs security as well as prosperity. Israel can only seal borders, it cannot police the streets of Gaza. Clearly both Fatah (The Palestinian Authority) and Hamas have both failed to stop the violence occurring in Gaza among Palestinians and out of Gaza against Israel. Israel cannot possibly allow unfettered access to and from Gaza into its territory and it would be the height of outrage to force it to allow the radicalism of Gaza into the West Bank by creating a free access corridor between the two. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank cannot allow that either. Thus, at the moment any Palestinian state would remain bipartite.
Now, there are voices that call for recognizing Hamas rule over the entire PA. No one in their right mind could possibly do that either among Israelis or among Fatah officials in the West Bank. Lives would be at stake. To ask Abbas to surrender rule to Hamas in the West Bank would be worse than asking the IDF to turn its eye to the events at Sabra and Shatila. For those who loudly protest those events to this day, it is the height of hypocrisy to demand that it happen again. The blood of revenge and civil war would pour freely in the streets and rockets would come out of Ramallah and Bethlehem, not only out of Gaza.
In essence, trying to force a two state solution now will result in the impossibility of a two state solution for decades and a dramatic increase in death and suffering. There is simply no competent Palestinian leadership by any of the three major definitions of the term "Competent":
com·pe·tent (kmp-tnt)
adj.
1. Properly or sufficiently qualified; capable: a competent typist.
2. Adequate for the purpose: a competent performance.
3. Law Legally qualified or fit to perform an act.
Certainly no government is capable of uniting the Palestinians and ending violence against Israelis. In my mind, that rules out definitions #1 and #2. Then there is the fact that one entity controls Gaza (Hamas) while another controls the West Bank (Fatah-Palestinian Authority) and there are major legal disputes as to whom should be considered the representative of the Palestinian people, which eliminates definition #3. It would seem to me that only a competent government, one meeting all three of these definitions, could possibly aid in the creation of a two state solution.
Personally, I believe that neither Hamas nor Fatah, not one or the other, but NEITHER, has the ability to become competent. I believe that some other group or groups need to arise whose origin is not in violence, nor in the eradication of Israel. Both Hamas and Fatah, also in essence known as the Palestinian Liberation Organization, originated as terrorist organizations bent on Israel's elimination. I am doubtful that this can occur under either's authority either. Thus, it is my belief that outside help is needed and that such help needs to be from Egypt for Gaza and from Jordan for the West Bank.
Right now, Palestinians need to see their lives improve, their bellies filled, their security maintained (against their own people and against Israeli attacks). They need to see their institutions play a functional role in their lives. Children need to go to school. Doctors and nurses need to be able to treat patients. People need to be able to go to the market. Life needs to happen before their can be two states. Rockets need to stop falling upon Southern Israel and that responsibility needs to be entirely upon the government of Gaza, not upon Israel, and not based upon concessions from Israel. Israel's concession is not to attack Gaza once attacks from Gaza stop and to allow life to go on and improve there. Moreover, if rockets continue to be fired from Gaza there is no hope that Israel will be willing to see a Palestinian state in the West Bank because it can not but anticipate that such violence would erupt there as well, something far more dangerous than continued rocket fire from Gaza. And if in the interim violence erupts in the West Bank as in Gaza, you will not see improvement in the lot of Palestinians, but dramatically worsened conditions in the West Bank as Israel is forced to defend its citizenry. Hamas is not the answer any more than Fatah is. Ultimately, if violence continues to be used against Israel from Gaza, much less from the West Bank as well, there is no hope for the suffering of the people of Gaza to end. NONE. EVER, much less to end soon and no hope for a two state solution or for that matter, any state at all for the Palestinian people.
-D
Watching Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell meet with heads of state and promise to reinvigorate the peace process is simply painful. It is not that I do not wish to see peace. I am an advocate for a two state solution...ultimately. ULTIMATELY is the important word here. Two states are simply not possible right now. One of them cannot function as a state because it cannot even function as a semi-state. The other has a government that cannot survive (politically) the battles necessary to bring about two states. When utopianism meets realism, utopianism cannot be victorious.
There are now calls for Egypt and Jordan to take over Gaza and the West Bank respectively. Personally, I believe that may be the only logical solution to what is a crisis at the moment, but good luck in getting Egypt and Jordan to buy in. Gaza needs security as well as prosperity. Israel can only seal borders, it cannot police the streets of Gaza. Clearly both Fatah (The Palestinian Authority) and Hamas have both failed to stop the violence occurring in Gaza among Palestinians and out of Gaza against Israel. Israel cannot possibly allow unfettered access to and from Gaza into its territory and it would be the height of outrage to force it to allow the radicalism of Gaza into the West Bank by creating a free access corridor between the two. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank cannot allow that either. Thus, at the moment any Palestinian state would remain bipartite.
Now, there are voices that call for recognizing Hamas rule over the entire PA. No one in their right mind could possibly do that either among Israelis or among Fatah officials in the West Bank. Lives would be at stake. To ask Abbas to surrender rule to Hamas in the West Bank would be worse than asking the IDF to turn its eye to the events at Sabra and Shatila. For those who loudly protest those events to this day, it is the height of hypocrisy to demand that it happen again. The blood of revenge and civil war would pour freely in the streets and rockets would come out of Ramallah and Bethlehem, not only out of Gaza.
In essence, trying to force a two state solution now will result in the impossibility of a two state solution for decades and a dramatic increase in death and suffering. There is simply no competent Palestinian leadership by any of the three major definitions of the term "Competent":
com·pe·tent (kmp-tnt)
adj.
1. Properly or sufficiently qualified; capable: a competent typist.
2. Adequate for the purpose: a competent performance.
3. Law Legally qualified or fit to perform an act.
Certainly no government is capable of uniting the Palestinians and ending violence against Israelis. In my mind, that rules out definitions #1 and #2. Then there is the fact that one entity controls Gaza (Hamas) while another controls the West Bank (Fatah-Palestinian Authority) and there are major legal disputes as to whom should be considered the representative of the Palestinian people, which eliminates definition #3. It would seem to me that only a competent government, one meeting all three of these definitions, could possibly aid in the creation of a two state solution.
Personally, I believe that neither Hamas nor Fatah, not one or the other, but NEITHER, has the ability to become competent. I believe that some other group or groups need to arise whose origin is not in violence, nor in the eradication of Israel. Both Hamas and Fatah, also in essence known as the Palestinian Liberation Organization, originated as terrorist organizations bent on Israel's elimination. I am doubtful that this can occur under either's authority either. Thus, it is my belief that outside help is needed and that such help needs to be from Egypt for Gaza and from Jordan for the West Bank.
Right now, Palestinians need to see their lives improve, their bellies filled, their security maintained (against their own people and against Israeli attacks). They need to see their institutions play a functional role in their lives. Children need to go to school. Doctors and nurses need to be able to treat patients. People need to be able to go to the market. Life needs to happen before their can be two states. Rockets need to stop falling upon Southern Israel and that responsibility needs to be entirely upon the government of Gaza, not upon Israel, and not based upon concessions from Israel. Israel's concession is not to attack Gaza once attacks from Gaza stop and to allow life to go on and improve there. Moreover, if rockets continue to be fired from Gaza there is no hope that Israel will be willing to see a Palestinian state in the West Bank because it can not but anticipate that such violence would erupt there as well, something far more dangerous than continued rocket fire from Gaza. And if in the interim violence erupts in the West Bank as in Gaza, you will not see improvement in the lot of Palestinians, but dramatically worsened conditions in the West Bank as Israel is forced to defend its citizenry. Hamas is not the answer any more than Fatah is. Ultimately, if violence continues to be used against Israel from Gaza, much less from the West Bank as well, there is no hope for the suffering of the people of Gaza to end. NONE. EVER, much less to end soon and no hope for a two state solution or for that matter, any state at all for the Palestinian people.
-D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
