Editor's Notes: Worlds apart

[shira]

Editor's Notes: Worlds apart
By DAVID HOROVITZ
05/27/2011 16:44

With PM rejecting president’s talk of ’67 lines, and Palestinians not being asked by Obama to abandon "right of return," it is the Jewish state that is seen to be defying its ally again.

Talkbacks (19)




Binyamin Netanyahu is neither a beloved prime minister nor one whose policies and leadership style enjoy anything approaching automatic consensual support. But to take, as prime examples, the two fundamental areas where we have witnessed the president and the prime minister profoundly and publicly at odds – first, over how best to make progress on the twin aims of thwarting Iran and advancing Israeli- Palestinian reconciliation, and now over the imperatives born of the dizzying Middle East turmoil – it seems safe to say that most Israelis believe Netanyahu has been reading the region more accurately than Obama.

<snip>

The prime ministerial fury stems from the fact that our key ally has now publicly endorsed the main Palestinian territorial demand as the basis for negotiation, that he did so despite Netanyahu’s pleas not to, at a time when Israel is being physically threatened to some degree or other on all of its borders, and when our ostensible negotiating partner has just entered a reconciliation pact with Hamas. And, worst of all, Obama did not simultaneously require that the Palestinians give up their demand for a “right of return.”

As I wrote in Sunday’s Jerusalem Post, “It is immensely troubling for many Israelis to recognize that our most important strategic partner is now publicly advocating, before any significant sign of Palestinian compromise on final-status issues has been detected, that we withdraw, more or less, to the pre-1967 lines – the so-called ‘Auschwitz borders’ – from which we were relentlessly attacked in our first two fragile decades of statehood. But only a president who ignores or underestimates Palestinian hostility to Israel could propose a formula for reviving negotiations in which he set out those parameters for high-risk territorial compromise without simultaneously making crystal clear that there will be no ‘right of return’ for Palestinian refugees.

“Obama is urging Israel – several of whose leaders have offered dramatic territorial concessions in the cause of peace, and proven their honest intentions by leaving southern Lebanon, Gaza and major West Bank cities, only to be rewarded with new bouts of violence – to give up its key disputed asset, the biblically resonant territory of Judea and Samaria, as stage one of a ‘peace’ process.

“But he is not explicitly demanding that the Palestinians – whose leaders have consistently failed to embrace far-reaching peace offers, most notably Ehud Olmert’s 2008 offer of a withdrawal to adjusted ’67 lines and the dividing of Jerusalem – give up their key disputed asset, the unconscionable demand for a Jewish-state-destroying ‘right of return’ for millions, until some vague subsequent stage...”


more...
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=222475

[shira]

1. Related (even more worlds apart): Daniel Gordis speaking at J Street

<snip>

Let me begin with a basic assumption: I assume that we want the same thing. We seek two states in this region, one a thriving, Jewish, democratic Israel, and the other a thriving, non-Jewish, democratic Palestine. Of course, there are Israelis on both ends of the political spectrum who do not wish this. Some Israelis no longer believe in the importance of a Jewish State and would prefer a State “of all its citizens” between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. But as that would make Jews a minority in this country and thus end the Zionist project, I’m utterly opposed to that. There are also Israelis who still resist the idea of a Palestinian State and who would prefer to either exile millions of Palestinians or forever keep them under our thumb as non-citizens, either of which is morally obtuse. But the vast majority of Israelis, if presented with a genuine opportunity to live side by side a democratic, transparent, peaceful, de-militarized Palestine, would accept it.

So, assuming that that’s what you also seek, I assume that our disagreement is about how to get there. You believe that people who are not willing to make major territorial concessions to the Palestinians right now are not serious about a two-state solution. You think that those of us who claim that we favor a two-state solution but who are not willing to give up the store at this moment are bluffing. Or we’re liars. Or, at best, we’re well-intentioned but misguided. But bottom line, if we’re not willing now to make the concessions that you think are called for, then we’re not really pursuing peace.

But that is arrogance of the worst sort. Does your distance from the conflict give you some moral clarity that we don’t have? Are you smarter than we are? Are you less racist? Why do you assume with such certainty that you have a monopoly on the wisdom needed to get to the goal we both seek?

In preparing for this morning’s session, I did a bit of reading of statements that you’ve issued on a whole array issues. One, just released, is a perfect example of the certainty and arrogance of which I’m speaking. Reacting to the most recent Fatah-Hamas agreement, this is what J-Street had to say:

“In fact, many who oppose a two-state deal have, in recent years, done so by arguing that divisions among the Palestinians make peace impossible. Obviously, reconciliation (between Fatah and Hamas) reduces that obstacle – but now skeptics of a two-state agreement have immediately stepped forward to say that a deal is impossible with a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas.”

“Obviously,” you say, “reconciliation reduces the obstacle to a peace treaty.” But I would caution you against ever using the word “obviously” when it comes to the Middle East. Nothing here is obvious. If you think that something is obvious, then you simply haven’t thought enough. Why is it obvious that Fatah’s signing a deal with Hamas, which rejects Israel’s very right to exist, reduces obstacles to peace? Isn’t it just as plausible that it makes peace impossible, or that signing a deal and returning large swathes of land to a group still sworn on our destruction would be suicidal? I suppose that reasonable minds could debate this matter, but how is it “obvious” that this is good news for peace?

And then you go on to say that “skeptics of a two-state agreement have immediately stepped forward to say that a deal is impossible with a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas.” There you go again, telling us that if we don’t agree with you, then we’re not serious or honest. If we think that the Fatah-Hamas deal is terrible news for peace, then we’re just “skeptics of a two-state agreement.” In your worldview, there’s no possibility that we’re just a bit more nervous than you are, that we do not want to make a mistake that will turn our own homes into Sederot, that we are frightened of restoring the horror of 2000-2004 to our streets, buses and restaurants. No, that possibility doesn’t exist, because anyone who doesn’t agree with you is by definition a “skeptic of the two-state agreement.” I’d suggest that if you want to convince those of us still deciding whether you’re part of the big tent that you are “in,” that you drop this sort of condescension. It’s arrogant and intellectually shallow; it doesn’t serve you well.

more...
http://danielgordis.org/2011/05/27/in-the-tent-or-out/

[whosinpower]

2. Shomron Council sends letter to UN

snip from your article -

Let me begin with a basic assumption: I assume that we want the same thing. We seek two states in this region, one a thriving, Jewish, democratic Israel, and the other a thriving, non-Jewish, democratic Palestine.

I think that "basic assumption" is a non starter.

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/05/judea-and-samaria-leaders-write-letter.html

snip - 9. The time has undoubtedly come – in fact, it is long overdue, Mr. Secretary-General – for the international community as represented by the UN to recognize the fact that the Arabs of the Land of Israel do not want their own state, nor do they want to conclude a peace agreement with the State of Israel; all they desire is the destruction of Israel; the time has indeed come to reaffirm international recognition of the immutable rights of the Jewish People to all of their historical homeland.

snip - The Kingdom of Jordan exists on some 75% of mandated Palestine. Its ruling class, the Hashemite family with the support of nomadic Bedouin tribes, accounts for no more than 30% of the population of the Kingdom, perhaps even less. The other 70% of the population of that country is made up of “Palestinian” Arab people, the very same people the Arabs of the Land of Israel consider themselves. It is thus untrue that the Arabs of the Land of Israel are stateless; on the contrary, in the neighboring Kingdom of Jordan they are an unshakable majority of the population living on “Palestine” soil. If the Arabs at present sojourning in the Land of Israel prefer to live in their own country, rather than in a Jewish state, they are free to join their brethren on the east bank of the Jordan River, where they can live in peace and tranquility among people of their own flesh and blood, and even more important, people of their own culture.


The title is correct....WORLDS APART.

[shira]

3. Apples and Oranges. Whereas the top 2 articles speak for most Israelis and American Jews...

...the letter you cite speaks for a small minority.

[bemildred]

4. FYI:

David Horowitz: Obama 'Manchurian Candidate'

In a lead story published this past weekend on Frontpagemag.com, conservative thinker and best-selling author David Horowitz likens President Barack Obama to the "Manchurian Candidate" — a tool of the far left fostering the implementation of its radical agenda.

In the 1959 book "The Manchurian Candidate" by Richard Condon — which has been made into two movies — an American soldier is captured during the Korean War, taken to Manchuria in China, and brainwashed into being an unwitting assassin for the communists.

---

Horowitz argues that Obama’s true colors are beginning to show to the American people.

"Just eight months into his presidency, however, a new Barack Obama has begun to emerge. With unseemly haste Obama has nearly bankrupted the federal government, amassing more debt in eight months than all his predecessors combined. He has appeased America’s enemies abroad and attacked America’s intelligence services at home. He has rushed forward with programs that require sweeping changes in the American economy and is now steamrolling a massive new healthcare program that will give the government unprecedented control of its citizens."

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/horowitz-obama-manchurian/2009/12/12/id/341881

Ordinarily, I would not do NewsMax, but in this case it seems illuminating about the author of the OP.

[LeftishBrit]

5. I think these are two different people, in fact...

I've made the mistake in the past of thinking there were the same, but in fact David Horowitz with a w is a far-right American writer, while David Horovitz with a v is Israeli and the editor of the Jerusalem Post.

[bemildred]

6. Tsk. You are probably right.

:spank:

[oberliner]

8. David Horovitz has been the editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post since October 2004

The author of the "newsmax" article you posted is the editor FrontPage Magazine, David Horowitz (note the difference in spelling).

They are definitively not the same person.

[bemildred]

9. I sort of thought they didn't sound the same. nt

[bemildred]

7. In fairness to myself, I have to say it made my head hurt reading through all that. nt