The Truth Can Hurt

There are times when the truth hurts—not the subject of the statement but the maker of it. Two recent examples, one from a Republican, the other from a Democrat:

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (he’s the Republican) said that Palestinians are an invented people (and as such have no legitimate territorial ambitions). His actual words were: “Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940’s, and I think it’s tragic.” He later asked rhetorically in defense of his remarks: “Is what I said factually correct? Yes. Is it historically true? Yes. We are in a situation where every day rockets are fired into Israel while the United States—the current administration—tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process. Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth,” he continued. “These people are terrorists, they teach terrorism in their schools.”

This was a fine opening for his Republican challengers. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said, “That’s just stirring up trouble.” Mitt Romney, who currently (December 16) stands second or third in polls, said he agreed with Gingrich’s comments about Palestinian terrorism, but that Gingrich went too far in publicly questioning Palestinian peoplehood. “I happen to agree with most of what the Speaker said,” Romney responded. “Except by going and saying that the Palestinians are an invented people. That I think was a mistake on the Speaker’s part.” Romney warned against throwing “incendiary words into a place which is a boiling pot” and that doing so could make things harder for Israel. Rick Santorum, agreed with Romney’s comments.

You’ll note that none of these gentlemen denied the truth of what Gingrich had said, only that he shouldn’t have said it. Even Gingrich seemed to acknowledge this as his campaign later issued a statement stressing that despite his comments on Palestinian peoplehood, he still favors the eventual creation of a Palestinian state. “Newt Gingrich supports a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, which will necessarily include agreement between Israel and the Palestinians over the borders of a Palestinian state,” they intoned. Remember when Republicans made hay over John Kerry’s “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it” sound bite?

I began by saying that Gingrich was speaking truth; the Palestinians are an invented people. But so are we all. I’m American, my paternal ancestors emigrated from Russia; my maternal ancestors from Austria-Hungary. Before that, I have no idea. But I (and my Italo-American and Polish-American and Hispanic-American and Afro-American friends are all now Americans, proudly). Arabs who trace their ancestry to grandparents and beyond who lived in the Ottoman Empire have the same right to call themselves whatever they want, even if it gives them a political advantage.

The other truth teller was The American Ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman. He delivered a speech at an event hosted by the European Jewish Union in Brussels in which he noted “the problem within Europe of tension, hatred and sometimes even violence between some members of Muslim communities or Arab immigrant groups and Jews is largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian Territories and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem.” Advancing peace between Israel and its neighbors was the key to addressing this issue, he said.

Jewish groups condemned the statement as one sided. In response, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said that the views expressed by Gutman were the envoy’s and not the administration’s. Gutman has said that his remarks were “misinterpreted” and that he condemns all forms of anti-Semitism.

Tempest in a teapot? Seems like it to me. The man spoke truth. Let’s pretend that there was no Zionist movement, no Balfour Declaration, that after the First World War the Ottoman empire was carved up with what we call Israel not intended as a Jewish Homeland but an Arab one, and that since 1919 it’s been Arab. Would Muslims in Europe be acting in an anti-Semitic fashion? I don’t see it. They can’t win their war in the Middle East so they take their frustrations out on Jews in France, England, Germany and the Netherlands. Gutman was right, his Jewish critics wrong. But apparently he shouldn’t have said it.

Do Jews under 30 care about Israel?

In the October 15 Jerusalem Post Daniel Gordis, an American ex-pat in Israel since 1998 writes that he is very concerned. So am I, if he’s right.

A recent sociological study reports that “among American Jews aged 35 and younger, a full 50% said that the destruction of the State of Israel would not be a personal tragedy for them.” Assuming that the findings are accurate, the obvious questions are why and what does it mean?

Prof. Jonathan Sarna, who Gordis calls “perhaps the greatest living analyst of American Jewish life” argues that “the problem is that American Jews have been raised on an idealized image of Israel, and that ‘in place of the utopia that we had hoped Israel might become, young Jews today often view Israel through the eyes of contemporary media: They fixate upon its unloveliest warts.’” There’s probably truth in that statement but I think more in the reflections of Rabbi Morris Allen of Minnesota. He argues “that for contemporary American Jews, life-cycle rituals have become infinitely more significant than the holiday cycle.” We are interested in the “me,” not the “we.” Bar/Bat Mitzvah, marriage, even death are the focus of attention, not Sukkot, not Shavuot, not even Shabbat. The things that define us as a people are of less interest than the things that define us as individuals. And this is reflected in the growing number of youths for whom Israel, the embodiment of the people Israel, is less important than social justice, things we can do that make us feel good about ourselves. In my day, a long time ago, the two were seen as complementary, not antagonistic; we could march for civil rights and sing Hatikvah. Black people were bullied by whites in Mississippi; Israel was surrounded by Arabs determine to destroy it.

The plight of the Palestinians must be taken into consideration if Jews are to be faithful to the principles of Judaism, it’s argued. I don’t remember the birth of the State of Israel, but I do recall the pride I felt in 1967. But I think 1967 is the dividing line between people of my age and people who do not remember what it was like to live in little Israel with its narrow waste and exposed borders and divided Jerusalem, the guns of Golan pointing at the Galilee. The generations that have grown up since only see the tail we hold, not the tiger at the other end. Of course the Palestinian people are suffering—Arabs need them to suffer at our hands; their plight could have been resolved decades ago, but to promote a bifurcated Arab state or to create a bi-national state within Israel are both to destroy Israel, the dawn of our redemption, no to save it. But for people of my generation (who think as I do) the destruction of Israel is the inevitable consequence of even well intentioned appeasement.

Readers may recall the columns by Alison Golub in this newspaper as she, a young American who made Aliya opposed the give-back of Gaza; more recently we’ve been reading dispatches from Daniel Stieglitz, another young man who has moved to Israel and joined the army. At the same time, some people of my generation are willing in the name of good conscience and the hope of peace to surrender land with no assurances that peace will result. In July 2008 we gave Hezbollah Samir Qantar who had murdered four Israelis. We received in return two corpses. In appreciation for the pullout of Gaza, Israel received rockets on Sdorot and another soldier was kidnapped. There are Arab advocates of peaceful co-existence, but do they represent anyone other than themselves? I’ll check with Hamas and Hezbollah leadership on that and get back to you. When the desire for peace is one-sided, as it appears to be, Israel will cease to exist, and it won’t take Iranian nuclear bombs to do it; we’ll have accomplished the task ourselves. Will half the Jews under the age of 35 not care? Will the appeasers be content that at least the Palestinians finally have a home of their own? If you are under 35, write to me on this issue at the address below and I’ll take your comments and report the sum of them in a future column.

Why the Two State Solution Won't work

I have friends (yes, even I). Many, probably most of these friends believe that the best way to resolve the Mid-East conflict is with a two state solution, Israel and Palestine (consisting of the West Bank, Gaza and Arab Jerusalem).

Let us examine this possibility. There are three problems with it—West Bank access to Israel proper; connecting the West Bank to Gaza; and the grandmother-of-the-mother-of-difficulties, Jerusalem.

The two state solution assumes that Israel will have defensible borders even without natural frontiers other than the unnatural security fence separating the West Bank from Israel to prevent dissatisfied jihadists or other fanatics from crossing it and blowing up (insert here the name of a civilian meeting place—a bus, a sidewalk café, a synagogue) after making a touching farewell tape. This is a normally one-way street. Yes we hang our heads in shame when we remember Baruch Goldstein, but his slaughter of the innocents was by a lone murderer. People who cross the Green Line and blow up pizzerias are mentored, trained, equipped and filmed before they go. They become heroes (and occasionally heroines). If there is a Hell I have no doubt that our Goldstein is trying to strangle their Ahmed as the remnants of Ahmed (don’t forget, he’s been blown to smithereens on a cross-walk in Jerusalem) tries to stab the bad doctor. Poor Goldstein, alone in Hell with 500 Ahmeds. Well, it serves him right.

Gaza as part of this proposed Palestinian state, separated by Israel from the West Bank by about 25 miles, means that Palestine would surround Israel with potentially hostile and (I imagine) frequently actual, enemy action by those who believe in a one Arab state solution. That’s the bad news for Israel. From the Arab side, the West Bank presumably would be Palestine central, Gaza the proverbial step-child.

When it achieved its independence, India was divided into Hindu and Muslim areas—but the Muslims were in the Northwest and the Northeast so Pakistan became a country separated by India, its enemy; the area that became Bangladesh was untenable. It declared its independence and is untenable still. Look to Poland which, following the Great War, separated the bulk of Germany in the west from East Prussia to the east. When war came again it was attacked on both fronts, the pincers having been put in place by the diplomats of Versailles in their attempt at fairness. Either way, bifurcated Palestine will not survive and surrounded Israel never rest easy. A solution to the problem (for the Arabs) would be a raised highway across 50 kilometers of Israel. Arab traffic above would flow east to west, Israeli traffic below from north to south. Who would pay for construction, maintenance and police remains to be seen. It’s not going to happen, and it shouldn’t. Gaza would be the new Bangladesh. Israel would be the new 1939 Poland. The plan presupposes men of good will on both sides. Who amongst you trusts Hamas or Hezbollah not to try for a one-state Arab solution? Seeing no hands, we’ll proceed. The only historical model I can think of where a country divided by another has survived is us. Canada separates the lower 48 from Alaska, but we’ve been friendly with Canada ever since “Fifty-four forty or fight” morphed into “OK, the 49th parallel is good enough.” I’m not picturing a squadron of blood-thirsty Royal Canadian Mounted Police invading Alaska for its oil, or the United States launching a two pronged invasion to conquer British Columbia. There is good faith and cooperation on both sides.

As to Jerusalem, well, on the one hand it’s just a city which has road and sewer and lighting and school issues to resolve like any other municipality. The problem is that this particular city is JERUSALEM, FOR GOD’S SAKES! When the United Nations partitioned Palestine Jerusalem was designated an international city. When the British withdrew the Jordanians tried to grab it; the Jews fought to keep the road to it open, and the city was divided. The Jordanians got the holy places until Israel conquered it in 1967. In the 2000 near-peace agreement brokered by President Clinton, Ehud Barak offered Palestinians control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City and “Religious Sovereignty” over the Temple Mount, and the West Bank and Gaza. The offer was rejected. The Second Intifada irrupted.

A hopeless situation? Well, maybe, but I have a solution that might work. Read about it in my next column.

Uzis at the Ready?

The questions of the day are two. Here’s the first: Who would like to see a viable peace in the Middle East with Arabs and Jews living harmoniously in nations side-by-side? Raise your hands. Let’s see, there’s one, two, ten, a thousand, one hundred million, two hundred million.

Now the second question: How many think this will occur in your lifetime? One, two, three, ten, fifteen, sixteen...seventeen......that’s it? I grant, this is not the most scientific of polls, but is there any evidence at all that Arab leaders really want peace with Israel? Hamas leaders? Hezbollah leaders? Syrian leaders? Has peace been possible since 1948? Yes. Has peace been achieved? No. (Well, “yes” if one counts Jordan and Egypt but “no” once those governments are toppled by Islamic fundamentalists.)

So, Happy Birthday Israel. Keep your Uzis close at hand.

In recent days former president Carter has visited leaders of Hamas and declared that they seek peace. This was immediately contradicted by leaders of Hamas. Love or loathe him, Carter is not stupid. So if he said “yes” and they said “no,” it’s obvious that Hamas set him up for a fall. They betrayed their own advocate. Can we expect them to honor their (former) foe?

Last week there was complaint from Palestinians about President Bush’s up-coming trip to Israel to celebrate its sixtieth birthday. He’s already met with Mahmoud Abbas, president of... (well, I’m not sure what. “The Palestinian Authority” is his official title, but he seems to have only a little authority over Palestinians in the West Bank and none at all in Gaza.) Bush said after the meetings that he “remained confident that talks could produce parameters for a Palestinian state.” (OK, another poll: Raise your hands if you know what that means? Seeing none, we’ll proceed.) The president of the United States went on to say, “I assured the president that a Palestinian state’s a high priority for me and my administration: a viable state, a state that doesn’t look like Swiss cheese, a state that provides hope. I’m confident we can achieve the definition of a state.” Achieve the definition of a state? Can a man whose goals are so nebulous be expected to accomplish anything? Does he even have the vaguest idea of what he hopes to accomplish? And was it necessary to insult Helvetians in the bargain? Abbas (who, as a former top aide of Yassir Arafat must be used to double-talk) responded graciously, praising Mr. Bush for “seeking a true, genuine and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

The two presidents are scheduled to meet again in Sharm el Sheik, Egypt, not in Ramallah, the temporary capital of Greater Palestine (until all of Jerusalem can be liberated). My guess is that this is less an overt insult to the Palestinians than an imperative imposed by the Secret Service. “It’s a slap in the face,” said Dianna Buttu, a former negotiator for Abbas. Bush is “saying to the Palestinians ‘You have no history, and your past does not matter.’ He’s not visiting a refugee camp, he’s not meeting survivors of the forced expulsion.” Mustafa Barghouti, a former Palestinian information minister chimed in: “The lack of sensitivity to this matter is very prominent. Forty-eight was, of course, the date when Israel was created but it’s also a very sad date for Palestinians who were dispossessed from their lands. It’s a very deep scar in Palestinian life.”

Does anybody out there see any hope for peace in any of this? Deep scars of the political and emotional kind do not heal. They get infected when palliative measures are not sought, when those who bear the scars prefer to let them fester to prove a point rather than take steps to heal the wounds. Those refugee camps are still in place because Israel wants them? Bush should go to Israel to honor its
60th birthday and also commiserate with the Palestinians? This makes sense to someone?

How many times could there have been peace in the Middle East? Let me count the ways. After 1948, after 1956, after 1967, after 1973, after Oslo, after Madrid, after Camp David, during the Clinton initiative. Is there anything now, other than a one state solution that would return all of Palestine (from the River to the Sea) to the Palestinians that can bring about peace? A peace devoutly to be wished by anti-Zionists everywhere.

Happy Birthday, Israel. Keep your Uzis at the ready.