What's A Retired, Old Jew In Boca Raton To Think

Jews love to keep in touch with affairs of the world to the very end. And, that's a good thing. It's why they sign up for continuing education programs at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) and come to listen to people like Dr. Asher Susser, professor and senior fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern studies at Tel Aviv University.

I, also being an old Jew, went to hear him on 1-15-11. His presentation touched on his latest book, "Between Israel, Jordan and Palestine: One State, Two States, or Three". Have you ever heard a speaker give a reasonably logical presentation and then at the end go completely off the tracks? That was Dr. Susser.

He began by pointing out that the Palestinians really don't want peace, or at least not a situation that most people would consider a reasonable state of peace. That was the reason Oslo failed (followed by a murderous intefada). It is why subsequent efforts at peace have failed. Palestinians just don't want to accept a Jewish state. They want to argue over 1948, whereas, Israelis want to finalize the situation as it was after 1968.

He buttressed his opening premise with the following realities:
1. The Palestinians will acknowledge an Israeli state, but they won't recognize it as a Jewish state.
2. All Palestinian peace proposals call for a return of "refugees" to Israel. He went on to explain the obvious; namely, that this is a no starter.

He then went on to speak a bit about Gaza, the west bank, and Jordan. Generally speaking, his comments were what the informed reader already knew. However, it was useful to the listener for him to point out that there are actually three groups of Palestinians: those in Israel, those in Gaza and the west bank, and those outside of these areas (Jordan, Lebanon, etc.). Each group actually has different interests.

But, then after speaking at some length, he came to the following conclusions:
a. Israel needs a resolution to this problem or it may destroy Israel.
b. As to Jerusalem, Israel is doing everything right, but it is not being fair. (He mentioned a safe driving slogan used in Israel, "Be smart, don't be right.")

He ended his presentation in a muddle. "Israel must do the following.." I listened closely, but could not figure out what he was suggesting as being the "following."

Along the way, Dr. Susser, made it clear that he was not on the side of the settlers. (Okay, Dr. Susser, you're entitled.)

As I drove back to my development, I pondered the following:
1. For Israel to act unilaterally was counterproductive as could be seen by the withdrawal from Gaza and by trying to be fair regarding Lebanon.
2. But why doesn't Israel just redraw the bondary between Israel and the west bank in ways that are reasonable but nevertheless favor Israel?

The world, according to Dr. Susser, would not be happy but what exactly does it mean for the world not to be happy. What exactly is the "world"? If it includes the Islamic world, aren't they already against Israel? Egypt, despite it's peace treaty with Israel, is generally hostile towards Israel. It fails to act in certain instances against Israel only because to do so would harm Egyptian interests. Ditto Jordan. That's the Islamic world.

Then there are the African nations. Need I say more?

Powerful nations include Russia and China. Couldn't Israel take a page from their playbook? Israel is not, of course, anywhere near as large or as powerful as Russia or China, but why shouldn't these nations serve as an example to Israel?

But these last thoughts are my own. From Dr. Susser I got precious little.

So you want to start a war?

A great deal has been written about various and assorted wars going back to Thucydides. But, I haven't yet come across a book that attempts to show how past wars have begun and what, if anything, such commencements have had in common.

I belong to a group that assembles to discuss current events. Be that as it may, some individual invariably gets up to voice his opinion that FDR had secret knowledge of Japan's planned attack on Pearl Harbor. Another, got up the other day and claimed that the Lusitania was not stuck by a German submarine, but rather sank when munitions in its hold suddenly exploded. He mentions that because it is relevant to America's entry into WW I.

That started me thinking about the start of the Spanish American war, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and our entry into Iraq and Afghanistan. In all cases, there was a predisposition for getting into the scrap. The actual initiating events were almost secondary.

That doesn't prove that a war, or all wars, are good or bad. The Civil War, as horrendous as it was, was necessary. Whether we needed to go into WW I can be debated. Entry into WW II was not only necessary, but should have been begun much earlier. (It then might not have escalated into such an inferno.) Vietnam was unnecessary and stupid. The Korean War began because the Chinese and Russians misinterpreted an omission in a speech given by Dean Acheson. And, how and why we got into Iraq is still being debated.

But clearly there are wars the U.S. cannot avoid and wars that we really ought to avoid. Unfortunately, it is usually decades later before we can sort out which was which.