J Street founder, Jeremy Ben Ami, and other J Street members met in Jerusalem with Rabbi Dan Gordis, Senior Vice President of Shalom Center. J Street may have sought this meeting because no one else, not associated with leftist or Palestinian causes, would do so. In fact, Gordis had been counseled by others not to meet with the J Street people.
Gordis ignored the advice -- something J Street may have soon have had cause to regret. Gordis told the J Street people that while he disagreed with much of what they have been doing, he believed it was important to meet even with those with whom he differed. Israel needed a "big tent" of supporters. He now hoped to find out whether J Street could be seen as being in, or out, of the tent.
Gordis explained that if there were one state, between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, it would mean the eradication of Israel. For him, that was unacceptable. However, keeping Palestinians under an Israeli thumb, or simply expelling them, was, on moral grounds, equally unacceptable. As he saw it, living side by side in peace was the only way forwards. He trusted that he and J Street could agree on this objective.
However, in following what J Street had been quoted as saying, it seemed to Gordis that J Street believed that this goal could be reached only by Israel making broad territorial concessions. J Street seemed to believe that anyone disagreeing with this was "not serious." It seemed that J Street believed that Israel had to "give up the store." Those not willing to do this, according to J Street, were "bluffing" or were "liars," or were "misguided."
Such an attitude, in the opinion of Rabbi Gordis, showed arrogance. Did J Street believe that they had greater moral clarity than Israelis? Published reports showed J Street taking great exception to those who argued that divisions separating Hamas from Fatah made a peace agreement at this time impossible. In J Street's opinion, only those opposed to a peace agreement would make this argument. It was obvious, according to J Street, that a reconciliation at this time between Fatah and Hamas reduced the obstacles to peace.
"Obvious?" asked Rabbi Gordis. J Street didn't seem to have figured it out. Gordis pointed out that the only thing truly obvious was that those who opposed to Israel's existence were Israel's enemies. For Abbas to have reconciled with Hamas was indeed an obstacle to peace.
BDS (boycott, disinvest, sanction) groups were cited by Gordis as people truly opposed to Israel's existence. How then, he asked, could J Street invite them to its conferences?
Dr. Gordis also reminded J Street that they had called on Israel to end the IDF's Cast Lead operation on the very first day of its launching when clearly it was far to soon for it to have achieved any of its objectives. Wasn't it obvious to J Street that Sderot was still not safe from the rocket and mortar attacks it had sustained in the days, weeks and months prior to Cast Lead. And, when exactly was it, asked Gordis, that J Street spoke out against Hamas's shelling of Israeli towns and cities?
Gordis noted that he had seen J Street spend freely to influence public opinion in the States. Suppose such sums had been directed towards influencing he attitudes of Israelis? Gordis doubts it would have had much of an impact. And, why would that have been? Did Israelis enjoy seeing their children go off to counter persistent Arab attacks? Did they take pleasure in attending the funerals of Israeli soldiers?
Why does J Street see it as a good thing for the U.S. to be twisting Israel's arm when Israel stands so alone in a toxic international arena?
Rabbi Gordis challenged J Street: "Show us you're pro-Israel. Let us see you apply pressure against others."
In the question-and-answer period, Ben Ami of J Street said he was "astonished" that no one had mentioned "occupation of another people." The answer to Ben Ami's comment came some days later in the issue of "Globes" where Verel Kellner, who had been traveling with the J Street group, observed that, in a meeting between J Street and Salem Fayyed, not once had Fayyad mentioned "occupation." An "occupation conversation" seems to hold little interest for any of the parties central to this conversation observed Kellner. Why then would this be an issue framed by J Street?
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Gaza Withdrawal Then Versus The Achievment of Peace Now
In the previous blog, I describe Dr. Schueftan's findings regarding present day attitudes of the Israeli-Arab minority towards Israel and how they create a formidable barrier to any peace agreement with the greater Palestinian community. As mentioned there, this conclusion was reached by the man who convinced Sharon to remove Israelis from Gaze
It might have been noted that two blogs earlier, in commenting on Sharon's Kadima Party, I suggested that the removal of Israelis from Gaza was a terrible mistake. Dr. Schueftan, however, argues against that point.
As Schueftan saw it then, and as he continues to see it now, getting out of Gaza was good for Israel. In his view, the cost of staying in Gaza did not warrant our presence there. We got rid of it and good riddance.
But that thinking does not extrapolate to the west bank. The defense of Israel simply does not permit us to return to '67 boundaries. As Dr. Schueftan sees it, there is no inconsistency. The problems with today's Gaza borders are minimal and manageable. West bank borders are an entirely different matter and require different thinking.
It might have been noted that two blogs earlier, in commenting on Sharon's Kadima Party, I suggested that the removal of Israelis from Gaza was a terrible mistake. Dr. Schueftan, however, argues against that point.
As Schueftan saw it then, and as he continues to see it now, getting out of Gaza was good for Israel. In his view, the cost of staying in Gaza did not warrant our presence there. We got rid of it and good riddance.
But that thinking does not extrapolate to the west bank. The defense of Israel simply does not permit us to return to '67 boundaries. As Dr. Schueftan sees it, there is no inconsistency. The problems with today's Gaza borders are minimal and manageable. West bank borders are an entirely different matter and require different thinking.
Friday, May 27, 2011
A Palestinian-Israeli Peace Agreement? Ask Dr. Schueftan.
Okay, so who is this Dr. Schueftan?
While perhaps his is not a household name, it probably should be. He's the head of the National Securities Center at Haifa University. In earlier times he advised Itzhak Rabin as well as Ariel Sharon regarding matters of national policy. Indeed, his arguments helped Sharon decide to remove Jewish settlements from Gaza. It's a move Dr. Schueftan still cheerfully argues was exactly the correct move.
Just recently, Dr. Dan Schueftan has come out with a new book, "Palestinians in Israel - The Arab Minority's Struggle Against the Jewish State." It's based on his extensive interviews with Jews and Arabs. And, it presents a disturbing picture of Israeli Arab attitudes.
Schueftan has found that Arabs don't recognize the existence of a Jewish people. They do, of course, acknowledge that there are people who practice a Jewish religion, but the Arabs don't see them as a "people." From the Arab's point of view, Israel is little more than a manifestation of European colonialism. It's founding was illegal. It continues to lack legitimacy. And, the values it is based on are not authentic to the region.
Arab elites in Israel would like to see the destruction of everything the Jews have built. They then would like to build an Arab society on the ruins of the Jewish state. For the Israeli Arab, these are more than wishful thoughts. This is their identity.
In his study of Israeli and Arab society, Dr. Schueftan has observed the following:
1. The social divide is not between the Jew and the Arab, but rather between the haredi Jew and the non-secular Arab on one side and the secular Jew and the Christian Arab on the other.
2. Poverty, such as it is, is not really what divides the Arab and the Jew. He finds that Arabs are not as poor as generally believed. However, the haredi Jews and the Muslim Arab are indeed generally poorer than their more secular counterparts. But this difference in levels of income is not due to discrimination but rather to the social and political choices they have made.
In the families of secular Jews and Christian Arabs, women enjoy greater rights. In such families both the man and the woman work. They also tend to have fewer children.
3. But while secular Jews and Christian Arabs share many social values, Arabs, whether Christian, secular, or Muslim, view Israel as illegitimate.
Schueftan's book provides an analysis that is divided into three parts; 1. the Arab-Jewish relationship, 2. political insights into the Arab and Jewish positions, and 3. a social and economic analysis of the parties.
In the end, Dr. Schueftan concludes that there is no solution. Israel must carry on and be satisfied with what amounts to damage control. Self destruction is not an option.
Credit for the material in this review must go to the article in the Jerusalem Post written by Ben Hartman.
While perhaps his is not a household name, it probably should be. He's the head of the National Securities Center at Haifa University. In earlier times he advised Itzhak Rabin as well as Ariel Sharon regarding matters of national policy. Indeed, his arguments helped Sharon decide to remove Jewish settlements from Gaza. It's a move Dr. Schueftan still cheerfully argues was exactly the correct move.
Just recently, Dr. Dan Schueftan has come out with a new book, "Palestinians in Israel - The Arab Minority's Struggle Against the Jewish State." It's based on his extensive interviews with Jews and Arabs. And, it presents a disturbing picture of Israeli Arab attitudes.
Schueftan has found that Arabs don't recognize the existence of a Jewish people. They do, of course, acknowledge that there are people who practice a Jewish religion, but the Arabs don't see them as a "people." From the Arab's point of view, Israel is little more than a manifestation of European colonialism. It's founding was illegal. It continues to lack legitimacy. And, the values it is based on are not authentic to the region.
Arab elites in Israel would like to see the destruction of everything the Jews have built. They then would like to build an Arab society on the ruins of the Jewish state. For the Israeli Arab, these are more than wishful thoughts. This is their identity.
In his study of Israeli and Arab society, Dr. Schueftan has observed the following:
1. The social divide is not between the Jew and the Arab, but rather between the haredi Jew and the non-secular Arab on one side and the secular Jew and the Christian Arab on the other.
2. Poverty, such as it is, is not really what divides the Arab and the Jew. He finds that Arabs are not as poor as generally believed. However, the haredi Jews and the Muslim Arab are indeed generally poorer than their more secular counterparts. But this difference in levels of income is not due to discrimination but rather to the social and political choices they have made.
In the families of secular Jews and Christian Arabs, women enjoy greater rights. In such families both the man and the woman work. They also tend to have fewer children.
3. But while secular Jews and Christian Arabs share many social values, Arabs, whether Christian, secular, or Muslim, view Israel as illegitimate.
Schueftan's book provides an analysis that is divided into three parts; 1. the Arab-Jewish relationship, 2. political insights into the Arab and Jewish positions, and 3. a social and economic analysis of the parties.
In the end, Dr. Schueftan concludes that there is no solution. Israel must carry on and be satisfied with what amounts to damage control. Self destruction is not an option.
Credit for the material in this review must go to the article in the Jerusalem Post written by Ben Hartman.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Medicare: An American Addiction
Controlled substances can be God-sent, but only when properly managed. If prudently applied they can help alleviate the threat of physical agony. When poorly managed, they will destroy the individual.
It's quite the same with medicare, a system designed to dispel the threat of pauperization when one becomes sick. However, we have come to see that Medicare's design is deeply flawed and, if left uncorrected, will bring down the American economy and everything that hinges on it, such as jobs and national security.
Like anything else that's addictive, Medicare is difficult to fix. The public is of no mind to go cold turkey. They need their fix. Instead, the country must be weened from its addiction slowly and with great care. America needs a kind of methadone.
The answer to our problem must of necessity come through the political process. Paul Ryan's proposed Medicare fix was meant to be a first step in negotiating a suitable solution to our dire health care problem. But, rather than negotiate a "fix" acceptable to all, the Democrats have chosen to use the Ryan proposal as a cudgel with which to assault Republicans. And, in this, they have been highly successful.
Recent results from an upstate New York election serves to illustrate an important point; namely, that dealing with an addiction such as Medicare becomes excruciatingly difficult when you have standing next to you an enabler such as the Democratic Party.
It's quite the same with medicare, a system designed to dispel the threat of pauperization when one becomes sick. However, we have come to see that Medicare's design is deeply flawed and, if left uncorrected, will bring down the American economy and everything that hinges on it, such as jobs and national security.
Like anything else that's addictive, Medicare is difficult to fix. The public is of no mind to go cold turkey. They need their fix. Instead, the country must be weened from its addiction slowly and with great care. America needs a kind of methadone.
The answer to our problem must of necessity come through the political process. Paul Ryan's proposed Medicare fix was meant to be a first step in negotiating a suitable solution to our dire health care problem. But, rather than negotiate a "fix" acceptable to all, the Democrats have chosen to use the Ryan proposal as a cudgel with which to assault Republicans. And, in this, they have been highly successful.
Recent results from an upstate New York election serves to illustrate an important point; namely, that dealing with an addiction such as Medicare becomes excruciatingly difficult when you have standing next to you an enabler such as the Democratic Party.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
The Kadima Party and J Street Allied in Undermining Israel
Kadima in Israel is doing the same thing J Street does in the States and it's not pretty.
As you might recall, Kadima was created by Ariel Sharon when he found that the Likud party was balking at his plan to remove Israelis from Gaza; removing them from their homes there and from the greenhouses they had built in their successful effort to create a vibrant flower industry.
Humility and introspection were never Sharon's long suit. He knew . . . he knew . . . . he just knew . . . that by removing the the Jews from Gaza he would solve his problems with the Gazan Palestinians.
Right. The Gazans cannibalized the Israeli greenhouses which the foolish Israelis thought the Palestinians might use to help them continue with this already started business and thereby allow them to bring in badly needed income.
Next, the Gazans voted in as their new administrators Islamic terrorists; namely, Hamas. That was followed by Hamas firing hundreds and hundreds of missiles at Israeli towns along the border, not to mention attacks against Israelis near the border.
Israelis should regret that, by being in an extended coma, Sharon is unable to see the results of his bold risk to achieve peace with the Palestinians.
The political party Sharon created, Kadima, seems to be suffering from the same coma. Clearly, they have learned nothing from Sharon's debacle and continue to hector Netanyahu for not doing more to achieve peace.
J Street was established by George Soros and his friends to serve as a counter weight to AIPAC, much as Kadima party was established to serve as a counterweight to the Likud party. Of course, having been created by Jews to the left, J Street soon overshot the policies of Kadima and is now to be found aligning itself with groups waging a war of BDS against the Jewish state. The laugh line is this: They do it to strengthen Israel. It's like something from the Dark Ages when patients were bled in order to improve their health.
As you might recall, Kadima was created by Ariel Sharon when he found that the Likud party was balking at his plan to remove Israelis from Gaza; removing them from their homes there and from the greenhouses they had built in their successful effort to create a vibrant flower industry.
Humility and introspection were never Sharon's long suit. He knew . . . he knew . . . . he just knew . . . that by removing the the Jews from Gaza he would solve his problems with the Gazan Palestinians.
Right. The Gazans cannibalized the Israeli greenhouses which the foolish Israelis thought the Palestinians might use to help them continue with this already started business and thereby allow them to bring in badly needed income.
Next, the Gazans voted in as their new administrators Islamic terrorists; namely, Hamas. That was followed by Hamas firing hundreds and hundreds of missiles at Israeli towns along the border, not to mention attacks against Israelis near the border.
Israelis should regret that, by being in an extended coma, Sharon is unable to see the results of his bold risk to achieve peace with the Palestinians.
The political party Sharon created, Kadima, seems to be suffering from the same coma. Clearly, they have learned nothing from Sharon's debacle and continue to hector Netanyahu for not doing more to achieve peace.
J Street was established by George Soros and his friends to serve as a counter weight to AIPAC, much as Kadima party was established to serve as a counterweight to the Likud party. Of course, having been created by Jews to the left, J Street soon overshot the policies of Kadima and is now to be found aligning itself with groups waging a war of BDS against the Jewish state. The laugh line is this: They do it to strengthen Israel. It's like something from the Dark Ages when patients were bled in order to improve their health.
Donald Trump: We Thank You
Trump is to be thanked for taking a hit for the Republicans on the Birther Issue. The Birther Issue was, of course, from the very beginning, a red herring laid out by the Obama machine to trip up the Republicans. The Republicans, by and large, avoided this Democratic snare. Still, some on the right wanted to know why there was no birth certificate for Pres Obama.
The certificate was, of course, there all along. But Obama had it withheld as bait for the Republicans. Then when his Republican opponents began suggesting that Obama might not be a citizen, he would release the birth certificate and, thereby, not only establish the fact of his citizenship, but more importantly label Republicans as small-minded fools unable to hide their racist tendencies.
The Republicans didn't fall for the ruse. But less sophisticated citizens, unable to imagine such political gotcha games, did indeed demand proof of Obama's citizenship. Before this matter went its length, Trump entered the fray and took up the cause of ordinary people who wanted to know why Obama's birth certificate had not been made public.
That's when Obama sprung his trap and released his birth certificate. The media, largely leftist, responded the way Obama knew they would. They labeled Trump a buffoon ending his viability as a Republican nominee.
But, what did Obama really achieve? Trump never had the political credentials to be a Republican candidate for the presidency. I certainly didn't want to see him being nominated, nor did 90% of the Republican Party. By taking Trump out of the race, Obama did the Republicans a considerable favor.
But, it also showed the electorate the kind of games this country's president plays at a time when what Americans really yearn for is a leader who will confront the real problems facing our nation. They want a president who can exhibit some real leadership. Regrettably that's not the president we have.
Trump showed us the games that the Obama administration considers as being appropriate political ploys. And, for that bit of transparency we really ought to thank Trump. It seems that the only one who doesn't realize the game over is Chris Matthews.
The certificate was, of course, there all along. But Obama had it withheld as bait for the Republicans. Then when his Republican opponents began suggesting that Obama might not be a citizen, he would release the birth certificate and, thereby, not only establish the fact of his citizenship, but more importantly label Republicans as small-minded fools unable to hide their racist tendencies.
The Republicans didn't fall for the ruse. But less sophisticated citizens, unable to imagine such political gotcha games, did indeed demand proof of Obama's citizenship. Before this matter went its length, Trump entered the fray and took up the cause of ordinary people who wanted to know why Obama's birth certificate had not been made public.
That's when Obama sprung his trap and released his birth certificate. The media, largely leftist, responded the way Obama knew they would. They labeled Trump a buffoon ending his viability as a Republican nominee.
But, what did Obama really achieve? Trump never had the political credentials to be a Republican candidate for the presidency. I certainly didn't want to see him being nominated, nor did 90% of the Republican Party. By taking Trump out of the race, Obama did the Republicans a considerable favor.
But, it also showed the electorate the kind of games this country's president plays at a time when what Americans really yearn for is a leader who will confront the real problems facing our nation. They want a president who can exhibit some real leadership. Regrettably that's not the president we have.
Trump showed us the games that the Obama administration considers as being appropriate political ploys. And, for that bit of transparency we really ought to thank Trump. It seems that the only one who doesn't realize the game over is Chris Matthews.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Obama Takes A Page From Mayor Giuliani
You usually don't put the names of these two fellows, Obama and Giuliani, in the same sentence. But, they do share at least one trait. They understand the importance of keeping the spot light on themselves. Sharing is good in kindergarten, but it won't do in politics.
Remember our NY mayor firing Bill Bratton, his police commissioner? It was ostensibly over Bratton having taken some trips which were paid for by various companies. And, then, too, he took an advance on a book he was to write. But, these infractions, if they were infractions, were truly trivial. No, the reason he was fired was because he was taking too much credit for the reduction in crime in the Big Apple. Bratton should have realized that when you work for Giuliani whatever good you do must be credited to the Mayor.
And, for those same reasons, Gen. Petraeus was moved from his command and nominated to head the CIA. Leon Panetta, former head of the CIA was nominated to the position of Secretary of Defense, Gates' old job. All this just prior to the operation against Osama bin Laden. An operation that Obama knew was in the last stages of its implementation.
These men, and most notably, Petraeus, were highly instrumental in locating and dispatching Osama bin Laden. Sure, they were working under the authority of Obama, just as Bratton was working under the authority of Giuliani, but it was they, and the men and women under their command, who had done all the work preparing for this important and highly successful operation. It is these men and women who should be taking the bow.
As I see it, Petraeus should have been made Secretary of Defense. That's not to suggest that Panetta didn't do a good job as Director of the CIA. But, clearly, Petraeus has a far more extensive background in matters of defense. Then again, I suppose Hillary Clinton still doesn't quite trust Petraeus.
I don't really listen all that much to Limbaugh, but I read where he had said something to the effect that wasn't it great that we had a president like Obama, who was able to discover where Obama was hiding. Wasn't it great that we had a president who knew that we would be best served by assembling a special team of U.S. Seals to go in there and get Osama out; preferably dead. Osama knew that hitting the place with a missile might not establish the proof we wanted of Osama's death.
What's really weird is that some commentators actually didn't realize that Limbaugh's remarks were all tongue-in-cheek.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)