Salon recently published a review by Gregory Levey, of the efforts of the Coordinating Council on Jerusalem under the title, The right wing’s Jerusalem gambit and sub-titled,
-
A new coalition of religious hard-liners with ties to President Bush seeks to scuttle any plans for dividing Jerusalem between Israelis and Palestinians.
I was very much involved in the activities of the CCJ and can attest that this review was accurate but Levey made gratuitous remarks that I thought showed a shallow understanding of the process.
-
That a successful peace deal would necessitate some sharing of Jerusalem is at this point essentially a given in the eyes of most political leaders.
While this is undoubtedly true, he argues
-
The new coalition of religious groups seeks to use the incendiary Jerusalem question to scuttle any of the progress promised by Annapolis.
The issue of Jerusalem is an issue in and of itself. It isn’t an issue for an ulterior purpose as suggested, though many of us , myself included will oppose any peace process that is intended to end in the Saudi Plan.
He accuses the CCJ of having the “strength and potential to be a real obstacle to peace in the year to come.” as if there was any chance of this happening and ends with,
-
The Annapolis conference may have been a start, but it has also unleashed a zealotry on U.S. shores that may once again help demonstrate how nearly impossible achieving Middle East peace could really be.
Not one word about New PA Law: Negotiating Jerusalem is an Act of Treason which makes it a capital crime to even discuss Jerusalem.
This is the blindness of the left. It demands Israel make peace on Arab terms without regard for whether the “peace” will be reliable or fair or respectful of Israel’s rights. Rightwingers otherwise know as zealots, are not allowed to negotiate for what they consider theirs. Rightwingers do not reject peace. They just reject faux peace on Arab terms.
Most of you Jews in the Galut remind me of the Israeli Kibbutz movement. This movement began with a purpose an ideology, and an idealism that was all but groundbreaking in their prime. Today they do not exist for any practical reason except in name and ownership of a lot of land. They lost a reason to be so they are not, but in their heyday they controlled Israel as much if not more than any other sector of our society. The Jews in the Galut have pretty much lost any reason to exist as a community and thus cannot keep its future generation within the fold.
It seems to me in the light of history No ism lasts very long except one and that is real Judaism. It also is evident that all popular isms of the past century and a half were transcendental. They arose with a big bang and exited with a whimper.
Now for most posters and readers to this blog may be considered pro Israel (and I am sure they are) they view our situation for the most part as a near normal political and geopolitical problems that can be solved as with most normal political and geopolitical problems) This means not entertaining Maximalist positions and a willingness to make some compromises for what even they believe will be peace in our time!
Except that as Jews and I don”t mean the aberrations of Reform and conservatives mostly in America who know not their Judaism but those who believe and practice their Judaism, Any Idea of the relinquishing any part of the Land of Israel to foreigners and enemies is Blasphemous.
They believe that the State is not the owner of the Land of Israel but its caretaker and Guardian, as it belongs to the whole Jewish People and their progeny in perpetuity.
How do we then reconcile these positions those that will give up all for a dream and a promise, those that will make limited compromises and those like me who say not one inch and mean it?
How can we come to a unified position when there is no unity among ourselves?
How sad it is that the demand by our leaders of our enemies to first recognize Israel as a Jewish State when it is not and far from being a Jewish State?
It is worth noting that the entire Palestinian negotiating position is all about making and not shirking from their maximal demands. That kind of negotiating position seems quite acceptable to the West, to America and even the Olmert government.
That a small, but growing groundswell of opinion resisting the Olmert government’s negotiating strategy including the view that Jerusalem must not be divided, has earned the Coordinating Council on Jerusalem, ZOA and their supporters the labels right wing, hawkish and zealots.
If the conventional appeasement thinkers want to name call, lets get down to it and publically call the West, America and Olmert every name in the book to express the utmost contempt for their spineless appeasement thinking that never got Israel anywhere and will not get Israel anywhere.
email
The 2 sides speak 2 languages, their cultures are polar opposites, They can’t have a
coffee together much less an agreed upon set of words. I think the original position of
the Bush govt (exclude me out, as sam goldwyn was reputed to say) was the wiser, less
dramatic choice. Maybe time, is the ONLY medicine that will heal this wound. Time is on
our side, not theirs, as Palestinians suffer from bloodlust and ignore the benefits of
trade, education, and western morality. With Irans nuclear ambitions, israel will have
no choices. They will strike. This may be beneficial to the peace equation. It will
definitely split the Arab world into Saudi et al and the Iran Syria club. It will also
draw the secret applause of the Europeans. The Iranian problem is the elephant in the
room next door.
And wait till the power hungry Putin machine, now flush with oil funds, decides to play
again in the Mideast sandpile. It’s only a question of time. I am not optimistic.
the scribbler
But Gerry, this presupposes that the Arabs will compromise and accept the permanence of Israel. My next article will make it clear that such acceptance will never be forthcoming.
A long time friend writes
Oh, Ted
it must be hard being the only virgin left standing — a true believer who is certain that he has found the right truth and would you believe it, it’s on his right side. In your selective parsing of the Salon article you do exactly the same thing you accuse the left of doing of being blind to reality. Your so sure statement that “right wingers do not reject peace…they just reject faux peace on Arab terms” …ignores the fact that regardless of the “absolutist voices”…of which your, I believe, is a Jewish echo, people of good will, however strained that good will is, on the right and on the left, have to continue thinking of peace and struggling with each other for peace, finding the compromises out of “each others terms” so that at some time, children, on both sides, can grow up at peace.” I am reminded of the Yiddish expression “as beyde bale-dinim zaynen gerekht iz shlekht–When both litigants are right its a sorry sight.” It’s time to get beyond the the sorry sight of the two litigants howling their stories of absolute right. Maybe, then Justice will be served — for the Israeli’s for the Palestinians. Maybe.
Gerry
Note that the US is refusing to discuss or contemplate Israel as a Jewish state!
Annapolis, and what the Quartet see as “peace” is all on Arab terms, which means the total denial of Judaism, Jews, or even of Israel’s Jewish identity.
Next thing we know, Jesus will be born a Muslim… and that Islam will have existed 3500 years ago…
All common sterotypes but proveable historically.