While the conflict Shai writes about between the Jews and Arabs in a tiny plot of land between two continents may seem intractable, and though the current (and past) position of the Israeli government may strike him as wholly lacking in vision and even a spur to more conflict ....
.... we can, in the Jewish world, at least all agree that what goes on in that Land is certainly something worth caring about.
Imagine caring about what happened in Seattle last week.
I am not intimately aware of the details of the story, so I will stick to the basics. A Rabbi Bogomilsky asked that a Menorah be erected next to a Christmas tree at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, citing the need for equal representation of faiths if the wall between church and state was to be violated anyway.
Rabbi Bogomilsky's request was turned down. Apparently in the confusion that followed, the Christmas tree was taken down by authorities and the Rabbi was accused of threatening a law suit if it wasn't. As it turns out, the Rabbi made no such threat --- the city most likely took the tree down in order to avoid the silliness of ongoing controversy or legal action.
This is hardly a novel December story in America, it seems to recur yearly. And I will bet you that the Rabbi had good religious motivations for requesting the Menorah take it's place beside the (pagan) Tree. There is a mitzvah, after all, to "advertise" the miracle, not just in homes but in public places as well.
But ... must we advertise it in Tacoma, Washington?
Here we encounter the basic dilemna of American Judaism. This country's Jewish population is assimilating at an astonishing rate. The reasons are not mysterious, nor are the Jews who fall by the wayside necessarily to be scorned.
I was recently in the State of Washington on vacation. It is an astonishingly beautiful place. It is also an obviously gentile place. Like most of America, it is a culturally Christian land, based on Christian and Western-settler ethos. If there is to be a non-Christian influence in the next 500 years, it will be from Asia, and will likely not be a religious influence. This is a Christian country.
Most Jews recognize that we live in a Christian country. I do, and as a result I suffer no schizophrenia. I do not pretend that my faith merits the slightest public consideration. I consider the new greeting of "Happy Holidays" to be absurd; even in Los Angeles, most of the people mouthing those words will celebrate Christmas -- not Hannukah, not Kwanzaa, not Ramadan. I don't fight Christian hegemony here, because to do so would be pointless and guarantee that I live in an irrelevant dream-bubble of my own making.
What will give a shrunken Jewish population vitality and meaning in America in the 100 years to come will not be legal fictions such as Menorahs sitting next to Christmas trees on the White House lawn, or any of the other vainglorious and empty public legal battles waged by organized American Jewry to put Judaism falsely on the same podium as Christianity. Nor do the lawsuits every year to elminate any vestiges of Christianity in public schools, for that matter, do anything to pump life into our people.
Our numbers will inevitably shrink, but such is the cycle of Jewish history. What matters is not how many we are but how well the remnant here embraces our historic mission. How do we create a Judaism and a Jewish culture that has such strength and energy that the unnafiliated will be attracted to the core of what is us? If there are but 3 million of us in 25 years, will it be the 3 million hearts that beat as one at the foot of Mt Sinai, or will it be the 3 million led by Joshua who inherited the Land and couldn't wait even a week to abandon any sense of mission or peoplehood?
That is the question for American Jews, whose Menorah "controversies" thankfully lie outside the arena of life and death, but unfortunately generate some heat but shed no light.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Monday, December 18, 2006
Negotiating with the Palestinians?
In the endless cycle of bloodshed that has existed between Jews and Arabs since the early part of the previous century, on few occasions did negotiation lead to the goals sought after by either side. It has become almost expected that negotiations would eventually (or quickly) break down, and the cycle of violence would ensue. Distrust has turned into the main cause for not returning to the negotiating table. Essentially, both sides have had very similar claims towards one another, yet the deadlock has rarely been broken. So how can we expect anyone to truly believe in the prospects of peace? We can’t – at least not if we continue doing things as we always have.
In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is clear to all parties concerned that Israel is the stronger side. It can, and it does, inflict far greater damage on the Palestinians that the latter on us. Most of us can imagine the frustration and helplessness felt by the average Palestinian, and hence the almost innate support for anyone (terrorist or not) capable of translating that frustration into action. The unimaginable living conditions, extreme poverty, and staggering unemployment are enough to cause any last ounce of Palestinian optimism to evaporate and be replaced by emotional and rational searches for radical solutions – ones that would force the other side to change. Recognizing their status as the (far) weaker side in the conflict, the Palestinians are after recognition and respect no less than their national rights. And that is precisely where Israel has and continues to fail time and again.
Prior to negotiating with another side, one must first recognize not only the goals sought after, but in fact who the parties involved are. For instance, if Google is about to negotiate the purchase of YouTube, it must recognize that YouTube is not an equal party in commercial experience, financial strength, knowledge of the market, and so forth. Next, one must accept that although both sides will engage in a give-and-take during negotiations, there is a greater potential for success if both are at least “seemingly” discussing the issues at eye-level. It is no less a responsibility of the stronger side as it is the weaker one’s to create an atmosphere whereby the perception of such equality exists. In the case of the two super-powers (US and USSR), not much pre-negotiation work was needed in creating such a perception, at least not in the case of the military or nuclear capabilities of either side.
In the case of Israel and the Palestinians, however, things are very different. It should be inconceivable that the Palestinians could come to the negotiating table without the ability to continue to deliver pressuring “messages” to Israelis, reminding them of what they will lose as long as their rights are not recognized. In practical terms, Israelis, and in particular their leaders, must come to accept that without ongoing terror, the Palestinians cannot negotiate with Israel. As such, Israeli leaders must not view negotiation as something that can occur only upon the cessation of violence. In a cruel and cynical way, the more damage the Palestinians inflict upon Israel, the greater their sense of equal-party in the conflict, the greater the chances for success in future negotiations.
At the same time, Israel, though the stronger side, cannot enter negotiations without its own continued pressure over the Palestinians. It must therefore correctly identify what may be deemed “legitimate pressure” in the eyes of the other side, and what may not. The Palestinians must feel that Israel chooses rules of engagement in the conflict which apply pressure, yet do not degrade or humiliate them. They must reach an understanding that Israel is not attempting to force a negotiated peace as the stronger side, but rather lead the Palestinians to a preferred alternative, almost as equals. Economic blockades have always been viewed as collective punishment, and never as a legitimate, proportional response to violence. So-called surgical strikes have also failed because they create an illusion and far too great an expectation of exactness, which has repeatedly been proven unrealistic. Time-limited operations have also failed because by definition they cannot create irreversible conditions that permanently disable any capabilities of the other side.
The one type of pressure which has not been applied yet, mostly out of concern for the way the international community may view its use, entails the principle of reciprocity. That is, Israel assumes that as it is clear to all that its military might is far superior to that of the Palestinians, it cannot define any minor action as being reciprocal. But if Israel clearly states that it views the current situation as that of war, certain responses become more legitimate than before. For instance, in war, when one side shells another, it is normally acceptable for the opposite to occur immediately thereafter. It should not be inconceivable that Israel states that henceforth, each shelling of Israeli population centers will be swiftly followed by equal shelling of Palestinian ones. Each Kassam rocket landing in the heart of Sderot, will be followed by a single artillery shell fired at the heart of Gaza, and so forth.
At the same time, Israel must make every attempt and effort to return to the negotiating table. Until a peace-treaty is signed, it should not expect the violence to end and, as this article suggests, it should accept its existence as the only effective means of pressure the Palestinians have. Israel should not demand the cessation of hostilities as a precondition to negotiations, but rather advance towards its own goals in parallel. Only when the Palestinians feel they’ve achieved their basic (not necessarily complete) national aspirations, and no less significant, the respect and recognition they deserve, will there be a chance for the guns to finally go silent.
In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is clear to all parties concerned that Israel is the stronger side. It can, and it does, inflict far greater damage on the Palestinians that the latter on us. Most of us can imagine the frustration and helplessness felt by the average Palestinian, and hence the almost innate support for anyone (terrorist or not) capable of translating that frustration into action. The unimaginable living conditions, extreme poverty, and staggering unemployment are enough to cause any last ounce of Palestinian optimism to evaporate and be replaced by emotional and rational searches for radical solutions – ones that would force the other side to change. Recognizing their status as the (far) weaker side in the conflict, the Palestinians are after recognition and respect no less than their national rights. And that is precisely where Israel has and continues to fail time and again.
Prior to negotiating with another side, one must first recognize not only the goals sought after, but in fact who the parties involved are. For instance, if Google is about to negotiate the purchase of YouTube, it must recognize that YouTube is not an equal party in commercial experience, financial strength, knowledge of the market, and so forth. Next, one must accept that although both sides will engage in a give-and-take during negotiations, there is a greater potential for success if both are at least “seemingly” discussing the issues at eye-level. It is no less a responsibility of the stronger side as it is the weaker one’s to create an atmosphere whereby the perception of such equality exists. In the case of the two super-powers (US and USSR), not much pre-negotiation work was needed in creating such a perception, at least not in the case of the military or nuclear capabilities of either side.
In the case of Israel and the Palestinians, however, things are very different. It should be inconceivable that the Palestinians could come to the negotiating table without the ability to continue to deliver pressuring “messages” to Israelis, reminding them of what they will lose as long as their rights are not recognized. In practical terms, Israelis, and in particular their leaders, must come to accept that without ongoing terror, the Palestinians cannot negotiate with Israel. As such, Israeli leaders must not view negotiation as something that can occur only upon the cessation of violence. In a cruel and cynical way, the more damage the Palestinians inflict upon Israel, the greater their sense of equal-party in the conflict, the greater the chances for success in future negotiations.
At the same time, Israel, though the stronger side, cannot enter negotiations without its own continued pressure over the Palestinians. It must therefore correctly identify what may be deemed “legitimate pressure” in the eyes of the other side, and what may not. The Palestinians must feel that Israel chooses rules of engagement in the conflict which apply pressure, yet do not degrade or humiliate them. They must reach an understanding that Israel is not attempting to force a negotiated peace as the stronger side, but rather lead the Palestinians to a preferred alternative, almost as equals. Economic blockades have always been viewed as collective punishment, and never as a legitimate, proportional response to violence. So-called surgical strikes have also failed because they create an illusion and far too great an expectation of exactness, which has repeatedly been proven unrealistic. Time-limited operations have also failed because by definition they cannot create irreversible conditions that permanently disable any capabilities of the other side.
The one type of pressure which has not been applied yet, mostly out of concern for the way the international community may view its use, entails the principle of reciprocity. That is, Israel assumes that as it is clear to all that its military might is far superior to that of the Palestinians, it cannot define any minor action as being reciprocal. But if Israel clearly states that it views the current situation as that of war, certain responses become more legitimate than before. For instance, in war, when one side shells another, it is normally acceptable for the opposite to occur immediately thereafter. It should not be inconceivable that Israel states that henceforth, each shelling of Israeli population centers will be swiftly followed by equal shelling of Palestinian ones. Each Kassam rocket landing in the heart of Sderot, will be followed by a single artillery shell fired at the heart of Gaza, and so forth.
At the same time, Israel must make every attempt and effort to return to the negotiating table. Until a peace-treaty is signed, it should not expect the violence to end and, as this article suggests, it should accept its existence as the only effective means of pressure the Palestinians have. Israel should not demand the cessation of hostilities as a precondition to negotiations, but rather advance towards its own goals in parallel. Only when the Palestinians feel they’ve achieved their basic (not necessarily complete) national aspirations, and no less significant, the respect and recognition they deserve, will there be a chance for the guns to finally go silent.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Is Peace Possible?
All of you must be saying: "For crying out loud, are they really going to talk about THIS one now? Don't they know that the peace process is dead? Haven't they heard about TERRORISM?" So yes, we're going to talk about this one. Partly, because the topic has come up in the past few days for some obscure reason in Israel and, mainly, because it's OUR blog, and we can do as we wish with it... Don't take it personally, ok?
But to the point - in recent months, Arab nations such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and some Gulf States have been showing subtle support for Israel's right to defend itself against present and future attacks by the "Axis of Evil": Syria, Iran, and their local area representative (LAR, as opposed to LAN) in the form of one Hizbollah organization. At the same time, the elected president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas and, more importantly, the Syrian president, Bashar Assad, have called upon Israel to return to the negotiating table without any preconditions. Israel, under the impressive leadership of one Ehud Olmert, has rejected all such calls. Funny enough, in both cases the reasons were similar: namely that the "other side" is not sincere and is busy supporting terrorism. To his great satisfaction, Olmert has also been supported by Shimon Peres.
Today, a more open and blunt statement came out, claiming that "now was not the time to make declarations which would contradict the current US administration's strategy vis-a-vis the Middle East". In other words, both Olmert and Peres and, for that matter, every living human being in the Jewish world, know that there could be no better opportunity to get back to the negotiating table (as no preconditions were demanded), yet because no one wants to piss Dubya off, and risk zero-support if or when Iranian rockets are lobbed at Israel, no one will give the go-ahead to sit with either side. Instead, Olmert has just approved an additional 1.9 billion shekel increase in the Defense budget for 2007, and the army is getting ready for the previous war in Lebanon. Not that it'll have to fight a second round in that battle again, but just in case, why not be ready? Why weren't we ready in the first place? Perhaps because you CAN'T be ready for that kind of offensive? But let's not get theoretical and philosophical here - let's just get the f*@#ing shells in the cannons ready, it's just around the corner - I can almost smell it, can't you?
So in this continued inevitability of war (ongoing now 59 years and counting) what have we forgotten? Perhaps that peace is never made with friends, only with enemies? Perhaps that an enemy is sometimes defined as someone that wants, plans for, and does hurt you until such time as he considers you his friend? So when the Israeli leadership refuses to talk with Assad until he closes Hamas offices in Damascus, and stops supporting Hizbollah, and swears to never be a good friend of Iran, all PRIOR to getting ANYTHING from Israel, are we surprised that the peace process is dead? Have we ever tried, but really tried, putting ourselves in the shoes of our enemies? Would we stop supporting anything that was anti-Israel until that last drop of ink was used on what they call a Peace Agreement? Will we ever give up a single square-inch of the Golan Heights, or move back a single tank, until Assad signs that sheet of paper? Never! And rightly so. But then we mustn't hold up the future of this region, and the prospects of peace, by making ridiculous and unacceptable demands of our enemies. Even if they don't mean it, and deep down they really only want to warm their relations with the West, what can we lose by going to the negotiating table and, in front of the entire world, show our peaceful intentions instead of our rubber-bullets flying into innocent children on the filthy streets of the most densly populated spot on earth, Gaza? Should we take the chance? How dare we NOT? What Israeli leader or politician have a right to continue to mortgage our children's future, for lack of REAL decision-making and leadership capabilities?
Any comments are welcomed...
But to the point - in recent months, Arab nations such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and some Gulf States have been showing subtle support for Israel's right to defend itself against present and future attacks by the "Axis of Evil": Syria, Iran, and their local area representative (LAR, as opposed to LAN) in the form of one Hizbollah organization. At the same time, the elected president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas and, more importantly, the Syrian president, Bashar Assad, have called upon Israel to return to the negotiating table without any preconditions. Israel, under the impressive leadership of one Ehud Olmert, has rejected all such calls. Funny enough, in both cases the reasons were similar: namely that the "other side" is not sincere and is busy supporting terrorism. To his great satisfaction, Olmert has also been supported by Shimon Peres.
Today, a more open and blunt statement came out, claiming that "now was not the time to make declarations which would contradict the current US administration's strategy vis-a-vis the Middle East". In other words, both Olmert and Peres and, for that matter, every living human being in the Jewish world, know that there could be no better opportunity to get back to the negotiating table (as no preconditions were demanded), yet because no one wants to piss Dubya off, and risk zero-support if or when Iranian rockets are lobbed at Israel, no one will give the go-ahead to sit with either side. Instead, Olmert has just approved an additional 1.9 billion shekel increase in the Defense budget for 2007, and the army is getting ready for the previous war in Lebanon. Not that it'll have to fight a second round in that battle again, but just in case, why not be ready? Why weren't we ready in the first place? Perhaps because you CAN'T be ready for that kind of offensive? But let's not get theoretical and philosophical here - let's just get the f*@#ing shells in the cannons ready, it's just around the corner - I can almost smell it, can't you?
So in this continued inevitability of war (ongoing now 59 years and counting) what have we forgotten? Perhaps that peace is never made with friends, only with enemies? Perhaps that an enemy is sometimes defined as someone that wants, plans for, and does hurt you until such time as he considers you his friend? So when the Israeli leadership refuses to talk with Assad until he closes Hamas offices in Damascus, and stops supporting Hizbollah, and swears to never be a good friend of Iran, all PRIOR to getting ANYTHING from Israel, are we surprised that the peace process is dead? Have we ever tried, but really tried, putting ourselves in the shoes of our enemies? Would we stop supporting anything that was anti-Israel until that last drop of ink was used on what they call a Peace Agreement? Will we ever give up a single square-inch of the Golan Heights, or move back a single tank, until Assad signs that sheet of paper? Never! And rightly so. But then we mustn't hold up the future of this region, and the prospects of peace, by making ridiculous and unacceptable demands of our enemies. Even if they don't mean it, and deep down they really only want to warm their relations with the West, what can we lose by going to the negotiating table and, in front of the entire world, show our peaceful intentions instead of our rubber-bullets flying into innocent children on the filthy streets of the most densly populated spot on earth, Gaza? Should we take the chance? How dare we NOT? What Israeli leader or politician have a right to continue to mortgage our children's future, for lack of REAL decision-making and leadership capabilities?
Any comments are welcomed...
Welcoming Note
Hi To All!
Two caring people have gotten together to start off yet another Blog, but this one will deal, almost in its entirety, with the future of the Jewish people. Yes, remember that first monotheistic religion in the world? Remember the scary statistics projecting a continuous decrease in the world Jewish population due to intermarriage? Remember the little "issues" the Jewish state has been dealing with for the past 59 years? Well, we're going to tackle some of these, and try to keep updated daily with the hottest issues at hand. If we manage to speak any sense, and one or two of you change your mind about things, then maybe this effort was worth it... In the meantime, we wish ourselves (and all of you) good luck!
Two caring people have gotten together to start off yet another Blog, but this one will deal, almost in its entirety, with the future of the Jewish people. Yes, remember that first monotheistic religion in the world? Remember the scary statistics projecting a continuous decrease in the world Jewish population due to intermarriage? Remember the little "issues" the Jewish state has been dealing with for the past 59 years? Well, we're going to tackle some of these, and try to keep updated daily with the hottest issues at hand. If we manage to speak any sense, and one or two of you change your mind about things, then maybe this effort was worth it... In the meantime, we wish ourselves (and all of you) good luck!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
