By David Perlmutter
With regard to Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East in general. It is useful to take all of the issues, and classify whether they realistic and reasonable.
Let’s take the right of return. It is neither reasonable nor realistic to expect Israel to agree to it. Therefore, should be dropped from the agenda.
The idea of Israel returning to the borders of 1967 is neither reasonable nor realistic
Now as for of the settlements. I believe creating them was a huge mistake Some might find it reasonable for Israel to tear down settlements, and move its citizens back to Israel proper, but it certainly not realistic, not even close.
My colleague and friend Dr. Shmuel Itzhak says that Jews should be able to live anywhere in Judea and Samaria. He further believes that these settlers should remain citizens of Israel, and be allowed to vote in Israeli elections.
In a recent article in the New York Times, a prominent member of the Likud party, Danny Danon , proposed that Israel occupy all of the land known as Samaria. He further states that Jews living there be allowed to vote, and Arabs not have the right to vote in Israeli elections.
This is inviting use of nasty appellation “apartheid. “
I propose that if parts of Samaria are included into Israel, then Arabs living there should be allowed to vote. That is how it is in Israel right now. That is why Israel is a democracy. However, this would risk a Jewish majority in the State of Israel.
I for one, would not take this risk.
One idea, is to allow some of the larger settlements to remain in Israel proper, and that these Jews of course, be Israeli citizens, and have the right to vote in Israeli elections.
In the land that may be ceded to Palestine, all Arabs should have the right to participate in their own elections. Jews living within these agreed upon borders, also have the right to vote in Palestinian elections. This is how they do it in Israel today. This, in my opinion, it is both reasonable, and realistic.
As to the issue of a Palestinian state, I believe that this has already been decided. That is to say, both Israel and the United States have agreed that a Palestinian State must be created.
However the question is how will this state be created, by negotiations or through illegal Unilateral actions at the UN.
It is my expectation that if the Palestinians do ask the UN general assembly to recognize a Palestinian State this resolution will have overwhelming support.
Again I say that neither Israel, nor the United States will have any say in the matter. This is reality and must be faced. Why is this important? It is important to have world opinion on our side. Isn’t that the goal of The Association for the Political Defense of Israel?
I would like to speak of the events of the last few days, President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu met and discussed all of these matters and many more. After they're meeting they had a press conference, I believe, that Netanyahu was the clear public relations winner.
He faced Obama, and lectured him on the right of return and the Israeli 1967 borders. He very correctly told our president that Israel can not have borders that leave the country 9 miles wide. His arguments were reasonable and realistic.
He also told Obama, that the right of return would result in a state that was not a Jewish State. Both of these Palestinian propositions are neither reasonable, nor realistic
Obama accomplished something that I didn't think was possible. He made Prime Minister Netanyahu look like a reasonable man. Putting it more bluntly, he made Netanyahu look good, and himself not so good.
The next day, the president modified his stance enough to have mollified the AIPAC audience.
Finally, It is nether useful nor responsible to resort to name-calling with people who may not agree with you.This is counterproductive, and just not right.
For example referring to president Obama as an empty suit, is neither reasonable nor real. To call Jews such as those who work at the newspaper Ha'aretz self-loathing Jews, or Quislings, is slanderous, and inaccurate.
They are simply good Jews who disagree with you. Let’s debate the facts, and stop the name calling
Calling our president Muslim, is not only unreasonable, unrealistic, it is just plain foolish. Disagree with him, blast him for views you consider to be contrary to the welfare of Israel, but criticize in fact, not his motive. If you think his policies are wrong, don't vote for him. Campaign against him. This is reasonable and realistic. Keep in mind, that he is the President of the United States, not of Israel.
As for the far left this out in California, and other campuses, you may properly call them anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic. This is very realistic. These same people think that the president was wrong in killing Osama bin Laden, and not putting him on trial in the United States. This is unrealistic, unreasonable, and any other adjectives that you could think of to describe these views.
Not allowing Bin Laden the right to be put on trial, is very unreasonable in the highest sense of the word. Reason shows us that the right to be put on trial is indiscriminate, & once it does discriminate then democracy & freedom go down the drain, potentially. This is important. Look at Israel's handling with the old Nazi Eichmann, he was put on trial. This is the way it should be, always. This comment is written by someone with center-right views on Israel's policies, and a Zionist through-and-through.
ReplyDeleteI can understand a few reasons why they didn't put him on trial. But I still think they should have. Especially since it was the US, where there is supposed to be due process of sorts. I think anonymous is right.
ReplyDelete