WHERE HAVE ALL THE DOVES GONE, TO SHARON EVERYONE, WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN, WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN
TAP's Jeff Mandell wonders where all the pro-Israel moderates have gone - implying of course that he (and Yossi Sarid) are one the few left in these troubled times.
Mandell's confusion results from the fact that he is conflated three related, but distinct debates. First, and most pressing was the debate over Israel's response to Arafat's terror offensive, and what if any restraints the U.S. should place on the Sharon government's use of military force. The second debate was what to do with the remaining infrastructure of Oslo - should Arafat's P.A. be destroyed, radically reformed or treated once more as a diplomatic partner. The third debate is over the scope of the final settlement agreement - what concessions should Israel make with regard to settlements, land, refugees and Jerusalem.
In the first debate, the middle ground rapidly dissapeared under wave after wave of Palestinian terror. With the Europeans and other supporters of the Palestinians condemning any Israel response (instead advocating Israeli capitulation and appeasement), and the State Department trying to maintain a position of "evenhandness", the great middle of American Jewry rose up to support Israel's right to defend itself. It was on this issue that American Jews were the most militant, refusing to compromise, refusing to accept the ridiculous moral equivalence of the foreign policy establishment, and having no patience for even well-meaning advocates of appeasement.
The terms of the second debate have radically with Camp David and the Intifada. The middle ground on Oslo collapsed. For those who claimed Arafat would never change - the events merely affirmed their initial positions. For the cautious supporters of Oslo, Arafat's credibility was irretrievely shattered. Only a few diehards, fellow travelers of Yossi Beillen, believed that Arafat could be persuaded to end the conflict and honor a final settlement.
The third and most signficant debate is still ongoing beneath the surface of the other two. Sure, the violence against Israel has galvanized opponents of any concessions to the Palestinians, but it hasn't changed the fundamental attitudes of American Jews, any more than it has changed the underlying positions of the average Israeli. For the majority of both groups, there is deep support for significant concessions - including a Palestinian state, if they would actually bring a peace honored by the other side. Does anyone realy believe that American Reform rabbis all of a sudden have been converted to messianic Orthodoxy? Does the Sisterhood of Temple Beth Shalom all of the sudden want to stop planting trees in the Negev, and expand Netzarim? Let's get serious.
The reality is that pro-Israel moderates haven't gone anywhere. They simply agreed with hardline supporters that Israel had the right to defend itself and that Arafat was not a legitimate peace partner, period. It is not "moderate" for supporters of Israel to support appeasement to Palestinian terror, it is foolishness. Since when does moderation require supporting ones own destruction? When a legitimate Arab peace partner emerges, and the concessions for peace are on the table, the pro-Israel moderates will emerge once more a distinct voice from the hardliners and messianists. But the territories have not been the real issue in the recent conflict - Israel's right to exist has - and on that issue, a true supporter of Israel makes no compromises.
TAP's Jeff Mandell wonders where all the pro-Israel moderates have gone - implying of course that he (and Yossi Sarid) are one the few left in these troubled times.
Many of us in the Jewish community face a delicate balancing act between two competing values: on the one hand, standing in solidarity with Israel during a time of trouble; and on the other, voicing our concern for human rights and the long-term goal of a two-state solution. At the same time, we are also stuck in a political limbo: stranded between the organized Jewish community's vocal militarism and the venomous anti-Semitism that pervade rallies and marches in support of the Palestinians.
Mandell's confusion results from the fact that he is conflated three related, but distinct debates. First, and most pressing was the debate over Israel's response to Arafat's terror offensive, and what if any restraints the U.S. should place on the Sharon government's use of military force. The second debate was what to do with the remaining infrastructure of Oslo - should Arafat's P.A. be destroyed, radically reformed or treated once more as a diplomatic partner. The third debate is over the scope of the final settlement agreement - what concessions should Israel make with regard to settlements, land, refugees and Jerusalem.
In the first debate, the middle ground rapidly dissapeared under wave after wave of Palestinian terror. With the Europeans and other supporters of the Palestinians condemning any Israel response (instead advocating Israeli capitulation and appeasement), and the State Department trying to maintain a position of "evenhandness", the great middle of American Jewry rose up to support Israel's right to defend itself. It was on this issue that American Jews were the most militant, refusing to compromise, refusing to accept the ridiculous moral equivalence of the foreign policy establishment, and having no patience for even well-meaning advocates of appeasement.
The terms of the second debate have radically with Camp David and the Intifada. The middle ground on Oslo collapsed. For those who claimed Arafat would never change - the events merely affirmed their initial positions. For the cautious supporters of Oslo, Arafat's credibility was irretrievely shattered. Only a few diehards, fellow travelers of Yossi Beillen, believed that Arafat could be persuaded to end the conflict and honor a final settlement.
The third and most signficant debate is still ongoing beneath the surface of the other two. Sure, the violence against Israel has galvanized opponents of any concessions to the Palestinians, but it hasn't changed the fundamental attitudes of American Jews, any more than it has changed the underlying positions of the average Israeli. For the majority of both groups, there is deep support for significant concessions - including a Palestinian state, if they would actually bring a peace honored by the other side. Does anyone realy believe that American Reform rabbis all of a sudden have been converted to messianic Orthodoxy? Does the Sisterhood of Temple Beth Shalom all of the sudden want to stop planting trees in the Negev, and expand Netzarim? Let's get serious.
The reality is that pro-Israel moderates haven't gone anywhere. They simply agreed with hardline supporters that Israel had the right to defend itself and that Arafat was not a legitimate peace partner, period. It is not "moderate" for supporters of Israel to support appeasement to Palestinian terror, it is foolishness. Since when does moderation require supporting ones own destruction? When a legitimate Arab peace partner emerges, and the concessions for peace are on the table, the pro-Israel moderates will emerge once more a distinct voice from the hardliners and messianists. But the territories have not been the real issue in the recent conflict - Israel's right to exist has - and on that issue, a true supporter of Israel makes no compromises.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home