opinion
The Jewish Journal – jewishjournal.org – may 26, 2011
The Two State Solution
The News in Obama’s Speech Charles Krauthammer
H
ere with President Obama’s Middle East speech, annotated: “It will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.” With this, Barack Obama openly, unreservedly and without a trace of irony or self-reflection, adopts the Bush Doctrine, which made the spread of democracy the key U.S. objective in the Middle East. “Too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills.” Note how even Obama’s rationale matches Bush’s. Bush argued that because the roots of 9/11 were to be found in the deflected anger of repressed Middle Eastern peoples, our response would require a democratic transformation of the region. “We have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals.” A fine critique of exactly the kind of “realism” the Obama administration prided itself for having practiced in its first two years. How far did this concession to Bush go? Note Obama’s example of the democratization we’re aiming for. He actually said: “In Iraq, we see the promise of a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process… Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region.” Hail the Bush-Obama doctrine. “President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition [to democracy], or get out of the way.” The only jarring note in an otherwise interesting, if convoluted, attempt to unite all current “Arab Spring” policies under one philosophical rubric. Convoluted because the Bahrain part was unconvincing and the omission
of Saudi Arabia was unmistakable. Syria’s Assad leading a transition to democracy? This is bizarre and appalling. Assad has made all-out war on his people — shooting, arresting, executing, even using artillery against cities. Yet Obama is still holding out the olive branch when, if anything, he should be declaring Assad as illegitimate as Gaddafi. Clearly, some habits of engagement/appeasement die hard. “A lasting peace will involve… Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people.” Meant to reassure Israelis that the administration rejects the so-called right of return of Palestinian refugees. They would return to Palestine, not Israel — Palestine being their homeland, and Israel (which would cease to be Jewish if flooded with refugees) being a Jewish state. But why use code for an issue on which depends Israel’s existence? “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” A new formulation favorable to maximal Arab demands. True, that idea has been the working premise for negotiations since 2000. But no president had ever before publicly and explicitly endorsed the 1967 lines. Even more alarming to Israel is Obama’s omission of previous American assurances to recognize “realities on the ground” in adjusting the 1967 border, meaning U.S. agreement that Israel would incorporate the thickly populated, close-in settlements in any land swap. By omitting this, Obama leaves the impression of indifference to the fate of these settlements. This would be a significant change in U.S. policy and a heavy blow to the Israeli national consensus. “The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves… in a sovereign and contiguous state.” continued on page 8
Sleeping in Shul RABBI DAVID WOLPE
A
professor, said Bergen Evans, is one who speaks in other people’s sleep. Anyone who has taught knows how difficult it is to keep the attention of students. Perhaps we can take some comfort in the report of the Midrash that Rabbi Akiva once noticed his students were falling asleep in his class. If one can fall asleep on Rabbi Akiva, who are we to complain? Every rabbi has had the same experience in a synagogue. You are on fire with your eloquence only to see the guy in the third row gently snoring while being poked by his embarrassed wife. You comfort yourself by imagining that he probably works late, or
the kids kept him up, or perhaps he suffers from narcolepsy. What we rabbis generally do not imagine is that our droning is soporific. And what if you are the sleeper? Surely that is even more uncomfortable than being the preacher whose words do not rouse the congregation. May I suggest you take the insouciant attitude of the great Winston Churchill. As Savior of the free world, he felt himself entitled to grab a little shuteye in the House of Commons. When a fellow MP approached him and said, “Must you fall asleep when I am speaking?” Churchill answered, “No, it is purely voluntary.” A version of this text appears in a weekly column in the New York Jewish Week.
7
Neil Zolot
T
he only reasonable solution to conflict in the Middle East is a two state solution, with a peaceful Palestinian state co-existing with Israel. Far from being complicated, the issue of peace is very simple. Both groups have ties to the area and need a state. The roadblock to peace in the Middle East is simple hatred for Jews. Too many people do not want peace. Israel has shown a willingness to accept a two state solution. In fact, there was a Palestinian state. In 1948 Israel declared its independence on ground designated by the UN mandate in what was British Palestine. By default, the remainder was a Palestinian state. They attacked, however, and lost the land. If people say there’s a need for a Palestinian state, there was one. Israel also accepted the 1998 Wye Accords that would have returned 95% of occupied land to the Palestinians. The Palestinians refused. This is the essence of President Obama’s recent proposal. The issue is trust. Can Israelis, indeed Jews all over the world, trust a continued and widespread Palestinian commitment to peace? Given history, skepticism is understandable and in order. Militant Palestinians often refer to themselves as resisting Israeli occupation, but what are they really resisting? If Israel is willing to accept a
peaceful Palestinian state next to its borders, aren’t the resistance fighters resisting a peaceful settlement? To my knowledge, the Arab-American/ Islamic-American community has not explicitly endorsed a two state solution. (If I am wrong, please correct me.) It seems they criticized the methods of September 11 but not the goals. That’s part of the reason there’s so much opposition to the proposal to build a mosque or Islamic center in lower Manhattan. Abba Eban famously said, “The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” but an opportunity for what? There’s been an Orwellian policy to avoid peace, have a perpetual enemy and being at war to avoid dealing with the everyday problems of people. Even after 63 years of independence, Israel’s legitimacy is being questioned. Anti-Semitism apparently never dies. Eban rightly characterized it as the longest hatred. Those likening Israel to South Africa aren’t reading the situation right, having a historic blind-spot when it comes to Jews being persecuted. The term anti-Semitism itself implies a well thought out point of view. It’s actually hatred. Why do people continue to question Israel’s legitimacy? It’s always been a mystery to me. The existence of an Israeli and Palestinian state are continued on page 8
After bin Laden? Sheldon Richman
T
he hunt for Osama bin Laden was always a sideshow. President George W. Bush even said at one point that he wasn’t much concerned with finding him. He probably meant it. Still, bin Laden played a useful role for the U.S. foreign-policy elite: he was still out there plotting, necessitating a vigilant “war on terror.” And if he were eventually caught and killed, whoever was occupying the White House would score a point with the American electorate. Now it has been done. What’s next? Don’t look for any big change. American foreign policy was formulated long before al-Qaeda came into being, and its decapitation (if that’s what it is) won’t make much difference. Not that there won’t be surface changes. President Obama may well get the remaining troops out of Iraq as required by the agreement Bush signed with the Iranianbacked government the U.S. military helped install (although the State Department may succeed in maintaining a private army there). And Obama will probably make a big show of drawing down the 100,000-troop force in Afghanistan. The American people are sick of that war (to the extent they are paying attention), and Obama is up for reelection next year. He’d probably like to be rid of
the Afghan albatross if he can do it in a way that won’t let the Republicans portray him as a wimp. The bin Laden hit helps him out in that regard. But assuming those things happen, what has really changed? Will the U.S. government have renounced its global policeman role? Hardly. It will still be bombing Libya, Pakistan and Yemen, and it continues to claim the authority to intervene anywhere, with or without the blessing of Congress, NATO, or the UN Security Council. (Who cares what the American people think?) So it’s imperative that we not be fooled by appearances. The policymakers will not be using bin Laden’s death as grounds to dismantle the thousand U.S. military installations around the world, to stop supporting torture-loving dictators when they serve “American interests,” to end the violations of Americans’ civil liberties, or to defund the trillion-dollar-plus national security state. That gravy train, which gives prestige to “statesmen,” shapes the global order Americanstyle, and lines the pockets of contractors, is not going to end merely because one man was shot by Navy SEALS. It took no more than a few nanoseconds after the killing of bin Laden for the government to inform us that this is no time to let down our guard. The Bush Perpetual Motion Machine is intact. Every move to counter terrorists creates its own grounds for further moves. For every terrorcontinued on page 8
Whose Burden is Bigger? When Size Shouldn’t Matter Deborah Grayson Riegel
T
en years ago, I was the overwhelmed, under-rested, barely-bathed mother of newborn twins. Getting out of bed was a daily challenge, staying awake past 6 p.m. was even harder. So it was a rare and much-needed treat when my friend Wendy and my cousin Amy came over for dinner and a night of gabbing and girl-talk. “You must be exhausted,” Wendy clucked with compassion. “I’m fine.” I lied. “How are you getting through the days?” Amy asked, her voice filled with rachmanos. “It’s no problem.” I braved. “Ah, then the nights must be getting to you,” Amy pressed. “No, really, everything is great.” I responded, fearing that my nose might start to grow any second. What was wrong with me? Why wouldn’t I let my two closest companions in on my exhaustion, my fears and my worries that this might never get easier? Because each of them had a burden that was much bigger than mine. Two years before the three of us sat down to
this dinner, Wendy had been diagnosed with a rare autoimmune disorder that gave this vibrant, vivacious young woman the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and other debilitating conditions that would elude remission for years. One year before, Amy had been diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, an insidious form of skin cancer that would first rob her of her fertility before ultimately taking her life before she turned 30. In what world was I entitled to complain about the burden of babies that Amy would never have, or the temporary fatigue that was a permanent fixture in Wendy’s life? “You are entitled to your own pain.” Amy assured me, after the truth serum known as “no sleep” had forced a confession from my lips. “My having cancer doesn’t mean that you aren’t suffering.” And Wendy agreed. For many of us, our natural instinct is to look for the light in the darkness. When someone is suffering, we want to remind them of the joy in the world, the opportunity in the challenge, the hidden gift in the disappointment they are facing. But our “drill, baby, drill” approach to unearth something of value for them beneath their dark and murky reality represents our own need to make continued on page 8
The Jewish Journal is a nonprofit newspaper, supported by generous readers, advertisers and the Jewish Federation of the North Shore.