Absent from the presentation was any acknowledgement that Israel does not have a partner with whom it can negotiate a two state solution. Hamas, which controls Gaza, and is now "partnering" with Fatah, exists to destroy "the Zionist entity".
How can Israel be expected to negotiate with leaders committed to their destruction?
Ben-Ami defines the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians as one of borders and territory. I see the conflict not as much about Israel's border as it is about Israel's very existence.
During the question & answer session, I had the opportunity to ask Ben-Ami if there was any Palestinian leader who would (in Arabic) recognize Israel as a Jewish state. To his credit, he acknowledged the answer is no. He went on to say that that is not, or ever has been the goal, and that it is up to Israel to determine its own identity.
Poland, Czechoslovakia, France and England thought they could determine their own identities in the 1930s. Their hostile neighbor had other ideas. I would suggest that were Ben-Ami to honestly acknowledge the fundamental reasons for adament non-recognition, his two state solution would likely change nothing about the continued hostility of Israel's neighbors other than to make Israel's security yet more vulnerable.
Israel's sovereignty has never been respected by its hostile Arab neighbors. The tiny Jewish Nation only survived the wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973 due to military superiority; just as the Allies were able to survive the Nazis in World War II. Jeremy Ben-Ami is to the pro-Israel movement what Nelille Chamberlain was to the Allies prior to World War II.
I found it interesting that Ben-Ami spoke of his father's participation in the founding of Israel. He made reference to the resistance his politically right leaning father ran into attempting to silence him from the left; comparing it to the resistance his left leaning group has met from the right in this country, resulting in his need to form J-Street. I can appreciate Ben-Ami's perspective since I am among the conservative voices in the Nashville Jewish community which have been actively supressed by the liberally dominated Jewish media and leadership, necessitating the formation of the Nashville chapter of the National Conference on Jewish Affairs (NCJA) http://
At last, however, with new leadership from the Federation's Executive Director, our community is taking a positive step forward by allowing voices from all sides to be heard, including Mr. Ben-Ami. This inclusiveness must also include give voice to those who have thoughtfully and civilly pointed out the weakness in the J-Street argument, as well as J-Street's questionable funding by people and groups proven to be no friends of Israel.
J-Street does not own a monopoly on the desire for peace in the Middle East.
Daniel Gordis put it best in his address to the "J-Street Leadership Mission to Israel and Palestine":
"You believe that people who are not willing to make major territorial concessions to the Palestinians right now are not serious about a two-state solution. You think that those of us who claim that we favor a two-state solution but who are not willing to give up the store at this moment are bluffing. Or we're liars. Or, at best, we're well-intentioned but misguided. But bottom line, if we're not willing now to make the concessions that you think are called for, then we're not really pursuing peace.
But that is arrogance of the worst sort. Does your distance from the conflict give you some moral clarity that we don't have? Are you smarter than we are? Are you less racist? Why do you assume with such certainty that you have a monopoly on the wisdom needed to get to the goal we both seek?" To read Gordis' entire article, please visit http://danielgordis.org/2011/
No comments:
Post a Comment