Yours, In Dialogue

After reading a letter in the NYTimes, I googled the writer's name, located an e mail address and wrote to him.

Here it is:

Dear Ilya,

I read this letter of yours published in today's NYT:-

The problem is not that we support Israel today when it is in the right, but that we supported it in the past when it was in the wrong. We were wrong to support Israel's building of illegal settlements. That has created the impression that we'll stand by Israel no matter what it does. Now that Israel really needs and deserves our support, our ability to give that support is compromised.

I am quite well aware that the term "illegal settlements" has become 'settled" into political language and dialogue. But may I suggest your reasoning is wrong.

Israel removed itself from Lebanon in 2000 and the international community in the form of UNIFIL did nothing to prevent the Hezbollah buildup. That weakness had nothing to do with Israeli "illegal settlements".

Israel, last year, removed itself from Gaza. The new government wants to remove Israel from Judea & Samaria.

This is why a leftist or liberal or progressive should support Israel if they can't be for Israel simply because Israel is right and those who terrorize her are evil.

But, in any case, with no "illegal settlements" exisitng in 1967, why did Arabs attack Israel? Maybe the issue of "settlements" has nothing to do with the essence of the Arab/Muslim animosity directed against israel?

In dialogue,


Maybe the issue of "settlements" has nothing to do with the essence
of the Arab/Muslim animosity directed against israel?


Maybe; though I think that while most Arabs _want_ Israel off the map,
many will accept (settle for) Israel minus the settlements.

But my point still stands that settlements are not vital to Israel's
security and existence, and the political capital and Arab goodwill
that the U.S. has spent tacitly supporting Israel's
settlement-building would be much better spent on supporting Israel's
efforts on truly vital fronts like the fight against Hezbollah.


ilya


>Maybe the issue of "settlements" has nothing to do with the >essence
of the Arab/Muslim animosity directed against israel?

Maybe; though I think that while most Arabs _want_ Israel off the map,
many will accept (settle for) Israel minus the settlements.

that is an option but hypothetical.

between 1948 and 1967, Israel had no "territories" and no "occupation" and certainly no "settlements". So, what was bothering the Arabs? How can dismantling "settlements" and withdrawing from "territories" solve the problems of that time when they wanted to infiltrate and kill Jews? You certainly knowthat the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) was founded in 1964 and its first terror operation was on January 1, 1965 - almost three years before the 1967 war. Please, just ask yourself, what "Palestine" were they desirous of 'liberating' then?

But my point still stands that settlements are not vital to Israel's
security and existence,

well, on this point I would say that the communities do contribute. they keep missiles away from Ben-Gurion airport, they prevent the recurrence in the future of the "Kassam syndrome" in the south and the Katyushas in the north. If there are no communities, there probably wouldn't be the IDF and you really don't think a UNIFIL in the territories would be more effective than in Lebanon which ostensibly is a real state with an army.

Of course, international law recognized in 1922 the right of Jews to "close settlement" in the area now called the West Bank and to reconstitute their national homeland there.


and the political capital and Arab goodwill that the U.S. has spent tacitly supporting Israel's settlement-building would be much better spent on supporting Israel's efforts on truly vital fronts like the fight against Hezbollah.
well, it seems that within a day, Israel will agree to a ceasefire along the lines you think is worhtwhile to go. If, as I presume, the situation will not get better, I hope we can continue this dialogue.

Yisrael