Here:
Dear Sir,History is not too difficult a subject to get right and, unfortunately, to twist about as well.
Moderator D Landau writes: "Mr Gordis, in his opening statement and again in his rebuttal, has managed to treat of Israeli democracy and Jewish values without any serious discussion of the 45-year-long occupation of the Palestinian territories" and to bolster that, he compares Israel's situation with "British colonial intransigence".
Let us be clear: after three decades of political violence by Arabs against Jews and a constant rejection of any compromise with Zionism including the severance of TransJordan from the territory of the Jewish national home in 1922, rejection of the establishment of a parity council, rejection of the 1937 partition plan, unwillingess to accept any diplomatic compromise at the 1939 St. John's Conference (where the Arabs refused even to sit together with the Jews forcing the British to run up and down two separate floors), they rejected the UN 1947 Partition, went to war, founded the fedayeen terror infiltration groups in Jordan and Gaza and Fatah/PLO terror in 1964.
The Arab residents of areas of the former Mandate are indeed living under Israeli rule. However, that is not colonialism and Mr. Landau knows that even though he trumpets that even to the exten of requesting foreign intervention of quite an intrusive manner.
Democracy is much a secondary consideration. If, ever, the Arabs wish to make peace and provide Israel with security and recognize Jewish rights in the Jewish national home, not only will they receive personal civil rights and liberties, even more than they were promised in the Balfour declaration and Mandate decision of the League of Nations, but will benefit from full democracy and not the partial democracy from which they now benfit.
Democracy will come when Arabs halt their violence, almost exclsuively, it should be pointed out, directed at civilians.
Israel can never be a colonial power in its own homeland, a land it has had constant contact and a continuum of presence for some 3000 years.
Oh, and as I mentioned in realtion to the Gordis-Beinart debate (and with the Yossi Klein Halevi-Beinart debate), two liberals do not allow for the true and necessary attack on the less-than-pro-Israel opinions to come out.
^
Posts
2 comments:
I fail to understand why Burg is still considered a legitimate partner for debate. Personally, I came to Israel 29 years ago, with no family, no connections, little Hebrew, and certainly no "preteksia". If I have skin in the game, it's because I put my butt on the line. Burg, the ultimate "Ben Shel...", inherited all the Zionist cred he ever had, and has exerted his autonomy in the pursuit of personal aggrandization. When the citizens of Israel failed to recognize his Personal Awesomeness, he declared he was taking back his ball and going home to France.
To mix the metaphor, he shouldn't let the door hit him on the butt on the way out, and we should no longer have to take his opinions seriously.
I would like to show some appreciation to you just for rescuing me this dilemma. As a result of exploring through the web and obtaining concepts that were not helpful, I believed my life was gone. Exiting without the solutions to the issues you have solved as a result of your entire article content is a critical case, and ones that might have badly damaged my career if I had not noticed the blog. That capability and kindness in dealing with a lot of things was very useful. I’m not sure what I would’ve done if I hadn’t come across such a point like this. It’s possible to at this time look forward to my future. Thanks you so much for the impressive and sensible guide. I will not hesitate to refer the blog to anybody who needs and wants counseling on this subject
Post a Comment