I'll Answer David Forman

Rabbi (Reform) David Forman, in his most recent op-ed, writes about his outlook on the Arab-Israel conflict and then, sort of, poses a question [my comments italicized and in brackets, like this]:-

I have little [how little?] confidence that the Palestinians, certainly under the present leadership, are either willing to or capable of reaching a peace accord based on a two-state solution.

It is becoming abundantly clear [becoming? boker-tov Eliyahu, as we say] that the Palestinians may never [may?] accept an equal [or inequal, actually] division of this land. Peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt notwithstanding, the majority of Arab nations will not tolerate a Jewish state in the heart of the Muslim world. Perhaps the writing has always been on the wall but we failed to internalize it [we? we?!!!], as Arab countries rejected the 1947 UN partition plan and, upon the departure of the British, attacked Israel with the goal of driving the Jews into the sea.

Yasser Arafat may have been [may? may?!!!] to blame for the breakdown of the Camp David negotiations, but his reasons for walking away from a historic agreement were foolishly consistent [as foolish as you are/were together with your foolish friends?], as reiterated last week by Khaled Mashaal at the National Palestinian Conference in Damascus: "armed struggle until Jerusalem is liberated and all refugees are returned to the provisional borders of 1948."
While one can recount missteps Israel has made since its creation - including the settlement enterprise [what else did we misstep? uniting Jerusalem? refusing the so-called 'right of return'?] - the basic fact remains: The Arab world refers to Israel Independence Day as Nakba Day - the day of the great catastrophe. Hizbullah, Hamas, Iran and even the "moderate" Fatah are ultimately all dedicated to Israel's destruction, as was Arafat.

So let's face it, the sad reality [why sad?], for now anyway [for now? but you just said forever], is that peace with the Palestinians is not in the cards. Further, unless Islam undergoes a theological, cultural or social reformation, not only Israel but the entire free world will be threatened by Islamic fundamentalism.

Therefore, Israel must defend itself, which means retaliatory raids, targeted assassinations, preemptive strikes and building temporary walls. [so, now that all is moral? where were you yesterday/yesteryear?] With all the complexities of occupying another people, which necessarily [no it doesn't] compromises our Jewish moral value system, if we hope to stop rockets from falling on Sderot and prevent them from raining down on other parts of the country, we may [may? see above] have to intermittently lay siege to Gaza and remain in the West Bank.

YET EVEN as I may espouse the political philosophy above, it would be mistaken to brand me as an intransigent right-winger;.. [mistaken? why? why am I worse or different than you? because you claim to be humane? liberal? progressive? come on, all that is bovine manure]

My answer to his self-doubts is that it's okay David, you're simply one of us, the realists, the true Zionists. It's okay, you can come out of your shell now.

My Letter on the Altalena in The Jerusalem Post

The untreated question

Sir, - David Forman's history of the Altalena affair was a bit off the mark ("Israel's fifth column," UpFront, January 18). His chronology was skimpy, misleading and ignored certain elements.

Already on May 15, after midnight, Menachem Begin informed Yisrael Galili, of the new Defense Ministry, of the existence of the ship Altalena and even suggested that the Hagana purchase it. On May 17, Mossad agent Z. Schind informed Galili that they had been aware of the ship's existence for some time and suspected the British knew of its existence. The chain of events as described by Forman implied that David Ben-Gurion was surprised only on June 11; which was not the case.

But, more important, Forman wrote that "Begin refused to respond to the ultimatum, making a clash inevitable; whereupon Ben-Gurion issued the order to open fire on the Altalena."

It would be more correct to have written that faced with an ultimatum which contradicted the terms of the agreement Begin had concluded with Galili to land the boat at Kfar Vitkin, Begin sought to communicate with Ben-Gurion. IDF troops then opened fire at Kfar Vitkin beach, killing two Irgun men, whereupon the Altalena upped anchor and set sail for Tel Aviv. There, Palmah men opened murderous fire on the ship and at men swimming in the water.

Fourteen more Irgun men were killed at that location by small-arms fire. Ben-Gurion then ordered a cannon to fire on the Altalena, even though Begin had withheld return fire from the boat.

In writing "While there is much debate as to whether the confrontation could have been avoided," Forman avoided the main question: If Begin initiated informing the new government about the ship; had agreed to a major compromise over the distribution of the weapons; had agreed to land at Kfar Vitkin, a Mapai moshav, and almost 90 percent of the arrivals had disembarked and already set off for Netanya - why did Ben-Gurion need to use military force, seeing Begin had proved that, in deliberations, he was willing to seek national unity?

Could it have been that he was seeking to destroy Begin and the Irgun as a political force, or even eliminate Begin altogether?

YISRAEL MEDAD
Shiloh