Message from Mumbai: Push for Arab-Israeli Peace
It is impossible to get Mumbai out of my mind. I keep thinking about two-year old, Moshe, sitting in his parents' blood, crying out to a mother and father who are gone forever.
It is hard to imagine how anyone can justify terror against children but many people do. In fact, fanatics of virtually every faith and nationality do indeed justify killing kids or leaving them orphans. It is sickening. Until humanity comes to the understanding that there is no justification - none, whatsoever - for killing children or making them orphans, we remain uncivilized.
Mumbai, of course, was no isolated case. Since the early twentieth century the slaughter of innocents has been considered a legitimate military tactic or, not much better, unavoidable collateral damage. The Arab-Israeli conflict has not yet fully descended into mass carnage (with the awful exceptions of the Hamas suicide bombings and massacres like Baruch Goldstein's Hebron slaughter) but, no doubt, that is where we are heading unless we begin treating the Arab-Israeli conflict with the urgency it warrants.
So far that hasn't happened. Here in Washington otherwise intelligent people say that immediate action to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict might be nice but isn't necessary. Invariably, the people who make this case are strongly attached to Israel and believe that the certainties of the status quo are less threatening to Israel's future than the uncertainties of diplomacy.
They could not be more wrong. The status quo is destroying Israel.
A few hundred thousand settlers are holding the entire country hostage. The once universally respected Israeli army is now treated with scorn by rightists who view them as symbols of the State of Israel, which they despise, rather than the biblical Land of Israel which they venerate. Settlers abuse and humiliate Palestinians, steal their homes, and destroy their livelihood. They are on a continuous rampage -- grabbing Palestinian homes in Hebron, terrorizing olive farmers and destroying their crops, poisoning the land so that sheep and goats cannot graze, and snatching territory in the heart of Palestinian East Jerusalem.
Of course, their Hamas counterparts are even worse. So far, no Hamas rockets have landed on a school and killed a few hundred kids which must be a source of disappointment for the terrorists. But if the cease-fire breaks down, fails to be renewed, or continues to be violated, it is inevitable that innocent Israeli kids will die. Meanwhile, in Gaza , Palestinian kids are suffering, and dying, from the Israeli blockade which, like the rockets, makes no distinction between children and terrorists.
And yet there is no sense of urgency about ending this conflict and it is quite possible that there won't be until more unspeakable carnage takes place.
As a Jew, and a lifelong supporter of Israel, it infuriates me that people who call themselves friends of Israel work with such fervor to preserve this situation.
A few months ago, when Secretary of State Rice wanted to go to the region for one final push to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, a top Jewish communal operative rushed to the White House, met with the President, and succeeded in thwarting Rice's plan.
No doubt he went back to New York feeling that he had done something good for Israel. He hadn't.
He damaged Israel, as he and others who share his views have repeatedly done every time they throw obstacles in the way of Arab-Israeli peace. If it had been up to that crowd, Israel would still have no dealings with the Palestinians, the Israeli-Egypt treaty would have gone unsigned, and Jordan and Israel would still be in a state of war.
Do you doubt this? Go to the archives of any of the friends-of-the-status-quo organizations and you will find one press release and statement after another warning America not to "pressure" Israel and that "now is not the time" to ask Israel to do anything (it is always the time to issue demands to the Palestinians).
These spokesmen devote their efforts to a status quo that cannot be sustained. There are four million Palestinians in the occupied territories. Do the proponents of doing nothing believe that they will disappear? Do they believe that they can be denied basic human rights (like self-determination) forever? Do they think that the Israel Defense Forces can control four million people when they decide - perhaps with the assistance of Iran and Al Qaeda - that armed resistance offers the only chance to achieve their rights? Do they really want to wait and find out?
Pro-Israel? Only if that means preserving conditions that will lead to Israel's demise.
Enough is enough. We have a new President who has pledged to pursue an Israeli-Palestinian agreement from day one. We have a Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, who is fully committed to peace with Israel and works with Americans and Israelis to secure it. Most important of all, we have a commitment from all 22 Arab states to establish full normalized relations with Israel in exchange for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the 1967 territories.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said last week that the two-state solution is now the 22-state solution. Actually, it's 23. 22 plus one Jewish state: Israel.
For Israel's sake, and our own, President Obama should appoint a Special Envoy to the Middle East charged with implementing the Arab Initiative and Arab-Israeli peace. With 365 electoral votes, a Congress in the hands of his party, and with the votes of 80% of American Jews in his pocket, President Obama has no excuse not to act. Nor do I think he is looking for one. Barack Obama will be the President who ends this conflict.














MJ: What would happen to Israel internally if it made this deal? Think how of much "learning" has to be unlearned? Not to be impolite, but how do you bring Mr. Hebron Settler back to Tel Aviv--and do you want him as a neighbor?
December 3, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
“It is no longer my country” - Rivka Michaeli
“For me, this business called the state of Israel is finished…I can’t bear to see it anymore, the injustice that is done to the Arabs, to the Beduins. All kinds of scum coming from America and as soon as they get off the plane taking over lands in the territories and claiming them for their own… I can’t do anything to change it. I can only go away and let the whole lot go to hell
without me.” Israeli actress (and household name) Rivka Michaeli, quoted in Israeli peace movement periodical, “The Other Israel”, August 1998
December 3, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he'll go back to LA or NY. No, I wouldn't want him as a neighbor!
December 3, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Until humanity comes to the understanding that there is no justification - none, whatsoever - for killing children or making them orphans, we remain uncivilized."
Amen! Amen! Amen!
December 3, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This rule applies equally to those who use Kalashnikovs, tanks, or jet aircraft.
December 3, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Absolutely.
December 3, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me the impetus for peace must come from Israel. Its government, and certainly its supporters here in the U.S., stack up reasons to delay and dilute diplomatic engagement with Palestinians and its regional neighbors. And the reason is simple: For 60 years, force has appeared to work. Military might gained Israel its statehood and, according to the narrative, its continued existence. But as Lincoln observed, force is all-conquering but its victories short-lived. Israel is attacked, Israel strikes back. The routine goes on and on, unchanged - year after year, decade after decade. And the fruits of all this carnage are likewise unchanged. It's time to put down the "eye for an eye" code and engage, seriously, diplomacy. And, most importantly, dump the policy of collective punishment. The children, the sick and old in Gaza are dying in a kind of slow-motion, drawn-out massacre. Israel has the security any nuclear state enjoys, and it must take the intiative here. Before it's too late. This country just elected the candidate who paid the least lip-service to Israeli priorities. Nothing lasts forever - geopolitics and demographics put Israel at a disadvantage. To maintain itself, Israel simply cannot count on force forever.
December 3, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ you err is saying that these lobbyist and leaders of major national Jewish organizations are protecting the status quo or are doing nothing. They are very active in pursuing their goals. And those goals can be measured by the facts on the ground of the West Bank which is the Zionist goal of expanding Israel's territory. They have been making very clear progress, just look at the number of Jews who have settled in the West Bank since 1980. Plot out the growth. These numbers have doubled since 1992 and the increase continues as we speak. It is relentless and so far unstoppable.
This failure to explicitly acknowledge their agenda makes it possible for them to continue with this agenda. You say it is unthinkable that Israel can absorb the Palestinians into their state but I do not think that their plan. The plan is to exclude them, just how nobody has yet figured out.
If this reality of Zionist activism would just be explicitly acknowledged, then perhaps we could direct our policies towards that part of the problem. As we learned from the Oslo process and the Annapolis plan, negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis is not a solution -- such talks are just cover for the pushing Israel's agenda.
I happen to believe it is too late to reverse the West Bank settlement movement and if I am correct the only humane outcome is one-state with equal rights for all inhabitants. (The alternatives are too horrible to contemplate.)
December 3, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, this is where I am too. Daniel Levy makes a compelling argument that the "one state" solution denies self-determination to the Jewish People. Similary, a Palestinian-Jordan federation denies self-determination to the Bedoins. Very difficult problem. By changing the demographics fundamentally you change the country fundamentally.
(And before one of the usual unthinking Defenders of Zion argues that Jordan is Palestine, it's not. And just because there are more Palestinian (descendants) and refugees (very old) living in Jordan now than Bedoins/Hashemites, no more makes Jordan Palestine than 40 million Irish-Americans make America Ireland.)
December 3, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just for fun, here is an actual, authentic Palestinian viewpoint on the one-state solution ( www.palestinestrategygroup.ps/Regaining_the_Initiative_FINAL_17082008_(English).pdf ):
_______
The one state scenario is now daily gaining momentum among Palestinians. What had counted against it, namely its relative unavailability given relative power distribution . . . is being progressively reduced as prospects of a two state outcome recede . . . . Highly informed Palestinian strategists are now actively advocating such scenarios in preference to what is perceived to be the alternative - a permanently frozen and deteriorating status quo or other scenarios into which the two state option is currently seen to be collapsing . . . . Many Palestinian citizens of Israel in particular favour a one state outcome. In other words that Palestinian citizens in the State of Israel and Jewish citizens in the State of Palestine both enjoy full individual and collective rights (the State of Israel becomes a democratic state rather
than a Jewish and democratic state). But the one state solution also receives good support among Palestinian citizens of Israel. These views are strongly represented within the Palestine Strategy Study Group.
There are in fact many one state scenarios. Here two will be noted, each of which has extensive support among Palestinians.
A Bi-National State
Advocates of the scenario of a bi-national state emphasise collective rights and look to various power-sharing examples as in Belgium, Canada or elsewhere. There are many federal and confederal models. The ultimate scenario of a bi-national state is not necessarily incompatible with a two state scenario, because, once two states are securely established, there is no reason why they cannot confederate at a later date. However improbable this may seem in present circumstances, this is an example of the complex ways in which apparently mutually exclusive scenarios can be made to interrelate given imaginative thinking. The Palestine Strategy Study Group recommends the inclusion of forward-looking and creative ideas in Palestinian strategic discussion. There are many other variants here, including forms of future confederation which encompass not just Israel and Palestine, but also Jordan - and even Lebanon and Syria.
A Unitary Democratic State
This variation on a one state scenario is based, not on collective rights, but on individual rights. This is the nightmare scenario for most Israelis, because demography now comes to predominate. Not only a Jewish state of Israel, but even a state in which the Jewish population is a majority, is likely to be swept away under this scenario. And yet it is the most logical scenario given basic Western ideas of individual freedom, rule of law and democracy. It represents the shadowy adumbration (sketch) of what a democratic pluralistic Palestine might have become had historical events turned out differently. For Palestinians it is a poignant vision rendered inoperative historically because of British policies and actions (or inactions) during the crucial years of the British
Mandate.
December 3, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's always someone else's fault, never the Arabs.
The British begged and cajoled the Arabs of Palestine to set up an Arab Agency paralleling the Jewish Agency the Jews had set up in order to give them autnomous rule of their own population. The Jews did so and set up the nucleus of their state infrastructure. The Arabs refused. One of the powers given to the Jewish Agency was the power to tax their community. The Arabs were getting their money from the British. They asked why they should tax their own community which would only antagonize them (in the Arab world taxation is extremely popular because it is viewed as paying tribute money to the ruler and not as Westerners do...paying money in return for services the state renders). Thus, they refused to set up their own autnomous administration and this has led to the ongoing failure of the Palestinans to get a working state apparatus into operation. To this day, the majority of the revenue used to cover the expenses of the Palestinian Authority comes from American and EU handouts. Nothing has changed since the time of the British Mandate.
Purple State-can you give me an example of an Arab democracy that can serve a a model of your "multicultural, Arab-Jewish state" which you envisioning replacing Israel? You mentioned Belgium, but Belgium is in the process of breaking up, and the differences between the different groups are only about 1% as big as those dividing Jews and Arabs. Canada also seemed at one time on the edge of breaking up althouth that seems to have receded.
Do you consider Lebanon and Iraq as good examples?
Please show me a working Arab democracy that will convince me as an Israeli to give up my sovereign state for something you perceive as being "better"?
December 4, 2008 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is not my text, YBD. It's from a Palestinian document. Just thought it might be nice to hear what the Palestinians are saying, since we have so many Jewish/Israeli voices on TPMCafe and apparently no Arab ones.
All I'll add is, from an American perspective, the unitary state is the one solution consistent with real American values. Not that everyone should have to adopt those values, of course, but the Palestinians are right that that particular solution is the one that would, if feasible, be most consistent with "Western ideas of individual freedom, rule of law and democracy."
December 4, 2008 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a simple reason side to this too. My wife has relatives who live in East Jerusalem and some who live in the West Bank. The ones in East Jerusalem do not have to undergo the endless check points, harassment, and other daily humiliations and violence that exist in separate Palestinain areas, i.e., the West Bank. Essentially, the IDF behaves one way in "Israeli" areas, and another in the Territories. (You notice how they also behave when they arrest Settlers versus Palestinians.)
Thre is a very practical side to this: If they did confederate, do you honestly think that our Congress would support the type of draconian measures that they routinely back when the involved party is solely Arab? Having a political connection with Israelis is practical protection from the West.
December 4, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have read about this proposal for some time now.
It has a certain logic, but it's hard to see how one gets these two peoples to live amicably side by side in one state when they can't agree to form two states. A one state comity would seem to be HARDER not easier to pull off.
It does have the advantage, from a Western point of view, of being closer to the Western ideal. So leverage to cut off Western aid to Israel might push in this direction in various ways, such as threatening to cut off aid. But the notion that Israel will simply fall if the US cuts off aid seems far-fetched to me.
If we take even stronger action, doesn't that get us into "imposing democracy"--something the progressive left is running away from post-Iraq?
My crystal ball tells me that if a true peace ever arrives, the two states, should a P state come into being, will, in effect, confederate. But peace is the missing piece always.
December 4, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't get that poor kid out of my head. As the parent of a toddler, it's too close to home. Ugh.
But I think you're going a little too far here, MJ. If orphaning children becomes taboo, then war is out altogether and a whole lot of hatemongers would be out of work, which would be a disaster, given the state of the economy.
December 3, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it had been up to that crowd...the Israeli-Egypt treaty would have gone unsigned."
Likud negotiated the Egyptian peace treaty.
Sadat had refused to deal with you Peace Now cowards, Mister Rosenberg.
Only Menachem Begin's strength (or intransigence, as MJ-style surrender gerbils termed it) persuaded Sadat that conquering Israel wasn't feasible. Remember that when Labor ruled Israel, Sadat had been a fervent proponent of throwing the Jews into the sea.
Want true peace, as opposed to shrinking Israel to make it more vulnerable? Elect Netanyahu so that the Palestinians realize that extreminating Jews is not an option.
Want endless war? Take the Rosenberg approach of incremental surrender. That is the Oslo method of maximizing Jewish civilian casualties that makes Mister Rosenberg so nostalgic.
December 3, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it was all Jimmy Carter.
December 3, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment of MJ's is a good encapsulation of why he doesn't have a clue about what is going on in Israel. "If only the President would crack heads and force the Israelis out of Judea/Samaria, there would be peace". Doesn't MJ recall that Arafat told Clinton he would be assassinated if he gave up the Palestinian Right of Return. Fear of assassination.....minor detail for MJ. Expel 300,000 Israelis from Judea/Samaria...minor detail for MJ. Dividing Jerusalem leading to gun battles in the center of the city between Arab and Jewish neighborhoods (this occurred when the IDF withdrew from Beit Jallah and Palestinian gunmen took control of the town and fired into the Jewish neighborhood in Gilo) and Islamic extremist harrassment of Christian (this happens all the time in the Palestinian controlled places like Bethlehem, Beit Jallah and particularly in HAMAS-controlled Gaza where Christians have been murdered recently)....minor detail for MJ. Does MJ think the President operates in a vacuum? That there aren't possible domestic political repercussions if he is seen to be dumping on an country viewed as an ally of the US (i.e. Israel) while strengthening a regime (the Palestinian Authority) that has terrrorist components as main pillars of the regime (FATAH's Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade)? That the President can wave his magic wand and make the FATAH-HAMAS split go away, when the Saudis with all their money and the neighboring Egyptians have failed? What planet is MJ living on?
December 4, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg:
It is amazing that the gratuitous Islamic-terrorist attack on a Rabbi and his family in India (where Jews live in peace with their neighbors) becomes an occasion for blaming the State of Israel.
Also, were you joking about it being "all" Jimmy Carter? Neither Begin or Sadat gets any credit?
December 4, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blood will flow either way. Don't think the crazy settlers won't go down shooting at fellow Jews if their delusional quest for "God given" land is thwarted. That would be an all out civil war.
It's still the best solution, but one many Jews are eager to avoid. Thus the denial and exaggerated blame of Arabs generally. Go progressive Jews!
December 4, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you M.J. Rosenberg for continuing to speak out directly on these important issues!
I wish I could be as optimistic as you about Obama's chances of success on the West Bank and elsewhere.
The Junior Bush administration was practically worthless when it came to Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations: 8 long wasted years on that significant challenge, as on many others. It is therefore a virtual guaranty that Obama & Co will try much harder and be much more competent. Whether that will suffice to bring about a lasting and viable agreement is quite another matter.
The willingness (in the Mideast and the US and many other places) to tolerate idiotic, juvenile, and patently counterproductive over-reactions to terrorist attacks practically assures that they will continue to hang as a Damocles sword over any effort at negotiating an end to such bedrock historic feuds.
The eye for an eye mentality is extremely resilient, even if the Sharon-Bush mutant of it (100 eyes for an eye and "preemptively" in advance) is -thanks in no small part to these disastrous leaders' cowardly incompetence- less so.
Fundamentally, there is a lack of shame that has seems to have become much worse in recent decades, and spread widely across many parts of the world, than for most of human history. Something serious needs to be done about that, and I can think of no better place to start than by looking in the mirror.
The story of the two-year old in Mumbai is heart-rending, but how many thousands of orphans were also created by the "collateral damage" of the US military in an unnecessary, or at least very unnecessarily rushed and bungled, invasion of Iraq? It is the height of immature hypocrisy to trumpet the excuse (even if it were NOT bogus to begin with, as it clearly IS) that the families of two-year old orphans in Iraq might have suffered even more had Saddam's reign of terror not been brought to an end by a titanically inefficient expenditure of American military might (as Sherlock Holmes told Watson: "It is crushing the nut with the triphammer -an absurd extravagance of energy- but the nut is crushed all the same.")
Before castigating Pakistanis, Palestinians, or Israelis for their lack of shame, let's do some shaming on the home front.
I am an American. I am ashamed that my President and his unscrupulous advisers bamboozled my country into an asinine and blunder-ridden invasion of Iraq that had nothing whatever to do with reducing the risk of terrorism in the US, or indeed with any other legitimate interest of the people of the USA. I am also ashamed that the successor to that president, recently elected on the promise of "change," has chosen to delegate a large share of his foreign policy to one of the most shameless rubber-stampers of the idiotic US policies on Iraq during 2002-06.
If Hillary is going to become a key player in a new round of Israeli-Arab negotiations, of course people of good will have to wish her success. That does not in any way mean she does not deserve, or indeed imperatively need, to have her nose rubbed in her spinelessness and shamelessness on Iraq until she finally apologizes: to the voters for the Democratic Party, to the American people, and to the orphans of badly squandered American military firepower and international credibility.
December 4, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, what really bothers me about the coverage of the attack on the Chabol House in Mumbai is the failure to even mention the fact that India, including Bombay has some of the oldest continuous Jewish Communities in the world. I believe the Bombay community dates from 400 CE, and the one in Cochin dates from about 100 BCE -- and there are others. Salman Rushdie used the Cochin community as a point of departure in "The Moor's Last Sigh" perhaps a good place to begin to explore. Before the partition of India and Pakistan there was a fairly large community -- or actually a group of communities around Karachi.
Looked at geographically, what these represent is ancient commercial centers that surrounded the Arabian Sea. These communities all engaged in the coastal trade -- from the South of Africa around the Middle East, and to the Southern tip of India. Many served as places of refuge -- Cochin, for instance was a refuge for Portuguese Jews in the late 1400's and linked up with the first Dutch trading station in India -- just outside of Cochin -- where Dutch-Portuguese Jews established yet another community -- but these were on top of 1500 year old communities.
I just missed any reference as to why India has had very diverse Jewish settlements and communities for 2000 plus years, with no history of serious violence in the midst of a sea of Hindu's and Muslim's.
December 6, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink