Akiva Eldar, a New Rabbi's Letter, and Putting Teeth in Annapolis
Akiva Eldar, chief editorial commentator for Haaretz, spoke tonight at Bnai Jeshurun about the Israel lobby that Israel needs, and coincidentally in a op-ed for The Forward which ran today.
He said as he stood in the center of the beautiful Bnai Jeshurun sanctuary almost exactly what Gershom Gorenberg, another preeminent Israeli journalist, also said only a couple weeks ago in Brooklyn. As two experts and recently published authors on the settlements, they both exhorted the few settlers who are ideologically-motivated (purportedly only 80,000 of 270,000 Israelis over the Green Line) to, in Eldar’s words, “make aliyah! We’ll greet you with the absorption gift basket!”
The choice, Eldar said, is “between a big-and-ugly and a small-but-beautiful Jewish state.” And today, he says, the American Jewish community has the onerous task of supporting President Bush in this chance for progress. “You have Bush and we have Olmert,” he joked, remarking that his supporting a former Likudnik rings with what must be the same distaste for Jewish Democrats to clap evangelical-pandering Bush on the back for a good idea.
Eldar, no stranger to speaking truth to power, encouraged the audience to speak out on all accounts to support both the American government and the Israeli government’s efforts to enter negotiations. There is no telling for sure, he said, but with radicals on both sides eager to point to failure at Annapolis (best explained in by Zaid Asali in the WaPo yesterday), “The next few weeks may determine the future of Zionism.”
To that end, there is a new rabbi’s letter out by Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, sponsor of Eldar and Gorenberg’s talks. Rabbinical and cantorial students are also asked to sign. Or if you’re not one yourself, then invite your favorite rav to take a small step towards Israel’s long-term security, then tell your Representative to do the same via the Ackerman-Boustany letter.
Can we all agree that from this point forward Haaretz will not be used as source material, that it is a rabid anti Israeli untruthful propaganda machine for the Palestinians – from Jpost of November 6:
BUT IT was only recently that Landau [the editor of Haaretz] threw away all semblance of journalistic integrity and publicly confessed to crossing the ultimate red line that distinguishes reputable journalism from propaganda.
According to The Jerusalem Post, at the recent Russian Limmud Conference in Moscow, Landau, one of the few non-Russian-speaking participants, dropped a bombshell. He stunned those present by boasting that his newspaper had “wittingly soft-pedalled” alleged corruption by Israeli political leaders including prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, when, in the opinion of Haaretz, the policies of those leaders were advancing the peace process.
When participants challenged him concerning the morality of such an approach, Landau responded with the extraordinary assertion that “more immorality happens every day at a single roadblock [in Judea and Samaria] than in all the scandals put together.”
He then unashamedly assured those present that Haaretz was ready to repeat the process in order “to ensure that Olmert goes to Annapolis.”
there are 450,000 settlers beynd the green line. removing 80, 000
from behind the wall will not satisfy the palestinians as most of the settlers
will stay in place, annexing the most arable lnads and water resources,
and leaving the palestians a disconnected series of bantustans without
autonomy over thie own movement, borders and customs.
Can we all agree that from this point forward Haaretz will not be used as source material, that it is a rabid anti Israeli untruthful propaganda machine for the Palestinians – from Jpost of November 6:
Only if we can agree that the Jerusalem Post is a “rabid anti-Palestinian untruthful propaganda machine for right-wing Jews.” Give us a break already.
in Eldar’s words, “make aliyah! We’ll greet you with the absorption gift basket!â€
The problem with this is that the Israeli government doesn’t have a whole lot of credibility on this front. Many of the folks who left Gush Katif, etc. are still living in hotels, and haven’t been given what they were promised. Yes, I believe they should have taken the government up on the compensation packages that were offered months before the disengagement, and yes, I think that what a lot of them did during the disengagement was illegal, dangerous, and disturbing, but the fact still remains that the government hasn’t fulfilled its promises. For the sake of its future ability to to get settlers out of places where they shouldn’t be, the government might want to get on this.
Also re: Annapolis in general, I’m sorry to report that the overall mood in Israel and in Palestine is quite pessimistic. The feeling seems to be that none of the leaders present have any domestic backing to take serious steps forward. Olmert’s trying to stay out of jail and keep his coalition, Abu Mazen is trying to stay in control of a fractured people, and Bush’s government is, b”h, on its way out of power. I’m curious about how and why others are thinking there’s a real chance for progress. We need some good news…
Clarification on the 270K / 450K settlers:
1) By whoever’s number are used, the vast majority of “settlers” live in the Jerusalem ‘burbs technically over the Green Line, leaving less than 100,000 in the outer West Bank.
2) Allowed to keep those settlements over the line (2% of West Bank land), as already agreed by Bush and already offered by Abbas and Olmert, Israel is faced with removing only 80K – 100K.
3) Those 100K represent a majority of lower-income Russians and recent olim — they live there not to redeem the land but because government subsidies made it cheaper than Tel Aviv. These are not like the ideological settlers of Gush Katif.
4) This leaves less than 80K — potentially 18K if some estimates are believed — of settlers who want something in exchange for leaving, a compensation package. Keep in mind that 80K includes children.
This hoo-ha about how hard it will be to vacate the West Bank is a stalling tactic for those who really believe that we should keep the land, and international relations be damned. In one breath, it is claimed that Israel is fantastic first-world country with so many accomplishments in agriculture, technology, military warfare, etc. and in the next breath is helpless to find a humane way to bring home the settlers. Balderdash.
3) Those 100K represent a majority of lower-income Russians and recent olim — they live there not to redeem the land but because government subsidies made it cheaper than Tel Aviv. These are not like the ideological settlers of Gush Katif.
4) This leaves less than 80K — potentially 18K if some estimates are believed — of settlers who want something in exchange for leaving, a compensation package. Keep in mind that 80K includes children.
Why wouldn’t people who moved there for economic reasons also want economic reasons (i.e. a compensation package) to leave?
I don’t think anyone who was in Israel during the disengagement can say that vacating jewish settlements over the green line is really an easy task… the tensions that will arise if those evacuations start happening are a very real and emotional place in our people- the real international relations question is what will be gained vis-avis relations with palestinians by giving over those lands— of course there is the moral consciounce (?) being relieved- but in the world of international relations I think the first question (which was the big failure of disengagment from Aza) has to be what is this doing on the ground in our relations with palestinians.
are we openly asking what we failed to ask before Aza? will these territorial concessions- probably the most dramatic and far reaching item we have in negotiations- actually bring us closer to resolution. Is it going to “reward violence” or radical agendas?
I’m not insinuating foregone conclusions- these are the crucial questions and to play around with these issues from humanistic guilt is not necessarily healthy- even if it may be right…
Why wouldn’t people who moved there for economic reasons also want economic reasons (i.e. a compensation package) to leave?
There’s already a bill in the Knesset making the same offer of monetary compensation to denizens over the Green Line as was made to the Gazan settlers.
will these territorial concessions- probably the most dramatic and far reaching item we have in negotiations- actually bring us closer to resolution. Is it going to “reward violence†or radical agendas?
It’s a question of timing — if Israel unilaterally evacuates settlements as it did in Gaza, it appears to reward terror, but if Israel concedes land through dialogue then it appears that negotiations deliver results to the Palestinian (and Israeli) electorate.
the real international relations question is what will be gained vis-avis relations with palestinians by giving over those lands
It’s not about “giving” anything — it’s about getting out of the territories so that they can be someone else’s problem, and so that Israel can be a democratic state with defined borders.
>>“Why wouldn’t people who moved there for economic reasons also want economic reasons (i.e. a compensation package) to leave?
There’s already a bill in the Knesset making the same offer of monetary compensation to denizens over the Green Line as was made to the Gazan settlers.”
It would seem only sensible to offer a similar economic incentives package to Palestinians to encourage their emigration from disputed areas.
>>“It’s not about “giving†anything — it’s about getting out of the territories so that they can be someone else’s problem, and so that Israel can be a democratic state with defined borders.”
Doesn’t the continuing missile and mortar fire from Gaza suggest that the territories intend to remain very much Israel’s and Israelis’ problem?
It would seem only sensible to offer a similar economic incentives package to Palestinians to encourage their emigration from disputed areas.
Into undisputed parts of Israel? Why?
Probably not into Israel, more likely into neighboring Arab countries like Jordan, Egypt, Syria, etc. Jordan’s population is already estimated at being something like 60%+ Palestinian (which may be a general euphemism for non-Hashemite). Lebanon is quite an ethnic melange already. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab states with their trillions of oil dollars would also be logical destinations.
If Jews are being enticed to “go back” to where they “belong” it seems logical to implement the same policy with Arabs.
Also re: Annapolis in general, I’m sorry to report that the overall mood in Israel and in Palestine is quite pessimistic. The feeling seems to be that none of the leaders present have any domestic backing to take serious steps forward.
One couldn’t ask for a more precarious triumvirate to call this conference, yes. Indeed, the right is praying for at least one of them to fall, postponing any full diplomatic talks indefinitely. But not only these three, but any and all who stand to take their place when a power change does occur now or later (b”h with Bush, b”h a Labor-led coalition in Israel, and b”h a Salaam Fayyad-led PA) that no one is deluded that continuing the pursuit shouldn’t be top priority.
The good news is that this isn’t hard — so long as the right wing isn’t granted a free-ride in denouncing the conference’s ultimate aim, that being to schedule out negotiations for the coming year.
My faith in a two-state solution is fading away quite quickly, not least because ISrael will be reluctant to relinquish control over those aspects of Palestinian life it considers “security issues” – their sky and waterways, their electricity and water, their money (Israel recently pushed shekels into Gaza to make sure they wouldn’t start printing their own money), the fact that they will never be able to have an army, and their economy which is so crippled the only way it can work is by Palestinians working in ISrael (which was the plan in the first place, ask Moshe Dayyan).
This is *before* we try to deal with the Jerusalem issue: splitting the “outside neighborhoods” from the center of (west) Jerusalem is easier said than done: where do people from ISssawyya buy their clothes and see their dentist, do you think? In Ramallah?
Ah, you say, wonderful, so we get to have a one-state solution? But how is that a solution, and how is that wonderful?