Who is opposing Annapolis?
Just in case the definition of the Jewish right-wing is in question, the Zionist Organization of America is cause for pause. Ami Eden’s JTA blogging of their annual dinner fills in their basic understanding of Annapolis:
The ZOA’s base is a mixture of secular and Orthodox right-wing Zionists, who can come together on at least one point: their belief that Arabs are murderous Jew-haters who will be motivated, not mollified, by Israeli and American appeasement. There were loud cheers when [Mort] Klein insisted that peace could only be achieved after the Arab side was dealt a decisive military defeat and when he said that Jerusalem was more important than peace — that no deal would be acceptable, even if it were to bring peace. [emphases added]
The fear of trustworthiness on Israel’s neighbors is a legitimate fear, let’s not discount that one bit. But it’s not reasonable as a political platform and certainly shows a pathetic understanding of Middle East dynamics, demographics and opinion.
Interestingly enough, AIPAC took indirect heat for not standing up for Israel’s sovereignty over disputed territories enough, which goes to show not how centrist AIPAC is, but how far extreme the ZOA thinks. U.S. Representative Weiner (D-NY) took a veiled swipe at them from the ZOA stump:
There is no organization in Washington, no organization at the grassroots that is more in keeping with making sure that Israel stays strong and our relationship stays solid than ZOA. Without fear of contradiction I’ll say this: more so than even that better known organization that does some very very important work.
Gag. It is no surprise that when Israel proceeds with actions the right detests (such as talking with Arabs) they cease in their assertion of supporting Israel “no matter what” and take aim at Olmert, like the Republican Jewish Caucus is doing presently.
AIPAC, unwilling to be left behind although weaker on it’s version of obstructionism, is sponsoring a resolution in Congress which parrots long-standing positions about the need for Fatah’s party platform to change, which is a moot point, being not an point of contention between the right and the left, but simply serves to flag-wave and saber-rattle amidst right-wing constituents. (AIPAC doesn’t want to be accused of laying off it’s own talking points by it’s own members.) Arguing that either Fatah or Hamas change their charter before being worthy of negotiations is like claiming Israel can’t negotiate until it defines it’s own borders and picks a constitution. Which is an interesting idea, I’m surprised the ZOA, the RJC and AIPAC haven’t tried it already…
Jerusalem was more important than peace
The Shuafat refugee camp is more important than peace!
Al-Walajeh is more important than peace!
Kafr Aqab is more important than peace!
It’s all part of the eternal capital of the Jewish people, no matter how remote it is, and no matter whether Israel has already put it on the other side of the barrier!
I agree with BZ. I live in Jerusalem but give me a break.
I find it amusing – or pathetic – that these Jews who keep on speaking on “united Jerusalem” have no idea what Route 1 or Shuafat or Issawiya or heck the difference between Talpiot and Baka are. It’s nice symbolism but if you care about Israel, make aliya. Otherwise – whether you are Mort Klein or the head of APN – shut up.
I’m tired of American JEws who spend very little time in Israel risking my life.
From an already divided Jerusalem,
amechad
Considering that more Israelis have been murdered by Arab terrorism since 1993 (when dividing Jerusalem was first put on the table) than in all the years preceding, I wonder who is really putting your life at greater risk.
And if Jerusalem already is divided, then why would you wish for an additional division on top of the preexisting one? Interestingly, while you may yearn for a further division, it seems that many thousands of Arab residents of Jerusalem don’t.
Considering that more Israelis have been murdered by Arab terrorism since 1993 (when dividing Jerusalem was first put on the table) than in all the years preceding, I wonder who is really putting your life at greater risk.
If we’re going to play this game, then we can say that more Israelis have been murdered by Arab terrorism since 1967 (when Israel began exerting sovereignty over millions of non-citizens) than in all the years preceding.
since 1993 (when dividing Jerusalem was first put on the table)
How about November 29, 1947, when Jerusalem was designated to be under international control?
Or maybe since 1929 when Jews were murdered in the Hebron pogrom? Or maybe since 1600 BCE when the Jews went down to Egypt and became subject to the predations of the Egyptians? If you don’t believe that statistics, analytics and data matter then we can play word games all day long
The reality remains that substantially more Jews have been murdered by terrorism since the division of Jerusalem was suggested in 1993 than in all the years prior. And the change is not gradual or modest–it’s statistically very pronounced and anyone who’s been in Israel during that time can testify personally to how intense the changes were.
Obviously the suggestion of dividing Jerusalem in 1993 didn’t happen in a vacuum. It included the empowerment of the PLO and its leadership, the shipment of weapons and funds to the PLO, the beginning of official diplomacy with the PLO and the installation of the PLO to rule over Palestinian-inhabited areas.
And since that process began in 1993, more Israelis have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists than in all the years of Israel’s existence prior to that. I’m not sure why you’d call it “a game”. It’s a statistical and experiential fact and an unusually stark one at that. The implications are for you to decide.
>>If we’re going to play this game, then we can say that more Israelis have been murdered by Arab terrorism since 1967 (when Israel began exerting sovereignty over millions of non-citizens) than in all the years preceding.
Actually I would have assumed that as well but, interestingly, the data show the opposite. If the hypothesis were true then violence should have increased as Israeli control progressed, and then declined as Israel withdrew.
Strangely, the opposite occurred: more Israelis have been murdered since Israel relinquished control over Palestinian-inhabited areas than in all the prior years of the country combined. The data are clear that the frequency and severity of Arab violence and the number of Israeli terror victims has increased precipitously as Israeli withdrawal progresses. It seems that reality is not cooperating with our theories.
And if Jerusalem already is divided, then why would you wish for an additional division on top of the preexisting one?
I truly have no idea what this means, or what position you think you’re responding to. Does your straw man believe that, now that Jerusalem is divided in two, it should be divided in five?
Let x = the number of Israelis killed by Arab terrorism before 1967
Let y = the number of Israelis killed by Arab terrorism between 1967 and 1993
Let z = the number of Israelis killed by Arab terrorism after 1993
Eric claims:
1) x + y < z ("more Israelis have been murdered by Arab terrorism since 1993 ... than in all the years preceding") 2) x >= y + z (“Actually I would have assumed that [more Israelis have been murdered by Arab terrorism since 1967 … than in all the years preceding] as well but, interestingly, the data show the opposite.”)
If we put these two equations together, we can conclude that y is negative! (Proof available upon request.) This means that from 1967 to 1993, Arab terrorists were bringing dead Israelis back to life! Why didn’t this get more media coverage?
BZ, despite how I love your humor and math, you’re not fighting fair. You’re misconstruing Eric’s point.
I wrote:
How about November 29, 1947, when Jerusalem was designated to be under international control?
To clarify my own comment, I meant this in response to the idea that 1993 was when dividing Jerusalem was “first” put on the table.
Look, BZ, if you don’t like having this discussion then I guess you can move on to something else. I’ll give it one last shot at eliminating any unclarity.
Let’s (statistically speaking) forget the years 1948-1966, and focus only on what’s taken place since 1967. In June 1967 Israel, for the 2nd time in 19 years, gained sovereignty over land containing a substantial number of Arab inhabitants.
Your assertion above was that “…we can say that more Israelis have been murdered by Arab terrorism since 1967 (when Israel began exerting sovereignty over millions of non-citizens) than in all the years preceding.” Obviously you’re positing that the reason for Arab terrorism can be traced to Israel’s “exertion of sovereignty over millions of non-citizens”.
It follows then that the termination of Israeli sovereignty over those non-citizens should bring an end to that terrorism.
This is an easily testable hypothesis, and it was essentially tested beginning in 1993 (call it the Oslo Experiment). According to your theory (and my intuitive expectations) terrorism should have been rapidly reduced to at least pre-1967 levels.
But the data from that experiment recorded that as Israel ended the sovereignty it had been exerting on the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza since 1967, terrorism increased substantially particularly when compared to the preceding decade.
Unexpectedly the severity and frequency of anti-Israeli violence rose to levels that had never before been seen. And pretty soon far more Israelis had been murdered by Arab terrorism since 1993 than from 1967-1993.
In other words the termination of Israeli sovereignty over Palestinian areas is strongly correlated to more anti-Israeli violence, while the continuation of Israeli sovereignty over Palestinian areas is strongly correlated to less anti-Israeli violence. This was obviously not expected but those are the facts.
Interpret them as you wish. But if we’re going to discuss things intelligently we need to at least be on the same page of truth.
Eric, talk to any Israeli demographer or newspaper reporter (and Palestinian, for that matter) and they will tell you that 1967-1993 Israeli displacement of Palestinians from land within the West Bank and Gaza ACCELERATED over time, reaching a peak in the Olso years, by far the largest period of construction.
I find that construction = “anti-Israel violence” in a direct correlation.
Eric writes:
Obviously you’re positing that the reason for Arab terrorism can be traced to Israel’s “exertion of sovereignty over millions of non-citizensâ€.
I’m not actually positing that (and I’m aware that the PLO was founded in 1964). My point was that correlation does not imply causation, and that it’s not enough to say that some phenomenon increased after some event; one has to show also that there was a causal relationship. Perhaps I could have made this point better by saying that terrorist attacks have increased since 1993, the year that Michael Jordan retired from basketball (the first time). This is problematic logic even in your revised formulation (based on terrorism deaths PER YEAR), but much more problematic in the original formulation (total terrorism deaths before 1993 vs after 1993), because in that formulation you could just pick any year at or before the halfway point (which is what I tried to do with 1967).
It follows then that the termination of Israeli sovereignty over those non-citizens should bring an end to that terrorism.
Israeli sovereignty in the territories hasn’t actually terminated. There is as yet no independent state operating there. And if you’re trying to use the present situation as a model for what will happen after Israel is actually out of the territories, then you’ll have to adjust the data to remove terrorist attacks on Israelis in the territories, since those won’t happen anymore.