|
Please excuse the analogy, which I have used before, but those of you familiar with the world of Harry Potter know the axiom “the wand chooses the wizard.” That is to say that there are certain wands that are meant to go with certain wizards, and the wizard doesn’t have much say in the matter.
Now in terms of rabbis and sermons, there are times when the rabbi chooses the sermon. For example, this week I might have chosen to talk about the impending end of the world, which is reportedly scheduled for just before the running of the Preakness this evening. I might also have chosen to talk about the disgraced and now deposed IMF director Mr. Strauss Kahn. He may actually be wishing that the world will end this evening at 6 o’clock! But this is a week where the rabbi doesn’t choose the sermon, instead, like the wands in the world of Harry Potter, the sermon chooses the rabbi. And so it is that I have been asked, literally since I was walking into the building yesterday morning at 5 of 8, almost continually, throughout the day yesterday and last night, what my thoughts were about President Obama’s speech on the Middle East, and specifically his comments about the Israeli - Palestinian situation.
We might do well to note that although President Obama’s was by far the most important statement about that situation this week, there actually were three major statements made, two of which appeared in the op ed pages of the NY Times - one on Tuesday morning written by Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority, one on Wednesday morning by Danny Danon, the deputy speaker of the Knesset, and then of course the President’s speech on Thursday. I would say of the three statements two were perfect examples of why peace has been so difficult to achieve, while the third statement laid out at least a potential path for moving forward in what so often seems to be an intractable situation.
Let me for a moment examine each of the statements in turn. And I will look at them in the order that they appeared, beginning with Abbas’ op ed. It was disturbing on a number of levels, but what was most disturbing about it was his reliance on classic lies, misunderstandings, and twistings of fact that we have seen coming from the Palestinian side for so long. So for example he talks about how Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs from their home lands after Israel declared its independence in May of 1948 - and there is some truth to that. There were Palestinians uprooted from their homes. But he never mentions that it was the Arab armies that attacked the Israelis first, after Palestinians refused to accept the UN partition plan that would have given them their own territory. He also fails to mention that on multiple occasions the Israeli government has offered the Palestinians more than 90% of what they would have had had they accepted that partition plan, and each time they have turned it down. And so we have to wonder, with that mindset, and those mistruths so deeply ingrained, will there ever be a partner for the Israelis to make peace with? And that is a question that Israelis ask themselves time and time again.
And that leads me to the second statement, by the member of Knesset, Danny Danon. And this, from the other side of the coin, is another example of why peace is so difficult to achieve. In his article, which is a little bit unclear, even after re-reading it multiple times, he seems to be recommending that Israel annex either all of the West Bank, or at least a good part of it. In other words, what he wants is for Israel to take control, once and for all, of the area where the majority of Palestinians live today. This would mean that Israel would either have to expel the Palestinians living in these territories, or Israel would have to forcibly maintain control of a foreign population for ever and ever. And I don’t know about you, but I don’t see either of those possibilities being viable, let alone ethical, let alone being in line with Jewish values like justice, equality, and freedom.
And those values, ladies and gentlemen, bring me to the President’s speech -because in many ways it was a speech precisely about those values - justice, equality, and freedom, and how they are connected to what is being called the ‘Arab Spring.’
It seems that a fair number of Jews are upset with what the President said about the Israeli-Palestinian situation in that speech, and in some cases beyond upset - angry and apoplectic are two words that come to mind.
But sometimes we need to think about things with our intellects, not just our kishkas, and there are three things that are important to consider.
1. The first is that is that folks on the right in the Arab world are just as upset as folks on the right in the Jewish world. One of the leaders of Hamas in the Gaza strip said, after hearing the speech, said that it was clear the President is simply following the Zionist agenda. And on the Aljazeera web site, the following analysis of the speech appeared - and I am quoting directly: “Obama's approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict remains one-sided, deeply flawed, and a barrier rather than a gateway to a just and sustainable peace.” - and I can guarantee you they don’t think it is one sided for the Palestinians. So it seems to me that if the President has people on both sides of the issue so upset, almost by definition it means that there is some kind of fairness and balance to what he said.
2. But the truth is, if you read the speech, I don’t think it was evenly balanced, I think it was pro-Israeli, and frankly I am glad. I am glad the President of the US supported Israel, condemned Hamas and Iran, as he did in the speech, used strong language against Syria, which he did, questioned whether the Palestinians have been genuine in their efforts, which he did, and said the following, and now this is a direct quote - “For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist. As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums.” That is pretty strong language folks. Pretty strong in support of Israel, and pretty strong in challenging the Palestinian leadership.
3. The one particular phrase that seems to have upset the Jewish community and the Netanyahu government is the President’s reference to the 67 borders, when he said in the speech that an agreement about borders should be based on those lines. First of all, he said BASED on - that doesn’t mean that the lines should exactly agree with the 67 borders. Secondly, he said that there would be land swaps to compensate for areas where the 67 borders could not be followed. In other words, he is saying to the Israelis you will retain your larger settlements near the green line. Thirdly, he said to leave Jerusalem out of the border discussions. Remember that in 67 a good part of Jerusalem, including the Old City and the Kotel, was in Jordanian hands. And last but not least, the 67 borders have been the basis for negotiations from the get go, and that hasn’t changed in 25 years or more. Everyone knows that - the Americans do, the Israelis do, the Palestinians do - even the security fence that Israel built runs roughly along the 67 borders. And if the Palestinians can ever get their act together and seriously negotiate, that is what it is going to be based on.
So three major statements this week. Abbas’ statement won’t get anybody anywhere - it is mired in the past and classic misunderstandings that the Palestinians will have to let go of if they ever want to move forward. Danny Danon’s statement was about his vision of the Israeli future, but it is just as unrealistic as Abbas’ vision of the past. President Obama was talking about the here and now, and a possible path to move forward. His comments were realistic, pragmatic, they acknowledged the difficulty of the task, the pain of both sides, but also the unshakeable bond between Israel and America. And I thought he said it well - no peace can be imposed upon the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Americans can’t do it, the world wide community can’t do it - only those peoples, and their leaders, can make the decisions, the hard choices, and the commitments that will open the door to a just and lasting peace. May that truly happen - bimheira b’yameinu - speedily, and in our own time. |
