JustASC

Michael Gerson argues against the notion that “military action by Israel is always counterproductive”:

It is true that the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is two states living side by side in peace. But it is false to say that the fight against terrorists and the security of Israel have no part in achieving that goal.

Peace negotiations generally have preconditions, including the security of both parties. If Israeli citizens are convinced that the “peace process” really means impunity for terrorists who attack them, Israel will want no part of that process. If Hamas leaders remain confident in their impunity — convinced that their most effective strategy is to kill Israeli citizens while hiding behind their own — they will not be in the proper mood for meaningful negotiations either. Recent military operations have addressed some of Israel’s justified fears and, perhaps, tamed some of Hamas’ murderous arrogance.

Gidi Grinstein, president of Israel’s non-partisan strategy group the Reut Institute, has a memo offering advice for the Obama administration. We exchanged emails this week, in which I put to him some of the issues and preconceptions bandied about most often these days among Jewish organizational types

ASC: Is the window fast closing on the two-state solution, as Tom Friedman argued this week?

The two-state solution is increasingly perceived as irrelevant. But this paradigm will only collapse when a new paradigm is ripe to take its place. There is no such paradigm in sight. So the two-state solution will be around for a while and will probably frame the Obama administration’s Mideast strategy.

ASC: American Jews have been wondering if Israel has “won” the war, even as we disagree on what victory would even look like. To me the only “stronger” position is the one that gets Israel and Palestinians to some sort of deal, while others think “victory” is defined by vanquishing Hamas and anyone else who calls for Israel’s destruction. How close if at all did the war get in achieving either end? Is there another I’m missing?

GG: For Zionism, peace is victory. For the some Palestinians, peace would be acknowledging defeat. Also, victory has become a very elusive concept in spite of Israel’s obvious military superiority. The reason is that Israel does not want to take the Palestinian territories over so there is a de facto glass ceiling to our willingness to use force.

ASC: Was the rocket fire from Gaza and the war it necessitated a refutation of the Gaza settlement pullout? Did it mortally undermine the idea of dismantling settlements in the West Bank?

GG: There are two powerful schools regarding Israel’s national security: the first says Israel must leave the Palestinian areas and deal with the consequences. For this school, leaving Gaza was very important and they don’t want to see Israel returning to Gaza. The second school says we should stay and deal with the implications of staying. For them, the withdrawal has been a mistake from inception.

ASC: Some American Jews, including Abe Foxman, dread the idea of “even-handedness” on the part of George Mitchell, or any American envoy. His argument is that with so many countries lined up against Israel, Israel needs a “dishonest” broker to right the balance. Is there merit in this argument? How do you view even-handedness?

GG: Israel needs to remain America’s leading strategic partner in the area. This does not necessarily mean that America cannot be an honest broker. Remember that most Israeli p.m.’s invited American pressure to push through difficult decisions.

ASC: Is it feasible to think of Hamas playing any sort of a constructive role in the peace process or a Palestinian unity government? David Grossman has written of the need to engage Hamas. Can that be done? Should it?

GG: The last war represents a de facto Israeli recognition of the reality of Hamas control of Gaza. The next logical and inevitable step is to engage it primarily on issues relating to the border regime.

ASC: American Jews have, I think, a weak understanding of the necessary roles other regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Egypt have in any peace process. What positive role can they play from Israel’s perspective, if any?

Check out Tom Friedman’s recent piece on that. It covers everything.

The ADL has a new survey gauging American Jewish attitudes toward the war in Gaza. The bottom line, according to their release:

American Jews overwhelmingly supported Israel in its actions against Hamas in Gaza….

Which would suggest I am really in the minority when I say I remain conflicted about the war. Unless…

I also would have answered “yes” to the questions ADL asked. Do I express sympathy for Israel over Hamas? (Duh.)  Do I believe that Hamas was responsible for the escalation of the violence? (Surely.) 

But note how they asked if the use of force was appropriate:

Which view is closer to your own?

Israel’s (military) response to the current crisis in Gaza is EXCESSIVE: Israel has every right to protect its
people from the rocket attacks of the Hamas radicals, but its use of air strikes, and sending troops into
Gaza is a disproportionate response to the current crisis. The Hamas rocket attacks are not a serious
threat to Israel’s existence.
OR
Israel’s (military) response to the current crisis in Gaza is APPROPRIATE. Israel pursued every diplomatic
channel possible to persuade Hamas to stop firing their rockets into Israel. Further, Israeli leaders issued
repeated warnings that unless Hamas radicals stopped firing rockets into Israel, Israel’s only alternative
was the use of military force.

There is an awful lot packed into those two extremely leading questions. If the question is, “Was it appropriate for Israel to use force,” then I say yes — Israel had the right and responsiblity to protect its citizens. If you ask me if it was appropriate to send in the troops, I’d say yes — again, a military reaction was justified. But there is a third question, not asked: Do I think the way the military response was carried out was excessive? And if asked, I’d honestly say, “How do I know?” Since there was no clear-cut resolution to the three weeks of fighting, and I am no military man, how can I say what the appropriate number of casualties should be? (The way the question is worded implies that that as long as you support some kind of military response, you mustn’t question the decisions of generals or politicians.) The ADL’s either/or questions don’t leave room for those who defend Israel’s right to defend itself, and support a military response, but are still seeking answers about the extent and efficacy of the operation. 

Here’s another question:

[W]hich is closer to your own views:

Israel must be mindful of the views of average Arab citizens and pursue policies that will win the “hearts
and minds” of the Arab world. Israel’s long-term ability to live in peace with its Arab neighbors will depend
importantly on the acceptance of Israel’s right to exist among the Arab population.
OR
Israel’s first responsibility is to protect its citizens. For sixty years, Israel has done everything possible to
reach peaceful accords with its Arab neighbors. It is the leadership of the Arab world that has blocked
progress and it is their responsibility to persuade their citizens they should live in peace with Israel.

ADL says 79% of respondents said that Israel’s responsibility is to protect its citizens. 

But again, the question is binary. It assumes that in fulfilling its responsibility to protect its citizens, Israel must sacrifice its ability to win Arab hearts and minds. Why is that either/or? The question mashes together two different ideas that are not necessarily in conflict.

When Israel is under attack from the usual global hypocrites, it’s probably not the best time for a nuanced conversation over what combination of military strength and diplomatic creativity can bring Israel the ultimate peace and security it craves and deserves. But if that conversation never comes, then we have seen the future — and it looks like Operation Cast Lead.

I just got off a conference call arranged by The Israel Project titled “Confronting False and Misleading Assertions By former President Jimmy Carter on the Middle East.” The panelists — Alan Dershowitz, former Clinton aide Lanny Davis, and Ken Stein, Carter’s former colleague at the Carter Center — emphasized Carter’s penchant for selective history, adjusting his message to his audience, and asserting insider knowledge of the Middle East available to no other interlocutor. They also began the call by defending Israel against the familiar charges leveled at it during the Gaza operation: disproportionality, collective punishment, and indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

What wasn’t clear was what their specific beef was with Carter’s latest book or his recent round of interviews. Here’s the question I asked:

I’ve seen two interviews with Carter about his new book, and in both he stresses the themes of Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 borders, the Arabs’ recognition of the Jewish state, no right of return to Israel by Palestinians — basically the same positions supported by Israel’s ruling Kadima party and the Obama administration. I understood the objections to his previous book [Palestine Peace Not Apartheid], starting with its title and extending to the distortions it contained. But what is it about his current message that you find objectionable?

Here’s Dershowitz’s answer:

I find myself completely agreeing with Carter’s result – two states, yes; negotiated agreements, yes. I agree with him that President Obama sending George Mitchell (as Mideast envoy) is a good thing. I also agree that settlements on the West Bank have to end. I don’t find disageement with Jimmy Carter’s end game.

However, I have considerable disagreement with how he proposes to get there. My most serious criticism is that he has become a barrier to peace by supporting essentially Hamas over Israel.

Dershowitz went on to say that Carter does not acknowledge Hamas’ “tactics”; e.g. using civilians as shields or provoking Israel into deadly retaliation (with the Palestinians doing most of the dying and Hamas using their deaths for propaganda purposes).  By not holding Hamas accountable, said Dershowitz, “he makes peace much much more difficult to achieve.”

As for the two-state solution, Dershowitz says:

I wish it were as inevitable as some of my friends think it is — I don’t think anymore that is as inevitable as it once was. [Carter] makes it harder for peace to be achieved by siding with Hamas and against Israel and becoming part of that chorus of condemnation against Israel.

And Davis had this to say:

In the entire interview with Larry King last night, [Carter] never once said that Hamas is an announced terrorist organization that intentionally aims rockets to kill civilians or intends to destroy Israel … and uses civilian shields behind which they launch rockets.

I wasn’t offered a follow-up, but it seems to me, using the old parshanut principle of “what’s bothering Rashi?”,  that the speakers’ concern, and that of The Israel Project, is that Carter and his ilk will somehow legitimize the notion that Hamas must be dealt with even before it meets the demands, set forth by Israel and the United States, that it renounce violence and accept Israel’s right to exist. The speakers on the phone call were especially put out by Carter’s assertions that Hamas is willing to abide by any peace agreement reached by the Palestinian leadership and ratified by a referendum of the Palestinian people (variously defined by Carter, according to Stein, and for some reason only related to Carter and not other negotiators).

So look for this as the next talking points battle among pro-Israel activists: Can Hamas earn a place at the table without changing its stripes? You can start here. (Scroll down to “Myth 2: In Gaza, it is possible to work with the Palestinian Authority and avoid Hamas.”)

My column this week – the Great Montclair Advertising War and American Jews’ discomfort with the war in Gaza:

[I]n private, I’ve heard a level of unease with the Gaza war that I haven’t heard perhaps since the first Lebanon War. Friends and acquaintances want answers to military questions and also want to discuss the non-military alternatives. And those kinds of discussions, I must say, are harder to have in a community that is quicker to rally in support of Israel’s troops than of its peacemakers. Unfortunately, Jewish organizations are more likely to reach consensus when the rockets fly than when negotiating partners put pen to paper.

Today’s Gaza Rorschach test: What do you make of the following statement, by a NJ rabbi. Agree? Disagree? Repulsed?

I pray that one day we might look back on this current conflict and make some sense of the awful loss of life with the hindsight that this was a turning point toward lasting peace and security in the region. I am fearful that instead, we may look back at this as an action that merely stoked the engines of violence and prolonged the conflict.

I’ll be discussing in my column this week.

Back after a long weekend in Pittsburgh, where I visited Carnegie Mellon University with No. 1 Son.

The highlight was a stop at Cabela’s, the over-the-top hunting and fishing emporium off of I-78. Tip for frum travelers — not the best place to find a minyan.

Yesterday Jewish Week reporter Jim Besser wondered if Obama’s inaugural mention of “Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus” would start a “whole new whispering campaign” among those on the Right who would take the third-place mention of the Jews as a political slight.

Forget a whisper: The ZOA shouts it right out loud. From its press release:

“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers.”

ZOA: What is the reason President Obama chose this sequence when listing these four religions?

Throughout its history, the United States has always been known as a nation based on Judeo-Christian values and heritage.

Moreover, surveys show that there are some 5 – 7 million Jews living in the United States. Most surveys show that there are 1.8 – 2.8 million Muslims living in the United States.

In contrast, in President George W. Bush’s Inauguration Speech on January 20, 2001, he said the following, “Church and charity, synagogue and mosque, lend our communities their humanity, and they will have an honored place in our plans and laws.”

The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto makes a few guesses, none of which he says passes muster.

Here’s my guess: In typical parallel structures like these — “a and b, x and y” — the speaker is usually assuming a similarity or relationship between each compound clause. Try it: “young and old, rich and poor, black and white, liberal and conservative.”

Had the new president gone with “Christians and Jews, Muslims and Hindus,” as I presume the ZOA would have preferred, it would have made two groupings — the “usual” (Christians and Jews) and the “new and unusual” (Muslims and Hindus).These typical groupings would have “privileged” the Christians and Jews, and relegated the other religions to a second clause.

Obama is no doubt aware of America’s “Judeo-Christian” heritage (which is more Christian than Judeo, as Larry Yudelson has argued ). I’m guessing Obama, in the spirit of inclusiveness and change that he represents, tweaked the expected order of the religions in order to signal that the traditional conception of American religion is giving way to one that is more diverse, and that our religious weave is more complicated than a few “exotic” religions tacked onto the Judeo-Christian cross-stitch.

We don’t normally think of America in terms of “Christian and Muslim,” or think about the relationships between “Jew and Hindu.” Perhaps Obama is saying that it is time that we did, since the American mosaic grows more complicated each day.

(It’s a bit like that upside-down map of the world, which tries to shake up the usual “Eurocentric” view of the planet, or those dinner-party seating arrangements that separate husbands and wives.)

Is Obama putting Muslims’ interests ahead of the Jews’? I doubt it. Saying that he is just trying to break down old categories is consistent with his campaign message — indeed, his biography.

And if I were a Buddhist, I would be so pissed.

A friend is shocked not just by Muammar Qadaffi’s call for a joint Israeli-Palestinian state in today’s New York Times oped, but by the generally positive tone of the comments that follow it on-line.

The comments don’t surprise me. Qadaffi’s piece itself is incredibly seductive – generous to both sides, sympathetic to Israel’s security needs and its history, idealistic in its aspirations. Israel’s supporters might ask themselves this: If a piece like this were to be written about any other regional conflict – Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Cyprus, the Balkans – wouldn’t they find themselves sighing, “Ah, if it were only so”? If Mugabe, let’s say, were to share his own seemingly peaceful, humane solution to the conflict in Sudan, wouldn’t we go, “Awww, that is so sweet”?

Friends of Israel (and honest enemies) know that a one-state solution means the end of a Jewish state. They know the dismal record of Arab nations and peoples, including Qadaffi’s, of “living under one roof” with the Other, whether that other is Jewish, Christian, Kurd, or on the wrong side of the Shia-Sunni divide. And they appreciate the sheer chutzpa of Qadaffi talking about what I presume is an “Isratinian” democracy, when his own country is a dictatorship that severely restricts civil liberties, has supported terrorism, and abuses migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees.

But I think all of that is lost on people who a/ are sick and tired of hearing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and want it solved; b/ have no historical stake in a Jewish homeland; and/or c/ have forgotten that Qadaffi is so crazy that as the head of an entire country, he only promoted himself as far as “Colonel.”

In case you missed it, the Times had a piece last week  about Bernard Madoff’s wife Ruth, questioning what if anything she knew about her husband’s Ponzi scheme and when she knew it. It also had a sidebar on her “authorship” of a kosher cookbook – one of the co-authors now says she did all the work, not Mrs. Madoff.

That’s a little boorish, perhaps, but this bit struck me as a low blow by the reporter:

Mrs. Madoff and her friend, as co-authors, wrote in the book of a high-minded mission: exposing kosher palates to new sensations by collecting dishes from famous restaurant chefs that could be prepared in keeping with Jewish dietary restrictions.

For all the book’s talk of wanting to serve the interests of a “strictly Kosher” crowd, The Daily Mail in London recently reported that Ruth’s husband, Bernard, was quite fond of pork sausages, taboo under any definition of kosher cooking.

What does one thing have to do with another? First of all, Ruth’s practices and her husband’s may diverge — it wouldn’t be the first time that spouses have different ideas about kashrut.  And let’s say she also eats trayf — there’s no great contradiction between wanting to expose “kosher palates to new sensations” and not keeping kosher yourself. It’s a cookbook, not a religious confession.

This is journalistic piling on — the husband’s an alleged crook, so he must be hypocritical in all things, as must his spouse. In Madoff’s case you can find enough chicanery without having to invent new charges.