A number of British Jews have published an open letter concerning the current situation in Gaza. I’d like to make a couple of points about it.
1.
However, we believe that only negotiations can secure long-term security for Israel and the region.
In the most general sense this is probably true. However, the word “negotiation” tends to be interpreted as being an alternative to violence when it would be more accurate to see violence being used by both parties to the current conflict as a means of strengthening their position for future negotiations. Indeed, it would be scarcely an exaggeration to say that both parties are negotiating now, with Hamas continuing to do all in its power to launch rockets into Israel and Israel - in the face of, largely dishonest, international criticism - trying its damndest to kill as many Hamas operatives and destroy as many of its assets it can. Each wants to impose its will on the other and when both think that they have achieved as much as they can by the use of force then negotiation, in the sense meant by the signatories of the letter, there will be.
It’s also worth pointing out that peace and security can arise in the absence of negotiations too. Despite the absence of a final settlement and the existence of only sporadic negotiations there has been peace on the border between Israel and Syria since 1973, not an insignificant period of time in the context of the broader Arab-Israeli struggle. Of course it could be argued that the conflict between the two states was only transferred to Lebanon and this is true. However, with the exception of a few encounters during the 1982 Lebanon War, high-intensity conflict between the armed forces of the two nations has been avoided for more than 35 years, not a bad outcome for both sides.
And with regard to the question of negotiations with Hamas; there have already been indirect negotiations with it, otherwise the six-month ceasefire that expired in December would never have been agreed and there would have been no horse trading over the price to be paid for releasing Gilad Shalit. There will be more negotiations in the future too, either direct or, more likely, indirect, to bring the current round of fighting to an end. Negotiations between enemies of this sort there have always been and there’s no need to get worked up about them.
What there can’t be with Hamas, for the foreseeable future, are negotiations aimed at achieving a long term settlement between it and Israel. These can only take place when it has come to recognize that it has no viable military options against the Jews’ state and we still seem to some considerable way from reaching that point. The best that can be hoped from negotiations to end the current fighting is that they restore calm in Gaza and southern Israel for an extended period of time and that the situation of Gazan civilians is ameliorated. As long as Hamas’s aim is the destruction of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic state we can be sure that there will, at some point, be a renewal of hostilities.
2.
We are concerned that rather than bringing security to Israel, a continued military offensive could strengthen extremists, destabilize the region and exacerbate tensions inside Israel with its one million Arab citizens. The offensive and the mounting civilian victims - like the Lebanon war in 2006 - also threaten to undermine international support for Israel.
Note that the signatories only say that they are against the continuation of the offensive and not against the offensive per se. This being the case, it would be interesting to know at what point and why they became convinced that the costs of the offensive had started to outweigh the benefits and whether they thought, prior to the start of the current offensive, that indirect negotiations between the parties had outlived their usefulness.
3.
International monitoring of the ceasefire agreement, including measures to ensure the security of the borders between Israel and Gaza as well as the prevention of weapons smuggling into Gaza.
There’s nothing wrong with this in principle but Israel ought to be very wary of what kind of international monitoring it accepts. Anything similar to the blue-helmeted tourists that have been patrolling South Lebanon since the ceasefire that brought an end to the Second Lebanon War is only likely to provide a veneer of respectability for the rearming and strengthening of Hamas. That’s not a criticism of the UN soldiers themselves. Without political support from their home governments to make life difficult for Hezbollah they’d be stupid to do anything other than engage in a bit of armed social work and work on their tans. Israel had better be careful on this point if it wants to see real gains accrue to it from the war.
As a footnote to the forgoing points, take a look at how the calm and even-handed letter is sensationalized and distorted by the way it’s reported on The Guardian’s website. The letter uses the word “horror” to describe the feelings produced in the signatories by the situation in Gaza, rather than the situation itself, and it doesn’t say that Israel’s actions will strengthen extremists; it says that they could do so. So much for facts being sacred.
Ironic.
Not more than five minutes ago, I received the following e-mail from the local Chabad rabbi in my little town just west of Boston. I am a Reform Jew, and the Chabad rabbi and I have coffee every few weeks or so, where we learn how much we disagree about almost everything.
He wrote, “Although it is to be expected, I still can’t get over the fact that the leader of the Reform Jews in London has put out a statement condemning Israel.”
From my little part of the world, this view of the “calm and even-handed letter” is serious and disturbing, and is reflective of a deep division, one to be revealed yet again once the bombs stop in Gaza.
This is a new posting that I’ve lifted today almost word for word from Shiraz Socialist, which is, as far as I know, supportive of Israel.
Please tell me if this post is right or not. If not, then what is really going on:
“In a report from the Gaza Border earlier today, BBC News reported that little, if any, aid was expected to reach Gaza during today’s three hour ‘ceasefire’, because of the prohibition on working during Shabbes. A piss-poor excuse dressed up in a shabby cloak of pseudo-religious casuistry, as for the religiously observant, the preservation of life overrides any such prohibition…
“While fake piety is used to justify denying the delivery of aid to the besieged citizens of Gaza, no-one seems to have passed the message about having a day off to the IDF, who have been merrily going about the business of blowing the shit out of Gaza all day. According to one UN official, Gaza is ‘on the cusp of catastrophe.’
“Even staunch friends of Isreal are now in despair…and it becomes ever more difficult to put forward a class-based solution. Meanwhile malevolent professional Israel - haters are having a field day, portraying Israel as a uniquely illegitimate state, tainted from birth with racism and expansionism: a travesty of historical fact, but a very popular viewpoint these days, for entirely understandable reasons. This barbarity must stop immediately!”
Joanne: ” Shiraz Socialist, which is, as far as I know, supportive of Israel.”
They can be supportive of Israel and be wrong about events in Gaza.
The fact that their only source is the BBC is troubling. The BBC isn’t known for fairness to Israel in its reporting it also uses second hand sources in Gaza who have a decidedly anti Israel point of view.
Why should that shock you, Eric? Reform wants to be Unitarian/Lutheran more than it wants to be Jewish.
Trudy, we encourage free debate here, but next time you write a comment like the one addressed to Eric, it will be deleted. This kind of offensive baiting has no place here. And I would remind you that there are Reform Jews fighting in the IDF.
In general, let this serve as one of the periodic reminders we issue to commenters: no antisemitism, no racism (and that includes anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism,) no obscenities and - please - try to keep it intelligent.
“Hamas Map Found in Operation”
“Israel says map shows Hamas puts Gaza civilians at risk”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/09/hamas.sketch/
Jefferson was a Unitarian. There’s nothing wrong with them.
Trudy, there is big difference between Lutherans and Unitarian and most of Reform congregations do not aspire to be one or the other.
One can be honestly wrong. Let’s no ascribe false motives to their position.
In any case I am confused, Eric; the head of the Reform movement in London was at a pro-Israel and pro-peace rally and is quoted as saying the following:
“”Everyone should support Israel’s determination to weaken the hold of the terrorists. It is only when terror and blackmail are successfully opposed that the moderate majority can feel safe to make peace,” said Rabbi Dr Tony Bayfield, head of the Movement for Reform Judaism.”
http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/2894_rally_for_peace.htm
How is this a statement “condemning Israel?”
Hi, Englender,
I think what Rabbi Bayfield said, in the quote you referenced and in the open letter referenced in the very first post in this thread, was wonderful.
No, the statements by Rabbi Bayfield were interpreted by at least one Chabad rabbi in Massachusetts, as “condemning Israel.” He is far from alone, as we all know.
My point is that many of the strongest objections to a reasonable cessation of hostilities in Gaza will come from the American Jewish right, as exemplified by my Chabad rabbi friend in Wellesley, Massachusetts.
This is just the beginning. If President Obama stakes out some new positions on issues in the Middle East, as I hope he does, we will witness a war within our community, in my humble opinion.
I am still shocked you are shocked by Reform’s position, in the UK or elsewhere. Here in the US Reform’s quasi official stance is interchangeable with the left end of the left of the spectrum, such as it is in the US. Reform synagogues spend more time and effort fundraising for Darfur and the SPCA (Animal Rights) then they do for Jewish education. Which by the by is now essentially bankrupt everywhere thanks to Madoff. No, I wouldn’t be surprised at all. We, all of us at least give some lip service to interdenominational dialogs but we are always getting into fights with Reform over at least pretending to have a stance vis a vis Judaism in lieu of simply saying “You’re right, we should try harder to be like you.”
Delete this if you like. I’m on a shul education board and my family has been involved in Jewish education in Conservative and Orthodox congregations for more than 30 years. And I’ve never found that boundless conciliation has ever attracted more tolerance from the people you already know don’t appreciate you. Generally they respect you more if you stand for something.
This is not to say that Reform in the UK has to march lockstep with everyone else. But talking out of school in the name of lord knows what is….what then? Noble? Insightful?
What would Hillel say? Or Akiva for that matter?
“Here in the US Reform’s quasi official stance is interchangeable with the left end of the left of the spectrum, such as it is in the US. Reform synagogues spend more time and effort fundraising for Darfur and the SPCA (Animal Rights) then they do for Jewish education”
I take it you are not Reform. I am and you’re wrong.
Regards,
Inna