July 7, 2006
By Allan Abrams

While pleased that you published JTA's David Silverman's “Dovish group Brit Tzedek still pushing peace talks,” (Chronicle, 6/30/06, p. 11), I was disappointed it did not mention its Kansas City connection, as I was there as both a Brit Tzedek national board member and as Brit Tzedek's Kansas City chapter leader.

Indeed, on June 20, as leader of a four-person delegation to meet with Sen. Pat Roberts' staff, we spent about 15 minutes with the senator himself, who was quite receptive to our presentation. Then, that afternoon, our Rep. Dennis Moore and two members of his staff visited with me personally for nearly an hour, which culminated in the congressman volunteering (with virtually no encouragement from me) that he would gladly write another letter (similar to one he handed to President Bush about six months ago) stating that a negotiated, two-state agreement was paramount; that the U.S. government must be more proactive as an interlocutor; and that continued financial and humanitarian aid to the Palestinians is absolutely essential to Israel's security and well-being.

Brit Tzedek's basic message is that Israel cannot, indeed will not, have peace and security without a negotiated solution that will result in a viable Palestinian state living in peace and security side-by-side with itself. And as JTA's Silverman points out, we at Brit Tzedek believe it is a fantasy to think that a bilateral dispute between nations can be resolved unilaterally - the primary path that Prime Minister Olmert seems to be now pursuing with the support of many at AIPAC, but not necessarily President Bush's administration.

With the notable exception of World War II, world history is devoid of any significant example where a conflict between two peoples has been resolved unilaterally by one people dictating the end of the game, except where one nation has been almost entirely vanquished as in that terribly costly war. While there is a strong vocal minority of Israelis - as well as some Jews and Christians and others elsewhere who advocate such action, which would amount to a world war - we vehemently disagree. The huge risks and costs in potential lost lives (which could again number in the millions), destruction and economic ruin, not to mention the continued very existence of Israel itself, make even contemplating this alternative unthinkable.

So if unilateralism won't work and if another world war is unfathomable, the only other choice is for Israel, with the assistance of the U.S. government, to work on ways to make (Palestinian Authority) President (Mahmoud) Abbas viable, strengthen him and the many Palestinian moderates. This is Brit Tzedek's very mission. By Hamas becoming more moderate, more pragmatic, it would have a way out so that there is not just a losing proposition for them. Yes, it's easier said than done, and it may take years, but what other real choices does Israel have?

I've never seen a situation where people who are starving get more moderate and more reasonable in their demands. So it should also be pointed out that America cannot serve its national interest, nor can Israel have real peace and security, if the Palestinian people are driven into a financial and economic cataclysm. The recently passed House bill, HR 4681, which we at Brit Tzedek opposed and AIPAC supported, would, unfortunately, likely do just that. However, the Senate Bill, S. 2370, which AIPAC also supported and we did not oppose, is not nearly as draconian and will likely also be passed; a congressional conference committee would then come up a final version of the bill for the President's signature.

For an excellent additional in-depth perspective on some the issues that I've touched on here, see Daniel Levy's “Is it Good for the Jews?” just published in the American Prospect (7/5/06).

While too many American Jews have lost interest in supporting Israel, those of us who still do must be even more proactive in our cause.

Allan Abrams
Prairie Village, Kan.