Brit Tzedek v'Shalom

Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace

Where I Stand On Israel
By Jim Remsen
August 8th, 2003

My cousin in New York described my views on Israel to a friend as "pro-Palestinian." My brother thinks they're "far to the Left, even of National Public Radio." I've also been told that my proposals, were they enacted, would weaken Israel. On the contrary, I see them as a way of saving Israel.

My prescriptions are commonsensical. It is better for two states to live side by side as independent though angry neighbors than as hostile entities occasionally marauding into one another's territory. In order for such an accommodation to happen, the two states must both be viable. Even so, there may still be some terrorism -- but it will be distinctly less. Extremist groups like Hamas will still strike out, but have less support. The proposals I make are for lessening hostilities and casualties, not eliminating them.

It is nonsense for Israel to expect the Palestinians to settle for a noncontiguous territory dotted with Israeli "settlements." There can be no solution without Israel abandoning all settlements, legal and illegal, on the West Bank. Successive American governments have called the Israeli settlements illegal -- unfortunately, our governments have done nothing to enforce their judgment.

(I would propose that some of these settlements serve as townships for returning Palestinian refugees, but that should be left to the rulers of the new Palestinian state.)

What former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Arafat at Camp David and later at Taba in 2000 was not a viable Palestinian state. Under that plan, Palestinian towns and villages would be ringed by Israeli service roads.

Arafat is no statesman. Even though it was a bad deal, he should have accepted it -- and then started pushing to have it changed, with The help of the EU or the UN, or whoever. Instead, he just said "No."

It is to the credit of the Bush Administration that it helped elevate Mahmoud Abbas as Prime Minister of Palestine. He is clearly a credible negotiating partner. Let's hope Ariel Sharon is also.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has weakened its hand by its pointless war in Iraq. This invasion has accomplished nothing for the US and nothing for Israel. Even if the US government got its wish and a happily democratic Iraq sprung up on the ashes of Saddam's bestial regime, would such a democracy in an Islamic state be any friendlier toward Israel?

And because the US is now preoccupied with Iraq it cannot do in Israel what needs to be done : impose a settlement, preferably one that will make both sides unhappy, including provisions for a shared Jerusalem and a monetary swap for the Right of Return. The US would also have to provide troops to separate the two neighboring states. But these troops are now in Iraq.

What I am suggesting does not differ overmuch from what any number of American Jewish groups have been recommending for years. From Rabbi Michael Lerner's Tikkun to the nationwide Brit Tzedek movement, these are commonplace prescriptions. To call them "left-wing" is a convenient evasion.

I say this to my relatives, and for that matter to the larger American Jewish community. Only such compromises will allow Israel to live. If, on the other hand, the Likudniks persist, whether of the American or Israel variety, they will ultimately ensure the complete and utter destruction of the state of Israel. No force, no weaponry, no fortresslike embattlements, will allow it to survive indefinitely.