Monday Sep 22, 2008
In the Trenches: How I envy the ideologues!
Posted by David Harris
Comments: 50
Comments: 50
How I envy the ideologues when it comes to Israel-related issues!
It's so simple and straightforward. The thinking is airtight, the solutions obvious, and the counterarguments mere distractions. There's no room for self-doubt, no time for anguish.
If only the rest of the world would see things their way, all would be hunky-dory. Alas, those who don't must, by definition, be out of step, behind the times, unenlightened.
Take five of Israel's most pressing strategic challenges.
Iran:
To one set of ideologues, the answer is obvious: bomb away. Negotiations won't work, the clock is ticking, and once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, all bets are off. Waiting only increases the risk.
To another, the solution is equally simple: negotiate. If talks haven't succeeded to date, it's principally because the Western countries, including the United States, haven't yet made the right offer to Tehran. As to time, there's still plenty of it.
How comforting certitude is!
In reality, there's no easy, much less foolproof, answer to the Iranian nuclear challenge.
A military attack? Perhaps, but, unlike Iraq after Israel successfully struck the French-built Osirak reactor, Iran has spread its program wide and, quite literally, deep. Moreover, the capacity to retaliate can't be ignored.
American soldiers and interests in the region are an obvious target. Iranian-backed Hizbullah sleeper cells in dozens of countries could be activated. Israel would likely see a response from Iranian surrogates on its borders - Hamas in Gaza and Hizbullah in Lebanon. The price of oil could go through the roof, adding to global economic woes. And the Iranian people might rally around the regime, strengthening its hold on power and supporting its determination to rebuild its nuclear capacity.
Diplomacy? Perhaps, but years of European-led diplomacy, supported by the US, have produced nothing. Actually, that's not quite true. The talks have bought Teheran valuable time, which has been used to good effect.
More centrifuges have come on line, low-enriched uranium has been produced, missiles developed, and advanced weapons systems purchased from Moscow. Despite four UN Security Council resolutions, including three sanctions measures, and critical reports from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has ignored them all. In other words, neither "carrots" nor "sticks" have heretofore made any impression on Iran's leaders.
In sum, there's no easy option.
Gaza:
To one set of ideologues, the answer is the IDF. Go into Gaza. Root out the bomb-making factories, terrorist cells, and smuggling tunnels from Egypt. Get the Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders, who are declared enemies of Israel. Send a clear message that Israel won't stand idly by while its soldiers are kidnapped, its towns shelled, and its very existence threatened.
To another, the answer lies elsewhere. There's currently a negotiated "lull". It means one can reason with Hamas, perhaps split off the "moderates" from the "radicals" in the leadership ranks. Military action in Gaza will only lead to re-occupation, with its moral and practical challenges. And by striking a deal on the West Bank, show Gaza's residents that there's another way.
Another tough call.
Gaza is a failed state in the making. Hamas leadership is taking its cue from Hizbullah in Lebanon, building its military strength and indoctrinating its youth in jihad and martyrdom. Yet, for the IDF, entering Gaza is not uncomplicated. Casualties could be high in one of the most densely populated spots on earth. And getting out may prove even more difficult than going in, which could lead, however unintentionally, to an extended presence. That's exactly what Israel sought to end in 2005 when it pulled out of the strip.
Lebanon:
To one set of ideologues, military action is inevitable. The longer the delay, the more dangerous the enemy. Hizbullah has strengthened its military and political position in Lebanon since the 2006 war. Estimates suggest as many as 40,000 missiles and rockets in its hands that can reach most, if not all, of Israel. The UNIFIL forces in the south haven't stopped Hizbullah's rearming. In fact, they've often looked the other way, fearful of confronting the terrorist group. Lebanon is moving toward Shiite dominance.
To another, the 2006 war proved that military action won't work. Israel couldn't defeat a few thousand Hizbullah fighters. Moreover, its actions catapulted Sheikh Nasrallah, Hizbullah's leader, into heroic status throughout much of the Arab world. The status quo may be imperfect, but the UNIFIL forces are keeping the two sides apart. Hizbullah claims that it's fighting to regain "occupied" Lebanese territory from Israel, including the Sheba Farms, so why not negotiate, perhaps as part of a larger deal?
Once again, Israel faces a quandary.
Military action would trigger Hizbullah's response. In 2006, the "rear" became a front line in the war. Cities in Israel's north were targeted and civilians were under siege. In a new conflict, this could heighten, given increased firepower. UNIFIL forces would either be caught in the middle or forced to depart. Neither scenario augurs well.
Yet the trans-shipment of weapons from Iran and Syria to Hizbullah continues unabated. Neither the Lebanese armed forces nor UNIFIL force have shown any willingness to intervene. And the UN is unprepared to beef up enforcement of Resolution 1701, which authorized the recent deployment of international peacekeepers.
What should Israel do? To act could be dangerous. So could failure to act.
Syria:
To one set of ideologues, it's clear. No possible deal with Damascus could justify the loss of the Golan Heights. To anyone who sees the commanding heights, it's obvious. Control means security. Loss of control, for a deal with an untrustworthy regime in Syria, poses immense risk and little assurance of return.
To another, Syria is ripe for a peace accord with Israel. Though a non-democratic state, Syria's record with Israel since 1973 shows it can keep a deal if it wants to. And what's more important - territory or peace? In an era of missile warfare, land doesn't offer much in the way of security.
Yet another complicated issue.
Syria is a source of instability. Its porous border with Lebanon allows weapons to reach Hizbullah with ease. Its close ties to Iran are worrisome. Its nuclear ambitions, disrupted by Israel last year, underscore its danger. Its harboring of terrorist groups is a matter of record. And its blatant interference in Lebanese politics, including assassinations, is a sobering reminder of its thuggish nature. Can it really be trusted? What has it done of late to prove a change of behavior?
On the other hand, previous Syrian-Israeli talks have come close to success, suggesting a deal may be doable. Security arrangements to address Israel's concerns have been floated. Removing Syria from the equation would improve Israel's regional position. It might also lead to an accord with Lebanon, which otherwise won't get out ahead of Damascus. And it could presumably drive a wedge between Syria and Iran.
To trade the tangible, the Golan Heights, for the intangible, a signed agreement, entails possible risks, yet offers potential opportunities. Which outweigh which?
West Bank:
To one set of ideologues, no Palestinian state. It would pose a mortal danger to Israel (and moderate Jordan) by creating a rump state whose appetite for more territory would swell. It would inevitably lead to the division of Jerusalem, Israel's eternal capital. Talk of a democratic and demilitarized state is wishful thinking. Neither would occur, given the Arab world's record on both fronts. Instead, Israel would be confronted by a dysfunctional entity that could easily fall into the hands of radicals. And Israel's heartland, including its main population centers and its international airport, would be at permanent risk by dint of proximity and topography. Meanwhile, Israel would have sacrificed the cradle of the Jewish people's birthplace.
To another, only a Palestinian state, based on an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 armistice lines, offers a solution. Otherwise, Israel will face permanent conflict. And, for demographic reasons, it will corrode Israeli democracy. Israel must leave the West Bank and regain the moral upper hand. It must acknowledge that both Palestinians and Israelis have an attachment to Jerusalem. If Israel doesn't engage with the current leadership of the Palestinian Authority, which wants a deal, then it will face much worse down the road, including increased demands for a one-state solution - and the end of the Zionist dream. It's already late in the day. Israel must stop dragging its feet and, above all, halt settlement activity. It has a peace partner.
To state the obvious, this is the mother of all issues. To go further, differing interpretations exist of exactly what a two-state solution means - and they're not merely points of detail. Compelling arguments clash. By now, they are well-known and well-rehearsed. Suffice it to say that there are risks whichever way you look. And while there may be glib answers offered for those risks, they're often unsatisfying on closer examination.
Israel might have a new prime minister in the coming weeks. Whether it does or not, though, these five challenges will be there.
I can't imagine a more difficult job anywhere than to be Israel's leader. The responsibility is mind-boggling, the stakes immense, and the margin for error slim.
So, as the ideologues pursue their sacred visions, impervious to competing facts, my prayer is for the courage, vision, and strength of Israel's leader - and those who help shape the policies pursued.
In a real world where little is black and white, and where strategic decisions can be unimaginably close calls, let's hope for the wisdom required to get them right.
It's so simple and straightforward. The thinking is airtight, the solutions obvious, and the counterarguments mere distractions. There's no room for self-doubt, no time for anguish.
If only the rest of the world would see things their way, all would be hunky-dory. Alas, those who don't must, by definition, be out of step, behind the times, unenlightened.
Take five of Israel's most pressing strategic challenges.
Iran:
To one set of ideologues, the answer is obvious: bomb away. Negotiations won't work, the clock is ticking, and once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, all bets are off. Waiting only increases the risk.
To another, the solution is equally simple: negotiate. If talks haven't succeeded to date, it's principally because the Western countries, including the United States, haven't yet made the right offer to Tehran. As to time, there's still plenty of it.
How comforting certitude is!
In reality, there's no easy, much less foolproof, answer to the Iranian nuclear challenge.
A military attack? Perhaps, but, unlike Iraq after Israel successfully struck the French-built Osirak reactor, Iran has spread its program wide and, quite literally, deep. Moreover, the capacity to retaliate can't be ignored.
American soldiers and interests in the region are an obvious target. Iranian-backed Hizbullah sleeper cells in dozens of countries could be activated. Israel would likely see a response from Iranian surrogates on its borders - Hamas in Gaza and Hizbullah in Lebanon. The price of oil could go through the roof, adding to global economic woes. And the Iranian people might rally around the regime, strengthening its hold on power and supporting its determination to rebuild its nuclear capacity.
Diplomacy? Perhaps, but years of European-led diplomacy, supported by the US, have produced nothing. Actually, that's not quite true. The talks have bought Teheran valuable time, which has been used to good effect.
More centrifuges have come on line, low-enriched uranium has been produced, missiles developed, and advanced weapons systems purchased from Moscow. Despite four UN Security Council resolutions, including three sanctions measures, and critical reports from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has ignored them all. In other words, neither "carrots" nor "sticks" have heretofore made any impression on Iran's leaders.
In sum, there's no easy option.
Gaza:
To one set of ideologues, the answer is the IDF. Go into Gaza. Root out the bomb-making factories, terrorist cells, and smuggling tunnels from Egypt. Get the Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders, who are declared enemies of Israel. Send a clear message that Israel won't stand idly by while its soldiers are kidnapped, its towns shelled, and its very existence threatened.
To another, the answer lies elsewhere. There's currently a negotiated "lull". It means one can reason with Hamas, perhaps split off the "moderates" from the "radicals" in the leadership ranks. Military action in Gaza will only lead to re-occupation, with its moral and practical challenges. And by striking a deal on the West Bank, show Gaza's residents that there's another way.
Another tough call.
Gaza is a failed state in the making. Hamas leadership is taking its cue from Hizbullah in Lebanon, building its military strength and indoctrinating its youth in jihad and martyrdom. Yet, for the IDF, entering Gaza is not uncomplicated. Casualties could be high in one of the most densely populated spots on earth. And getting out may prove even more difficult than going in, which could lead, however unintentionally, to an extended presence. That's exactly what Israel sought to end in 2005 when it pulled out of the strip.
Lebanon:
To one set of ideologues, military action is inevitable. The longer the delay, the more dangerous the enemy. Hizbullah has strengthened its military and political position in Lebanon since the 2006 war. Estimates suggest as many as 40,000 missiles and rockets in its hands that can reach most, if not all, of Israel. The UNIFIL forces in the south haven't stopped Hizbullah's rearming. In fact, they've often looked the other way, fearful of confronting the terrorist group. Lebanon is moving toward Shiite dominance.
To another, the 2006 war proved that military action won't work. Israel couldn't defeat a few thousand Hizbullah fighters. Moreover, its actions catapulted Sheikh Nasrallah, Hizbullah's leader, into heroic status throughout much of the Arab world. The status quo may be imperfect, but the UNIFIL forces are keeping the two sides apart. Hizbullah claims that it's fighting to regain "occupied" Lebanese territory from Israel, including the Sheba Farms, so why not negotiate, perhaps as part of a larger deal?
Once again, Israel faces a quandary.
Military action would trigger Hizbullah's response. In 2006, the "rear" became a front line in the war. Cities in Israel's north were targeted and civilians were under siege. In a new conflict, this could heighten, given increased firepower. UNIFIL forces would either be caught in the middle or forced to depart. Neither scenario augurs well.
Yet the trans-shipment of weapons from Iran and Syria to Hizbullah continues unabated. Neither the Lebanese armed forces nor UNIFIL force have shown any willingness to intervene. And the UN is unprepared to beef up enforcement of Resolution 1701, which authorized the recent deployment of international peacekeepers.
What should Israel do? To act could be dangerous. So could failure to act.
Syria:
To one set of ideologues, it's clear. No possible deal with Damascus could justify the loss of the Golan Heights. To anyone who sees the commanding heights, it's obvious. Control means security. Loss of control, for a deal with an untrustworthy regime in Syria, poses immense risk and little assurance of return.
To another, Syria is ripe for a peace accord with Israel. Though a non-democratic state, Syria's record with Israel since 1973 shows it can keep a deal if it wants to. And what's more important - territory or peace? In an era of missile warfare, land doesn't offer much in the way of security.
Yet another complicated issue.
Syria is a source of instability. Its porous border with Lebanon allows weapons to reach Hizbullah with ease. Its close ties to Iran are worrisome. Its nuclear ambitions, disrupted by Israel last year, underscore its danger. Its harboring of terrorist groups is a matter of record. And its blatant interference in Lebanese politics, including assassinations, is a sobering reminder of its thuggish nature. Can it really be trusted? What has it done of late to prove a change of behavior?
On the other hand, previous Syrian-Israeli talks have come close to success, suggesting a deal may be doable. Security arrangements to address Israel's concerns have been floated. Removing Syria from the equation would improve Israel's regional position. It might also lead to an accord with Lebanon, which otherwise won't get out ahead of Damascus. And it could presumably drive a wedge between Syria and Iran.
To trade the tangible, the Golan Heights, for the intangible, a signed agreement, entails possible risks, yet offers potential opportunities. Which outweigh which?
West Bank:
To one set of ideologues, no Palestinian state. It would pose a mortal danger to Israel (and moderate Jordan) by creating a rump state whose appetite for more territory would swell. It would inevitably lead to the division of Jerusalem, Israel's eternal capital. Talk of a democratic and demilitarized state is wishful thinking. Neither would occur, given the Arab world's record on both fronts. Instead, Israel would be confronted by a dysfunctional entity that could easily fall into the hands of radicals. And Israel's heartland, including its main population centers and its international airport, would be at permanent risk by dint of proximity and topography. Meanwhile, Israel would have sacrificed the cradle of the Jewish people's birthplace.
To another, only a Palestinian state, based on an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 armistice lines, offers a solution. Otherwise, Israel will face permanent conflict. And, for demographic reasons, it will corrode Israeli democracy. Israel must leave the West Bank and regain the moral upper hand. It must acknowledge that both Palestinians and Israelis have an attachment to Jerusalem. If Israel doesn't engage with the current leadership of the Palestinian Authority, which wants a deal, then it will face much worse down the road, including increased demands for a one-state solution - and the end of the Zionist dream. It's already late in the day. Israel must stop dragging its feet and, above all, halt settlement activity. It has a peace partner.
To state the obvious, this is the mother of all issues. To go further, differing interpretations exist of exactly what a two-state solution means - and they're not merely points of detail. Compelling arguments clash. By now, they are well-known and well-rehearsed. Suffice it to say that there are risks whichever way you look. And while there may be glib answers offered for those risks, they're often unsatisfying on closer examination.
Israel might have a new prime minister in the coming weeks. Whether it does or not, though, these five challenges will be there.
I can't imagine a more difficult job anywhere than to be Israel's leader. The responsibility is mind-boggling, the stakes immense, and the margin for error slim.
So, as the ideologues pursue their sacred visions, impervious to competing facts, my prayer is for the courage, vision, and strength of Israel's leader - and those who help shape the policies pursued.
In a real world where little is black and white, and where strategic decisions can be unimaginably close calls, let's hope for the wisdom required to get them right.
|
| Comments: |  Post your own comment |
1 | Zoe, New York, Monday Sep 22, 2008
The problem with the left is that too often it can't see danger, much less summon the courage to confront it. The problem with the right is that too often it can't see beyond the barrel of a gun, even when new opportunities on the ground present themselves. Nuanced, non-partisan thinking, as Harris presents it, may not be much in vogue these days, but that's what it should be all about in decision-making when life-and-death issues are at stake. The calls may seem easy to some in Berkeley or Brooklyn, but to those who bear ultimate responsibility for the consequences they're anything but.
2 | Steven Feldman NY, Monday Sep 22, 2008
I'd love to hear your opinion of the Ideologues and the Pres candidates.
3 | larry ruby, los angeles, calif., Monday Sep 22, 2008
to my american jewish brothers and sisters....
we can do our part for israel and her security
by assuring that barack obama is NOT elected.
it is time to start to vote our interests, not to assuage
our guilt and take pride in our liberalism.
the sixties are over
4 | soroush mostafapour iran, Monday Sep 22, 2008
hey people dont worry iran aint gonna do any thing to israel. im an iranian , ahmadinejad is just a stupid guy nothing els
5 | Martin Liebling, Monday Sep 22, 2008
In the last 3 sentences, one could substitute "United States" for "Israel" and be equally appropriate.
6 | Ken Berwitz, USA, Monday Sep 22, 2008
I wonder if Mr. Harris is one of the Presidents of major Jewish organizations who agreed to cave in and disinvite Sarah Palin from the anti-Iran protest at the UN this week.
Hillary Clinton plays politics with the protest by refusing to share a stage with Palin, and these geniuses punish Palin for it.
Who is running the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations? The actual Presidents or Hillary Clinton?
It is hard not to conclude that this organization is liberal/Democratic first, and Jewish second.
They'll never get another penny from me.
7 | Mark Meyerowitz, West Orange, NJ, Monday Sep 22, 2008
It is ashame that Israels security is being sacrificed by the Democrats who are playing politics with Israels security. Republicans and Democrats have always stood together for Israel. The Democratic parties committment to Israels security is now suspect.
8 | Beny-Miami, Monday Sep 22, 2008
Mr. Harris, you clearly state the "Black and Whiteness" of the tremendously difficult issues that Israel and the world face. The fact that you can state the problem without even proposing a hint of grayness and by the way, "envy" the ideologues for having a position, minimizes in the least, the courage that is required in order to take a position. An expose of well known facts is useless. Unless all you want to accomplish is a self-serving expression of helplessness. We are all there, thank you very much.
Understanding the problem it's crucial, but does not fix it.
9 | Louise Stoll Burlington, Vermont, Monday Sep 22, 2008
As an American Jew I deplore our government's policies of the past 8 years which heightened our reliance on oil, led us into a reckless war with Iraq, and destroyed our economic standing and politica/moral leadership in the world ---all of which have created a far more dangerous world for Israel. As Americans the best thing we can do now for Israel is to elect Barak Obama President, ensure a Democratic House and Senate, and regain the moral and political leadership we once had. We are Israel's staunchest and strongest ally but our current state of disarray doesn't help her one bit!
10 | Joan B Dickstein Philadelphia Chapter, Monday Sep 22, 2008
Thank you for helping us to understand the complexity of the issues of the U.S. as well as Israel. Such understanding must not discourage our individual responsibility to follow our conscience.
11 | martha cohen,, Monday Sep 22, 2008
I find it indicative of the state of American Jewry that you should decide to post this today instead of dealing with the strong arming of Jewish orgs by threatening their tax exempt status if Sarah Palin spoke at the rally today when Hilary Clinton chose to not show up and no one else in the party chose to replace her. The NAACP blatantly supports candidates and they aren't worried about their status, why do we have to worry unless there is another agenda here - silencing any voices other than those who support the Obama campaign like J Street. This is facism not democracy - stand up!
12 | Tarek Ibrahim - MISR (Egypt), Monday Sep 22, 2008
MISR The Heart Of The World
The center of The Planet Earth
In The First Century (After the 20th )
On Monday 22 Elul 5768 22 September 2008 22 Ramadan 1429
(At 18:00 MISR Time )
Dear David Harris,
Your subject concerning dialogue include facts ,BUT importantly I would like to indicate to vital matter and ask a question : who is the strategic partner of ISRAEL at the region ? yes Israel have good relations across the world BUT when you have strategic partner who share with you at the same location the same interest and the common goals including establishing real PEACE ,partner who have ability if working by Real meaning of Together could lead to positive development across wide areas which could benefit the all sides at the end .in my strong believe that this strategic Partner by any calculation is MISR (Egypt) for many reasons .Best Regards.
13 | Ben, Los Angeles, Monday Sep 22, 2008
David, your humility in approaching these issues is, sincerely, admirable, but you set up a straw man on some of these. Those advocating for bombing Iran, like Norman Podhoretz, do so in great trepidation. The "Bombs away" quote is really misleading. Podhoretz and other responsible advocates of military action are acutely aware of the risks of their course of action. To suggest otherwise risk putting you as an ideologue yourself--dedicated to the "middle ground" no matter what. That too is a form of dogmatism. I trust you will not fall into it.
14 | Matt, Issaquah, WA, Monday Sep 22, 2008
What would it take to convince you that negotiation won't work? Or what has to happen before you'll implement plan B (war)?
Apparently, many Jews of today haven't learned the lesson of pre-World War II. You can't sit around waiting until the bombs start dropping on you before you act. At that point it's too late.
What would it take to convince you that negotiations won't work? Nothing. There is nothing that anyone can say or do to convince you that negotiations won't work. Iran will have to start launching nuclear missiles at Israel before you react.
15 | Joe Richards Manhattan, Monday Sep 22, 2008
It used to be that people were described as having opinions or strong opinions.
Today, we are not even allowed to have strong opinions, because then we are characterized - demonized - as ideologues. And that leaves only the grey area people in the middle.
Harris' structure is useful as a tool, but not as a straight jacket. It sounds as if Harris is tired, so he should take a break, since he is among the best and we need him
Another problem with this piece is that it limits our thinking and discourages thinking out of the box about huge power of the media and public opinion, etc. .
16 | Caststeel Pasadena, CA, Monday Sep 22, 2008
Leadership is NOT listening to fools. Leadership is action rather than dithering while opponents move. History demonstrates that action from strength, surprise or simply superior planning succeeds. Negating ones own strength fails. Yes, if weak, adopt the subversive. Hide and attack then hide again. Attempt to win from lying, posturing, political methods.
Your past positions have been moral, courageous ones. If you abrogate these, so be it. Another leader will be found.
17 | robert samuels, Israel, Monday Sep 22, 2008
The "mother of all probrems" is not the Palestianian issue - but fundamentalist Islam. It is fast becoming the formidable enemy to constitutional democracy and may be harder to defeat in the 21st century than fascism and communism were in the 20th. All of Harris' 5 problems stem from this. The leaders of the West must come up with a new strategy that will lead to the empowering of Muslims who desire a decent life for their masses and who will overcome their jihadists and ayatoulas.
My 600 words are up - if anyone is interested in my plan, write me at rabbisamuels@hotmail.com.
18 | Marvin Kaphan, Los Angeles, Monday Sep 22, 2008
If every Jew in this country would subscribe to David Harris' view of the world, we could again become a unified force in the United States. At the same time this thinking can lead to more effective solutions. A basic principle in solving problems is that if one can only see two solutions, he is creating a dilemma, a two-horned animal. The solution is almost always to go between the horns.
The divisive forces are extremely damaging to Israel and the United States. Please sdistribute the Harris letter to everyone you know.
19 | Dick Annapolis MD, Monday Sep 22, 2008
After reading the letter I have only to say that our country (USA) and the AJC need to find another Peter Bergson, he understood the problem and did something about it. Will we never learn?
20 | Marty Haber, New York, Monday Sep 22, 2008
You have posed the questions -but how about some anwers? If YOU were in the driver's seat, which way would you go? Would you fight or talk? Or both? Or neither? Would you react or take the initiative? Pleasr tell us where you stand.
21 | Joseph Braunstein Pgh. Pa., Monday Sep 22, 2008
David Harris makes his points about this problem and I am in agreement with his thoughts. The complexities are many and the realities are hard to swallow. There is not and can not be one solution to this problem and I want to be clear about that. For all of the hawks in this argument I can only sau that if you are for another war you should be willing to go to Israel now and wait for a war to start. Use your own bodies and spill your own blood and show us just how strongly you stand by your beliefs. To those who want a peaceful solution, just continue to work hard for that peace. Shana Tova.
22 | MYRON KATZ, SPRINGFIELD, N.J., Monday Sep 22, 2008
JEWISH PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD, HELD THEIR HEADS HIGH WHEN ISRAEL BECAME A STATE IN 1948. ONLY OUR HEAVENLY FATHER CAN HELP WITH ITS PROBLEMS 60 YEARS LATER! AND AGAIN ELEVATE OUR HEADS. NOT ONLY FOR ISRAEL, BUT THE U.S.A. & WORLD!
23 | Laurence Winer, Oak Park, MI, Monday Sep 22, 2008
I agree with your words, but it seems to me that ideological comments permeate the media, comment, and may I add, the AJC as well. Be it in the states or Israel, the public and leaders have long ago resorted to cavalier statements about the next step, how the other side is wrong, and how disasterous things will be if we... It's rather humerous that many of the responses listed here are ideological. The problem and solution are the same, unless we educate ourselves about the issues and their realtiies, ideology will rule.