Jewish leaders in row over Israeli fence...

[Violet_Crumble]

A row has erupted between Jewish leaders in the United States over the 7.6-metre high security fence Israel is building around Palestinian areas in the West Bank.

The row, which has drawn in prominent politicians from the US and Israel, was triggered by a letter sent to President George Bush by Edgar Bronfman, the billionaire scion of the Seagram's drinks fortune and president of the World Jewish Congress.

Co-signed by Lawrence Eagleburger, secretary of state under president George Bush snr, the letter criticised the fence as a "separation wall", and said that the continuing construction was "complicated and potentially problematic".

They also urged Mr Bush to put pressure on Israel and apply "the same straightforwardness" with the Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, as he had shown with the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/10/1060454082463.html

This comment from the senior vice-president of the World Jewish Congress demanding that Bronfman must defend the government of Israel no matter what it does caught my attention.

'It would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the Government of Israel.'

Violet...

[Darranar]

1. Finally!

It seems like some people are finally as outraged as they should be.

[Tinoire]

2. So glad you posted this!

He ((Isi Liebler))wrote: "It would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the Government of Israel. But on a security issue such as the security fence, one that impacts on the life and death of Israelis, your intervention . . . can only be described as an act of perfidy which will not be swept under the carpet."
(quote from your article

Where the hell is this guy, Isi Liebler, getting off?

So I dug a little more and found this:

Bronfman and Eagleburger’s unprecedented letter has ignited a firestorm among Jewish leaders. World Jewish Congress senior vice president Isi Leibler called on Bronfman to resign over the letter - another unprecedented act.

"By this, you have initiated an outrageous act that stands in defiance of the broad consensus of the World Jewish Congress constituency, unbefitting to the President of that organization. Without a doubt that broad consensus seeks to maximize its support of the policies determined by the democratically elected government of Israel during these difficult times.”

Liebler added: “You have in the past expressed other odd ideas about Israel, but your most recent foray is much more serious and has crossed every red line… your intervention - irrespective as to whether you formally used your presidential title or not - can only be described as an act of perfidy which will not swept under the carpet.” ((Liebler really has a thing about carpets!))

<snip>
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030806195833742
---

(Excerpt)
Bronfman told The Jewish Week that he “deliberately” refrained from writing the letter on WJC stationary in order to make clear these were his private views.

“My purpose was simple,” Bronfman said. “Sharon was meeting the president and I wanted to make sure the president knew that the Jewish community is divided and is not all right-wing idiots.”
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=8300

((THANK YOU MR. BRONFMAN!))
--------------

(Excerpt)

Bronfman, who is spending the summer vacation on his Idaho ranch, said Israel and the Jewish community cannot afford a fight with the White House now. Bronfman is known as one of the harshest critics of the pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations that are "dominated by the right wing."

Labor Party Chairman Shimon Peres and Justice Minister Yosef Lapid were among the many Jewish leaders and Israeli public figures who wrote Bronfman letters of support following the report of his letter to Bush.

WJC chairman Israel Singer yesterday slammed right-wing Jewish leaders, saying they are doing everything to destroy the political pluralism in the community and boycotting anyone whose opinion is different from theirs. He said public opinion polls indicate that some 80 percent of the Jews support the road map and the peace process and just as right-wing officials can express their opinions, so can the left-wing camp.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=326444&contrass
ID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
http://www.rense.com/general39/jleaders.htm

[Wonder]

3. An open letter to Edgar Bronfman

I'd already placed this link in a post that I was lock as a dupe. It is definitely relevant to the lead post.


Leibler is not all to happy with Edgar Bronfman's letter to Bush regarding his criticism's of Israeli Security Policies (specifically the fence)...

snip

You criticize Israel's security fence, describing it in the language of those opposed to the Israeli position, as a "separation wall" and assert that it is "complicated and potentially problematic". Furthermore you urge the President to exert pressure on Israel and apply "the same straightforwardness in his meeting with Prime Minister Sharon" as he had with the Palestinian Prime Minister.

By this, you have initiated an outrageous act that stands in defiance of the broad consensus of the World Jewish Congress constituency, unbefitting to the President of that organization. Without a doubt that broad consensus seeks to maximize its support of the policies determined by the democratically elected government of Israel during these difficult times.

You have in the past expressed other odd ideas about Israel but your most recent foray is much more serious and has crossed every red line. It would be obscene at any time for the President of the World Jewish Congress who is resident in New York to lobby the President of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel. But on a security issue such as the security fence, which impacts on the life and death of Israelis, your intervention - irrespective as to whether you formally used your presidential title or not - can only be described as an act of perfidy which will not be swept under the carpet.

more...
http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ViewsPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El2597&enZone=Views&enVersion=0&

I still have had no luck locating Bronfman's ltr to bush.

[tinnypriv]

4. These guys

Are literally like the Communists used to be towards the Soviet Union. :crazy:

[Wonder]

5. You have mentioned this parallel before

which I find interesting because I am under the impression much of the early Jewish immigration to Palestine (as well as those that made up the zionist project) were primarily eastern european...

I was wondering if you could expound a bit on this parallel --- In your opinion, how so and which guys are you referring to?

[Darranar]

6. Early immigration?

I believe that that was mostly Western European. The Eastern Europeans didn't immigrate to Israel in large numbers until after WWII.

[Wonder]

7. I thought there was also significant immigration

from russia as well. I was interested in this paralel tinnypriv has drawn and interested for him to expound upon it. It is not the first time he as made the comparison.

[StandWatie]

9. I think I made it..

and I was thinking specifically of the concept of "critical support" as it existed in international socialist circles.

[Darranar]

10. Wonder is talking about post #4 here...

which was posted by tinnypriv. I think you've made a similar comment in the past, though.

[Wonder]

12. can you expound on this a bit

I have heard it either you or tinnypriv... I know stalin was very supportive the state I believe premandate... but I don't know enough history regarding the communist parallels ... even if you suggest a link or two... I am thinking that this would harken back to eastern european immigration pre partition... but the gap is to large to even question it properly... I am of the impression that Jewish resistance dates back to the Warsar uprising... (althought it may date back farther)... You know I am not even sure what it is I want to know... but the communist connection (and/or russian) is a gap... which I guess would also go back as far as 1917 in and around... If any of this makes sense... just direct me to some reading if you don't have the time to expound yourself... that is okay too. Thanks.

[Darranar]

13. Well...

Czechoslovakia sold weapons to Israel in 1948, and the Soviet Union helped a lot as well, boosting the Israeli Communist Party. Both the US and the Soviet Union were supportive of Israel in the beginning.

What do you mean by "Jewish Resistance?"

[Wonder]

14. Jewish Resistance to Persecution

I am under the impression the organization of this dates back to the warsaw uprising... It might have dated back farther... but I do not mean in terms of political zionism I mean in terms of organized militancy.

[Darranar]

15. Modern Jewish resistance...

before the Holocaust I no next to nothing about, but I'm pretty sure that there was some in resistance to, say, the pogroms in Russia.

Ancient Jewish resistance is another story. There were several rebellions against the Romans, one of which resulted in the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. There was also a rebellion against the Greeks in 132 or something BCE-a story that inspired the Jewish holiday of Channukah.

[Wonder]

18. I did a search on this a month or so ago...

Let me see If I can find you some stuff... I might still have it bookmarked...

I wondered about ancient resistance. this is after the kindgoms of david and solomon isn't it?

[Darranar]

19. Yes, this was all after...

the kingdoms of David and Solomon.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Early immigration...

I think there were a large number of Eastern Europeans immigrating to Palestine in the early 1920's. There was about 100,000 immigrants during the 1920's and most of them did come from Eastern Europe...

Violet...

[tinnypriv]

16. I'm not talking about early Palestine in this regard

Sorry for the confusion. You're mostly right about the east Europeans BTW.

The comparison I'm making is that most self-labeled "Pro-Israel" people actually have a comparable stand to what Communists had towards the Soviet Union. The basic tenet is that the Holy State can do no wrong. I consider that very irrational and quite authoritarian (although fairly widespread).

For example, a lot of the Marxist-Leninist left fought against racism in the US south, but had zip to say about the hell-hole of the USSR. In the same regard, "Pro-Israel" folks whine about terrorism but have zip to say about the fact Israel is currently led by a murderous terrorist.

You can still see the same sort of thing today, on the flip side. You've got guys in ANSWER opposing the war in Iraq, yet several prominent members of that group have nothing to say on the dictatorship of North Korea. For them, the fact the U.S. is calling a spade a spade is what is appalling, not the conditions the North Koreans live under.

To name names, Dershowitz is probably the most notorious "left" guy who is supposed to be a civil libertarian. He is a total joke though. Martin Peretz is another. On the other side, the Socialist Workers Party compares with them on moral values quite well.

[Darranar]

17. Wonder is right about the East Europeans?

I'm curious. I always thought it was the West/Central Europeans who were the early supporters of the Zionist movement, though I knew that quite a few came from Poland and the like. Do you have a link showing the amount of immigrants from each country?

On edit: Now that I think about it, I think you're right. I still want the link, though.

[tinnypriv]

20. Try searching for Aliyah

Very substantial numbers of immigrants during the First and Third Aliyah's were East Europeans. If I recall correctly they were a plurality in the 2nd and 4th and a majority in the 5th (those figures are off the top of my head, so they might be wrong).

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Immigration/immigtoc.html is one source on this.

I said that Wonder was "mostly right" on this, not "right". You have to have a certain element of nuance when you're talking about whether one group was the absolute majority of immigrants or not. With quite a high return rate in some Aliyah's all studies on this topic lack an absolute precision with regards to the figures. I prefer the label "very substantial" when talking about East European immigration to the Yishuv. It's just a personal preference.

[Darranar]

21. Thanks, Tinnypriv...

I guess the fact that this information comes from us-israel.org proves bemildred's statement a while ago that even extremists/republicans/conservatives/whatever are right twice a day. :7

[Wonder]

23. interesting

I would hardly consider dershowitz on the left.

I believe I understand your parallel to a degree. I guess it is common when moral imperatives are involved. I find the carte blanch regarding Sharon and terrorism ironic as well.

[tinnypriv]

24. Neither would I

But he is considered "left" in mainstream circles. I always include the quote marks when talking about him, for obvious reasons :)

[JesseLman]

26. A couple of points.

"Whine about terrorism"? I'm assuming that's just a poor choice of words on your part, and not a serious suggestion that expressing outrage at the bombing of buses, markets, and such should be considered 'whining'. I'll giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Your point about the one-sidedness of the pro-Israel lobby seems like an over-generalization, but I'll be the first to admit that there are definately some on the pro-Israel side who do discredit to the movement by refusing to criticize even obviously wrongheaded decisions by the Israelis.

By the same token, though, there are some on the pro-Palestinian side who are convinced that the Palestinians can 'do no wrong'. It seems like it may just be an inherent quality found among certain segments of any advocacy group, rather than something specific to the pro-Israel crowd.

As to the actual topic... I'm of a split mind. On the one hand, I dislike the idea of the security wall, as it serves to exascerbate tensions between the two sides, and seems to me like a heavy-handed solution to a problem that requires a feather touch.

At the same time... it's telling that the two most recent suicide bombings both attacked an area not protected by the security fence. You can see why the fence enjoys popular support among Israelis... arguments about it's morality aside, it WORKS.

Think of it this way. Suppose Israel finishes the wall. If terrorists from groups like Hamas and Al-Aqsa can't get into Israel because of the wall, that negates the need for a heavy IDF presence in the Palestinian-controlled areas beyond the wall. This would allow for an IDF pullback, one of the key Palestinian demands, and would serve to greatly reduce the number of conflicts between the IDF and Palestinian militants (not to mention civilians), as the IDF would no longer be stuck stationed right smack in the middle of major Palestinain population centers.

I have some reservations about it, but I think it's potential for good outweighs the costs.

[tinnypriv]

27. Response

<< "Whine about terrorism"? I'm assuming that's just a poor choice of words on your part, and not a serious suggestion that expressing outrage at the bombing of buses, markets, and such should be considered 'whining'. I'll giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one. >>

I partly accept the correction. The sentence should read "whine about Palestinian terrorism", or "whine about 'terrorism'". This is for the obvious reason that these specific people I'm talking about don't care about terrorism per se. They care about Palestinian terrorism - a crucial distinction. That alone invalidates anything they have to say on the matter. 'Whining' is therefore a reasonable label (although there are many others that I could have picked).

<< Your point about the one-sidedness of the pro-Israel lobby seems like an over-generalization, but I'll be the first to admit that there are definately some on the pro-Israel side who do discredit to the movement by refusing to criticize even obviously wrongheaded decisions by the Israelis. >>

There is no over-generalization. I said "most" (not all), "self-labeled" Pro-Israel people have a "comparable" stand to what Communists had vis a vis the Soviet Union. Obviously this is supposition and argument, not a factual point, but I certainly did not use a broad brush stroke, and was careful not to do so.

<< By the same token, though, there are some on the pro-Palestinian side who are convinced that the Palestinians can 'do no wrong'. It seems like it may just be an inherent quality found among certain segments of any advocacy group, rather than something specific to the pro-Israel crowd. >>

Yes, I follow your point. It doesn't apply to my post, but it seems reasonably accurate nevertheless. There is however a difference - I talked about a concept of a "Holy State" - the Palestinians have no state, therefore the argument I was making would not apply to them or their advocacy groups/supporters. The underlying principle perhaps would, but that is another topic.

<< As to the actual topic... I'm of a split mind. On the one hand, I dislike the idea of the security wall,>>

You're making the assumption that it is indeed a security wall, and also implicitly defining "security" in an intriguing way. Security for whom? The Palestinians?* If you believe it is a wall for Israeli's alone, use the label - "Israeli Security Wall". If you do that, bear in mind it would not be accurate - it is also a wall to provide "security" for Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Perhaps "Jewish Security Wall"? I can see some hasbara problems with that.

* Oh, and bear in mind that as the occupying power Israel has the responsibility to provide security for the occupied population.

<< as it serves to exascerbate tensions between the two sides, and seems to me like a heavy-handed solution to a problem that requires a feather touch. >>

I think solutions to the conflict will actually require quite wide-ranging changes. I doubt there is a way to feather touch around the hard issues. To pretend so is a mistake, IMO.

<< At the same time... it's telling that the two most recent suicide bombings both attacked an area not protected by the security fence. You can see why the fence enjoys popular support among Israelis... arguments about it's morality aside, it WORKS. >>

Well, if we're putting aside morality and defining security as security for the Jews only, ethnic cleasing would also work.

<< Think of it this way. Suppose Israel finishes the wall. If terrorists from groups like Hamas and Al-Aqsa can't get into Israel because of the wall, that negates the need for a heavy IDF presence in the Palestinian-controlled areas beyond the wall. >>

"Palestinian-controlled" is essentially a fiction. What control they have extends to collecting garbage and not much else. In the areas where they have supposed "security control" a more accurate label would be "Israeli-Qisling control of security". Again, security for whom? Not the Palestinians. Arafat's 50,000 odd force of thugs are brutal and corrupt. I'm sure the Pal population would choose that rather than the IDF rampaging through their cities, but hey that is like the difference between water torture and electric torture. The task of honest people interested in justice is to make a different choice possible.

<< This would allow for an IDF pullback, one of the key Palestinian demands, and would serve to greatly reduce the number of conflicts between the IDF and Palestinian militants (not to mention civilians), as the IDF would no longer be stuck stationed right smack in the middle of major Palestinain population centers.>>

See above.

<< I have some reservations about it, but I think it's potential for good outweighs the costs.>>

I disagree.

However, I do agree with some of the principles underlying your general argument. I suspect you would probably agree with me that a security barrier on the Green Line would be a reasonably good development? If so, I can see some shared ground where we could perhaps discuss the wall sensibly. If not, a productive interchange seems unlikely, IMO.

[Herschel]

8. Jews are not monolithic

Of course some speak to undermine Israel in the misguided notion it is a way to peace.

[Darranar]

11. Do you consider...

criticizing the wall undermining Israel?

[Herschel]

25. Criticizing of the wall

May be well intentioned, yet is misguided and hurtful to Israel.

[The Magistrate]

28. Criticizing This Wall, My Friend

Is helpful to the state of Israel. There is no doubt that the theory of it is sound and legitimate, but the apparent practice here is something else. The wall does not follow the de facto border of Israel, or vary from it only by some standard "clear zone" suitable to render infiltration even less practicable: it zigs and zags to include much ground Israel has no legal claim to, though setlements inhabited by Israelis are thus included in its ambit. It has the look about it of an effective annexation, whether that is the actual intent or not. Some who argue this is only a temporary measure, and will come down with peace, certainly do so in good faith, but the temporary has a way of settling in to permanance where the Jordan Valley boundary is concerned: the Green Line, after all, was only a temporary Armistice line at its establishment.

Mr. Bronfman's comments have performed a valuable service, it seems to me, by showing there is no particular unanimity in the matter among Jews throughout the world, and further by recommending a sound policy for the United States government to follow in this matter. Pressure will have to be applied to both sides if a peace of compromise is to be achieved: such a peace is the only sort which can possibly last.

There is a quote attributed to Stephen Decatur, generally truncated so that its full meaning is obscured: "My Country, right or wrong: when right to be kept right, when wrong, to be put right." That is the spirit of the true patriot, and the true friend.

[Darranar]

29. Completely agreed...

Though the security concerns that led to the wall are legitimate, its placement is not and lacks respect for humanitarian concerns.

It is indeed great top hear from Jewish leaders who do not follow AIPAC's stances to the letter. As you pointed out, a contrast of viewpoints among Jewish leaders bette rrepresents the contrat among ordinary Jews today-the extremists against a Palestinian state, and the moderates who advocate a two-state solution.

[Herschel]

30. Placing the wall at the Green Line

Would be Israel making a concession as a result of terrorism. The borders will be a matter of negotiation and the wall improves her position.

[Darranar]

31. Israel occupies all of the West Bank...

some of that must be given away for a Palestinian state. I say all of it must, you disagree if I remember correctly. Regardless, however, since the border currently is not clear, any peace negotiation may have given the Palestinians land that is now or soon will be surrounded by the wall. Building the wall on the Green Line would show that Israel would be willing to defend its right to exist compeltely in everything behind the wall, but is willing to negotiate for things in front of the wall-which is what they should do, regardless of how much they should give away. The current path of the wall takes land directly from the Palestinians and indicates that anything behind it is certainly going to be in the sate of Israel, something that has not been decided by anyone aside from perhaps Sharon and his aides.