Hostage Taking at Home - Discussion

Since posting my my commentary "Hostage Taking at Home and Expansionism," I have had four exchanges - one relating to hostage-taking at home and three relating to expansionism abroad. I will post them in four separate posts.

The first response came in the form of a query from Bruce Weintraub, who wrote:

"Since you mentioned you're a Holocaust survivor, may I ask if you had the misfortune of being in a concentration camp? Or were you in hiding like Anne Frank? Your personal history may be the most interesting thing of all. A few years ago, I visited a concentration camp in Oranienburg, about an hour away from Berlin. Made me feel so sad."

I responded:

Thank you for your interest.

The answer to your question can be found in my biography.

"Emil Scheller is a retired lawyer. He was born in Vienna, Austria and came to the US in 1939 at the age of nine. He is a holocaust survivor, his father having been incarcerated first in Dachau and then in Buchenwald for about a year. His father survived and fled to Italy with his wife, Mr. Scheller's mother. After receiving American visas there they were able to join Mr. Scheller in the US in 1940.

Mr. Scheller holds a B.A. degree in in government and political science from CCNY and a Doctor of Juris in Law from Columbia University. Since retiring in 1990 he has spent much of his time studying American history."

I would think that there are very few people still alive who spent time in Nazi concentration camps. Leo Wells, a  recent neighbor of mine was one of those, but he died recently.

Upon his passing I wrote a letter to my local newspaper which you can read here.

Hostage Taking at Home and Expansionism Abroad

I am back!

I have watched with dismay the developments in the US and abroad and find it increasingly difficult to remain silent.

Since I last expressed my views in my blog on August 19, 2010 in a post entitled “Bigotry” things have gone from bad to worse.

A minority has gained control of the House of Representatives, and even though they don’t control the Senate or the Presidency, they feel that the are entitled to impose their will on the American people. How do they hope to do that? By taking United States of America hostage. What do I mean by this? I mean that they are saying that unless their radical agenda is adopted which would among other things abolish Medicare for the elderly, and Medicaid for the poor, among many other things too long to enumerate, they will force the American government into default, unable to pay its debts.

Now the law providing for the debt ceiling has been on the books since 1917. Never in all that time has Congress refused to increase the ceiling because to do so would mean that the “Full Faith and Credit” of the US, which the world and American Citizens have come to depend on, would no longer be valid.

It would have no effect on spending or taxing or borrowing. It would simply prevent the US from paying its already incurred debts, debts that it owes. Such a default by the US government would have a cascading effect, undermining not only American credit worthiness, but because the US is such a huge economic power, would send the whole world into the worst economic crash in history, most likely dwarfing the ’29 depression. Incredibly, that ceiling was reached on May 16, yet our media is paying hardly any attention to this event. This appears to be because the Treasury has said that by juggling its accounts, it can postpone doomsday until August 2. Nevertheless, this development should not be taken lightly. The idea that a minority can force changes in policy through such hostage taking is, or at least should be, abhorrent. Why are they not being denounced from every editorial page, from every pulpit from every voice? Apparently, because the American people are for compromise. But negotiations under duress; under the threat of destroying our country should bring the strongest condemnation from every quarter. The silence is deafening. If they truly believe that their agenda represents the will of the American people, let them wait until 2012 and if they gain a mandate, i.e. win the Presidency along with both houses of Congress they can work their will. Blackmail is not an acceptable political weapon.

Now I turn to Israel. Here again I am shocked though I shouldn’t be. Ever since the 1967 war, there has been one given. Israel will trade land for peace. There will be a two state solution. A Palestinian State in the West Bank and in Gaza and a Jewish State in the rest of Palestine with the 1967 borders forming the basis for negotiations. Recognizing “facts on the ground” these borders would be adjusted so as to allow the major Israeli settlement blocks to remain and giving other land as compensation to the Palestinians.

On May 19 President Obama referred to this in his speech. I would not have thought that this would be controversial, yet it has caused an outcry from Natanyahu, from Republicans, and from the Israeli lobby.

I have long had great trepidation that what the Natanyahu government seeks is substantially all of the West Bank. Of course he realizes that to do so now, or even to declare it, would cause a world-wide outcry, but what are we to make of this denunciation of what has been a given. Why is it essential to keep expanding settlements? To change the facts on the ground, gradually taking more and more of the West Bank and forcing Palestinians into a smaller and smaller (non arable?) area?

I was in Israel recently (as a holocaust survivor, I, as much if not more than others, want an Israel as a last area of refuge if the need should again arise, but I want an Israel I can be proud of as one that respects the rights of others) and our guide kept emphasizing that Israel was very small about the size of New Jersey. It has an area of 7,992 sq. miles and that is indeed small. But our guide failed to mention that the Palestinian territory consists of only 2,800 sq. miles, and is constantly being nibbled away. Why is it necessary to keep encroaching on these lands that remain to the Palestinians. Israel has a population of 7,746,000 while the Palestinian territories had a population of over 4 million as of 2009 and rapidly increasing. Thus the Palestinian territories already have a greater population density than Israel. Why is it appropriate to deny them the right to keep the small area they have? What is shocking about to the idea that Israel should not expand its territories further at the expense of the Palestinians?

The Palestinian Diaspora contains (as of 2005) was over ten million people. It is undoubtedly much more today. Any thought of their returning to Israel cannot be contemplated, since this would end the Jewish character of the State of Israel. But these people (and they are people, human beings) not as the member of the CUNY Board who objected to Kushner’s honorary degree, Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, said, “Palestinians aren’t human.”

When Rabin tried to make peace he was assassinated. And Netanyahu came to power. When Ehud Olmert almost achieved peace with Abbas agreeing to give up the Right of Return, (as revealed by Wikileaks) Natanyahu succeeded him and ended the talks.

Talks are meaningless when “the facts on the ground keep changing.” Every American President has called upon Israel to stop settlement expansion. Expansion is not the way to peace. It is the obstacle.

When Arafat died we heard that Israel couldn’t negotiate because Abbas was too weak. Then we heard there is no point to negotiating because the Palestinian leadership is split. Now that the Palestinian leadership is united, they can’t negotiate because they are united. They argue that Hamas will not recognize Israel’s right to exist. Has Israel recognized the right of a Palestinian state to exist? This must be the end of negotiations – not the beginning.

In the meantime Israel is doing all it can to reduce the population of the West Bank of Palestinians. Palestinians leaving temporarily are not allowed to return and those living in the Palestinian Diaspora are not only not allowed to return to Israel, (which is necessary) but are not even allowed to return to the Palestinian territories, which is not.

The occupation of the Palestinian territories, which is now in its 44th year, is one of the longest in recent history. The American occupation of Japan lasted 57 years and required no territorial concessions. It is time for Israel to do the same. As the most powerful nation in the Middle East by far, fear for its security from the Palestinians rings hollow.