Expansionism Abroad - Discussion IV

Ivan Garret of Fort Lee, NJ sent me two items without comment, one entitled "A Letter to the Editor of Edinburgh U" which you can access by clicking here and another to which I gave the title "Sophistry and Hate Mongering" which you can access by clicking here, prompting me to respond as follows:

Dear Ivan,

I have been reluctant to respond to your two e-mails because I make it a policy not to respond to articles forwarded to me without the sender's view with regard to the article. I do not consider it appropriate to ask me to spend time commenting on an article when the sender will not take the time to express his own view. I will make an exception in this case, but will not do so in the future.

The articles are quite different from each other. The Edinburgh U. letter is right on the mark. It makes it clear that it is not complaining about, "ordinary criticism of Israel" but rather "a hatred that permits itself no boundaries". There is no doubt that some of the attacks on Israel have their foundation in the virulence of anti-Semitism, and the letter points out that the 270 students who sponsored this attempted boycott chose Israel for its opprobrium when there are so many other states which aught to stand far in front of Israel for condemnation of its policies. Why Israel is a reasonable question and one cannot escape the suspicion that anti-Semitism lies at its root.

However, as the author states, fair criticism is another matter and Americans who with their taxes give more support to Israel than to any other country have more than enough right to such fair criticism and even to demand as a condition of such support that policies inimical to the interests of the US and even to the interests of Israel itself must be changed. In the long history of this relationship President Eisenhower called for sanctions in the UN when Israel along with England and France threatened to seize the Suez Canal.

Just as Americans have not only a right but a duty to criticize policies of the US that are immoral or simply ill advised, so Jews, with their special relationship to Israel have that same duty and right.

For Israel and its lobbies to claim that all criticism is founded in Anti-Semitism is ill advised, unsupported and an outrage. No, Israel is not an apartheid state, but if the policies of the settler movement and of Netanyahu are carried out it will become one, and while there is no discrimination against Arabs or Muslims in Israel proper, its unending occupation of Palestinians in their territories, who do not have the rights of Israelis, gives some credence to this charge.

Now, the diatribe attributed to Dennis Miller is another story. It actually was written by Larry Miller as long ago in 2002, and circulating on the Internet ever since. To say there are no Palestinians is to deny their humanity. Clearly it does not matter whether we call them Palestinians or by some other name. They are people who lived in Palestine for generations, and even centuries, long before the state of Israel was founded. The author says: "Before the Israelis won the land in the1967 war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, the West Bank was owned By Jordan, and there were no Palestinians." By that reasoning there were no Jews during the diaspora. The fact is, and facts can be unpleasant, that a Palestinian territory existed long before the area was occupied by the various states that occupied it. In 1922 the then League of Nations created The British Mandate for Palestine. this was only a few years after the British issued the The Balfour Declaration in 1917 which became the foundation for creating a modern Jewish homeland in, yes that's right, in Palestine.

But it doesn't matter what we call them. There are people living in the West Bank and they are not going to disappear. They will either be allowed to have their own country large enough and contiguous so as to be politically and economically viable, which means the '67 lines with modifications or be ejected, which amounts to ethnic cleansing, or will be incorporated into Israel without the right to vote, (an apartheid state) or they will be allowed to vote which would end the Jewish state.

Those are the choices!!! No amount of sophistry can change that.

As for terrorism, I don't think we should be too quick to condemn all terrorists. I was recently in Jerusalem and a sign on my hotel reminded me of what the Irgun, from which Likud sprang, did.

Whether such notice was given is in dispute.

The rest of that letter is simple pure hate mongering, and I will not dignify it by even responding.

Allen Schechtman, who had forwarded the Letter to the Editor of Edinburgh U and who I copied with my remarks, rejoined as follows:

I did not see the choice of a two state solution. Although Jordan usurped much of the Palestinian land and they keep tight control on them since they make up the vast majority of the population, (and slaughtered thousands of them) there still exists the hope and possibility of a two state solution. This assumes that the Palestinian state not be used as Gaza has been which is to destroy the infrastructure and industry left behind and turned into an armory and missile launching site. The mideast was carved up by Europe into a dozen countries. People were shifted, evicted renamed tribes were ignored etc. Yet one questions the legitimacy of those states. Only the tiny piece of land set aside for Jews where they had a continuous presence for 3000 years including during the diaspora was denied acceptance.

I replied:

Indeed that is what I have been talking about and urging all along. When I spoke about ethnic cleansing etc. I meant those were the only possible alternatives to a two state solution. See my extensive posts on my blog beginning with "Hostage Taking at Home and Expansionism Abroad" and the three posts following "Expansionism Abroad - Discussion" "Expansionism Abroad - Discussion II" and "Expansionism Abroad - Discussion III," all of which directly or indirectly seek a two state solution, but which express my fear that the Netanyahu government is not interested in a two state solution, or at least not one that would give the Palestinians a viable economic entity. The desire under all sorts of smoke screens, appears to be to expand settlements indefinitely and to shrink any possible future Palestinians state into a tiny canton which would not be viable either economically or politically. The Israeli settler movement appears to have gained ascendency and is now the primary force propelling Netanyahu policy.

And it is not true that the piece of land set aside for Jews was denied acceptance. It was created by UN mandate and is recognized by most countries of the world, including Egypt and Jordan. One does not have to be anti-Israel to have the humanity to be concerned about the Palestinians, not only in Palestine, but in their diaspora.

What I am urging is what has been US policy for decades and what has recently been reiterated by our President. This is the only way to a two
state solution.

I question your comments on Gaza but that would take too long to fully address.

Expansionism Abroad - Discussion III

Eddie Bernstein Esq. of Boynton Beach, Florida asked the rhetorical question:

How can Israel negotiate with people who are sworn to destroy Israel and not recognize it?

I responded:

You are simply repeating one of the endless evasions that the Israeli government uses because it believes that there is nothing to be gained from peace. Terrorism has ended, the occasional rockets from Gaza are only a nuisance, and are certainly not an existential threat, so who cares if there is a formal peace. Now the dream of many, to occupy all of Palestine seems within reach. Of course it means what has always been considered to be unacceptable results, i.e. either ethnically cleanse the Arabs from all of Palestine, or make them non citizens within the Jewish state, or force them into small enclaves where they would lead an even more miserable existence than they now have, and which would, essentially be Apartheid, or a combination of these. But that appears now to be acceptable. Rabin must be whirling in his grave, and even David Ben-Gurion must be muttering in his. Certainly Theodor Herzl  never thought that his dream might lead to such a travesty.

You say, 'How can Israel negotiate with people who do not recognize it?' This is reminiscent of the days when we were faced with a USSR and the question was then, 'how can we negotiate with a country bent on world domination.' Thank God we did!!!!

How can Israel negotiate with people who do not recognize it. That in itself is misleading, for the Palestinian Authority has recognized Israel and so you lump all Palestinians with Hamas. And it will be months yet before the two merge, a time when negotiations could yet be concluded.

And as to Hamas it would be more appropriate to ask how can they negotiate with a country it does not recognize. The point is one can negotiate with anyone who is willing to negotiate with you.

Recognition is the end of negotiations - not the beginning. Has Israel recognized a Palestinian state. Shouldn't they be required to recognize it before negotiations can begin?

It is all of one. There is nothing to negotiate about if the Netanyahu government is intent on occupying all of the West Bank, which apparently is what they intend. There will never be a defensible border according to this bunch, except on the Jordan river, and as for the Palestinians, "they are not human anyway."

What it means to a Jew, above all, is to walk righteously before the Lord. Israel, which at one time appeared to be the "shining castle on the hill", is betraying the most fundamental tenets of what it means to be a Jew."

Allow me to add that it also is in Israel's security interests to achieve a peace now. With the Arab spring we have a whole new balance. Before Israel could count on Egypt and the other Arab states putting their relationship with Israel and with the US above their allegiance to the Palestinians. That is no longer true and if they feel that their brethren are being mistreated, new hostilities are a possibility. Egypt has already ceased cooperation with Israel on the blockade of Gaza. On the other hand if the Palestinians make peace with Israel that rage in the Arab world will be dissipated. Even Hezbollah in the South of Lebanon would have a hard time justifying new hostilities. This is the time for Israel to choose peace or endless war.

Is the messianic desire to occupy all the biblical land, i.e. Judea and Samaria really worth it.

If the Israeli government can't see these things than it is up to Americans in general and American Jews in particular to make it clear where its true interests lie.

With peace with the Palestinians, Israel might even be able to count on the Sunni Arabs to stand with it in its confrontation with Iran.

Eddie Bernstein gave further voice to his concerns when he wrote:

I understand what you are saying. What Obama said that he would modify 1967 borders with swaps and Netanyahu over-reacted. However, Hamas is sworn to Israel’s destruction and it is hard to negotiate with someone who wants you destroyed. Many Israeli’s would like a two state solution. However that is a no-no for most Palestinians and other Arabs. It is hard to negotiate with someone like that. I am being too simplistic ?

I replied:

Yes, I do think you are being to simplistic. There is no question that it is very hard for Palestinians to give up the right of return. They feel they have been made victims to make up for the Nazi atrocities in which they had no part. They dream of returning to their ancestral homelands. But they also have come to grips with reality. According to Wikileaks Abbas agreed to give up the Right of Return during the last round of negotiations, but did not want it to be known unless a final agreement was signed, but before that could happen the Israeli government fell and Netanyahu became P.M.

So close and yet so far. If Israel truly wanted peace they would stop expanding and building settlement, thus gobbling up more and more Palestinian territory and reducing the area where eventually all Palestinians from their diaspora will have to settle. They are now settled (if one can call it that) in refugee camps in various Arab countries, such as Lebanon, Syria, etc. where they are not wanted and are denied permanent residency and citizenship. Their situation is desperate. Where is humanity? Can't Israel let them return to an economically viable Palestine where after generations of inhuman suffering in those camps they can get citizenship and begin to build some sort of life.

Surely, if they can't come back to Israel they should be entitled to that.

Most important, stop the expansion and the building of settlements on the remaining Palestinian lands.

Leonard Levenson Esq. of Manhattan, NY added to the discussion with the comment:

The right wing in the US is obviously pandering to the "Jewish vote" in the US. Ironically, continued tensions between Israel and the Palestinians make for a much more dangerous Middle East and a more dangerous situation for Israel. A contiguous Palestinian State via unhampered underground travel between Gaza and the West Bank will remove some of the daily, abrasive fuel feeding the Arab Extremist cause. A prosperous Palestinian state may even encourage population shifts by the 1.8 million Israeli Arabs to a Palestinian state thereby satisfying the call for Israeli purity so often heard from a small percentage of Israelis and a larger number of American Jewish extremists. Bravo for Obama on this one.

Finally, I commend to the reader an article by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post entitled: Israel - Time for Netanyahu to ditch his do-nothing policy" as well as an article by by Hendrik Hertzberg writing in the New Yorker. 

As I have said time and time again, We should all support a Jewish homeland in Israel. But that does not mean supporting every policy of its government without questioning its soundness on both humanistic principles and true Israeli security, rather than  than allowing the hijacking of the Jewish homeland by a bunch of fanatics who are bent on annexing all, or most, of Samaria and Judea (The West Bank) without regard to Palestinian rights or welfare.

As for who one can negotiate with, one can never know who one can negotiate with until one has tried to do so in good faith. An exchange of recognition of Israel in exchange for recognition of a Palestinian state, along the borders both Bush and Obama, and every US President before them have advocated, should be the goal.

Those who deny the humanity and legitimate rights of the Palestinians, must be marginalized and rejected. That is being truly pro-Israel!!!

Expansionism Abroad - Discussion II

Ernest Hauser of the Bronx, NY raised the following question:

"did i hear obama use the word CONTIGUOUS when talking about gaza and the w.bank?"

I replied:

You are correct! The President said:

"The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state."

Ehud Barak proposed a tunnel connecting Gaza to the West Bank. See here, which is apparently what the President referred to. The distance between the two enclaves is 5 miles. When it is considered that the tunnel between Britain and France extends for 31 miles and is under water, a 5 mile tunnel under land is quite practicable. How many miles underground does our subway run? Barak further explained that "The preferred way to do it would be to dig a tunnel that would be under Israeli sovereignty, but under totally free and unobstructed use by Palestinians..."

Netanyahu has not expressed a position on this but we may assume he is opposed, as he is to all plans that would bring the occupation to an end.

Nevertheless, the Right Wing Blogosphere went into overdrive. Glenn Beck compared this to attempting to connect Alaska and Washington state, while his faithful sidekick Stu Burguiere compared it to connecting South Carolina and California. Beck concluded that "there's no way to do this, and the President knows it" and a search of Google simply using as key words, "Obama contiguous" brought forth: "Obama's 'Contiguous' Palestinian State Could 'Split Israel in Half" (CNS News) and "Is Obama saying he wants Israel cut in half" (Hyscience) as essentially the same is repeated over and over.

And Republicans join the chorus:

-Mitt Romney: Has the President “thrown Israel under the bus”

-Michele Bachmann: Has he “once again betrayed our friend and ally, Israel”

-Tim Pawlenty: Made a “mistaken and very dangerous demand”

-Newt Gingrich: “given the Palestinians a huge break”

Well, it turns out that here again all this outrage is manufactured.

Obama simply repeated what Bush had said, without controversy:

“I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous.” (emphasis added)

In fact, Ariel Sharon, the former Prime Minister of Israel endorsed this idea. An article printed on the website of the Jewish Federations of North America explains:

"According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference."

Since this exchange with Ernest Hauser I have researched this point further and found that it apparently was not intended to refer to creating contiguity between Gaza and the West Bank, but rather to the West Bank being contiguous and not to be broken up by Israeli settlements deep with its  territory. As was pointed out in an article in the Daily Beast, a liberal news web-site, "The settlement of Ariel, which Olmert hoped to swap for land inside Israel, juts like a bony finger 13 miles into the northern West Bank. According to the 2003 Geneva Initiative, keeping Maale Adumim, another large settlement for which Israel might swap land, requires a thin land bridge across a Palestinian state to Jerusalem." 

I particularly urge my readers to read this article in the Daily Beast which explains how Obama was trying to aid Israel by setting up a basis for blocking UN recognition of a Palestinian state.

I also would urge readers to read Thomas L. Friedman's column written as long ago as 2003 where he said:

"Palestinians find themselves isolated in pockets next to Jewish settlers — who have the rule of law, the right to vote, welfare, jobs, etc. — and as hope for a contiguous Palestinian state fades, it's inevitable that many of them will throw in the towel and ask for the right to vote in Israel.

Khalil Shikaki, a Palestinian pollster, has already found 25 to 30 percent of Palestinians now supporting this idea — a stunning figure, considering it's never been proposed by any Palestinian or Israeli party."

It is not president Obama who changed the terms for a settlement, it is Netanyahu, and Republicans who opportunistically produce knee-jerk reactions of criticism to anything and everything our President does.

Expansionism Abroad - Discussion

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

This is the second.

Robert Malchman Esq. of Brooklyn, NY wrote:

"The reason there was an outcry over Obama' s 1967 borders comment is that he phrased it really badly. He's now had to go to AIPAC to clarify what he meant.

I agree that what he meant is not and should not be controversial, but the way he initially said it made it sound like the pre-'67 borders were the "starting point," i.e., should be taken as the status quo from which Israel would have to negotiate concessions to keep certain parts of the occupied territories. I assume you don't believe Israel should hand back the Golan Heights, which would put a knife to northern Israel's throat in the hands of the mad dictator Assad? Or that East Jerusalem, which is now open to people of all faiths, should be returned to its pre-'67 status as closed off to Jews by an Arab government? The "starting point" is the current borders, from which the Arabs can negotiate concessions from Israel, such as by recognizing its right to exist and ceasing their support for terror attacks. That's what Obama should have said."

I responded:

I don't think the facts support your conclusion. In his first speech the President said: "1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps." Nothing could have been clearer. The problem arose, not from any lack of clarity on the part of the President, but from the deliberate mis-representations which followed. This prompted unnecessary further clarification before AIPAC.

Of course the '67 borders must be the starting point. Otherwise what is the starting point. The end-point envisioned is the swaps that would alter that border to allow the facts on the ground to be taken into account. Thus the '67 borders are the starting point and the negotiated deviations therefrom are the end point. That has always been envisioned, and the only reason that it caused an outcry is that Netanyahu is no longer satisfied with this, now wanting to annex the whole West Bank, or at least most of it. It is the dream of the settlers and the religious fanatic to make all of "Samaria' and "Judea' part of Greater Israel. That is outrageous, and Republican support for that position shows their total lack of respect for human rights. Such a position cannot bring peace and if successful would crowd Palestinians into even worse conditions than they live in now, and/or would disenfranchise them within a greater Israel or would create an apartheid state, or would result in ethnic cleansing. Certainly letting a Palestinians majority vote in Israel is not, nor should it be envisioned.

The Golan Heights were clearly not part of the paradigm, since we are talking about negotiations with the Palestinians and not the Syrians so that does not enter into the equation and no one other than you has suggested that this is relevant here. As for "East Jerusalem" that is again part of the negotiations. But a distinction must be drawn between that part of Jerusalem which has always been part of Jerusalem and the Arab outskirts which Netanyahu is trying to annex to Jerusalem by what is already ethnic cleansing and which in previous negotiations by Ehud Barak were in fact to be ceded to the new Arab state, to be used as its capital.

If the starting point is the current borders than what is being negotiated is how much more than what has already been occupied should be ceded by the Arabs, rather than what has always been envisioned, i.e. that for Israel to keep most of its current settlement blocks, it must cede an equal amount of territory, to be agreed upon. Even the "clarification rejected this when Obama repeated, "1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" and added, "By definition, it means that the parties themselves - Israelis and Palestinians - will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967."

As for Jerusalem, I was amused when Israel was asked to stop expanding its settlements around Jerusalem, Netanyahu declared "Jerusalem is not a settlement, it is our capital." Of course Jerusalem is not a settlement and that that was not the point. The issue was the growing settlements in Arab territory adjoining Jerusalem, and the Arab eviction from such territory. But it should be noted that even the question of Jerusalem being Israel's capital has not been recognized by a single country in the world. Not a single country including the US has its embassy in Jerusalem.

If you feel that Israel should take even more territory form the Palestinians than it already has, than we simply disagree!!!

Allow me to add that there has a great deal of misunderstanding regarding East Jerusalem because of very poor press reporting.

The term East Jerusalem is misleading and may be used to refer to either of the following:

-From 1948 to 1967 it referred to the 6.4 km (2.5 sq. mi) Jordanian part of the city, just as “West Jerusalem” referred to the Israeli part of the city.

-In June 1967, after the war, Israel de facto annexed some 70 km (27 sq. mi) including not only Jordanian Jerusalem but also 64 km (25 sq. mi) from the West Bank, including territory which previously belonged to 28 villages and also to municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala and included them in the expanded municipal boundary of West Jerusalem, making it the largest city in the Israel.

The term “East Jerusalem” may be applied to the area of the expanded Jerusalem that was captured by Israel in 1967, which lies north, east and south of the former East Jerusalem.

I am against Israel giving up any part of Jerusalem proper including that part of "East Jerusalem" which had been occupied by Jordan before the '67 war.
But the 25 sq. miles which were never part of Jerusalem and were taken from the West Bank and which previously belonged to 28 villages and also to municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala were never part of historic Jerusalem, are occupied mostly by Arabs except for those who have been expelled, and should be ceded to a Palestinian state to form its capital under the pseudo name of Jerusalem or East Jerusalem. I haver  never understood the determination to expand the holy city of Jerusalem beyond its traditional boundaries where no Jewish holy places are located, and which have never been occupied by Jews.

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.