|
Dear Richard Cohen,
You wrote a super excellent article in today's Washington Post (below). As
an American Jew I strongly agree that Israel must withdraw and bring its
soldiers and settlers home within its pre-1967 boundaries now before any more
lives are lost. I am very glad you are speaking out, and the New Yorker article
was very helpful too.
One quibble. You give the settlers too much credit for following scripture.
You accept as true their claim that they are "wedded to the literal word of the
Bible while much of Judaism is not."
But are they?
Ask any of them to show you where Torah gives them exclusive right to
this land. They cannot. Or where Torah tells them they can steal land
belonging to others. It commands them not to.
They may show you sections talking of the covenant to Abraham. But if you
read it, the words of the promise are that "You shall be a father of a multitude
of nations. . . and I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land
of your sojourns--the whole of the land of Canaan--as an everlasting possession;
and I shall be a God to them."
Thus, the promise was not exclusive to Jews. It was to Abraham and his
offsping. Thus, the promise was to the multitude of nations that would be
Abraham's descendants. Of course, Torah tells us that Abraham had 8
children (Isaac with Sarah, Ishmael with Hagar, and then six more children
after Sarah died, with Keturah), and only one of them was Isaac. The others were
not Jews but the promise was to them as well. Torah lists some of the many
descendants of the other 7 who were not Jews. Isaac had two children with Rifka,
and only one of them was Jacob. His twin brother Esau had many descendants who
were not Jews, and the promise was to them as well. Jacob had 12 sons and a
daughter, and only one of them was Judah; descendants of the others became the
ten lost tribes, and they were not Jews. Their descendants may well include
present day Palestinians of Jewish, Christian, and Moslem faiths, and the
promise was to them as well.
Some who were Jews and were not lost tribes at that time later became the
first Christians or later converted to Christianity or Islam. All of these
people were among the multitude of nations who were children of Abraham,
and the promise is to them as well.
So the zealots are not following scripture at all in demanding an
exclusive Jewish state or even in demanding a Jewish majority
state. Scripture prohibits coveting and stealing. Nothing in scripture
gives them the right to take away the land of others. You have to look outside
scripture to find any of these ideas. The promise was equally to many who
are not now Jews, and that probably includes the Palestinians. You give the
zealots way too much credit in your article. Weak as their argument is,
that Torah is a real estate deed, even that deed does not support their
claim.
Jimmy Leas
Law Office of James Marc Leas 37 Butler Drive, S. Burlington, VT 05403 802 864-1575 802 864-9319fax 802 734-8811cell www.vermontpatentlawyer.com May be restricted or confidential. If you are not intended recipient please delete immediately. Subject: Settlements That Settle
Nothing
Copyright 2004 The Washington Post The Washington Post June 15, 2004 Tuesday Final Edition SECTION: Editorial; A23 LENGTH: 763 words HEADLINE: Settlements That Settle Nothing BYLINE: Richard Cohen BODY: Fortunately for Jeffrey Goldberg, he not only once lived in Israel but served in its army. Without those credentials he almost certainly would be denounced as an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew. After all, Goldberg had the consummate gall and utter chutzpah to say the obvious: Israel's West Bank and Gaza settlements have to go. Actually, Goldberg went even further. In nearly 16,000 words in the May 31 issue of the New Yorker, this Washington-based journalist wrote that in some ways, the Jewish zealots who have established settlements in the heart of overwhelmingly Palestinian areas are as great -- or greater -- a danger to Israel as their counterparts among the Islamic extremists, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. His article was titled "Among The Settlers; Will They Destroy Israel?" For raising that question, he has come under unaccustomed attack. Goldberg has spent the past several years reporting and writing about Islamic radicalism and the threat it posed. This made him the darling of the neocons. But now he's asking similar questions about Jewish zealotry, and for that his integrity, if not his very sanity, has been questioned by the usual American guardians of Israeli security. Among the slings and arrows sent his way was one from Andrea Levin, the head of a media watchdog group, published in the English-language Jerusalem Post. She called Goldberg's piece "distorted and sloppy with facts." I read it quite differently: on the nose. But what really matters is not this or that fact -- although I could find nothing wrong in Goldberg's piece -- but his overall point. It is that not only has Israel gotten itself into a demographic and geographic trap with its settlements in Palestinian lands, but it has allowed the most reactionary, belligerent and racist elements in Judaism to establish some of the most provocative settlements. God might want these settlements, as the settlers themselves insist, but it is conscripts, mostly secular Jews, who have to guard them. For American Jews to keep quiet about these settlements does Israel no favor. After all, in the long run the settlements are unsustainable -- difficult to defend militarily, impossible to defend legally. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has pledged to remove settlements from the Gaza Strip, but that still leaves the West Bank, with more than 2 million Palestinians -- and only about 200,000 Israeli settlers. The government seems to consider most of these settlements a permanent part of Israel. That's exactly the way some Israelis saw the Gaza Strip. But Israel is pulling out -- not because it wants to but because it has to. The same will eventually happen in large parts of the West Bank. The longer Israel waits to deal with those settlements -- not all, mind you, but most -- the deeper it sinks into a quagmire. Goldberg has it right: These settlements, as much as Islamic radicalism, threaten Israel. The latter feeds off the former. The observation is not original to either me or Goldberg. He quotes Michael Tarazi, a Harvard-trained Palestinian American who makes essentially the same point about the settlements. "The longer they are out there, the more Israel will appear to the world to be essentially an apartheid state," Tarazi said. Anyone who has seen how the settlements are protected and maintained, the weird road network for instance, can appreciate Tarazi's point. Much of Goldberg's article is spent on Jewish religious settlers. But he talked to Palestinians, too. What they have to say is hardly encouraging, often downright frightening, and usually sad. But the issue for me is not what is good for the Palestinians -- I wish them a state of their own and also all the happiness in the world -- but what is good for Israel. Getting rid of the settlements would be good for the Palestinians. But it would also be good for Israel. Some of what the Jewish settlers told Goldberg is disturbing. Many of them have a contemptuous, virtually racist, view of their Arab neighbors. They are wedded to the literal word of the Bible while much of Judaism is not, and while they by no means share the Islamic radicals' yen for martyrdom -- and they do not approve of the killing of innocents -- they are quite willing to die for their beliefs. Okay. But it is the nature of these things that they will take others with them. Not okay. Goldberg has written a good article about some ugly facts -- and done so with a reporter's keen eye, but also with a Zionist's loving heart. It should be read by anyone interested in Israel. See for yourself. [EMAIL PROTECTED] LOAD-DATE: June 15, 2004
Yahoo! Groups Links
|
