Michael Naftali Unterberg Is there a logical counter argument?
www.nytimes.com
Will a fight over the theology of Zionism derail Mideast peace?
- Aaron Berger If there was an Arab leader who actually wanted peace, this would be a worthwhile discussion for us to have amongst ourselves.Monday at 2:23pm · ·
Ariella Unterberg Gabbay i could think of a few....Tuesday at 1:33am · ·
Michael Naftali Unterberg I don't think this op-ed had anything to do with peace making. I doubt that will happen any time the neasr future. It has to do with a choice we have to make for the near future of our state. Do we want to be a democracy or an apartheid state?Tuesday at 1:22pm · ·- Aaron Berger'Will a fight over the theology of Zionism derail Mideast peace?' had nothing to do with peace making?
And while on the topic of Arab leaders who want peace, what about Abbas' lukewarm condemnation of the barbaric murder of 4 Jews?
As much ...as I would love for there to be peace, we are as far from it as ever.See MoreYesterday at 7:15am · · - Michael Naftali Unterberg And yet, the essential question remains. Or to make it more simple, do we want Abbas and his people living in or out of Israel? Sharon's approach (which this op-ed was about, one sentence notwithstanding) was not about achieving peace. It was about securing Jewish democracy in Israel. I have yet to hear a better plan.Yesterday at 9:46am · ·
- Aaron BergerUnfortunately, that is not the essential question. The essential question is 'will the Arab/Muslim world accept a Jewish state in their midst?'. Answer: not yet. These discussions over how to treat the Arabs in our midst; how to reconcile t...he right of Jews to live in Judea/Samaria with the desire to make peace; etc., are all interesting discussions for us to have amongst ourselves around the Shabbat table; on seminar; in sleepaway camp. It's theoretical.
Not that anyone asked me, but for a true peace (and I don't mean what exists between Israel and Egypt or Israel and Jordan), I'd be willing to divide Jerusalem.
Four innocent Jews were slaughtered on Tuesday by Arab savages, a short while after Abbas (the 'moderate' 'peace-maker') made a speech where he condemned Jews living in Judea/Samaria as illegitimate.
The Jew hating NY Times is raising the issue now to preempt the failure of the current talks and be able to pin the blame on the Jews.See MoreYesterday at 10:12am · · - Michael Naftali UnterbergCouldn't agree more with your assessment of peace prospects.
Not at all sure why you refuse to engage my point and keep dismissing it as irrelevant. You can answer it, or not, but please don't repeat evidence for the poor prospect of peace ...with people who won't recognize our right to exist. We agree completely. Take peace off the table. Let's assume that everybody from the NYTimes to the post office is out to get us. This is an identity question for a future Jewish State.
I will restate it.
We rule over another ethnic group that does not want us. We have few choices, and certainly no good ones. We can:
1) enfranchise them and give them citizenship
2) continue to rule them without giving them rights and citizenship
3) withdraw from their territory and leave their fate in their own hands, creating a terror state on our border (like we did with Gaza)
(I am leaving genocide and war crime beyond the pale of discussion)
Can Zionism, a movement of National liberation, which desires to be a Jewish democracy, survive if it chooses option one or two? If not then we are only left with the horrendous option three.
I see no other options, and am forced to agree with Sharon. Unilateral disengagement will not lead to peace in our time. But it just may be the only way to ensure that Israel remains a Jewish democracy in the future.
That is what I was discussing. Your points are valid and well taken. (well, I disagree about the Times motives) But you are changing the subject I was interested in by saying it is not a good or relevant question. I disagree and think that it is existentially relevant to Israel's future.
I suppose we may have to leave it at that. See MoreYesterday at 10:36am · · - Aaron BergerThe choices you give are all bad- i'll take # 2, though, with a caveat. From what I read, it seems the economy (for the Palestinians) is doing well- people have jobs, and more people than ever see a future. So why mess with it? Let them con...tinue to prosper and hopefully a leader will emerge that wants to make peace with Israel.
But don't prop up the Holocaust-denying Abbas as some moderate who is willing to make peace. He isn't; he can't.
I object to the Times raising this subject- as if they really care about the future of the Zionist enterprise. It's kind of like Glenn Beck's memorial to Reverend Martin Luther King.
And if this current round of talks fail (which I hope it won't, but am very convinced will), we'll hear the usual nonsense about 'extremists on both sides'- the Arab savages murder 4 innocent Jews, and the 'extremist' Jews who decide to build a kindergarten in Neve Daniel or renovate a bathroom in Talmon. See MoreYesterday at 11:38am · · - Michael Naftali UnterbergThe choices are all bad, and they are the only choices.
Option 2? That makes Israel an apartheid state that exists by ruling over people who don't want its rule and denies them rights and citizenship. I guess where we disagree is that I am ...unwilling to accept that for ourselves.
I think that you are treating the NYTimes as a one person uni-mind, when it is more complex. But I don't really feel like arguing about that.
But I ultimately don't care what people say about Israel. And I ultimately can't be concerned with the Palestinians getting their act together and forming a healthy, civilized culture. I think my goal has to be protecting Israel's future. From a security perspective, I would rather have an enemy living outside narrower borders than living inside expansive borders. But that was not the point of the op-ed.
Again, where we disagree is that I think option 3 (surrendering our land) does less damage than option 2. (compromising our principles and values)
I think this is something that intelligent people can disagree about. See MoreYesterday at 11:49am · · - Michael Naftali Unterberg I enjoyed this back and forth, by the way. Would you be ok with me posting it on my blog?Yesterday at 11:59am · ·
- Aaron BergerThanks for the compliment, but we're not done yet. I don't like my choice all that much, but as for yours, what happens the day after? When the Arab/Muslim extremists are more emboldened than ever? When Hamas takes over the West Bank Palest...inian areas and now rockets start flying in to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv?
When all the progress that has been made in the average West Bank Arab's life comes to a screeching halt because of the inevitable conflict with Israel?
At least now, progress is being made. Why mess with it? See MoreYesterday at 12:04pm · · - Michael Naftali UnterbergWe send out leaflets that say that any city block from which a rocket has been fired will be wiped off the face of the earth within 24 hours, and then do it. Israel is very good, B"H at deterring attacks from states across her borders, less... good at stopping murderers from within like yesterday. I think it will lead to a more secure Israel.
Am I sorry that option 3 will cause suffering for west bank Palestinians. I realize that some of their economic progress will be demolished. Hopefully they will either prevent this or repair it. But they are not our people, and it is not ours to control or decide.
Perhaps, like an addict, hitting rock bottom will be the only way for them to make true progress beyond malls and mail service. But ultimately, I am more concerned with our choices than their's. They may not use their self determination well, but its their's to use as they see fit.
And then we get to live in a Jewish democracy. We are the only western style democracy on earth that rules over hundreds of thousands of people without giving them rights & citizenship. That's not a good way to go forward, and the demographics only makes the future of the status quo less tenable. I think that the status quo with Gaza is better for Israel than the west bank status quo, with the caveat that any missile attack must get a prompt and devastating response. See MoreYesterday at 12:22pm · · - Aaron BergerOh, come on- this is exactly what we said when the Gaza disengagement was being proposed. And did Israel annihilate Gaza city? No. Because we just can't do it. And now Israel can barely hold together an embargo on Gaza; Gilad Shalit remains... in captivity, and Israel faces global condemnation for any action it takes.
So you can absolutely forget about your leaflets.
They will most definitely NOT hit rock bottom in this scenario. Hamas will take over, funded by Iran, and we will see the Gaza scenario played out, just on a larger scale, with more of Israel's territory at risk.
Feel free to post this on your blog- I'm honored.See More23 hours ago · · - Michael Naftali UnterbergActually, we did destroy Gaza city. I think it is criminal that we waited seven years and did it in one fell swoop. If we had stichted in time, and done it block by block, we would never have had to have that level of full scale invasion.
T...hat being said, it has been a reletively quiet border since then due to deterence. Again, we disagree about Gaza. I think the current situation is better than having them in Israel and allowing in suicide bombers. See More3 hours ago · · - Aaron Berger It's interesting how two relatively sane individuals can look at the same situation and come up with two opposite conclusions.
Shana Tovah to you & your family!9 minutes ago · · - Michael Naftali Unterberg Umayne!a few seconds ago · ·
No comments:
Post a Comment