Archive for the ‘terrorism’ category

Responding to a New York Times Editorial Calling Upon Israel to Show Restraint

March 6, 2012

In today’s New York Times, there is an editorial which calls upon Israel not to “doubt the President’s mettle” when he states that he will not stand by and permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons; that Israel should trust the President and refrain from a unilateral attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities.

In response to that editorial, I feel I must point out philosopher George Santayana’s often quoted statement: “Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.” It is precisely this principle which Israel’s critics are forgetting or simply ignoring.

So what should have been learned from history?

1. When a national leader threatens to destroy the Jews, and has or is developing the means to carry out that threat, he should be taken at his word. This was Hitler’s stated intention throughout his rise to power yet few took him seriously. Well, we know how that turned out! Now Mahmoud Ahmadinejab is making a similar threat – that he will wipe Israel off the map – and he is moving forward with the development of the nuclear weapons to accomplish that task. So why should anyone, especially Israel, doubt his intention? She must act upon the premise that he means what he says and will do it at the first possible opportunity.

2. Talk is cheap, especially when it comes from a U.S. President who says he has Israel’s back and that Israel should refrain from engaging in self defense. But at the end of the day, how can we be assured that the President will follow talk with action? In 1967 President Lyndon Johnson kept assuring Israel that America would never let her fall. He did so when Egypt insisted that the U.N. remove its peacekeeping forces from the Gaza Strip, and the U.N., without a moment’s hesitation complied; when the Egyptian and the Syrian armies amassed their forces on the Israeli border; when the Egyptians and the Saudis threatened to close the Straits of Tiran, effectively blockading the Israeli port city of Eilat. But when the they announced that the blockade was in effect then Johnson announced that there was nothing that he could do. Israel found herself standing alone. So she conducted a preemptive air strike, destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground. Thus began the 6-Day War; a war which too many were all to ready to label as an Israeli act of aggression rather than self defense. In 1967 Israel thought that America had its back but wound up standing alone. How can she be expected to maintain confidence that this time will be different? How can she be certain that Obama will not bow to the pressure not to engage in another Middle East war?  After all, this is an election year and there will be plenty of Americans who will be more than ready to remind President Obama that one of the pillars of his last election was his promise to withdraw us from the war in Iraq. Perhaps if the President was to deploy the forces to the Middle East which would be necessary for the conduct of a strike against Iran then he would show in some tangible way his resolve to back his words with deeds. Talk is cheap, but not cheap when it very well may cost Israel countless Israeli lives or even its survival. If, at the end of the day, Israel is to be left to face the threat alone, as she was in 1967, then let her face it while she has a chance to counteract it.

You Might Want to Read One of My Past Posts

March 3, 2012

Dear Readers of My Bog,

First of all, I want to thank each and every one of you for taking the time to peruse the words I set to this electronic page.  I am deeply touched by the fact that you are willing to sacrifice your precious minutes to consider the thoughts that I have shared.

I also want to take this opportunity to turn your attention to one of my past blog entries.  Back in February of 2010 I posted an entry entitled “Purim:  The Antisemitism Holiday.”  I just reread that posting and even I find it amazing how much it speaks to our situation today; perhaps even more than it did at the time I actually wrote it.  So, if you have a few extra minutes, check it out.  Read it, or if you read it in the past, reread it again.

Once again, thank you for your readership!

Terrorism Today: Up Close and Personal

November 8, 2010

In August of 1970, at Kennedy Airport in New York, I boarded a plane headed for Israel.  I was not alone.  There were about 60 other young men, some with wives, who boarded that plane with me.  All of us were headed to Jerusalem, where we would be the first full class of rabbinic students from the Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion who would spend their entire first year of study in Israel.  With us as well was a handful of upper classmen who had taken it upon themselves to enhance their own rabbinic studies by spending a year in Israel.

Two of the young men aboard that flight were Lawrence Edwards and Michael Zedek.  After the year in Israel, Larry would be among those who joined me in continuing our rabbinic studies at the New York campus.  After ordination we lost touch with each other until the summer of 2008, when we found ourselves together again in Washington, D.C.; the only rabbis invited to participate in a week-long seminar hosted by the Church Relations Department of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.  It was a great feeling to renew our old ties.  Michael was one of those upper classmen I spoke about.  Sunday afternoons in Jerusalem usually found me in the school library, struggling with researching a major theology paper upon which a significant part of my future as a student in the school would hang.  On one such afternoon, I felt the need to have my work reviewed by a neutral but informed party.  I looked around the room in search of one of those upper classmen, and there was Michael.  Up until then, our relationship had been cordial.  Yet in the course of that afternoon it evolved from cordial to friendship. While after Israel, Michael would return to his studies in Cincinnati, our friendship would continue and flourish.

Considering my ties to both of these men, one can imagine how taken aback I was when I read the news of the recent Yemenite terrorist plot to send a mail bomb to a Chicago synagogue, only to learn that the rabbi of the targeted congregation is none other than Rabbi Larry Edwards, and that his congregation, which has no home of its own, is hosted by a larger congregation whose rabbi is none other than Rabbi Michael Zedek.  All this is only compounded by the fact that this might very well be the first time pro-Palestinian terrorists have targeted a Midwest synagogue, nevertheless one that is a mere two and a half hours away from my home.

For many years, I have been one of those who have taken the threat of terrorism to Jewish institutions very seriously.  I believe that there are forces out there that truly have it in for the Jews and that as a result, Jews and Jewish institutions find themselves more at risk than others.  It has been 11 years since the infamous “Summer of Hate” (1999), which saw a string of hate crimes perpetrated by members of white “Christian” supremacist groups, many of them directed against Jews and Jewish institutions.  Much to my chagrin, for the most part, too many of my fellow Jews have chosen to forget that threat.  It was during those days that my own congregation instituted the practice of engaging off duty police officers to patrol our grounds whenever we held a worship service or our religious school was in session.  Now, every so often, we hear voices raised, questioning the need for such protection.  Indeed, there have been times of late when I feel as though there are those who now perceived of me as an alarmist and perhaps somewhat of a crackpot, if not worse, whenever I speak of such dangerous possibilities.  Even when I point out last year’s attempted bombings of two synagogues in Riverdale, New York, the failed Times Square bombing, and the murder of the security guard at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum by a white supremacist, not to mention the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India of two years ago which included a Chabad center as one of their targets, I am met with the dismissive responses of, “But that could never happen here.  They would never do that to us.”

So often have my concerns been minimized that I have not been able to help but wonder myself whether or not I have gone somewhat over the top on this issue.  But just when I find myself struggling with my own self doubt, there is an account in the news of another attempt to do mayhem to a Jewish institution by those who hate us, with the recent news of the terrorist attempt, so close to my home, targeting the Chicago congregations served by two of my old friends being just one more example.  In this latest attempted attack, the intended victims are not strangers in some distant city.  They are friends who live and work just down the road from where I live.  Indeed the issue of terrorism and Jew hatred has not been as up close & personal for me since 1993 when Neo-Nazis, in response to the release of the film “Schindler’s List.” sent post cards to my congregation, the local Jewish Federation, the Davenport police and the FBI, threatening to blow up both my home and my synagogue, along with the offices of the Jewish Federation.

I suspect that my friends Larry Edwards and Michael Zedek, and their congregations, never seriously believed that their congregations would be the targets of a terrorist attack.  I am sure that while they entertained the possibility, still they felt that the odds were greatly against it.  That is normal.  In fact, that is how I feel.  While I entertain the possibility that my congregation and the other institutions of my Jewish community someday might be targeted by those who hate Jews, still I believe that the odds are greatly against it.  That being said, that chance – that possibility – no matter how remote, still exists.  It is that possibility, no matter how slight, which should inform the decisions and actions of every synagogue and Jewish institution.  While it should not paralyze us Jews with fear, it should motivate all Jews to take such dangers seriously enough so that we take wise steps to prevent them.  For while as Jews, we should not live in fear, neither should we bury our heads in the sand, denying the possibilities of dangers which may confront us.  In all of this, the Jewish attitude should be “hope for the best but prepare for the worst.”  That is the prudent course to take.  That is the responsible course to take.  For if Jewish institutions choose the path of inaction – the path of failing to defend our people either because of a refusal to accept the possible danger, or worse yet, because considering the odds, they do not wish to incur such expenses – then God forbid, should some ill befall such a Jewish institution, bringing injury and perhaps even death in its wake, then some of the burden of guilt will rest upon the shoulders of those who chose to ignore the possibility of danger as well as upon those of the attackers.

It is a sad thing to have to admit that even though we now live in the 21st century, there is still too much truth to the old Yiddish expression, “Schwer zu zein ein Yid! – It is difficult to be a Jew!”

Reconsidering a Three State Solution

June 19, 2010

With so much attention these days being directed toward the struggle between the Israelis and Hamas in Gaza, too little attention has been turned toward what is happening in the West Bank.  And for once, we can say what is happening there is good!

Recently, Tom Friedman wrote quite a revealing column (“The Ballgame and the Sideshow”, New York Times, June 4, 2010).  In it, he contrasts the two different approaches of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, under President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.  While Hamas continues to operate under the ideology of “Judge me on how I resist Israel or America,” Abbas and Fayyad have assumed the approach of “judge me by how I perform – how I generate investment and employment, deliver services and pick up the garbage.”

Friedman goes on to point out how very successful has been the Abbas – Fayyad approach.  Since 2007, he informs us, the Palestinian Authority has partnered with Jordan and the U.S. in the training of  the new Palestinian National Security Force, and that the Israelis have been so impressed with the results that they have turned over to them the task of maintaining law and order in all of the major West Bank towns.  This, in turn, has triggered “an explosion of Palestinian building, investment, and commerce in those areas.”  Most telling of all, Prime Minister Netanayahu has reduced the number of manned check points in the West Bank from 42 to 12!  Why do we never hear about that in the world press?

It has become typical of the world’s perspective on Israel that while they are all to ready to condemn her for the Gaza blockade, no one gives even the slightest notice to all this progress in the West Bank, and particularly to Israel’s response to the Palestinian Authority’s peaceful endeavors by actually turning over law enforcement responsibilities to the Palestinian Security Force and so significantly reducing the number of check points.  There is a pitiful irony as we watch everyone anguish over the suffering of the people of Gaza, yet turn a blind eye to the progress in the West Bank; progress which so obviously stands as a model of all the good that could be brought about should Hamas  ever choose to change its tune;  should Hamas ever decide to place the well being of the people of Gaza above their desire to destroy Israel.

This leaves us with a difficult question.  Is the Two State Solution still a viable option in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?  While the Palestinians of Gaza continue to suffer because of the actions of Hamas, should the Palestinians of the West Bank be forced to continue to suffer for them as well?

The time is fast approaching when we must seriously consider another approach – a Three State Solution, with two potential Palestinian states, one on the West Bank and the other in Gaza.  In the past, this idea has been floated and quickly rejected.  The claim has been that the Palestinians are one people and deserve one united state.  Admittedly, that would be the ideal.  But in this world, sometimes we have to settle for that which is less than the ideal.

Why a Three State Solution at this time?

First and foremost because it appears that the Palestinians on the West Bank are seriously moving in a responsible fashion toward the point where they will be ready to have their own state.  To keep them from that cherished goal because of the intransigence of Hamas seems unfair and unjust.  When the time comes that they have accomplished the task of creating those infrastructures which will have earned them the right to be considered a full partner in the community of nations, and a good neighbor to Israel, then they deserve to be rewarded for their efforts.

It would appear that while Palestinian unity is still a desired goal on the part of the Palestinian people, yet with every passing day, the ideological distance between the West Bank and Gaza grows greater.  Indeed, it would seem that their issues with Israel are but a sideshow compared to the differences between these two Palestinian entities.  As much as one could argue for the necessity of an international peacemaking initiative in order to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, one could equally argue the need for such an initiative to resolve the conflict between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

Therefore it would seem that the best – though not ideal – solution would be to look to the eventual establishment of two Palestinian states along side of Israel; one in the West Bank and the other in Gaza.  If matters keep progressing, it would appear that the West Bank Palestinian state could be established in the not too distant future.  As for the Gaza Palestinian state…

Yet there is always hope.  Perhaps the day will arrive when there will be a change of heart – if not of leadership – in Gaza.  Perhaps the people of Gaza will build and earn their own state, much as the people of the West Bank appear to be doing now.  And who knows?  Perhaps the time will come when the people of Gaza can be reunited with the people of the West Bank, and a three state solution will not be necessary, for a two state solution will become viable.  But until that time arrives, we must do all we can to encourage the people of the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority to continue in their state building efforts, and in their pursuit of a peaceful resolution of their conflict with Israel.

Moving Beyond Helen Thomas

June 10, 2010

It seems that the furor over the virulently anti-Israel statements made by Helen Thomas, the renown White House correspondent, is starting to fade.  And that is as it should be.  The sooner the better!

What she said – that the Jews should leave Israel to the Palestinians and go home, to Poland, to Germany, to America, wherever – was unquestionably outrageous.  It is completely incomprehensible how a person who for so long has carried the responsibility of bringing to the public an accurate reporting of all the news coming out our the White House could be so grossly ignorant of world history; could be so blatantly prejudice; and could be so journalistically naive as to ever make such a comment to a fellow journalist, nevertheless one with a camera and a microphone in his hand, simply boggles the mind!

Be that as it may, the Helen Thomas story is a small story at best.  For at the end of the day, who is she?  Is she responsible for formulating U.S. foreign policy?  No.  Do she possess a significant loyal following who hang on her every word and who transform her utterances into votes in the polling place?  No.  Yes, she is a known personality, but that is about it.  She does not have the power to change the world.  She does not personally pose even a minor threat to the security of Israel or the future of Middle East peace.  Sad to say, today, she has become an opinionated old lady who can no longer maintain the objectivity her job requires.

But in her day, she really was something!  She earned her place in the front row of Presidential press conferences.  She achieved something no other woman before her was able to achieve; she was the first woman to serve as president of the White House Correspondents’ Association.  She challenged and earned the respect of 10 consecutive U.S. Presidents.  She has done so much to advance the cause and status of women in journalism.  Even in the heat generated by this recent diatribe, all the good that she has accomplished should not, and must not, be forgotten.

Helen Thomas made a stupid and bigoted statement.  And she has suffered for it.  So many of those who honored her in the past have denounced her in the present.  From all sorts of places came calls for her to be fired.  Many were truly out for blood.  And to her credit, rather than cause her employers the embarrassment of having to fire her,  she demonstrated the graciousness of resigning.  Indeed, if one were to think of the reactions on a proportional scale, then one would have to wonder why, if Helen Thomas’ 15 second utterance has generated so much anger and vehemence then when one considers all the outrageous statements made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran over the past several years, why have we not nuked that country back to the stone age?  The point is that even though what she did was indeed offensive, she has paid the price for her indiscretion.  Having forced her to step away from the public life which has been so important to her for all these years, it is pointless to skewer her further.

I especially am concerned about whether or not my fellow Jews and my fellow supporters of Israel will be able to let this matter go.  We have bigger fish to fry.  So let us not get fixated on the utterances of a 89 year old woman, no matter how public a figure she once was.  Let us not permit this episode to distract us from the real challenges which today face Israel; the ongoing challenge of achieving peace WITH security; the ongoing challenge of pursuing justice for Israel in a world which is all to ready to condemn her every action, with, and especially without, justification.  Wish as some may, Helen Thomas simply will not effectively stand in the eyes of the world for all those who openly despise Israel.  Whatever she said, she will not distract the rest of the world from looking to serious address the crisis in Gaza.  So let us not harp on her ridiculous interview, but rather let us focus on how we can address the issue of Gaza in a way which will protect our brothers and sisters in Israel while at the same time be far more effective in advancing the flow of humanitarian aid to the suffering people of Gaza

Good Out of Gaza

June 6, 2010

Ever since the Israeli boarding of the Mavi Marmara turned tragically violent, accusations and counter accusations have filled the air like the shells of an artillery engagement.  Who was is in the right?  Who was in the wrong?  Who were the villains?  Who the heroes?  Who the perpetrators?  Who the victims?  As some commentators have correctly pointed out – painfully so – there has been so much debate over issues of responsibility that no one, on either side, has taken the time to honestly lament for those who were killed or injured.  Yes, both sides have decried the bloodshed, but to be truthful, their outrage has been far more politically motivated than humanely so.  The dead and injured on both sides quickly ceased to be human beings, having been transformed into political pawns.  Sounds harsh?  Then consider this.  How many articles and news reports or releases have you seen that actually have mentioned these individuals by name?  Names do not seem to be important here; just numbers, as though we have been keeping some sort of macabre score card.

With all the heated rhetoric of the moment, it might appear as though the world is falling apart.  Maybe it is.  But then again, maybe it isn’t.  Maybe the Arab world will unite under the leadership of the extremists in Iran and make one more attempt to annihilate the “Zionist entity.”  But then again, after all the shouting dies down, few Arab nations will really be interested in aligning themselves with Iran and fewer still will be willing to actually go to war with Israel.  And all this will turn out to be just another one of those earth shattering momentary crises, as the world, and especially the Middle East, returns to the status quo.

But then again, maybe out of this painful tragedy some light might be shed.  Maybe what today may be perceived as possibly “the end of the world” may actually wind up turning out to be the birthing of a new future.

Let’s admit it!  The naval and land blockade of Gaza is not exactly new news.  Yes, pro-Palestinian supporters and sincere human rights activists have voiced their protests over the suffering of the residents of that besieged strip of land for some time now.  Israelis themselves have expressed their deep regret – indeed anguish – over what they have perceived as their need to impose such a stranglehold on Gaza and the suffering which it causes.  Yes, Israel has presented massive amounts of compelling evidence as to why they must control Gaza’s borders so diligently in order to prevent a steady influx of weaponry which would be directed against Israelis, and especially against Israeli civilian population centers.  The thousands upon thousands of rockets and mortar shells which have rained down upon communities such as Sderot, launched by Hamas from Gaza, have been pointed out to the world as proof positive of the very real dangers that the Israelis are attempting to address.  Yet, while everyone in the world has made note of this situation, expressed their concerns and regrets, still, at the end of the day, no one has really stepped forward with any real energy or creativity in an attempt to resolve it.  While everyone had an opinion, and many expressed their opinions, still beyond the talk, people just seemed willing to let the matter stand as it, accepting the simple alternatives of blockade or no blockade, with nothing in between.

But not any longer.  Now, as a result of this tragedy, everyone, including the Israelis, are looking at the blockade of Gaza with new eyes.  Everyone, including Israel, have come to the conclusion that the status quo simply will not continue to work.  Change is in the air.  Change is inevitable.  Maybe.

Today, outside of the Arab world, the critics of the blockade are no longer simply staying, :Lift It!”  They are recognizing that raw pressure will never succeed in budging Israel.  Indeed, seeing how serious Israel is about maintaining this blockade – even at the high cost we have witnessed – they are coming around to recognizing that there can be no change in this situation without seriously addressing Israeli security concerns as well as of the humanitarian needs of the residents of Gaza.  One need look no further than at the Obama administration, which has been coming down heavily on Israel as of late and has been talking more and more about Israel being a strategic liability rather than an asset to witness such a broadening view.  When the 7th vessel set off on its journey, the United States chose to join Israel in encouraging them NOT to attempt to run the blockade but rather to allow themselves to be escorted into the port of Ashdod, where their cargo could be inspected, off-loaded, and then sent via land to Gaza.  The Israelis even agreed to permit the transport into Gaza of concrete, which the humanitarian activists claim is for building homes but which Israel has seen Hamas sidetrack in the past to be used in the building of bunkers.

Perhaps the day is not to far off when such cargo ships can be inspected at sea; when the nations of the world will respect Israel’s responsibility to protect its citizens from the import into Gaza – into the hands of Hamas – of weapons intended to be used against Israel.  Perhaps the nations of the world will cooperate with Israel in the thorough conduct of such inspections.  Perhaps, if Israel could be convinced that by such inspections, Hamas could effectively be denied the receipt of more arms, then once inspected, she will permit these ships to continue on their journey and reach the Gaza shores, where the humanitarian aid could be delivered direct.

Of course, the wild card in all this is Hamas.  So far, Hamas has claimed that they will not permit the humanitarian supplied, off loaded in Ashdod, to enter Gaza.  It is obvious that the “breaking” of the blockade is a far higher priority for them than alleviating the suffering of their people.  But can they sustain that posture?  Any gains which they have made as a result of the recent events can easily slip from their fingers if they expose themselves to the eyes of the world as the true barrier denying the people of Gaza the help they need.  But, of course, that would only happen if the nations of the world would open themselves to admitting that in this situation, Israel may not be the only villain, nevertheless the primary villain.

Violence and bloodshed are essentially meaningless.  Lives lost in this way are certainly lost in vain.  They are lost due to the failure of reason.  But if the suffering born of these recent events results in laying the foundations for a more effective, humane, and mutually workable resolution to the challenge of getting humanitarian supplies to the people of Gaza without arming Hamas at the same time, then perhaps the suffering born of this tragedy might result in having served some higher purpose.  Only time will tell.

Reflections on Peace Advocacy and the Gaza Floatilla

June 2, 2010

Israel has been on my mind a great deal of late – even before the crisis over the tragic interception of the Gaza Flotilla.  Prior to this most recent crisis, I had been anguishing over whether or not to officially add my name as a supporter of J Street.  It all started when one of my congregants approached me about it.  He had read some J Street material and wanted my advice as to whether or not he should throw in his support.  His questions brought focus to my own indecision on the matter.  So I went back on the J Street website, read their vision statements, and, like my congregant, found a great deal with which I could agree.  For, I too, am a big supporter of a two-state solution which needs to be arrived at through serious non-violent negotiations; a two state solution which would deliver to the Palestinians a nation of their own of which they could be proud, while at the same time would deliver to the Israelis a positive resolution to their security concerns.  However, all that being said, I still had an uneasy feeling that rightly or wrongly, J Street was identified as an influential Jewish voice, all too often critical of Israel.

In my struggle to resolve this question, I gathered, via email, a list of some 50 rabbinic colleagues whose opinions I value greatly; some of them ardent supporters of J Street, some opponents, and many whose positions  I simply did not know.  I shared with them my indecision and my questions, seeking their insights and counsel.  And we were off to the races.  Not all responded to my queries.  Many of those who did, did so privately.  Others shared their thoughts with the entire group.  Many and diverse were their opinions.  So many excellent points were made on both sides.  My eyes were opened to new perspectives on the issue. But in the end, I still remained undecided.  Yet in the process, I came to truly believe that J Street was often misunderstood and intentionally misinterpreted.  I found that more often than not, their statements honestly strove to be evenhanded and fair, but between sensationalist media, unscrupulous politicians, and Israel’s enemies, what came most to the public eye were, and are, their critiques of Israel.  I saw it  akin to the old media adage about “Man bites dog” over “dog bites man.”  It is not news when Jews support Israel or criticize the Palestinians, but when Jews criticize Israel, now that is newsworthy.

I also was brought to the realization that it would be great if there was a “J Street” like organization on the Palestinian side, equally dedicated to the peace process and equally willing to criticize both parties in an evenhanded manner.  But alas, while there are Muslim peace organizations, they usually speak in whispers and do not garner the type of support and prestige that an organization like J Street does within the Jewish and the general community.  This is a tragic unfulfilled need, for in order for an organization like J Street to most effectively address its mission, it really needs a real Muslim partner organization with which it could work hand-in-hand.

It was while my colleagues and I were in the midst of these discussions that we woke up one morning to learn of the violence which had taken place in the waters off of Gaza.

Many groups and world leaders were quick to make statements in response to that situation, even though the facts were far from complete and the story was still unfolding.  Among them were Jeremy Ben-Ami, the President of J Street, as well as Yaariv Oppenheimer, speaking for another Jewish peace organization – Americans for Peace Now.  Mr. Ben-Ami made the following remark which I found disturbing:  “We do know, however, that today is one more nail in the coffin for hopes of ending of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict peacefully and diplomatically and for preserving Israel’s Jewish and democratic character.”  As for Mr. Oppenheimer, in an article published in the Israeli newspaper, MaAriv, he wrote a statement which I found equally disturbing:  “Tonight Israel marked a new low point in the way it chose to contend with its domestic and external policy dissidents.  A state that will not let its citizens protest, demonstrate and demand justice, a state that is busy composing loyalty tests for its citizens and passing laws to limit the freedom of expression, failed again in the real test and stopped a protest fleet of civilian ships at the cost of more than ten lives.”

Statements like these are precisely why I have discomfort with organizations like J Street and Peace Now.  While I share their ultimate vision of arriving at a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I cannot condone  their knee jerk reactions which immediately assume that Israel is in the wrong in whatever crisis arises.  I find myself scratching my head and wondering why Mr. Ben-Ami of J Street could not have ended his statement at the word “diplomatically” but felt the need to go forward with the assumption the Israel’s actions have done great harm to her fundamental “Jewish and democratic character.”  And as for Mr. Oppenheimer, just the simple fact that an article such as his could appear in a major Israeli publication like MaAriv gives far greater testimony in opposition to his premise for the Israeli democracy is alive and well as long as it permits those who so wish to publicly protest against the actions and policies of its government.

For my part, the events of the last few days have triggered an odd confluene of reflections.  It almost seems ironic that a short while back, I was re-watching the film “Thirteen Days”, about the Cuban missile crisis.  Every time I watch that film I am flooded with memories of the actual event.  As if it were yesterday, I recall my childhood conversations with my childhood friends, wondering whether or not the end of the world was upon us; whether or not the Russians would stage a nuclear attack.  It was indeed a frightening time, especially for children.  Yet with that danger being real and present, there was no question of the legitimacy of Kennedy’s use of a naval blockade in defense of our country; at least not among those of us us who were living under the threat of a missile attack.  Then my thoughts have likewise turned to the painful fact that as Americans, at this very hour, our combat troops have their boots on the foreign soil of two nations – Iraq and Afghanistan – ostensibly waging a war against terrorists who supposedly threaten the security of our nation and its citizens.  So one American President can conduct a naval blockade – in international waters – against another nation, in defense of our country, and it is considered appropriate and heroic.  Two American Presidents can send and maintain troops on the soil of two sovereign nations, having invaded both of them, in defense of our country against terrorism.  While there are those among us who protest this fact, those troops remain, yet we do not view the failure of our protests to achieve their goal as indicative of the demise of American democracy.

Then we have Israel.  Who in their right mind can question the very real danger posed to the security of the nation of Israel and its citizens by the terrorist actions of Hamas, coming out of Gaza?  Who can doubt that if the borders of Gaza were left wide open, there would be no question but that arms aplenty would flood into Gaza, all intended to be used against Israel, and specifically against Israeli citizens?  The threat of arms being smuggled into Gaza is a very real one and an Israeli government which would intentionally ignore that threat would be dramatically negligent, and perhaps even criminally negligent.  So while a blockade and a siege of Gaza is not a desirable course of action, especially from a humanitarian perspective, it – like the naval blockade of Cuba in the 60’s – would seem to be a necessary one in the name of national defense.  It is tragic but unavoidable that in defending one people from those who threaten its security, there very well may be loss of life – sometime, most tragically, innocent loss of life.  If any nation should understand that harsh reality, it should be the U.S., which has been faced with that very same situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  There is a certain hypocrisy when an American President (one whose election I personally supported and worked for, you should know) who is the Commander-in-Chief of combat troops on foreign soil waging active war in defense of our nation’s security, turns around and criticizes Israel for committing her troops in order to defend her people.  It is wrong to have two standards of behavior – one for the U.S. and another for Israel.  I cannot help but think that the children of Sderot – especially before the Gaza War – were holding among themselves conversations quite similar to the ones I was involved in as a child during the Cuban missile crisis.

I am not offering a wholesale justification for Israel’s actions of the past weekend.  She made plenty of mistakes, not the least of which was naively expecting her troops to encounter actual peace activists rather than violent opponents.  But it is far too easy for all of us Monday morning quarterbacks to provide Israel with our sage post facto counsel.  The hard truth on the ground is that Israel had every good reason to suspect that along with the humanitarian cargo on those ships was also a cargo of weaponry.  With that possibility, those ships did pose a very real security threat to the citizens of Israel and needed to be searched.  How Israel did go about that task will be a matter of  fierce debate in the coming months.  But in all of this, I cannot concur with Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street nor with Yaariv Oppenheimer of Americans for Peace Now, that the actions here constitute a threat to the character of Israeli democracy, nor that legitimate attempts to protect the physical safety of her citizens constitute a threat to the Jewish character of the State of Israel.

POSTSCRIPT: Two days after I published the above posting, the Office of the White House Press Secretary released the following statement from National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer:

“The government of Israel has stated its desire to avoid a confrontation and a repeat of Monday’s tragic events on the Mavi Marmara.  It remains a U.S. priority to provide assistance to the people of Gaza.  In the interest of the safety of all involved, and the safe transmission of assistance to the people of Gaza, we strongly encourage those aboard the Rachel Corrie and other vessels to sail to Ashdod to deliver their materials to Gaza.

“We are working urgently with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and other international partners to develop new procedures for delivering more goods and assistance to Gaza, while also increasing opportunity for the people of Gaza and preventing the importation of weapons.  The current arrangements are unsustainable and must be changed.  For now, we call on all parties to join us in encouraging responsible decisions by all sides to avoid any unnecessary confrontations and to ensure the safety of all involved.”

My Response to an Excellent Article on Middle East Peace

March 30, 2010

Lady Gaga Versus Mideast Peace

Are settlements more offensive than pop stars?

By BRET STEPHENS

Pop quiz—What does more to galvanize radical anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world: (a) Israeli settlements on the West Bank; or (b) a Lady Gaga music video?
If your answer is (b) it means you probably have a grasp of the historical roots of modern jihadism. If, however, you answered (a), then congratulations: You are perfectly in synch with the new Beltway conventional wisdom, now jointly defined by Pat Buchanan and his strange bedfellows within the Obama administration.

What is that wisdom? In a March 26 column in Human Events, Mr. Buchanan put the case with his usual subtlety:

“Each new report of settlement expansion,” he wrote, “each new seizure of Palestinian property, each new West Bank clash between Palestinians and Israeli troops inflames the Arab street, humiliates our Arab allies, exposes America as a weakling that cannot stand up to Israel, and imperils our troops and their mission in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Mr. Buchanan was playing off a story in the Israeli press that Vice President Joe Biden had warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “what you’re doing here [in the West Bank] undermines the security of our troops.” Also in the mix was a story that Centcom commander David Petraeus had cited Arab-Israeli tensions as the key impediment to wider progress in the region. Both reports were later denied—in Mr. Biden’s case, via Rahm Emanuel; in Gen. Petraeus’s case, personally and forcefully—but the important point is how eagerly they were believed. If you’re of the view that Israel is the root cause of everything that ails the Middle East—think of it as global warming in Hebrew form—then nothing so powerfully makes the case against the Jewish state as a flag-draped American coffin.

Now consider Lady Gaga—or, if you prefer, Madonna, Farrah Fawcett, Marilyn Monroe, Josephine Baker or any other American woman who has, at one time or another, personified what the Egyptian Islamist writer Sayyid Qutb once called “the American Temptress.”

Qutb, for those unfamiliar with the name, is widely considered the intellectual godfather of al Qaeda; his 30-volume exegesis “In the Shade of the Quran” is canonical in jihadist circles. But Qutb, who spent time as a student in Colorado in the late 1940s, also decisively shaped jihadist views about the U.S.

In his 1951 essay “The America I Have Seen,” Qutb gave his account of the U.S. “in the scale of human values.” “I fear,” he wrote, “that a balance may not exist between America’s material greatness and the quality of her people.” Qutb was particularly exercised by what he saw as the “primitiveness” of American values, not least in matters of sex.

“The American girl,” he noted, “knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs and she shows all this and does not hide it.” Nor did he approve of Jazz—”this music the savage bushmen created to satisfy their primitive desires”—or of American films, or clothes, or haircuts, or food. It was all, in his eyes, equally wretched.

Qutb’s disdain for America’s supposedly libertine culture would not matter much were it not wedded to a kind of theological Leninism that emphasized the necessity of violently overthrowing any political arrangement not based on Shariah law. No less violent was Qutb’s attitude toward Jews: “The war the Jews began to wage against Islam and Muslims in those early days [of Islamic history],” he wrote in the 1950s, “has raged to the present. The form and appearance may have changed, but the nature and the means remain the same.”

Needless to say, that passage was written long before Israel had “occupied” a single inch of Arab territory, unless one takes the view—held to this day by Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah and every other jihadist group that owes an intellectual debt to Qutb, including significant elements of the “moderate” Palestinian Fatah—that Tel Aviv itself is occupied territory.

Bear in mind, too, that the America Qutb found so offensive had yet to discover Elvis, Playboy, the pill, women’s lib, acid tabs, gay rights, Studio 54, Jersey Shore and, of course, Lady Gaga. In other words, even in some dystopic hypothetical world in which hyper-conservatives were to seize power in the U.S. and turn the cultural clock back to 1948, America would still remain a swamp of degeneracy in the eyes of Qutb’s latter-day disciples.

This, then, is the core complaint that the Islamists from Waziristan to Tehran to Gaza have lodged against the West. It explains why jihadists remain aggrieved even after the U.S. addressed their previous casus belli by removing troops from Saudi Arabia, and why they will continue to remain aggrieved long after we’ve decamped from Iraq, Afghanistan and even the Persian Gulf. As for Israel, its offenses are literally inextricable: as a democracy, as a Jewish homeland, as a country in which liberalism in all its forms, including cultural, prevails.

Which brings me back to the settlements. There may well be good reasons for Israel to dismantle many of them, assuming that such an act is met with reciprocal and credible Palestinian commitments to suppress terrorism and religious incitement, and accept Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state. But to imagine that the settlements account for even a fraction of the rage that has inhabited the radical Muslim mind since the days of Qutb is fantasy: The settlements are merely the latest politically convenient cover behind which lies a universe of hatred. If the administration’s aim is to appease our enemies, it will get more mileage out of banning Lady Gaga than by applying the screws on Israel. It should go without saying that it ought to do neither.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

Dear Mr. Stephens,

I just want to compliment you on an excellent article.  Your message is right on target.  There are many reasons, other than our country’s relationship with Israel which have led many in the Islamic world to consider the U.S. the “Great Satan” while it considers Israel only the “Little Satan.”  As troubled as they are with the status of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they are far more troubled by Israel’s very existence in their region.  And what troubles them most about Israel’s existence in their region is that they view it as an infection, threatening to spread, of Western values, ideals, principles, and culture.  For them, Israel personifies all that they utterly detest about the West, and especially about America.  Indeed, in your terms, Israel is Lady Gaga; that seductive temptress of Western values and lifestyle.

How soon all the Israel critics, including Pat Buchanan and General Petraeus, forget about the violence that followed the publications of the Danish cartoons.  Now the Islamic hatred of Denmark had absolutely nothing to do with Danish support of “Israeli expansionism.”  One cannot even speak definitively about Danish support of Israel, period.  Yet all this hate was directed at them.  Why?  Because in the West, people are allowed to express their opinions, even if their opinions are critical of Islam and of the use of Mohammed as a rallying point for terrorism.  Israel had little, if anything, to do with it.

I fear that the time will come when the U.S. will decide to abandon its one true friend in the Middle East, Israel, buying into the mythology that our troubles with the Arab world center around our support of Israel.  If we let Israel go, then those troubles will go away.  Yet, once the dirty deed is done, and Israel is destroyed, the same “good people” who pushed for Israel’s abandonment will shake their heads and speak of how tragic it all was.  Like so many of those who stood opposed to the American rescue of Jews from the Holocaust, after the fact they will become mourners of the dead.
Yet it will not be long before, much to their surprise, even with Israel wiped off the map, jihadist rage will once again be turned against our nation.  But this time, they will not be able to justify their violence by pointing accusing fingers at Israel.  Finally, the truth will out; that in their eyes, a state of war exists between our two cultures.  More “imperialistic” than Israel ever was in terms of its territorial expansion, America has been “imperialistic” in terms of its culture, its values, and even its food.  For them, the devil is to be found in MacDonald’s, Wall Street, and Hollywood.  All will not be right with the world until all the world is governed by Shariah Law.  Granted, this is not the view of all Muslims, and more likely than not, even of the majority of Muslims, but it is the view of those who encourage others to blow themselves up in the name of Allah, while they remain safe and sound, some distance away; that is until some Israeli agent takes them out, only to cause Israel to be castigated as a villain by the world rather than recognized as our first line of defense against such terrorism.

Once again, thank you for an excellent article!

Sincerely,

Rabbi Henry Jay Karp
Davenport, Iowa

The Latest Fiasco in Israel-US Relations

March 20, 2010

Everyone is all abuzz about the latest spat between Israel and the US.  The New York Times, as well as others, have labeled it a “crisis” and the most serious conflict between these two nations in two decades.  I have even read an article which questions whether or not the US has become Israel’s newest enemy!

This matter has certainly gotten way out of hand.  So much so that both sides, more or less, are attempting to tamp the fires which it has set off.  Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has published an op ed piece in the New York Times entitled “For Israel and America, A Disagreement, Not a Crisis” while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who just a few days ago publicly harangued and rebuked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, now declares that proposals offered by the Israeli government to resolve this dispute are both “useful and productive.”

Just briefly, what is at the heart of this matter?  Earlier this year, in the hopes of jump starting the peace process by a show of good faith toward the Arab world, the Obama administration demanded that Israel cease and desist from any further construction on the West Bank.  Of course, in the mind of the Obama administration, as well as in the mind of the Arab world, the West Bank is defined as including all of East Jerusalem, which includes all the primarily Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem as well as the Arab ones.  After much tussling, the Netanyahu government finally did agree to a temporary moratorium on West Bank construction.  Then we arrive at last week’s visit to Israel by Vice President Joseph Biden.  Just as this very positive encounter was drawing to an end, a mid-level official of the Israeli Interior Ministry announced an interim planning phase for the expansion of Ramat Shalom, an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood in East Jerusalem; an expansion which would include 1,600 new housing units.  To this announcement, Vice President Biden’s reaction was both immediate and severe.  On the very same day that he proclaimed the Obama administration’s “absolute, total, unvarnished commitment to Israel’s security”, he turned around and expressed his outrage as he condemned the move as “precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now.”  Even though Prime Minister Netanyahu responded by stating that he, too, was surprised and embarrassed by this announcement, the Obama administration refused to be placated.  The Vice President’s expression of outrage was only to be embellished upon by a 45 minute phone call to Prime Minister Netanyahu by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in which she severely chastised him, along with an equally strong statement issued by President Obama.  Needless to say, all this was not received very well by the Israeli people.  Obama’s approval rating in Israel, which has never been very high, plummeted to the single digits.

First of all, let me state that I fully understand and appreciate the frustration felt by the Obama administration.  After all, a deal is a deal.  No construction means no construction.  I cannot help but wonder whether or not this announcement on the part of the Interior Ministry was a deliberate act of provocation, intended to derail any progress in the peace process.  It is no secret that the ultra-Orthodox community of Israel is almost as opposed to the peace process as are Palestinian groups such as Hamas.  The major difference between them is that while groups like Hamas will use missiles and bombs to disrupt the peace process, these ultra-Orthodox groups use their political clout and surprise announcements such as this one to try to get their way.  AND THAT IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE – ONE WHICH SHOULD NOT GO UNNOTICED BY THE CURRENT AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION.

All that being said, I believe that once again, the Obama administration has blown it big time!  It is beyond my understanding why they have insisted upon turning this incident from a “disagreement” into a “crisis” – regardless of what Ambassador Oren has to say on the matter.  They made that choice when they elected to ignore Prime Minister Netanyahu’s initial reaction to the announcement of surprise and dismay.  Instead of working with him to untangle this mess, undoing the obvious sabotage of the Israeli extremists, they decided to proceed as if this was the official course of action of the entire Israeli establishment.  Indeed, they worked to push Prime Minister Netanyahu into a corner where he would need to become belligerent rather than cooperative in order to maintain his own dignity.

There is a profound irony in the facts that shortly after Vice President Biden’s trip to the area, the Palestinians went ahead and dedicated the naming of a public square in the West Bank after a female suicide bomber, Dalal Mughrabi, the Fatah woman who led the 1978 Coastal Road massacre in which 37 Israeli civilians and an American photographer were killed, and 71 were wounded.  And not to be outdone by their West Bank compatriots, Hamas in Gaza conducted a rocket attack on Israel in which a Thai worker was killed, the first Israeli fatality since this winter’s war in Gaza.  And what has been the reaction of the Obama administration to all this – SILENCE, COLD, DARK SILENCE.  Let us see now:  On the one hand a proposed building project, one not necessarily supported by the Israeli leadership, and on the other hand, the official honoring of a terrorist murderess and a lethal rocket attack upon Israeli civilians.  Which is worthy of American outrage and condemnation?  The building project, of course!  What’s wrong with that picture?

What is wrong with that picture is what has been wrong with the picture painted by the Obama administration since day one – and I say this as one who actively supported Barack Obama in his bid for the US presidency.  They profess that they seek to broker a peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but they are anything but evenhanded.  They are beyond quick to chastise and condemn Israel for whatever she does, yet they stand idly and silently by while the Palestinians continue to engage in the most outlandish and hostile of behaviors.  And if that were not bad enough, they refuse to learn from their past mistakes.  If experience should have taught them anything, it should have taught them that whenever they place heavy demands upon Israel, they have only effectively fueled Palestinian and Arab excuses NOT to sit down at the peace table.  No sooner are such demands upon Israel made then the Arabs say that they have nothing to discuss with Israel until those demands are fully met to their satisfaction.

Yet when will the Obama administration place similar demands upon the Arabs, especially upon the Palestinians?  I am waiting, but my patience is running thin.  What demands, you may wonder?  How about a total cessation of all attacks upon Israelis?  How about a cessation of the smuggling of weapons into Gaza?  How about an end to the rearmament of Hezbollah?  How about abiding by the terms of the Road Map to Peace, and putting an end to the teaching of hate to their children, both in their schools and through their children’s television shows?  I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Peace in the Middle East can never be achieved through US intervention if the US policy is one which antagonizes the parties involved.  Rather than beat them up, the US must learn how to work with them, as partners, in removing the roadblocks which stand in the way of bringing peace, security, and freedom to all the residents of the area, both Israelis and Palestinians.  Needless to say, this is not an easy task.  It will require much hard work and endless patience.  There is no room for the US to engage in throwing tantrums, as it has so recently done.  For while Mr. Obama may have gotten some of his frustrations off of his chest, in the end he has not advanced the cause of Middle East peace, but rather has retarded it.

Responding to a Call for an International Unilateral Establishment of a Palestinian State

February 25, 2010

Purim is just around the corner!  One of the ways that Jews engage in the joviality of Purim is to engage in the fine art of spoof.  Of course, Purim plays and Purimspiels are the primary examples of such satire, but not the only ones.  Very often, synagogues, for example, will issue parody editions of their own newsletters.  Parody is truly a Purim prank.

I share this with you because I cannot make up my mind whether or not the author of the NY Times Op Ed piece below – apparently a Jew, based upon his name – was writing a serious proposal or merely engaging in a Purim parody on the debate over the establishment of a Palestinian state.  I pray that it is a Purim parody, the humor of which the folks at the Times failed to grasp.  For if it is meant to be a serious proposal, it shows how we have moved into the realm of the absurd.

At first glance, I thought that if this essay is serious, then it might have been written by a raving pro-Palestinian.  However, as I delved into the text, I found the author proposing how liberating it would be for Israel if the international community would simply take it upon itself to out-of-hand declare and recognize the existence of a Palestinian state, without conferring with either Israel or the Palestinians.  That, according to the author, would leave Israel completely free to close its borders to all Palestinians – as is the right of any state to close its borders to the nationals of another state.  The issue of the supposed Palestinian “right of return” would be moot, since they now would be citizens of the Palestinian state.  As the author states:  “Within the context of statehood, this difficulty is somewhat eased as it is largely untenable for any state to demand that millions of its citizens should be allowed to become citizens of another state.”  He also states that this would settle the matter of terrorism.  As with any state, there can only be one state sponsored military establishment.  It the terrorist groups continue to pursue their military operations, it will be up to the Palestinian state authorities to eliminate them.  Here the author states:  “A government’s maintenance of a monopoly of force within the area of its claimed sovereignty is one of the basic requirements of statehood.”  And so the article goes on, including the author’s denial that such an international recognition would have to include a recognition of borders.  Personally, I cannot imagine how one can declare a recognition of a state without at the same time recognizing the legitimate borders of that state.

The one thing this author did not point out is that should the international community actually take this action and unilaterally declare a legitimate Palestinian state into existence, then they would most certainly be setting the stage for an almost immediate war; a war between states, and not between one state and shadow insurgents, as the conflict stands now.  A war in which the State of Israel could legitimately claim that continued terrorist attacks constitute nothing less than acts of war, and therefore serve as grounds for a formal declaration of war.  In such a case, there would – at least theoretically – be do difference between a Hamas missile attack on an Israeli civilian population center and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  At that juncture, Israel could employ all its military might against the Palestinians until their either formally surrender and agree to Israeli imposed peace terms or their state is totally destroyed and dismantled, with extreme measures employed to finally effectively put an end to terrorism.

The consequences of such a decision to unilaterally declare Palestinian statehood under the present conditions of instability and violence are profound and frightening – even more for the Palestinian people than for Israel.  That is why I cannot wonder whether this article is indeed a Purim parody on the calls for such immediate statehood.  To consider it otherwise, is to consider it as a dark and devious plan, the ultimate agenda of which is to bring the Palestinian people to the point of truly reaping the bitter crop which has been sown for them by the terrorists within their midst.

Rabbi Henry Jay Karp

February 24, 2010

I.H.T. Op-Ed Contributor

Declare a Palestinian State

By JEROME M. SEGAL

France’s foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, has alarmed the Israeli government with his recent statement that “one can envision the proclamation soon of a Palestinian state, and its immediate recognition by the international community, even before negotiating its borders.”

Israel fears that this will develop into a full blown European Union initiative and has warned that with this approach the Palestinians will have no motivation to resume negotiations. But this argument is not convincing. Were the international community to recognize the State of Palestine, it is likely that it would do so without specifically recognizing the claimed borders of that state, just as the international community does not recognize Israel’s claimed borders.

For instance, the United States has never accepted Israeli claims to sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem. Moreover, international recognition does not end the occupation, nor does it solve the refugee issue, nor the problem of Jerusalem. All of these issues will require negotiations, but early statehood, would put such negotiations on a state-to-state basis, and this would be valuable in a variety of ways.

Of most importance in future negotiations is the issue of security, whether Palestinian forces can prevent attacks on Israel, either suicide terrorists, or rockets fired from the West Bank. If they cannot, then Israel will not withdraw from the West Bank, regardless of what the international community says.

Over the last year, praise has been heaped on the performance of Palestinian security forces, trained under U.S. auspices, and operating under the authority of President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. However, without progress toward genuine statehood, what is today viewed as “successful security cooperation,” will in time dissolve as it comes to be viewed as Palestinian collaboration, with its security forces having become “the police of the occupation.”

Under early statehood, Israel’s refusal to allow non-state actors to operate militarily from the West Bank is on a much stronger footing. A government’s maintenance of a monopoly of force within the area of its claimed sovereignty is one of the basic requirements of statehood.

Early statehood will also contribute toward the resolution of the issues of refugees, Jerusalem and borders. On refugees, it is clear that very few of the six million Palestinian refugees will ever return to Israel. This however, is extremely difficult for the Palestinians to absorb politically. Within the context of statehood, this difficulty is somewhat eased as it is largely untenable for any state to demand that millions of its citizens should be allowed to become citizens of another state.

With respect to borders and security issues, the Israelis have often been tone-deaf in previous negotiations, failing to realize how demeaning to Palestinian dignity were their demands to control Palestinian airspace, or to have land swaps on an unequal basis.

In the context of state-to-state negotiations, there will be some natural evolution toward the symmetries that typified Israel’s negotiations with Jordan and Egypt. Similarly with Jerusalem, the state-to-state context will also be supportive of the need to find a way to share control of the holy sites and to make Jerusalem the capital of both states.

In addition, early statehood offers a way to reduce the likelihood that Hamas will undertake steps to derail negotiations. This can be attained if Hamas is assured that the international community will respect the results of Palestinian democracy, unlike 2006, when following its victory in legislative elections, Hamas was denied the ability to govern. Instead the international community laid down conditions that Hamas rejected. So far there has been no resolution.

Fortunately, the state-to-state context offers a way to deal with the problematic conditions of the Quartet — the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. Thus, the demand that Hamas provide prior recognition of Israel becomes instead one of mutual state-to-state recognition, and the demand that Hamas accept previous agreements negotiated by its P.L.O. rival becomes the standard requirement of continuity of international treaties between state entities, when new governments are elected.

With early statehood there is a chance that the Palestinians will be able to put their house in order, and have a government with sufficient legitimacy to bind the Palestinian people through negotiations.

Finally, it should be noted that for the Palestinian leadership, achieving international recognition of the State of Palestine, without Israeli permission, will be an act of assertiveness that will enhance their ability to make difficult concessions in the negotiations.

For all of these reasons, while international recognition of Palestinian statehood prior to an agreement with Israel is not a magic solution, it is a highly constructive idea that may make successful negotiations a genuine possibility.

Jerome M. Segal directs the Peace Consultancy Project at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. He is co-author of “Negotiating Jerusalem.”