A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews.

 
Bizarro World

In just about every newspaper in the world, a column about Israel that expresses views to the right of Ariel Sharon would be deemed quite hawkish. Yet this week in the Jewish Press, two of the three letters criticized me for being too soft in my column last week, while a third praised me for my "courage" and the Jewish Press "for providing a forum" for my views.

Anyway, here are the three letters, followed by my response:

The Jewish Press is to be commended for publishing Joseph Schick’s well-reasoned op-ed "Can One Be Right Wing And Pragmatic?" (March 18). His article represents a refreshing change from the “Israel is about to be destroyed” scenario constantly posited by so many right-wingers here and in Israel.

One can be an unreconstructed hawk on Israel and still be realistic enough to realize that it’s ludicrous at this point in time to be talking about “expelling all the Arabs” or insisting that “there’s no such thing as a Palestinian people” (historically speaking, that’s correct, but we lost that public relations battle years ago).

I admire Mr. Schick for his courage in stating convictions that no doubt will invite derision from extremists, and I thank The Jewish Press for providing a forum for views with which many of its readers undoubtedly disagree.

Yitzchak Cates, New York, NY

Although I always appreciate reading Joseph Schick`s thoughtful views on the Middle East, he falls prey to his own arguments in his March 18 op-ed. Schick says he disagrees with Prime Minister Sharon`s "disengagement" plan because he thinks it is a faulty strategy to bring about his (Sharon`s) goals "to retain all of Jerusalem`s Old City, part of the Jordan Valley, and more than the four percent of Judea and Samaria that Israel was left with under the Clinton Plan."

But he is sharply critical of those opposed to any territorial concessions and who lack a "recognition that Israel will have to give up territory but must fight hard to keep whatever it can."

"There is no understanding," he says, "that both Oslo and Barak`s concessions greatly damaged Israel`s negotiating position, and that Sharon`s motivation is to preserve more than the four percent Israel would have kept had Arafat accepted the Clinton Plan."

Why does Schick think that absolutist opposition at home does not strengthen Sharon`s hand internationally and tend to lead to fewer Israeli concessions over time? Isn`t that the flip side of Schick`s acknowledgment that Oslo and Barak`s unilateral concessions undermined Israel`s negotiating position?

And why does he not explore the consequences of a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in terms of it representing a reward for terror, resulting in a boost for Hamas and an undermining of Mahmoud Abbas?

Moreover, doesn`t an uncompromising biblically-based Jewish claim, especially to East Jerusalem, add crucial weight to Israel`s position in the light of the Palestinian rationale of not only nationalism but also religious imperative?

Finally, to me it is not very seemly to criticize as politically naive those who unashamedly take the Five Books of Moses seriously. One man`s naivete is another`s faith. Schick may disagree with their interpretation of Scripture, but the religious Right really does have a point.

Glenn Friedman, New York, NY

Joseph Schick seems to suffer from the same defeatist attitude that afflicts many in the Jewish community. No one respects someone who does not stand up for principle. When Arafat rejected the so-called Clinton Plan, it was only because he thought it was a gift so easy to come by that an even better deal was just around the corner. For good reason, he saw Oslo as a ground floor for future negotiations.

Nor has President Bush gone as far as he has because of Israel`s rolling over. Bush`s support is as strong as it is because of Israel`s willingness to take on terror and its refusal to knuckle under to the UN and the Europeans.

Barak`s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon made heroes of Hizbullah and did more than anything else to glorify terrorism in the Arab world and encourage Palestinian recalcitrance. How can anyone think that Gaza will be any different? The problem is not that people don`t think that Sharon has a plan to keep as much as possible, but that he does not seem to have learned from recent history.

Leslie Millstein

Joseph Schick replies:

Yitzchak Cates`s kind words are appreciated. Glenn Friedman asks why I don`t explore the consequences of a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. In fact, I have analyzed — in detail — Sharon`s plan in previous Jewish Press columns, and expressed my opposition to the withdrawal based upon such analysis. Those columns are available on the Jewish Press website.

Mr. Friedman believes that "absolutist opposition" will "lead to fewer Israeli concessions over time." But history suggests the opposite. Prime Minister Shamir`s government was brought down by the far right following Israel`s participation in the 1991 Madrid Conference. Shamir was replaced by Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the Oslo Accords and revived the PLO. The National Religious Party caused the collapse of the Netanyahu government following the 1998 Wye River Agreement to transfer 13 percent of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinian Authority. When Ehud Barak defeated Netanyahu in the ensuing election, the NRP was the first to join Barak`s new coalition. Barak`s concessions at Camp David and Taba dwarfed anything Netanyahu ever contemplated.

This does not mean that right-wing opposition to Sharon is always inappropriate or ineffective. As I wrote, my views are similar to those of Uzi Landau, who leads the Likud opposition to Sharon. Landau recognizes that territorial compromise will be necessary for real peace, but rejects the Sharon plan. Coherent opposition based upon pragmatic goals is distinct from "absolutist opposition."

As for the Five Books of Moses, I too take them seriously — along with the rest of Tanach and the Talmud. Religiously, historically and morally, Israel has a right to all of Judea and Samaria. But a strategy that ignores the serious challenges Israel faces will not succeed in retaining disputed territory.

Leslie Millstein calls my attitude "defeatist" but his letter has little to do with my column. The column and previous ones clearly stated my view that Oslo, Ehud Barak`s acceptance of the Clinton Plan and the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza were and are mistakes. Mr. Millstein`s failure to distinguish between my political views and goals and those of Barak are a good illustration of my column`s assertion that many on the extreme right have no ability to recognize nuance. Not everyone to the left of Kach is a leftist. Mr. Millstein`s apparent belief that President Bush`s vision for a permanent settlement differs greatly from Clinton`s ignores Bush`s frequent comments that indicate the contrary.
posted on 3/24/2005