US Senator Joe Lieberman is in Israel. He's been here on pro-Israel visits before, but this time it's been different. This time it's starting to sound like the traditional 'before I put my hat in the ring to make my run for the White House' sort of visit. Senator Lieberman also visited in Ramallah with Palestinian officials, but not with Yasser Arafat. He said in an interview on Israel Radio (Dec 23), that Congress supports the establishment of a Palestinian state. What concerns me most is that I heard him say, "The conflict between people here will only end with a two-state solution, a strong and peaceful Israel living next to a strong and peaceful Palestine."
A Strong and Peaceful Palestine?
Has a more warped oxymoron been thought of? If Palestine is strong, why, pray tell, would they be peaceful? Does he see the Palestinian opinion surveys that show from 40-80% support for continuing the Intifadah (i.e. armed conflict with Jews), including continued suicide bombings? If Palestine wants to be peaceful, it doesn't need to be strong, but simply to live, work, and do business with Jews/Israelis, just like people do all over the civilized world.
Senator Lieberman might be a Connecticut Yankee and a proper gentleman, but he needs to understand that this is not the Mid-West, but the Mid-East. Here, strength means power, and power is used to further your cause and/or protect yourself from your enemies. What enemies do the Palestinians have? The Egyptians? The Jordanians? Certainly not Israel, which since the early 1990's has systematically attempted to force peace (i.e. give them territory) onto a population group (the Arabs) who are still in the middle of violent revolutionary fervor, wanting desperately to militarily vanquish their enemy (Israel). No other rational explanation for Arafat's rejection of former Prime Minister Ehud Barak's peace offer and then starting the Oslo War makes sense. Peace itself isn't good enough for Arafat and the Palestinians; they need it after having achieved a military victory over Israel. And if they do 'beat' Israel, why would they offer it peace? A strong Palestinian state will only use its strength to fend off peace overtures from Israel, or to further their cause - to 'liberate' all of Palestine.
Joe Lieberman for president in 2004?
When he ran for vice-president with Al Gore in 2000, many in the Jewish community and in Israel quietly questioned, "Will it be good for the Jews?" No doubt about it, Senator Joe Lieberman has been a good friend of Israel through the years. But, being a friend does not prevent you from making bad policy decisions. The tragedy of the Oslo Process (which brought the current war on us) occurred during former President Bill Clinton's watch. Clinton was hailed as the 'best friend' of Israel in a long time (during the 1990's), yet he brought 'shalom' - a real 'chaver'. History proves again, 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'
The basic rule (historically speaking) has been that if a Jew is able to rise up the power ladder in a gentile country, he has to be assimilated to gentile culture enough to be 'non-threatening' to the power elite of that host society. I'm not questioning Joe Lieberman's level of personal religious observance, for example, kashrut and Sabbath observance (he claims to be Orthodox). But since the beginning of the Zionist revival, Judaism has reclaimed the national aspect of Torah observance as well. Having a government, army, building towns and villages, and planting trees and vineyards in the Land of Israel are all the fulfillment of mitzvot (religious precepts). What concerns me is an American Jewish President willing (as have been Israeli Prime Ministers) to give up parts of the ancient Jewish homeland to foreigners (the Arabs). An American Jewish President willing to create a 'Palestinian State'. This President, unlike Bill Clinton or George Bush, will probably tell us that as 'a religious Jew' he 'knows' that Judaism holds peace as the highest value, and that it?s acceptable to give up claims to parts of our 'Holy Land' for the promise of peace. We've all seen where the 'peace process' has taken us (almost 700 killed and almost 5,000 injured in just the last 2 years alone).
Forget the fact that Jews yearned for 2,000 years to return to their Promised Land and re-establish national life as an independent nation living in its own homeland. Forget the fact that control over the Land is the fulfillment of a religious precept. Forget the fact that giving up territory and further claims to it are a retreat from that observance and a rejection of G-d. What's most important is America's global agenda, which includes a pacified Middle East; i.e., an Israel willing to trade its patrimony for the promise of peace. What's most important is to be 'even-handed' between Israel and the Palestinians. What's most important is the glory gained for an American President, the first Jewish president, to bring that peace to the region. He will do it to Israel for its own good, because he is Israel's friend.
And what kind of ?peace? will it be? A ?strong and peaceful Palestine.?
What a nightmare!
--------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. His articles have been published on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, as well as in print newspapers.
(c)2002/5763 Pasko
A Strong and Peaceful Palestine?
Has a more warped oxymoron been thought of? If Palestine is strong, why, pray tell, would they be peaceful? Does he see the Palestinian opinion surveys that show from 40-80% support for continuing the Intifadah (i.e. armed conflict with Jews), including continued suicide bombings? If Palestine wants to be peaceful, it doesn't need to be strong, but simply to live, work, and do business with Jews/Israelis, just like people do all over the civilized world.
Senator Lieberman might be a Connecticut Yankee and a proper gentleman, but he needs to understand that this is not the Mid-West, but the Mid-East. Here, strength means power, and power is used to further your cause and/or protect yourself from your enemies. What enemies do the Palestinians have? The Egyptians? The Jordanians? Certainly not Israel, which since the early 1990's has systematically attempted to force peace (i.e. give them territory) onto a population group (the Arabs) who are still in the middle of violent revolutionary fervor, wanting desperately to militarily vanquish their enemy (Israel). No other rational explanation for Arafat's rejection of former Prime Minister Ehud Barak's peace offer and then starting the Oslo War makes sense. Peace itself isn't good enough for Arafat and the Palestinians; they need it after having achieved a military victory over Israel. And if they do 'beat' Israel, why would they offer it peace? A strong Palestinian state will only use its strength to fend off peace overtures from Israel, or to further their cause - to 'liberate' all of Palestine.
Joe Lieberman for president in 2004?
When he ran for vice-president with Al Gore in 2000, many in the Jewish community and in Israel quietly questioned, "Will it be good for the Jews?" No doubt about it, Senator Joe Lieberman has been a good friend of Israel through the years. But, being a friend does not prevent you from making bad policy decisions. The tragedy of the Oslo Process (which brought the current war on us) occurred during former President Bill Clinton's watch. Clinton was hailed as the 'best friend' of Israel in a long time (during the 1990's), yet he brought 'shalom' - a real 'chaver'. History proves again, 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'
The basic rule (historically speaking) has been that if a Jew is able to rise up the power ladder in a gentile country, he has to be assimilated to gentile culture enough to be 'non-threatening' to the power elite of that host society. I'm not questioning Joe Lieberman's level of personal religious observance, for example, kashrut and Sabbath observance (he claims to be Orthodox). But since the beginning of the Zionist revival, Judaism has reclaimed the national aspect of Torah observance as well. Having a government, army, building towns and villages, and planting trees and vineyards in the Land of Israel are all the fulfillment of mitzvot (religious precepts). What concerns me is an American Jewish President willing (as have been Israeli Prime Ministers) to give up parts of the ancient Jewish homeland to foreigners (the Arabs). An American Jewish President willing to create a 'Palestinian State'. This President, unlike Bill Clinton or George Bush, will probably tell us that as 'a religious Jew' he 'knows' that Judaism holds peace as the highest value, and that it?s acceptable to give up claims to parts of our 'Holy Land' for the promise of peace. We've all seen where the 'peace process' has taken us (almost 700 killed and almost 5,000 injured in just the last 2 years alone).
Forget the fact that Jews yearned for 2,000 years to return to their Promised Land and re-establish national life as an independent nation living in its own homeland. Forget the fact that control over the Land is the fulfillment of a religious precept. Forget the fact that giving up territory and further claims to it are a retreat from that observance and a rejection of G-d. What's most important is America's global agenda, which includes a pacified Middle East; i.e., an Israel willing to trade its patrimony for the promise of peace. What's most important is to be 'even-handed' between Israel and the Palestinians. What's most important is the glory gained for an American President, the first Jewish president, to bring that peace to the region. He will do it to Israel for its own good, because he is Israel's friend.
And what kind of ?peace? will it be? A ?strong and peaceful Palestine.?
What a nightmare!
--------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. His articles have been published on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, as well as in print newspapers.
(c)2002/5763 Pasko
