Comments on: The June 4 Lines

By: jdledell

jdledell — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:22:08 +0000

bat – I am very tired of hearing people talk about barak’s generous offer. First off it was not 98% but 92% since 8 % was reserved for existing Jewish settlements. Furthermore, the entire Jordan Valley was considered an Israeli military zone and off limits to Palestinians even though it was part of their 92%. There was a vague suggestion that maybe in 25 years Israel might return the Jordan Valley. The Jordan valley is 20% of the West Bank further reducing the Palestinian state to 72% of the west bank. This is further reduced since Barak proposed much of East Jerusalem would be under Israeli control except heavily populated pockets of arabs would have autonomy.

However, the big kick in the pants was Israeli control of all borders, airspace, sea space, airwaves, water would be under Israeli control. It means everything and everyone coming in or out of the Palestinian “state” would be subject to Israel’s approval. The offer was laughable.

By: LB

LB — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:42:59 +0000

JJG – 1. No, sorry. Hasmoneans were independent. Corruption has brought down many a sovereign entity – doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. By the way, they were not in existence for that much shorter of a period than the first time around there was a united Jewish kingdom. From the beginning of King Saul’s reign until the breakup under Rehavam – 112 years. Hasmoneans – 66 years. In the grand scheme of things not an enormous difference.

2. So? People thought it would just fall into their laps, then people (mostly secular) decided to act on it. That doesn’t mean the desires stemmed from antisemitism.

By: “On the Other Hand…”

“On the Other Hand…” — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:33:49 +0000

[...] commenters on my post about Obama’s Cairo speech have raised the question: Should Obama have based Israel’s [...]

By: bat.

bat. — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:09:51 +0000

The point that you are missing is that, with respect to the Holocaust as well as modern “jihad,” anti-Semitism is not rooted in territorial disputes or reasonable arguements.

“On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”
– Is that really all they want? A homeland? Pardon me if I sound a bit skeptical, but I must wonder why, if all the Palestinian Arabs ever wanted was a homeland, have they historically turned down every offer for a homeland, from the partition plan in 1948 to Ehud Barak’s offer of 98% of the West Bank??? And returned these offers with violence…

By: JJG

JJG — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:23:45 +0000

To LB #9
Well, no – Jewish independence ended some 5-600 years earlier (depending on when you’re counting from) with the Babylonians. Although Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to Israel, it remained part of the Persian Empire until it was conquered by Alexander (who, in Jewish historical memory) was a Good Guy. There was a relatively brief period of independence after the Maccabean revolt, but the Hasmonean dynasty became so corrupt that the Romans were *welcomed*.
The point is not just that your chronology is off; it’s that until the advent of modern Zionism, non-messianic political independence as such was not, in fact, a huge value in Jewish thought.

By: VB

VB — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:46:04 +0000

To LB #9:

BINGO. I had the exact same thought after hearing this. If it were only for antisemitism, why not send all the Jews to the north pole? Why Eretz Yisrael? Because the land of Israel is the cradle of Jewish civilization. It is where the Hebrew language developed and where a Jewish national identity formed. This has no basis in religion whatsoever (i.e., Critics like to sardonically say that Jews believe Israel is theirs because God “said so”). No – the connection to the land is linguistic, cultural, and historic. The Shoah was indeed immensely influential upon the development of the state, but it is not the reason for the state as such. Obama sent precisely the wrong message in this case.

By: LB

LB — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:55:19 +0000

My biggest problem with the speech was this line: “the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.”

The implication is very clear – Israel only exists because of antisemitism. He’s, in effect, denying the Jewish people’s desire for self-determination for self-determination’s sake, and ignoring the long history of Jewish independence (which, of course, ended with the Romans).

There is a big difference between saying Israel was only able to be established because of the Holocaust (wrong, but that’s a different discussion) and saying that events leading up to Holocaust are the reason for the “aspiration for a Jewish homeland.”

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:39:12 +0000

In the end you can only transform yourself. The rest are excuses.

By: chet 380

chet 380 — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:25:48 +0000

An observation re the settlement statement:

“The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.”

Please note the difference the inclusion of the word “continued” makes to this statement. It has to be assumed that the use of the word was carefully considered.

By: svend

svend — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:56:15 +0000

I make no excuses for the sick rhetoric YBD cites–and as a Muslim I think it’s utterly illegitimate, junk theology based more on ideology and politics than religious tradition or spirituality–but I think he is mistaking secondary factors for primary ones. Culture and religious belief plays a role in some prejudices, yes, but to assume those to be independent of (or more influential than) the conflict itself in generating this ugly phenomenon is sorely mistaken, I think. It’s not all that different from opining that Israelis’ fears and/or prejudices against Arabs are based more on the Talmud than obvious real world contemporary events (e.g., suicide bombings). Perhaps an argument can be made there, but it’s seriously counterintuitive. Whether Arabs or Jews are involved, nothing changes in peoples’ hearts or minds while bombs are falling or homes are being bulldozed, and Obama’s proposal seems to me to be a plausible path out of this vicious cycle.