One fun aspect of writing letters to newspapares is when one of their regular Op-Ed writer gives you an opening in their articles to comment.
Just about a month ago I published my blog entry entitled "Tradeoffs 101" where I spoke of the need to understand the "win-lose" dynamics of political decision making.
Then, last week, Charles Krauthammer published his op-ed in the Washington Post called "Obama's Ultimate Agenda", his lament of the increase of government authority under President Obama. OK, I thought, time to incorporate my earlier post into a letter to the WashPost.
I had fun with this one, especially the end. Poor Krauthammer is, I think, clutching at straws. Also, I got in my dig at those who lament "socialist redistribution of income" by pointing out that they, too, have policies that redistribute the other way. Can't income just be income? (the argument that cap gains cuts spur employment is bogus: first, how do we know the investments produce American jobs? Certainly investing in gold, short-selling, or job-reducing mergers and acquisitions doesn't. Second, if we really wanted to reward those who create American jobs, why not do it directly to employers who do exactly that, who can then pass those rewards down tax free to their investors?)
Here's my letter, published April 8th, 2009 in the Washington Post:
Charles Krauthammer lamented the "radical extension of the welfare state" because of the latest proposed "government intervention" in health care, education and energy.
As I'm sure Mr. Krauthammer knows, government intervention is not new. Lincoln intervened in the free-market system to end slavery. Child-labor laws, antitrust laws and minimum-wage laws are other examples. Lowering capital gains tax rates below the tax rates on wages also redistributes income to the non-producing rich.
Our collective decisions must be based on their practicality and their morality. Almost every one of them has tradeoffs -- someone wins, someone loses. A "free" market does not mean a morally responsible or equitable market, so we need checks and balances to get to the fairness level we collectively decide on. That is our democracy.
My difference with Mr. Krauthammer is where we draw our lines. I believe (especially for health care, education and energy) more in a just, partly regulated market than in the dogma of laissez-faire libertarianism.
The editors took out another example - the battle of the current budget between Obama and McCain. McCain's proposal is a win for the high-bracket taxpayer. We're not sure who loses because I have not seen the details of his budget and therefore what exactly gets cut (that's typical Republican way). Obama's budget will provide more jobs, but there will probably be a tax cost down the road (or higher inflation). For now I'll go along with Obama, since I have not heard any better ideas.
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Avigdor Lieberman - the George Wallace of Israel?
Do you remember our Presidential election in 1968? We had 3 candidates: Hubert Humphrey, a moderate (liberal on social and economic issues but supported the Vietnam War); Richard Nixon, a conservative Republican, and the then Governor of Alabama, George Wallace.
Mr. Wallace (now deceased) was well known as the man who stood in front of the doors of the University of Alabama to stop the school from integrating. He wanted, at least at this educational level, the "separation" of races.
Wallace came in third in the election. Got ten million votes and 5 states. This was an ugly time in American history. (Four years later, he was nearly assassinated, the hospital he was brought to is 5 miles from my home.)
Fortunately, our country changed. Wallace himself changed, realized his mistakes, and reformed.
I don't think a man like Wallace would get 10,000,000 votes today. And an African-American has become our President - Thank God.
As we all know, Israel just had an election. The Kadima and Likud parties split the votes, and the third place finisher, in an upset, was Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beitenu party. Like the USA in 1968, there is much turmoil in Israel today, and this can lead to increased Nationalism and scapegoating. (Barack Obama has a great essay about "Black" Nationalism in his Autobiography.)
Like all of us, Lieberman wants a solution to the conflict with the Palestinians. However, like Mr. Wallace, Lieberman wants a "separation" of Jew and Arab from the land of Israel. At least, he doesn't want Arabs who, even though they might already be citizens, have not explicitly professed their "loyalty" towards Israel. This is like "Guilty until proven innocent"!
Lieberman published an Op-Ed in the American Jewish press recently, and I was obliged to respond. What we need to think about is what Zionism is, and what standards we hold ourselves to. Will we let the views of "Israel's George Wallace" prevail?
Here is my letter which got published in Washington Jewish Week.
Israeli Arabs -- loyal until proven otherwise
Perhaps Avigdor Lieberman has changed his tune a bit from his 2004 plan to accept only "loyal" Arabs in Israel ("The case for responsible citizenship in Israel," WJW, March 5). But in essence, I still have a profound disagreement with him on what is right for our Jewish state.
I feel we can follow the American model in this way: All immigrants, regardless of former nationality or religion, must be held to the same standard. In the U.S., all immigrants take an oath of citizenship in order to officially become Americans. For Israel, it can only be "all or nothing" -- either everyone or no one would take the oath.
Those who currently reside in Israel, regardless of religious beliefs, should be treated the same in one important respect -- they are "loyal citizens" until proven (by law) otherwise.
A deviation from this would, in my view, strengthen the Carter-Apartheid view of Israel, and that's the last thing we need.
Thanks for reading.
Update: 4/2/09 - Lieberman is now Foreign Minister of Israel, and has stated that the Annapolis process no longer applies. Meanwhile, a newly-elected Arab member of the Knesset declared that "the very concept of a Jewish state was "inherently racist," saying that Israel must be turned into a "state of all its citizens," which would eliminate its Jewish or Zionist nature".
I see clouds on the horizon.
Mr. Wallace (now deceased) was well known as the man who stood in front of the doors of the University of Alabama to stop the school from integrating. He wanted, at least at this educational level, the "separation" of races.
Wallace came in third in the election. Got ten million votes and 5 states. This was an ugly time in American history. (Four years later, he was nearly assassinated, the hospital he was brought to is 5 miles from my home.)
Fortunately, our country changed. Wallace himself changed, realized his mistakes, and reformed.
I don't think a man like Wallace would get 10,000,000 votes today. And an African-American has become our President - Thank God.
As we all know, Israel just had an election. The Kadima and Likud parties split the votes, and the third place finisher, in an upset, was Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beitenu party. Like the USA in 1968, there is much turmoil in Israel today, and this can lead to increased Nationalism and scapegoating. (Barack Obama has a great essay about "Black" Nationalism in his Autobiography.)
Like all of us, Lieberman wants a solution to the conflict with the Palestinians. However, like Mr. Wallace, Lieberman wants a "separation" of Jew and Arab from the land of Israel. At least, he doesn't want Arabs who, even though they might already be citizens, have not explicitly professed their "loyalty" towards Israel. This is like "Guilty until proven innocent"!
Lieberman published an Op-Ed in the American Jewish press recently, and I was obliged to respond. What we need to think about is what Zionism is, and what standards we hold ourselves to. Will we let the views of "Israel's George Wallace" prevail?
Here is my letter which got published in Washington Jewish Week.
Israeli Arabs -- loyal until proven otherwise
Perhaps Avigdor Lieberman has changed his tune a bit from his 2004 plan to accept only "loyal" Arabs in Israel ("The case for responsible citizenship in Israel," WJW, March 5). But in essence, I still have a profound disagreement with him on what is right for our Jewish state.
I feel we can follow the American model in this way: All immigrants, regardless of former nationality or religion, must be held to the same standard. In the U.S., all immigrants take an oath of citizenship in order to officially become Americans. For Israel, it can only be "all or nothing" -- either everyone or no one would take the oath.
Those who currently reside in Israel, regardless of religious beliefs, should be treated the same in one important respect -- they are "loyal citizens" until proven (by law) otherwise.
A deviation from this would, in my view, strengthen the Carter-Apartheid view of Israel, and that's the last thing we need.
Thanks for reading.
Update: 4/2/09 - Lieberman is now Foreign Minister of Israel, and has stated that the Annapolis process no longer applies. Meanwhile, a newly-elected Arab member of the Knesset declared that "the very concept of a Jewish state was "inherently racist," saying that Israel must be turned into a "state of all its citizens," which would eliminate its Jewish or Zionist nature".
I see clouds on the horizon.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Tradeoffs 101
When you hear a politician say "This is good for America", or "This is good for the working man", do you buy it?
I'm turning 55 next month, but years ago I figured out a basic principle about politics - I'll call it "The Law of Tradeoffs".
Simply put: There is no one way for any government to do things right. All poltical decisions have tradeoffs".
This is true for your condo board, your county government, your school system, your state government, the federal government, and even the United Nations.
Every decision, poltical or economic, has winners and losers. Always keep this in mind as you hear a proposal or read a budget.
For example - this is an easy one - let's take tax policy. If President Obama wishes to cut taxes for the "average American", but raise taxes on the upper income bracket, it would appear that the middle and lower brackets are "winners" and the upper bracket the "loser". The Republicans, on the other hand, want to make the Bush upper bracket tax cuts permanent and give some additional tax cuts to businesses. Here the list of winners and losers are different (the Republicans claim a "trickle down" effect, but it's not clear that the trickling actually occurs).
Most of the time, the tradeoffs are more subtle. Let's take health care for example. There are a number of proposals out there. If we go to a single-payer system like Canada, who are the winners and who are the losers? I don't know for sure, but I can tell you with certainty that there will be some people on both sides of the win-lose fence. And it's not black and white, there are shades of gray. The "biggest" winner would probably be those who have the most medical needs and the least money, those who could not be insured. The biggest loser would probably be one who never felt he/she needed insurance and now has a mandate to pay for it each year. (Some are saying that this system can cause long waits, so maybe those affected would be losers as well.) But what about most of us, who have either private insurance that we pay for or is subsidozed by our employers or the government? Who will be the winners, who will be the losers? It's hard to tell.
Now sometimes you'll hear (even from me) that a policy is "win-win", as if everybody benefits. That may look right at the surface, but if you dig in, you'll find someone who will be worse off. I don't mean to be cynical, I will heartily support some policies that benefit many but adversely affect a few, but I just want to warn that we should never be misled.
So what do I do with this realization? If you look at my opening blog entry I spoke of "PatBuchannanism" and "Universalism". I stated that I do not share the former, a viewpoint that looks narrowly at self-interest at all levels of decision making. I'm more on the side of the Universalist, who wishes for decisions made for the the overall good. But I always have to remind myself of the "tradeoff" rule. Some people will be worse off by a policy. So I have to identify the winners and losers. Can I (or we as a nation) live with this choice? If the policy involves self-sacrifice for the overall good, can I accept it? (yep, even I will act out of self-interest at times, but I'll at least try to catch myself).
As we go through our current economic crisis and solutions are proposed, it will be wise for us to keep the tradeoff rule in mind. Who will bank bailouts help? Who will they hurt? Is the massive spending on infrastructure going to help one group but hurt another? If so, who and by how much? What sacrifices will I need to make to go green? Will it help my child (who is 8 months old)?
If you take a budget for your association or government, there are inflows and outflows. If it changes, ask about who pays more, who pays less, who gets more, and who gets less? It's quite that simple.
I think this is a better way to look at our politics than to assign labels such as "right-wing", "socialist", "liberal", or "conservative".
What I ask of all politicians is that they be honest - that they adopt the principal of "tradeoffs" and accurately identify to their constituents the potential winners and losers in any new policy proposal or budget change. With this information we will have what we've always wanted to have in America, an informed, engaged public, using our democratic institutions to make our lives and this country (and the world) a better place.
Thanks for reading.
I'm turning 55 next month, but years ago I figured out a basic principle about politics - I'll call it "The Law of Tradeoffs".
Simply put: There is no one way for any government to do things right. All poltical decisions have tradeoffs".
This is true for your condo board, your county government, your school system, your state government, the federal government, and even the United Nations.
Every decision, poltical or economic, has winners and losers. Always keep this in mind as you hear a proposal or read a budget.
For example - this is an easy one - let's take tax policy. If President Obama wishes to cut taxes for the "average American", but raise taxes on the upper income bracket, it would appear that the middle and lower brackets are "winners" and the upper bracket the "loser". The Republicans, on the other hand, want to make the Bush upper bracket tax cuts permanent and give some additional tax cuts to businesses. Here the list of winners and losers are different (the Republicans claim a "trickle down" effect, but it's not clear that the trickling actually occurs).
Most of the time, the tradeoffs are more subtle. Let's take health care for example. There are a number of proposals out there. If we go to a single-payer system like Canada, who are the winners and who are the losers? I don't know for sure, but I can tell you with certainty that there will be some people on both sides of the win-lose fence. And it's not black and white, there are shades of gray. The "biggest" winner would probably be those who have the most medical needs and the least money, those who could not be insured. The biggest loser would probably be one who never felt he/she needed insurance and now has a mandate to pay for it each year. (Some are saying that this system can cause long waits, so maybe those affected would be losers as well.) But what about most of us, who have either private insurance that we pay for or is subsidozed by our employers or the government? Who will be the winners, who will be the losers? It's hard to tell.
Now sometimes you'll hear (even from me) that a policy is "win-win", as if everybody benefits. That may look right at the surface, but if you dig in, you'll find someone who will be worse off. I don't mean to be cynical, I will heartily support some policies that benefit many but adversely affect a few, but I just want to warn that we should never be misled.
So what do I do with this realization? If you look at my opening blog entry I spoke of "PatBuchannanism" and "Universalism". I stated that I do not share the former, a viewpoint that looks narrowly at self-interest at all levels of decision making. I'm more on the side of the Universalist, who wishes for decisions made for the the overall good. But I always have to remind myself of the "tradeoff" rule. Some people will be worse off by a policy. So I have to identify the winners and losers. Can I (or we as a nation) live with this choice? If the policy involves self-sacrifice for the overall good, can I accept it? (yep, even I will act out of self-interest at times, but I'll at least try to catch myself).
As we go through our current economic crisis and solutions are proposed, it will be wise for us to keep the tradeoff rule in mind. Who will bank bailouts help? Who will they hurt? Is the massive spending on infrastructure going to help one group but hurt another? If so, who and by how much? What sacrifices will I need to make to go green? Will it help my child (who is 8 months old)?
If you take a budget for your association or government, there are inflows and outflows. If it changes, ask about who pays more, who pays less, who gets more, and who gets less? It's quite that simple.
I think this is a better way to look at our politics than to assign labels such as "right-wing", "socialist", "liberal", or "conservative".
What I ask of all politicians is that they be honest - that they adopt the principal of "tradeoffs" and accurately identify to their constituents the potential winners and losers in any new policy proposal or budget change. With this information we will have what we've always wanted to have in America, an informed, engaged public, using our democratic institutions to make our lives and this country (and the world) a better place.
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The Politics of Our Current Economy
This is what I tried to get published today, it sums up what I see going on in Washington:
It is good to see Senator McCain expressing his wrath over earmarks and pork by the big-bad government. But have we heard an equal expression of anger from him about how the people of this great country are being ripped off by greedy speculators, incompetent yet immensely powerful corporations, and Senators who vote for war and then hide the true cost of it? Has he shown compassion towards those who have truly lost during this economic crisis?
This is a man who will use every opportunity to be an opportunist. He needs to look at his own actions before being critical of our President's attempts to be honest. At least with Obama we now will have some transparency. (Senator, where where you with that? Where was your rage when Bush raised the deficit?)
My Friends, he claims to be a maverick, but he is just a sore loser
Thanks for reading.
It is good to see Senator McCain expressing his wrath over earmarks and pork by the big-bad government. But have we heard an equal expression of anger from him about how the people of this great country are being ripped off by greedy speculators, incompetent yet immensely powerful corporations, and Senators who vote for war and then hide the true cost of it? Has he shown compassion towards those who have truly lost during this economic crisis?
This is a man who will use every opportunity to be an opportunist. He needs to look at his own actions before being critical of our President's attempts to be honest. At least with Obama we now will have some transparency. (Senator, where where you with that? Where was your rage when Bush raised the deficit?)
My Friends, he claims to be a maverick, but he is just a sore loser
Thanks for reading.
Iran and the Jews
After a long hiatus from writing, I decided to return. I got a letter to the Editor in the NY Times today in response to recent columns by Roger Cohen:
To the Editor:Re "Iran, the Jews and Germany," by Roger Cohen:
As a Jewish American, I have mixed feelings about Mr. Cohen's columns on Iran. Iranians as a whole are respectful of Jews. But anti-Zionist fervor and policy have existed in Iran's government since 1979, making Jews fearful of being attacked, resulting in counterthreats and more fear.
Yet I believe that we have a common bond with the people of Iran in that we all wish for a just two-state solution. (I know Iranians are very sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, but under the Shah they were friendlier toward Israel, and I believe this carries over to the present.)
In the United States, we have elected a man who, I hope, will work toward reconciliation. I hope that in their elections in June, Iranians will voice that they would like to be more constructive toward the Israel-Palestine conflict. It would be a win-win situation, as this would improve both Iran's relations with the world and its economy.
This is the link to the Cohen article, and this is the link to my letter:
Basically I see what Mr. Cohen is trying to do, which is similar to what I had to say in my post about Marjane Satrapi. Iran appears to me to be another example of a land whose people is far better than their current leaders. But, as bad as we think they are, we must show respect to the nation, and make overtures to mitigate the tension. We know there's a good chance theyare trying to build a nuclear bomb. I think we're in a race against time - if the Israel-Palestine issue can be resolved, Iran would be less of a threat. The vice-versa of this is also true, solving the U.S.-Iran issue will help solve Israel-Palestine. but I sincerely doubt it will be in that order. Israel-Palestine has to be solved first, and it better be soon.
More to come. Thanks for reading.
To the Editor:Re "Iran, the Jews and Germany," by Roger Cohen:
As a Jewish American, I have mixed feelings about Mr. Cohen's columns on Iran. Iranians as a whole are respectful of Jews. But anti-Zionist fervor and policy have existed in Iran's government since 1979, making Jews fearful of being attacked, resulting in counterthreats and more fear.
Yet I believe that we have a common bond with the people of Iran in that we all wish for a just two-state solution. (I know Iranians are very sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, but under the Shah they were friendlier toward Israel, and I believe this carries over to the present.)
In the United States, we have elected a man who, I hope, will work toward reconciliation. I hope that in their elections in June, Iranians will voice that they would like to be more constructive toward the Israel-Palestine conflict. It would be a win-win situation, as this would improve both Iran's relations with the world and its economy.
This is the link to the Cohen article, and this is the link to my letter:
Basically I see what Mr. Cohen is trying to do, which is similar to what I had to say in my post about Marjane Satrapi. Iran appears to me to be another example of a land whose people is far better than their current leaders. But, as bad as we think they are, we must show respect to the nation, and make overtures to mitigate the tension. We know there's a good chance theyare trying to build a nuclear bomb. I think we're in a race against time - if the Israel-Palestine issue can be resolved, Iran would be less of a threat. The vice-versa of this is also true, solving the U.S.-Iran issue will help solve Israel-Palestine. but I sincerely doubt it will be in that order. Israel-Palestine has to be solved first, and it better be soon.
More to come. Thanks for reading.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Perspolis, Iran, Maus, and the Holocaust
Back on April 2nd, I attended a presentation and book signing for Marjane Satrapi, author of the graphic novel and movie "Persepolis". She spoke at the McLean Virginia Community Center and drew a full-house crowd of about 400. I had recently seen the movie and was very moved by it. It is the story of a young girl in Iran growing up around the time of the Islamic Revolution (1979), her family and people. It spans about 10 years or so in her life, much of it during the Iran-Iraq war.
There are a lot of areas of discussion that I am sure have already been covered, but at this presentation I learned a couple of new things.
First, Marjane discussed her inspiration for using the graphic novel (or "cartoon", the term she prefers) form. It comes from Art Spiegelman's book "Maus", which is a heart-wrenching story of the Holocaust.
Given all of the negative words that have been eminating from the current leadership in Iran, especially their denial of the Holocaust, it was wonderfully refreshing to find out that at least this person had not entered that terrible camp. From what I've heard from other Iranians in the U.S, this is also true of most of their population.
(Furthermore, there is a moving scene in the book where she sadly learns that her next-door neighbor in Tehran, a Jewish family, ends up being killed by Saddam's bombs during the war with Iraq. And let's keep in mind who was supporting Saddam - the United States.)
I asked her a question during the Q&A about the Iranian people's attitude towards Israel. I may not have worded it too well, as she began her answer speaking about "anti-semitism" - how it was really a "European" phenomenon, and how the Jewish people have lived in Iran for over 1000 years and have been treated with great respect (facts are, though, that many have left since 1979). But at the end, she stated that the people of Iran have no issue with Israel's existence, but feels very strongly that Israel does have some human rights issues. The last part of her response made me feel somewhat uncomfortable, but I was at least satisfied that it was not as bad as what the press says, and we could respectfully disagree and hopefully have some dialogue.
The picture is of Ms. Satrapi just before she signed my copy of her book. It was well-worth attending! (I immediately bought "Maus" afterwards).
Thank you for reading
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
An Open Letter to President Carter
This was sent to the Internatonal Herald Tribune, but it did not get published:
----- Original Message -----
To: opinion@iht.com
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 1:52 PM
Subject: An Open Letter to President Jimmy Carter
To President Carter:
I'd like to offer my view on your upcoming Mideast trip. Please understand that I say everything with the utmost respect and admiration for what you've done in the past.
You and I have the same goal: A permanent peace between Palestine and Israel. The question is: how do we get there?
In my view, we need to look at past and present. We all agree on Israel's right to exist. We all agree that the Palestinians have a right to their sovereign country. This was part of the 1947 UN Partition Plan.
Where we start to diverge is what happened during the 1947-1948 timeframe. In your book "Peace, Not Apartheid", you acknowldge that the Arab States opposed the UN Partition Plan. You also acknowledge that the Palestinians rejected it. You even acknowledge that the Arabs declared war on the new Jewish state.
Due to the war, as you pointed out, an estimated 750,000 Palestinians became displaced (or refugees). But it is not clear how, in every case, Palestinian families left their homes. I did hear of stories that the Israeli's forced some away. I heard of stories that the Arabs ordered families to move. I wasn't around at the time (I was born in 1954).
But most likely, the story is similar to those of my parents, who lived in Poland until 1939. My father (now deceased) saw the writing on the wall, and decided to leave Poland with my Mom (his new bride) and ended up spending 6 years in Russia. Eventually they ended up in America.
The book "The Faith Club", by Ranya Idliby, who is of Muslim/Palestinian descent (along with Priscilla Warner, a Jew, and Suzanne Oilver, a Christian) has this passage by Ms. Idilby:
""The overwhelming majority of Palestinians fled in fear as war broke out. They believed that they would return when conditions calmed down. The Israeli Army murdered Palestinians ... and frightened the Palestinians out of their homes".
So responsibility is a bit confusing, at best. Why couldn't there have been a compromise in 1947? Why were some of of the Israelis so cruel to the Palestinians?
But, President Carter, in your book, you seem to only ask the latter question, you ignore the first. You point responsibility only one way, even as you acknowledge the facts.
OK, so now let's look ahead. You wish to speak with Hamas. If speaking with them can help bring peace, fine. But they seem to be stuck in pre-1948 ideology.
And this is a little different, in my view, than 1980, when Andrew Young ('illegally") spoke to the PLO. The Palestinians have a representative now that is in favor of the 2-state solution. I believe your emphasis, if not sole purpose, should be to advance the cause of this leader, President.Mahmoud Abbas.
An analogy I think of: If my next door neighbor is claiming that my house is his, continually shoots at my house, refuses to talk about any agreement, what is my first obligation? Of course, it is to protect myself. Asking me to speak to this neighbor is a non-starter, since he doesn't want to talk to me. So Mr. Carter, what would you recommend in this instance?
I hope you understand that Hamas' intentions in this meeting is to gain acceptance, nothing more. And with this acceptance I only see more bloodshed, as they can use it as leverage against Abbas. If you know of another reason, please inform me.
So I hope you do the right thing and not meet with Hamas. If you do, I only pray that your name is not added to those who helped destroy a nation.
(Signature)
Thanks for reading this.
----- Original Message -----
To: opinion@iht.com
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 1:52 PM
Subject: An Open Letter to President Jimmy Carter
To President Carter:
I'd like to offer my view on your upcoming Mideast trip. Please understand that I say everything with the utmost respect and admiration for what you've done in the past.
You and I have the same goal: A permanent peace between Palestine and Israel. The question is: how do we get there?
In my view, we need to look at past and present. We all agree on Israel's right to exist. We all agree that the Palestinians have a right to their sovereign country. This was part of the 1947 UN Partition Plan.
Where we start to diverge is what happened during the 1947-1948 timeframe. In your book "Peace, Not Apartheid", you acknowldge that the Arab States opposed the UN Partition Plan. You also acknowledge that the Palestinians rejected it. You even acknowledge that the Arabs declared war on the new Jewish state.
Due to the war, as you pointed out, an estimated 750,000 Palestinians became displaced (or refugees). But it is not clear how, in every case, Palestinian families left their homes. I did hear of stories that the Israeli's forced some away. I heard of stories that the Arabs ordered families to move. I wasn't around at the time (I was born in 1954).
But most likely, the story is similar to those of my parents, who lived in Poland until 1939. My father (now deceased) saw the writing on the wall, and decided to leave Poland with my Mom (his new bride) and ended up spending 6 years in Russia. Eventually they ended up in America.
The book "The Faith Club", by Ranya Idliby, who is of Muslim/Palestinian descent (along with Priscilla Warner, a Jew, and Suzanne Oilver, a Christian) has this passage by Ms. Idilby:
""The overwhelming majority of Palestinians fled in fear as war broke out. They believed that they would return when conditions calmed down. The Israeli Army murdered Palestinians ... and frightened the Palestinians out of their homes".
So responsibility is a bit confusing, at best. Why couldn't there have been a compromise in 1947? Why were some of of the Israelis so cruel to the Palestinians?
But, President Carter, in your book, you seem to only ask the latter question, you ignore the first. You point responsibility only one way, even as you acknowledge the facts.
OK, so now let's look ahead. You wish to speak with Hamas. If speaking with them can help bring peace, fine. But they seem to be stuck in pre-1948 ideology.
And this is a little different, in my view, than 1980, when Andrew Young ('illegally") spoke to the PLO. The Palestinians have a representative now that is in favor of the 2-state solution. I believe your emphasis, if not sole purpose, should be to advance the cause of this leader, President.Mahmoud Abbas.
An analogy I think of: If my next door neighbor is claiming that my house is his, continually shoots at my house, refuses to talk about any agreement, what is my first obligation? Of course, it is to protect myself. Asking me to speak to this neighbor is a non-starter, since he doesn't want to talk to me. So Mr. Carter, what would you recommend in this instance?
I hope you understand that Hamas' intentions in this meeting is to gain acceptance, nothing more. And with this acceptance I only see more bloodshed, as they can use it as leverage against Abbas. If you know of another reason, please inform me.
So I hope you do the right thing and not meet with Hamas. If you do, I only pray that your name is not added to those who helped destroy a nation.
(Signature)
Thanks for reading this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)