I have been asked to address two questions. First, is it appropriate for diaspora Jews to advocate for a position contrary to a policy of the Israeli government? Second, what is my position regarding the Israeli government’s disengagement plan in Gaza and four West Bank settlements?
I say yes to the first question; and I am in favor, with qualifications, of the disengagement plan.
Another way to phrase the first question is to ask whether diaspora Jews should adopt the policy of the Milwaukee Jewish Council for Community Relations vis a vis Israel:
“It is our Zionist and communal responsibility to express support for the policies of the government of Israel because they are the actions of a democratically elected government of the sovereign Jewish state.”
The MJCCR policy, which is also that of other American Jewish organizations, strikes me as neither Jewish nor principled. The Torah teaches that we may not stand idly by and the prophets summarized what the commandments really require of us: to love mercy, to perform justice and to walk humbly with God.
Torah does not tell us to see how the Jewish state votes and then go along for the ride regardless of whether the policy adopted is ethical. On the contrary, it obligates us to make an ethical judgment — to perform justice with mercy.
Moreover, as an American citizen, or indeed as members of an American Jewish organization, we have not only the right, but also the civic duty to address our government’s policies toward Israel.
Given the amount of aid the United States gives to Israel and the U.S. government’s lengthy and deep involvement in the Israeli-Arab conflict, we are obligated as citizens to take a stand regarding our government’s policies, particularly if they support an objectionable Israeli policy.
Needed first step
As to the disengagement itself, it is not only a good idea, but also a necessary first step in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is, however, only a first step and, one hopes, not simply a ruse to maintain Israel’s control over the entire West Bank.
It appears that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon adopted the disengagement plan for at least two reasons.
First, he did so due to the so-called demographic problem. If Israel continued its occupation of Gaza, there soon would be more Arabs than Jews in the land controlled by Israel. Under these circumstances, Israel could not maintain both its democratic and Jewish character.
Second, the intifada has taken its toll on Israel. Israel has not been able to fully repress the violent resistance in Gaza and the resulting human and material cost has been too high compared to the value of keeping Gaza.
The vast majority of Israelis support disengagement. In a recent poll of 100,000 Israeli citizens, nearly 68 percent back the initiative and only 31 percent oppose it. Among Palestinians, 76 percent support the disengagement plan. Thus, the people most directly affected want it to happen.
Unfortunately, there is reason to believe Sharon has pursued disengagement because he believes it will allow Israel to keep a maximum amount of the West Bank and prevent creation of a viable Palestinian state.
One of Sharon’s closest confederates, Dov Weissglas, recently gave an interview for the Israeli daily newspaper, Ha’aretz, in which he said that Sharon’s disengagement plan was intended to prevent a peace process, derail Bush’s roadmap and preclude the emergence of a Palestinian state. Indeed, with the support of the government, additions and expansions to the settlements continue nearly unabated.
Under Sharon’s plan, Gaza, which is 1.25 percent of the Palestine mandate, would be populated by 37 percent of the Palestinians kept in a prison-like box, unable to develop economically or politically.
Holding on to the vast majority of the settlements in the West Bank, along with the bypass roads and checkpoints they require to protect and separate the settlers from the Palestinians, would create a West Bank map in which the areas inhabited by Palestinians would be little more than Bantustans.
This would approach the white South African solution to a large, disenfranchised indigenous population in which it tried to corral them in small, economically unviable but easy to control pseudo-states, which is immoral and should be rejected by Israel.
Interestingly, if this should come to pass, the application of the MJCCR policy vis a vis Israel would result in supporting apartheid in the West Bank, just another policy (albeit unjust) of the democratically-elected Israeli government.
Fortunately, only about 20 percent of Israelis believe that the disengagement will be the end of Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank.
If it is indeed the beginning of Israel’s end to the occupation, an occupation that is both immoral and harmful to Israel’s long-term interests, the disengagement plan should be viewed favorably.
If it is a ploy to create an apartheid solution, it will only prolong the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with all its horrendous consequences.
Michael J. Cohn is a Milwaukee attorney and a member of Americans for Peace Now.
Loading ...