By: Matthew RJ Brodsky

Reviewed Book: Jonathan Garfinkel, Ambivalence: Adventures in Israel and Palestine. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008, 352 pages, $25.95

Few places can stir such deep emotions as the New Jersey-sized state of Israel.  Whether or not one has visited the Jewish homeland, all have strong opinions on how it should behave.  For many in the West, Israel is a country that exists in either dreams or nightmares so the state is either above rapprochement or is evil. 

Many Jews come from abroad to visit the land they read about in the Torah; the city of Jerusalem to which they face in prayer; where for centuries the Passover meal concludes with the phrase, “Next year in Jerusalem.”  They stay in fancy West Jerusalem hotels, tour the Old City, kiss the Wailing Wall, and walk through Mea Sharim and marvel at the near replica of a nineteenth century Polish shtetl recreated in a Jerusalem suburb.  They return home with hundreds of pictures testifying to their visits, secure that Israel and the Jewish people are thriving and need think no further.

By: Michael Sharnoff


This article by Middle East Opinion contributor, Michael Sharnoff was first published at the
Palestine-Israel Journal. The writer is a Research Associate at the Jewish Policy Center in Washington, DC.

For seven years, Israel has endured thousands of indiscriminate rocket attacks against its civilian population by Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip. Until now, Israel had demonstrated uncommon restraint. Yet, many professors of Middle East Studies ignore these realities. In recent days, three prominent professors have demonstrated why their field is now viewed as politicized and in decline.
The following is the U.S.-Israeli agreement to combat arms smuggling into Gaza - the result of Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's meetings in Washington on January 16, 2009:

Recalling the steadfast commitment of the United States to Israel's security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats;

Reaffirming that such commitment is reflected in the security, military and intelligence cooperation between the United States and Israel, the Strategic Dialogue between them, and the level and kind of assistance provided by the United States to Israel;

By: Matthew RJ Brodsky

With the expiration of the six-month lull in Hamas rocket fire into Israel, the IDF is set to invade Gaza and attack Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure.  There are several reasons for the timing of Israel’s operation.  Firstly, many in Israel’s security establishment never signed on to the purpose of the cease-fire to begin with.  It merely granted Hamas a respite from Israeli attacks while giving them the opportunity rearm and better train themselves.  For two years, since Hamas’s takeover of Gaza in 2007, they have been working hard to develop their military power with Iranian assistance using Hizballah as a model.  The new rockets they have smuggled in pieces through tunnels from Egypt now have the capacity to strike the outskirts Beersheba.  Since more fighting is inevitable given Hamas’s pledge to destroy the Jewish state, it is better to attack when they have fewer weapons at their disposal.  A ceasefire only works in Hamas’s favor.

By: Matthew RJ Brodsky

The Carnegie Endowment has come out with their new recommendations for U.S. Policy in the Middle East.  The full PDF of The New Middle East is available HERE.

For those looking for a Neo-Con's guide to Middle East policy, this is not it.

The following is the summary provided by the publisher:

 

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 called for the partition of the British-ruled Palestine Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state. It was approved on November 29, 1947 with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, 10 abstentions and one absent (see list).

The resolution was accepted by the Jews in Palestine, yet rejected by the Arabs in Palestine and the Arab states.


The General Assembly,

By: Matthew RJ Brodsky

This article is in response to Fedwa Wazwaz's Op-Ed piece, "Israel's 60th is not a reason for celebration," published in Minneapolis's Star Tribune on Saturday, May 10, 2008.
 
With great sadness I read Fedwa Wazwaz’s opinion piece on Saturday, May 10 entitled “Israel’s 60th is not a reason for celebration.”  Sadder still is that she leads a program to foster dialogue and understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims.  Her article moves the Palestinian cause backwards, not forwards.

Wazwaz began her piece on why Israelis and Jews should not celebrate Israel’s 60th year of existence by quoting a letter published by British Jews in the Guardian.  The small group who are wracked with guilt over the plight of the Palestinians turn to the writing of the late, Edward Said, who emphasized that “what the Holocaust is to the Jews, the Naqba [Catastrophe] is to the Palestinians.”  True, Said delighted in this comparison and while there can be no doubt that Palestinians have suffered by the hands of Israelis and Arabs alike, such a statement requires no deep analysis to reveal its absurdity.
 
In the statement on Palestine, issued on 9 November, 1938, His Majesty's Government announced their intention to invite representatives of the Arabs of Palestine, of certain neighboring countries and of the Jewish Agency to confer with them in London regarding future policy. It was their sincere hope that, as a result of full, free and frank discussions, some understanding might be reached. Conferences recently took place with Arab and Jewish delegations, lasting for a period of several weeks, and served the purpose of a complete exchange of views between British Ministers and the Arab and Jewish representatives. In the light of the discussions as well as of the situation in Palestine and of the Reports of the Royal Commission and the Partition Commission, certain proposals were formulated by His Majesty's Government and were laid before the Arab and Jewish Delegations as the basis of an agreed settlement. Neither the Arab nor the Jewish delegation felt able to accept these proposals, and the conferences therefore did not result in an agreement. Accordingly His Majesty's Government are free to formulate their own policy, and after careful consideration they have decided to adhere generally to the proposals which were finally submitted to and discussed with the Arab and Jewish delegations.
November 2nd, 1917
 
Dear Lord Rothschild,
 
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
 

It is accordingly understood between the french and British governments:

That France and great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states (a) and (b) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) great Britain, shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) great Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries at the request of the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.

Syndicate content