ALL OR NOTHING ON THE FENCE
So Sharon has finally made up his mind - Ariel (and the far less publicized, but far more problematic Kedumim) are going to be on the Israeli side of the fence. This decision pretty much destroys the remaining shred of credibility to the fiction that the fence route is not the preliminary determination of Israel's permanent borders with a Palestinian (or Palestinian-Jordanian) state. Ariel, the largest settlement outside of the Jeruasalem suburbs was slated to remain part of Israel under any of the realistic final status proposals. To require Israel to cede it at this point would be a perverse reward for Palestinian terror and rejectionism. That, however, was precisely what the State Department, with its plan to link the loan guarentees to the route of the fence was seeking.
Its not the State Department's stated goal in wielding the fiscal threat - preventing the fence from carving out boundaries that prevent a contiguous, viable Palestinian entity - that's the problem. It is the blatant falsehood that any annexation of the West Bank is tantamount to such a result. It is the delusion that all settlements are equal - that Ariel is somehow the same as the hilltop settlements that lie on the roads betwen Nablus and Ramallah, or in the heart of Hebron. And so with their fetishization of the Green Line, the Peace Processors of Foggy Bottom fall into the same All or Nothing mentality of the most radical settlers.
There will be no negotiated solution any time in the near future. The best anyone who hopes for a long-term peace can do is to support a unilateral seperation that makes the most sense. If the Peace Processors feel a need to pressure Israel, they should apply pressure for the dismantling of Netzarim and Elon Moreh.
On a positive note, the Sharon government has altered the route of the fence near Jerusalem so as not to bisect Al Quds university. The decision to correct the bone-headed decision came as a result of pressure applied by non-violent protests by Al Quds students and faculty. Non-violent protest by Palestinians...a truly novel idea.
Tasty commentary on politics, law, religion and more, without the fattening dogma. (The views expressed on this blog are the author's alone, and do not represent those of any past, current or future employer or his past, current, and future soulmate.)
September 30, 2003
September 18, 2003
WE HAVE NOTHING TO CONFESS
Stephen Waldman, in an effort to "alienate both his Jewish and Christian relatives" offers up moral equivalence on the incendiary issue of the Passion Play - brought once more into public debate by the upcoming medeival cinematic version by Mel Gibson. Jews, Waldman asserts, should admit that "some of [our] forefathers probably helped get Jesus killed," but Christians should admit that the Gospels were probably a biased version of the facts, and that Christian reprisals against the Jews were antithetical to Christian theology. So, you see, there's a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem - we can all agree that we've both been wrong, agree to call it a day, and go on to intermarry away our divisions.
The problem of course is that there's simply no equating the so-called "wrongs" on both sides in this case. To put it in stark contemporary terms, it is the equivalent of stating that Jews should admit that that some of their leaders helped cause Germany's defeat in World War I, but that Germans should admit that the Holocaust was an overreaction.
Waldman evinces an awareness of the polemic nature of the Gospels, admitting that "there is a strong possibility that" they "distorted the history of the 'Jewish' role" in Jesus's death. Yet his argument for his claim for "as best as we can tell, Jews did kill Jesus" rests solely on the Gospel. There is a bit of an absurdity in setting up the New Testament as the accepted basis for Jewish-Christian dialogue. After all, there is no getting past the fact that the Gospels are Truth for Christians and rejected heresy for Jews. Therefore, the fact that Bible scholars consider Mark to be the most authentic of the Gospels, and it contains the charge as well, is irrelevant. It can no more establish Jewish culpability in the death of Jesus than the first version of the Protocals could establish Jewish control of world capital. (Of course, unlike the Protocals, the Gospels contain the truths of Jesus's ethical teachings, while the Protocals are wholesale and sinsiter fabrications).
So rather than turning to proof texts that one side reveres as revelation and the other side rejects as polemics, it would be better to look to the other information we have about Roman Judea during the life of Jesus. The cite from Josephus (who is the most reliable historian of the period only because he is the only historian of the period) therefore is the strongest support for anything like the Gospel account. However, any argument in support of Jewish culpability must address a number of countervailing facts. First, that the Jewish religious authorities had autonomy to execute heretics (by stoning, not crucification). Second, within all the strains of Second Temple Judaism, the Messiah was seen as a temporal, political savior, not the Christian understanding of a spiritual purifier, and therefore a threat first and foremost to the temporal power of Rome. More than one would-be Messiah was crucified by Rome during the period of Jesus's death.
Finally, to the extent that any possible colloboration between Jews and Romans existed, it would clearly not have involved the forebearers of rabbinic Judasim, the Pharisees. Jerusalem was dominated by the temple-centered Saducees. The Pharisees base of power was centered in the outlying parts of Judea, especially in the Galilee. It is well-documented that the Saducees more than any other sect were the most collusive with the Roman authorities. The Pharisees, on the other hand, clashed with the colonial power, leading their eventual entanglement in the doomed revolts - and the development of pacific ethos by their rabbinnic followers. Thus the chances that any of "our forebearers" involvement are truly slim.
It is one thing to in an academic discussion of the death of Jesus, come to the conclusion intra-Jewish infighting might have played a role. It is something else to require of the Jews, who have sufferred immeassureably from the slander of deicide for over 2000 years to admit to anything. (Nor does Waldman's Jewish ancestry give him leave to do so on the Jews behalf). Jews have every right to "be defensive" about the theological linchpin of Christian anti-semetism. Alas, there is only one party required to look inward on this issue - and that is Christianity. The beauty of that faith, seen everyday in the lives of those who, inspired by Jesus's example, pursue justice and seek holiness, is stained by the slander of the deicide against the Jews and its bloody consequences. No the Jews did not kill Jesus, and until Christianity commits to this truth, a religion that through Jesus shows a path to G-d will keep leading some of its members hopeless astray.
Stephen Waldman, in an effort to "alienate both his Jewish and Christian relatives" offers up moral equivalence on the incendiary issue of the Passion Play - brought once more into public debate by the upcoming medeival cinematic version by Mel Gibson. Jews, Waldman asserts, should admit that "some of [our] forefathers probably helped get Jesus killed," but Christians should admit that the Gospels were probably a biased version of the facts, and that Christian reprisals against the Jews were antithetical to Christian theology. So, you see, there's a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem - we can all agree that we've both been wrong, agree to call it a day, and go on to intermarry away our divisions.
The problem of course is that there's simply no equating the so-called "wrongs" on both sides in this case. To put it in stark contemporary terms, it is the equivalent of stating that Jews should admit that that some of their leaders helped cause Germany's defeat in World War I, but that Germans should admit that the Holocaust was an overreaction.
Waldman evinces an awareness of the polemic nature of the Gospels, admitting that "there is a strong possibility that" they "distorted the history of the 'Jewish' role" in Jesus's death. Yet his argument for his claim for "as best as we can tell, Jews did kill Jesus" rests solely on the Gospel. There is a bit of an absurdity in setting up the New Testament as the accepted basis for Jewish-Christian dialogue. After all, there is no getting past the fact that the Gospels are Truth for Christians and rejected heresy for Jews. Therefore, the fact that Bible scholars consider Mark to be the most authentic of the Gospels, and it contains the charge as well, is irrelevant. It can no more establish Jewish culpability in the death of Jesus than the first version of the Protocals could establish Jewish control of world capital. (Of course, unlike the Protocals, the Gospels contain the truths of Jesus's ethical teachings, while the Protocals are wholesale and sinsiter fabrications).
So rather than turning to proof texts that one side reveres as revelation and the other side rejects as polemics, it would be better to look to the other information we have about Roman Judea during the life of Jesus. The cite from Josephus (who is the most reliable historian of the period only because he is the only historian of the period) therefore is the strongest support for anything like the Gospel account. However, any argument in support of Jewish culpability must address a number of countervailing facts. First, that the Jewish religious authorities had autonomy to execute heretics (by stoning, not crucification). Second, within all the strains of Second Temple Judaism, the Messiah was seen as a temporal, political savior, not the Christian understanding of a spiritual purifier, and therefore a threat first and foremost to the temporal power of Rome. More than one would-be Messiah was crucified by Rome during the period of Jesus's death.
Finally, to the extent that any possible colloboration between Jews and Romans existed, it would clearly not have involved the forebearers of rabbinic Judasim, the Pharisees. Jerusalem was dominated by the temple-centered Saducees. The Pharisees base of power was centered in the outlying parts of Judea, especially in the Galilee. It is well-documented that the Saducees more than any other sect were the most collusive with the Roman authorities. The Pharisees, on the other hand, clashed with the colonial power, leading their eventual entanglement in the doomed revolts - and the development of pacific ethos by their rabbinnic followers. Thus the chances that any of "our forebearers" involvement are truly slim.
It is one thing to in an academic discussion of the death of Jesus, come to the conclusion intra-Jewish infighting might have played a role. It is something else to require of the Jews, who have sufferred immeassureably from the slander of deicide for over 2000 years to admit to anything. (Nor does Waldman's Jewish ancestry give him leave to do so on the Jews behalf). Jews have every right to "be defensive" about the theological linchpin of Christian anti-semetism. Alas, there is only one party required to look inward on this issue - and that is Christianity. The beauty of that faith, seen everyday in the lives of those who, inspired by Jesus's example, pursue justice and seek holiness, is stained by the slander of the deicide against the Jews and its bloody consequences. No the Jews did not kill Jesus, and until Christianity commits to this truth, a religion that through Jesus shows a path to G-d will keep leading some of its members hopeless astray.
September 10, 2003
THE NOT-SO-SHOCKING FAILURE OF THE ROAD MAP
The massacre in the Cafe Hillel coffeeshop was simply the punctuation mark to the dismal failure of the "Road Map," process, begun with cautious optimism just months ago. The half-way reform of the PA led to a non-existent disarmament of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Aksa, a therefore an inevitable new round of terrorism. The Road Map quickly degenerated into Oslo Redux, with Israel being pressured to make unilateral concessions in order to prop up a Palestinian partner who might someday be able to meet their obligations. In this case the Israeli withdrawals and limited prisoner releases served only to delay the inevitable failure of Abbas.
The "Road Map" initiative was laudable in that it addressed the fundamental flaw in the Oslo process - the lack of a functional Palestinian partner committed to the process. However, the cold, hard truth is that no matter how much Israel, the U.S. or the rest of the world wishes for there to be such a functional partner, one can not emerge from the shambles of post-Oslo Palestinian society, a society that far more radical and dysfunctional than before the disaster of Oslo.
In the end the only real hope for a lasting peace comes from a unilateral separation by Israel, and de-Palestinization of the process. The seperation wall should be built ASAP - roughly along the lines of the Camp David offer, and the settlements beyond the wall dismantled. To wait for a negotiated agreement to begin the needed process of disentangling the populations is a foolhardy stalling tactic that will only prolong the conflict.
In the meantime, with respect to the terror organizations, Israel should continue to do what it should have done long ago - give Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Aksa no respite. The targeting killings of terrorist leaders, "political" and otherwise are the most moral response to terror - they are the antithesis of the immorality of the attacks on women, children, shoppers and diners. Better Sheik Yassin make his long overdue appointment in hell than for a Palestinian child to go hungry in response to a fruitless effort to pressure the heartless Arafat and his cronies. There is nothing else Israel can do until a responsible Arab government takes over the responsibility for eliminating Palestinian terror.
Success in the long run requires moving past the fixation on a Palestinian state. The right of self-determination of the Palestinian populations of the West Bank and Gaza would be better addressed by returning them to rule by Egypt or Jordan, which for all their problems, are far more functional than any Palestinian government that could possibly emerge in the next two to three years. While Palestinian self-rule is a nice idea, it is secondary to the more important task of ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Arabs.
Unless the next "map", "plan", or "guide" thinks along these fresh lines, and does not try to build once more upon the rubble of Oslo, it will go the way of the roap-map - quickly into the recycling bin of diplomatic failure.
The massacre in the Cafe Hillel coffeeshop was simply the punctuation mark to the dismal failure of the "Road Map," process, begun with cautious optimism just months ago. The half-way reform of the PA led to a non-existent disarmament of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Aksa, a therefore an inevitable new round of terrorism. The Road Map quickly degenerated into Oslo Redux, with Israel being pressured to make unilateral concessions in order to prop up a Palestinian partner who might someday be able to meet their obligations. In this case the Israeli withdrawals and limited prisoner releases served only to delay the inevitable failure of Abbas.
The "Road Map" initiative was laudable in that it addressed the fundamental flaw in the Oslo process - the lack of a functional Palestinian partner committed to the process. However, the cold, hard truth is that no matter how much Israel, the U.S. or the rest of the world wishes for there to be such a functional partner, one can not emerge from the shambles of post-Oslo Palestinian society, a society that far more radical and dysfunctional than before the disaster of Oslo.
In the end the only real hope for a lasting peace comes from a unilateral separation by Israel, and de-Palestinization of the process. The seperation wall should be built ASAP - roughly along the lines of the Camp David offer, and the settlements beyond the wall dismantled. To wait for a negotiated agreement to begin the needed process of disentangling the populations is a foolhardy stalling tactic that will only prolong the conflict.
In the meantime, with respect to the terror organizations, Israel should continue to do what it should have done long ago - give Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Aksa no respite. The targeting killings of terrorist leaders, "political" and otherwise are the most moral response to terror - they are the antithesis of the immorality of the attacks on women, children, shoppers and diners. Better Sheik Yassin make his long overdue appointment in hell than for a Palestinian child to go hungry in response to a fruitless effort to pressure the heartless Arafat and his cronies. There is nothing else Israel can do until a responsible Arab government takes over the responsibility for eliminating Palestinian terror.
Success in the long run requires moving past the fixation on a Palestinian state. The right of self-determination of the Palestinian populations of the West Bank and Gaza would be better addressed by returning them to rule by Egypt or Jordan, which for all their problems, are far more functional than any Palestinian government that could possibly emerge in the next two to three years. While Palestinian self-rule is a nice idea, it is secondary to the more important task of ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Arabs.
Unless the next "map", "plan", or "guide" thinks along these fresh lines, and does not try to build once more upon the rubble of Oslo, it will go the way of the roap-map - quickly into the recycling bin of diplomatic failure.
September 09, 2003
In anticipation of its full re-launch this October, Off the Pine has moved to its new site michaelpine.com/offthepine.