Jerusalem Isn't Just for Arabs, Either

[shira]

I write this late on Sunday night in Doha, following the first day of the Arab League’s Conference on Jerusalem. I am attending the conference as an individual and a member of the foreign policy community — not as a representative of any organization (as is the case when I attend most conferences). That said, the organizers of the conference knew when they invited me that I am a Zionist. Most of my professional life (and much of my personal life) has been dedicated to fighting for peace for Israel and fighting against biased views on all sides of the issues. I believe in dialogue and never refrain from having tough conversations both inside and outside the Jewish community. I believe people need to deal with facts, whether they like them or not.

When I was invited to this conference, I took this as a sign that the Arab League wanted to capture the full complexity of the issues related to Jerusalem, including openly pro-Israel, pro-peace voices. However, it seems that virtually every conversation I am having here involves me, to a greater or lesser degree, having to defend the two-state solution and having to assert and defend the Jewish stake in Jerusalem. The fact that I am forced to do so points to what is clearly, from my point of view, a major flaw in this event. That flaw is the absence of more voices like mine, which represent the mainstream of American Jewish opinion and Israeli opinion. People who care about Israel and are committed to the two-state solution, including in Jerusalem. This solution is the only thing that will guarantee peace, security, and a future for either Israelis or Palestinians.

<snip>

All throughout the day, it was unfortunately the same story. Participants talked about Jerusalem as if Jewish history did not exist or was a fraud — as if all Jewish claims in the city were just a tactic to dispossess Palestinians. Here I do need to acknowledged the one person the entire day who I heard speak in a serious, credible way on this matter: veteran Palestinian diplomat Afif Safieh. In closing one of the afternoon sessions, Safieh emphasized the international consensus around the idea that in Jerusalem it is necessary to reconcile two national narratives — Israeli and Palestinian — and three religious narratives, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian. Safieh made clear that he thought this was still possible with a two state solution with two capitals in Jerusalem, an Israeli capital in the west and a Palestinian capital in the east.

It is my hope that the rest of the conference will deal more honestly and more constructively with the reality that Afif described and that I, as a Zionist who knows that the two-state solution is vital to Israel’s survival as a democracy and a Jewish state, believe is critical to any meaningful discussion of Jerusalem. I regret that the conference so far has not taken the issues related to Jerusalem more seriously, and I am proud that I am here representing a truly pro-peace — and thus be definition pro-Israel — perspective. Much of the discourse here thus far has been personally objectionable and even painful to me, but I believe my presence here is important for the cause of peace.

Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/152079/#ixzz1nlXbfrH7

[Scootaloo]

1. THis part stuck out to me...

"Participants talked about Jerusalem as if Jewish history did not exist or was a fraud — as if all Jewish claims in the city were just a tactic to dispossess Palestinians."

Well... Jewish claims are being used to dispossess Palestinians in Jerusalem. And when it's a bunch of Russians and Poles coming in and using Jewish history from two thousand years ago to evict people... well, "fraud" is a very polite way of putting that.

This "who, me?" attitude the author is taking, really isn't going to help anything.

[holdencaufield]

2. Thank you, Helen Thomas NT

[Scootaloo]

3. No problem, Baruch Goldstein NT

[Crunchy Frog]

6. Interesting. I think I read a different post than the one you did.

I didn't see him say anywhere that European Jews had no right to be in Israel. I also didn't see the anti-semitism. He certainly used some harsh language, but it seemed like it was more in the vein of a "pot calling the kettle black". Or at any rate, I would say that if that qualifies as anti-semitism, then the OP would more than qualify as anti-Arab bigotry.

From what I can gather, there are a number of Jews who don't believe that Arabs have any right to be in Jerusalem, and there are a number of Arabs who don't believe Jews have any right to be in Jerusalem. I believe that the claims of both sides are wrong, but only one side actually has the power and ability to dispossess members of the other side, and have been doing it.

This was just my impression, and I don't doubt that you will explain to me why I'm wrong, and maybe also tell me that you think I'm an anti-semite.

[shira]

9. That comment about Jewish Russians and Poles was similar to Helen Thomas'

Saying that Jewish Poles and Russians go to Israel to dispossess Palestinians is practically the same thing. Jews have it pretty bad in Poland and Russia. Israel is the only place in the world where they're guaranteed safety.

They don't go to Israel to dispossess the Palestinians. Israel doesn't take in these refugees so that they can evict Palestinians. That's crazy talk. It's also extremely insensitive to Jews who need Israel in order to be and feel safe. If anyone's to blame and shame, it's Poland, Russia, and all other countries that make life miserable for their Jewish citizens. It's not the Jews' fault.

[COLGATE4]

5. Are you by any chance

related to Pat Buchanan?

[Scootaloo]

8. Well, we're both Irish

Which interestingly enough, means that by the logic shown in the OP article, I'm entitled to move to Belfast and demand that English people who've been living there for hundreds of years be forcibly evicted from real estate I like.