One-sided view is what is detached from reality
Readers reply to Horenstein
By Jonathan and Ruthie Moss
article created on:
We were deeply disturbed by Robert Horenstein’s piece titled “Bush Optimism Needs Western Negev Reality Check” (Jewish Review, Feb. 1), which suggested that President Bush’s attempts to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process have failed because they are “totally detached from the reality on the ground.”
This feeling was strengthened by the understanding that such a view represents that of many leaders of the U. S. Jewish community.
In his piece Horentstein then proceeds to claim that Bush’s “detachment” could have been fixed had he toured the Western Negev.
We would like to point out that if anything is detached it is such a one-sided view. And while President Bush can blame his detachment on ignorance and total lack of involvement in the peace process throughout his presidency Horenstein can make no such excuse. Horenstein waves the disengagement from the Gaza Strip as an example for Israeli sincerity and of Palestinian folly. And while we agree with the later part of this statement, we would like to point out the falsity of the first part—that Israel completely disengaged from the Gaza.
Evaluating Israel’s actions only by the removal of its settlements in the Gaza Strip, all of which were established in complete defiance of international law, is wrong and misleading.
To truly evaluate Israeli actions one must examine its ongoing influence on life in the Gaza Strip: maintaining complete control of sea and air space, controlling the entrance of foreign nationals, freezing movement between Gaza and the West Bank and the misuse of the Palestinian tax system.
It is well known that the vote for Hamas was, among other things, a vote of protest against the corrupt ruling Fatah party, which has largely ignored the people of Gaza. But Horenstein disregards this, as he does the negative effect Israel’s unilateral withdrawal had on moderate voices who support peaceful negotiations with Israel.
How can the liberal and moral Jewish community turn a blind eye when Israel collectively punishes 1.5 million people living in the Gaza Strip, 50 percent of whom are children under the age of 15?
How can the Jewish community disregard the effects of an unemployment rate of 40 percent?
How can the Jewish community ignore the 80 percent of the population that is dependent on U. N food supply for survival?
Does the fact that Palestinian extremists fire Kassam rockets indiscriminately into civilian populations justify Israel’s total disregard of the human rights of such a large population of civilians?
Is Horenstein unaware of this data or does he simply choose to ignore it, pushing it to the remote regions of his consciousness?
Perhaps a tour of the Gaza strip would force him to perform a little reality check of his own and acknowledge the humanity and suffering of its residents.
He could start his tour by visiting the houses of 131 Palestinians who were not involved in fighting and were killed in 2007 by Israeli security forces—that is if their houses are still standing. Perhaps he could visit the residential neighborhood of Beit Hanoun where in November 2006 an Israeli artillery shell mistakenly killed 19 people and injured 40 with no warning.
If he does manage such a visit, he will succeed where a U.N. delegation led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu had failed, after being barred entrance by Israel.
Or perhaps Horenstein would like to pay his condolences to the families of 44 Palestinians who died in 2007 as a result Israel’s delay or outright refusal to allow them medical treatment outside the Gaza strip—many of them dying while being held at the checkpoints.
From there he might continue his tour to the site where Gaza’s only power station used to stand. This power station supplied power to the 1. 5 million residents of Gaza until it was destroyed by Israeli warplanes in June 2006, deepening Gaza’s dependency on Israel. Or perhaps Mr. Horenstein should try visiting one of the shops that were closed as a result of Israel’s blockade and the resulting lack of raw goods in the Gaza strip. I’m a sure he would have no trouble choosing one of the 3,500 businesses that were closed during 2007, not to mention 90 percent of the factories.
At this stage Horenstein might feel a little overwhelmed and might wish to have a drink of water to calm his nerves. I hope that this happens during the one or two hours a day during which most Gaza houses have running water.
This is the real world Mr. Horenstein would have encountered: one of death, hunger and desperation—a world that serves as a breeding ground for extremists, who together with their extremist brothers on the Israeli side speak only the language of violence.
Horensteins praises Israel’s willingness to take risks and complains about the Palestinian leadership’s lack of inclination or ability to crack down on the terrorists in Gaza. He ignores Israel’s lack of inclination or ability to control the extremist settler population that continued its illegal settlement campaign throughout the Oslo years, during the Camp David summit all the way to the Annapolis conference.
These settlements reinforced the Palestinians’ understanding that Israel does not intend to end the occupation.
As Israelis we are outraged by Horenstein’s claim that Israel will be willing to take risks for peace sometime in the future when the situation warrants it. What time is he talking about?
Perhaps the detached leadership of the Jewish community can afford to bide its time. But the residents of Israel and Palestine cannot afford such luxury.
How many more lives must be lost?
How many more parents must bury their children? Or how many more children must grow up as orphans before Horenstein feels the situation “warrants” taking a risk for peace?
Actively promoting a two-state solution is not unconscionable as Horenstein suggests, but is the only sane course of action. We must engage in it fully before it is too late.