Chicagoland Pro-Israel Political Update

Calling balls and strikes for the pro-Israel community since 2006



September 8, 2019

If you remember nothing else, at least remember this:

  • We should not fault politicians for referring to Israel's presence in the West Bank as an occupation.
  • Israel and the Jewish people have deep, historic ties to the West Bank.
  • Israel cannot retain the West Bank indefinitely and remain Jewish and democratic.
  • Israel cannot unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank without incurring unacceptable security risks.
  • A two-state solution is possible only with the cooperation of both sides.
  • Read to the end for fun stuff and upcoming events. Tell me if you find any typos--I'll correct them with a sharpie.

You're welcome to read for free, but if you'd like to help defray the cost of the newsletter, please click here and fill in the amount of your choice . You don't need a PayPal account; the link will allow you to use a credit card.

Friends,

A classic joke (if a joke less than 50 years old can qualify as a classic) tells of an Israeli tourist visiting England. The customs agent asks his name; he replies, "Shlomo Levi." Birthplace? "Tel Aviv." Occupation? "No, just visiting."

Is Israel's control of the West Bank an "occupation"? Many pro-Israel advocates bristle at the term, but as Ariel Sharon said, "You cannot like the word, but what is happening is an occupation -- to hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation. I believe that is a terrible thing for Israel and for the Palestinians."

A  military occupation is "when a belligerent state invades the territory of another state with the intention of holding the territory at least temporarily."  Jordan attacked Israel on day three of the Six Day War, but a "nation is  deemed a belligerent even when resorting to war in order to withstand or punish an aggressor." UN  Resolution 242 refers to territories "occupied" following the Six Day War.  Israel's Supreme Court uses the term "occupation" in its rulings on West Bank issues.

It's hard to fault American politicians for using the same term the Israeli Supreme Court uses to describe Israel's control by military force of the West Bank, which is overwhelmingly Palestinian.

The legal arguments  against using the term "occupation" are that since Jordan's control of the West Bank was not legitimate under international law and there has never been a Palestinian state, Israel cannot "occupy" land that does not belong to anyone else.

Indeed, Sharon attempted to clarify his remarks by saying that he was referring to Israel’s rule over Palestinians, not the territories themselves, and that “We do not want to control 3 1/2 million Palestinians. This is not good for us, nor is it good for the Palestinians. This is what I meant when I used the term ‘occupation.’ We are not occupiers.”

Israel's presence in the West Bank is different from other occupations. Israel controls the West Bank not as the result of colonial conquest, but because Jordan attacked Israel during the Six Day War.

Moreover, the West Bank is not thousands of miles away from Israel, but right next to Israel. Israel's defeat of Jordan proved that the 1967 lines are defensible, but after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon and Gaza, Hezbollah and Hamas fired thousands of rockets into Israel from those areas. Israel is wary of withdrawing from the West Bank without a negotiated arrangement that includes security guarantees.

Finally, the Jewish people have deep ties to the West Bank. The West Bank is part of historic Israel, and Jews have maintained a presence there even while in exile. How can Israel "occupy" land over which Jews--unlike Palestinians--were previously sovereign and continue to cherish?

And yet Israel needs a two-state solution. No matter how we got to where we are, and no matter whose fault it is, the population of Jews and Arabs between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is roughly equal. Israel can only be Jewish and democratic if the vast majority of its citizens are Jewish.

Arabs who live in the West Bank do not have the same legal rights as Jews who live in the West Bank or as Jews and Arabs who live in pre-1967 Israel. That’s understandable in the context of a temporary military occupation caused by Jordan’s attack on Israel. But Israel cannot remain Jewish and democratic and in control of the West Bank indefinitely; it can only have any two of the three, which means that the only way to realize the classic Zionist dream of a democratic Jewish state is to cede the West Bank. Palestinian intransigence can justify Israel's continued control of the West Bank, but not Israeli ambitions for a Greater Israel.

If we accept the imperative of a two-state solution, then it no longer matters whether Israel’s claim to the West Bank is superior to the Arab claim, because a two-state solution necessarily means Israel relinquishing nearly all of the West Bank.

Even if a two-state solution is not possible now because neither side's government seems interested, many who support Israel oppose settlement expansion and unilateral annexation because those moves will eventually make a two-state solution impossible. That's why these four strong friends of Israel in Congress, including Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), as well as the Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA) and these other Jewish organizations, have spoken out against unilateral annexation.

The burden is on Israel to find a solution, or at least to keep the possibility of a two-state solution alive by refraining from actions that would make it more difficult to achieve, not because Israel is solely or even mainly at fault, but because Israel needs a two-state solution to survive as a democratic, Jewish state.

Is this unfair? Yes. For Israel to remain Jewish and democratic, it must cede land to which Jews have had historic ties for thousands of years that Israel won in a defensive war.

Knesset Member Tamar Zanberg wrote that “Some people from the right would like to tell us that speaking out against settlements is anti-Israel. I want to say loud and clear that they are 100% wrong. Speaking out against the settlements is not only pro-Israel, but it is the act of true Zionists. Zionists who wants Israel to reflect their democratic values. Zionists who wants Israel to reflect their Jewish values.”

Zanberg is echoing David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert and many other Zionists who realized that regardless of Jewish religious and historic ties to the land, Israel cannot be true to its basic values and retain the West Bank.

This does not mean excusing Palestinian violence, intransigence, or incitement. Neither does acknowledgement that both Israel and the Palestinians must take steps toward peace imply moral equivalence. What it does mean is that we should encourage movement on both sides while rejecting the incorrect assumption that Israel can solve this problem unilaterally.

Last week's newsletter. Let's Look at the Record.


Tweet of the Week. Ariel Edwards-Levy.


Video Clip of the Week. Hang on Ruthie.

Upcoming Events. Dana Gordon and I are hosting presidential candidate Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) on Thursday, Sept. 19, at 7:00pm in Highland Park. Contributions are not required  but RSVPs are, either by replying to this email or by  clicking here.

Dana and I are hosting pro-choice champion Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) on September 22. Details here.

I guess this is a good problem to have: This list is now so large that while many people are local, even more live outside the Chicago area and have no interest in local news. If you want to be on a list that will receive infrequent newsletters about local issues and events, reply to this email and I'll add you.

Did someone forward this newsletter to you? Why not subscribe? It's free! Just click here . 

Contributions are welcome (because this costs money to send) . If you'd like to chip in,  click here and fill in the amount of your choice . You don't need a PayPal account; the link will allow you to use a credit card. If you'd rather send a check, please reply and I'll send you mailing information (please do NOT send checks to the P.O. Box).

You’re reading this. So are other influentials. If you want the right people to know about your candidate, cause, or event, reply to this email to discuss your ad.

The Fine Print : This newsletter usually runs on Sunday mornings. Unless stated otherwise, my views do not necessarily reflect the views of any candidates or organizations that I support or am associated with. I reserve the right to change my mind as I learn more. Intelligent, well-informed people may disagree with me; read opposing views and decide for yourself. A link to an article doesn't mean that I agree with everything its author has ever said or that I even agree with everything in the article; it means that the article supports or elaborates on the point I was making. I take pride in accurately reporting the facts on which I base my opinions. Tell me if you spot any inaccuracies, typos, or other mistakes so that I can correct them in the next newsletter (and give you credit if you want it). Advertisements reflect the views of the advertisers, not necessarily of me, and advertisers are solely responsible for the content of their advertisements. I read, value, and encourage replies to my newsletters, but I don't always have time to acknowledge replies or to engage in one-on-one discussion. Don't expect a reply if your message is uncivil or if it's clear from your message that you haven't read the newsletter or clicked on the relevant links. © 2019 Steve Sheffey. All rights reserved.