Mr. Halper, Please Respond to the Facts

I responded to Mr. Hapler's comments on Wallis' blog, but I thought I'd post them here as well. Mr. Halper Writes If I ever responded to my students or colleagues in the manner of our "scholar-in-residence," they would tell me exactly where to go, and rightly so." I would just like to point out that you have effectively told the Rabbi to go to hell. He is not adopting a sneering tone in his piece, but rather seems exasperated at your unwillingness to register any cogent response to the points raised by Dershowitz's article. You have claimed that Israle is guilty of atrocities akin to South African aprtheid. The onus is on you to make that case in a compelling fashion. Instead, you have offered a meadering, emotional, flawed invective that does not remotely address the points raised by the Talmud. " Wednesday, December 27, 2006 Jeff Halper: The Occupation is the Issue Israeli peace activist Jeff Halper continues his dialogue with Virtual Talmud bloggers, this time responding to Rabbi Eliyahu Stern's post titled, "Mr. Halper, Please Respond to the Facts." I'll start responding to Rabbi Stern by registering my disappointment with the sneering, self-righteous and downright offensive tone of his response to me. I don't know what "ilk" Stern comes from, but I had always been told that "rabbi" means teacher. I'm a teacher, an Israeli professor of anthropology. If I ever responded to my students or colleagues in the manner of our "scholar-in-residence," they would tell me exactly where to go, and rightly so. Why Stern considers Dershowitz's polemics "facts," I don't know" Case in point, dawg. "I would love to respond to every "fact" Dershowitz raises. Unfortunately, in a short blog entry, that's impossible. " This isn't a very short blog entry. You had time to devote an entire paragraph to your offense at Rabbi Stern's tone. ". The PLO accepted the two-state solution in 1988, even before the Oslo peace process." This laid the groundwork for the Oslo peace process. To pretend that it was somehow separate from the process is misleading. This formed the framework of the Oslo peace agreement, which Yassir Arafat and his terrorist cohorts promptly trashed. So it was a moot point to begin with. "the Palestinians had every right to expect that their country would revert to them after the colonial powers left." Why is this so, when every arab power was determined to kill the Jews? Do you not understand the very reason Israel established itself as a nation-state? Further, Britain won the territory from the Turks. Palestine was not a country, or a nation state. The lands that were acquired by Jews were rightfully purchased. No one was ever forced to leave until Arab nations decided to declare war on the Jewish people. "We might think we have exclusive claim to the Land of Israel and expect everyone else to accept it, but why should they?" They don't. So what? They had their chance. I don't consider their killing to be understandable, and I see no reason why we should dismantle Israel. "To say "Palestinians rejected this proposal because Arab leaders cared more about there being no Jewish state on Muslim holy land than about having a Palestinian state of their own" shows an appalling insensitivity to the rights of an indigenous people and ignorance of the historical process of de-colonization." Of course, in addition to all of this, the statement happens to be empirically true, ignorant or not. "Going back in time isn't very productive, nor is assigning blame" That's exactly what you just did. " It is not security that holds Israel back, it's the prospect of giving up settlements and territory. " Hogwash. Israle has shown itself more than willing to give back land in exchangee for peace. There has never been any documented effort on the part of Palestine to disengage this war. there never will be, no matter how many concessions Israel makes. Palestine and other Arab nations want Israel wiped off the map, or haven't you heard? "And please, a little humility, a little derekh eretz and a LOT more learning, critical thinking, and self-criticism." Oh, and questioning a man's status as a Rabbi, while offering parenthetical potshots throughout a 600 word diatribe constitutes humility? Please. Are you a Christian? Why are you posting here? I would hate for Beliefnet readers to visit here and think that this dreck represents the viewpoint of most Christians.

Mr. Carter emphasizes that 'Christian and Muslim Arabs had continued to live in this same land since Roman times,' but he ignores the fact that Jews have lived in Hebron, Tzfat, Jerusalem, and other cities for even longer. Nor does he discuss the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries since 1948. JEWS DID LIVE IN ALL OF THESE LOCATIONS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. HOWEVER, TO SAY THAT THEY LIVED THERE LONGER THAN ANY OTHER PEOPLE IS TO FORGET HISTORY. THERE WERE PEOPLE IN HEBRON WHEN ABRAHAM CAME. TO USE THE EXPULSION OF JEWS FROM ARAB LANDS TO JUSTIFY THE EXPULSION OF ARABS FROM JEWISH LANDS MAKES NO SENSE. IF IT WAS WRONG FOR JEWS TO BE EXPELLED, THEN WAS IT NOT WRONG FOR ARABS TO BE EXPELLED? IF IT WAS NOT WRONG IN ONE CASE IT IS NOT WRONG IN THE OTHER, AND THIS ARGUMENT LEADS NOWHERE. Mr. Carter repeatedly claims that the Palestinian Arabs have long supported a two-state solution and the Israelis have always opposed it. Yet he makes no mention of the fact that in 1938 the Peel Commission proposed a two-state solution, with Israel receiving a mere sliver of its ancient homeland and the Palestinians receiving the bulk of the land. The Jews accepted and the Palestinians rejected this proposal because Arab leaders cared more about there being no Jewish state on Muslim holy land than about having a Palestinian state of their own. JEFF HALPER RESPONDED TO THIS ISSUE AND I WILL LEAVE IT TO OTHERS TO READ HIS RESPONSE. He barely mentions Israel's acceptance, and the Palestinian rejection, of the United Nation's division of the mandate in 1948. IF YOU READ YOUR HISTORY AND NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS FROM 1948 YOU WILL FIND THAT FIGHTING STARTED LONG BEFORE "ISRAEL" ACCEPTED THE PARTITION PLAN. VILLAGES AROUND HAIFA AND JERUSALEM WERE EMPTIED AND THE IRGUN AND HAGGANA WERE FIGHTING SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE THE PARTITION PLAN WAS ANNOUNCED. TO SAY THAT THE PARTITION PLAN WAS ACCEPTED IS TO ACCEPT WORDS RATHER THAN ACTIONS AS REALITY. "PLAN DALET" AND OTHER PRE-ISRAEL JEWISH MILITARY PLANS SHOW CLEAR PLANS FOR HOW THE NEW JEWISH STATE WOULD EXPAND AND TAKE MORE TERRITORY THAN WAS GIVEN IN THE PARTITION PLAN. HISTORY CLEARLY LAYS SOME BLAME ON THE ARAB SIDE, BUT DOES NOT LEAVE THE JEWISH SIDE INNOCENT. He claims that in 1967 Israel launched a preemptive attack against Jordan. The fact is that Jordan attacked Israel first, Israel tried desperately to persuade Jordan to remain out of the war, and Israel counterattacked after the Jordanian army surrounded Jerusalem, firing missiles into the center of the city. Only then did Israel capture the West Bank, which it was willing to return in exchange for peace and recognition from Jordan. PRIOR TO ANY ATTACKS ON ISRAEL BY JORDAN, ISRAEL HAD ALREADY "PREEMPTIVELY" ATTACKED EGYPT. AT THE TIME MUCH OF EGYPT'S ARMY WAS STUCK IN YEMEN TRYING TO END THAT COUNTRIES CIVIL WAR. JORDAN, AN EGYPTIAN ALLIE, BECAME INVOLVED IN THE WAR AFTER ISRAEL STARTED FIGHTING. DIPLOMATIC COMMUNICAS FROM THE TIME SHOW THAT JORDAN HAD NO INTEREST IN BECOMING INVOLVED IN A WAR WITH ISRAEL. THAT ISRAEL MISREAD THIS SITUATION AT THE TIME MAY MAKE ISRAEL'S ACTIONS IN STARTING THE WAR MORE UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT ISRAEL STARTED THE WAR. THE FACT THAT A WAR IS PREEMPTIVE, DONE TO STOP A SUPPOSED THREAT, DOES NOT SWITCH RESPONSIBILITY FOR STARTING THE WAR. CAN WE IN THE US NOW ARGUE THAT IRAQ IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE USE BEING STUCK THERE? Mr. Carter repeatedly mentions Security Council Resolution 242, which called for return of captured territories in exchange for peace, recognition, and secure boundaries, but he ignores that Israel accepted and all the Arab nations and the Palestinians rejected this resolution. The Arabs met in Khartum and issued their three famous 'no's': 'No peace, no recognition, no negotiation.' But you wouldn't know that from reading the history according to Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter faults Israel for its 'air strike that destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor' without mentioning that Iraq had threatened to attack Israel with nuclear weapons if Iraq succeeded in building a bomb. REJECTION OF 242 BY ARAB STATES IN KHARTUM CANNOT BE VIEWED IN ABSENCE OF MORE RECENT MOVEMENTS. THE RECENT SAUDI PROPOSAL ACCEPTED BY THE ARAB LEAGUE ACCEPTS A TWO STATE SOLUTION. AS HALPER STATES, THE PLO ACCEPTED A TWO STATE SOLUTION IN 1988 AND HAVE USED RESOLUTIONS 242 AND 336 AS THE STARTING POINTS FROM WHICH TO BASE NEGOTIATIONS. THIS POINT BY DERSHOWITZ WOULD HAVE BEEN VALID IN 1967, BUT HAS NO RELEVANCE IN THE PRESENT WORLD. Mr. Carter faults Israel for its administration of Christian and Muslim religious sites, when in fact Israel is scrupulous about ensuring those of every religion the right to worship as they please consistent, of course, with security needs. He fails to mention that between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Hashemites destroyed and desecrated Jewish religious sites and prevented Jews from praying at the Western Wall. He also never mentions Egypt's brutal occupation of Gaza between 1949 and 1967. HAS THE AUTHOR VISITED THE GOAL HEIGHTS? AS YOU DRIVE DOWN THE ROAD YOU WILL SEE DESTROYED MOSQUES. HAS THE AUTHOR BEEN TO THE SAFED ART STUDIE BUILD IN A MOSQUE? WHAT ABOUT THE 400 VILLAGES THAT WERE COMPLETELY DESTROYED? HOW MANY MOSQUES AND CHURCHES WERE DESTROYED WITH THESE VILLAGES? NOBODY IS INNOCENT HERE, TO TRY TO MAKE ONE SIDE OUT TO BE EVIL AND THE OTHER A SAINT IS USELESS. THESE ARE ALL SIDE ISSUES. WHAT IS REAL IN THE CURRENT SITUATION IS OCCUPATION. Mr. Carter blames Israel, and exonerates Arafat, for the Palestinian refusal to accept statehood on 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza pursuant to the Clinton-Barak offers at Camp David and Taba in 2000 2001. He accepts the Palestinian revisionist history, rejects the eyewitness accounts of President Clinton and Dennis Ross, and ignores Saudi Prince Bandar's accusation that Arafat's rejection of the proposal was "a crime" and that Arafat's account 'was not truthful' except, apparently, to Mr. Carter. The fact that Mr. Carter chooses to believe Arafat over Mr. Clinton speaks volumes. ARAFAT'S REJECTION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN HELPFUL, BUT IT CERTAINLY WASN'T THE END OF THE PEACE PROCESS. NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUED AFTER CAMP DAVID AND EVEN AFTER THE BEGINING OF THE SECOND INTIFADA. IF WE LOOK AT THE OPTIONS THAT WERE ON THE TABLE IN DECEMBER 2000 WHEN NEGOTIATIONS FINALLY BROKE DOWN THEN WE SEE THAT ARAFAT WAS ACTUALLY JUSTIFIED IN ENDING TALKS IN JULY. THE SOLUTION BEING TALKED ABOUT IN DECEMBER WAS MUCH BETTER THAN THE OFFER MADE IN JULY. THIS BEING THE CASE, CAN WE BLAME ARAFAT FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL AT CAMP DAVID? I HAVE TALKED WITH DENNIS ROSS AND SEVERAL OTHERS INVOLVED IN HE NEGOTIATIONS. MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE THE PROBLEM AT AND AFTER CAMP DAVID WAS THE TENDENCY OF THE US AND ISRAEL TO VIEW AND PUSH THESE NEGOTIATIONS AS FINAL. THIS MEANT THAT THE PROGRESS MADE THERE WAS NEVER TAKEN SERIOUSLY. HISTORIC STEPS WERE MADE AT CAMP DAVID, BUT THIS WAS NOT COMMUNICATED TO THE PALESTINIAN OR ISRAELI PEOPLES. ALL THAT WAS COMMUNICATED WAS FAILURE. THIS CONTRIBUTED DIRECTLY TO THE INTIFADA. WAS ARAFAT'S NEGOTIATING STYLE TERRIBLE AND IS HE PARTIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILURES OF THE TALKS? OF COURSE, BUT HE IS NOT ALONE IN NEEDING TO TAKE ON BLAME. ISRAEL ALSO NEEDS TO TAKE ITS SHARE OF THE BURDEN. CONSIDER THIS THE RESPONSE THAT JEFF HALPER WOULDN'T GIVE. I CAN UNDERSTAND HIS UNWILLINGNESS TO RESPOND TO THESE ISSUES. ALL OF WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN AND WHAT DERSHOWITZ HAS WRITTEN IS TANGENTIAL TO THE ISSUE AT HAND WHICH IS OCCUPATION AND ITS IMPACT. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 1948, 1967, ETC. IS INTERESTING, BUT IT IS ALSO HISTORY. IT GIVES CONTEXT, BUT EVEN THE CONTEXT IT GIVES NEEDS TWO INTERPRETATIONS, ONE PALESTINIAN AND ONE ISRAELI. WHAT THE APARTEID DISCUSSION BRINGS TO THE TABLE IS A LOOK AT THE PRESENT AND TOWARDS THE FUTURE. REGARDLESS OF WHO WE BLAME FOR THE PAST, THE PROBLEM IS THAT ISRAEL IS STILL THE PARTY WITH POWER IN THE CURRENT SITUATION. ISRAEL IS THE FORCE MAKING DECISIONS AND THEREFORE DICTATING TERMS. ISRAEL'S POLICIES ARE LEADING IT INEXORABLY TOWARDS APARTHEID, EVEN IF IT HAS NOT GOTTEN THERE YET. RECENT CHANGES IN ISRAELI CITIZENSHIP LAWS SHOULD MAKE EVEN THE MOST STRIDENT SUPPORTERS OF ISRAEL PAUSE. THESE LAWS UNDERMINE THE RIGHTS OF ARAB CITIZENS AND ONLY ARAB CITIZENS. THEY WILL BREED INEQUALITY AND PUSH TOWARDS APARTHEID. DEBATES IN ISRAEL OVER INCLUDING THE GREEN LINE IN TEXT BOOKS IN ISRAEL ALSO SHOULD GIVE PEOPLE PAUSE AS THEY CONSIDER WHERE THE COUNTRY IS HEADED. DERSHOWITZ AND THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN RESPONDING TO JEFF HALPER NEED TO STOP ONLY LOOKING BACKWARDS AS THEY JUSTIFY THE PRESENT, AND NEED TO START LOOKING FORWARD TO THE FUTURE. IF THEY DID THIS THEY MIGHT BE MORE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THE STINK IF APARTHEID AS IT FORMS AROUND THEM.

Jefr Hakper's self hatred of Jews and Israel is more odious to me than any invective spewing forth from the Palestinians...He speaks of ceding the moral high ground...How can one cede moral high ground when subjected to daily terrorism and attempted genocide ?. Maybe he should articulate his criticism of Israel while riding the public buses that get bombed so often !