By Vic Rosenthal
Writing in the LA Times, Saree Makdisi, a professor of English at UCLA, finds the requirement that the Palestinians recognize Israel’s right to exist to be either meaningless or “cynical and manipulative”. His arguments are not very good, they are not at all original (compare to John V. Whitback), and I’ll respond to them. But afterwards it’s important to see what underlies them, because this will help us understand why the conflict is not likely to be solved easily.
Blogging can be for keeps in the Middle East:
CAIRO, Egypt [AP] An Egyptian appeals court on Monday upheld the four-year prison sentence given to an Egyptian blogger who criticized conservative Muslims and was convicted of insulting Islam and Egypt’s president, court officials said…
By Naomi Leitner
Naomi Leitner is an attorney in Israel.
This is a personal view of life at Israel’s narrowest point. I live some 8 miles from the Mediterranean Sea. This sounds lovely and picturesque. My son and his friends sometimes walk to the beach with a picnic lunch. It is no big deal for a teenager to walk 8 miles with a backpack. But it does make me shudder to think how quickly enemy soldiers could transverse Israel at its narrow waistline. And of course, the enemy is very near.
By Vic Rosenthal
Everyone by now is sick of hearing that critics of Israel are ‘silenced’ by accusations of antisemitism. As Melanie Phillips recently said (listen to Phillips’ wonderful speech in Melbourne here), it seems like one can hear nothing but attacks on Israel lately.
However, this raises an interesting question: are there really cases in which accusations of hate speech cause debate on an important issue to be shut off, or silenced, as Mearsheimer/Walt, Jimmy Carter, Alternative Jewish Voices, Brit Tzedek, ad infinitum are saying?
The answer is definitely yes, although it’s not the critics of Israel that are silenced. And as Phillips suggests, it is due to a blurring of definitions that leads to an unjustified broadening of our concept of intolerance and intolerant speech.
By Vic Rosenthal
Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, an American Jewish organization which claims to be “pro-Israel and pro-Peace” is asking people — especially Jews — to sign a petition which says:
I call on your Administration to urgently promote talks between Israel and any party – including the Palestinians, Lebanon, and Syria – that accepts Israel’s right to exist by engaging in direct negotiations, back-channel contacts, and/or an international peace conference.
At first glance, this is ambiguous. Does it mean that Israel should talk to anyone who accepts her right to exist, and should do so in any of several ways? Or does it mean that anyone who engages in negotiations, back-channel contacts, or a peace conference thereby accepts Israel’s right to exist and Israel should talk to them?
