In his column in the June 1 Jewish Journal, Rob Eshman says Israel now has only three alternatives: hold on to territory it captured in 1967 and become a fortress pariah state; hold on to the captured territory and become "a state of chaos," with Arabs taking over democratically; or "it could be a state with smaller boundaries, with a democratic Jewish majority and productive relations with its Arab neighbors" ("1967-2047").
The last option puzzles me, because Israel before June 1967 was a state with smaller boundaries and a democratic Jewish majority. Yet its Arab neighbors at that time not only rejected "productive relations," they yearned for Israel's destruction.
Now, with Islamism growing in the Arab world and Iran working feverishly to obtain nuclear weapons, Eshman acts as if we were still in the halcyon days of the "peace process." Even Neville Chamberlain finally realized who he was dealing with, but some people apparently have yet to reach Chamberlain's level of enlightenment.
How about a fourth possible ending, that of a state with slightly greater borders than that of pre-'67, democratic with a Jewish majority and forced by it's neighbors to be a fortress state. This, coincidently, is the situation today.
Unless you have a magic wand, you can't force an Arab population to love us. I'm sorry Mr. Eshman, but your conclusions are incorrect. In this world, it's often how your neighbors treat you that determines, despite great intentions, the way you need to treat them.
Rob Eshman really needs to reconsider Israeli options in light of prevailing realities and instead of focusing on the need to sustain the democratic principle ingrained in Israel, should rather prioritize the Jewish peoples' survival in their homeland.
History had proven that when a Palestinian "Mandela" comes to the fore, the Israeli leadership will be forthcoming in reaching a compromise with their adversaries that will hopefully engender both peace and democracy in the volatile region.
Rob Eshman's editorial on the Six-Day War is right in one respect. The final battle of that war will be fought between Jews. Those like Eshman accept the theory of appeasement, that if only Jews would give up their rightful claim to live in peace in all of the Land of Israel then peace will reign.
Israel must hang tough, hold on to all it can until the day arrives when there really is someone with whom peace can seriously be negotiated. Until then, there may be many hardships and loss of allies, but that is better than national suicide espoused by the appeasers.
Alan S. Jacobs
Six Days of War
As the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War in June 1967 approached, I decided to read Michael Oren's Book, "Six Days of War" last month. It caused me to recall the fateful months leading up to the '67 war. Most remarkably, the same rhetoric of hatred and annihilation of Israel and Jews was coming from the Arab world as continues to come today from Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah and the like.
There was no difference. I am compelled to conclude that the failure to accept the Jewish State of Israel remains the single defining element of the conflict in the Middle East. Nothing has changed and nothing will change until this basic level of opposition to non-Muslim sovereignty occurs.
Consequently, anything that will cause Arab/Muslim society to accept the permanence of a Jewish state will lead toward peace; anything that doesn't only leads to more of the spirit of hatred and annihilation.
International recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (final borders not yet settled) would do much toward forcing that acceptance of Israel's legitimacy and permanence.
Beginning in 1947, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan allowed the Palestinians living in Israel to live in their countries until Israel would be demolished by the Arab armies ("1967-2047," June 1). Back in 1947 and 1948, Israel was just born and they were a very unstable country, they did not have a strong military or government.
Israel's victory in the Six-Day War proved that the Jews were to be reckoned with. The Arab world has been fighting against Israel in the past 60 years, while Israel has become a more stable country. If Israel could not be defeated when they were a "baby" country, what makes them think that they could take over Israel now that it is stronger?
It is tragic that The Journal would question that Israel's victory in '67 was anything but the greatest blessing. This comes from worshipping the golden calf of "acceptance by the nations," often disguised by rhetoric of "peace."
It is a deep-rooted self-negation that says: If the nations don't like us, we must've done something wrong. This results from a profound lack of Torah education about the reason for Israel's existence as a people and as a nation.
The question is: What will it take for the mentality that publishes such pieces in The Journal to understand the deeper truth of the Jewish people?
You didn't learn from Gaza, from Lebanon, from the suicidal idiocy of Olmert, and now you question an open miracle that happened a mere 40 years ago?
News flash Journal writers and readers: One doesn't have to be fully observant/religious to understand the reason for Jewish existence, which would include yesha borders. But the lack of that understanding causes fundamental problems, which threaten our existence.
We will not worship your false deity of "peace," which amounts to the destruction of Israel.
We welcome your feedback.
Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.
Terms of Service
JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.
JewishJournal.com reserves the right to use your comment in our weekly print publication.