Volume 67, Issue 3

An Open Letter to Ellen Schrecker
By Nephtuli Taubenfeld

As an expert on “McCarthyism,” you’ve no doubt seen the extent to which censorship can be carried, and sadly the repercussions of such attacks. Zack Streit, in his recent editorials, brought this tired, political weapon into Yeshiva, attacking you and your colleagues for not toeing the party line. Apparently, he expects all members of the faculty to agree publicly with what he believes to be the popular opinion of the student body. His assertion claiming to understand fully the views of the students notwithstanding, we students cannot accept the notion that teachers should be unable to voice their true opinions. I’ve therefore decided to respond to the July 17 ad in the New York Times onto which you affixed your signature.  Although I thus am giving your ideas a forum in this university, my treatment allows for a reasoned rebuttal of those opinions and views. 

While free speech is a legal right and a concept all supporters of democracy hold dear, its limitations are obvious. Free speech, especially in regards to a professor at a top-50 university, must conform not to the will of the majority, but rather to truth and historical fact.

To purport Israel’s supposed unwillingness to accept a two-state solution (implied in the ad’s condition) is disingenuous. First, it is hypocritical to single out Israel’s acceptance of aid, while not acknowledging the close to one hundred million dollars the US government annually sends to the Palestinian Authority. If the US wields the ultimate power because of its steady flow of money to these warring parties, would not US pressure on Arafat also be apt?

Second, and more important, what type of two-state solution is Israel supposed to accept? The ad lists certain conditions that the two sides should follow, namely Israel’s withdrawal from what is deemed “the occupied territories” (a gross legal fallacy), as well as the removal of the settlements. Perhaps the authors and signers of this ad missed it, but are those not simply the conditions that Ehud Barak offered at Taba? While one could debate whether Barak’s offer at Camp David was similarly generous, Taba basically represented this very offer.

The Taba deal certainly represented what the US felt would have been the solution to the conflict, which according to Ross included: (1)A net 97 percent of the territory would go to the Palestinians. (2) On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capitol of the Palestinian state. (3) On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs. (4)And when it came to security, there would be an international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley.

Nevertheless, Arafat continued to reject all concessions he had to make, whether on Israeli security concerns or the Right of Return. Dennis Ross, the US special envoy to the Middle East, points out Arafat duplicitously made it appear as if he wanted peace, even as he in truth rejected it the whole time. (see: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2002/ross.html, article in Foreign Policy).  Arafat, as pointed out by Khalid Abu Toameh in the Sep. 19, 2002 edition of the Jerusalem Post, went to the earlier Sharm e-Sheikh summit in December 2000, which aimed at stopping the violence, only because of pressure from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, not because he was interested in ending the violence. Since after Camp David, Arafat no longer believed Barak was a peace partner, who today would assume he negotiated in good faith at Taba? (Ross and Clinton certainly don’t.)

 Ignoring the evidence to the contrary, the newspaper ad in question propagates the myth that Israel’s offers were not viable, nor were they made in good faith. But as the record shows, Arafat’s rejectionism, not Israeli intransigence, is the cause of today’s strife.

Moreover, it’s absurd to claim that pressuring Israel would solve this conflict, when it’s been the Palestinians who have rejected all legitimate offers for peace and reinstituted their “armed liberation” of Palestine. In the aforementioned Jerusalem Post article, the conclusion, based on the events leading up to the so-called “Al-Aqsa Intifada,” was that Arafat and the PA orchestrated the violence, to induce more concessions out of Israel, as well as to increase world sympathy for the Palestinian cause, something that had waned after Arafat’s insidious actions at Camp David.

I understand that the signers of the ad did not solely blame Israel, nor did they expect Israel to make the only concessions. But the time has come for both intellectuals and laymen alike to recognize that since the responsibility for the perpetuation of conflict lies exclusively at the feet of Mr. Arafat and his cohorts, it is they who must be subject to concessions. The world cannot expect Ariel Sharon – a man who has accepted the concept of a Palestinian State as the only solution to the conflict and even attempted to block a Likud vote rejecting such a state – to make concessions under the current climate, for such actions would be viewed as a prize for terror, or as in the case of Hezbollah, as a surrender by “Zionist aggressors.” Should the US make concessions to Al Queda? The use of terrorism, no matter how just the cause, is morally and legally repugnant and cannot ever be rewarded.

According to the legal dictum “ex iniuria non oritur ius (no right can be born of an unlawful act)”, Arafat’s return to violence in contravention of international law cannot force Israel to concede any more territory, or it would create a situation where illegality becomes the means for acquiring territory. Such a situation would clearly violate the UN charter and international law, and would encourage aggressors worldwide to use force to achieve their goals. Is that what the international community wants?

Imposing a solution on both sides is unfeasible. Who would send troops to carry out such a settlement? How would international observers – probably of the UNEF or UNIFIL genre – be able to ensure both sides are keeping their ends of the deal? Has such a concept ever worked before? The United States cannot even force Iraq to allow inspections, despite Saddam Hussein’s acceptance of unimpeded inspections after the Gulf War and numerous Security Council resolutions forcing him to do so. UNIFIL can’t even prevent Hezbollah attacks against Israeli civilians in Northern Israel. And how long did it take for US/UN troops to be chased out of Somalia? And a UN force is going to be able to keep the Israeli army and Palestinian terrorists, both quite good at what they do, from fighting this war?

The only solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is for the Arab states, and the Palestinians in particular, to recognize Israel’s right to exist, her right to secure and recognized borders as per Resolution 242, and her right to remain a Jewish State, free from attacks of all kinds. Fake peace offers like the Saudi Plan, basically an updated version of the old Fahd Plan/Fez Initiative, do nothing but create a smokescreen for their obvious intentions. Compromise, on the part of those who have started but lost so many wars, is the only way to end this “cycle of violence.” Claiming that any particular solution is the only one that can work is presumptuous, since many have not been tried. When the Palestinians elect new leadership not compromised by terror, negotiations can resume, negotiations that will be geared towards reproducing the viable deals presented at Taba and Camp David, not some dream-like deal where Israel will cease to exist. The violence was started, and can only be stopped, by Yasir Arafat and his cohorts. Put blame where blame is due. 

What do you think? Click here to send a letter to the editors.
All content is copyright © Yeshiva University Commentator.