Posted 6:17 PM by Tal G
From Texas:

{...personal info omitted ... }

So, on to my questions:

1) Do you think that Israel would have survived until now without US aid? Do you think that Israel would continue to survive if the US withdrew all of its financial and military aid? If the answer to either of those is "no," can you explain why I, as an American with American values, should support a state that is based on religion and ethnicity?

2) It is a widespread view among Americans that the real momentum towards peace was broken not by the breaking of a cease-fire, but by the assassination of Rabin. Is this view held at all by any Israelis?

3) If the Palestinian terrorists laid down their weapons and pursued a righteous path of civil, non-violent resistance (in the tradition of Ghandi), and this eventually resulted in a political solution to the differences between your two people, would the hard-line right wing in your country allow that solution to be implemented? Or would people like the Rabin assassin take up arms against it? That might sound like nothing but a pointless, hypothetical question if you believe the Palestinians will never abandon their violent ways, but it is a hypothetical question with a very real point.

4) I confess that a lot of my misgivings about Israel came to the forefront when y'all elected Ariel Sharon. To me, it seems like Sharon's trip to the mosque at the Temple Mount was the spark (if not the cause) of the final breakdown in the peace process. The fact that the Israelis subsequently elected him sure made it look (to me) like there were a whole lot of Israelis who had given up on peace. What do you think about Sharon?

Thanks for your email. I like to get interesting questions - and also hear from people who don't necessarily agree with me.

Your questions are quite broad. I ended up writing a lot more than I thought I would and hope I address your basic points.

1. Israel is the Jewish state in several respects: linguistic, cultural, religious, historical (I wouldn't say 'ethnic'). It attempts (and basically succeeds I think) to tolerate various minorities - though it's not a "melting pot" for them. At the same time, Israel is a "melting pot" for Jews from Russia, Ethiopia etc who become "Israeli".

As a democratic "mixing pot" rather than a melting pot, Israel resembles India, Turkey, or Quebec - though of course all those comparisons are problematic.

You yourself might dream of John Lennon "Imagine" type of world community, but most of the world is happy being attached to its heritage and having a sense of extended community within a nation-state.

Currently, Israel is very much in need of American political support. As in the case of Taiwan, US support for Israel is based on shared ideals rather than raw realpolitik. And we appreciate that a great deal.

2. Israel's democracy is very solid and has had no problems carrying out controversial proposals in the past..

3. Rabin was succeeded by the even more dovish Shimon Peres. It was a series of suicide bombings in 1996 that gave Netanyahu an upset victory.

What we've seen has, in my view, demonstrated that the Oslo process was destined to failure from the outset.

4. Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount (not the Mosque) didn't "spark" 20 months of violence - the visit is rarely mentioned anymore here in fact.

After the failure of the Camp David talks I was expecting "spontaneous" violence to begin. I remember thinking about how surreal it was that Oslo was over, no solution was in sight, and yet a calm prevailed for a few weeks.

I would agree with you if you said that the election of Sharon indicated that Israel had given up on the Oslo process. Though it doesn't mean that Israelis gave up on the
notion of "peace". One of the most truly strange tics of the global media was its persistence in talking about the "peace process" long after it was clear that the Oslo
process was over.

For me, the peace process ended a couple of days after the Sharm-el-Sheikh agreements.(November 2000 or so??) These agreements included a ceasefire and the
institution of the Mitchell commission to "examine the events and how to prevent them from recurring". People here actually waited to see if this ceasefire would take hold. Of course it did not, though the Mitchell commission continued.

The peace process was really, really, really over when Palestinians lynched 3 Israeli soldiers in Ramallah.

If Ehud Barak, following the post-Camp David violence had said: "We tried, but we were wrong. Oslo was a noble attempt for peace that failed", I think he could
have been reelected. Instead he went to Taba and offered even more to Arafat without making any progress on the vital issues of "security" (stability is a better term), Jerusalem, and resettling descendents of 1948 Arab refugees.

Israelis, I think, didn't really want Sharon - but he was the alternative that there was. But he has been a positive surprise for a lot of people and I think a majority prefers him over Netanyahu.

Posted 5:47 PM by Tal G
Over the past few weeks, I've been exchanging emails with a fellow in Iceland. Initially he wrote (regarding Jenin):

Israelis are guilty of crimes against humanity.
Shooting POWs,women and children goes against
every rule the inernational community has signed.
Are we back to the Third Reich?

I responded with a detailed description of the events in Jenin as I was familiar with them and asked "Where do you get your information etc.". His response:

An Icelandic delegation that visited Jenin described the situation as
"destruction beond anything we have seen before".
They also noted the almost total absence of humanitarian
workers,"anywhere else the place would have been teeming with
people digging in the ruins,the stench of rotting corpses was
overwhelming".We europeans have access to a great number
of tv stations via satelite,and we have a free press,uncencored by
governments.The sentiment in this country and probably the
rest of europe is that Israel is doing a criminal thing ,fighting almost
unarmed citisens with tanks and artillery.
Europe is getting more and more anti-Israel and pro-muslim.This is a war
that Israel can only lose,if not on the
homefront,then in the rest of the world.

After some more exchanges, he writes:

Sorry,I was wrong about Jenin.This showes that all news should
be taken with a pinch of salt.If news agensies had had access to the
troublespot,such news would never have reached the headlines.Still,I am
worried over the treatment of civilians and prisoners.I have myself been
in warsones (not as combatant),and seen civilians,mostly women and
children,wounded and killed by warring parties.Not a nice thing to
see.Something I will never forget.

I will continue to follow the news in Palestine,but with a more critical
eye.