Subscribe to The Jewish Standard free weekly newsletter

 
font size: +
 

Carrots, not sticks, can stop Israel’s settlement growth

 
|| Tell-a-Friend || Print
 
 

Ironically, while the United States offers carrots to the hostile regime in Iran to encourage it to change its policy on nuclear enrichment, the administration seems bent on using sticks on its ally Israel to force a change in its settlement policy. The approach is counterproductive and should be changed to one focusing on offering incentives for Israel to freeze settlements and evacuate Jews living outside the blocs of consensus settlements. Here are a few possible incentives to explore:

1) Set a deadline for eliminating Iran’s nuclear facilities. If the United States takes out Iran’s nuclear capability, then Israel has no more existential threat to worry about and does not have to take risks to do the job itself. Israel would be thrilled, but there’s little evidence President Obama has any intention of taking the necessary measures to stop the Iranian program and few American officials are willing to risk the consequences of a military operation. This would, nevertheless, be the most powerful incentive to change Israeli policy.

2) Sign a formal defense treaty with Israel. Though the United States has said it will defend Israel, a formal treaty would significantly reduce the threat of an Iranian strike and would also enhance its deterrent against groups such as Hezbollah. Many Israelis fear the constraints such a treaty may place on their freedom of action, but why not give them the choice?

3) Admit Israel to NATO. Israel’s army could contribute to the alliance and the alliance could all but eliminate the Iranian threat because it would force the Iranians to abandon the idea they can win a nuclear war with Israel. NATO forces would also be more reliable than U.N. peacekeepers to patrol borders, which would make it easier for Israel to make territorial concessions to the Palestinians as well as the Syrians and Lebanese. As with a U.S. treaty, Israel would have some trepidation about the restrictions NATO might seek to impose, especially with regard to nuclear weapons. The United States also could not make this deal alone.

4) Offer a generous compensation package to relocate settlers inside Israel. It is anathema to many U.S. officials to pay Israel to reverse a policy that America has long opposed, but any peace agreement will inevitably involve a significant financial role for the United States, so why not make a down payment on peace now? The most ideological settlers will still resist, but most settlers moved to the territories for economic reasons and will be receptive to financial incentives to relocate.

5) Pressure the Arabs to buy the land from the settlers. Jews bought land from Arabs to build their state; the Arabs should adopt the same tactic. This would be a good test for the Saudis, in particular, who feign concern for the Palestinians. Let them offer settlers money for their land. The Arabs will claim it’s already their land, but saying it won’t make it so.

6) Provide Israel with a large number of Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. These planes could help Israel achieve a significant upgrade to its air capability. As it is, Israel is expected to get some planes but cannot afford the large numbers it would like. There would be little downside to making the offer, though it may not be a significant enough benefit to offset the political risk of abandoning the settlements.

7) Finance the Red-Dead water project, which involves building a canal from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea. This project will significantly increase the water supply in the area and thereby address one of the most critical issues affecting the economies of Jordan, the future Palestinian state, and Israel. An even better solution would be for Obama to find partners to help pay for the project.

Benjamin Netanyahu may offer the best chance for progress in the peace process because his national security policies give him greater credibility in Israel to make risky decisions. Beating him with a stick, however, is likely to bring down his government. This would only put negotiations off by months or years, and his successor may be no more malleable to Obama’s will.

If the president wants to stop settlement growth and move toward a peace agreement, it would be wise to drop the stick and offer Israel carrots.

{/exp:member2:custom_profile_data}
Disclaimer
The views in opinion pieces and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of The Jewish Standard. The comments posted on this Website are solely the opinions of the posters. Libelous or obscene comments will be removed.
 
|| Tell-a-Friend || Print
 
 

Stay tuned for the return of comments

Jeff posted 08 Aug 2009 at 06:38 PM

With millions of Americans out of work, California literally broke, Mitchell Bard calls on the US to provide yet more money and gifts to Israel in order for it to stop something that every US president has opposed and is considered to be illegal every place in the world but Israel. Perhaps he should take to heart what he wrotein an article that was published in the No. California Jewish Bulletin on May 14, 1993 when the US was in far better shape than it is today::

“President Clinton has asked the American people to make sacrifices to help ease the budget deficit and revitalize the economy. With everyone being asked to do their share, the question being asked is why should Israel be exempt?”

Victor Williams posted 09 Aug 2009 at 07:11 AM

Why must the West Bank be Judenrein?  We are expected to to welcome Palestinian Arabs into *our* homeland, and indeed we do so willingly (including offering Israeli citizenship in both 1948 and 1968).  In return, we are also expected to remove our people from their homes in Eretz Yisrael, as if their existence is somehow a stain on the land.  Why is no-one asking that Jews be given the same courtesy in (another) proposed Arab nation that we give in the one Jewish nation?  Draw the border where you will, but Jews should stay where they are.  Say NO to ethnic cleansing in Yesha!

Michael Hess posted 09 Aug 2009 at 05:13 PM

Why should Israel be rewarded for criminal activity?

The time has come for Israel to be forced to comply with UN resolutions and international law.

The colonization of land outside of Israel is illegal. Each and every “settlement” is illegal, Ban Ki-Moon has spent the last several weeks informing a succession of Israeli ministers of this well-known fact.

Iran is not about to nuke Israel. Israel is doing a fine job of destroying itself by the sheer greed and arrogance of a people who think they can steal land and resources from the indigenous people the land belongs to.

Israel can know peace when it goes back to living within its own borders; if it does not succeed at destroying itself over the “settlers” who have caused all of this grief.
Grief that I must add that increase the threat of terrorism worldwide.

Jan posted 09 Aug 2009 at 11:55 PM

I suspect that Palestinians might not have a problem with Jews living in a Palestinian state as long as they are not in Jewish only settlements where Palestinians are barred from living. Also it should be a given that Palestinians can live anywhere they want in Israel which has reserved 93% of the land only for Jews.

Michael Hess is absolutely correct regarding the illegality of settlements. There is not one settlement built on the territory occupied by Israel in 1967 that is legal under international law. And that includes settlements built in illegally annexed East Jerusalem. Unfortunately Israel has defied international law for all too long.

Perhaps the best solution, given that any space for a Palestinian state has shrunk to almost nothing, would be a secular democratic state for Israelis and Palestinians regardless of their religion.

 

Remembering Regina Jonas

Conversion to Judaism is very much in the news today — and for all the wrong reasons. But at the moment, my interest is not in the history of conversion itself, but in the way that it is read into next week’s Torah reading, parashat Lekh Lekha (Genesis 12-17).

The Torah reading opens with God commanding Abraham to set forth on a journey to a place unknown. Abraham sets forth with his wife Sarah, his nephew, all their possessions, and “the souls that they had made in Haran.”

How does someone “make” souls? The midrashic collection Genesis Rabbah, compiled some time in the fifth through eighth centuries, interprets this strange clause as referring to converts. Why did the text say “made” instead of “converted”? To demonstrate that converting someone to Judaism is like creating that person anew. But why the plural? Doesn’t it really mean that he, Abraham, had made or converted those souls? No. Abraham converted the men; Sarah converted the women (Genesis Rabbah 39:14).

 

 

Jewish time

Have you forgotten that the seasons have no regard

for the sovereignty of the sun

and instead attend upon

the grace and glory of the moon?

have you forgotten that the day begins

with evening’s song

and ends with shadow’s conquest of the hills?


 

I never heard any talk about “Jewish time” until I moved to New Jersey. When I was growing up, my family belonged to a Reform temple in Forest Hills, New York, and maybe it still retained a strong sense of its German-Jewish origins. Punctuality is a value, some say an obsession, present in powerful form in British as well as German culture, and by extension the Anglo-Saxon-dominated culture of the United States. And it was marginalized groups that were known to possess a different sense of time from the mainstream.

That’s why, back when I was a college student in the ‘70s, I heard references to stereotypes about “Indian time” for Native Americans, “Spanish time” for Latinos, and “Black time” for African-Americans. But back then, I never heard anyone talk about “Jewish time” or “Hebrew time” to explain why, for example, services scheduled to begin at 8 p.m. might not actually start until 8:15 or 8:20.

 

 

Clouds of glory, clouds of honor

That future generations may know that I made the children of Israel live in booths (sukkot) when I brought them out of the land of Egypt — Leviticus 23:43.

‘Booths’ — clouds of honor (ananei kavod) — Rashi.

When we were young, many of us were taught that the sukkah — especially its essential covering — represents something otherworldly. The structure in which we were dining was meant to evoke the divine clouds that sheltered the Israelites in the desert.

 

 

RECENTLYADDED

The Moses motif

Ridley Scott’s latest film, “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” won’t be in theaters until December, but it already has generated a bit of controversy.

According to Christianity Today, the actor who portrays Moses in the film, Christian Bale, had this to say about the dominant figure in Jewish religious tradition: “I think the man was likely schizophrenic, and was one of the most barbaric individuals that I ever read about in my life. He’s a very troubled and tumultuous man who fought greatly against God, against his calling.”

Living in a free and open society, Mr. Bale is free to express his opinion, and to do safe from the fear of any punishment or persecution. The biggest fear that his remarks have generated is the potential effect they may have on the movie’s box office returns, especially among the large Christian market in the United States. Of course, we in turn are free to characterize his statements as ignorant and erroneous. We also are free to express our doubts about whether he has any chance of displacing Charlton Heston as the personification of Moses, especially since Cecil B. DeMille’s 1956 epic “The Ten Commandments” has been broadcast on ABC every year around Easter for the last four decades. And we are also free to say that Mr. Bale should go back to playing Batman, a character better suited to his temperament.

 

 

Diaspora Jews are targets

 

Remembering Regina Jonas

Conversion to Judaism is very much in the news today — and for all the wrong reasons. But at the moment, my interest is not in the history of conversion itself, but in the way that it is read into next week’s Torah reading, parashat Lekh Lekha (Genesis 12-17).

The Torah reading opens with God commanding Abraham to set forth on a journey to a place unknown. Abraham sets forth with his wife Sarah, his nephew, all their possessions, and “the souls that they had made in Haran.”

How does someone “make” souls? The midrashic collection Genesis Rabbah, compiled some time in the fifth through eighth centuries, interprets this strange clause as referring to converts. Why did the text say “made” instead of “converted”? To demonstrate that converting someone to Judaism is like creating that person anew. But why the plural? Doesn’t it really mean that he, Abraham, had made or converted those souls? No. Abraham converted the men; Sarah converted the women (Genesis Rabbah 39:14).

 

 
 
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30