Deal of the century part deux

Rabbi Steve Roth

Transcribed from the clipping

About the only thing Rabbi Warshal and I agree upon is that President Trump's deal of the century was dead on arrival. Quoting a Reuters article, he does not like the fact that the ceremony was too festive, and that it should have been a more “somber, staid event that one might have otherwise expected.” Sorry, but the proposed peace plan was not a call for morose or sorrow.

President Trump is the only U.S. president to have actually proposed a plan that recognizes the realities of the conflict. And, what does the fact that people like Alan Dershowitz and Sheldon Adelson were there have to do with the purpose of the announcement, other than to make it a point of derision of the reader. Rabbi Warshal wants us to look at the actual plan.

Early in the last century, there was a play about three people who witnessed the same event, at the same time, yet their versions of what happened were completely different. What we have with the deal of the century is in the view of the reader. Liberal Jews see one set of issues, while Conservative (ideologically) Jews see something else completely.

Let's compare: • “All settlements remain in the West Bank.” Do the Liberals want Israel to return all of the West Bank to Palestinian control? I am old enough to remember the days leading up to the Six-Day War, when Israel was shelled daily from the West Bank. Is Israel expected to give up this security position? • “There will be no new settlement for the next four years.”

Liberals claim that this means no new settlements in the land apportioned to the Palestinians. But in the portion annexed to Israel there will be new settlements built. Liberals are worried that “hundreds of thousands of Jews will ‘pour into the West bank.’” Halevai (If only). Israel, under any peace plan proposal, was not giving up the area proposed in the current deal, ever.

This is a security issue. • West Bank security: Liberals maintain that Israel does not need the West Bank for security reasons. Firstly, see my comment earlier.

Secondly, need I remind anyone, that Jews living in the South of Israel have only 15 seconds from the time a rocket is fired from Gaza, to reach a shelter? • Palestinian isolation: Liberals maintain that the current plan, which establishes non-contiguous areas as the Palestinian state is unfair to the Palestinians. This is not a new concept.

This has been proposed for decades, and agreed to by the Palestinian leadership. Rabbi Warshal states that the plan would isolate the Palestinians. Based upon what? • No Hamas member could participate in the negotiations. As long as Hamas seeks nothing less than the destruction of Israel, why would any rational thinker even consider letting them participate?

As long as “Hamas is here to stay, and they're not going away,” there can never be peace — regardless of what is put on a piece of paper. • The right of limited return to the Palestinian homeland. This is not acceptable to the Palestinians either. They want the right of return to their ancestral properties in Israel proper.

That can never happen, as it will result in national Israeli suicide. • Security concerns over an airport and sea port in Gaza: 1: As long as Hamas is not a part of the agreement, there is nothing to talk about. 2: At what point does the flow of arms into Gaza become an international issue, so that these weapons are not used against Israel?

Note that the now, more sophisticated rockets being fired into Israel, are entering Gaza through the current port. • The human rights issue: If Israel accepts this, why do the Liberals have a problem with it? • Jerusalem: Where were the Liberals from 1948 to 1967, when Jerusalem was supposed to be an International and open city, yet was closed to any non-Muslim?

The Waqf has had complete control over the Temple Mount since June 6, 1967. Yet, even today, Jews or Christians who “dare” ascend the Mount are arrested if they are suspected of praying.

Where is the equality here? • The Palestinian Constitution: Need I remind our readers that as part of the infamous Oslo Accords, the Palestinian “Constitution” was to be amended to recognize the State of Israel. Though President Carter and Shimon Peres claimed it was changed, it never was changed. Just look at the map of Palestine hanging in Abbas' office.

There is no Israel on that map. As I said at the beginning, this plan was DOA.

Context added by this archive

A signed column answering an earlier column by Rabbi Bruce Warshal. No Palestinian is quoted, named or interviewed anywhere in it.

Cite this item

"Deal of the century part deux," South Florida Sun Sentinel, 11 March 2020. Covering Palestine archive, CP-2020-005. https://coveringpalestine.org/archive/cp-2020-005