The campaign against Kristof begins

The other day, I commented on Nicholas Kristof's column in the NY Times entitled, "Yes, Let's be Candid About the Middle East," and predicted a campaign of outrage would begin immediately. Today, the first signs of that campaign have begun in the letters to the editor of the Times. This one is particularly telling:

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof recalls that an Israeli cabinet minister once said the sight of “an elderly Palestinian woman beside the ruins of her home, after it had been destroyed by the Israeli Army” during an antiterror operation “reminded him of his own grandmother, who had been dispossessed by the Nazis.” Mr. Kristof asks, “Can you imagine an American cabinet secretary ever saying such a thing?”

The answer is no, because most reasonable people recognize that such analogies are inaccurate and irresponsible. Most of those political figures who have used such language, including the Israeli cabinet minister in question, backtracked once reminded, by the force of public condemnation, that such comparisons are unacceptable.

Rafael Medoff
Director, The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies
Washington, March 18, 2007

Obviously, the very same thing that happened to the cabinet minister is about to happen to Kristof. It's "unacceptable," to use the writer's term, to criticize Israel in any way, and the "force of public condemnation" will make sure that any mouths that open to speak such criticism will be shut permanently.

Pray tell, just what is inaccurate and irresponsible about the cabinet minister's comments?

And, then there is this completely distorted version of recent Middle East history:

To the Editor:

Re “Talking About Israel” (column, March 18):

Nicholas D. Kristof’s suggestion that the United States press Israel to be more forthcoming in negotiating with the Palestinians reminds me of the story of the rabbi who gave a sermon about charity and deemed it 50 percent effective: he persuaded the poor to accept.

When has Israel been the impediment to establishing a Palestinian state?

From 1948 to 1967, the West Bank was administered by Jordan, not Israel, and a Palestinian state could have been established at the stroke of a pen. After the Six-Day War, Israel offered to return the newly acquired territories to the Arabs in exchange for recognition and peace; the response was a thunderous no.

More recently, Yasir Arafat was offered a state in almost all the West Bank, Gaza and parts of Jerusalem by Ehud Barak and then more generously by Bill Clinton, and turned it down because the offer did not include the destruction of Israel by flooding it with returning refugees.

Currently, the Palestinians are ruled by a government that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. What would the agenda be in the dialogue that Mr. Kristof urges on Israel, a timetable for Israel’s committing suicide?

Fair-minded observers know where the roadblock to peace in the Middle East is to be found, and it is not Israel.

(Rabbi) Harold Kushner
Natick, Mass., March 18, 2007

From 1948 to 1967, the West Bank was not just administered by Jordan, it was part of Jordan. The Palestinians had fled from their homes in Israel and were guests in Jordan. Countries don't sign away their territory easily. Since then, Jordan has been generous enough to relinquish its claim on the territory in favor of the Palestinians.

Frankly, I don't recall any effort by Israel after the 1967 war to return all of the captured territories in exchange for a promise of peace and recognition. I would venture to say it never happened. In fact, shortly after the 1967 war, the UN unanimously passed Resolution 242, calling for Israel's removal from the territories captured in the 1967 war. For years, the Palestinians have called for Israel to honor that resolution and for years Israel has refused.

And, the oft repeated claim that Israel offered "almost all of the West Bank" to Arafat, while almost true in terms of acreage, is totally bogus in terms of what actually was offered. What was offered was a bunch of disconnected territories without access to water supplies, without connecting links (all connections were to be controlled by Israeli checkpoints) so residents could move freely within their own country and without access to the rest of the world. Not even a fool would accept such an offer.

Meanwhile, Israel deliberately continues to expand the settlements with the announced intent of creating "facts on the ground" that will prevent the Palestinians from ever returning.

So, it's true. Fair minded observers do know where the roadblock to peace in the Middle East is to be found, and it's not the Palestinians alone.