Diogenes of the Middle East

In a controversial essay in the LA Jewish Journal Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky asks to Consider a divided Jerusalem.

After acknowledging the controversial nature of his views and getting a few formalities out of the way, he says he seeks honesty. The problem is that even if one accepts all of Rabbi Kanefsky’s assertions, Mere Rhetoric writes

You don’t walk into a negotiation with the position you expect to end up with and you don’t walk in explaining what you owe to the other side. You walk in with a position more extreme than what you’re willing to live with, so you have something to give up when the other side comes in with a position more extreme than what they’re willing to live with. Coming to the negotiating table “telling an honest story” is the best way to lose negotiations. You don’t walk into a car shop saying “I’ll tell you that I’m only willing to spend $10,000, but actually I’ll go up to $20,000” and you don’t say “besides, it would be totally unfair to you if I stuck to my original offer”. Nobody negotiates that way. But for some reason Israel is always expected to.

Similarly Elder of Ziyon writes

Simply put, the Arab/Israeli conflict is a land dispute. If one side claims all the land and the other side equivocates about that question, naturally the side that claims it all is in a position of power.This is not to say that Israel should lie. Its true claims are powerful enough, if they are not often stated as well as they should be. But this means that Israel should not negotiate by showing its hand as to what it is willing to give up – because these are essentially one-way negotiations, the question is how much land Israel will end up losing, and not what she will get in return because that is intangible (and almost certainly fantasy.) An “honest” negotiator will always lose because you will never find both sides putting on the table their final position.

Israel’s legal, moral and historic claims to Jerusalem – and the entire West Bank as well – are very strong, but they have been given up by successive Israeli governments, in some part because of this desire for “honesty.” Is Israel in better shape now than before Oslo? Is real peace any closer? Has Israel reaped rewards for its honest negotiations, which translates directly into capitulations?

There are two paragraphs that I’ll take issue with. The first:

An honest reading of this story reveals that there were voices in the inner circle of the Israeli government in 1967-1968 who warned that settling civilians in conquered territories was probably illegal under international law. But for very understandable reasons — among them security needs, Zionist ideologies of both the both secular and religious varieties, memories that were 20 years old, and memories that were 3,000 years old — these voices were overruled. We can identify with many of the ideas that carried the settlement project forward. But the fact remains that it is simply not honest on our part to pretend that the government of Israel didn’t know that there was likely a legal problem, or that the government was confident that international conventions did not apply to this situation. That just wouldn’t be an honest telling.

This is Tom Segev’s view, but it’s hardly an accepted view. But it’s also taking 2007 and projecting it onto 1967. In 1967 Israeli leaders no doubt thought that they’d trade some of the land they captured for peace with Egypt and Jordan (and presumably the wider Arab world.) But Israel never assumed that it would be forced to return to its Auschwitz borders. Resolution 242 was worded “from territories” not “from all territories” confirming that assumption. So no, it wouldn’t be an honest telling to say that Israeli leaders expected the country to risk international ostracism due to its policies after the 6 Day War. I’m not going to judge Rabbi Kanefsky, but his telling is not accurate.

Two paragraphs later he writes

The Religious Zionist leadership (similar to today’s Evangelical supporters of Israel) made a different judgment, namely that settling the Biblical heartland would further hasten the unfolding of the messianic age. Thus, the Arab population already there was not our problem. God would deal with it. This belief too — reasonable though it may have seemed at the time — has also turned out to be wrong. To tell the story honestly, this mistake too must be acknowledged.

By casting himself in opposition to those with messianic beliefs, Rabbi Kanefsky is making a case that his view is rational. Though some Religious Zionists and some Evangelical supporters believe that settling Judea and Samaria will hasten the Moshiach (Messiah) that’s by no means the only reason.

Religious Zionists, in particular, see the settling of Judea and Samaria as validating history. Jews have a historical connection and right to Israel. Denying the historical connection of Jews to Hebron and Shechem, for example, also denies the historical ties to Tel Aviv or Yafo (Jaffa). And this belief is important for it runs counter to one of the primary foundations of Palestinian nationalism.

One other thing bothers me about that paragraph. In 2000 Israel withdrew from Lebanon. Hezbollah instead of disarming and making peace was emboldened and strengthened. In 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza, instead of gaining peace, it gained Qassams and Hamas won power. Does Rabbi Kanefsky really believe that dividing Jerusalem will strengthen Israel or appease its enemies? Did he learn from those mistakes?

But Rabbi Kanefsky also has to be careful what he advocates. As a public figure his views – controversial within his own community – will be used. He received a glowing profile in the LA Times. He has the admiration of many outside his community. His opinion is rare but it will now be magnified out of proportion. And I find little reason to doubt that his op-ed will be used not just by Israel’s critics but by its enemies too.

Kanefsky sees things that do not exist. And so, now that the Los Angeles Times has given Kanefsky’s minority opinion legs, we are forced to weigh in on the matter and give this narcissist the last thing he should be afforded: attention.

You see that’s one of the core problems of the left; when they publicly advocate for their extreme leftist positions they become invaluable collaborators to Israel’s and Judaism’s enemies.

That’s harsh, but if Rabbi Kanefsky doesn’t realize the end result of his article the trait he can claim is naiveté not honesty.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.