Submitted Comments RSS Feed Comments by Daniel R. Schaefer
Posted in: Indyk: Stop settlement activity to advance peace
Furthermore, the "settlement" issue is far more complicated than Mr. Indyk represents. It involves historical right-the right to live in Israel's historical homeland--as well as security. Israel at her narrowest point based on the 1949 armistice line is only 9-11 miles wide. Israeli leaders have recognized that these lines are indefensible. Israel cannot be expected to retreat to them. Geography and topography are important elements to defense, a subject for which Mr. Indyk does not appear to have any special expertise If Israel could be assured of real peace, then perhaps there might be room for compromise as to some these settlements, but certainly not all of them. Even then, this issue would have to be negotiated, not compromised by unreciprocated , unilateral concessions. However, when Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, significant parts of Judea and Samaria under Oslo, and Gaza, she received not peace but the antithesis of peace. As Shakespeare wrote ("The Tempest"), in words also engraved at our National Archives in Washington, "What's past is prologue."
Posted in: Indyk: Stop settlement activity to advance peace
The problem with Mr. Indyk's argument -that Israel must cease settlement activity for peace--is that it is unsupported and historical evidence undermines it. There were three major wars-Israeli War of Independence (1947-49), Suez/Sinai War (1956) and Six-Day War (1967) --all initiated or provoked by Arabs--in which there were few if any "settlements" in Judea and Samaria. Those wars were directed soley at Israel's right to exist. Furthermore, when Israel withdrew completely from Gaza--dismantling ever settlement, disposessing every Israeli citizen and withdrawing every Israeli soldier--all she received in return was Hamas and a massive rocket-missile assault.
Posted in: Obama, Dennis Ross and the Iran conundrum
Indyk believes Israel would not strike Iran's nuclear weapons because "Israel has second-strike capability." However, he lacks any military competence to support that opinion. He admits "It wouldn’t be easy to live with an Iran that’s a virtual nuclear power." That is an understatement. Israel would have to live with a sword of Damocles over her head and her people. Indyk also asserts that if Iran obtained nuclear arms,"at the end of the day, it’s not a complete disaster.” He thus impliedly admits that this would be at least a partial disaster. Indyk also lacks any known training or competence in weapons of mass destruction. He has no expertise to evaluate the blast, thermal and radiation effects that a nuclear detonation would have on Israel. I remember Indyk taking a hard-line on Israel when he held office. He has little if any credibility in pretending to advocate anything in Israel's interest. By now, it is clear that Obama is ingratiating himself with the Muslim world by denigrating and scapegoating Israel. Obama, however, will not hold office forever. But a nuclear-armed Iran could very well be forever. Israel has to act solely in her own interest, and not seek to appease inexperienced and hostile officials like Obama.
Posted in: At White House, U.S. Jews offer little resistance to Obama policy on settlements
Let's hope our Jewish leadership is capable of doing a better job than as reported. Those leaders who were or are political supporters, contributors and fund-raisers for Obama must realize that they owe undivided loyalty to 1) the United State of America, and, next, 2) the Jewish, pro-Israel organizations and causes they lead. For example, Obama's pretext for pressuring Israel-when there was no "daylight" there was no peace progrsss--was disingenuous. When Administrations pressure Israel (eg,Clinton inviting Arafat to the White House and Bush supporting the Roadmap, Palestinian State, and Annapolis conference, there also was no peace process. No Jewish leader challenged him on this at the meeting, although ADL subsequently spoke out. The acquiesence of Jewish leaders may have encouraged Obama to start pressing on Jerusalem. It's time we recognized that Obama seeks to ingratiate himself with Muslim potentates by denigrating and scapegoating Israel. Pleae see my letter under Readers Report for further information and discussion. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Posted in: J Street backs alternative House letter on Mideast
Contrary to Rocky's comment, to the best of my knowledge,as a vereran AIPAC member, AIPAC never encouraged, let alone strongly encouraged, the Iraq war. American involvement was based on perceived intelligence that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. Also, to the best of my knowledge, AIPAC did not contribute any money to Congressional campaigns. AIPAC is a non-partisan organization which does not support candidates. Rocky does not cite any evidence he relies on for either of these charges, or what source he supposedly "read." I challenge him to cite reliable evidence to back up what he asserts.
RSS Feed Breaking News
Updated 02/09/12 @ 05:54PM EST
- A poll showed that nearly half of likely voters believed the United States should use military force to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
- Rabbi Gunther Plaut, a major figure in Reform Judaism, died in Toronto.
- The application for a proposed Hebrew-language charter school was accepted by the District of Columbia Public Charter School board.
- A truck driving calves from Eilat to the Golan Heights was hijacked into the West Bank.
- U.S. Rep. Howard Berman introduced legislation that would allow eligible Israeli nationals to receive non-immigrant investor visas in the United States.
- Poll: Half of U.S. voters back strike on nuclear Iran
- Reform leader Rabbi Gunther Plaut dies
- D.C. Hebrew-language charter school accepted for review
- Op-Ed: Kick the reaction addiction on campus
- Berman moves to grant investor visas to Israelis
- Holy cow! Calves hijacked into Palestinian territory
- Report: Israeli journalist also works for prime minister
- Larry Greenfield tapped to lead JINSA
Posted in: Letter: Obama's Pretext for Pressuring Israel Is Disingenuous.
08/18/09 10:51 PM
Von Roth asserts that the issue is no longer "who is to blame," evidently referring to the violation of peace commitments. However, the irrefutable evidence is that when Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, Judea and Samaria (Oslo) and Gaza, all she received in return was the antithesis of peace-a continuous onslaught of terror. Von Roth's assertion, therefore, advocates a policy not based on the difference between right and wrong; in other words, a policy both immoral and amoral, and not conducive to true peace. His comment does not merit any further response.