Speeches in the Middle East, On Alinsky

Speeches in the Middle East
Is Rob Eshman living in La La Land? The speech he thinks Palestinian President Abbas should have given instead of remaining silent after Obama’a speech and Netenyahu’s speech is so unrealistic that it borders on being a childish dream (“Three Speeches,” June 19). Jews on the left, right or middle would love such a speech, as would I, but it would never happen. It also would be suicidal to Abbas’ political career and strengthen Hamas. Abbas’ silence was a welcome sign when instead he could have given a bellicose speech.

Let us hope peace talks are renewed. Such talks will be long and arduous. If peace is ever to come between the Palestinians and Israel it won’t be from speeches like Netenyahu’s and a speech Abbas didn’t give and the unrealistic speech Eshman wrote that Eshman thought Abbas should have given. The quality of The Jewish Journal shows that Eshman is a fine editor-in-chief, but columns like this show he is a dreamer and not a realist. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Leon M. Salter, Los Angeles

With their columns based on fiction, Rob Eshman (intentionally) and David Myers (unintentionally and continually misguided) spoke to the core of the fallacy of the “peace camp’s” position in regard to the Palestinians and a two-state solution.

Eshman put forth another what-if scenario by musing about a brave and forward-thinking address by Palestinian President Abbas. It’s a speech even Eshman admits cannot happen, yet he and others on the left continue to espouse that a conciliatory and fair-for-both-sides speech, policy and action might still occur under current Arab leadership, as long as we wait long enough.

Myers (“Has the Clock Struck Midnight?” June 19) continues to blame the failure of peace negotiations on the presence of settlements that are denying the territorial viability of a new Palestinian state, as if all will be right in the world if Israel just lets Judea and Samaria fall back into Arab hands. He continues to poison our college students by teaching his views of Israel and who is really to blame for the violence and impasse in negotiations. It’s writers and, even worse, college professors, like Myers who are shaping our young people’s views skewed against Israel as the obstacle to peace when in reality it is the Arab refusal to even accept a Jewish state in their midst, no matter the borders. Why should Israel give one inch of land to a people who openly espouse hatred and express a desire for its destruction? Israel doesn’t need the wake-up call Myers claims President Obama is issuing to her; it’s Myers and his ilk that must wake up to the realities on the ground and not just wish away public calls by Arabs for Israel to disappear as an answer to this quagmire.
Allan Kandel, Los Angeles

Both writers [David Myers and Leslie Susser] discuss how Obama’s administration and Palestinians will react, but both completely ignore security and military aspects that Israel is trying to achieve in a future agreement (“Will Bibi’s Speech Be Enough for U.S., Palestinians?” June 19). I was in shock to read the statement from Myers, “… the policy of settling territories occupied after the Six Day War of 1967 has been driven by a mix of Zionist ideology and land-gabbing opportunism.” I have a suggestion for Myers: open the map and measure how many miles it is from Ariel to Tel Aviv. Hamas already has missiles with that range! Myers is talking about the “trauma of Gaza disengagement.” It’s not only trauma to remove Jewish people, but also unprotected Israeli cities and kibbutz. Who will protect a small country like Israel: IDF and settlers, but not liberals or the Palestinian Authority.
Boris Blansky, West Hollywood

David Myers responds:
Both Mr. Kandel and Mr. Blansky accuse me of ignoring factors other than Israeli settlements as obstacles to peace in the Middle East.
The point of my piece was not to catalog all of the obstacles, which would surely include Palestinian crimes, misdeeds and incompetence. It was to suggest that the solution that appears to be the most equitable and just — two states for two peoples — may no longer be possible, owing in large measure to the irreversibility of Israeli settlements. Kandel and Blansky may well rejoice at this prospect, but those who care about peace for Palestinians and Israelis alike must confront the predicament with a mix of sadness and sober urgency.

On Alinsky
I find your article on Alinsky to be beyond absurd (“Saul’s Children,” June 10). To give adulation to a radical with ties to Frank Nitti, Al Capone’s lieutenant who believed Lenin (a mass murderer) was a pragmatist, who dedicated his book, “Rules for Radicals,” to Lucifer and who was a Marxist grass-roots organizer is disgusting. This left-wing nut case inspired radicals to evil behavior of political organizing — not to help the poor, but to gain power. Your article is obnoxious at best and totally misguided.

Obama — an Alinsky follower — is already a failed president. His out-of-control spending will harm the country for years. His stimulus program has already caused unemployment in excess of his earlier predictions — and he wants to spend more. Enough. His lack of standing up to the Iranians is providing an opportunity for dictators like [those in] North Korea and Iran to do what they want — and where does he really stand on Israel?
M. Hurwitz, Los Angeles

I really enjoyed your Alinsky piece.
His wisdom and lessons in “Rules for Radicals” (Vintage, 1989) are so relevant for today.

And thanks for running Rachel Heller’s article on health care (“Health Care Is Broken, But How Do You Fix It?” May 29). We need all the discussion and educating of the public we can do — I’m not optimistic about getting anything good out of Washington.
John F. Glass, Studio City

Soft Lies
I have to question what — beyond a little headline symmetry — is gained by The Jewish Journal publishing Carolyn Kunin’s “Soft Lies” letter (June 19). She writes: “my friendship and respect for Rabbi Joshua Levine Grater remain intact…” and goes on to accuse him of indifference toward Israel, saying: “I have to assume he thinks [Israel’s history] doesn’t matter.” If Carolyn’s friendship and respect were genuine, she would know how deeply Rabbi Grater cares and actively works to support Israel’s peace and security, serving on numerous boards, actively encouraging dialogue at the temple, teaching in the religious school, leading congregational trips to Israel, etc. If this were a controversy “for the sake of heaven” she could have taken her concerns to the rabbi, rather than the press, or at least limited herself to the content of the issue, rather than accusing the rabbi of not caring.

I believe I speak for many members of the Pasadena Jewish Temple and Center who do not agree with everything our rabbi says or does, but we’re honored to link him with his biblical namesake who refused to be intimidated when sent out to scout the promised land. And we all know the outcome of that dispute.
Claire E. Gorfinkel, Altadena

Judging Mr. Mayor
I don’t know what city Peter Dreier lives in, but the City of Los Angeles where I have lived for over 50 years has gone downhill since Villaraigosa became our mayor (“Judging Mr. Mayor,” June 12). The potholes are getting worse (studies have shown that they can only get worse unless we improve road repair/maintenance technology or make huge increases in repair resources and expenditures) and traffic has gotten worse (as we allow developers to build more high-rise apartment buildings). Since Villaraigosa became our mayor, the cost of city government has risen dramatically while revenues have decreased. More movies are being filmed outside of our city and more businesses are considering moving out of the city. As for a decrease in crime, changes in keeping crime statistics may deceive the true facts. As for improving our public schools, the drop-out rate is believed to have increased to almost 50 percent; and rather than help the kids learn algebra, the school system has dropped the requirement that 8th grade algebra is needed.

In my book, Villaraoigosa is a failed mayor. . . I am sure he means well, but he just doesn’t have what it takes to be the mayor of a well-run, prosperous city. And Peter Dreier must not be living in Los Angeles. 
George Epstein

Three Speeches
I read this week the article, “Three Speeches,” (June 19) by Rob Eshman, with great interest. I agree with most of that article regarding the missing speech except I would write it “just a little different.” I would have liked to see Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas or some other major Arab leader state the following: “The time has come that we the Arab people live in peace alongside a peaceful Israel, not exactly in “little Israel itself” but anywhere in one or more of our 22 existing Arab nations composed of some 300 million people. Or even in the numerous Moslem countries aggregating to some 1.4 billion inhabitants.

Surely about 2 million Palestinian Arabs now residing in the tiny Jewish state of Israel could easily be absorbed and accommodated in the vast Arab and/or Moslem lands. It would be just a “drop in the bucket”. After all, in the last 60 years, since Israel’s independence, there was a population exchange, “a quid pro quo,” when about a similar number of Jews left the existing Arab lands, without compensation, in which those Jews lived for many centuries. These new immigrants were successfully absorbed in their new home, in little Israel size of New Jersey. So why can we, the proud Arab people, inhabiting 555 times the land areas of the Jewish state of Israel, not do the same thing and thereby once and for all resolve the many obstacles existing between Jew and Arab??? The borders between us would be “fixed” and recognized, and the temptation for either “people” to hurt each other because of close proximity would be thus removed. The squabbling over claims on the same plots of land would cease as well. Unlike when Israel absorbed about 10 times their original population of 600,000, from over 100 diverse lands, with different cultures and languages. The Arab people, in contrast, already are fluent in Arabic, share a common religion and culture that would enable a much more homogenous absorption. The numbers to be welcomed in would hardly make a ripple effect in any Arab and Moslem country. In addition, we the Arab people must acknowledge we as well have made our homes by the millions in France, England and many other European nations. May God will it, or in Arabic, “In Shallah.” And so my fellow Arabs, let us please our common “father Abraham” from which our both great people descended and live forever in peace, as is proper for “cousins” of the same family. Our definitive and recognized borders will be such as existing now between Israel, Egypt and Jordan. As Theodore Herzel said, “If you will it — it is no dream.”
Bernard Nichols, via e-mail