Replies: 7 Comments

Judging others is often a self-referential process,but unfortunately, sometimes,decent and passionate people like yourself make the mistake of attributing qualities which you possess, on others who are not worthy of them.The nebulous dream (i.e. living harmoniously with the Palestinians)prevents you from seeing reality, and only your wish is real to you.The establishment of Israel was a result of unwavering, inflexibe , uncompromising pursuit of an objective.Zig-zaging is the road of a pragmatist,and context-dropping their favorite method." In any compromise between food and poison,it is only death that can win"-Ayn Rand

Henry Davis, Sunday, December 16th

Dear Henry,
The experience of the Lebanon war should have taught us the danger of empty oratory. Not getting killed is a good moral principle IMO and so is not stealing the land of others. Peace is another moral principle. It may be unattainable, but we have to keep trying.

The Arabs, with their inflexibility have gained a lot of refugees. We pragmatists with our immoral flexibility gained a state. I would not want to trade with them.

From Australia it is much easier to be an enthusiastic and maximalist "Zionist" - but that is not the Zionism that built Israel.

Ami I.

Ami Isseroff, Saturday, December 15th

Being a commited Pragmatist Mr Isseroff's comments are typical of the philosophy he espouses:no objective reality,no principles,subjectivism,compromise, and concrete bound solutions-all those"virtues" that supposed to be in Israel's favour. But reality tells us something else:the arabs have achieved much more by being "inflexible", and the fact that we're discussing the status of Jerusalem proves the point.

Henry Davis, Saturday, December 15th

Dear Ami,

The essential point in your disquisition is to be flexible about
negotiations on whatever is "Jerusalem."

Yet you yourself point out that the Arabs have no love for
Jews or Israel . . . and more likely will continue to try to wipe
Israel off the map and kill all the Jews in the process.

And you yourself point out how essential is Jerusalem,
whatever it happens to be in sq. kms., to the existence
of Israel itself.

Do you not also realize how hyperbolic is the thinking of
the Arabs, the Muslims, that to even consider "discussing"
Jerusalem is tantamount to saying that Israel has lost its
will and, not only does not have legitimacy, does not
have any historical right whatsoever (if Jerusalem is
negotiable)?

So your "flexibility" and warnings about those who say
"No to any negotiations on (whatever is) Jeruslaem"
simply furthers the cause of the disintegration of Israel
(whatever that is).

Such "reasoned" positions on your part do not take into
account the "unreasonableness" of the other side.

Peccatto!

Stanley H. Barkan, Poet/Publisher
Cross-Cultural Communications
239 Wynsum Avenue
Merrick, NY 11566-4725
Tel: 516/868-5635
Fax: 516/379-1901
E-mail: cccpoetry@aol.com
www.cross-culturalcommunications.com
Profile: www.thedrunkenboat.com (Summer 2002 Issue)
Video: www.Poetryvlog.com

Stanley H. Barkan, Thursday, December 13th

Dear Paul Winter,
Since you are not confused, please answer the following, as I am confused:
1. What is better for Israel
a- 250,000 Arabs inside Israeli Jerusalem?
b- 250,000 Arabs in their own state?

2. Which of the following are sacred to the Jews:
a- Khirbet Beit Sahur
b- Issawiye
c- Jabel Mukkaber

3. If giving up Jerusalem is dangerous then
a- It is not dangerous to give up Qalqilia and Tulkarm because they only threaten Ben-Gurion Airport and Kfar Saba which are not holy.

b- It is dangerous to give up anything, therefore the slogan should be "no concessions."

4. How do you like your burnt offerings:
a- Rare
b- Medium rare
c- Medium
d- Well done

Ami Isseroff, Thursday, December 13th

I see no confusion here.

Ami Isseroff's pragmatism may not please everybody, but is the way forward.

And heaven forfend that a time should come when my Uncle Sid, with my cousin Michael as his acolyte, sacrifices sheep and cows in all our names.

I am sure that the G-d that I'm not sure that I believe in would not welcome such burnt offerin gs.

chairwoman, Thursday, December 13th

Like most of Isseroff's articles, the one on dividing Jerusalem is confused. This is not surprising: a peacenik kicked in the head by a reality he still does not accept. Jerusalem must not be divided because the Arabs do not want to share it, because they are using the salami technique where each concession is the cue for another demand. Reasoning with the unreasonable is like debating with a rabid dog. Isseroff sets up straw men to argue for talks about dividing Jerusalem. They won't wash. Jerusalem is Israel's capital and the heart of Judaism. The Arabs lost wars they started and must pay the price. As long as peaceniks and others try to molify aggressors, they will continue to kill and terrorise.

Paul Winter, Thursday, December 13th

Constructive comments, including corrections, are welcome. Do not use this space for spam, publishing articles, self promotion, racism, anti-Zionist propaganda or character defamation. Inappropriate comments will be deleted. See our Comment policy for details. By posting here, you agree to the Comment policy.