Letters/Discussion Forums
Thankful Engelberg keeps debate going on such a crucial issue
I would like to respond to Michele Engelberg’s letter about the Palestinian occupation as the “least worst” solution.
Matan Rosenstrauch, Mozambique
Her response gives me some hope for a brighter future. It is evident that this courageous woman, whom I clearly remember from Limmud Johannesburg this year, raises questions of morality and justice, as any Jew should, on perhaps the biggest moral question of the Jewish people today.
Yet, her affirmation of “Occupation unfortunately the only practical solution at present” remains questionable, even in her own attempt to legitimise the “least worst” solution: That is the status quo of finding no just solution, but expanding unilaterally territories of “Settlement-Israel”.
I would like to refer to some of the points she made.
First, fear and victimisation cannot justify Israel’s policies and to believe that these are driven by a “survival instinct” would be naive.
Ending the occupation cannot be enforced without processes of reconciliation taking place among both sides. Mutual recognition is an example of a prerequisite for sustainable peace.
Engelberg is afraid of a similar scenario to that of Gaza, given that a similar disengagement from the West Bank takes place, asking “especially when there is no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state to begin with from the other side”.
I wonder if she has ever wondered if recognition actually exists from our side. If we systematically deny Palestinians’ right to exist (but demanding them to recognise our’s), condemn their violence, hatred (but not ours) and terrorism (a term exclusive for Palestinians but never to Jews), does she really believe any peace agreement can be sustainable?
Surely, unilaterally disengaging from any occupied territory, without negotiating, would never promote peace. Does she really believe that Palestinians would give up their right for self-recognition and many other rights kept from them due to the devastating status quo?
Just as we haven’t, nor would they.
I was deeply bothered that Engelberg saw my letter as lambasting the SAZF. If it wasn’t clear, I call for collaboration and inclusion of us “transparent people”, with the formal representation of Zionist Jews in South Africa. As she wrote, I share the same premise that “we are on the same team, namely that of a strong and Jewish Israel”.
I thank Engelberg for posing these important questions and urge more people from this unique community to promote debate, dialogue and discussions on an issue so crucial for the survival of Israel as the homeland of Jews around the world.