These are not easy times for all of us who care deeply about Israel. It has become clear that the governments in Washington and Jerusalem are at loggerheads, primarily over the issue of settlements on the West Bank.
As someone who even during the Carter administration, 30 years ago, called publicly for a halt to settlement building on the part of Israel, I remain even more steadfast in my belief that settlements are inimical to the interests of peace, and therefore inimical to Israel's long-term interests and viability.
The expansion of settlements in the West Bank, as we all know, has been promoted by the religious Zionist right in Israel as a form of holy work, meant to hasten the return of the Messiah through the possession of the entire biblical Land of Israel. Governments all across the Israeli political spectrum have allowed this to continue for decades, due usually to political expediency and pressure.
Now it seems as if the international community, including the U.S. government, is requesting that Israel freeze construction on these settlements as part of a process aimed at restarting stalled peace talks.
It is time even the Israeli right, including the current Likud government under Benjamin Netanyahu, look to the precedents set by Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon on the issue of settlements.
After all, it was Menachem Begin who first embraced the concept of "land for peace" as the basis for settling the Arab-Israeli conflict: in return for normalized relations with Egypt, Israel relinquished the entire Sinai Peninsula.
Today we have most of the Arab and even Muslim world putting forward a proposal, the "Arab Peace Initiative," which calls for a normalization of relations in return for an Israeli withdrawal back to the 1967 borders. While negotiations on the exact implementation of the initiative are needed, an Israeli freeze to settlement expansion is part of a necessary first move toward realizing this historic offer.
An even more telling precedent is the case of Ariel Sharon, the man tasked with taking down the settlements in the Sinai, and who as prime minister subsequently took down the settlements in the Gaza Strip.
Sharon became convinced that the demographic threat to Israel's existence outweighed his life's work of settlement construction. As Sharon understood clearly, there was no way to keep controlling the Palestinian people indefinitely and to simultaneously maintain Israel's Jewish and democratic character.
At a certain point, there will be more Arabs than Jews living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, thereby leading to one de facto apartheid state if no resolution to the conflict is reached via a two-state solution.
Nearly as important, Sharon's evacuation of Gaza, opposed so bitterly by the Israeli right in the Knesset and by settlers on the ground, was a triumph for Israeli democracy and governance. Once the government took the decision, the various organs of the state worked respectfully to uphold the rule of law. This should be kept in mind every time another illegal outpost sprouts up on the West Bank, in direct contravention of Israeli law.
It is these types of decisions from an Israeli prime minister regarding settlements that the Obama administration has said repeatedly it wants to see from Netanyahu.
The American Jewish community has, over decades, been a steadfast source of strength for Israel -- inside Israel and out, and from our local communities all the way up to Washington. As Zionists, I and the vast majority of American Jews will always remain committed to the security and well-being of the Jewish state.
However, on the issue of settlements there is seemingly a divergence of opinion: a majority of American Jews agrees with President Obama and does think that a halt to settlement construction is a reasonable request in the interest of peace.
To be sure, the Arab states and the Palestinians have to do their part, too, and the international community needs to hold them to account. After all, a future Palestinian state has to be a viable economic and political entity if it is to succeed and there is to be a lasting peace.
But continued "natural growth" in West Bank settlements cannot be allowed to take priority over the possibility of normalized relations with the entire Arab world. Peace with its neighbors, not the sensitivities of a small minority of religious settlers, has to be Israel's ultimate objective.
People have taken to calling this the "tough love" approach towards Israel, but this is wrong. Rather, it's the only approach you can take if you truly love Israel and care about its survival. A peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with two states for two peoples, is the only realistic way for Israel to ensure its Jewish and democratic character, and hence its existence.
Muddling through for another 30 years on the present course, only to have someone write again about the need for an end to settlements, is not only unsustainable but unloving.
Edgar M. Bronfman is the President of The Samuel Bronfman Foundation and the recent author of Hope, Not Fear: A Path to Jewish Renaissance.
and losers will live in the past
The settlements act as a "clock" to encourage Arabs to join the 21st century, put down their guns and bomb belts, and make peace sooner, rather than later. The longer they want to continue their futile and inhumane war against Israel's citizens, the less of a state they will have - and the more Jews - who they seem to hate worse than Hitler himself could have - will be living there.
As an American Jew I want Israel to survive.
The settlements must stop.
Israel must be recognized by all.
I also want the Palistinian people to have their state and a chance to live fruitful lives.
I have said when all is said an done neither side will be satisfied with the end results.
But neither side will be unhappy.
They are closing in on peace reguardless of what many of the posters here think.
As long as both sides open their eyes and are willing to listen to all sides of the issues peace will come sooner than later.
By the way I feel sorry for the people with closed minds will rip at what you say - hopefully one day they will see the light!
Unfortunately what happened after the withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza weakened the Israeli Left and Center considerably, since Israeli gestures were seen as military victories of both Hezbollah and Hamas, who attacked Israel afterwards. That it why the Right was the big winner in the last election.
How many times will we expect Israel to take unilateral steps to be punished later?
And if no Jews will be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state does that mean that all of the Israeli Jews will have to leave Israel?
I did not understand your last question, though. What I do believe is that Jewish settlers must be given the option of staying in a future Palestinian State just as Arabs had the option of staying in Israel and now represent 20% of the population.
The Jews who lived in Germany were not squatters, they were not trying to terrorize Germans or overthrow the government. Not much of a comparison is it?
He also states that "a majority of American Jews disagree with the settlements". I wonder why he and the J Street Jews keep saying that when it is clearly not true. The majority of us stand with Israel and its right to survival and what Mr. Bronfman is proposing is very dangerous for Israel.
And finally if the Arabs want peace why do their school textbooks refer to Jews and Israelis as sub-human and worse? Why is the Arab press, supported by their governments, constantly insighting anger against Israel? Could it be that it's because that's the only thing that unifies their people? If so, they will never make peace with Israel because then the anger will turn on them.
Strange, huh?
I cannot emphasize this enough, thank you. It is what I have been saying for years.