What Does Yitzhak Rabin's Legacy Really Mean?

The following is an open letter to the Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations Alan Solow.

Dear Alan,

I read with great interest the full page ad taken out yesterday by the Conference of Presidents to mark Jerusalem Day, excerpting at length a moving speech by the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin about Jerusalem's personal importance to him and its significance for the Jewish people.

Jerusalem does indeed hold a unique place in the hearts of the Jewish people, and it is a place of special importance as well for Christians, Muslims - indeed for nearly all people around the world.

Precisely because it is so special, Jerusalem is among the most difficult issues to address in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I write to ask you to clarify the message that the Conference was trying to convey in its ad by invoking the words and the memory of the late Prime Minister.

I know we both cherish other important words of the late Prime Minister - specifically those spoken on the lawn of the White House at around the same time, invoking the need to finally end the legacy of blood and tears that flowed from the ongoing conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

To me, the message most in keeping with Prime Minister Rabin's legacy on Jerusalem Day would have been that precisely because Jerusalem is so special to us, we must do all we can to ensure that we find a peaceful resolution to the conflict and to finally end the work that he began eighteen years ago.

I believe that the Conference's ad - by quoting language that implies that Rabin opposed "compromise" or that he believed Jerusalem to be "ours" in an exclusive way - presents a distorted picture of the Prime Minister's legacy and his message to us.

I would hope that his message - and yours - to the American Jewish community and to the political leadership of this country would be that the future of our people and the future of all people in the region depends on finding a workable compromise that allows us to end the conflict once and for all.

The only way that Israel will remain secure as a democratic, Jewish home and the only way Jerusalem will be recognized by the world as Israel's capital is if we come up with a reasonable plan for sharing the city.

That was certainly the vision underlying the parameters of a final resolution on Jerusalem laid out by the Prime Minister's close friend, President Bill Clinton, in the year 2000. That vision remains the likely basis of any peace agreement today as well: Jerusalem encompassing the internationally recognized capitals of two states, Israel and Palestine; what is Arab should be Palestinian, what is Jewish should be Israeli, and what is holy to both requires a special care to meet the needs of all. As the former President said, "no peace agreement will last if not premised on mutual respect for the religious beliefs and holy shrines of Jews, Muslims and Christians."

I write to ask you to avert any possible misunderstanding of the Conference's intention in placing yesterday's ads. Specifically, I call on you to clarify publicly:

1. Whether the Conference does in fact support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
2. If so, whether the Conference would accept that - as part of a two-state solution - Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem should be not only part of a new Palestinian state but its capital.
3. If not, whether the Conference believes that Israel should retain sovereignty over the more than 200,000 Palestinians living in the Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem such as Walaja, Shuafat, Bet Hanina, Kufr Aqab, Kalandia, and Wadi Joz.
4. Finally, if these Arab villages are to remain part of Israel - are you supporting granting Israeli citizenship to the Palestinians who live there and who don't have it now? If so, how can you reconcile such an enormous exception with otherwise unquestioning opposition to providing citizenship to other Palestinians, for instance in the context of addressing the "right of return" in a final status agreement?

I hope that the Conference of Presidents will continue to invoke the legacy of the late, great Prime Minister. However, I hope that you will acknowledge that he didn't simply give his life "for his country" as the ad states. He gave his life to the cause of peace, and his life was taken by someone whose ideology brooked no compromise - not on Jerusalem or any other issue.

I urge you and the Conference - as you speak in the name of the American Jewish community - to voice strong support as well now for the type of compromise that is so much a part of the late Prime Minister's legacy.

Former Prime Minister Olmert spoke eloquently several years ago about that legacy at a memorial service in honor of the late Prime Minister: "[Rabin] understood that if we want to maintain Israel as democratic Jewish state, we must concede to a lack of choice and to our great torments and give up parts of our homeland for which we dreamt for generations of yearning and prayers... We must also give up Arab neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem and return to the seed of the territory that is the State of Israel up until 1967, with obligatory amendments as a result of the reality created in the meantime." At the same ceremony, Israeli President Shimon Peres added, "The shots that were fired at Yitzhak's exposed back did not succeed in killing his vision, because you can't assassinate an idea."

Realizing Yitzhak Rabin's vision of peace for Israel will take leadership, vision and courage. I hope that, as someone who has been called to step to the forefront of the American Jewish community, you will honor that responsibility by using your platform to help educate the community about the compromises that are necessary for peace, the tough truths about sensitive issues like Jerusalem and the real meaning of the legacy of the late, great Prime Minister.

Sincerely,

Jeremy Ben-Ami
President
J Street

 

Follow Jeremy Ben-Ami on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jstreetdotorg

Comments

[Mauce1]

06:25 PM on 05/14/2010

If Jordan would not have attacked Israel in 1967 and the Palestinians would have accepted the Israeli offering following the war, they would not have put the whole world to the stress they have put it and they would be a full-fledged nation today living in peace. The negotiating position of the Palestinians since British times has been to deny everything to the Jews and keep everything for them. Every negotiating opportunity was the same: Jews willing to concede, Palestinians unwilling to compromise. There is one reality: two people one place. One way out: negotiation. The Israeli government yakes a responsible tough posture. To try for the maximum possible is its fiduciary obligation. This pattern has enabled that today there is a State and Jews have access to their historical craddle. In 1947 Israel won its right to exist by proving its ability to harness internal divisions and create a nation. Now it is the Palestinian turn. The government of Israel is not automatically right in everything it does. The existence of organizations such as J Street- which I support- commendably puts pressure on any government's short- cut temptations. Yet, Mr. Jeremy should ask himself if some of his positions are not an interference into Israel's negotiating strategies. Prime Minister Rabin as his predecessors and successors, Begin and Sharon and even Ben- Gurion, were tough negotiators, but when the hour came, they made concessions.

[MinerSam]

08:09 PM on 05/19/2010

There are countless " what Ifs." What if East Jerusalem Jews had not left as pushed to do so.

What if Reagan had not dropped the US leadership role in the Peace process, on the floor, just
after the very sensitive agreed upon period of "5 years of Confidence Building measures."

What if the Arab dictatorships had not used the Palestinians as a weapon, and if Arafat had not killed Mayor who supported a 2 state solution years ago.

What if the in-coming 2000 Bush Republicans had not decided, like Reagan, to again abondon the delicate events that just come before (when maps were actually drawn up) Simply because ** as usual **the image over substance Republican Party and self empowerment politics: told themselves that "This conflict existed since time immerorial and we don't want to bet on a potential losing game that would make us LOOK bad"

Considerting their "No nuance and proud of it" leader any effort may have indeed been a losing game. And what if this GWB had not insisted on those untimely elections that even Hamas was surprised about.

What Rabin had not been killed. And so many more what ifs.

[Via Dolorosa]

04:59 AM on 05/14/2010

The fact is Jerusalem is a divided city. The following letter from a group of Israel activists (helping Palestinian residents who are victims of or threatened with forced evictions) supports Mr. Ben-Ami’s overall argument.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/open-letter-elie-wiesel/

[phute]

10:04 AM on 05/14/2010

Thanks for the link.

[MinerSam]

07:33 PM on 05/19/2010

Yes, thanks a lot for the link to a powerful, fact based, and very important letter.
Hope Obama reads it.

And critial are the alliances between both peoples!

[lbsaltzman]

08:29 PM on 05/13/2010

"Finally, if these Arab villages are to remain part of Israel - are you supporting granting Israeli citizenship to the Palestinians who live there and who don't have it now?"

This deftly points out the insane dilemma Israel has created for itself. The continuation of the occupation either leads to Israel committing horrific acts of ethnic cleansing beyond what they are currently doing. Or to keep Palestinians as virtual prisoners in a series of Bantustans. Or ultimately and most likely it leads to the end of Israel and the creation of a single state under the least favorable terms to Israeli Jews. Its' two states now with an end to the occupation or its' the end of Israel.

[Contrarian22]

04:54 PM on 05/14/2010

I like your analysis so this is friendly probing. You say "it's two states now or..." My question is when does your "now" end? I tend to think it already has. What seems most likely to me is an interim solution largely imposed by the US that gives the Palestinians limited self-rule with the promise of a bi-national state. Perhaps in this interim solution there will be a bi-cameral legislature, Knesset and Palestinian. Just a far out guess

[Politihal]

05:47 PM on 05/13/2010

Mr. Ben-Ami: It's interesting to me that you say that Israel must compromise if she is to exist and yet you are dogmatic and uncompromising in your own viewpoints, not to mention surly in your delivery. You and your J Street have only added to the noise and complicated an already abysmal situation. Rather you would have worked within the existing Jewish community -- the formation of J Street can only be seen as a hostile act -- toward a synchronization of viewpoints than wrench the community apart, as you have done.

~ Halli Casser-Jayne

[amake616]

07:58 PM on 05/13/2010

Seriously? A hostile act? He formed a political lobby that is pursuing a two-state solution using the most popular ideas of what a two state solution should be. A political lobby. Forming...in a democratic nation...a lobby that uses it's money and influence to push for what is important to them is a hostile act?

Isn't assuming that everyone in a particular ethnic group should think exactly the same generally considered pretty hilariously racist?

[Politihal]

10:16 PM on 05/13/2010

No one says everyone has to think the same...except you! By breaking away from AIPAC, Ben-Ami signaled an inability to constructively build consensus within the group and instead insists his ideas are the right ideas and only ideas. J Street is no different and maybe worse than those it accuses of being intransigent. And yes, it was a hostile act.

[gillyak]

11:06 AM on 05/14/2010

A two state solution? Call me crazy but I see 3 "states" there; Israel, West Bank and Gaza.
So who speaks or legitimately represents the Palestinians - Abbas or Hamas?
What will happen if Abba reaches an accord with Israel and Hamas does not follow?

Re: right of return - somebody must be joking. Does anybody in their right mind seriously think this is not a dead issue?

[lbsaltzman]

08:23 PM on 05/13/2010

That is absolutely absurd. Accusing people of hostility and dogmatism because they disagree with you misses the point. Ben-Ami's blog was reasonable and thought out.

[StCuthbert]

02:57 PM on 05/13/2010

"The only way that Israel will remain secure as a democratic, Jewish home and the only way Jerusalem will be recognized by the world as Israel's capital is if we come up with a reasonable plan for sharing the city."

I don't agree with this statement. The Palestinians *could* go back to the way things were in 1948, when they didn't care beans about Jerusalem, and take back all claims to Jerusalem. The two-solution gets enacted with Jerusalem as Israel's capital and Israel stays a democratic Jewish state.

The Palestinian claim to East Jerusalem is more baseless than Israel's claim to the whole city. Why should Israel be the party to give the Palestinians what they want, instead of the other way around? The Palestinians have never ruled Jerusalem, they have no case in their demand for rule of the city.

[nader2803]

04:16 PM on 05/13/2010

To StCuthbert.....with all due respect, your understanding of how things were before 1948 is so inaccurate it's ridiculous. Let me guess, you've been brainwashed to believe there was never a Palestine by people in your community, possibly your church pastor? You certainly don't have a REAL understanding of the history of this region. My honest suggestion is if you want your 2 cents to be worth something, you're going to need to educate yourself a little....on your own (read a few books) and then come back to the table.

I'm a Canadian Christian Palestinian who's father was born in Jerusalem, his father in Jerusalem, and his father in Jerusalem....all with Palestinian ID, living in Palestine..yes that's right, Palestine. You see...Palestine was a land up of Muslims, Jews and Christians prior to 1948.....ALL were Palestinian...yes, the jews were Palestinian Jews, and all living in relative peace for the most part. Jerusalem has always been our holy capital, as Palestinians. History can't be rewritten....the information is at your fingertips, you just need to do a litle bit of common sense filtering, and grab it.

Good luck with increasing your understanding of the issues at hand.

Cheers.

[lbsaltzman]

12:22 PM on 05/14/2010

And probably your ancestors have lived in Palestine for thousands of years, a fact Zionists would like to ignore.

[StCuthbert]

01:36 PM on 05/14/2010

Your grandfather had a "Palestinian ID"? Did he vote in Palestinian elections, electing the leader of Palestine? Did he pay taxes to the government of Palestine? Did he salute the Palestinian flag?

[lbsaltzman]

08:26 PM on 05/13/2010

"Ruling Jerusalem" is not a requirement. The Palestinians are descended from people who have lived there for thousands of years. The ancestors include the ancient Judeans, Romans, Philistines, Canaanites, and all the other people who have lived their over the millenia. The fact that they lived in a country that had been ruled by a series of colonial powers does not take away their right to control their own destiny. By the same token Jews have not ruled anywhere in millenia either and by your logic should have no right to rule in Jerusalem either.

[Vlady]

12:02 AM on 05/14/2010

Saltzman. You are good history cook