It is sad to read about the complete lack of understanding on the part of Martin J. Raffel and those he suggests as disseminators of the truth, i.e., J Street,
Ameinu, and Israel Policy Forum. The question should be asked, do Raffel and friends know the history of Israel before and since 1948? Or is he a promoter of revisionist history that seems to cloud the understanding of so many Jews?
Saddest of all is the way Raffel attempts to equate Israel and the “Palestinians.” In the first place, Mr. Raffel, there is no such thing as Palestine, as it was never a legal or sovereign state. It only received that name from the ancient Romans who foisted it on the Jews to taunt them about their enemy, the Philistines.
History will also show that the “Palestinians” had many opportunities for a two-state solution since 1936, and each time refused it. The 1993 Oslo Accords sought to show Israel’s good faith to the Palestinians who armed them so they could be self-governing. That turned out to be an abysmal mistake as a terrifying intifada resulted. The 90 percent deal offered to them in 2000 by Ehud Barak was summarily turned down by Yasser Arafat. And after a complete withdrawal from Gaza, the favor was returned to Israel by raining Kassam rockets down on its citizens in Sderot.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu concedes that there is no one to make peace with and many otherwise left-leaning Israelis are beginning to agree. The Palestinians and Hamas have stated time and again that they will never recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland, which would be the foundation of any peace agreement.
Should Israel shoot itself in the foot to appease you and the hideous J Street who clearly do not have Israel’s future in mind?
Mr. Raffel, the reason the second Temple was destroyed was because of baseless hatred among Jews. You clearly demonstrate this in your column by trying to dictate from the United States what your fellow Jews who live in Israel should or shouldn’t do. That is not support. While it is commendable that you speak out against the BDS movement, the remainder of your article attempts to divide more than to unify.