One-sided diplomacy

One-sided diplomacy

Famed historian Gil Carl AlRoy incisively noted that “Jews in high office in the gentile world have all too often [felt] irresistible pressures to prove their loyalty to their benefactors, sometimes by acting egregiously against Jewish interests.” This would apply to the current U.S. Ambassador to Israel (“Israel’s US ambassador ‘regrets’ timing of remarks criticizing Israel,” Jan. 28). Indeed, he has been
cast in the same mold as his predecessors Daniel Kurtzer and Martin Indyk.

In expressing views on the so-called “settlements,” one has to wonder if it is possible that they either have no knowledge of history or prefer not to engage it. Does not the Palestine Mandate stipulate Jewish “close settlement” in Palestine?

UN Resolution 242 concerns itself with Israel’s security. How is this possible without strategic depth? The PLO, now the Palestinian Authority, is an instrument of the Arab League and was specifically created to destroy Israel. Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, return of over 90 percent of the territory gained in the defensive Six-Day War, and the failed Oslo Accords have not changed the Arab unwillingness to accept a Jewish state within their proclaimed domain.

Jabotinsky was of the opinion that the Arabs would never entertain Jewish sovereignty in the Biblical Land of Israel, the only alternative for the Jews being a “wall” — meaning an armed struggle.

Alex Rose

read more: