Thoughts
A MON
M!,,: uF IDEAS
George Cantor's Reality Check column will return next week
Disarm The Middle East
S
o let's think outside of the box.
While trillions of words
have been written about how
to achieve peace between Israel and the
Arab states, one underlying issue is either
not addressed comprehensively or given
short-shrift: How to assure the security of
Israel? That's the bottom line, whether the
proposal involves the settlements, the West
Bank, the fate of Jerusalem, the Golan
Heights, etc.
If Israel makes concessions on any or
all of these issues, the questions always
remain: Will Israel be able to defend itself
and can it trust the other side? So, here
is possibly a solution: Disarm the Middle
East. Have the Arabs pledge that they will
get rid of their armies and Israel will fol-
low suit.
That's right, you read that correctly. Get
rid of all standing armies. With no mili-
tary threat to anyone, negotiations would
be a cakewalk.
OK, admittedly, there are a "few" practi-
cal problems — like: Who would enforce
demilitarization? What about Israel's
nuclear weapons? How does one control
terrorists, if that is at all possible? (Indeed,
controlling terrorists is not even possible
with standing armies, no matter how pow-
erful they are. Suicide bombers may be
mankind's ultimate weapon.) Might some
other country, let's say Russia, then try to
take over? What about Iran?
Again, admittedly, perhaps there are a
"few" landmines we would
need to deal with.
But think of the idea
conceptually. With no one
having an army, no one has
to fear the other side. The
only reason Syria and Egypt
yes, Egypt, its peace treaty
with Israel notwithstanding
— work so hard to improve
their military power is to
prepare for war against Israel
or other Arab nations. (No
one ever talks or writes about inter-Arab
warfare.) Why else do they need the latest
war technology?
The only reason Israel decided, from
its inception, it needed to be a military
superpower was to protect itself — as it
has — for 60 years against the aggres-
sion of its neighboring enemies. Would
Israel (and, for that matter, the Arabs) not
be better off spending all that money on
civilian programs and needs? It's safe to
assume, at least, Israel would welcome the
opportunity.
So let's do it. With no military threat
—
to anyone in the region, it is, in fact, over.
Crazy? Sure. But it is the answer. The alter-
native: War, and does anyone doubt there
will be another one?
Most assuredly, there will be
whether the antagonist is Syria
or Egypt. And, most certainly,
there will be one with Iran when
it decides its military is of the
quality to challenge its powerful
enemy.
Further, does anyone doubt
that the next war may very well
include the use of nuclear weap-
ons — perhaps limited use, but
some use is inevitable? If Israel
finds itself with its back against
the wall, the question will be: Do we have
any choice but to ...
In the 1973 war, after the U.S. balked
at sending Israel needed weapons, there
were reports that Israeli Prime Minister
Golda Meir had ordered nuclear weapons
loaded onto warplanes. Then Secretary
of State Henry Kissinger accused her of
"blackmailing" the U.S., i.e., send us more
weapons or we'll use nuclear weapons.
There is no reason to doubt the reports.
So we were close once before — some 35
years ago yet.
Thus, a demilitarized Middle East
makes sense not only for the countries in
the area, but for the entire world. No one
will be served by a war that may witness
nuclear destruction. The unimaginable
will become the horrific reality.
Incidentally, there are some 20 countries
that have no standing armies. They either
have agreements with other countries
to defend them, don't have the financial
resources to create an army or are simply
willing to take whatever risks are involved
in not having one.
So let me be the first to raise this hair-
brained proposal. It's not the first time I
have been questioned about my sanity. Do
I think it's possible? No. Then why raise
the idea?
Because:
• It points out dramatically that the con-
stant in any peace proposal is the security
of Israel. All other considerations are "side
issues?'
• It felt good thinking about a solution
— albeit an unattainable one — that
really would insure Israel's future. ❑
A former political reporter, Berl Falbaum is an
author and a Farmington Hills public relations
executive. He teaches journalism part time at
Wayne State University in Detroit.
A Different Kind Of Blame Game
Philadelphia
S
ome 10 years ago, a prominent
Christian clergyman gave a
sermon that was recorded for
posterity. In it, Rev. John Hagee, the leader
of a group called Christians United for
Israel, speculated about the cause of the
Holocaust.
His answer was to see it as divine pun-
ishment of the Jews.
The unforeseen consequences of his
comments were considerable. The man who
will be the Republican nominee for presi-
dent this year, Sen. John McCain, formally
rejected Hagee's endorsement following the
re-emergence of Hagee's statement.
Some Jewish leaders, notably the Reform
movement's Rabbi Eric Yoffie, joined in the
condemnation. Yoffie wrote that "to blame
the victims for the Holocaust and to suggest
that they brought it on themselves is a des-
ecration of their name and their memory
and an insult to the survivors and their
descendants?'
Morally Equivalent?
Moreover, Jewish Democrats had been
suggesting for months that Hagee was
the moral equivalent of Barack Obama's
former pastor and mentor, Rev. Jeremiah
Wright. Now they were calling for all Jews to
disassociate themselves from
Hagee and his organization.
Considering that Hagee was
greeted with acclamation at the
annual American Israel Public
Affairs Committee convention
just last year, such a banning
would be no small thing.
This makes clearer what was
already apparent. The contro-
versy is not about what one
may say about the Holocaust;
rather, the dustup is primarily
political as liberals attempt to
brand the conservative Christian's GOP as
inherently anti-Semitic.
It's true that what Hagee said is offensive
to most of us. To blame the mass murder
of the 6 million on the will of God rather
than on the vile intentions of the German
Nazis and their collaborators is the sort of
thing that is simply unacceptable to the vast
majority of modern-day Jews. Taken out of
context, it sounds as if he blames the vic-
tims for the crimes of their oppressors — a
common practice of anti-Semites
and racists of all stripes.
But Hagee has defenders within
the Jewish community. The Zionist
Organization of America's national
director, Mort Klein, and radio
talk-show host Dennis Prager
soon pointed out that Hagee's
invocation of divine will about
the Shoah is something that many
Jews believe, too.
The notion that God will punish
us for our sins is, of course, rooted
in the Torah. Just last month, as
Hagee was being booted out of McCain's
firmament, we read in Leviticus: 26 God's
specific threats to the Jews if they break the
Covenant.
This warning was later applied to both
the Babylonian and Roman conquests
of Israel. Normative Judaism, in its daily
recitation of the traditional liturgy, teaches
that the Jews were exiled from their land
because of their sins.
Whether this was a piece of divinely
inspired truth or the rationale of a perse-
cuted and powerless people who viewed
their oppressors as mere tools of Godly
retribution is something that rabbis and
historians can debate. But there can be no
denying that the former is what Jews have
been taught for centuries.
Thus, it is not difficult to understand why
some contemporary Orthodox Jews believe,
as Hagee does, that the Holocaust was, in
some sense, the result of Jewish sinfulness.
Though he didn't state that he agrees
with Hagee, per se, Rabbi Avi Shafran
of the ultra-Orthodox Agudath Israel of
America went as far as to say that Hagee's
"approach to Torah" was more Jewish than
Yoffie's because, unlike the Reform rabbi, he
Blame on page A26
June 26 • 2008
A25