Letters

Why now?

The U.K., France, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden have announced restrictions on trade with Israeli settlements. The move’s timing raises a question that deserves scrutiny.

Why now?

Israeli settlement activity has continued since 1967. Why has it become a priority this week, which marks the 25th anniversary of September 11 and Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, and as Saudi Arabia’s entry into the Abraham Accords returns to the diplomatic agenda?

The timing is particularly striking. In 2023, Saudi-Israeli talks were reportedly nearing a historic agreement before Hamas’s October 7 massacre shattered the process. Some analysts have argued that disrupting Saudi-Israeli rapprochement was itself among Hamas’s strategic objectives.

Saudi Arabia has not abandoned its pursuit of closer ties with Washington, while the Trump administration has made clear that a broader Saudi-Israeli agreement remains a major regional objective alongside a nuclear energy deal.

Against that backdrop, Europe has chosen this moment to escalate economic pressure on Israel. That raises an uncomfortable question: could European pressure inadvertently accomplish through diplomacy what Hamas sought to prevent through violence, slowing Arab-Israeli rapprochement and restoring the Palestinian issue as a prerequisite for closer relations with Israel?

The Abraham Accords proved that Arab states could pursue relations with Israel on the basis of mutual strategic and economic interests rather than territorial concessions. Saudi participation would make that principle considerably more consequential.

It should also prompt a reassessment of Israel’s post-1967 strategy. Israel relinquished territory in the hope that territorial concessions would produce peace. Gaza’s 2005 withdrawal, however, was followed by Hamas’s takeover and, ultimately, the October 7 attack. Whatever one’s view of the territorial question, the assumption that land-for-peace necessarily produces peace has plainly failed to deliver what its advocates promised.

For Jews, Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem are not merely pieces of territory. They are inseparable from Jewish history, identity and faith.

If territorial concessions have not produced peace, perhaps the Abraham Accords point toward a different model: cooperation based on shared interests, security and economic ties.

The signatories should ask if this moment calls for policies that advance Arab-Israeli rapprochement or undermine it.

Richard Romm
Horsham, United Kingdom

Two-state solution

It was fascinating to read the defense of Rabbi Engelmayer and the reasoning behind a two-state solution put forth in the letter by Arthur J. Lerman published on September 4, “The two-state solution.”

It is interesting to note in the argument in favor of a “two state solution,” one is in reality talking about a “THIRD state solution.” When one examines the original area assigned to Great Britain as a Mandate to govern, one views a vast expanse of land that was broken off and ceded to the Hashemites. In reality the birth of a “two state solution.” A Muslim Arab state and a remaining area for a future homeland for the Jews.

Mr. Lerman discusses that the continued military control of the Palestinian Arabs is a horror. Is it really? What is his alternative to military control? How can one give up control of an area that would be immediately turned into the site for taking offensive actions against Israel?

He then turns to halachic reasoning to strengthen his arguments. Quoting the rabbi, “Engelmayer is channeling the ideals of our Tanakh — Seek peace and pursue it (Psalms, 34:15). And military control of one people over another is no way to peace.” While one should pursue peace, one should also remember the Talmudic dictum, “if someone rises to kill you, rise up to kill him first,” Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 72A). Israel must sign agreements with parties who mean to keep them eternally, not until they can be broken to achieve what couldn’t be accomplished before (Takiyah). 

One must strongly deny and turn against the thought stated at a meeting of Michigan Jewish Democrats, by state Attorney General Dana Nessel who stated, “We have a moral imperative to place the needs of the world above even our own self interest and, yes, even our own survival.” What a ridiculous, foolish, suicidal encouraging statement.

One must learn from history, and by doing so, one can comprehend that military control over one’s enemies can pave the way to peace. One has to just remember the realities at the end of World War II. The Allies had military control over two nations, Japan and Germany. The control instituted was different due to the cultures of each. The Japanese were ruled by their Emperor, revered as a God-like mortal, whose rulings at the time were followed without question. The surrender to the Americans was final, there would be no continuation of hostilities, no return to the concept of a Japanese Empire. The military control over Germany was different. Under allied force, de-Nazification programs were instituted to fight and force the rethinking and reeducation of sections of the population. There were those in Germany who wanted to resurrect their Nazi past and philosophies, and this had to be forcefully eradicated.

In a sense this must be similarly done with the Palestinian Arabs. Any agreement signed must be a true, lasting peace, with actual consequences for the breaking of the contents of any agreements. There must be no thoughts that a return to armed conflict is no big deal. No peaceful solution can take place where the Arabs see the end as the eradication of Israel and the acceptance of subservience to Islamic rule. As long as their governmental educational policies are geared to denigrating Israel and Judaism, no agreement is possible. As long as government funds are going to those and their families according to actions taken against individuals and property within or connected to Israel or Jews, this is unacceptable. Any “State of Palestine” must not maintain an army or police force that can be converted into an army by just changing its name. Any Palestinian government must be in power for years before any peace treaty is signed.

The future I envision is a federation of areas in Judea, Samaria with Jordan. There will be no Arab capital in Jerusalem and the religious sites within the city are under Israeli control with autonomy maintained by their religious denomination.

Howard J. Cohn
New Milford