There's been a lot of debate since Sunday about the rally. You know what they say; 55,000 Jews, 63,500 opinions (OK, they say two Jews, three opinions).
My (new) friend J (to distinguish him from my long standing cycling-friend, J) sent me this from the BBC. Note that Abu , the Palestinian militant, says:
"We would accept a transitional agreement or initiative under which there is a ceasefire between us and an Israeli entity, but we do not accept a two state solution as the basis for lasting peace. As a combatant, I would accept a ceasefire in return for Israel giving up Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but we can never recognise the state of Israel."
Unlike most Israelis, who do accept a two-sate solution. That's pretty much what Barak offered and Arafat turned down.
And Andrew sent me this (totally unedited) email, entitled J'accuse
I suspect that like me you received innumerable e-mails in the last couple of weeks informing you of the rally which took place last Monday and like me agonised over whether to go.
I have been saddened by the whole series of events. The rally will make little or no impact on British policy (it barely made the BBC six o'clock news that evening before the news of the assassination of Pim Fortuyn). However, it is a godsend for Bibi Netanyahu's next bid for the Prime Ministership of Israel - you can see the campaign ad now - first he does the Washington rally, compares Arafat to Hitler etc, then does the London rally and does the same (cue shots of 30,000 cheering Jews at Trafalgar Square).
Here are some questions:-
Who were the people who organised it? - what political views did they represent and why were we never told?
Why were we told the rally was apolitical at a time that invitations must have been going out to Israeli politicians?
Did anyone tell Bibi that the rally was to be apolitical?
If they did, why did they think that he would follow "apoliticism" given that he had compared Arafat to Hitler in Washington and was unlikely to do anything else in London?
Why did so many Jewish organisations feel obliged to publicise this rally over which they had no control?
What have we become that Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford, who has a long record of friendship to Jews and Israel, gets booed when he tells us, out of friendship, things that we find painful and may not agree with? Have we become so paranoid that we only want friends who always tell us we are right?
Are we surprised that the message from sensible speeches gets drowned out when appeals to the basest fears of a crowd always bring the loudest cheer?
-------------------
Please show solidarity with Israelis at this difficult time. If you have friends there, keep in contact. If you have reason to go, visit.
But please, please do not again fall for the blandishments of peer pressure without asking why.
Jews ask questions and demand answers from their texts - perhaps in future we should do the same from our leaders.
Sha'alu sh'lom yerushalyim
Andrew
How do I feel about this? Part of me agrees with Andrew; Jews ask questions and demand answers from our texts. And part of me doesn't; I didn't agomise over whether to go, I was ready to stand up and be counted. Was it totally apolitical - no. Do I stand by what I said Monday - yes. Who oraganised the rally - people who care about the longevity of Israel. For me, it was just as much about combatting media bias as anything else, and the fact that it "barely made the six o'clock news" isn't accurate; I saw wide, if biased coverage, and frankly, 55,000 (mostly) Jews eat bagels in Trafalgar Square is not a news story.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment