Print
PDF FormatTo the Editors:
I was pleased to see that, in general, “Miracle on the Sea of Galilee” proved to be a well-written and faithful portrayal of the Kineret Declaration. However, I believe it is important to make a clear statement regarding the indirect significance of the declaration, as distinct from the language of the articles themselves: (i) The achievement of a core agreement concerning the Jewish-democratic nature of Israel; (ii) the success of an open discussion between various groups in Israeli society for whom achieving a core agreement is an overriding principle; and (iii) the awareness of the possibility of making Jewish unity a reality.
It is important to emphasize that the Kineret Declaration is only a starting point, not a culmination. The core agreement has yet to be finalized and fleshed out, and only then can we begin the essential task of translating it into common action.
Uzi Dayan
Chairman
The Committee for National Responsibility
Tel Aviv
To the Editors:
I was quite taken aback to read of AZURE’s admiration for the “Miracle on the Sea of Galilee,” or Kineret Declaration, that forms the subject of a recent editorial. Granted, in the social and political reality in which we find ourselves, it certainly does seem nothing short of a miracle that Amram Mitzna, Asa Kasher, Effie Eitam, and Yoram Hazony met together under the same ideological roof. Yet any sense of encouragement we may have gotten from this rare meeting of minds quickly turns to disappointment when we take a closer look at the declaration itself, and discover the price the Right has paid for its long-awaited opportunity to dance with Peace Now. That price is no less than the land of Israel; in other words, they sold their birthright for a mess of potage.
Why their “birthright”? Because of Article 6 of the declaration, which states that “Israel is prepared… to recognize the legitimate rights of the neighboring Palestinian people”; that “Israel has no wish to rule over another people”; and that “Israel sees the principle of self-determination and its expression within the framework of national states” as a basis for a solution to the ongoing conflict. Put simply, the declaration is endorsing a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria.
Why a “mess of potage”? Because it seems that what the national camp received from its new friends on the far Left was nothing more than empty words. Not surprisingly, Uzi Dayan was happy to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Ehud Olmert, and Shlomo Avineri to line up with Naomi Shemer, in order to recognize the Law of Return, the importance of aliya, the Jewish holidays, the menora as a symbol, and the national anthem. We are supposed to be grateful to them, I suppose, for the spirit of compromise they brought to the table.
And in return for all these things, the signatories in the national and religious camp paid with their homeland—with agreements to establish a state for another nation in the very heart of the land of Israel.
Let us be clear: Anyone agreeing to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the land of Israel is admitting that the land is actually Palestinian. Those on the Right who, for the first time in Israel’s history, joined in this “admission,” did not just compose grandiose words devoid of real meaning, as we have come to expect of their leftist colleagues. Instead, they delivered the goods. During our long years of exile, even in our moments of greatest weakness, no rabbis, and certainly no whole communities, ever gave up their right to the land of Israel. And even if they had, what would their signatures on any “declaration” have been worth? The absurd conclusion to which this declaration leads us is that, in fact, the Jewish people had to return to the land of their fathers and establish Jewish sovereignty there only so as to have the official right to relinquish that land in favor of “the legitimate rights of the neighboring Palestinian people.”
In response to criticisms over his involvement with the declaration, National Religious Party Chairman Effie Eitam said that it never occurred to him that Article 6 referred to “western Israel”; instead, he insists, he intended to support the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination east of the Jordan River. All that remains now is to ask signatories such as Asa Kasher and Aviv Gefen if they, too, had the kingdom of Jordan in mind when they signed on that same clause. On the other hand, one has to wonder if Israel Harel, Yoram Hazony, Naomi Shemer, and President Moshe Katsav also intended, like Effie Eitam, the state of Jordan, when they seem to have clearly recognized the Palestinian people’s right to establish a “national state” within the framework of their own. If there is indeed disagreement on this point, would it not follow that the parties did not, in fact, sign the same document, and that the “miracle” never happened?
Elyakim Haetzni
Kiryat Arba
To the Editors:
Your recent editorial, “Miracle on the Sea of Galilee,” expresses its approval of the initiative undertaken by representatives of a range of opinions in Israeli public affairs to compose a joint declaration.
The editors are correct in describing this undertaking as an impressive and admirable act, one that reveals the painful yet necessary lessons Israeli society has learned from the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin; from the security situation in Israel and especially in Judea and Samaria; and from the economic and social issues that have plagued the country in the shadow of a six-year recession.
I was also pleased to see in the declaration signs of a comeback in Zionist thought. Whereas some critics of the Kineret Declaration claim to see in its principles no more than empty words, I believe that it clearly identifies the State of Israel as the national home of the Jewish people. Furthermore, the Kineret Declaration managed to unite the haredim, the Right, the Center, and the Left—even down to peace activists such as Yael Tamir and Alex Yakobson—in an unambiguous affirmation of the Jewish nature of the state (albeit not in the theological, but rather the Zionist and nationalist sense).
Those who examine closely the text of the declaration cannot fail to be impressed by the drafters’ awareness of the basic rights of the citizen, and by the prevailing sense of democracy which deals a final blow to the hollow stereotype of religion as somehow anti-democratic and anti-human-rights. Here we have Bnei Brak Mayor Mordechai Karelitz and even National Religious Party leader Effie Eitam reading from the same score as longtime civil rights activist Ruth Gavison.
For these reasons, we should welcome the declaration as another important contribution to a meaningful public debate on the essential values of Israeli society. However, the authors of the Kineret Declaration cannot stop here. There have been many attempts to unite the factions of Israeli society around a shared commitment to basic principles, and most have come to naught. The Kineret Declaration’s authors must continue to raise awareness of these principles among all citizens of the State of Israel.
Raz Meir
Washington, D.C.
