Occupation bad for all

Letters

Editor: Murray Shapiro, in his rather intemperate letter (Bulletin, April 26), takes Stephen Aberle, my fellow member of Jews for a Just Peace, to task for pointing out the disastrous effects of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

It is true that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict began long before the beginning of the Israeli occupation (which Mr. Shapiro oddly places in quotation marks) in 1967. However, in recent years, the conflict has stemmed from Israel's ongoing denial of human and national rights to the Palestinians in the occupied territories (leaving aside even more contentious issues such as the refugee question).

Many Israelis, including respected intellectuals such as Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Matti Peled, Boaz Evron, Gideon Levy and Uri Avnery, have denounced the post-1967 occupation as a disaster both for the Palestinians and for Israel itself. Avneri, writing in 1968, warned that the occupation and colonization of the West Bank and Gaza would bring "undreamt-of miseries" to the Palestinians, while turning Israel itself into an "armed and beleaguered camp."

This prophesy has been amply fulfilled. If Israel returns to its pre-1967 borders, this might not necessarily bring peace; however, a continuation of "Greater Israel" will surely bring further disaster. (Incidentally, Prime Minister Barak contributed to this process even before Ariel Sharon. According to Peace Now, Barak built more settlements in the West Bank than did Binyamin Netanyahu.)

I find it an irony that Mr. Shapiro denounces Yasser Arafat for his supposed refusal to compromise, while at the same time insisting that "Jerusalem is not negotiable." As far as I know, most Palestinians now demand only East Jerusalem for a Palestinian capital. Mr. Shapiro insists that Israel continue holding onto all of "united" Jerusalem. Who is being inflexible here?

Carl Rosenberg
Vancouver

^TOP