|
Mar. 08, 2005
Q&A with David Horovitz
Jerusalem Post Editor-in-Chief David Horovitz chatted with readers and answered their questions live on jpost.com Thursday. Read the transcript of the chat!
maccabi54 how many people regularly go to jpost.com for news?
David Horovitz I’m told that we have about a million unique users per month, with many, many millions of page views
Susan Blatt from Portland, Oregon says What effect do you think recent events — like the killing of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, and death threats against Dutch parliamentarians by Islamic extremists — have on European attitudes towards Israel, particularly among those on the Left? Do you think it helps them understand the terrorist threat that Israel faces, or like Ken Livingstone in London, do they blame Israel for inflaming their own internal conflicts?
David Horovitz says Hi Susan, I tend to think that people generally interpret events in ways that reinforce their traditional positions — until or unless some cataclysmic event or change of heart radically remakes their mindset. So I suspect that in Europe, every shift and turn, killing, death threat et al, is absorbed by those who fundamentally sympathize with Israel as proof of the good sense of their position, and absorbed by those, like Livingstone, as further "proof" of our culpability.
David Bennett from Johannesburg, South Africa asks: Will the Arab World (and the rest of the world) ever accept Israel’s right to exist as a"Jewish"state and as one in perpetuity? Why can’t the government officials of Israel, who talk to the international press, articulate this fundamental question to them? I have never once heard any journalist ask Saeb Erakat (or anyone else for that matter, including Ken Livingston and George W Bush) if their vision of peace would include Israel existing as a ’’Jewish"state.
David Horovitz says David, Egypt and Jordan signed full peace accords with Israel in its demographic, overwhelmingly Jewish reality. Did the Palestinians, in entering the Oslo process and purportedly recognizing Israel, truly accept the right of Israel as an overwhelmingly Jewish state to exist? Most Israelis, given Yasser Arafat’s relentless demand for a "right of return" for most of his people to Israel, ultimately concluded that they did not. And, I’d add, most Israelis wait to see whether Mahmoud Abbas will hold to a different position.
David Weiss Do you agree with the idea that after the Gaza disengagement, the PA is going to lose control of the situation and the intifada will restart?
David Horovitz Hi David, I don’t think anyone can say with any certainty what may happen after disengagement in Gaza, but I think the PA has an easier task of exerting control in Gaza than in the West Bank — should it so choose.
Raanan Mallek David, why doesn’t the State of Israel propose to the settlers in Gaza to become Jewish citizens of the State of Palestine, just as there are Arab citizens of the State of Israel?
David Horovitz Raanan, that’s an excellent question, but I think that the state of Israel fears for the well-being of its citizens if they stay on in Gaza. It feels, I think, that even though some of those Israelis may want to stay on, since it is the government that sent them there it has the responsibility to bring them safely back out. I know that prior to the Israeli-Egyptian peace deal, Israel did investigate the possibility of the Sinai settlers staying on under Egyptian rule; this was firmly rejected by Egypt.
Kurt Grau asks: I feel sympathy for the settlers of Gaza but they are overstepping their rights when they call the army SS troops. It is a disgrace to compare their plight with the people in the camps. Why doesn’t the Israeli government tell them WHO ever wants to stay should stay, but the army will leave on let s say July 1. Then we avoid any confrontations. Very simple.
David Horovitz says Kurt, Only the most extreme voices would make so despicable a "comparison.‘ It’s certainly inaccurate to suggest that ’the settlers of Gaza" feel this way as a whole. It is also a measure of the most radical anti-disengagement activists’ despair that they have resorted to use of Holocaust symbols to try and persuade the wider public to side with them — a measure of despair and quite counterproductive.
As for why the government doesn’t merely leave those settlers who want to stay on in Gaza, rather than forcing them out, the government feels that this would be a breach of responsibility. These Israelis were encouraged and authorized to live in Gaza; since the government has now decided to bring them out, it needs to do so responsibly — it cannot turn its back on them, even if the settlers themselves want it to. I don’t think the government or the Palestinian leadership believe that it would be safe to take any other course.
ezra How do the christians in Lebanon view Hezboulla vis a vis the new emerging politcal reality in that country?
David Horovitz Ezra, With fear, I’d imagine. Any euphoria about a possible waning Syrian influence in Lebanon should be tempered by concern at the impact of Hizbullah.
Lou Lachter from St. Paul, MN writes: Do not have a question. I have nothing but praise for David’s excellent editorials and articles. I also read his latest book. Wonderful job.
Lavlav David, Do you think Israel can take a chance with its security on the bases of Palestinians words?
David Horovitz Lavlav, A "yes‘ or ’no" question! No.
David It seems like all the attention is being paid to the Gaza pullout, while the settlements in Northern Shomron, which seem to me to be more a part of Biblical Israel, are hardly discussed. Any reason for this?
David Horovitz Well, it’s the entire Gaza Strip that is to be emptied of Jews — perhaps 8,000 Israelis — whereas in northern Samaria we are talking about four relatively small settlements and a smaller number of Israelis. Still, we’re not ignoring it. The cover story of our Friday UpFront magazine last week dealt with northern Samaria.
Steve Pressley from North Carolina asks: I’ve just finished reading "Still Life with Bombers." Are you more hopeful today than when you wrote the book?
David Horovitz says Steve, I’m glad you read "Still Life,‘ and you may recall that I wrote early in the book that I hoped the grisly reality that terrorism imposed on Israel would soon come to be read as history rather than a continued depiction of our daily life. Things have improved a little in the past few months — you’ll find few Israelis who lament the death of Yasser Arafat, with his frequent urgings for ’a million martyrs’‘ to ’march on Jerusalem‘ (i.e. blow themselves up and kill as many Israelis as possible in so doing). By our relative standards, with ’only" one recent suicide bombing, there’s been an improvement. The main Palestinian leader nowadays is not blatantly encouraging the killing of Israelis. So I’m more hopeful, yes, but warily, skeptically so.
David Horovitz says If/when we see the Palestinian leadership using its tens of thousands of men under arms to deprive Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terror groups of the capacity to build bombs, recruit bombers and shoot at us — rather than the current negotiated internal Palestinian ceasefire which those groups can choose to breach as and when they choose — then there will be room for grounded optimism.
David Have you ever considered running for a seat?
David Horovitz Running for a seat? Absolutely not!
Kafka Dear Horovitz, do you think the route of the security fence, sometimes stretching over the green line really is necessary? Wouldn’t it be enough to build it along the green line?
David Horovitz Almost every Israeli endorses the security barrier: it stops killers coming in and blowing us up. The consensus breaks down over the route — the deeper it runs inside the West Bank, the narrower the consensus behind it. There were doubtles security imperatives behind some of the routing, but Israel’s own Supreme Court, you’ll know, overruled some of these. Unlike the improperly named International Court of Justice, which wants to deny us the right to defend ourselves against terrorism, it is the specifics of some of the route, rather than the principle of our right to self-defense, that has troubled our court.
Daniel Wiewel, Chicago asks: Mr. Horovitz, as a writer who lived the first 20-odd years of his life in Chutz L’Aretz, how do your feel your non-Israeli upbringing has helped your understanding and writing of Israeli issues?
David Horovitz Daniel, I think the fact that I grew up outside Israel may mean that I appreciate Israel differently from people who were born here. I assume I am also more familiar with life in the Diaspora, Diaspora attitudes to Israel, British attitudes to Israel and to Jews, than many Israelis who have not spent much time abroad. I like to think I better understand the respective Israeli and Diaspora Jewish sensitivities — and the gaps in perceptions that sometimes become gulfs — over matters such as the status of non-Orthodox Judaism in Israel, to give just one example — as a consequence of having spent my first 20 years in England and lots of brief trips overseas in the years since.
Robert Eggleston from North Carolina No questions, just shalom from the USA, look and read on this site daily, thanks for your hard work and effort on keeping me and all informed, thanks, shalom aleichem.
ace750usa Mr Horovitz, in your opinion, how will things in Lebanon turn out? Will Mr. Bush commit USA to follow up and kick Syrians out? Will EU back USA ? Or do you think this was a one-time flare up?
David Horovitz Well, it would be amusing if it wasn’t so farcical to see the same prime minister, who resigned just a few days ago, getting ready to set up a new government. I don’t know how it will play out, but I think Syria is badly weakened and that its president lacks his father’s cunning. And it was extraordinary to see the outpouring of genuine people power, bringing down an Arab government for the first time. Hard to see how such forces can be bottled up again.
Paul Haris Has the jpost got an editorial policy? If so, what is it? I detect a move to the left! With no constructive criticism and condemnation of Sharon’s oligarchy.
David Horovitz says Dear Paul,
No constructive criticism? Heaven forbid. Just read our own editorials and the various op-ed pieces, from across the spectrum, that we carry.
As I wrote in my very first column as editor in October, I want the Post to be an inclusive newspaper that provides accurate news reporting and a range of opinion pieces underpinned by a shared desire to ensure the well-being of Israel and the Jewish nation. Our editorial articles are designed to advance what seem us to be the most appropriate policies and positions to secure the goal of a stable, viable Israel and a thriving Jewish people worldwide.
David Horovitz says I think people are absurdly preoccupied with classifying the Left and the Right, and deriding and criticizing purported Leftists and Rightists on the basis of silly classifications. Is the prime minister, head of the rightwing Likud and champion of the leftist unilateral disengagement, a Leftist or a Rightist? Why does it matter so much? Isn’t what matters trying to ascertain whether his policies are essentially good for his people or not, likely to save or cost Israeli lives?
David Horovitz says This nation has demonstrated extraordinary, unprecedented resilience in the face of a strategic campaign of terrorism, plainly designed not to "liberate" disputed territory but to terrorize us all into fleeing. We held firm against a bitter, vicious enemy, with much of the world’s public opinion against us. Our biggest threat is internal — that we tear ourselves apart from within. And knee-jerk, ill-thought denigration of Leftists and Rightists, escalating who knows where, will spell the end of this latest attempt at Jewish sovereignty as certainly as it did in our previous, brief, efforts at self-rule.
david_canada Hi David. Congratulations on the quality of your articles in Jpost online. I live in Canada and jpost.com is the first site I visit every morning to get the Israeli news.
David Horovitz Thank you. Spread the word!
stk9714 Hi, David. What do you think PA will be able to accomplish in the next 3 months?
David Horovitz Well, our hope is that Mahmoud Abbas will put the terrorists out of business. Most Israelis recognize the complexity of this task, and I’m not saying that terrorism can be defeated in so short a time, but the consistent effort to delegitimize terror can begin today, as can the arrests, confiscation of weaponry, and the beginning of a change in educational focus — to impress upon Palestinians that the Jews have a right to sovereignty in the Middle East. There can be no doubting that there is a way; the question is whether there is enough of a will.
A. Sivan asks: Hi David! You were in San Diego a few months ago and I was really impressed with your talk. What do you think will come out of the present and imminent peace talks?
David Horovitz says Thanks for the compliment. Well, I’m not sure how imminent serious peace talks are, but our reality is about to change with the scheduled Israeli pullout from Gaza this summer, and it’s the potential for internal Israeli-Jewish disharmony that worries me more even than the various neighboring threats and the efforts to resolve them.
frk Hi David, it is my understanding that Ariel and possibly even Ma’aleh Adumim are being considered as sites for future withdrawal. Is this true and if so, will it be possible to evacuate two of the biggest settlements and relocate them — in contrast to the small number of people to be evacuated from Gaza in the summer?
David Horovitz You may be responding to comments made by former Prime Minister Barak, reported in The Post today. Sharon has not specified how much, if any, more of the West Bank he is prepared to relinquish after disengagement. However, it may be telling that the security barrier is set to encompass some 7 percent of the territory — including Ma’aleh Adumim and the Etzion Bloc, but not, as of now, as I understand it, Ariel.
gershon87 Should any "final settlement‘ of the so-called ’refugee problem‘ be understood to include compensation to the 820,000 Jewish refugees of the Arab States? Or is this another ’magical‘ situation of the ’ancient Palestinians" that only has one side?
David Horovitz It certainly should work both ways.
D. Farr from California asks: Will Israel be able to live with a nuclear Iran, if as it now appears, the only settlement with them will be economic sanctions?
David Horovitz says I don’t know what kind of "settlement" there may be, but I certainly wouldn’t sleep easy knowing that Iran had the capacity to wipe us out. And I suspect that many senior Israeli strategists feel the same.
Amir from Jerusalem asks: David, what do you think of reports that settler sympathizers overseas are planning to come here and resist the disengagement?
David Horovitz says I know there is a huge debate, in Israel and abroad, about the virtues or otherwise of disengagement. What we do here does affect the whole Jewish nation. But it is Israelis who will have to live with the direct consequences of government policy, and it is Israelis, democratically, who must respond to government proposals and decisions.
Lavlav David, should there be a "Mishaal Haam", do you think the majority of Jews would be for Nesiga from Gaza?
David Horovitz Opinion polls suggest that most Israelis back disengagement. But I’d say, were a referendum held, not all those Israelis would bother to vote, while 100 percent of the opponents, or close to that percentage, would do so. Most Israelis, I think, support disengagement as the perceived least bad of Israel’s array of options for staying Jewish and democratic. As the legislation clears the various hurdles, I think more Israelis are becoming more invested in the policy. But it would be foolish, in Israel’s chaotic political reality, to predict how a referendum might turn out. Sharon certainly misjudged his own party when he put the issue to its entire membership last May… and lost.
ace750usa asks: Mr. Horovitz, in your opinion, why do you think Sharon wants to get out of Gaza?
David Horovitz: He speaks of an assessment that he can better secure more Israelis behind what he calls more efficient security lines, and he appears to believe that demographics are against Israel — that the Palestinian population growth requires Israel to relinquish some areas with a substantial Palestinian population to ensure that the areas controlled by Israel have a substantial Jewish majority. And then, of course, there is the matter of his desire to maintain a strong relationship with Israel’s vital strategic ally, the United States.
Timothy asks:I am a young Christian and according to what I read in the bible God who owns all the earth gave the lands of Jericho and all that region to the children of Israel. Why is Israel now wants to give it back? Please I will appreciate your candid answer.
David Horovitz says: Ideally, Israel’s Jews would like to control all of the Biblical land of Israel, and to be a state with an overwhelmingly Jewish population, and to be a one-person-one-vote democracy. Driving Ariel Sharon’s reluctant readiness to relinquish some of that biblical land is the desire to safeguard those other two values — a predominantly Jewish state and a demographic one. If there were, say, three million more Jews living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, I dare say his policy would be different . Anonymous asks: How has your adjustment to the Post been?
David Horovitz says: Well, it’s a big difference to be editing a daily, rather than the bi-weekly Jerusalem Report where I was till last October. A challenge, a huge responsibility and a terrific opportunity, all of which I relish, and a joy to work with a supremely talented staff.
Yoel Nitzarim from Skokie, Illinois asks: What is your take on Jordan’s King Abdullah’s new initiative for peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Does he say anything new, or is his rhetoric just a paraphrase of the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah’s 2002 peace initiative? Finally, why do you think King Abdullah does not entertain the most important problem facing Israel: security? He does not seem to discuss the Israeli requirement that the Palestinians dismantle the terrorist infrastructure before any meaningful peace negotiations may take place between Israel and the Palestinians.
David Horovitz says: Dear Yoel, I think King Abdullah, much like his father, vulnerable, short on resources and surrounded by real and potential enemies, has a strategic interest in promoting regional moderation, and certainly wants to avoid escalating Israeli-Palestinian conflict that might impact on his own kingdom, its demographics, its Palestinian population et al. As for failing to recognize that the Palestinian need to dismantle terror groups is a precondition for meaningful peace talks, I’m not sure that the Quartet sponsoring the Road Map, never mind Jordan, have yet quite absorbed the sorry truth that so long as the terror groups can choose to strike as and when they see fit, no amount of outside goodwill, and no amount of skillfully drafted potential peace frameworks, can achieve a radically improved reality.
D. Farr from California asks: My understanding of President Bush’s road map was that it would not cost Israel any contiguous land nor the city of Jerusalem. However, it appears that the EU, as well as the US, are pushing harder than ever for this. As a person who believes in Israel’s right to a homeland, I ask if Israel is really going to make these sacrifices?
David Horovitz says: No, the road map does not rule out Israel conceding contiguous land in the territories or parts of Jerusalem. Those are final status issues, to be negotiated between the parties. Would Israel concede part of Jerusalem and/or substantial territory in the West Bank? That depends on the government. Ehud Barak’s Camp David position would certainly have involved such concessions and many — perhaps most, it was never put to the test — Israelis would have supported him. Sharon is now preparing to relinquish the entire Gaza Strip, and is constructing a security that excludes more than 90 percent of the West Bank. He stresses that this is not his conception of a permanent border; he has not specified where he does envisage such a border running.
gershon87 asks: Why does the media"go along‘ with the myth that ’historical Palestine‘ existed in some"magical: world, where a river has only one bank, when in fact, the first Arab Palestinian state ’took away"80% of the promise of the League of Nations Mandate to re-establish a Jewish Homeland?
David Horovitz says: Well, Gershon, that’s a bit of a generalization. There are media sources that are well informed and responsible; others that are less so.
Nathan Mayer asks: Re: The Sasson Report: According to your Editorial, the attorney general should prosecute all those responsible for supporting and financing the "illegal" outposts. In view of the fact that the present prime minister is one of its former leading supporters in the creation of these outposts, do you believe that he should be prosecuted even though it may derail the redeployment plan of Gaza altogether? Or should the attorney general choose a blind eye in favor of the planned disengagement plan? Thank you.
David Horovitz says: The attorney-general should decide whether and who to prosecute without any political prejudice whatsoever.
Eliane from Brazil asks: What do you, personally, think about the pullout of the territories?
David Horovitz says: Hi Eliane, The more unilateral, the less I like it. The more it appears as vindication for terrorism, the more troubled I am that it will embolden terrorists.
But we have a problem with the three values that in an ideal world we would like to maximize. We’d like a nation where the Jews are the majority, to ensure we determine our own fate here. We want a nation that is democratic, a light unto the nations, with equal rights for all. And we’d like control of as much of the Biblical land of Israel as possible. Trouble is, because there are not enough Jews between the river and the sea, we can’t have all three. And I certainly count among that strong majority of Israelis for whom the imperative to maintain an Israel that is both overwhelmingly Jewish and truly democratic requires a compromise over territory.
Peter Levy at The Irish Examiner newspaper in Cork, Ireland asks: Mr Horovitz, This isn’t a question, but just to say that I was given a copy of last Friday’s Jerusalem Post by a colleague who was in Israel. I just want to say what an excellent newspaper it is. The standard of articles and columns is first class. I’m still reading it!
David Horovitz says: Dear Peter, Thank you!
Trudy Gefen asks: Hi, Mr. Horovitz, First of all a word of appreciation that the turn to the ultra left many readers feared might occur on your taking over the post of Editor in chief, has not come to pass and the Jerusalem Post remains the most balanced and reliable newspaper in Israel. Perhaps, even, the free world.
However, there are some statements which irk and which, in spite of several protests on my part, continue to be published. The statement, which I find most disturbing and annoying, is "4 (or 4 1/2) years of intifada", especially when it is accompanied with the number of Israelis killed since the year 2000 (over 1,000).
Why does the Jerusalem Post insist on constantly emphasizing this short period of ongoing terrorism and its large number of dead and wounded Victims of Oslo Terror whilst ignoring the many victims of the period between 1994 — 2000? Surely not so as to cause the public, accused anyway of having a "short memory‘, to forget the many Victims of Oslo Terror of the years 1994 — 2000? Why the emphasis on the past ’4 years‘ as ’the years of the intifada‘, when in actual fact this so-called ’intifada" is an ongoing, all out Terror War now in its eleventh year? Does the Jerusalem Post not understand that it is insulting the memory of the pre-2000 victims by removing any mention of them in the pages of the Jerusalem Post?
Will we see that this corrected in the future? Many thanks.
David Horovitz says: Dear Trudy, Thanks for the kind words. The Post certainly does not seek to emphasize one set of terrorist-related tragedies at the expense of others. What our reporting reflects, I believe, is that such terrorism has come in waves — of most relevance, recently, is that there was a relative lull in the late 1990s and a drastic upsurge from late 2000. The level of terrorism since this round of conflict erupted is unprecedented. March 2002, when 126 Israelis were killed in acts of terrorism, was the single worst month for terrorism in Israel’s entire history.
Tamar from Jerusalem asks: What do you think of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his policies?
David Horovitz says: I think we are seeing a new incarnation of the prime minister — a prime minister who, in preparing to relinquish Gaza and parts of the West Bank, is effectively becoming the very PM he warned against. Demographics, security assessments and other geopolitical considerations have prompted him into a very different approach.
Tamar from Jerusalem asks: How about former prime minister Barak?
David Horovitz says: Barak seems incapable of admitting to any failures. And I suspect that for the Israeli public, that will mean he is unable to make the successful leadership comeback he is seeking.
D. Farr from California asks: What is the possibility that your neighbor countries with Russia now behind them, are waiting for the upheaval of the disengagement and troop involvement in that, to begin another 1967 type assault on Israel?
David Horovitz says: Israel is military very strong, and I would hope that there is little potential for it to be taken by surprise, during disengagement or at any other time. But, of course, we have been caught out in the past — notably in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
Greg Siskind asks: On a popular left wing blog, I saw a rather hard to believe post stating: Actually, Israel’s seizure and occupation of this territory is based ona historical lie. This was frankly acknowledged by Israel General and cabinet minister Moshe Dayan in an interview given in 1976, but which was not made public until April 1997. Dayan, who died in 1981, was a key organizer of Israel’s victory in the June 1967 Israel-Arab war.
"I made a mistake in allowing the conquest of the Golan Heights,‘ hesaid, ’As defense minister I should have stopped it because the Syrians were not threatening us at the time." The seizure went ahead, he added, not because Israel was threatened, but in response to pressure from Jews who coveted Syrian land, and from army commanders in northern Israel.
"Of course was not necessary. You can say the Syrians are bastards and attack when you want. But this is not policy. You don’t open aggression against an enemy because he’s a bastard but because he’s a threat."
I did a little research on Google and it seems that this comes from a reporter who told another Israeli paper that these were from his notes. I presume that if there was anything to this, it would have been big news. So I suspect the story was dismissed or discredited. Can you shed any light on this?
David Horovitz says:Greg, I believe that Dayan initially opposed the capture of the Heights, and feared Russian intervention in the war, and it was prime minister Eshkol who insisted. Why any of that can be presented as proof of a historical lie, however, is beyond me. Israel had been attacked relentlessly by Syria from the Heights, and the capture was a military imperative, although of course the Golan has Jewish historical resonance. Today, too, Sharon’s disinclination to relinquish the Heights stems largely, I’d say, from military-strategic concerns.
Charles Crone asks: Will diplomacy, threats, or incentives deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?
What will Israeli reaction be to Iranian nuclear test in the great salt desert of Iran?
Have the Russians made an informal agreement to aid and abet Iran in much the same way there was a Russian tacit understanding to aid the North Koreans in 1950s and later North Vietnam in that conflict?
What happens when an avowed enemy of Israel in the Middle East acquires nuclear weapons AND the capability to put those weapons on target in Israel?
David Horovitz says: Charles, 1. Personally I doubt it. 2. I don’t know but I don’t believe Israel would be comfortable, to put it mildly, with a nuclear Iran, given that country’s publicly expressed desire to eliminate mine. 3. I have no idea. 4. Hasn’t happened to date, but the last country that got close was Saddam’s Iraq, and Israel blew up his nuclear reactor at Osiraq in 1981 — to loud international condemnation at the time, of course, and subsequent quiet gratitude.
Daniel Billig asks: Why has the Jerusalem Post decided to stop publishing the Wall Street Journal Editorial section? I found this vastly more valuable than the NY Times week in review.
David Horovitz says: Daniel, we operate, of course, within an editorial budget. We have introduced daily features, mostly original material, focused specifically on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world. Until recently, there were no such features in the daily paper — only the Friday. We think this much enriches the daily. In principle, I’d much rather spend our money on our own material than republishing other newspapers’.
Susan Blatt from Portland, Oregon asks: What do you think can or should be done to reduce EU interference in internal Israeli politics, for example the French bankrolling of Beilin’s run for the leadership of the party formerly known as Meretz? Aren’t there already laws against accepting foreign funds like that?
David Horovitz says: Yes, there are laws limiting such foreign funding. Frequent state comptroller’s reports and intermittent talk of prosecutions — most recently regarding Omri Sharon’s funding on behalf of his father.
|
