By George Guttmann , , Seattle
Your recent article about I-97 (“Taking initiative,” July 25) classified the opponents of this initiative as “pro Israel,” suggesting that all those who support I-97 are anti-Israel.
While I don’t like I-97 for a number of reasons, I also find your characterization of its opponents and by implication, its proponents to be very troubling. It suggests that one is anti-Israel if they oppose various aspects of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, the Golan or the past occupations of Gaza and Southern Lebanon. Similar characterizations have been made in the past about those who advocated negotiation with the PLO and PNC and those like many in the Jewish community who have supported Israeli mainstream organizations like Peace Now, The New Israel Fund, Givat Haviva, B’tzelem, etc.
I would remind you that Israel’s current coalition government’s prime minister has stated that withdrawal from the West Bank is required in order to secure Israel’s security. Are you suggesting that Prime Minister Olmert is anti-Israel? Is he anti-Israel when he negotiates with the Palestinians?
There is little doubt that some opponents of I-97 feel that holding on to the West Bank and the Golan are required for Israeli security and for religious reasons. But there are also many in Israel and in the American Jewish community who feel that holding on to the territories, keeping Palestinians under occupation and allowing for lawlessness by Jewish settlers hurts Israel.
The JTNews and Jewish Federation must stop being the voices of just one segment of Seattle’s Jewish community.