The Los Angeles Jewish Journal has decided to print an article by Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky advocating handing over Jerusalem to the Palestinians. Other people will probably handle the rank impracticality and immorality of this proposal: "don't worry about the historical Arab desecration of Jewish cemetaries in Jerusalem or how the Wakf's ongoing destruction of Jewish artifacts on the Temple Mount is openly linked to denying Jews access to Jerusalem by unblinkingly stating that Jews never had a temple in Jerusalem - the Palestinians won't cheat on their obligations because United Nations peace keepers will protect Israeli interests!" Super.
What we're concerned with is the blistering stupidity of this Kanefsky's understanding of Middle East negotiations, and what it says about how he's bought into an anti-Semitic myth that becomes an anti-Israel talking point that becomes the basis for peace talks that end with hundreds of murdered Israelis. The article itself is a confused hodgepodge of largely unrelated leftist whines about how the Israelis have been mean (Jerusalem, settlers, human rights, etc), until it reaches this elegant crescendo of naivety:
And the difference that honest storytelling makes is enormous. When we tell our story honestly, our position at the negotiating table is one that is informed not only by our own needs and desires, but also by our obligations and responsibilities.... Honesty in our telling of the story reveals the stark and candid reality that we also need to speak the language of compromise and conciliation. Not only the language of entitlement and demands. To be sure, I would be horrified and sick if the worst-case division-of-Jerusalem scenario were to materialize. The possibility that the Kotel, the Jewish Quarter or the Temple Mount would return to their former states of Arab sovereignty is unfathomable to me... At the same time though, to insist that the government not talk about Jerusalem at all (including the possibility, for example, of Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods) is to insist that Israel come to the negotiating table telling a dishonest story
Without a doubt, the Palestinians aren't telling an honest story either... And there will not be peace (and perhaps there should be no peace conference) until they tell an honest story as well. But for us to take the approach that in order to defend and protect ourselves from their dishonest story, we must continue telling our own dishonest story, is to travel a road of unending and unendable conflict.
The words that are required to explain the mind boggling, naive idiocy of this passage are inappropriate when discussing a rabbi (and besides, every time we curse we get two or three emails of finger wagging from readers and we simply don't have the patience any more). It sounds insufferably pedantic on our part to have to point this out, but: honesty has no place in negotiations. Annapolis isn't a New Age group therapy session. Nobody's there to discuss their feelings. It will be about land and resources and buildings and what it's going to take to get the Palestinians to stop murdering Jewish civilians like they promised to do a decade and a half ago.
You don't walk into a negotiation with the position you expect to end up with and you don't walk in explaining what you owe to the other side. You walk in with a position more extreme than what you're willing to live with, so you have something to give up when the other side comes in with a position more extreme than what they're willing to live with. Coming to the negotiating table "telling an honest story" is the best way to lose negotiations. You don't walk into a car shop saying "I'll tell you that I'm only willing to spend $10,000, but actually I'll go up to $20,000" and you don't say "besides, it would be totally unfair to you if I stuck to my original offer". Nobody negotiates that way. But for some reason Israel is always expected to.
After the jump, the anti-Semitic roots and pragmatic consequences of imposing upon Israel unreasonable - even impossible - expectations.