Memo to Time Mag: No caution, no 'peace'

Editors at Time Magazine may be unfairly accused of anti-Semitism, but they are reckless with their semantics. As experienced journalists, they should understand that misleading language can be dangerous.

The magazine’s Sept. 13 cover headline - “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace” - brought its editors condemnation from supporters of Israel. The Anti-Defamation League slammed the Time article for stressing Israelis’ inclination to make money.

Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight, a staunch gentile supporter of Israel, called Time “anti-Semitic” because of the headline and its accompanying article inside which contends that Israelis are apathetic toward the peace process with the Arabs.

Karl Vick, the writer, indeed succeeds in reaching this conclusion. Who can blame the Israelis? Hostilities resulted from the offer of a Palestinian state in 2000 and withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Personally, I long ago ceased understanding what Israel gets out of negotiating a pact with Arabs over Israel’s territories.

Vick and his editors made three mistakes. First, a Time spokesman boasted that the article is a scoop. Oh yeah? A Newsweek article reached the same conclusion last January.

The article carelessly states: “They’re otherwise engaged; they’re making money; they’re enjoying the rays of late summer.”

No doubt that claim is factually true for many Israelis, but the phrase “they’re making money” is delicate wording when applied to Jews, who have been stereotyped as greedy throughout the ages.

The most gaping blunder is the headline, which presumes that Israel is apathetic to peace.

“Peace” is not what Israelis need from Arabs in the territories. They already have a relative level of peace within Israel proper. Terrorist bombings from the West Bank ended after the security barrier started going up. Rocket attacks from Gaza and southern Lebanon dwindled after recent military confrontations with Hamas and Hezbollah.

Time would have been more factual, if tedious, had they composed this headline: “Why Many Israelis Don’t Care About Reaching Terms.”

The word “peace” is tossed around too casually in the context of this conflict, and Time is far from alone in committing this offense. “Peace” has evolved as shorthand for a process that is too convoluted to be reduced to a single five-letter word. It allows for a catchy phrase, but Time editors may disdain letting the facts get in the way of a good headline.

The only objective that seems plausible is the handover of land - namely, Gaza and the West Bank - so the Arabs can form their own society. That’s fine, but a treaty will not ensure “peace” and “peace” need not be achieved through a treaty. Even if it agrees to a near-perfect deal, Israel must still worry about Iran’s nuclear designs and the ongoing arms build-up in Gaza and southern Lebanon.

The same obstacles persist - security needs, excessive Arab demands, settler resistance, Hamas’ control of Gaza and right-wing pressures within the Israeli government.

Hawkish advocates for Israel will insist that the West Bank is not peaceful, but what do the settlers expect when they choose to live amid a hostile population? “Peace” can only be accomplished there by removing the settlers, even unilaterally; expelling the Arabs; or negotiating a pact that is fully enforced. Israelis who live in Israel proper care about West Bank “peace” when their sons and daughters in uniform are assigned to protect the settlements.

For the record, it would be valuable if an accord is reached, but it is still a feat that most Israelis can live without…in peace. Violence can erupt at any time, as was the case with riots in east Jerusalem and the murder of four settlers in recent weeks. Even if a “peace” treaty is ever implemented.

Some suburbs feast as cities starve

The contrast is infuriating.

The loss of nearly $7 million in state funds to Jewish social service agencies in New York City will mean cuts in services to the poor, elderly and immigrants and layoffs of employees who operate those services, according to a New York Jewish Week article.

The city of Newton, Mass. - home to many former Jewish New Yorkers, interestingly - is now served by a $197-million high school which The Boston Globe reports is the most expensive school ever built in Massachusetts. With the known exception of California, it sounds as if Newton North High School may be the most expensive school built in most states.

This scenario exemplifies not only America’s multiple societies but also the Jewish community’s multiple societies. The economic gap in general widens as more people lose jobs, government budgets unravel and charities contend with greater demands and reduced revenues. On Sept. 16, the Census Bureau reported that 44 million Americans struggled below the poverty line in 2009 - a 4 million boost from the previous year.

The New York/Newton contrast sharpens the clarity of this situation. Middle class flight to the suburbs persists. At one time the suburbs were the places where our rich cousins lived. Now most of our friends and relatives have moved there. Even those of us who remain within a city’s borders could one day move there. Those suburbs that were once a foothold for city expatriates is now an anchor, and many others departed their respective metropolitan areas altogether.

Left behind are the most vulnerable citizens. The cities lose tax revenues and their former inhabitants now invest their taxes to build their new communities.

Especially, they ensure that their children can attend quality schools. Seeking a good education is a traditional characteristic of the Jewish people. So it stands to reason that the residents of Newton, Mass., pop. 83,000, would support construction of Massachusetts’ most expensive school.

Newton is a wealthy place that is home to possibly the largest number of Jews in any town close to Boston. It is also a very liberal city that habitually votes for Democrats. It is the only city in the country that has elected black candidates for mayor, governor and president. Republican Sen. Scott Brown won the majority of Massachusetts votes last January, but Newton voters rejected him out of hand.

Many Jews in the Boston suburbs hail from New York City and vicinity. Democratic U.S. Rep. Barney Frank and the late author and professor Howard Zinn, respectively from Bayonne, N.J., and Brooklyn, had moved to Newton. Alan Dershowitz grew up in Brooklyn and joined the Harvard University faculty. Jewish New Yorkers who attend college there often remain. While visiting Brandeis University, I met an elderly couple who said they moved from New York to Waltham to be near their daughter.

In Newton, Jews from New York along with neighbors who are not Jewish or not from New York authorized spending $197.5 million to build a 413,000-square-foot facility that features two theaters, an Olympic-size pool, a print shop, an auto body shop, two gymnasiums and a student café, according to the Globe. Massachusetts Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill proclaimed Newton North a “poster child” for the need to transform the system for constructing schools.

On Manhattan’s Lower East Side, America’s most historic Jewish neighborhood, the United Jewish Council is losing $600,000 in state earmarks which means five agency layoffs and cuts to transportation programs that aid the elderly in making medical and other appointments, senior home care and a health care advocacy coalition, according to the Jewish Week article.

A loss of up to $120,000 to the Council of Jewish Organizations of Flatbush, in Brooklyn, resulted in two layoffs and elimination of a computer literacy program that helped housewives and others return to the workforce. “Now they are up the creek,” Rabbi Yechezkel Pikus, the agency’s director, told the newspaper.

The Bronx Jewish Community Council’s $200,000 loss will prompt future staff reductions, but immediate layoffs can be offset because of previous cuts in staff, executive director Brad Silver told Jewish Week. Silver is responsible for the main JCC and satellite facilities that aid some of New York’s poorest Jews in Co-Op City, Pelham Parkway, Parkchester and the Concourse-North Bronx area.

This money was previously doled out to social service agencies under a legislative earmark program which Gov. David Paterson vetoed, due to the state’s funding crunch. Agencies large and small under the UJA-Federation of New York umbrella are losing $7 million as a result, The Jewish Week reported.

What may be the saving grace for these agencies is the coverage area of the UJA-Federation of New York, the Jewish charity which partially funds these programs. It also serves affluent counties such as Westchester to the north and Long Island’s Nassau and Suffolk counties. What would Federation have done without suburban donors?

If we do the math, this $7 million is a drop in the bucket for Newton taxpayers, not that residents were unanimous in supporting the scope of the new school. Now there are questions as to the challenges in paying off Newton North.

The principle of sharing the wealth has been progressively threatened by a refusal to tax the rich more fairly and the unexpected emergence of city and state deficits. President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress faced defiance from Republicans and some Democrats in restoring higher federal income tax rates for the wealthy.

Arguments against raising taxes for the rich make little sense. Some of the largest numbers among the wealthy live in metropolitan areas that consistently vote Democratic, particularly New York and Los Angeles. Most suburbs close to New York and Los Angeles are represented in the House of Representatives by Democrats.

We do not begrudge the people of Newton the opportunity to support their community resources, but they are feasting while New York agencies starve, somewhat literally at that. Some balance is in order here.

A Jones keeps up with the goons of August

Hillary Clinton is spot on here: That now-canceled Koran bonfire in Gainesville, Fla., pop. 126,000, would have been a “disrespectful, disgraceful act.” So was the U.S. Senate’s majority vote in October 2002 to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq.

Sure, the Rev. Terry Jones probably would have provoked Muslims around the world had he burned a pile of Korans on the his church’s property on the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy. As provocations go, the catastrophic invasion of a Muslim nation trumps a stunning Koran-burning any day.

Clinton, whose vote as New York’s junior senator helped make Bush’s provocation possible, must share the blame for the creation of this new monster. After all, Jones joins a long line of Americans and others from supposedly civilized nations who have incited the Muslim world in recent years. They were especially active during their summer vacation in a drive, so it seems, to trigger World War III.

A bit ironic that World War I hostilities opened in August 96 years ago and Hitler invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939.

Our government is no less responsible for inciting Muslim violence than Jones and the other goons of August. The Afghanistan operation might have been necessary, but Bush and Congress were repeatedly warned that the Iraq invasion could produce a bloody quagmire. It sure did, and despite President Obama’s pronouncement that we have turned the page, it is far from over. Congress had its chance nearly eight years ago to assess the risks of entering Iraq, but in quick order majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate voted to give Bush authorization.

While Clinton was not alone in voting for this measure, her condemnation of Jones - in her present position as Secretary of State - was both contemptible and laughable at the same time.

I try not to throw up a person’s past mistakes at them, but I nearly lost it as I learned how so many people who helped make Jones denounced him. Sarah Palin’s gross hypocrisy was expected, but Clinton is a far more accomplished person. General David Petraeus never publicly warned of the prospect of Iraq’s chaotic aftermath, yet here he is alerting us that the burning might jeopardize our troops.

Even the Vatican weighed in against Jones, a few years after Pope Benedict XVI spent part of a speech to quote a passage that denigrated Islam. He was not worried about provoking the Muslim world at that time. We will not count the Crusades and the Inquisition against the modern-day church.

Jones could especially draw inspiration from the assorted goons of August who abrasively assailed the proposed mosque two blocks from Ground Zero; a taxi passenger who charged in the stabbing of his driver in Manhattan after asking if he is a Muslim; a suspected arsonist who set fire to construction equipment on the planned site for expansion of a Murfreesboro, Tenn., mosque; and opponents to mosque proposals in small towns never stung by Islamic violence.

Across the Atlantic, a right-wing mob threw rocks, bottles and a smoke bomb at police in Bradley, England, which contains a large Muslim community; a bank official in Berlin accused Turkish immigrants of exploiting Germany’s social welfare system; and an ultra-Orthodox rabbi sermonized that God should strike “these Ishmaelites and Palestinians with a plague, these evil haters of Israel.”

For the record, many lovers of Israel like myself never heard of this rabbi; many opponents of the Manhattan mosque are genuinely concerned solely about its location; and the hoodlums in England and the Berlin banker are in the minority in their countries.

We were all as relieved as Hillary Clinton when Jones called off his bonfire, but Jones did not emerge in isolation. All this hypocrisy should, well, burn us up.

Ambush underscores settlement danger

“Everybody loses if there is no peace.” So stated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House to herald the revival of peace talks.

Too bad Israeli troops were not around to keep the peace the night before on the road to the West Bank settlement of Beit Hagal. What two women and two men had to lose were their lives, near Hebron.

Nothing justifies how these savages fired upon their car and removed the victims from the vehicle when they shot them again to ensure that they were dead. The New York Times carried a photo of Hodaya Ames, 9, as she wept next to the draped body of her mother, Tali Ames, 45, who had been pregnant and was also a grandmother.

However, the Israeli government under the current and past administrations - whether right-wing or left-leaning - knows that the Aug. 31 slaughter is the latest in an ongoing pattern of Arab attacks in the decades since the settlements swelled in the West Bank.

In October 2000, two Israeli reservists mistakenly drove into Ramallah where a mob stabbed and beat them to death, The Los Angeles Times reported. Two months later, the son and daughter-in-law of the controversial Rabbi Meir Kahane were killed by terrorists while traveling near Ramallah, leaving six orphaned children, according to the Ynet Web site.

The West Bank has been relatively calm during the last two years, but Jews there are nonetheless vulnerable because the isolated settlements are difficult to protect. They exist in the midst of a hostile Arab population, and many settlers and the soldiers assigned to protect them have been killed or injured.

Because of these dangers, Israel should never have allowed settlements to be built in Gaza and the scattered sections of the West Bank. The government could have acted unilaterally any time, as it started with Gaza, to evacuate the settlements.

Fortunately, many of these settlements are obvious objects for removal in the revived talks, if they are still on, while the government plans to retain communities located near Jerusalem because a greater amount of Israelis live there, making these areas easier to protect.

Jews do have a right to live in the West Bank, but the isolated sites are unmanageable. Jews lived there prior to 1948 and Israel captured the territory in 1967 in a war effectively begun by its Arab neighbors. Advocates for the Arabs will cite international law which they say prohibits an occupying power from developing land that it conquered in war. They also claim that Israel stole land from Arabs who lived there, an accusation which Israelis sharply dispute.

Settlers may well resist any attempts to evacuate them, a likely complication that might have been averted had Yasser Arafat accepted a peace settlement at Camp David in 2000. At the time, settlers were reportedly somewhat resigned to the prospect of leaving, but they have become more hardened since the Gaza evacuation in 2005. Case in point: The Hebron slaughter prompted settler leaders to declare a resumption of settlement expansion.

Jeff Jacoby, a Boston Globe columnist, recently characterized the Gaza evacuation as “a disaster in every respect.” Jacoby and other hardliners correctly point to the Hamas takeover and the excessive rocket attacks on southern Israel.

They neglect to mention that settlers and troops in Gaza are no longer vulnerable to terrorist violence because the settlers no longer live there and troops are no longer stationed there. There were plenty of grisly incidents similar to the West Bank assaults chronicled above.

If Israel erred at all in Gaza, it was probably in the removal of all the soldiers. They might have left a smaller contingent behind to block arms smuggling and prevent attacks on southern Israel. That is probably what they should do in the West Bank.

As the settlements continue to function as a powderkeg, maybe Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will resolve the issue to everyone’s satisfaction, including the settlers and their Arab neighbors. There is scant reason to be optimistic.

Alternative peace plans to consider

Low expectations, or no expectations, can only benefit the revived Middle East peace talks.

As Tevye in “Fiddler on the Roof” assesses his future son-in-law, Motel the tailor, we can characterize the Israeli and Arab leaders’ prospects thus: “They have absolutely nothing. On the other hand, things could never get worse for them. They could only get better.”

To the surprise of only the most optimistic, the average observer fully anticipates the new talks to fizzle out before the one-year self-imposed deadline ends. The Washington Post signaled that this new development hardly constitutes major news by running the story of the announcement on page two.

With expectations so low, Israelis and Arabs might not be too disappointed if the talks are unproductive. It will be all the more an impressive surprise if Israel and the Arabs reach a settlement that will improve the lives of both peoples.

In typical inside-the-box thinking, they are operating on the assumption that an independent Palestinian state is the solution. Is that the only possible solution?

A Palestinian state could founder for any number of reasons: Israeli security concerns, unknown governing abilities, the undersized dimensions of the territory, excessive Arab demands, divided Arab factions, settler resistance to expulsion and so on. Said Palestinian state could be dependent on international support for years, maybe forever.

There are other possibilities which are presented here as raw concepts. They are likewise vulnerable to failure. Present realities alone, such as Hamas’ stranglehold on Gaza, could preclude their chances of success:

Annex Alternative - On paper, this concept makes the most sense. Egypt would annex Gaza and Jordan would negotiate with Israel to annex part of the West Bank. Egypt is located adjacent to Gaza, and the West Bank is separated from Jordan by the narrow Jordan River. Egypt and Jordan both have peace treaties with Israel and will provide a ready-made defense operation. As Arabs, most of their citizens share the same religion and traditions.

Downside: The leaders of both Egypt and Jordan want nothing to do with the territories, which ironically they spent 25 years trying to seize by force. They fear that extremists will attempt to undermine their governments. Likewise, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has dismissed such an arrangement.

Disengagement, again - Israel would unilaterally pull out of the West Bank with the exception of the Jerusalem suburbs. Unlike the Gaza pullout, Israel would maintain a military presence to prevent attacks on Israel proper and arms smuggling from Jordan. While some believe Israel has a right to occupy the West Bank, the territory has been a burden since both settlers and the troops assigned to protect them have been vulnerable to attacks.

Downside: The Palestinian Authority will probably balk at such a move and many settlers will resolve to remain in place. Israel should go through the motions of consulting beforehand with both parties. If the authority refuses to cooperate, that is their decision. Israel should not try to forcibly remove the settlers, and let them know that they are on their own; consider that many settlers have military experience and have no doubt assembled arsenals of their own.

Knesset in Charge - Israel would continue to occupy the territories in a shared governance arrangement. The West Bank and Gaza (assuming that Hamas is contained) would be formed as provinces or states of Israel. The citizens would vote for their own elected officials who will be responsible for all locally-oriented services and Israel would administer programs which affect both Israel proper and the territories.

Downside: While the Palestinian Authority would condemn this plan for lesser reasons, they would oppose the denial of voting rights for national elections. This plan is designed as a compromise so that citizens of the territories can elect officials responsible for direct local needs. However, their inability to vote in national elections would preclude them from dominating the national government. This is an admission that, if it comes down to it, Israel must remain Jewish as the sovereign power. Israel was created as a Jewish state in the middle of far larger Muslim-dominated countries.

Turkish Dish - The bloody flotilla incident could offer a silver lining. The Turkish government and a controversial charity organization claimed they are deeply concerned about the fate of Gaza’s citizens. They have a chance to prove it: Annex Gaza and maybe the West Bank. Turkey can govern one or both territories and set everything right. They have the resources and their close relationship with Hamas might permit a peaceful end to Hamas’ chokehold. Turkey is close enough geographically to Gaza for ready access, but far enough that Gaza is not positioned to undermine its government. Turkey would be responsible for security and must answer for any lapses.

Downside: Obviously, Turkey may not be willing to put its money where its mouth is. Hamas may be unwilling to cooperate with Turkey.

Each one of these plans is filled with pitfalls, but no more or less than a formalized two-state solution. My expectations that any of the parties would give these proposals any consideration are, well, quite low. Who knows? There could be a workable solution down there somewhere.

Silence of the (Arab) Lambs

Heartwarming words from Sarah Shiha, a student at Ain Shams University in Cairo: “Apart from the political issues, we are humans. I respect your religion, you respect mine.”

Her next comment, on Israel, sounded more robotic than humane: “What we see is that we had a land, and that people came and took this land. Now they want to stay here, and every day they are killing more and more of our siblings.”

Shiha is among 20 students from Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon who participated in a five-week program sponsored by the U.S. State Department to learn how religious pluralism is among America’s great strengths, according to an article in The Jewish Exponent of Philadelphia.

It seems that Shiha and her associates could have been a tad more diplomatic, especially since her inflammatory comment might be read by thousands of American Jews. She could have easily sidestepped the question by insisting she needed to learn more about the Israeli/Arabic conflict, couldn’t she? She might have faced more than verbal disdain back home. She might be murdered by her own people.

In the Middle East, free speech can carry a fatal price. Arabs have murdered their own who were suspected of collaborating with Israel, and Arab leaders who suggested or acted upon peaceful existence with Israel. Remember Anwar el-Sadat?

Yasser Arafat indicated that he feared a comparable fate if he assented to the peace plan offered during the Camp David summit 10 years ago. In his book “The Missing Peace,” Dennis Ross (then President Clinton’s Middle East envoy) relates a conversation in which Arafat asked then secretary of state Madeleine Albright if she wanted to attend his funeral. This comment came out of left field, but why else would he say this?

Arafat’s comment could invite some sarcastic responses - such as, his funeral was long overdue. I think his top motive for rejecting the plan was fear that other Arabs would kill him because they refused to accept any peace settlement.

It is clear that many Arabs keep silent because they fear retaliation. Of course, it is impossible to determine how many Arabs really loathe Israel and those who follow the script to protect themselves and their families.

Examples do abound. Before returning to his current prime minister post, Benjamin Netanyahu was asked by a television interviewer to identify Arab businesspeople with whom he communicates; he refused because, he said, it would jeopardize their lives. I recently read a report of an Arab man who saved Jews during World War II and told them to say nothing about his help. Israeli leaders claim that Arabs who sold land to Jews denied doing so because they could be harmed.

Some months ago, a native Iranian on a German sports team refused to play against an Israeli team. He did not offer this as a reason, but he still had family in Iran who could be endangered by his participation in that game.

The Arab and Muslim world is tightly controlled in parts. Putting Israel aside, ordinary Arabs and Muslims must worry about violent feuds between families and tribes, honor killings of women and conflicts with the ruling class. On Aug. 8, an Iranian attorney fled to Norway after he defended a woman who faced being stoned to death because she allegedly committed adultery.
An Afghan couple were stoned to death, on Taliban orders, because they allegedly cheated on his wife and her family-chosen fiance.

Those familiar with the Middle East attest that roughly half of Turkish and Iranian citizens are sensible people who yearn for more moderate leaders. Egyptian businesspersons worked well with their Israeli counterparts, and Turks in the military oppose their ultra-religious regime.

Tom Friedman of The New York Times reported on a Gazan woman whose son’s life was saved by a Jewish physician at an Israeli hospital. Now she wants her son to blow up…er, grow up…to become a suicide bomber. Consider that she must return home to face not only her neighbors but also Hamas, which has the power to make life miserable for her.

It is most annoying that American Muslims readily complain of bigotry, yet are less consistent in condemning Islamic-related violence - especially when Israelis are victimized. Muslim society in America appears to be closeted and hard to figure out.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the driving force behind the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, dodged a radio reporter’s question as to whether he concurred with the State Department’s designation of Hamas as a terrorist group, The New York Jewish Week reported.

Said Rauf: “I’m not a politician. I try to avoid the issues. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question…I’m a bridge builder. I define my work as a bridge builder…I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy.”

Far from an exercise in clarity.

I wouldn’t begin to guess what Rauf is really thinking. However, many Arabs and Muslims probably are scared to openly express their true feelings.

It is strange that free speech exists on two levels in our own country - one standard for most of us and a self-imposed standard for a stifled and bewildering minority.

New attacks underscore security concerns

‘Cannon to right of them, Cannon to left of them, Cannon in front of them volley’d and thunder’d; Storm’d at with shot and shell, Boldly they rode and well, Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of Hell Rode the six hundred.’

- from ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’ by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Gaza rockets from the south of them, a Sinai rocket from the southeast of them and an OK Corral-style shootout from the north of them.

These days, Israel’s multiple conflicts resemble the aforementioned passage in “The Charge of the Light Brigade.” Where is Errol Flynn when we need him?

Israel endured a two-front war at this time four years ago, and in recent months it has contended with attacks on four fronts, by my count - the blockade incident on the high seas, Gaza, southern Lebanon and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty three decades ago, yet Egypt cannot control terrorists operating on its lands.

Meanwhile, President Obama and others pine for the day when Israel hands over the West Bank to the Palestinians so they can, supposedly, live happily ever after. Many in the pro-Israel camp believe that the Arabs will never be happy until all of Israel is, well, no longer Israel.

Foes of a Palestinian state have said that Israel does not need another front. The most worrisome concern over a Palestinian state is Israel’s security. The border between Israel and the West Bank is much longer than its other borders, and Israel proper is directly vulnerable to attack.

Israeli leaders have said that Ben Gurion International Airport is within range of the West Bank. Security must be directly addressed before Israel considers further negotiations about the West Bank. It has not been adequately addressed.

Some protective measures have been taken. Construction of a security barrier along the border has eliminated terrorist attacks that were rampant up to five years ago. A strong Palestinian security force has been built. The West Bank has been much calmer. Still, none of these developments combined guarantee that Israel will be safe from attack if a Palestinian state is established.

Events of recent weeks underscore security concerns. Israel withdrew all troops and settlers from the Sinai Peninsula three decades ago; all troops from Lebanon in 2000; and all troops and settlers from Gaza in 2005. After Yasser Arafat rejected a peace plan in 2000, the Palestinians started a war that led to fierce fighting in Gaza and the West Bank and terrorist attacks in Israel proper. The Gaza evacuation was followed by thousands of rocket attacks into Sderot and other sections of southern Israel.

My educated guess in 2005 was that the Gaza evacuation would produce some aggression, but Israel could manage it. I was wrong.

Beyond rocket attacks, Israel fought a two-front war against terrorists in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, and again in Hamas-controlled Gaza in December 2009. More worrisome is the build-up of weapons in Gaza and Lebanon to be used for future assaults against Israel.

Last month, Gaza terrorists broke a long lull firing rockets that struck the Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon and an Israeli college near the border, The New York Times reported.

Then Monday, Aug. 2: A barrage of missiles fired from the Sinai Peninsula struck both the resort city Eilat in Israel and neighboring Aqaba in Jordan, where a taxi driver was killed. Egypt subsequently admitted that they were fired from Sinai, ostensibly under Egyptian control.

The following day, Lebanese soldiers - possibly influenced by Hezbollah - fired at Israeli soldiers over a petty border dispute. United nations peacekeepers declared that the Lebanese were entirely at fault.

It should be no surprise if someone - perhaps Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - was conspiring to provoke Israel to engage in yet another war.

With all this on Israel’s plate, Israeli leaders are still willing to enter negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. Fortunately, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has raised security concerns.

What might that entail? Possibly Israel can evacuate the more isolated settlements while maintaining a strong military presence. However, that military presence would be trimmed somewhat because the troops would not need to worry about protecting the settlements.

Maybe that will not be necessary, but I for one do not want to be wrong again.