Using PayPal
On U.S Middle East Policy and Amateurism
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Friday, Nov 06 2009, 7:02PM
This is a guest note by Daniel Levy, co-director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation.
During the Barak Government, Levy worked in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office as special adviser and head of Jerusalem Affairs, following which Mr. Levy worked as senior policy adviser to then Israeli Minister of Justice, Yossi Beilin. In this capacity he was responsible for coordinating policy on various issues including peace negotiations, civil and human rights, and the Palestinian minority in Israel. Mr. Levy was a member of the official Israeli delegation to the Taba negotiations with the Palestinians in January 2001, and previously served on the Israeli negotiating team to the "Oslo B" Agreement from May to September 1995, under Prime Minister Rabin. He also served as the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative, a joint Israeli-Palestinian effort that suggests a detailed model for a peace agreement to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. From 2003 to 2004, he worked as an analyst for the International Crisis Group Middle East Program.
ON U.S. MIDDLE EAST POLICY AND AMATEURISM
This was not a good week for the Obama administration's Middle East peace efforts. Speaking alongside Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in Jerusalem last Saturday, Secretary Clinton seemed to be praising the distinctively partial limitations that Israel was willing to implement on settlement non-expansion. During the following days in Morocco and Cairo, she walked those remarks back, but the damage had been done.
By Thursday, the American-sponsored Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was sufficiently exasperated to announce that he will not be standing for re-election, and all week the media and political commentary on the U.S. approach was scathing about America's efforts--even by Middle East standards.
Speaking to the Washington Post, I described the U.S. approach of the past days as amateurish--a perhaps harsh, but unfortunately apt, label. On the positive side, I think the administration folks are themselves aware that this is not going swimmingly. The overall administration scorecard on Middle East peace is slipping into the red.
But first, let's be fair about that record.
The Obama administration merits significant credit for having acknowledged from the get-go that advancing a solution on Israel-Palestine, or at least reaching a post-occupation equilibrium, is a key American national interest--a realization that was belatedly groped at by the Bush administration and was set forth from day one by its successor. That displays a keen understanding of the centrality of how the Israeli-Palestinian issue impacts America's standing and ability to advance its goals, including the push back against extremism in the region and beyond. National Security adviser General Jones repeated the assertion last week at the J Street conference. Credit, too, for the administration for acting on this. A senior envoy, Senator Mitchell, was appointed on day two, and deployed shuttling back and forth to the region. The President delivered a ground-breaking speech in Cairo, the Arab world was deeply engaged (unlike the past), and a marker was set down on settlements. It was on this latter issue of settlements, however, where things began to unravel.
The Obama team's call for a comprehensive settlement freeze was consistent with past U.S. policy (notably Bush's Roadmap of 2003), although it was perhaps treated with more seriousness coming from the new 'hope and change' President. The Israel Prime Minister's answer came in June, and it was a rejectionist one: no full freeze, and no limitations whatsoever on settlements in East Jerusalem. That is when the malaise set in.
The administration had three possible options in responding:
1) Stick to its guns and calibrate a set of escalating consequences in response to possible ongoing Israeli recalcitrance.2) Make a smart pivot by declaring, for instance, that if Israel could not for its own reasons freeze settlements, then this would make all the more urgent the need to quickly define and agree a border for an Israel-Palestine two-state solution. And the U.S. could reasonably have adopted a formula regarding that border (such as based on the 1967 lines, minor mutual modifications to accommodate settlements close to the Green Line in a one-to-one land swap). The U.S. could have explained to its Israeli friends that absent a defined border, the settlement freeze would have to be comprehensive, but in the discussion on borders, there could be more flexibility given the one-to-one land swaps.
3) Dig themselves into a hole. Insisting on a freeze, heightening expectations, without a plan for achieving that end, and by then acceding to talks with the Israeli government over koshering aspects of settlements expansion.
It is certainly legitimate for the administration to have not chosen option one, and to have decided that this was the wrong issue and/or wrong timing to escalate with the Netanyahu government. My own preference would have been for option two, and indeed, the administration could reasonably be perceived to have laid the ground deftly for such a pivot. Unfortunately, they went for option three, and it all came crashing down around their feet this week.
The Secretary's last minute stop in Cairo to round off the trip said it all. The Mubarak regime tried to help salvage some American pride, lining up behind the Secretary's efforts. Except that it is precisely the Mubarak government whose credibility is so severely questioned in the region, it is the largest Arab recipient of American financial assistance, and is obsessed with leadership succession--in short, getting a smile out of the Egyptian leader doesn't even register on the congratulatory charts.
There is nonetheless potentially good news in all of this. Those who are writing off the administration's peace efforts, friend and foe alike, are being premature in the extreme. This is a benefit of starting on day one--you can acknowledge the need for a course correction in month ten. In fact, it is not the new approach of the Obama administration that has failed, but rather, this is a moment of clarity regarding the bankruptcy of the old approach that has guided policy for over a decade and that the Obama team had inherited and embraced.
As Rob Malley and others have argued, what is needed now is a review (as has been conducted in other foreign policy areas) and a testing and likely abandonment of many of the prevailing policy assumptions. These might include the notion that one can incrementally build confidence between the sides when the prevailing reality is one of occupation, that bilateral negotiations between representatives of an occupied people and the occupying party can deliver de-occupation, that Palestinian political division should be encouraged (not overcome), or that proven self governance capacity under occupation is a precondition for freedom and independence.
If the goal still is Israel's security, recognition, and a guaranteed future as a democracy and a Jewish national home, alongside a secure, viable, and post-occupation Palestine and advancing America's national interest, and this should be the goal, then a new path is needed for reaching that destination. It will certainly require more international and U.S. lifting.
The Obama team is perfectly capable of charting a course from a bad week to a game-changing success, but more of the same won't get them there.
-- Daniel Levy
« Previous Article - Obama's Big Asia Trip: State of Play and Expectations
» Next Article - Picture of Confidence
Daniel,
Thank you for your insight, objectivity, and candor.
The Obama Administration have got the cart deep into the ditch this past week, and they must do something very powerful, very fast to get the cart unstuck, and begin to regain the credibility they so deservedly lost.
Israeli moderation would probably ease the oil taps and provide the Democrats enough room to get the economy through this transitory stage to a service economy.
That, coupled with a green energy stimulus program, health care stimulus, and education/job training for those needing new work.
Look at the big pitcure, in return for security guarantees we should get moderation from Israel and a better template for business. Regionally on safer rates of political exchange and worldwide on energy.
Extremely dissappointed in Levy's essay.
First, I'm sick and tired of Jone's appearance at the J Street Conference being touted as some sort of "victory" for J Street and the Palestinians. Horseshit. Jones comments were the same old crap, different venue. And don't forget, just prior to his J Street appearence, he also addressed AIPAC at the San Diego Summit.
And how in God's name someone could construe this major flip-flop diplomatic blunder on the settlements as deserving of one iota of praise or kudos for "intent" is beyond me. It was an epic fuck up, and was disastrous to Obama and Clinton's credibility as constructiove mediators.
And it REALLY frosts my ass that these think tank geniuses choose to ignore the actions of Hoyer, Reid, Cantor, and Huckabee in derailing Obama's stance on the settlements. To hear Levy tell it, one could almost believe Obama has the power, or the balls, to buck the kind of opposition these sacks of shit Reid and Hoyer cast at Obama's settlement stance. Again, horseshit. Its obvious that Congress and the House are are neck deep in Israel's pocket, and that pretty well snips Obama's scrotum right at the base.
Then, to ignore this despicable and shameful vote these whores in DC just cast on the Goldstone Report, while pontificating about "U.S Middle East Policy" is utterly disingenuous by its ommission. To think votes like this don't affect our ability to engage in constructive diplomacy with Middle Eastern countries is asinine, and such a recent display of shameful bias by our nation's leaders surely deserves mention in any essay concerning current "U.S Middle East Policy".
I have no idea why Levy is softshoeing this issue, and I sincerely hope its not out of some sort of partisan loyalty to the so called "progressives" and Democrats that have just SHAMED this nation irrepairably by inept and dishonest diplomacy, coupled with a despicable display of utter disregard for international law, human rights, and the sanctity of human life.
Levy isn't exactly putting lipstick on a pig, but he's sure as hell trying to tell us that the stench we smell has nothing to do with the corn fed swine soiling the halls of Congress.
Dennis Kucinich on 867...
“Today we journey from Operation Cast Lead to Operation Cast Doubt. Almost as serious as committing war crimes is covering up war crimes, pretending that war crimes were never committed and did not exist.
“Because behind every such deception is the nullification of humanity, the destruction of human dignity, the annihilation of the human spirit, the triumph of Orwellian thinking, the eternal prison of the dark heart of the totalitarian.
“The resolution before us today, which would reject all attempts of the Goldstone Report to fix responsibility of all parties to war crimes, including both Hamas and Israel, may as well be called the “Down is Up, Night is Day, Wrong is Right” resolution.
“Because if this Congress votes to condemn a report it has not read, concerning events it has totally ignored, about violations of law of which it is unaware, it will have brought shame to this great institution.
“How can we ever expect there to be peace in the Middle East if we tacitly approve of violations of international law and international human rights, if we look the other way, or if we close our eyes to the heartbreak of people on both sides by white-washing a legitimate investigation?
“How can we protect the people of Israel from existential threats if we hold no concern for the protection of the Palestinians, for their physical security, their right to land, their right to their own homes, their right to water, their right to sustenance, their right to freedom of movement, their right to the human security of jobs, education and health care?
“We will have peace only when the plight of both Palestinians and Israelis is brought before this House and given equal consideration in recognition of that principle that all people on this planet have a right to survive and thrive, and it is our responsibility, our duty to see that no individual, no group, no people are barred from this humble human claim.”
I'm curious why a discussion of good cop-bad cop isn't included here. The Obama administration makes the case that, much as they try, they just won't be able to prevent the economic sanctions and isolation from the EU, China, Russia, et al unless there's a settlement freeze and serious final status negotiations from Israel.
Daniel Levy seems to be on the nearly the same page as Elliot Abrams on Obama's efforts so far:
"Instead of demanding an unrealistic freeze, Abrams said, the administration could have made the Bush deal public, noted that Israel had not consistently lived up to it and declared that it would now be enforced. "Instead, we had nine months of nonsense," he said. "Palestinians and Israelis are not sure what the United States stands for." "
Obama seems from this vantage point to have blamed Bush so often for not being more involved in the Mideast Peace Process, that he seems to have convinced himself it would all be different once he showed up. Some sympathy for the Palestinians, some pressure on Israel, and miraculous progress would ensue.
It's never wise to believe your own press clippings, esp. in the Middle East.
I would like to ask Daniel Levy why on earth he thinks a pivot to a discussion of I/P borders would have done anything positive. Didn't the Taba negotiations agree on borders but fall apart on the "right of return", an absolute non-starter for Israel and an absolute requirement for Fatah?
http://palestinenote.com/cs/blogs/blogs/archive/2009/11/06/why-obama-disappoints.aspx
Osama Alsharif
Why Obama disappoints
Hillary Clinton’s shameless praise of Israel’s settlement policies in the occupied Palestinian territories deserves more than Arab and Palestinian outrage. The US Secretary of State had brushed aside a fundamental principle in the decades-old quest to reach a just political settlement between Israel and the Palestinians; the illegality of Jewish settlements. By stating that a settlement freeze is not a precondition for restarting peace talks and that the issue has always been subject to negotiations, she had single-handedly shifted the course, and outcome, of future talks.
It was a major departure from decades of confirmed US position on the legality of Jewish settlement activities in the occupied territories. Whether it was a gaffe or a bona fide change in official US policy, Clinton attempted to soften the blow from her Jerusalem statements a day later when she arrived in Marrakesh to meet a number of Arab foreign ministers. She said that the administration’s position had not changed and that “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”
But in reality there is a basic change in Washington’s position. By insisting that the resumption of peace negotiations should be unconditional, which is exactly what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is calling for, Clinton is changing the framework of these talks. Instead of sticking to President Barack Obama’s earlier pledges that settlement construction must stop, she now believes Israel’s ambiguous and nonbinding offer to put a freeze on new projects in the West Bank is “unprecedented.” Meanwhile, Israel will go ahead with plans to build more than 3,000 new units in various settlements in the West Bank, excluding ongoing expansion in East Jerusalem.
The code word here is preconditions. Clinton agrees with Netanyahu’s position; that resumption of peace talks should not be linked to Palestinian caveats; i.e. preconditions, such as building of settlements, uprooting Palestinians from East Jerusalem and threatening the status of Muslim holy places in Al-Haram Al-Sharif.
From political and legal viewpoints the Palestinian stand makes perfect sense. After almost two decades of prolonged and tedious peace negotiations the Palestinians are eager to conclude these talks in a way that achieves the minimum of national aspirations: Full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, repatriation of Palestinian refugees and the creation of an independent and sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
With over 300,000 Jewish settlers living permanently in the West Bank and over 190,000 now residing in East Jerusalem, the Palestinian objective is in jeopardy. The integrity of the future Palestinian state will never be achieved unless Jewish settlements are removed. A contiguous Palestinian state, which is what the US administration had promised, is already in doubt as a result of the Israeli barrier wall, tens of settlements and land expropriated for security reasons.
For many years US officials were content to describe the building of settlements in the occupied areas as an obstacle to peace. And now in Clinton’s view it is an issue that negotiators will have to resolve among themselves. This is an insult to every Palestinian. To presume that both parties will find a satisfactory solution to this “obstacle” within the framework of future negotiations is simply stupid.
The reality is that Washington has opted to turn its back to Obama’s commitments. The White House is in no mood for a showdown with Israel over settlements and other issues. The US Department of State has decided to shift pressure from Israel to the Palestinian National Authority. What matters for US policymakers today is not justice for the Palestinians, but a resumption of peace talks at any price.
It is safer to threaten the Palestinians than confront the Israelis in a risky face-off. Obama has abandoned his pledges to Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians. It is as simple as that.
It is now up to Arab foreign ministers to respond to Clinton’s slights. They have a chance to do so in Marrakesh. They can either tell the US secretary of state that they cannot be part in a conspiracy to further deny the Palestinians their national rights; or they can choose to succumb to Washington’s pressure and face the consequences.
In all, and at least for the Arabs, Obama appears to have lost his mojo! He has failed to live up to his promises of creating positive change in the region and bringing justice to the Palestinians. Those who had hoped that he would stand up to Israeli injustice have been proven wrong. The Arabs should decide that while they cannot negotiate with the Israelis, they can at least engage the Americans. Instead of letting Clinton dictate a new course for future peace talks, they must force her to listen and tell her that Washington’s current track is simply not acceptable!
Daniel Levy may be earnest and he may have a good resume but his essay is just wrong in too many ways to be taken seriously.
Levy says,
"The Obama administration merits significant credit for having acknowledged from the get-go that advancing a solution on Israel-Palestine, or at least reaching a post-occupation equilibrium, is a key American national interest..."
The idea that American interests will be significantly advanced by an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians is a canard. It's as if Levy and his ilk believe that if they repeat it enough, it may actually become true. Here's a newsflash for Levy; it won't.
Levy, Clemons and their fellow travelers never tire of asserting how important it is for the United States to secure an agreement between the belligerent parties in the Middle East but they rarely go into detail about how American interests will be advanced. The reason for this is simple; in their heart of hearts they know that their thesis is so porous that it will be easy to demolish.
The reality is that should the happy day arrive that the Israelis and Palestinians reach a peace deal; after a day or so of celebrating the American foreign policy establishment will wake up and find that for the United States, virtually nothing has changed.
Levy is also being disingenuous when he mentions the three options that he believes Obama could have pursued when Netanyahu refused to endorse his total settlement freeze including Jerusalem.
Levy says that one option was for the Obama Administration to
"stick to its guns and calibrate a set of escalating consequences in response to possible ongoing Israeli recalcitrance."
This assertion is ridiculous. If Obama could have done this he would have. The simple reality is that Obama was not just unwilling to sanction Israel for its refusal to acquiesce to his settlement freeze idea; he was unable to sanction Israel for its refusal. Israel's support in Congress is overwhelming; whether Congressmen and Senators are coerced into supporting Israel by "the Lobby" or whether they support Israel out of conviction just doesn't matter. Congress, which as Levy surely knows is a co-equal branch of the American Government, simply would not have stood for escalating sanctions by Obama on Israel.
In addition, Israel enjoys the fervent support of millions of Jewish Americans and tens of millions of Christian Americans; the number of Americans who care about the Palestinians can be counted on two hands. In light of this, how exactly does Levy think the Obama Administration could have tenaciously imposed ever more harsh sanctions on Israel until it acquiesced? To ask the question is to answer it; it couldn't.
And let’s not forget the data that suggests that Jewish Americans vote in higher percentages than any other ethnic group. Given the importance of Jewish voters in swing states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania (let alone New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan and California) and given the importance of Israel supporters for Democratic fundraising, it's hard to see how Levy could possibly think that Obama could have sanctioned Israel for eschewing his settlement freeze.
Levy is being equally disingenuous when he outlines what he believes Obama's second option was. Levy says Obama could have made
"a smart pivot by declaring, for instance, that if Israel could not for its own reasons freeze settlements, then this would make all the more urgent the need to quickly define and agree a border for an Israel-Palestine two-state solution."
This is very ironic. The idea of "borders first" has been suggested numerous times by people like Dennis Ross, David Makovsky, Martin Indyk and even Eliot Abrams. This crowd is routinely criticized by the likes of Levy as being ineffective and unproductive. Steve Clemons has chided these folks as being part of the “Middle East Peace Business.” Now, Levy wants us to believe that he favored the "borders first" option recommended by these folks all along.
Give me a break.
Levy also forgets to mention that the idea of “borders first” has been rejected by President Abbas, dismissed by the Palestinian Authority and ridiculed by Hamas. Why exactly Levy thinks that Obama could have reacted to Israeli intransigence on settlements by pushing for a quick agreement on borders is very hard to understand.
Levy is certainly right that Obama’s Middle East strategy has been amateurish. Hillary Clinton’s performance last week was one of the worst I’ve ever seen from a U.S. Secretary of State. As much as I’ve supported her in the past, there is no way I can deny that she made a terrible botch of it. Senator Mitchell has also been a failure and to the extent that Rahm Emanuel has been involved in Middle East policy he’s also given Obama poor advice. But the ultimate fault lies with our inexperienced, overmatched and narcissistic President.
But Levy (and Clemons) are in no position to criticize Obama. After all, to a large extent he was merely implementing a policy that they recommended all along. Levy and Clemons have suggested for a long time that a key ingredient to progress was increasing American pressure on Israel. Obama took their advice or tried to.
How did that work out?
If Obama took Levy’s and Clemons’ advice on whether to engage Hamas or how to handle the Goldstone Report, why should we believe that would work out any better?
Yes, Levy is right; the Administration has been amateurish. What surprising, given the impressive quality of his resume (highlighted at the top of this post), is how amateurish Levy is himself.
re: Obama disappoints.
Yawn. They had that one ready as a form letter if Obama failed to give them anything less than an unconditional Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line - without any Palestinian concessions in return, of course.
Okay, so they have the most pro-Palestinian President ever, and what do they do? they give him nothing but complaints. Now they are whining about this absolutely essential precondition that wasn't essential for the last 16 years before Obama introduced himself, the amateur.
Abba Eban was right. The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
"But Levy (and Clemons) are in no position to criticize Obama. After all, to a large extent he was merely implementing a policy that they recommended all along. Levy and Clemons have suggested for a long time that a key ingredient to progress was increasing American pressure on Israel. Obama took their advice or tried to."
"How did that work out?"
"If Obama took Levy’s and Clemons’ advice on whether to engage Hamas or how to handle the Goldstone Report, why should we believe that would work out any better?"
Good questions. My only question now is whether Obama is capable of learning anything from his failure? (Not to mention the others)
"My only question now is whether Obama is capable of learning anything from his failure?" (Nadine)
Don't worry, Nadine. Count on the fact that Obama will learn. I believe he really does want peace between Israelis and Palestinians. But he doesn't want it nearly as much as he wants to be reelected and for Democrats to retain control of both houses of Congress.
Count on the fact that Obama will be readjusting his Middle East agenda more and more the closer we get to the midterm elections. As 2012 approaches the idea of pressuring Israel will disappear entirely and Obama will be joining AIPAC at their yearly convention promising that if he's reelected he really will move the American Embassy to Jerusalem.
Personally, I hope that for the time being, Obama continues to have his little temper tantrum and refuses to meet with Netanyahu when he's in the United States next week. Like everything else he's done this will be sure to strengthen Netanyahu at the same time it weakens Obama.
It's not only the Obama Middle East policy that's failing; it's also (in part) the Levy/Clemons Middle East strategy that's failing as well.
I wonder if Levy finds it galling that Dennis Ross (and to a lesser extent Eliot Abrams) were right all along while he was wrong.
"what is needed now is a review (as has been conducted in other foreign policy areas) and a testing and likely abandonment of many of the prevailing policy assumptions."
This is true.
But the assumption that needs to be discarded is that there will be a two-state solution. We saw that outcome being eliminated this week. Which of the two remaining outcomes will Israeli Jews choose?
Theres a pair of bloodsucking vampires if I ever saw one. I wonder why these two bigots aren't in the IDF? I guess they just like having the hate without doing the killing.
Read 'em carefully. There's is the mindset that used to hang negroes from oak trees, or gas Jews in the showers. KKK without the hoods, oozing racism out of every pore, and proud of it.
Here's a little of what Steve Walt said in his blog today,
"I never thought I'd write the following words, but is it possible that Obama's handling of the I-P peace process might actually end up being worse than George Bush's? It's still too soon to go there, but the fact that the question even occurred to me ain't exactly encouraging."
Even Steve Walt thinks Obama's Middle East policy may be worse than George Bush's.
Quite damning I'd say.
An expedient via media- strategy of the Obama administration on the question of the Mideast issue is that it has been officially demanding a halt on the Israeli settlements in the East Jerusalem. This policy which advocates some sane elements of 'political gradualism' should be acceptable to the Israeli administration because without making any progress in this regard, the international community feels no confidence in having any positive futurity of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
"As Rob Malley and others have argued, what is needed now is a review (as has been conducted in other foreign policy areas) and a testing and likely abandonment of many of the prevailing policy assumptions."
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Another "review". As though American officials have not known the foreign policy score on the I/P conflict all along, and need even more knowledge and analysis.
These bozos don't need any more knowledge than they already have in great overabundance. They just need the *courage* to articulate clearly, directly and forcefully what they already know, and do it in a way that is viscerally and frighteningly compelling for the majority of the American people.
The new guys in the White House just have to stop *running*. Don't run. Escalate. Take out the big stick and break it over Netanyahu's head. And if Dershowitz and Foxman and Kristol and Schumer and company start yapping and whining about it, break it over their heads too. If the Israel gang starts screeching about how Barack Obama is "no friend to Israel", punch back about how this gang are no friends to Americans. If the start bellowing in feigned outrage, "How dare President Obama challenge our patriotism and concern for American interests!" Obama should hammer back with "How dare these special interest lobbyists work so hard to *undermine* American interests!" Stop shrinking from the battle: go massive on these clowns. Pick your ground, stand on it, turn and fight. It's about time someone showed them the Chicago Way.
The White House communications operation has been stunningly abysmal. When Obama isn't out making a big speech, they lose ground constantly. Dealt one of the most incredible political hands in recent history, with Republican credibility at laughably low levels, the White House has turned out to be a timid operation fond of defensive crouches, and an amazing force multiplier for a small minority gang of wingnut blowhard opponents.
Instead of mocking, berating and humiliating the wingnuts on a daily basis, and crushing the demonstrably puny-brained heads into the ground, they run scared of them. Three quarters of America absolutely despises Wall Street. If the executive branch sent troops into the Goldman Sacks offices tomorrow and tossed all of its executives out the windows, a majority of Americans would cheer. Yet the Obama administration runs scared that the whored-out, pea-brain right will depict them as too far left and too hostile to the financial industry.
Instead of running away from FOX, the White House should have three loud, smart and bossy administration officials permanently tasked with appearing on FOX at every permitted opportunity, and slapping those morons silly. They should be on there every night putting the pseudo-populist right on notice that they see through their game, and can explain in no tentative or uncertain terms how the demagogic right mouthpieces cover up their fellating of the wealthy enemies of average Americans with a cloudy mass of religious and cultural mumbo-jumbo.
I’m sick of hearing from people like Levy how certain policies are so obviously smart, but how it difficult it is to explain their smartness to Americans in a compelling and motivating way. If is really such a "key American interest" to fix the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then surely the New Great Communicator, Barack Obama, should be able to explain it to Americans in blunt language that they can understand from the tops of their cerebral cortices to the bottoms of their brain stems. He should be able to explain occupation, colonization and Gaza to America that make their outrageous nature clear. They should have Netanyahu and his whole degenerating, fanatical rogue country back on its heels every day.
But Obama is not able to do this because he is, so far, a chickenshit coward afraid of controversy and conflict.
But the assumption that needs to be discarded is that there will be a two-state solution. We saw that outcome being eliminated this week. Which of the two remaining outcomes will Israeli Jews choose?
The Israelis have already chosen. They will manage the conflict, since the Palestinians have neither the will nor the ability to reach a compromise that accepts Palestine next to Israel instead of replacing Israel.
Since Israel has a prosperous and technologically inventive economy, while the Palestinians live off foreign aid, Israel is the better position to wait. The Palestinians may delude themselves otherwise, but it's not the first set of delusions they have suffered from.
"The new guys in the White House just have to stop *running*. Don't run. Escalate. Take out the big stick and break it over Netanyahu's head."
Well, Dan, it's like I said before. If Obama had picked an issue that divided the Israelis, and correspondingly divided the American Jewish community, he might have been able to do that. Instead, by demanding an end to Jewish (but not Arab) construction in Jerusalem, he united the Israeli public and most of the American Jews and other American Zionists against him, many of them Democrats.
Thus he made any such show of toughness a lot tougher on himself than it would have been on Netanyahu!
This is known as picking your fights badly.
The trouble with the Malley/Obama view of Mideast negotiating is that it produces negligible gains for a very high upfront price. It's not like the Palestinians or other Arabs lifted a finger to help. But then, the negotiations they claim to want are not what they really want at all. Obama was too ignorant to realize it, but advisers like Malley and Rashid Khalidi led him down the garden path, hoping only to put some pain on Israel. No matter what it cost Obama.
Nadine..Israel lives off of plenty of foreign aid...likely 5-10 billion USD a year in direct and indirect military and economic aid. Without this money, Israel likely could not build, maintain, protect, and expand the illegal settlements. The Israelis might have to make hard choices, like whether to continue ethnic clensing or have universal healthcare.
RC
No Robert, you couldn't be more wrong. Israel has a prosperous $100 B GDP, the size of most European countries. The $3B/year in aid (it's mostly loan guarantees at that) benefit US defense makers more than anybody else, since most of the money comes with strings (which is why Congress will never cut it). Israel could do without it quite well. The Palestinians, on the other hand, get billions in aid, both overt (humanitarian) and covert (arms) and could not exist without it.
Let's deconstruct both Kucinich and Levys' talking points.
Kucinich is Dead Man Walking per Aipac so he should have been
totally honest and not limited hang-out
*Levy: "or that proven self governance capacity under occupation
is a precondition for freedom and independence."
- OA's response: the Palestinians elected Hamas, what don't you
get?
* Levy: "If the goal still is Israel's security, recognition, and a
guaranteed future as a democracy and a Jewish national home,
alongside a secure, viable, and post-occupation Palestine."
- OA's response: How can Israel be both a democracy and a
Jewish national home?
The Palestinian Israelis are spawning faster than anyone else
except for the settlers from Brooklyn, so at some point Israel
might be equally Jewish and Palestinian. The Palestinian Israelis
will probably vote in favor of legislation that helps their
Palestinian brethren on the other side of that 30 ft. wall.
BTW: Antiwar.com has a stunning picture of The Wall on its front
page today.
Will Israel then still be a "democracy" -- *HEARTY CHUCKLE* as
if Israel ever was -- or will it become what it has always
purported to be, a Jewish state?
Will this, i.e., the Palestinians Arabs gaining the upper hand
through sheer demographics, then result in the expulsion/
second round of pogroms on Palestinian Israelis?
On to Kucinich, and seriously, he's already stepped way over the
AIPAC line, so he might as well spill his guts and tell us what he
really thinks.
Kucinich: " parties to war crimes, including both Hamas and
Israel,"
OA: What were Hamas' war crimes? Qassam "rockets" Which are
in reality homemade bottle rockets most probably fired off by
disaffected and pissed off teenagers who have seen their sisters
and brothers mowed down by tank/ Apache gunship helicopter
fire.
Kucinich: "We will have peace only when the plight of both
Palestinians and Israelis"
OA: What plight of the Israelis? They choose to be there,
squatters on other's land.
So many Jewish Israelis can get out and have been. The
Russians, the Americans who aren't fanatical settler ghoul-
fiends, European Jews -- they keep those other passports handy
for when the going gets tough. I wonder if ship rats have
passports...
Israelis have UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, while my husband and I
paid $12,000 this last year and the chick whose kid I help take
care of couldn't scrape up $100 to go to the doctor for a bladder
infection that appeared to be going into her kidneys.
This was before I moved back to AZ. I didn't know her at all
then or I would have given her the money to go to the doctor.
NEVER mess with a kidney infection.
And yet we treat Israel as if she weren't our welfare beneficiary
but rather a super power who we must kow tow to and do a
danse macabre with the entire fucking world because of her.
If Israel could do without US aid then tell her to hand it back. My
neighborhood needs it, as does almost every neighborhood in
this country.
The sheer chutzpah. That's why Israel will never survive. The
arrogance, coupled with the paranoia, tripled with the greed
mentality, quadrupled with the sense of entitlement, and
whatever five is, the non-stop aggression towards the entire
world.
Again, wonder if rats on a sinking ship have passports for the
next ship that unfortunately floats by?
"They will manage the conflict"
One vote for ethnic cleansing. Anyone else?
"The $3B/year in aid"
You seem to have forgotten the money used to buy peace from Egypt and Jordan for Israel, which adds up to about $2.5B/per year.
"(it's mostly loan guarantees at that)"
False. Loan guarantees are in addition to grants. See CRS report RL33222.
"benefit US defense makers more than anybody else"
So you'd support spending the money directly on American troops? It would be more efficient, wouldn't it?
"Israel could do without it quite well."
So you'd support transferring the $3B in grants to, say, SCHIP? It doesn't make much sense to give money to a country that has universal health care when the US doesn't. Right?
"The Palestinians, on the other hand, get billions in aid, both overt (humanitarian) and covert (arms) and could not exist without it."
Now I wonder why that is.
PS: You don't really need to respond. We already know you're a bigot and an all-around horrible person.
Everyone in the world wants Obama to do everything all at once, all at the same time, for everyone, everywhere, in every circumstance, for every problem; and they want it now. It's so astonishing that no one is willing to allow Obama's administration to do its job. No other historical leader has been able to solve all of the Middle East's problems with Israel. And everybody wants Obama to solve it all right now, this minute, or he is being negligent. The world needs to get a grip and stop calling Obama's work a failure while he is still in his first year of the Presidency. This is ridiculous.
Marselus....
If he had tremendous successes in his first year, would you bitch and moan about us pointing them out? So why not point out his tremendous failures? He and Hillary just committed HUGE diplomatic blunders. Because you are obviously starstruck, we are to ignore reality?
BTW, Marselus...
I rode "horse guard" around the southern Renaissance Faire in the early seventies, when it was held on Paramount Ranch. There was another rider that came down from the northern faire, who went by the name of "Reggie Marselus". He was a black guy, who rode a silver appy stud horse, real flashy. He also bought an old forties single horse trailer from someone, that had a rotted out floor, and he was gonna haul the appy back north with it. (Until Dee and I convinced him how fuckin' dumb that would be.) That wasn't you, was it?
PissedOffAmerican:
The American people and their representatives have to learn, through painful and bitter experience, the wretechedness of their choices and their consequences.
They are not yet chastised; you have to be patient with them until it hits the fan.
Give War a chance.
You forgot something. It is related to option 1. Obama tells that Netan-yahoo guy that the settlements freeze. Now. Or the US cuts off all money.
WIthout US money, Israel collapses. It is incapable of surviving without US welfare payments. It is OUR money, not theirs. Israel is NOT the 51st state and thus has no legitimate claim to our money except for pure benificence on our part.
Cut them off unless there is a freeze and they cut the crap. Their right to exist as a nation is NO greater than that right for the pre-existing inhabitants of that land.
Dan Levy’s post got me to thinking about how wrongheaded his policy prescriptions have been. Obama tried to follow the Levy/Clemons advice about pressuring Israel to make concessions on settlements; that advice turned out to be disastrous. When it comes to the Middle East, Obama has now wasted 25 percent of his first term (which may be the only term he gets). To make matters worse, prospects for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians are significantly worse than they were when George W. Bush left office. The fact that a commentator like Steve Walt is now willing to entertain the possibility that Obama’s Middle East policy is worse than Bush’s (see my post) says a lot.
Let’s remember that during the last year of George Bush’s term Olmert and Abbas met constantly. The fact that Olmert made substantive suggestions that Abbas seriously considered is proven by the fact that the Palestinians now insist that new negotiations with Netanyahu start at the point that they left off with Olmert.
Condi Rice had successfully forged a coalition between Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf States and Kuwait against Iran and when Israel launched Operation Cast Lead they were fighting Hamas not only on their own behalf but also on behalf of the Sunni Arab nations (and the Palestinian Authority) that wanted to see Hamas punished for its intransigence. Egypt allowed Israeli naval vessels to traverse the Suez Canal and there were unconfirmed reports (denied by the Saudis) that the Saudis might allow Israeli fighter jets on their way to attack Iranian nuclear installations to use Saudi airspace.
An Administration that knew what it was doing could have taken advantage of these improved relations to jump start the peace process that was finally making at least some incremental progress.
Instead, the Obama Administration made the same mistake that most new Administrations make. They assumed that anything done by the prior Administration couldn’t possibly be good and they decided that if George Bush and Condi Rice did one thing, they would do the opposite.
So what did Obama do? He went to Cairo and gave a speech that while widely praised turned out to be an enormous mistake. The speech was widely interpreted as Obama’s attempt to guarantee the Muslim World that he would take an evenhanded approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict. By doing this he acknowledged that the previous Administration was not evenhanded. Regardless of how true this might have been, the net effect was to raise hopes in the Muslim World that Obama was prepared to push Israel to deliver greater concessions than Israel was inclined to give and that Obama was able to coerce Israel into delivering. Rather than enhancing the prospects for peace, Obama’s Cairo speech was the proximate cause for a significant deterioration in the more positive relations that Condi Rice had engineered between Israel and its Arab adversaries.
The simple reality is that Obama made things worse not better. He encouraged the Arab world to believe that he would insist on Israeli concessions that he was both unwilling and unable to deliver. He made a settlement freeze a prerequisite for negotiations when they never had been before. He antagonized huge swaths of the Israeli public and Israel’s supporters in the United States as if the support of these constituencies for a peace agreement wouldn’t be necessary. And now, after Secretary Clinton’s disastrous trip, the entire Arab world is losing confidence in Obama.
It’s hard to imagine a less competent Middle East strategy than the one employed by Barack Obama.
Of course, not all of this is Obama’s fault. The Goldstone Report was a major complicating factor that Obama could not have foreseen. There was essentially no way that he could have responded to the Report in a manner that didn’t infuriate one side of the conflict or the other. Anyone with any ability to analyze complexity will quickly come to understand that the Goldstone Report will end up being a tremendous boon to the recalcitrant Israeli settlers and a tremendous defeat for those who genuinely aspire to a peaceful solution.
But while Obama can’t be blamed for everything that’s gone wrong, what he can be blamed for is listening to the likes of Levy and Clemons who advised him to reach out to the Arab World (especially the Arab Street), focus on Israeli settlement policy, and be willing to sanction Israel if it didn’t acquiesce to Obama’s strategy. Levy, Clemons and Obama not only turned out to be wrong, but they turned out to be terribly wrong.
Unfortunately the idea of focusing on settlements and pressuring Israel isn’t the only bad advice Levy, Clemons and friends have offered Obama; they’ve made several other unrealistic and counterproductive recommendations.
1) Levy and Clemons want the United States to foster reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah because they believe that Palestinian reconciliation is a prerequisite to peace. How exactly the United States is supposed to foster this rapprochement when it has limited leverage with Fatah and no leverage with Hamas is a mystery. Do Levy and Clemons really believe that the fundamentalist Muslims in Hamas and the secular nationalists in Fatah hate each other because of anything the United States has done? Do they think that Fatah and Hamas are like Democrats and Republicans or Christian Democrats and Social Democrats? Have they noticed that political parties in the United States and Europe don’t operate their own militias, rarely shoot at each other and almost never decapitate those from the opposing political party? Of course these things happen routinely between Hamas and Fatah. Can Levy and Clemons site even one example where an Islamist political party and a secular nationalist party in the Arab World have been able to work together cooperatively, without rancor and without the threat of violence? Levy and Clemons are wrong. Attempting to foster reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah is not only a waste of time because it can’t be accomplished, if it could be accomplished it would be counterproductive.
2) Levy and Clemons are remarkable in their ability to hold two diametrically opposed positions at the same time. On the one hand they oppose the economic blockade of Gaza; they object to the Israeli security barrier in the West Bank, they object to Israeli targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders and they want to see the Israeli and Egyptian crossing points with Gaza opened. On the other hand, they tell us that Hamas is moderating its positions; that it is less intransigent than it once was, that the United States and Europe and perhaps even Israel should engage Hamas and test its new found moderation and that without talking to Hamas, peace is impossible.
Do Levy and Clemons have such short memories that they don’t remember that less than 5 years ago Hamas acknowledged launching suicide attack after suicide attack against Israeli shopping malls, pizzerias and religious ceremonies? Did they notice that these attacks only stopped after the Israelis successfully constructed the security barrier? Do they remember that in the past few years Hamas launched thousands of rockets into Israel from Gaza, a bombardment that only stopped after Operation Cast Lead beat Hamas into submission? Has it occurred to Levy and Clemons that the new found “moderation” of Hamas, to the extent it exists at all, results from Israel eradicating opportunities for Hamas to engage in violent resistance while the economic isolation imposed on Hamas by Israel, Egypt, the United States and Europe has robbed Hamas of a large portion of its popular support? The very moderation that Levy and Clemons are now lauding only came about because Israel, Egypt and the West imposed a series of crippling measures on Hamas that Levy and Clemons did nothing but complain about. For Obama to listen to Levy and Clemons on engaging Hamas, he would have to be as terminally confused as they are.
3) Levy and Clemons are anxious to see the “Middle East Peace Business” put out of business. To accomplish this, they would like to see the United States define virtually all of the parameters of a final settlement and then impose those parameters by fiat if necessary. But of course, this proposal is as phantasmagorical as their suggestion that the United States could “impose” a settlement freeze on Israel. What’s so hard to understand about the fact that the most Israel is prepared to offer to settle the conflict is less than the Palestinians are prepared to accept to settle the conflict? Clemons in particular, realist that he is, never tires of mentioning all the limitations on the U.S. ability to impose a solution on the Afghanis, the Iraqis or the Pakistanis. Other people who guest post on this blog never like Ben Katcher and Flynt Leverett never tire of telling us how the U.S. can’t impose a solution for the intramural problems in Iran; only the Iranian people can do that. For goodness sake, the United States can’t even entice the Western Europeans to invite the Turks to join the EU. It can’t even convince its NATO ally, Turkey to be less recalcitrant when it comes to Cyprus. Even the solution that the United States imposed on Bosnia/Republika Srpska in the 1990s is coming apart at the seams. In light of this, the Levy/Clemons manifesto that suggests that the U.S. should define the terms of a peace deal and impose it on the Israelis and Palestinians who will both object, is just dumb. It’s not a potential solution; it’s an absurd and thus destructive fantasy.
The conflict between Israel and Palestine will end the way most conflicts do, with one party militarily victorious and the other party militarily defeated. Unless the United States is prepared to attack Israel militarily on behalf of the Palestinians, the best thing the United States can do for the Palestinians is help them accept the reality of their defeat.
In the real world defeat isn’t so bad. The Jews have been defeated militarily scores of times in recorded history. The Germans and British both defeated the French on numerous occasions. Japan and Germany have rebounded from their defeat less than 70 years ago remarkably well.
Instead of duping the Palestinians into believing that the United States can ever be an objective interlocutor who will get them a good deal, the United States should be helping the Palestinians come to grips with the fact that the deal they get is going to be dramatically poorer than they had hoped. Instead of contemplating threats to Israel, the Obama Administration should be thinking of inducements to motivate the Israelis to be as generous as possible.
Steve Clemons is supposed to be a realist. I don’t know what Daniel Levy is supposed to be. It’s time for them to abandon fantasyland and join the world as it really is.
Once they do that, perhaps their advice will be worth listening to.
""The Palestinians, on the other hand, get billions in aid, both overt (humanitarian) and covert (arms) and could not exist without it."
Now I wonder why that is."
No, you don't wonder. Like all the other neo-Marxists around here, you just take Palestinian poverty as proof of their oppression and their virtue, because you don't believe wealth can be created. You believe rich countries could only have gotten rich by stealing from the poor countries.
It never crosses your mind that countries with property rights and a rule of law can create wealth, while countries with kleptocracies (like most of the 3rd world) will stay poor no matter what income their have. Israel started with nothing; it has no oil; now it is a hotbed of technological development. Israel created its own wealth.
The Palestinian diaspora (not counting the refugee camps) is educated and prosperous. The Palestinians could be a rich society today, instead of just Yasser Arafat's cronies being rich. (Actually, they are far from poor; they are richer than Syrians or Jordanians). But you need leaders who will let you run a business for that. Instead you have leaders who keep shutting the economy for the sake of intifada and jihad. What do they care? They get their money regardless.
The only viable economic future for the West Bank is in economic cooperation with Israel and Jordan. But you can have economic cooperation or suicide bombers; not both. When you send in hundreds of suicide bombers (10 try for every 1 that succeeds), the walls and checkpoints will go up. If you want the walls and checkpoints to come down again, you must have a peace deal. But the Palestinian leadership doesn't want any peace deal that leaves Israel standing.
"What’s so hard to understand about the fact that the most Israel is prepared to offer to settle the conflict is less than the Palestinians are prepared to accept to settle the conflict?"
Apparently the delusion that the US "owns" Israel and can order it to accept anything, even a settlement that it considers national suicide, is widespread. (It manifests itself here in baseless assertions that Israel could not exist without US foreign aid). Funny, so much money goes to Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians, but nobody ever gets the idea that we "own" them. The same people who keep saying we should just impose the solution on Israel seem quite content to have no influence over Egypt or the Palestinian leadership.
After a while you begin to suspect that the real motive is just to help the Arabs destroy Israel. They think that would end the West's problem with radical Islam, not understanding that the problem long predates Israel, and would only move to new targets. Israel is just the canary in the coalmine.
Good post, Wigwag. I think Obama will remain "terminally confused" but am hoping he will have learned to lower his expectations. When politicians think something will be an easy success, then discover that not only is it hard, but it's a minefield as well, they tend to go away and do something else.
As Steve Clemons has said, Wig Wag plays a "useful role" in these commente.
I suppose if your interested in seeing the world incinerated because of the rabid and ruthless attitude of Israel first neocons and Zionist zealots, one might consider Wig Wag (or Nadine) useful. But somehow I don't think that is what Steve has in mind.
Given the nonstop drivel that comes from these useful commenters, fully supplied with data on a moments notice by the hasbarist office, I question how useful it is to encourage such disinformation, or what the useful role is.
"The only viable economic future for the West Bank is in economic cooperation with Israel and Jordan. But you can have economic cooperation or suicide bombers; not both." (Nadine)
You are obviously correct that suicide bombers and economic cooperation are incompatible but even without the suicide bombers I am afraid that Palestinian economic prospects are very poor whether or not they get their own nation.
There is not a single Arab nation not blessed with oil wealth that is prosperous and modern. In fact, several Arab nations that are blessed with oil resources are relatively poor and backwards.
If you look at the larger Muslim World, most Muslim nations are economic basket cases. The fact that Turkey, which is itself backwards and underdeveloped, is held up as the paragon of economic strength in the Muslim world shows just how pathetic the state of the Muslim world actually is.
It's hard to see any reason to believe that the Palestinians, with or without a State are likely to thrive economically any more than their Arab brethren or their Muslim co-religionists.
I think the challenge that this reality poses to a successful solution to the Israel-Palestine dispute is underappreciated.
The border between Mexico and the United States is frequently in turmoil; the economic disparities between Israel and Palestine will be far greater.
Even if a Palestinian State is created, Israel will almost certainly continue to flourish economically while the Palestinian economy languishes. Israel has five of the finest universities in the world; the Palestinians have none (neither does the larger Arab world). Israel has a flourishing high tech sector, a highly profitable defense industry and a high value added agricultural sector, the best the Palestinians can rely on is the potential for tourism and low value added agriculture.
Resentment is almost sure to arise as citizens of a new Palestinian State see how backwards they are compared to a flourishing Israel. It's hard to believe that these resentments won't boil over and lead to conflict between Israel and Palestine.
This is just another reason why peace between Israelis and Palestinians is much more remote than Obama believes.
"The only viable economic future for the West Bank is economic cooperation with Israel and Jordan" (Nadine, seconded by Wigwag)
Hmmm, "economic cooperation". I wonder if it is any more than a coincidence that the idea of economic engagement is the latest stall tactic by Netanyahu to avoid addressing the challenges that the Obama administration has laid out, ambitious though they are, and lukewarm though Obama and Clinton have proven to be on pressuring Israel (the reigning power in the area) to engage.
No, I guess Wigwag and Nadine are just reinforcing the current official Israeli line/stall tactic, "economic engagement".
"You are obviously correct that suicide bombers and economic cooperation are incompatible but even without the suicide bombers I am afraid that Palestinian economic prospects are very poor whether or not they get their own nation." (Wigwag)
No, I disagree, because the history of the territories from 1967 to 1994 says otherwise. GDP per capita tripled during this period. The Israelis helped by putting in infrastructure like electricity and running water where there had been none, and by allowing businesses and universities to be founded (Israeli control was more lenient than Jordanian or Egyptian control had been, though I know this thread won't believe it) and above all, in supplying a market.
The Palestinians are better set up than most other Arabs, because their diaspora is well-educated and prosperous. Ironically, their dispersal has made them sort of 'pseudo-Jews' in the Mideast; they too have had to live by their wits. This diaspora supports the homeland, and would move back if there was peace and opportunity.
I remember a Detroit Free Press story of a Palestinian-American women who moved back to the West Bank in 1995 when peace looked likely. She stayed a few years, but on the day her eight year old son came home from school and told her, "Mom, when I grow up I want to become a shahid," she said, "We're outta here" and moved back to Detroit. Wise woman, as it turned out.
If Palestine were set up in a kind of Benelux arrangement with Israel and Jordan there is not a single thing stopping it from being prosperous, so long as it didn't harbor the radicals who would rather blow themselves up than live next to Israel.
But you are right that the resentment question is huge, because Palestine is unlikely to have the wherewithal to catch up to Israel.
The sense of inferiority drives the Arabs nuts with shame. It has crippled the whole Arab world since they first discovered how far behind Europe they had fallen back when Napoleon invaded; Israel makes it more acute because Israel is obviously puny in size and resources and is inhabited by the contemptible Jews. Being bested by the great colonial powers was bad enough, but by the Jews is insupportable.
Unfortunately, the Arabs have reacted by falling in love with one Perfectly Stupid Idea after another. First it was Nazism; then Socialism; then Pan-Arabism; now it's Islamicism. Everybody has to hang on until this too has run its course.
DonS, Netanyahu's idea is nothing new. Israel always had the idea of encouraging the Palestinians to be peaceful by making them prosperous; that's why they invested so heavily in infrastructure for the territories after 1967. Netanyahu's challenge is how to do it while still keeping out the suicide bombers.
Conversely, it's the radicals who want to keep the Palestinian poor. Poor people are more easily radicalized.
At the present moment the meme of "economic cooperation" is a stall tactic by Netayahu to avoid engaging. It is that which is relevant to the current impasse. Netanyahu is attempting to appear reasonable but really stepping down the level of engagement by claiming the prior importance of lesser goals which, as you state, is nothing new.l
A stall tactic is a stall tactic when more serious or at least significant advances are called for. Netanyahu does not get to unilaterally dictate the road to negotiation. His negotiating tactic is transparently shameful.
Well, I see a few of you are beating around the bush again, when what you'd really like to say is;
"Nadine, go screw yourself. Preferably, in Israel".
Allow me to be the messenger.
Has anyone else noticed that Nadine has brought Wig-wag's rabies symptoms to the surface? These two deserve each other. Consumate liars, and champions of human rights abuses, war crimes, and racial/ethnic/religious persecution and prejudice. Pretty scummy, if you ask me.
"No other historical leader has been able to solve all of the Middle East's problems with Israel. And everybody wants Obama to solve it all right now, this minute, or he is being negligent. The world needs to get a grip and stop calling Obama's work a failure while he is still in his first year of the Presidency. This is ridiculous."
Reggie, you would be right if Obama himself hadn't declared that he was "not going to waste a minute" before brokering Mideast Peace when he became President. This was a constant theme during the campaign. He spoke as if he really believed that the difficulties would just fall away once HE was President. Attitudes would change overnight once HE spoke to the Arab world. Wasn't that what the Cairo speech was supposed to achieve? Then he went to Egypt and Saudi Arabia and actually expected assistance. He got lectures and tirades instead.
Overconfidence of this magnitude carries a political price. Obama has over-promised and under-delivered. There is always a price for that.
You don't get the situation at all, DonS. Netanyahu doesn't have to stall. He's calling for talks. He is perfectly safe to do so because he knows that Abu Mazen doesn't want them and couldn't do anything at them if he went. There isn't one single thing Abu Mazen could agree to, no matter how tiny, that wouldn't have Hamas calling him a traitor. Real talks are impossible as long as the Palestinian remain divided.
wigwag - Over the past couple of months I've noticed your attitude towards the I/P conflict has gotten fairly radicalized. Previously you recognized that the West Bank settlements and settlers were a hindrance to a peace agreement but you were still in favor of peace.
Now all I hear from you is get it over -crush the Palestinians -do whatever it takes. Might makes right etc. Get back to me after Iran, Pakistan or whomever drops 5 nuclear bombs over Israel and kills another 6 million of us. I assume your attitude will be realistic and say "oops that's just might makes right". Because without peace that is what awaits Israel.
Yeah, I get it Nadine. Bibi is gaming Obama because he has to put some BS out there to appear like he takes the whole thing seriously. If Obama got his ass in gear and woke up to the fact that if he is to play a significant role he has to kick Israeli ass it wouldn't matter about Fatah/Hamas nearly as much as you think. The deficit is in Washington. You may think that the Palestinians are rolling luxury or misery and don't really want peace, but that would evaporate if the world could see that Obama had a serious bone in his body.
jdledell, as you remember, during the primaries for the past presidential election, Wigwag was a big Clinton fan. She is a person of strong and irascible moods, at least as evinced by her record here.
jdlebell, even Daniel Levy, a left-winger and former Yossi Beilin aide who looooved Obama's Cairo speech (http://takingnote.tcf.org/2009/06/ten-comments-on-obama-in-cairo.html), sees that it isn't working and suggests that old assumptions need to be abandoned. If Levy sees it, can you?
DonS, as Wigwag pointed out, there are limits to American power in Israel, as there are in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the Palestinians were clever, they could stop whining for a while and act like they were serious about negotiating; this would give Obama room to say, "Look, there's a real chance for peace here and Netanyahu is blowing it." That would give Obama room to maneuver in both America and Israel. But the Palestinians can't be that clever. Their internal politics forces them to be radical even where it hurts their own interests, and they don't understand American politics well enough to respond intelligently to openings. Refusing to give Obama anything to work with was just idiotic on their part.
"wigwag - Over the past couple of months I've noticed your attitude towards the I/P conflict has gotten fairly radicalized"
Nadine perfectly personifies Wig-wag unmasked. I think sometimes Wiggie is confused as to which one she is.
Interesting that the last two weeks has shown us, irrefutably, the tremendously corrosive power that AIPAC holds over Washington DC. Coinciding with that irrefutably obvious demonstration of AIPAC's power, "questions" seems to have faded away into the sunset.
As I often pointed out, anyone denying the power of AIPAC and its cohort lobbies is either a fool or a liar. If questions was a fool, he would still be here, arguing that the events of the last couple of weeks have nothing to do with AIPAC's power. So, what does his silence tell us about his past denials?
" . . . there are limits to American power in Israel".
Wishful thinking. How would we know since America hasn't even begun to try to exert power due to its addiction to sucking up to Israel.
Comparing Israel to Iraq or Afghanstan is a false comparison. Israel depends for it's moral currency, or immoral, on the backing of the US. Israel is ISOLATED in the world without the US. Only the US hasn't figured this out.
Thank you Israel Lobby.
Israel Is Not A Tolerant Society, Says US State Department
Saturday November 07, 2009 09:22 by Saed Bannoura - IMEMC & Agencies
US Department of State LogoIsraeli daily, Haaretz, reported that according to a new report by the U.S State Department, Israel fails all requirements of a tolerant pluralistic society.
The report added that Israel does not show enough tolerance towards minorities, falls short in equality for ethnic groups, and is not showing openness towards the streams of its society and the respect towards holy sites and other historic sites, Haaretz reported.
The American report was written by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.
It indicated that Israel is discriminating against Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christians, women, Bedouins, and even against Reform Jews.
The report also states that although Israel has a law in place since 1967 regarding the protection of all holy sites in Jerusalem, it still applies protection regulations to Jewish sites but not to other sites as the state does not officially consider non-Jewish sites as holy places.
Haaretz further reported that all 137 sites officially recognized a holy are Jewish, and thus neglecting several Muslim and Christian holy sites, therefore, the non-Jewish holy sites are subject to exploitation by Israeli authorities and real estate entrepreneurs.
The discrimination even reached more than 300.000 immigrants who are allegedly Jewish but are not recognized as such by the rabbinical law, therefore they cannot get married or divorced in the country, and cannot be buried in its cemeteries.
http://www.imemc.org/index.php?obj_id=53&story;_id=57044
I would of linked to the Haaretz article, but apparently that link isn't operative right now. Suprise, suprise.
But note, basically the study confirms what we already know, (in no small part because of the despicably racist narrative of Israel firsters like this bigot Nadine, who is about as tolerant as David Duke), that Israel has turned itself into some shitty little cesspool of inhumanity, thanks to the increasingly racist and inhumane policies of its leadership.
Check this out...
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/afdr/2009/index.htm
What country is conspicuously missing?
Read it for yourself, and then ask yourself if this bigoted little radicalized religious theocracy could ever qualify as a "democracy"....
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2009/127349.htm
I guess the concept of a "master race" didn't die with Hitler.
And check this shit out.....
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s2737/show
You gotta love how this bill is apparently a ghost, as it seems it doesn't actually have any wording, other than its title, which is;
"A bill to relocate to Jerusalem the United States Embassy in Israel, and for other purposes".
Thats how these scumbags in Washington are doing things, folks. How about that "and for other purposes" bit, eh???
Lets see, those "other purposes" wouldn't be to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, would it, handing a royal fucking to the Palestinians yet one more time???? Knowing these scumwads in DC, they'll vote aye, THEN they'll ask what the "for other purposes" is. And when they are informed they just gave the hose, once again, to the Palestinians, they'll all line up at the cashier's window, hand extended, demanding their AIPAC endorsed "I Love Israel" voucher, that guarantees, for one year, that they won't be publically branded as anti-semitic, honey trapped, or outed at a glory hole.
Sen Brownback needs a bris and, along with several many other Israel firsters, a one way ticket to the big AIPAC convention in the sky, or Tel Aviv, whichever comes first. This relocation of the embassy is a periodic ploy of these despicable fundies.
Actually I believe that the Obama actions in Middle
East is perfect. It has shown the Palestinians that even with a sympathetic American President, the United States cannot be expected to do anything that Israel does not want.
All the so-called peace process ever gave the Palestinians was large scale colonization in their hoped for state.
It took a long time but maybe they have finally figured that out.
Good news! Tonight's Haaretz says that that the Palestinians are going to unilaterally declare a State(with 1967 boarders).
About time.
"Tonight's Haaretz says that that the Palestinians are going to unilaterally declare a State(with 1967 boarders)."
I saw that. IMO, it's a bluff. Fayad knows that the PA cannot fulfill any responsibilities of a state because they never built the institutions. (In fact, Fayad recently declared his intentions to build the institutions of a state. It would be nice if he could, but he doesn't have the power.)
If there's any chance the international community would expect the PA to behave like a state, they would be worse off, not better. Abu Mazen is weak. The PA doesn't control Gaza at all, and IDF is protecting them from Hamas in the West Bank. The declaration would touch off a civil war with Hamas if it so much as implied that the West Bank and Gaza represented all the land that Palestine was claiming.
It would be interesting to see what Netanyahu would do if Fayad went through with it. I would expect recognition of Palestine "in principle" with a declaration of intent to negotiate the border dispute, water rights, trade, etc. But I believe it's a bluff. Arafat threatened to do declare a state once or twice too. Nothing came of it.
Dan Kervick with the fourth paragraph of his first post has just being excommunicated from politics and Middle East strategy.
Nadine seriously should be a Borscht Belt / USO (or rather
IsraelSO) comedian in the Gaza Strip. With lines like this she'd
have the Palestinians rolling on the floor, including the ones the
IDF had just shot.
Nadine: "The PA doesn't control Gaza at all, and IDF is protecting
them from Hamas in the West Bank."
What does that say about the Vichy French, whoops, I meant, the
PA?
Everything.
BTW: Why does Nadine insist on calling Mahmoud Abbas "Abu
Mazen"? Using one of my two words of Arabic, "Abu" means
"father of", so what's with that, Nadine? Who is this Mazen
character and why do you think it denigrates Abbas to be his
father?
Another thing about Israeli Hasbara (propaganda) -- they call
the Palestinians living within Israel "Israeli Arabs" not "Israeli
Palestinians."
Maybe because, as Gold Meir insisted, Israel is a land without
people for a people without a land.
Now I'm the one rolling on the floor laughing.
POA, my silence should tell you I'm busy.
"Dan Kervick . . . has been excommunicated"
NeoKotz has spoken, and his decree resonates with all hate filled bigots. Meanwhile Kervick's words speak truth in the non AIPAC-obsessed universe. "Go massive on these [neocon] clowns."
--NCHQ
In today's New York Times Tom Friedman has some interesting advice for Obama on the Middle East peace process. Friedman says that it's time for the U.S. to walk away. Friedman believes that George Mitchell should give the parties the telephone number for the White House switchboard and invite them to call when they are serious about forging a compromise.
Friedman blames both the Israelis and Palestinians for their intransigence but he neglects to excoriate the party most responsible for moving things so decisively in the wrong direction; Barack Obama.
In a recent essay at the Palestinian Note, Steve Clemons suggested that perhaps the time had arrived for President Obama to pin a medal on George Mitchell and gracefully send him back to a well deserved retirement in Maine.
Once Mitchell was out of the way, Clemons suggested that Obama should pick up the phone in the Oval Office and give Bill Clinton a call to see if Bubba would be willing to rescue the peace talks and with them, Barack Obama's reputation.
Hillary's terrible performance in the Middle East last week suggests to me that perhaps the Clintons have lost their edge. If Hillary could botch things up so badly, why should we think Bill will do a better job? And anyway, why should Bill Clinton do anything to assist the narcissistic incompetent who accused him of racism during last year's presidential campaign?
I think I have a better idea than Steve Clemons. Instead of picking up the phone to call Bill Clinton, President Obama should pick up the phone and call George W. Bush.
After all, during the last year of Dubya's Administration frequent negotiations took place between Israelis and Palestinians despite Israel's expansion of the natural growth of settlements. In addition, Israel and its Arab adversaries worked more closely than ever before (to counter Iran) during the Bush Presidency.
Bush moved things in a positive direction during the last year he was in office; Obama's incompetence (and the incompetence of his deputies) reversed all the progress Bush had made.
Of course, if Obama did call Bush, the President would have to steel himself for alot of "I told you so's." For example, Bush would have to explain to Obama that while his Cairo speech seemed like a good idea at the time, it was really a terrible idea. Bush would also have to explain to Obama that yes, his Administration had made a deal with Israel on settlement expansion, and that Obama would open a Pandora’s Box if he tried to make the settlement issue a prerequisite for the restarting of peace talks. Bush would also have to explain to the naive 44th President of the United States that reaching out to the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular only made them more stubborn.
What I think would make Obama cringe the most is when Bush explained to him that everything he's done to date has marginalized the moderate elements in Israeli and Palestinian societies while empowering the most recalcitrant elements of both societies.
I am sure that Bush would want to explain to the rookie President that when Netanyahu took office he headed a weak and bickering coalition; that his party didn't even place first in the Israeli election (Kadima did) and that everyone was taking bets on how long his coalition government would last. Now, thanks to Obama, Netanyahu is more popular than at any point in his long political career, his coalition is rock solid, he's widely viewed as having defeated Obama at every turn and that it's Obama's popularity in Israel that is in the single digits not Netanyahu's. The result of Obama's incompetence is that he did exactly the opposite of what he wanted to do; he made Netanyahu stronger not weaker.
On the Palestinian front, after the Gaza War, fed up Palestinians blamed Hamas for inviting the carnage and Abbas was gaining in popularity. A successful Fatah convention led many Palestinians to believe that Fatah might be putting its corrupt days behind it and the economy of the West Bank was beginning to stir. George would have to explain to Barack that as a result of his policies, internal dissension inside of Fatah is now as great as ever and while Hamas is still weaker than it was, neither Palestinian political party is strong enough to make a deal. The pies de resistance is that Abbas is now threatening to resign.
Perhaps instead of inviting Bush to be his Middle East envoy, President Obama should just invite George W. Bush to be his mentor.
Who could be better at the job? After all, George Bush's Middle East policy was much more effective than Obama's. If you don't believe it, just ask Steve Walt.
My idea is this. Barack Obama should invite Hillary Clinton, George Mitchell, Dennis Ross, George W. Bush, Condi Rice and Eliot Abrams out to Camp David for a tete a tete.
I am sure the Bush team would be happy to give the Obama team a few pointers on how to right the ship.
It could only help. After all, it’s hard to imagine how Obama and crew could make things any worse.
Egads, this ignorant racist wretch wants to bring Bush back into the mix??? What for? Hillary's and Barack's incompetence can probably kill an equal amount of Muslims as Bush's did, so whats the problem in wiggie's murderous mind?After all, it is obviuously dead muslim bodies that constitute successful policies to these bigots like Wiggie or Nadine, so what the hell does she care who pulls the trigger?
The AIPAC voice from the clouds.......
"Go forth my son, amongst the goyim, and find cause to fucketh over the Muslim heathens"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/08/lieberman-announces-investigation-fort-hood-shooting/
So we fund the repeated attacks on the Gaza Strip, Iraq, Lebanon,
Pakistan, Afghanistan & we're not terrorists?
The hypocrisy. It's making my eyes bleed. Is that one of the signs
that the Messiah is coming?
She better get here soon.
Israel shelling the Gaza Strip today!
Israel's attack last year started on 11/4 so maybe her alarm clock
didn't go off this time.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=238256
And right after Gabi Askenazi announced, as the Goldstone
resolution passed the "US" Congress that Israel would attack the
Gaza Strip again.
L'chaim!
Wigwag, I notice that even Thomas Friedman has officially noticed that the "peace process" is a farce. But he thinks it's acting as Novocaine for the parties. I would call it more of a giant toothache. By all means, stop it. Why did it take Friedman the last fifteen years to notice that only when the two parties want an agreement and are strong enough to make an agreement, does an agreement actually come to pass?
At this moment the Palestinians are weak, divided, and Hamas has veto power over any agreement. Abu Mazen is threatening to resign again (we'll see if he means it this time) and the result of the "successful" Fatah conference was to promote the hard-liner Mohammed Ghaneim as his successor. Since Ghaneim has never accepted Oslo, maybe that would be a good moment to end the farce of peace-processing.
You're quite right about Obama's incompetence. I notice that even the WaPo is coming around to understand it. But only now. If you go back to read what Barry Rubin wrote at the time, you'll see he predicted this result instantly.
Haaretz reports that Fayyad is talking about declaring a Palestinian state. Pure bluff; he is a powerless front man.
The Palestinians will never declare a state because that half of the world who thinks the Palestinians are a nationalist movement would cheer and think the problem was reduced to a border conflict when Israel recognized the new state in principle. So they would loose support in that camp.
OTOH, that half of the world that is out to destroy Israel would scream "traitor! traitor!" at any declaration that implicitly ceded Israel inside the Green Line to the Israelis. So they would stop supporting the Palestinians too.
So it ain't gonna happen.
Nadine, I'm not sure you're being entirely fair to Friedman. I'm not a big Friedman fan but I do think his column is occasionally worth a look.
This is not the first time he's said that the U.S. can't want a settlement more than the parties do; he's repeated this mantra for several years. When it comes to the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular he's also made the point that what they say in English is rarely informative; it's what they say in Arabic that counts.
Interviews Arab leaders give to the New York Times or Washington Post don't matter much; what Arab leaders say to their own people is much more consequential. Or at least this is what Friedman thinks.
Apropos to this post by Levy, I think Friedman is far more astute than Levy is. Levy is still harping on the tired old mantra that a solution to the Israel-Palestine dispute is indubitably in the national interest of the United States.
Friedman disagrees. In fact he disagrees so vehemently that he actually recommends that the United States walk away from the negotiating process until such time (if ever) that the parties neg the United States to return as an interlocutor.
If the United States were to follow Friedman's recommendation, do you know what the consequences for the United States would be?
Contrary to Levy and Clemons, the consequences would be nonexistent.
The idea that American national interests suffer in a discernable way as a result of the failure of Israelis and Palestinians to work out their problems is just a canard.
"BTW: Why does Nadine insist on calling Mahmoud Abbas "Abu Mazen"? Using one of my two words of Arabic, "Abu" means "father of", so what's with that, Nadine? Who is this Mazen character and why do you think it denigrates Abbas to be his father?"
OA, "Abu Mazen" is Mahmoud Abbas' chosen nom de guerre for the last 40 years and more. It's what he's usually called in PLO and Fatah circles as well as by the Israelis. Only the diplomats went back to using his given name for the "peace process." You really didn't know this?
Wigwag, I agree that Thomas Friedman is more astute than Daniel Levy, but honestly, that is a very low bar to surmount.
You know and I know that this "linkage" theory (that Israel is the main, or even sole cause of US problems in the Middle East) is pile of horse manure. But Obama is surrounded with guys telling him it's true, and he doesn't know enough to know better. I think some of them believe it, but most just want to dump Israel for a pro-Arab alliance, as if that would buy us much.
Wasn't Friedman cheer-leading for Obama's stupid ideas earlier this year? But then, Friedman, who used to be a very good reporter, has long since become an Establishment hack. He'll cheer whichever way his bread is buttered. I take today's column as a good sign that the Obama administration has decided that pursuing Mideast peace is a loser for them and they're going to leave it alone.
Wigwag, you might find this interesting. Barry Rubin summarizes how Western NGOs, academia, and leftists have conspired to completely undermine the efforts of reformers in the Arab world:
The Sad Fate of Arab Moderates and The Arab World’s Tragic Success in Not Needing Them Any More
By Barry Rubin
You have to feel sorry for those courageous enough to be Arab moderates. Most of your countrymen hate you, the government wants to crush you, the Islamists want to kill you, and the West doesn’t want to help you. I told this story in my book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East. (more information; order)
Despite all the endless talk of finding moderates in the Arab world, the real ones—few and far between—generally get ignored while preening, posturing extremists are treated as romantic figures.
...
The Arabs have learned to speak the language of the modern international community and they are doing better at it than Israel.
Old style [which most Islamists still use, though even them not all the time]: The Jews are inferior. We will kill them all. We will never accept peace. We will wipe out Israel.
New style: The Israelis say that we are inferior. They want to kill us all. They don't want peace. They violate our human rights. We are the victims. They want to wipe us out.
And by this brilliant inversion everything has changed. Leftist movements, humanitarian-oriented groups, huge sections of academia, large parts of the media, and various European governments bash Israel and extol the poor victims of the war criminal, racist, war-mongering, intransigent Israelis.
Of course, in fact, the positions of the Arab states and the Palestinian movement haven't changed even in the tiniest iota. For example, in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the "one-state" solution argument was something that isolated the Arabs and increased Western support for Israel. Then it was presented as: Throw Israel into the sea. Jewish-Zionist nationalism cannot be allowed to live. Palestine is Arab, Arab, Arab alone!
Today, exactly the same "one-state" concept is spun with the colored lights and tinkling bells of multiculturalism and political correctness into seeming like a utopia where nationalism is passé and everyone will just be nice to each other and get along just fine.
...
Israel just gets slandered but is a free and democratic country whose people are able to move forward in developing its culture, raising living standards, and enjoying freedom. The Arabs are the ones who have to live with the consequences of their own disastrous "success" in gaining international sympathy by changing nothing.
What a remarkable but horrible irony. The "progressive" and "humanitarian" forces of the West have helped make real democratic and social reform unnecessary for the Arabic-speaking world and delivered it into decades more of violence, dictatorship, repression, stagnation, and failure.
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
Wigwag and Nadine - As a dual American/Israeli citizen I find your arrogance utterly amazing. You speak of Israel's 60 year reign as if it was permanent. How Israel needs no one else and if there is no peace agreement, it's no big deal.
How about a little humility. While Jews are very successful individually we have never done well collectively for long. There is no question that Israel is the supreme power in the mideast currently but that is not guaranteed forever. Right now we are losing friends right and left and without a peace agreement and continued subjugation of the Palestinians we will lose those friends who remain. When we get in trouble, as every country does eventually, who will come to our aid? Europe - not a chance. The USA - not if we continue our current trajectory of obstinance.
We have been tossed out of Israel numerous times in the past - are you so sure it could not happen again? Our military is currently dominant but as other countries have found out, that does not always last -ask England, Japan, Germany,Turkey, Russia and many others. If we ONLY have our military to protect us, that will not shield us from the rise of WMD of all sorts. How about we try to make more friends in addition to our military prowess!!!!!
Thanks for your comments jdledell. I have been thinking, in relation to the ugly arrogance that Wigwag/Nadine manifest, that I might just say, oh well, the hell with it. Let them have their moment in the sun and eventually they and the related arrogance within Israel, will reap the whirlwind. But you express it so much more powerfully. As one in the Jewish tradition, thank you so much.
Oh, no doubt about it, Nadine and Wig-wag are the anti-semitic's wet dream. There can be no faster way to nourish anti-semitism than by unleashing a bunch of wiggies and nadines into the debate. Wig-wag's "moderate" stance has all but disappeared since this bigoted extremist Nadine slithered onto the scene. It suprised me. I thought Wig-wag had the brains to tell the likes of Nadine to shut the fuck up and stop exposing the truth about the despicably bigoted and murderous far right zionist movement.
"Let them have their moment in the sun..." (DonS)
Moment in the sun? You think writing comments at the Washington Note is like having a moment in the sun?
You need to get out more, DonS.
Reading Steve's posts (and the posts of his guest posters) is always fun; writing comments of my own in response is frequently fun; reading the other comments that appear here is occasionally fun.
But I'd hardly call any of it a moment in the sun!
"If the United States were to follow Friedman's recommendation, do you know what the consequences for the United States would be?"
"Contrary to Levy and Clemons, the consequences would be nonexistent."
I think there is probably a lot of truth to that. If the US really did disengage from Israel in the way Friedman seems to be suggesting, the consequences for US interests would probably be small.
It also bears noticing that just as Israeli and Jewish-American liberals and peace campers are always trying to convince us that it is vital to American interests that we help solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is a parallel tendency among Israeli and Jewish-American war campers to try to convince us that it is vital to American interests that we help defeat Israel's various enemies in the region. Both are guilty of serious exaggeration. We do have an interest in making sure no regional conflicts have a pronounced effect on the Persian Gulf and the shipping lanes in and out of it. But beyond that, the less the United States is seen as being involved in and taking sides on regional conflicts, the better it will probably be for us.
I do wish we could get some agreement from Jewish-American supporters of Israel that Israel no longer needs US aid. I'm surprised that we have not already seen some sort of "Israeli Dignity Act" promoted by Israel's US friends. Aid is for poor and struggling countries; not for rich and thriving ones. These handouts to Israel are embarrassing to the world's Jews. Israel's Jewish citizens are no longer the European WWII refugees who had lost so much, and once seemed so much in need of assistance.
"How about a little humility. While Jews are very successful individually we have never done well collectively for long"
Collectively, we've hung in there for over three thousand years and seen many empires rise and fall. That qualifies as "for long" in my book.
It's certainly true that nothing guarantees the permanence of Israel. But efforts to mollify its enemies by giving it away piece by piece are more likely to hasten its end than standing firm in self-defense.
Nothing is more important than sizing up whether you have a diplomatic opening or not. If you do, then it is time to take risks for peace. But if you don't, don't play the fool by trying to appease those you want you dead. They will pocket your concessions and demand ten times more. The Jews of Europe learned the lesson the hard way.
What do your Israeli friends and relatives think of your positions? or are they all out-of-office Meretz office-seekers?
"there is a parallel tendency among Israeli and Jewish-American war campers to try to convince us that it is vital to American interests that we help defeat Israel's various enemies in the region."
Dan, they are not trying to help defeat Israel's enemies per se. They are trying to help defeat America's enemies in the region, who, they believe, are in a war with both America and Israel. They have heard 30 years of Iran's "Death to America! Death to Israel" and they take them at their word. Ditto for Al Qaeda.
Sometimes it helps if you stop and consider the possibility that even your political opponents might be sincere in their opinions.
Two sides of the multifacted Jewish experience. I choose life over the moral and ethical death Nadine reeks of.
"It also bears noticing that just as Israeli and Jewish-American liberals and peace campers are always trying to convince us that it is vital to American interests that we help solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is a parallel tendency among Israeli and Jewish-American war campers to try to convince us that it is vital to American interests that we help defeat Israel's various enemies in the region. Both are guilty of serious exaggeration. We do have an interest in making sure no regional conflicts have a pronounced effect on the Persian Gulf and the shipping lanes in and out of it." (Dan Kervick)
Dan, you are incorrect to ascribe to Israeli or Jewish American liberals the primary responsibility for advocating American involvement in resolving the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Steve Clemons is neither Israeli nor Jewish and he is not a strong partisan of Israel. Nevertheless he is a fierce and eloquent advocate for American involvement in solving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
With that caveat, I agree with your statement almost entirely. Few American interests are at stake whether we pursue peace between Israelis and Palestinians or we help defeat Israel's adversaries. From the point of view of American interests, Israel became much less important once the Cold War ended.
The United States does not support Israel so vociferously because it is in American interests to do so. The United States supports Israel to the extent that it does because tens of millions of Americans want their government to support Israel. These Americans vote and they make political contributions; they exercise their right to speak and write freely and to petition their Government.
The United States supports Israel not because Israel is a democracy but because the United States is a democracy. Many millions of voters want the United States to support Israel and the rest don't care one way or the other. The percentage of Americans who care if the Palestinians get a fair break is infinitesimal.
As for the foreign aide that the United States provides to Israel it is in America’s interest to provide this aid just about as much as it is in American interests to subsidize the wealthy Europeans through our expenditures for NATO. Aid to Israel is in American interests just about as much as the contributions that the United States makes to the United Nations, the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund.
The truth of the matter is that “interests” have very little to do with it one way or the other.
It’s about democracy. American democracy.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much, or in this case, hyper-rationalizes too much.
Wig wag, face it, all your rationalizing in the contorted effort to explain Israeli excess and American exeptionalism as current reality more simply and logically belongs to an outdated concept of might as right. Maybe you should get out more.
WigWag, NATO is not a charity case. It is a collective security organization, and its different members make different contributions to it as befits their relative sizes and levels of prosperity. We can debate whether NATO is still useful, and in what ways, but paying for defense in the form of collective security is not the same thing as giving aid.
Israel isn't really helping to defend us against anything. I remember during the first Gulf War when we had to implore Israel *not* to get involved in the war following Saddam's SCUD attacks on Israel. Being on the same side as Israel in the Middle East was and is is a net liability. And Israel's enemies are really in a position to do much to us Americans anyway.
Our annual contribution to the UN is only a fragment of our annual assistance to Israel. This modest expenditure helps pay for a variety of assistance, development and governance programs. Aside from the fact that these programs help earn us ill will and support global policing and order, there is also the sheer good involved in helping people who can't help themselves.
Israel, on the other hand, can certainly help itself and doesn't need our charity. It's economy is strong and it can both take care of its own people and pay for its own defense. Israelis should be embarrassed to ask for the money. We should spend that money somewhere else, where it will do more good, and is more urgently needed.
Amateurishness is what you get, and what you should expect, when you fill the office of the Secretary of State with a political appointment.
Dan, America gets a lot of help from Israel with military technology and intelligence. The whole US UAV program was jump started by the Israelis first developing it successfully. They tested it and proved the usefulness of it. Only then were the US developers able to override the flyboys who didn't want it. That's just an example.
"Our annual contribution to the UN is only a fragment of our annual assistance to Israel."
Between the regular UN budget and the UN peacekeeping budget, it's well over $1.2 B annually, according to wikipedia. Not such a small fragment.
"And Israel's enemies are really in a position to do much to us Americans anyway."
I take it you mean they're not in position. If Iran goes into civil war, or decides to attack Israel, what happens to the Straights of Hormuz? What does KSA do if Iran tries to enlist the Shia in Eastern SA as proxies the same way they have enlisted the Howtha in Yemen? What happens when Iran has nukes to back their threats? This is not a stable regime. This is not a stay-at-home regime. This is a regime that is backing at least five foreign insurgencies right now. This regime is an enemy of the US.
You keep saying that they are enemies only of Israel, and that Americans who want to confront Iran are doing it only for Israel's sake. That is simply not true.
Wigwag, did you notice that after being insulted for weeks for being paranoid and full of baseless fears, today I am being insulted for being smug and arrogant?
I wish they'd make up their minds. My arguments are quite consistent. You'd think the TWN commentators could settle on one set of insults.
Dan Kervick, you are the only leftist on these threads who tries to make an argument. I think your assumptions are false, but I appreciate that you're making an argument, not just hurling invective.
Nadine attempts to divide and conquer.
"She" has morphed from a necon bomb thrower as she has been schooled by the Wigwags in more subtle technique; her hasbarist progam remains in place, like Dr. Strangelove, ready to explode at a moments notice.
Newer readers may be confused by the insults leveled at Nadine, thinking they do not track content. A review of archived comments is suggested to get a feel for her vileness.
--NCHQ
Nadine, doesn't Israel sell us that technology? They invest and then they sell what they made. They are one of the leading, high-tech weapons producers in the world. Why do they need aid for that? It's like corporate welfare. Israel is no inner-city economic development zone. We buy weapons systems from Europeans too, and don't give them handouts for it. And we shouldn't be giving Israel freebies on the weapons they get from us. They can afford to pay us for them.
Israel shares intelligence with us, because they find it in their interest to do so; and we share a lot with them as well. We don't need to pay them for the intelligence. Why do we treat them like a charity case? Let's stop treating Israel like the Home for Jewish Orphans.
Whatever regional risks might be posed by Iran, Israel doesn't help much in preventing them. Their daily back and forth provocations with the Islamic Republic are a destabilization factor we have to deal with.
And Israel is not exactly comfortingly stable either. Look at the Rabin assassination, and then what happened during the Gaza evacuation. And look at the internal IDF propagandizing and extremism that led to some of the events in Gaza that the smokescreen brigade has decided to blame of Goldstone. Israel seems increasingly to be the home of ultra-religious and ultra-nationalist extremists, impatient with the civilian government and political compromise. A military takeover does not seem out of the question. And if that happens, we'll have a bunch of aggressive Jewish fundamentalist yahoos in charge of the Jewish Bomb.
Iran actually has been a stay-at-home state since its war with Iran. They have proxy relationship in Israel's immediate neighborhood to help deter a nuclear-armed enemy. Other than that, I don't see any Iranian troops around the region. On the other hand, Israel has been engaged in expansionism for years.
Nadine - My 35 Israeli relatives are all settlers and the most leftist amoung them votes Likud. I am the "black sheep" of the family. Nonetheless, I am the curator of our family's history which includes letters and written memorabilia from the 1620's on.
This history from Croatia, to Austria to eventually France painfully reminds me of the accomodations and compromises Jews had to make to survive and prosper in the past. I lost numerous relatives during this time, not just during Nazi times. Typically, Jews formed tight knit groups in various cities as a way of maintaining cultural and religious integrity but also as a bulwark against majority animosity, real or imagined.
One of the conclusions I have drawn from this history of family members is those who formed friendhips and important relationships with the majority in the community survived and were sheltered from pogroms and other negative events. Those who, from pride or foolishness, stood their ground and flaunted their differences, perished.
I am not advocating that Jews hide in a corner and quiver in fear. However, Jews have always wanted to be left alone and allowed to do our thing. I understand that desire but we have to understand that we are a few million in a sea of billions.
We must understand that we are a part of the sea of humanity and that, as humans, we are not different, unique or special in G-d's eye. We merely have our own unique way of expressing our understanding of G-d. I was raised Orthodox but have gravitated to the Conservative wing. I have constant arguments with my settler relatives who feel the ONLY way to be a true Jew is to be among our own kind without being surrounded by "influences" of "other kinds of people".
The Jews of Tel Aviv and the Jews of Kiryat Arba might as well be on two different planets. Kiryat Arba reminds me of my relatives in Varazdin in 1703 who wanted their part of town off limits to other residents on Shabatt and their obstinance eventually led to their bloodbath. Many of the details have been lost to the fog of history but it is apparent to me from the writings that still remain, the Jewish elders refused to compromise on G-d's instructions.
I apologize for the length of this rant but Nadine's and Wigwag's arrogance reminds me so much of my settler relatives. The attitude of "we are king of the hill" and F/U world, we don't need anyone or anything. I've seen this movie before and it always has ended badly.
My grandfather was Irgun who left Israel months before Independence after a falling out with Begin over his brutal tactics. Yet my Grandfather, as do I, always believed in the righteousness and necessity of a Jewish homeland in Israel. Now that we have it, we will NOT keep it if we continue to poke everyone in the world in their eyes. The only way we are going to keep our homeland forever is to make it the economic hub of the mideast where we foster MUTUAL inter-dependence with all of our neighbors. That would make Israel's demise a disaster for everyone in the region.
If you think Israel's military superiority will remain unchallenged 100 years from now you are betting our future on something far less than a sure thing. I want a Jewish Israel to be there for my great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren.
Far from excommunicating Dan Kervick, I am going to put the last line of his first post into my Hall of Fame.
"Those [Jews] who, from pride or foolishness, stood their ground and flaunted their differences, perished."
"We must understand that we are a part of the sea of humanity and that, as humans, we are not different, unique or special in G-d's eye"
Once again, jdledell, you distill the essence of approaches within the Jewish sphere. I emphasize 'within' because this is where much of the tension originates.
Of course, either of your above quotes would be scoffed at by the proponents of "poke them in the eye" -- egged on by their neocon and Christianist users.
None the less, it is hard to argue with the emerging trend that Israel continues to 'go it alone', counting on the reserve of American power, or actually, counting on the failure of America to develop a sensible policy towards Israel.
It is the historical grounding of your evidence, from within the Jewish community, that is so powerful. Jews are forever pointing to history to support this or that, but rarely with the authoritative historical reference you give in support of ideas that the "poke them in the eye" crowd finds anathema. That is, the positive survival factor of simply not "flaunting their differences" (Had a non-Jew used those words would not 'anti-Semite' be launched his/her way or, as with you or I, the easy calumny of "self-hating Jew"). And yet this represents the truth, and fleshes out the oft called traitorous charges of "victim syndrome" when used carelessly or without the authority of genuine historical knowledge.
My own closest relatives in the US have chosen assimilation to greater or lesser degrees. And like many of Jewish background they are traumatized and ashamed by the militancy and destruction Israel has rained in their name. Few speak about it openly, or become politically active against the trend, for a variety reasons to complex for this post, though I could write for hours about the background of my own, now deceased, Austrian-born mother's psychology.
Again, thanks for your post Too bad it's message and sanity does not seem to infuse the Jewish hierarchy and spokespersons, who could in turn provide, in the US, more of a force for change in US policy. Instead we are stuck with the ravings of the Christian right and the droolings of the truly despicable Joe Liberman, and of course the dangerous folks of AIPAC.
The jdledell solution to the problems the Jews have had over the centuries; "be weak, be meek, blend in."
Your approach has been tried throughout Jewish history jdledell; the result is always the same; exile and annihilation.
I suppose the reason the German Jews were butchered is because they didn't assimilate enough; if only those German Jews were even more assimilated, if only they didn't stand out so much the Shoah never would have happened.
No wonder you’re the black sheep of your family. Your settler relatives may be ideological nutcases but you are little better.
There's no surprise that some Jews are still attracted to the approach that you recommend; after all what you suggest is the default position that Jews have followed for centuries.
Go crawl back into your ghetto and pray for deliverance.
Your day of celebrating victimhood is over.
wigwag - Cut the bullshit. I never recommended Jews be meek - but I did recommend that they intergrate into the greater society. I am not a Christian advocating "turning the other cheek". I resent immensely your deliberate misinterpretation of my words. Do you understand the difference between being meek and defenseless and integrating in to the wider world? Did you ever hear a word from me that Israel should disband the IDF? Hell no!!!! I find it hard to believe that anyone who lost Jewish loved ones in the past would ever argue for sheep like behavior. So here is a BIG F/U for twisting my words and dishonoring me and my heritage.
Sorry jdledell, tell the Jews who perished in Germany that their problem was that they didn't "integrate into the greater society."
The meaning of your words are plain.
You may be right about the rest of your family; they are obviously right about you.
As for dishonoring your heritage, it's your words that do that, not me.
Maintaining the neocon edge requires deliberately marginalizing all others. It certainly is a threat to the arrogant ones to slander anyone with another approach. As if that arrogant attitude has brought one minute's peace of mind to Israelis.
No wonder Wigwag's sudden rising of the spleen; Jews that do not conform to the radicals are the biggest threat of all, including to the eventual evolution of US policy. I have received the ugliest words and threats on the net from just such arrogant radical Jews as Wigwag. I, too, am tired of having the blood of my ancestors hijacked by warmongers.
Wigwag, all your ugly rhetoric does not enhance the truth of your position. jdledell is absolutely right to call you out for the arrogant know-it-all attitude you display in presuming to speak for the Jewish people.
Wigwag - I don't think either you or Nadine understand that extremes of Jewish behavior are dangerous. Yes, being meek and defenseless is a recipe for disaster. But it is also dangerous to deliberately taunt others out of some misguided feeling of superiority or revenge.
Yes, 6 million European jews were slaughtered no matter what they did along with 25 million non jews at tthe hands of the nazis. The Shoah is not the ONLY history Jews should learn from. I have always supported the strongest IDF we can muster. However, it's also important what we do in addtion to the using the IDF and it is the latter which is woefully inadequate.
"I have always supported the strongest IDF we can muster."
Well good for you jdledell.
John Waring
Some of us were aware from the beginning even before Obama was elected president that he was a coward and said so AB OVO. Many liberals, including Kervick, were from long ago sleeping with the American beauty, Obama, that he would make a great president, only to wake up in astonishment long after that they were sleeping with a skeleton with cowardly ‘bones’ who would bring obloquy to the White House.
You may well put ‘posthumously’ Kervick’s last line of his first post in the “Hall of Fame.’ But where would you put the fourth paragraph of his first post other than in the ‘Hell of Fame’?
"Nadine, doesn't Israel sell us that technology?"
What you sell to a neutral party is obviously different from what you share with an ally, Dan. It's rather silly to suggest there's no difference. But when you compare the Israeli aid to corporate welfare you have a good point; like corporate welfare, it's not going to stop soon and for the same reason. Congress will fight hard to keep it.
"Whatever regional risks might be posed by Iran, Israel doesn't help much in preventing them."
I doubt this very much. We know the CIA is unable to get any reliable humint from Iran; I doubt very much the Mossad has the same problem. Israel has a large community of Farsi-speaking Jews of Iranian origin to recruit from.
And Israel is not exactly comfortingly stable either. Look at the Rabin assassination, and then what happened during the Gaza evacuation.
Fine look at them - what happened? Rabin was succeeded by Peres. (That's the problem with killing a democratic leader; you just get another one.) The Gaza evacuation didn't spark riots inside Israel.
"And look at the internal IDF propagandizing and extremism that led to some of the events in Gaza that the smokescreen brigade has decided to blame of Goldstone."
Go read the The Goldstone Illusion in TNR, Dan. It was written by a left-winger, not a Likudnik. Goldstone is a travesty. His method was to treat Hamas as a legitimate goernment, take the testimony of their cherry-picked witnesses, and accept their explanations of how they didn't know any of the Palestinian fighters. So presto, fighters air-brushed out of the picture, he concludes that he has no evidence that Hamas used human shields, despite their officials boasting of it.
"Iran actually has been a stay-at-home state since its war with Iran."
Bullshit, Dan. Hizbullah. Lebanon. Syria. The Mahdi Army in Iraq. The insurgents in Afghanistan. The Howtha rebels in Saudi Arabia. Hamas. Hizbullah attacks in Egypt. NONE of these places are in Iran or threatening to invade Iran. You don't have to ask Israel if Iran is a stay-at-home nation; ask Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Egypt.
"Israel has been engaged in expansionism for years." More bullshit. Israel has been trying to get a peace treaty for years. You speak as if the offers never happened.
"One of the conclusions I have drawn from this history of family members is those who formed friendhips and important relationships with the majority in the community survived and were sheltered from pogroms and other negative events. Those who, from pride or foolishness, stood their ground and flaunted their differences, perished."
jdledell,
So, how did that work out for them in 1940?
You have to understand who you are dealing with and what their mindset is.
I think you are overreacting to your relatives in Kiryat Arba. But they have one essential point absolutely right: the "poke in the eye" that the Arabs are reacting to is the existence of Israel. It's not settlements in the West Bank. If it were settlements in the West Bank, then relations with the Arabs should have been good before 1967. Well, were they? What was the reason for conflict then? If it were settlements in the West Bank, then offering 95% of the West Bank should have led to a final deal. Did it?
If you're going to remember history, remember it.
OA,
I am asking you this honestly, very very honestly.
Why are dark-skinned people hated?
Why are women hated?
Why are gays and lesbians hated?
Why are Christians sometimes hated and sometimes not? And why do some Christians hate other Christians?
Why are smart people hated?
Why are old people hated?
Why are homeless people hated?
Why don't you think about the structures of hatred? Maybe you'll find a real pattern instead of the one you think you have found. After all, hatreds are very very old, and there are many of them. And a lot of hatreds (misogyny, eg) have been around for eons.
"All of you, and I'm asking this very honestly, why ARE Jews hated?"
The success of the Jews is deeply resented by those who feel that they cannot compete with them.
Naturally, this is not the reason the Jew-haters say out loud!
BTW, Mark Twain has an interesting essay where he considers the origins of Jew-hatred and comes to the same conclusion.
Better watch out, Nadine, according to jdledell, "Jews who flaunt their differences perish."
Sounds to me like you're making the potentially dangerous mistake of "flaunting" your positions that are out of step with so many of the commentators around here.
Aren't you afraid, Nadine?
According to jdledell it's better to go along to get along.
I'm just mentioning it because I'm worried about you.
jdledell, I need a favor. Nadine hasn't fully internalized your exellent advice yet. Can you give us another post on how millions of Jews killed in the holocaust would be alive today if only they had worked harder to blend in?
And when you finish that, maybe you can regale us with your theories about how the conversos who actually converted to Christianity at the order of the Spanish King are really to blame for the Inquisition because they weren't genuine enough in their conversions. Don't tell anyone jdledell, but I actually heard that some of the conversos refused to eat pork even after they became Christian. Can you believe the nerve of them? If only they had listened to you and done a better job of blending in, that whole 1492 expulsion thing might never have happened.
You know jdledell; you and those relatives of yours really do deserve each other.
Tante Wig wag, it's not nice to take things out or context, twist them, and mock their intent. Next lifetime when you have a gentle demeanor, it's going to be too late. And don't fret about Nadine; she cant even spell compassion. LOL.
Dedicated to jdledell (with apologies to Alan Jay Lerner)
C'est moi! C'est moi, I blush to disclose.
You're far too noble to lie.
That man in whom
These qualities bloom,
C'est moi, c'est moi, 'tis you.
You've never strayed
From all you believe;
You're blessed with an iron will.
Had you been made
The partner of Eve,
We'd be in Eden still.
Oh my, Oh my The angels have chose
To fight their battles below,
And here you stand, as pure as a pray'r,
Incredibly clean, with virtue to spare,
The godliest man I know!
kotzabasis,
If I had my five seconds of fame in the White House, I would ask the President and his foreign policy team what in the world they were thinking of when they sent the Secretary of Sate to bow and scrap before Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Either you think the interests of the United States will be served by peace or you do not. I think the three biggest reasons young Muslims of military age are attracted to the jihadi cause are the following:
1. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
2. The Israeli blockade of Gaza by air, land, and sea.
3. The presence of American armies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If we bring peace to Israel/Palestine, we eliminate two out the three jihadi recruiting tools.
I, for one, think this is a good idea. I was of the opinion that the President thought it was a good idea too. But somewhere between the beginning of his administration and last Saturday, somebody's brain turned to mush. You cannot be an even-handed negotiator and say no to expanded settlements one day and say yes the following day, no matter how qualified that yes may be. Talking out of both sides of your mouth tends mightily to leave one of the two sides in the lurch, all this occurring before we get to any of the serious lifting.
I think Mr. Daniel Levy was exceedingly polite when his characterized Secretary Clinton's visit to Israel as amateur hour. Dan Kervick was less polite. But I think both are correct.
My request to the President of the United Sates in my five seconds of fame would be, "Say what you mean, mean what you say, and follow through. Last Saturday was nothing short of pathetic. Lord have mercy, get your act together."
OPINION: A line in the sand
—Uri Avnery
Mahmoud Abbas is fed up. The day before yesterday he withdrew his candidacy for the coming presidential election in the Palestinian Authority.
I understand him.
He feels betrayed. And the traitor is Barack Obama.
A year ago, when Obama was elected, he aroused high hopes in the Muslim world, among the Palestinian people as well as in the Israeli peace camp.
At long last an American president who understood that he had to put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not only for the sake of the two peoples, but mainly for the US national interests. This conflict is largely responsible for the tidal waves of anti-American hatred that sweep the Muslim masses from ocean to ocean.
Everybody believed that a new era had begun. Instead of the Clash of Civilisations, the Axis of Evil and all the other idiotic but fateful slogans of the Bush era, a new approach of understanding and reconciliation, mutual respect and practical solutions.
Nobody expected Obama to exchange the unconditional pro-Israeli line for a one-sided pro-Palestinian attitude. But everybody thought that the US would henceforth adopt a more even-handed approach and push the two sides towards the Two-State Solution. And, no less important, that the continuous stream of hypocritical and sanctimonious blabbering would be displaced by a determined, vigorous, non-provocative but purposeful policy.
As high as the hopes were then, so deep is the disappointment now. Nothing of all these has come about. Worse: the Obama administration has shown by its actions and omissions that it is not really different from the administration of George W. Bush.
FROM THE first moment it was clear that the decisive test would come in the battle of the settlements.
It may seem that this is a marginal matter. If peace is to be achieved within two years, as Obama’s people assure us, why worry about another few houses in the settlements that will be dismantled anyway? So there will be a few thousand settlers more to resettle. Big deal.
But the freezing of the settlements has an importance far beyond its practical effect. To return to the metaphor of the Palestinian lawyer: “We are negotiating the division of a pizza, and in the meantime, Israel is eating the pizza.”
The American insistence on freezing the settlements in the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem was the flag of Obama’s new policy. As in a Western movie, Obama drew a line in the sand and declared: up to here and no further! A real cowboy cannot withdraw from such a line without being seen as yellow.
That is precisely what has now happened. Obama has erased the line he himself drew in the sand. He has given up the clear demand for a total freeze. Binyamin Netanyahu and his people announced proudly — and loudly — that a compromise had been reached, not, God forbid, with the Palestinians (who are they?) but with the Americans. They have allowed Netanyahu to build here and build there, for the sake of “Normal Life”, “Natural Increase”, “Completing Unfinished Projects” and other transparent pretexts of this kind. There will not be, of course, any restrictions in Jerusalem, the Undivided Eternal Capital of Israel. In short, the settlement activity will continue in full swing.
To add insult to injury, Hillary Clinton troubled herself to come to Jerusalem in person in order to shower Netanyahu with unctuous flattery. There is no precedent to the sacrifices he is making for peace, she fawned.
That was too much even for Abbas, whose patience and self-restraint are legendary. He has drawn the consequences.
“To understand all is to forgive all,” the French say. But in this case, some things are hard to forgive.
Certainly, one can understand Obama. He is engaged in a fight for his political life on the social front, the battle for health insurance. Unemployment continues to rise. The news from Iraq is bad, Afghanistan is quickly turning into a second Vietnam. Even before the award ceremony, the Nobel Peace Prize looks like a joke.
Perhaps he feels that the time is not ripe for provoking the almighty pro-Israel lobby. He is a politician, and politics is the art of the possible. It would be possible to forgive him for this, if he admitted frankly that he is unable to realize his good intentions in this area for the time being.
But it is impossible to forgive what is actually happening. Not the scandalous American treatment of the Goldstone report. Not the loathsome behaviour of Hillary in Jerusalem. Not the mendacious talk about the “restraint” of the settlement activities. The more so as all this goes on with total disregard of the Palestinians, as if they were merely extras in a musical.
Not only has Obama given up his claim to a complete change in US policy, but he is actually continuing the policy of Bush. And since Obama pretends to be the opposite of Bush, this is double treachery.
continues....
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C11%5C10%5Cstory_10-11-2009_pg3_5
'Not for a single moment' has Israel ceased illegal settlement activities, Fourth Committee told, opening discussion of Israeli practices in occupied territories
Source: United Nations General Assembly
Date: 09 Nov 2009
GA/SPD/443
Sixty-fourth General Assembly
Fourth Committee
23rd Meeting (AM)
'Terrifying Logic' of Israeli Expansionism Dramatically Affecting Territorial Contiguity, Social Fabric of Palestinian People, Obstructing Chances for Peace
The past year had witnessed a deterioration of the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as Israel intensified its military aggression, serious human rights violations and grave breaches of international humanitarian law, instead of pursuing peace, the observer for Palestine said today as the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) began its annual discussion of Israeli practices affecting the human rights of Arabs in the occupied territories.
Opening the Fourth Committee's general debate on the subject, she said that "not for a single moment" had Israel ceased its illegal settlement activities and its many related illegal practices aimed at advancing its attempts to de facto annex even more Palestinian land with the creation of facts on the ground altering the demographic composition, character, geographic nature and status of the Occupied Territory. That unlawful, two-pronged Israeli policy -– centred on the subjugation and oppression of the Palestinian people in conjunction with the colonization of the Palestinian land -– had intensified in the past year.
Stressing that "colonization and the peace process could not coexist", she said that the continuation of that illegitimate situation threatened prospects for peace and stability. With the Fact Finding Mission's report and the international reaction to it, momentum was rising to end the cycle of impunity and truly pursue accountability for the perpetration of war crimes and justice for the victims, and for the international community to shoulder the individual and collective legal obligations and responsibilities in that regard. The Palestinian side, for its part, had pledged to do so.
Expressing regret that the Special Committee –- established by the General Assembly in 1968 to investigate Israeli practices affecting Palestinian human rights in the occupied territories -– had again been unable to enter the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the Occupied Syrian Golan due to Israel's "obstruction and refusal to cooperate with yet another United Nations mission", she said that despite that, Palestine was aware that, for its report, the Special Committee had been able to carry out a mission to the region, reviewing, among other things, Palestinian, Syrian and Israeli witness testimonies on the basis of human rights standards.
Drawing particular attention to the "drastic humanitarian impacts" on the populations living in the Gaza Strip, the Chairman of the Special Committee, Palitha Kohona (Sri Lanka) -– who introduced the report -– noted the finding that the deteriorating socio-economic and humanitarian situation in that area, as well as in other Palestinian and Arab territories under occupation, seriously affected the prospects for peace in the Palestinian territories and in the Middle East. "Repression only constrained the right of the Palestinian peoples, as they strove for self-determination and the realization of the two-State solution," he said.
This year's report reiterated many concerns already expressed in previous reports, he said, adding that despite the ceasefires declared by the parties to the conflict, the situation in Gaza remained volatile. During the Gaza war, access to humanitarian assistance was either impossible or limited. Lack of construction materials, raw materials for commerce and industry in Gaza, shortages of fuel and long power cuts had contributed to increased unemployment and poverty in the Gaza Strip. Additionally, more than 20 per cent of the agricultural land in Gaza had been destroyed and further areas had been contaminated.
Meanwhile, he said that the continued settlement activities and the construction of the separation wall by Israel severely constrained the freedom of movement of Palestinian citizens in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and that the human rights situation in the Occupied Syrian Golan also remained serious. The Special Committee believed that all parties concerned had a collective responsibility to alleviate the long years of suffering of the people living under occupation, to turn sustainable peace from an illusion into a reality.
During the debate, many speakers stressed that the expansion of Israeli settlements were illegal under international law and constituted an obstacle to a lasting peace. The representative of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the continued settlement activities, house demolitions, and evictions in the occupied West Bank, and particularly in East Jerusalem, remained a serious concern, because a way must be found to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two States if there was to be genuine peace.
Algeria's speaker bemoaned the situation, which was deteriorating daily as a result of the Israeli policies of intimidation. The "terrifying logic" of Israeli expansionism had taken the form of a "greed for land", which was carried out with impunity. Israel had systematically used force to impose its will, and it enjoyed support and the knowledge that any decision within the United Nations would be blocked, enabling it to continue its annexation of land.
continues.....
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/EGUA-7XMUBD?OpenDocument
http://www.counterpunch.org/shaaban11092009.html
An excerpt.......
As soon as I turned the page to read the next question put by Mark Landler of The New York Times, my fears were confirmed. He asked her: “When you were here in March on the first visit, you issued a strong statement condemning the demolition of housing units in East Jerusalem. Yet, that demolition has continued unabated, and indeed, a few days ago, the mayor of the city of Jerusalem issued a new order for demolition. How would you characterize this policy today?” But since the prime minister did not answer this question, the secretary of state did not either. Instead, she said: “Well, let me say I have nothing to add to my statement in March. I continue to stand by what I said then”.
Secretary of State Clinton did not condemn the demolition of Palestinian homes by Israeli occupation troops, not even the confiscation of the tent which housed the Hanoun and al-Ghawi families. She did not condemn making thousands of Palestinians homeless and torturing them on roads and checkpoints. Maybe Mrs Clinton does not know what it means to have a racist and brutal occupation authority demolish a human being’s home, but at least she could imagine returning to her comfortable house, not to see it demolished, but to find that a thief has stolen her books, photos, history and favorite clothes, damaged the water and electrical systems so that the place is uninhabitable, and then stands on the pavement homeless, without shelter, memory, warmth or a place to make food.
If Mrs. Clinton could not even imagine that, she could have walked only a few steps to see what Netanyahu and the mayor of Jerusalem did to East Jerusalem and the people of Palestine. If she does not know any of that, she should know that demolishing houses is banned internationally under the Geneva conventions and that the human right to live in dignity on one’s land in one’s home is the most sacred after the right to live. After all this performance on the part of the secretary of state, Netanyahu stressed: “that Israel will accept the vision of two states for two peoples, a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state of Israel,” and that he agreed with US administration officials that they are “willing to engage in peace talks immediately without preconditions”.
Here, Netanyahu took the initiative and spoke for himself and on behalf of the United Sates after stressing that he discussed this with the United States and agreed with it about what he would say, relieving the Secretary of her responsibility of re-explaining, confirming and promoting what he says. After this, it is no longer important to know what the Secretary of State said to Arab ministers in Morocco, nor her retracting her statements or reinterpreting them. She said, before TV cameras, that the US position towards the Arab-Israeli conflict is the position of the Netanyahu government.
For Netanyahu, even the possibility of carrying arms to those trying to defend themselves against aggression is a war crime, while the German chancellor Angela Merkel arms Israel with nuclear submarines without facing such an accusation. Thanks to Western powers, Israel has become an arms exporting country and is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. Does this mean that Israeli aggressors can possess all the weapons they want and use them against civilians just because they are Jews? And the Palestinians, who are at the receiving end of this aggression, cannot have arms to defend themselves, only because they are Arabs? It is important to note that the ship story only aimed at diverting attention from Israeli crimes mentioned in the Goldstone report and to gain sympathy.
Western officials iinflict great damage on democracy when they justify the crimes of war, killing, torture and siege committed by the rulers of Israel against unarmed civilians. When will Arab rulers and their media understand the depth of Western racism hatred against them as represented by the blacklist of countries which voted against the Goldstone report in order to justify Israel’s crimes against civilian Arabs, only because they are Arabs, and unite their stances and their policies? And when will honorable and conscientious people around the world stand firmly and courageously against the horrible crimes committed against the Palestinian people so that their nations do not get tarnished by the shame of conniving with criminals committing genocide and ethnic cleansing?
"Wigwag - I don't think either you or Nadine understand that extremes of Jewish behavior are dangerous. Yes, being meek and defenseless is a recipe for disaster. But it is also dangerous to deliberately taunt others out of some misguided feeling of superiority or revenge."
jdledell, I don't think you understand that Israel will be slandered as extreme regardless of how moderate they try to be. Look, Barak and Olmert made offers that were damn close to everything the Palestinians had prevously claimed they wanted. The offers were not only refused, but they have vanished down the memory hole and Israel is accused of non-existent ethnic cleansing and genocide. (You see it here every day. Hellooo, local morons: If they Palestinians were really suffering ethnic cleansing, their numbers would have DECREASED. They have tripled.)
No other country in the world would have been rocketed for years from enemy territory and done so little in response. When it came, the response was far more targeted than the Lebanese in Nahr el Fahm, or the Russians in Grozy, but all the calumny lands on Israel nonetheless. I remind you that the Hamas rocket attack was the result not of a settler takeover of Gaze, but an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. I'll ask you what I have asked a dozen times and gotten no answer - what should Israel have done in response to the rocket attacks from Gaza? Wait until they reach Tel Aviv? Nothing? If Operation Cast Lead was illegitimate, what would the legitimate response have looked like?
If Israel is going to be accused of an extreme response no matter what it does, wouldn't it be better advised to to make up its own mind what to do and stop trying to please people who will never be pleased?
WigWag - Knock off the sarcasm. I am not a pacifist and never advocated it for Jews or anyone else. Yes the Jews have been persecuted for centuries but so have a lot of other people. Wars have killed millions, perhaps billions over time.
Mock my prescription of trying to engender mutual dependence amoung people but it sure seems to be working in Europe. It wasn't that long ago when Germans and the French were as bitter an enemy as Israel and the Arabs.
All we can do is keep our fingers crossed that Abbas is not bluffing in his threat to not run for reelection and maybe even to resign.
The New York Times is suggesting today that Abbas is seriously considering resigning and if he does, many members of his cabinet will leave office with him. On the other hand, the usually knowledgeable Mark Lynch is reporting on his blog that the Abbas call for elections in January is a bluff; that neither Abbas or Hamas wants elections to take place and that Abbas plans to stay in power indefinitely whether elections ever take place or not. One thing we know for sure is that Hamas isn’t kidding. They have said that any member of Fatah who calls for January elections in Gaza is a traitor who will be dealt with accordingly.
Maybe the time has come for the Palestinian Authority to fade away and for the dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians to be settled once and for all the old fashioned way. War certainly isn’t pretty but it does have a way of clarifying winners and losers and it does provide a rather final way for controversies between the parties to be resolved once and for all. Losing a war stings; Jews certainly know that. They’ve been on the losing side of conflicts for a few thousand years. The French realize it too; everyone knows that the two most famous words in the French language are “I surrender.” The Germans suffered the two bitterest defeats of the 20th century; and the Japanese, Italians and Turks also suffered rather ignoble losses. While the Russians didn’t lose a hot war, they did lose a Cold War and the U.S. lost in Viet Nam and may be on its way to losing in Afghanistan.
It’s funny how all these “losers” all seem to be doing pretty darn well. After the Palestinians lose, they can have a bright future too. A very good case can be made that the Palestinians actually have no future until their defeat is complete. After all, they can’t defeat Israel militarily and while they can win diplomatic skirmishes, they can’t win the diplomatic war. While Israel continues to prosper, the party that suffers most from the continuation of an interminable conflict is the Palestinians.
With the Palestinian Authority finally out of the way, perhaps Israel will be able to mount its Shermanesque “March to the Sea.”
William Tecumseh Sherman is considered to be the first modern general. His scorched earth policy was very reminiscent of the isolation of Gaza that Israel is mounting with assistance from the United States, Europe and Egypt. Sherman’s civil war career didn’t start well; troops under his command did poorly at the First Battle of Bull Run and Shiloh. Things began to turn around for Sherman at Vicksburg and Chattanooga. By the time he got to Atlanta, Sherman was primed for victory.
Sherman, Grant and Abraham Lincoln were convinced that for the Confederacy to lose all hope that it could ever be victorious, the South’s will to fight had to be crushed, its infrastructure had to be destroyed and its political aspirations had to be extinguished.
It is interesting to note that prior to Sherman’s victory in Atlanta (September 2, 1864), Abraham Lincoln was losing his reelection campaign to General George B. McClellan. McClellan advocated negotiating a settlement with the South that would have permitted them to maintain slavery and enjoy far greater autonomy. Sherman’s decision to burn Atlanta to the ground proved hugely popular in the North and was extolled by America’s greatest President during the last eight weeks of the 1864 Presidential Campaign.
It is universally accepted by historians that Sherman’s capture of Atlanta and his decision to burn it is what enabled Abraham Lincoln to win reelection. But for the capture and destruction of Atlanta, Lincoln would have lost his reelection bid and slavery might have existed in the South for at least another generation.
After his Atlanta victory Lincoln and Grant gave Sherman’s army (actually it was 3 armies) permission to move South and destroy any property in its path. Lincoln and Grant famously told Sherman to “make Georgia howl.” Sherman took the President and Supreme Commander of Union forces up on their request. His march through the South ended in Savannah on December 21, 1864. Before burning the City down, Sherman’s army did $100 million in property damage (which in those days was a lot of money). Sherman offered the destruction of Savannah to Abraham Lincoln as a Christmas present which Lincoln “gladly accepted.” Subsequently Sherman ended up in Columbia, South Carolina which he also promptly burned to the ground.
Sherman broke the will of the Confederacy to fight and the war ended shortly thereafter (after Lee surrendered at Appomattox on April 9, 1865)
In case anyone has failed to notice, the American South, especially Atlanta, is doing just fine, just like France, Italy, Germany, Japan and all the other states that lost wars in the 20th century.
General Sherman’s tactics, while harsh, are universally respected by military historians and studied intently by military strategists. Sherman’s strategy was recapitulated by the British in the Boer War, by the Americans and British in Dresden and Hamburg; by the Vietnamese at Dien Bien Phu, by the Russians in Chechnya and by the Americans in Fallujah to site just a few examples.
The question is whether Sherman’s tactics and success suggest an interesting precedent for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Is there really any chance for reconciliation between the parties until one side wins and the other is defeated? If there are precedents for a conflict between adversaries as fierce as this one being resolved in a manner other than war, what are those precedents? Maybe Daniel Levy would like to enlighten us.
Maybe the best and most expeditious way for the Palestinians to get their nation is to stop propping them up but encourage them to give in to the inevitable reality of their defeat.
Negotiations don’t seem to be working.
Is it time to give war a chance?
"It wasn't that long ago when Germans and the French were as bitter an enemy as Israel and the Arabs." (jdledell)
Yes that's right. The French and the Germans became fast friends. But this didn't come about as a result of negotiations did it? First the British, French and Americans had to defeat the Kaiser and then the British, French, Americans and Soviets had to defeat the Nazis. In fact, before the French and Germans could establish that wonderful friendship you mentioned, Germany had to essentially be burned to the ground.
You may be the family archivist but you're not very good at history, are you jdledell?
WigWag's prudence backed by the history of the American civil war is inimitable. The conundrum of the Israel Palestinian conflict can only be resolved, as I've argued long ago, by an affirmative answer to his question "is it time to give war a chance?"
Kotzabasis, always nice to hear your voice. Had I realized that you were out ahead of me on my thesis I would have given you credit.
Forgive the oversight.
For some reason, we`ve all thought that the rather aggressive bigot Nadine was much more extreme than the cultivated
and mostly polite WigWag. However, the latest confessions by WigWag and Kotz above make Nadine sound dovish like a
buddhist monk in comparison. Inspired by WigWags recommendation of the scorched earth policy against the virtually
defenseless Palestinian population, I would like to add a handful of examples to the ones WigWag already have mentioned
- all from Wikipedia:
"Efraín Ríos Montt utilized this method in the Guatemalan highlands in 1982-3, resulting in the death of approximately
10,000 indigenous peoples, and causing 100,000 to leave their homes.
The Sudanese government has used scorched earth as a military strategy in Darfur.
During the Second Sino-Japanese War the Imperial Japanese Army had a scorched-earth policy, known as "Three Alls
Policy". Due to the Japanese scorched-earth policy immense environmental and infrastructure damage have been
recorded. Additionally it contributed to the complete destruction of entire villages and partial destruction of entire cities
like Chongqing or Nanjing.
When Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, Joseph Stalin ordered both soldiers and civilians to initiate a scorched
earth policy to deny the invaders basic supplies as they moved eastward.
In Northern Norway (...) the Germans also undertook a scorched earth policy, destroying every building that could offer
shelter and thus interposing a belt of "scorched earth" between themselves and the allies.
In 1945, Adolf Hitler ordered his minister of armaments Albert Speer to carry out a nationwide scorched earth policy, in
what became known as the Nero Order. Hitler felt that the German people had shown themselves to be weak, and
undeserving of a leader such as himself. Having failed their test of character, they should be condemned to destruction.
Speer, who was looking to the future, actively resisted the order.
Millions of civilians starved or froze to death because of scorched earth strategy during the war, especially in the Soviet
Union."
------------------------------------
Actually, Paul, the Sherman strategy relied on massive property damage but very little loss of life. Before destroying Atlanta, Sherman marched the entire civilian population out of the city; property damage was enormous but civilian deaths were minimal.
The same thing was true of Israel's attack on Gaza. While infrastructure damage was very significant the number of civilian deaths (which numbered in the several hundreds at most) was insubstantial.
That's what happens in war, Paul, property is damaged and people die. If the Palestinians want to blame someone for their problems in Gaza they can blame their political leaders who refuse to accommodate themselves to the reality of their situation. They can also blame themselves for electing political leaders who have led them from disaster to disaster.
Are the Palestinians better off with an indeterminate resolution to this conflict which they have no hope of winning or are they better off getting their military defeat (which will undoubtedly be bitter and humiliating as all defeats are) behind them so they can salvage some vestige of their political aspirations?
Your distaste for the question doesn't make the quesstion any less pertinent.
"The Sherman strategy relied on massive property damage but very little loss of life."
Many of the examples - from Dresden to Chechnya - that you explicitly referred to as "recapitulations of the Sherman
strategy", certainly indicate mass killings on a grand scale. "Universally respected, while harsh."
I would be surprised if Israel could get away with committing such a war crime against a defenseless population today -
although Russia did recently. Israel would probably be treated like the leaders of Sudan are treated today - perhaps even
by US Congress members and Senators.
I can assure you that my "distaste for the question" is quite common in different parts of the world.
Does this worry you at all, or is the threat too big for such luxury issues? You seem to think that this is an "us" or "them"
situation - although the "us" part is a bit fictive if you`re an American living in relative comfort in Florida. It isn`t exactly
you who are threatened to a degree that requires considerations of the scorched earth policy against a civilian population
in a distant country.
But if you really want an Endlösung, and have no reservations against Israel becoming an international Paria, there are - as
you know - even more drastic methods. So if "you" really, really, really want their land and their property, why destroy it
first? Why not just slaughter the population, move straight into their houses and appropriate their jewelry - the old
fashioned way?
"Everybody" does it, as you and Nadine use to say. So why not Israel?
I am no bigot, Paul. I am all for real reform and democracy among the Palestinians. It is you support and strengthen the radicals who are in power now. It is you who prevent real reformers from having a chance. If the West had ever demanded accountability from the Palestinians, the situation might be very different. But nooo.
At best, you have "let's pretend radicals are moderates" policy. At worst, you sympathize with the radicals and want to help them destroy Israel and massacre the Jews. Maybe you don't even understand what the PA and Hamas are for or who leads them. You certainly don't care what they do or say. They are window glass to you. You just bash Israel whatever it does.
I think you are the bigot.
And sure, the more than 6 million American Jews living in the United States would feel much
more safe, if the Israeli Defense Forces burned and destroyed everything the Palestinians
owned and killed thousands of them in the same operation.
"Israel would probably be treated like the leaders of Sudan are treated today - perhaps even by US Congress members and Senators." (Paul Norheim)
Glad that you mentioned Sudan, Paul. I guess you didn't hear that there is no genocide in Sudan. That's not my opinion, but I have it from a very reliable source, Prime Minster Erdogan of Turkey.
Here's the AP Report on what that enlightened leader of that most progressive Muslim nation said today.
"Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan lashed out at Israel on Sunday as he came to the defense of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who faces worldwide condemnation for the genocide taking place in the Darfur region of his country...
Erdogan claimed to know that Bashir is innocent, and that there is no genocide taking place in Sudan. “A Muslim can never commit genocide,” he said in explanation. “It's not possible.”
The Turkish PM added that he had visited Darfur and did not see evidence of genocide during his trip.
Bashir announced Sunday that he would postpone a planned visit in Turkey, where he was to attend a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). While Turkish media reported that Bashir may come on Monday or Tuesday instead of Sunday, the Reuters news service reported that Bashir's visit had been canceled due to an international arrest warrant against him for crimes against humanity...
The United Nations and international activist groups believe that up to 300,000 people have been killed in fighting in Sudan's Darfur regions, where they say government-backed Arab Muslim militias are slaughtering local black African Muslims. The Sudanese government denies committing genocide."
According to Erdogan, Muslims don't commit genocide; it is "impossible." 300 thousand dead in Darfur; if 1,000 civilians died in Gaza that would be what, Paul? That's right 1/3 of one percent of the number of dead African Sudanese.
When Erdogan was saying that Muslims don't commit genocide I guess he was forgetting about the genocide committed by the Turks against the Armenians in which 750,000-1.5 million Armenians died. Some people also accuse Israel of genocide. I guess that they haven't noticed that the population of the "occupied territories" has tripled in the years since 1967. Some genocide, don't you think, Paul?
Anyway, you never answered my question; which conflict as intractable as the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has ever been permanently solved in a way that didn't involve war?
And after you explain that one, maybe you can explain to me which other oppressed people are deserving of your profound sympathy. The Balochs? The Kurds? The Uighurs? The Tamils?
"Israel would probably be treated like the leaders of Sudan are treated today - perhaps even
by US Congress members and Senators."
Perhaps the Europeans will pick up the ball on this one, Paul, but it won't happen here in the US - at least not in the immediately foreseeable future.
Anyway, I think we all need to start looking forward and beyond the inevitable Israeli conquest and cleansing of Palestine, plan for the evacuation of the Palestinians from the full genocidal onslaught in the making, and then start thinking about organizing the containment policy that will have to come afterward.
The permanent Jewish Jihad in Palestine will likely never end. Once the Israelis are finished with the Palestinians, it won't be long before they start to come after some of the rest of us. Underneath the rage against the Palestinians is a deeper and broader rage, one that results in a self-destructive thirst for isolation and friendlessness and a bottomless craving for vengeance against the offensive "other". The inevitable conquest of Palestine is likely to spark a religious revival of sorts in Israel, something that already seems to be underway, and there is no man or insect that Israelis won't eventually come to regard as an existential threat in the fullness of time.
And my government foolishly allowed the Israelis to acquire a large nuclear arsenal back in the day when there was still the possibility of doing something about it. These guys are really fucking scary now, and western states are going to have to start thinking very soon about how to contain the monster they created.
"Anyway, I think we all need to start looking forward and beyond the inevitable Israeli conquest and cleansing of Palestine, plan for the evacuation of the Palestinians from the full genocidal onslaught in the making, and then start thinking about organizing the containment policy that will have to come afterward."
Are you completely insane? The Israeli "plans" if they had their way are no secret - Shimon Peres laid them out in The New Middle East. They want the Palestinians to stay where they are in a peaceful Benelux arrangement with Israel and Jordan.
The Israelis have not deported the Palestinians and they are not going to. They had their chance in 1967 and they didn't take it. WTF are you smoking? Can you even attend to the realities of the Middle East? Or do you start hallucinating on command every time some Palestinian starts moaning about genocide and ethnic cleansing? They've got you trained like Pavlov's dogs!
WigWag, kindred spirits don’t need to give credit to each other.
Norheim, once again morally and intellectually too effete to make your argument you use scarecrows, i.e., “scorched earth’ policies, to make your non-case. WigWag employed historical facts from the American civil war related to the strategy and tactics of General Sherman that were ‘applauded’ by Abe Lincoln, the darling of the American Left, while you with your characteristic weakness turn those facts into scarecrows by comparing them to the policies of Hitler and Stalin and to all other contemporaneous atrocities perpetrated by political thugs.
As for Kervick’s last delusionary post it’s best to let it be handled by those people who are locked in institutions who think they are Napoleons.
Kotz,
let me be blunt. When someone suggests applying the scorched earth tactics against a
virtually defenseless Palestinian population as a final solution of the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict, I regard this as sheer destructive lunacy. Instead of me
spending energy on making intellectual "arguments" back and forth as a response to
such a "thesis", I regret that WigWag doesn`t have some close relatives around him in
Florida who could protect him against his most outrageous ideas.
Apparently this applies to you as well - somewhere in Australia: unfortunately, your
dictionary provides no guidance in this regard. And unfortunately this also applies to
Israel as a nation. America could have been such a "relative", such an advisor.
Instead, Uncle Sam seems to approve of or condone anything his crazy niece might do or
want to do in the Middle East. Of course this also applies to the relationship between
the Palestinians and their "friends" in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Beirut, Damascus,
and Tehran have not been good advisors for the Palestinian people.
But back to our small community at TWN, and WigWags (and your) "thesis". Both of you
seem to think that this idea somehow become less crazy and sinister by referring to
Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War and the fight against slavery. But mentioning the
liberation of slaves in America side by side with the suggested fate of the
Palestinians (destroying everything they have) makes a mockery of both. There is
absolutely no political or moral equivalence between the fight against slavery and
suggesting to use the scorched earth tactics against the Palestinian population. In
the applied context, the whole idea smells of napoleonic fantasies and paranoia by
proxy.
WigWag, who came up with this concept on this thread, acknowledged that the strategy
was not only used by General Sherman. Quote:
"Sherman’s strategy was recapitulated by the British in the Boer War, by the Americans
and British in Dresden and Hamburg; by the Vietnamese at Dien Bien Phu, by the
Russians in Chechnya and by the Americans in Fallujah to site just a few examples."
There were four examples of "good guys" and two of "bad guys" in his list. I found it
appropriate to supply his examples with a handful of more bad guys - to make the
picture a bit more complete. I also happen to know people in Northern Norway who got a
taste of these tactics during WWII.
Do you have a problem with that, Kotz? Do you think - since you claim that you`ve come
up with the same idea (what a surprise!) - that I somehow disturb your pure and decent
fantasy of what happened in Dresden, Hamburg, and Atlanta (and what should have
happened in Gaza and the West Bank) by mentioning that certain other leaders you
dislike also were fond of these tactics in war?
In that case, let me assure you that my intention was certainly not to hurt or disturb
the delicate feelings and murderous war fantasies of a fellow commenter in Australia.
I didn`t even know that you`d had the same dreams as our commenter from Florida!
But of course I should have guessed it.
Paul, the Palestinians are far from helpless but they are relatively weak compared to Israel.
That's one of the anomalies of the situation. Parties as weak as the Palestinians (esp. divided as they are) don't usually go around attacking the stronger party for fear of being clobbered.
But the Palestinians feel protected by the world (or by Israeli morals, which they won't acknowledge) from being clobbered in the way they would be if they tried this stunt on any other country. They try to keep the attacks calibrated.
Every once in a while they miscalculate, as Hamas did this winter or Hezbullah in 2006. For all the claims of victory you don't notice Hizbullah or Hamas shooting much these days.
If there is no peace, we will just have more of the same, a very low-grade drawn-out sort of war punctuated by flare-ups. For there to be peace, the Palestinians do have to loose i.e. give up on turning Israeli into an Arab state. I think most of the people are there but the leadership is being paid by external sources for eternal jihad.
We may have to wait until the Palestinians turn totally against their leadership. Radicals don't moderate until they really believe that radicalism is a loosing strategy. Some other people might have gotten there long ago, but the Palestinians are vulnerable to fantasy politics.
As it stands, there won't be a Palestinian state for many, many years. If you want to help them, stop feeding their fantasies.
Dan Kervick said: "Anyway, I think we all need to start looking forward and beyond the
inevitable Israeli conquest and cleansing of Palestine, plan for the evacuation of the
Palestinians from the full genocidal onslaught in the making, and then start thinking
about organizing the containment policy that will have to come afterward."
Nadine responded: "Are you completely insane? The Israeli "plans" if they had their way
are no secret - Shimon Peres laid them out in The New Middle East. They want the
Palestinians to stay where they are in a peaceful Benelux arrangement with Israel and
Jordan. The Israelis have not deported the Palestinians and they are not going to. They
had their chance in 1967 and they didn't take it. WTF are you smoking?"
Nadine, I think you should rather ask what the retired people living in the condos in
Florida and Australia are smoking these days. And since you mentioned insanity - did you
really read WigWags post above?
A handful of quotes may be useful for other readers of TWN as well: "Maybe the time has
come for the Palestinian Authority to fade away and for the dispute between the Israelis
and Palestinians to be settled once and for all the old fashioned way. War certainly
isn’t pretty but it does have a way of clarifying winners and losers and it does provide
a rather final way for controversies between the parties to be resolved once and for
all."
"It’s funny how all these “losers” all seem to be doing pretty darn well. After the
Palestinians lose, they can have a bright future too. A very good case can be made that
the Palestinians actually have no future until their defeat is complete."
"The question is whether Sherman’s tactics and success suggest an interesting precedent
for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Is there really any chance for reconciliation
between the parties until one side wins and the other is defeated? If there are
precedents for a conflict between adversaries as fierce as this one being resolved in a
manner other than war, what are those precedents?"
"Maybe the best and most expeditious way for the Palestinians to get their nation is to
stop propping them up but encourage them to give in to the inevitable reality of their
defeat."
The core of WigWag`s "thesis" is that "losers" may have a better chance of winning than
people who neither win nor loose. WigWag is well read in history, and bases this thesis
on certain historical facts:
"In case anyone has failed to notice, the American South, especially Atlanta, is doing
just fine, just like France, Italy, Germany, Japan and all the other states that lost
wars in the 20th century."
According to WigWag, if you`re in charge of a national liberation movement fighting a
stronger enemy, your best strategy is to get defeated "completely" on the battlefield.
Thus he hopes that the IDF wins a final military victory against the Palestinian
population, a victory that somehow - voila! - will be turned into political liberation
for the Palestinians - since everybody can see that Germany, Italy, and France are free
countries.
----------------------
Nadine, do you support WigWag`s thesis? Do you think that this is just wishful thinking
from Florida, or something the IDF is actually considering? Because if WigWag`s
considerations somehow reflect options they are discussing in Tel Aviv and at the IDF
headquarters as well, then Dan`s suggestion is highly appropriate - perhaps even urgent.
Who do you think are the actual smokers here, Nadine, and what do you think they`re
smoking?
--------------------------------
Nadine said to me: "At best, you have "let's pretend radicals are moderates" policy. At
worst, you sympathize with the radicals and want to help them destroy Israel and massacre
the Jews."
I have no idea why you make these assumptions, Nadine. That I usually disagree with your
views, doesn`t automatically imply that I pretend that radicals are moderates, or that I
would like to help them "massacre the Jews".
If you`re seriously interested in my actual opinions on this, I may refer you to a link -
something I wrote in the aftermath of the invasion of Gaza. I half translated
(amateurishly, because my English is lousy), half paraphrased extensive excerpts from an
essay written by a Norwegian author, Kai Skagen, who protested against the rather
simplistic narratives discussed in the MSM media and blogs.
I did this in an attempt to broaden the rather predictable back and forth debates at TWN
last winter (I didn`t succeed in this). In that essay, Skagen also refers to the Hamas
charter, the anti-Semitism in the Arab world, the conspiracy theories, the suicide
bombing as a tactic and the religious concepts behind it - well known stuff for you, but
perhaps not for all of his readers. Generally speaking, I agree with Skagen`s approach
and his juxtaposing of conflicting narratives in that essay (which is the most important
aspect of the essay).
As I said, if you are really curious as to my opinion on these issues, here is the link:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/01/coming_down_fro/
WigWag,
You refer to Prime Minster Erdogan of Turkey denying the genocide in Darfur on a
recent visit to Sudan, and his denial of the Turkish genocide in Armenia during WWI.
Was this meant as some kind of question? We all know that when the Turkish PM denies
the Darfur genocide, he is lying. We also know that when he denies the Armenian
genocide, he is lying, with approval from - was it the Congress or the Senate of your
country? - they are all lying.
And we know that there are foreign policy strategies behind Erdogan`s lies in Sudan,
and the American lies with regard to the well documented Armenian genocide.
“A Muslim can never commit genocide,” [Erdogan]said in explanation. “It's not
possible.”
Bullshit. And it discredits him.
What was your question to me, WigWag? Ah... here we go:
"According to Erdogan, Muslims don't commit genocide; it is "impossible." 300 thousand
dead in Darfur; if 1,000 civilians died in Gaza that would be what, Paul? That's right
1/3 of one percent of the number of dead African Sudanese."
Have I ever claimed that Israel has committed genocide? Massacre - yes. Terrorism -
beyond doubt. But not genocide. Not yet.
"Some people also accuse Israel of genocide. I guess that they haven't noticed that
the population of the "occupied territories" has tripled in the years since 1967. Some
genocide, don't you think, Paul?"
As I said, WigWag, "genocide" is an inappropriate word.
"Anyway, you never answered my question; which conflict as intractable as the conflict
between Israelis and Palestinians has ever been permanently solved in a way that
didn't involve war?"
I honestly don`t know, WigWag. But you could surely advance similar arguments in the
Cold War as well in the mid eighties. Perhaps you did? Just in the last months you`ve
suggested an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, an attack on Iran, and a
nationalistic fight for an establishment of an independent Kurdistan - even if it may
create conflicts with Turkey, Iran, and Syria, in addition to Iraq. The risks, not to
mention the suffering involved if the relevant men and women in power had listened to
you, are enormous - and in every single suggestion you`ve made, the outcome is frankly
anybody`s guess.
"And after you explain that one, maybe you can explain to me which other oppressed
people are deserving of your profound sympathy. The Balochs? The Kurds? The Uighurs?
The Tamils?"
In one rather long comment last winter about the attack on the LTTE and the Tamil
population, I also made the point that everybody here talked about the fate of the
Palestinians, but ignored the fate of the Tamils. Perhaps I could find a link if
you`re interested.
I somehow doubt it. You have a habit of ironically asking others which other
"oppressed people are deserving of your profound sympathy", and if asked the same
question, confessing that you yourself are a human being, thus biased. Ah, I see...
Aren`t we all biased? And doesn`t this create an opportunity for you to attack your
biased opponents?
Why repeat this silly game?
Nadine, Peres and his people are not in charge of Israel any more. Maybe Peres should write a book about The New Israel. When Peres was a young man, the Likud was a far right pipe dream, and the fighters of the Irgun and leaders of Herut were officially deplored and ostracized. Now the Likud represents the very center of Israeli politics, and the Foreign Ministry is in the hands of Yisrael Beiteinu.
If Israel decides to inflict the total crushing defeat on the Palestinians that WigWag recommends, then that will require an onslaught far more violent, comprehensive and decisive than anything we have seen so far. The Palestinians have been resisting their dispossession for many years, even in the teeth of Defensive Shield and Cast Lead, and we still have not seen any submissive acceptance of defeat. So we can only imagine what horrifying, sorrowful spectacle WigWag’s final, decisive and clarifying campaign might present. But surely, large numbers of Palestinians would be driven into refugee status by such a campaign, and would require safe evacuation. Israel might never decide to deport the Palestinians in large numbers. But they might indeed transfer many of them from one area of Palestine to another, confine others brutally, and make their lives so intolerable in so many ways that very many will be forced to flee seek asylum elsewhere. Israel might hope that the Palestinians’ spirit will eventually be so broken that a majority will voluntarily leave and seek resettlement elsewhere, so Israel can keep its hands clean of the ugly deportation business.
WigWag - As a Jew, I find your prescription for resolving conflicts absolutely horrifying. Legitimizing war, mass killing and population relocation for resolving conflicts is not only immoral but ultimately not in Jewish or any other people's best interests.
In practical terms, where do you draw the line? If it's okay for Israel to impose a total defeat on the Palestinians in a war, should China be allowed to go to war against the people of Tibet and the Ugher region to quell their independence movements? For that matter, why do you object to what the Sudan is doing in Darfur? Taking your premise to it's logical conclusion, why should the USA or anyone in the world object if Iran wants to drop a few nukes on Israel? After all, it's merely war to resolve a conflict.
In your prescription of Israel totally defeating the Palestinians, do you have any idea how many Palestinians might be killed, particularly in Gaza where resistance will be fierce. After the smoke is cleared, what are you going to do with the Palestinians who remain? Do they get Israeli citizenship? Do they get some sort of shrunken state? Do you put them on reservations? Do you ship them out of greater Israel? How do you think relations, both political and economic, with the International community will be affected by such a war?
I certainly hope Jewish enemies do not latch on to your ideas and that the International community does not ever approve of your approach to conflict resolution. WigWag, in your world of "realism" is there any action that is considered beyond the pale or immoral? Was the Shoah just another incident of war?
For those unacquainted with the "Sherman strategy" suggested by the Israel firsters here, as one living in the South (not Florida, which is on Mars), it didn't work out too well. The historical legacy of his brutality poisons regional feelings to this day.
WigWag - Apparently the following Israeli Rabbis:Yitzhak Shapiro,Yithak Ginzburg and Yaakov Yosef, agree with your proposed prescription for the Palestinians and other goyim. If they get in our way -it's perfectly moral to kill them, innocent babies and all.
"WigWag - As a Jew, I find your prescription for resolving conflicts absolutely horrifying. Legitimizing war, mass killing and population relocation for resolving conflicts is not only immoral but ultimately not in Jewish or any other people's best interests. In practical terms, where do you draw the line? If it's okay for Israel to impose a total defeat on the Palestinians in a war, should China be allowed to go to war against the people of Tibet and the Ugher region to quell their independence movements? For that matter, why do you object to what the Sudan is doing in Darfur?" (jdledell)
I'm not the one who invented the concept of war, jdledell. War is ubiquitous throughout time and space on this planet. Thousands, if not tens of thousands of disputes throughout history have been resolved by wars. There are dozens of wars in various parts of the globe taking place right now. Why precisely should this particular dispute be immune from being settled by war when almost every other dispute between nations is settled in precisely that manner?
As for your comment about Tibet and the Ugher region, in case you haven't noticed, those two disputes have been resolved by violence. The Han Chinese won, the Tibetans and Ugher's lost. I don't see too many fauxgressives losing sleep over it.
As for Darfur and the Sudan, I’m not the one making apologies for the behavior of the Muslims there; it’s the Prime Minister of that great progressive Muslin nation, Turkey dong that (see my comment at 12:25 am November 10 for more information).
As for your comment about how horrifying wars are; you are certainly right. But a war between Palestinians and Israelis would be no better or no worse than any other war; why exactly do you think that this particular conflict should be exempt from being settled the way virtually all other conflicts between nations are resolved?
Besides, the Palestinians could avert any destruction or even any displacement at all. Once they surrender, I am sure things will improve for them.
It's their choice.
"WigWag employed historical facts from the American civil war related to the strategy and tactics of General Sherman that were ‘applauded’ by Abe Lincoln, the darling of the American Left..." (Kotzabasis)
It's very interesting really. Sherman occupied and then burned down Atlanta in early September, 1864. Before that it was commonly believed that Lincoln was losing his election to McClellan badly. The response in the North to the destruction of Atlanta was overwhelming, especially in Boston and New York. There were literally demonstrations in the streets celebrating the victory and lauding Sherman. This inspired Lincoln to go on the political offensive. At campaign stop after campaign stop Lincoln talked about "the great victory in Atlanta" and how it proved his war strategy was working. There was never any regret expressed during these campaign appearances about the destruction of the city. Lincoln wrapped himself around Sherman the way that Bush wrapped himself around Petraeus.
You are right; Lincoln is the "darling of the American Left" as well he should be. Lincoln was America's greatest president (even better than Franklin Roosevelt). The irony, is that those same American leftists who rightly consider Lincoln to be a hero for freeing the slaves would consider the military tactics that he signed off on to be war crimes. If Judge Goldstone had his way, he’d probably want to haul honest Abe off to The Hague. Fortunately for the slaves, Lincoln didn’t share the same sensibilities of today’s fauxgressives who delude themselves into thinking they have a monopoly on goodness and decency.
By the way, if you want to read more about Sherman and his relationship with Lincoln and Grant, the definitive expert on Sherman is the English military historian Basil Lidell Hart. Interestingly Lidell Hart is a hero of people as diverse as John Mearsheimer (who wrote a scholarly treatise about him) and Jorge Luis Borges (who based a short story "The Garden of Forking Paths" in "Ficciones" on him.)
"For those unacquainted with the "Sherman strategy" suggested by the Israel firsters here, as one living in the South (not Florida, which is on Mars), it didn't work out too well. The historical legacy of his brutality poisons regional feelings to this day." (DonS)
Without Sherman's victory and subsequent destruction of Atlanta the vast majority of historians think Lincoln would have lost his reelection bid. McClellan (who did not oppose slavery) would have won and the Union would have cut a deal with the South. Slavery could easily have lasted another genertion. Do you think that would have been a better outcome, DonS?
"Anyway, I think we all need to start looking forward and beyond the inevitable Israeli conquest and cleansing of Palestine, plan for the evacuation of the Palestinians from the full genocidal onslaught in the making, and then start thinking about organizing the containment policy that will have to come afterward." (Dan Kervick)
That's very good, Dan. Maybe President Obama should pin the Medal of Freedom on you the way he did on Mary Robinson. After all, she just presided over various international humanitarian efforts; you on the other hand have added a whole new concept to the lexicon of international jurisprudence. Thanks to you, “anticipatory genocide” can now take its rightful place right next to actual genocide, as something for the International Criminal Court to contemplate.
Looking forward to hearing what you come up with next.
"Sherman’s strategy was recapitulated by the British in the Boer War, by the Americans and British in Dresden and Hamburg; by the Vietnamese at Dien Bien Phu, by the Russians in Chechnya and by the Americans in Fallujah to site just a few examples. There were four examples of "good guys" and two of "bad guys" in his list. I found it
appropriate to supply his examples with a handful of more bad guys - to make the picture a bit more complete.” (Paul Norheim)
In some cases, picking out the “good guys” from the “bad guys” is easy, in most cases it’s not. The Nazis were unambiguously bad guys; no one would deny that. When the Turks murdered hundreds of thousands of Armenians they were also unambiguously “bad.” At leas the Germans have acknowledged their behavior; the Turks haven’t. But to all but the dimwitted (on both sides) the situation in Israel/Palestine is far more ambiguous. There are no Nazis or Ottomans there.
I’m willing to stipulate that there are good Israelis and bad Israelis just like there are good Palestinians and bad Palestinians. There are smart Palestinians and dumb Palestinians and smart Israelis and dumb Israelis. There are good looking Palestinians and comely Palestinians just as there are attractive Israelis and comely Israelis.
The Israelis and Palestinians are pretty much the same; just like all people throughout the world are pretty much the same.
But I’m not willing to stipulate that either Fatah/Palestinian Authority or Hamas are “good guys.” I think Hamas is an Islamofascist group well worth going to war with and I am beginning to believe that the Palestinian Authority is not worth engaging either.
A war to eradicate Hamas and perhaps the Palestinian Authority would be a war against the “bad guys” and well worth considering.
While in the short run this would undoubtedly be terrible for the Palestinian people, in the long run it might be the only way that they salvage a small part of their national aspirations.
If you don't think war is the answer, that's fine. But come up with a realistic plan. Ideas that start with sentences like "the United States should sanction Israel and cut-off aid" or "it's time to push for a one state solution" or "if we wait long enough those hated Jews will disappear" aren't serious; they are fantasy. Just like the recommendations of Levy and Clemons are phantasmagorical.
If you have a more realistic suggestion that is actually achievable, let's hear what it is.
"Slavery could have lasted another generation. Do you think that would have been a better outcome?"
Hard to say all things considered. The legacy of slavery lasted in virtual fact until the 1960's and emotionally to this day. Sherman's strategy engendered enough hatred for over 150 years. It was the rallying cry for Dixicrats, and continues the rallying crying for assorted rednecks and KKKer's. So there is really no way to assess ultimate damage.
"I'm willing to stipulate there are good Iraelis and bad Israelis . . ." Why do I think you are crossing your fingers Wigwag so you don't have to fess up to thinking Netanyahu is one of the good ones, and Rabin one of the bad?
BTW Wigwag when you attempt to juxtapose "good looking" and "comely" I think you are confusing yours usage with 'homely'. Senior moment perhaps.
WigWag - You answered my questions about Tibet, Darfur etc but you avoided answering my question on why it's wrong for Iran to nuke Israel? It's just war and I'm sure Iran will not do so if the Israelis just surrender and move!
As to your question about what should be done about peace negotiations, I think Gershon Baskin had a pretty good approach in today's Jerusalem Post.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1257770023741&pagename;=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Reader Comments (128) - post a comment