A lot of the difference between Israel and America on accountability is simply the difference between presidential and parliamentary systems generally based on the parliamentary distinction between heads of state and heads of government. When the PM is viewed simply as a successful politician, and does not serve a fixed term, it's a lot easier to hold him or her accountable than it is the American president/demigod.

It's also that Israel doesn't have the luxury of denial. But we do.

There's no need for accountability here, because (1) we're winning the war in Iraq; (2) we did all we could to stop the war in Lebanon asap; (3) Hezbollah was roundly defeated; (4) Lieberman's defeat is a victory for al Quaeda... and everyone on this blog can write 5,6,7, etc.

We live in our own fictitious universe. The question is, how much longer before reality bites our butt?

I would say that a lot of it is simply in the fact that there is, as Gore Vidal put it, only one political party in the United States. This political party has two factions, the Democrats and the Republicans.

To make the point less obscurely, Americans have the fewest range of opinions in their mainstream politics as any country outside of one party states.

Israel's political spectrum runs from socialists and pacifists, religious parties to military parties and hard right extremes.

This occasionally makes it difficult to govern, but at the same time, it exposes every policy and initiative to relentless scrutiny. It also means that failures, disasters and incompetence will be held accountable.

In Canada we've got a range that runs from socialists and environmentalists in the Green and NDP, to separatists, to conservatives.

Germany, France, Italy all have diverse political spectrums.

Meanwhile, the 'narrowest' in the west politically, outside the US is England, where Labour has largely emasculated its left wing in favour of a centre right position, and the conservatives sit as a rump, trying futilely for the same ideological ground.

In the United States, outside observers often see no discernible differences between Republicans and Democrats, and on many issues, there is a continuity of policy and viewpoint.

It doesn't mean that there aren't important differences between Republicans and Democrats. But they're small ones, and often matters of approach or timing in relation to issues of larger agreement.

For instance, both Democrats and Republicans agree that Iran's (nonexistent) nuclear weapons program is a threat to US security which may have to be dealt with by military intervention. The difference of opinion is with respect to technicalities of possible avenues of diplomatic resolution, the sincerity with which diplomatic channels will be pursued, etc.

In the United States there is a further limiting factor in that one party (or one faction of the one party if you will), the Republicans, control the Presidency, the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and the Media. There is, therefore, no actual motivation for accountability, and a lot of incentive to sweep things under the rug.

So pleased you wrote this. Fact is though, we have no place lecturing the Israelis on how they resolve the fall-out from the latest battles.

We initiated (and botched) a pre-emptive war against Iraq. Our political leadership is STILL, three years later, evidently in denial about how profoundly we've screwed that up.

The fact Olmert took no more than a month to face up to his mistakes is something for which he should be applauded. His decision to accept a ceasefire has prevented a bad situation from getting worse. Now Israelis will openly challenge the Olmert government and the military leaders - please note, wingnuts, without having their patriotism called into doubt. It is a painful time for Israelis as they deal with dented national pride, but we should admire and respect the way their democracy works.

Apart from what we can learn from watching the Israelis, we'd also do well to note that in the foreign policy arena, Bushco's legacy is that America is a broken diplomatic force. Gerry Baker, the conservative UK Times columnist, called it today:

"Not only is the US despised around the globe, it can’t even make its supposed hegemony work."

Heck. Uv. A. Job.

mcrose68

That said, it strikes me that Olmert had the very real option of exerting pressure on the Lebanese parliament and public opinion by offering encouragement or help in bringing Hezbollah under control of the Lebanese State. From what I can tell Olmert did not make serious attempt help the Lebanese who should be a de-facto partner with Israel.

For that reason I believe that Olmert deserves every bit of criticism that can be thrown upon him.

Well, you're not entirely wrong.  But the trouble with this line of thought is that it does not consider that Lebanon does not recognize Israel, and thus the diplomatic channels with which Olmert may have pursued such a course simply do not exist.  Israel has recently tried to create a diplomatic relationship after Syria removed its troops from Lebanon, but the Lebanese government deferred to solidarity with the Arab League's overarching policy of diplomatic, economic and cultural isolation of Israel.

I'm not sure I accept this. It seems more like an excuse than an explanation.

Did Israel have no channels whatsoever to communicate with Lebanon? For instance, wouldn't or couldn't messages be related through the Egyptian, Jordanian, American or Turkish embassies? Couldn't Israel have made announcements or statements which would have been heard by Israel. Would a confidential diplomatic mission have been refused?

As for the Lebanese governments refusal of formal diplomatic relations... would this have had anything to do with a brutal 18 year occupation, including the siege of Beirut? The lack of reparations for the damage said occupation inflicted?

Could it have anything to do with Israel's intransigence on outstanding issues such as 400,000 live land mines, Shabaa farms, or Lebanese prisoners?

What sanctions or measures does Lebanon have to use against Israel to push or require progress on these fronts, except to withhold diplomatic recognition? Does Israel refuse to give ground on these issues? If so, why bother making the concession of diplomatic relations?

I believe that a group of Iraeli lawyers are preparing a lawsuit against Lebanon, to penalize it for Israel's costs and damages in thsi war. Will this enhance diplomatic relations?

Yeah,

Also I think there has been a big change in the last few years with the Republicans basically acting like a Parliamentary system much more than at any previous time in our history.

The way we had accountability was the seperation of powers, even if they were in the same party Congress and the Senate still operated at somewhat different purposes from each other and the President. In the past past even when a President had a majority from his own party he still had to negoiate with them; this lockstep lining up behind the President by his party in Congress is pretty much unique.

Valdron,

What sanctions or measures does Lebanon have to use against Israel to push or require progress on these fronts, except to withhold diplomatic recognition?

Fair enough.  And it's worked so well so far!

Correct! It's worked like crap!

Personally, if I was Beirut, I would have exchanged embassies, if for no other reason than to give local crowds something to throw rocks at.

But you'll acknowledge that its likely that Lebanon's refusal to enter into diplomatic relations with Israel has more to do with local history and issues rather than some vast Arab conspiracy?

What's Lebanon's motive for diplomatic relations? Make this concession and then have a warlike and aggressive state refuse to address its issues and continually make demands it comply with, backed by threats of things it will eventually do anyway? If I had a neighbor like that, I'd just put in earplugs. If Lebanon's perception that diplomatic relations are of advantage to Israel but not to itself it won't bother. And you can't bomb them into liking you.

Still, its not like the current arrangement is working for anyone.

Recently, in response to a challenge of yours, I sent a very long post outlining my thoughts as to how Israel could 'tame' Hezbollah and forge a lasting peace and a working relationship with Lebanon. And if it didn't work out, Israel would be left with much better intelligence as to how to take out Hezbollah far more efficiently. That thread vanished, which is a pity, I wish you could have read it.

The point of that post was that the course we were all on in the middle east was not fated, and that the cycle could be broken. You know how it is, its all fun and games when someone loses an eye.

By the time Prime Minister Ehud Barak unilaterally pulled out 18 years later (an act that seems less than strategically wise in retrospect), he had little choice.

Now this is an interesting statement.  Barak's pullout from Lebanon was "less than strategically wise"?  Why is that?  Could it possibly be that despite the slow bleed that Hezbollah was inflicitng on Israel in south Lebanon, that was preferable to letting them run free and dig in right across the border?

If that's true, why should we assume that it would be any different if Israel pulls out of the West Bank?  Isn't it almost guaranteed that the radicals will quickly dominate the new Palestinian state, the way they did Gaza?  Aren't they just as likely to take from the Lebanon war the lesson that Hezbollah taught them?  Aren't they likely to become pawns of Iran?

...the hapless Palestinians with their Kassams which, fired thousands of times, caused only a fraction of the damage inflicted by Hezbollah’s rockets.

Isn't that only because the area of Israel near the Gaza Strip is sparsely populated?  What happens when these harmless Kassams are fired in to Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, both within range of the border if Israel pulls out to the Green Line.

Many moderates reject the unilateral approach because they believe, and the Lebanon experience would have confirmed for them, that peace for Israel can only be achieved through negotiations and ironclad security guarantees.

Indeed.  But the peacenik left always skips right over the "ironclad security guarantee" part.  How is an ironclad guarantee even possible?  What would it look like? Who would enforce it? What are the consequences if it fails?  And so on.  They are right to dance around this issue because there are no good answers to any of these questions.  The peacenik position is bascially that Israel should withdraw and the security stuff will take care of itself.  Let's trust the Arabs to do what's right if their basic demands are met.

This is why the peacenik movement has withered to virtually nothing within Israel itself.  Even assuming the new Palestinian state wanted to enforce the security provisions, they would not be able to, just as the Lebanese government is not able to enforce security on its southern border.  Radical groups would simply ignore the government, the way Hezbollah does.  It's pretty simple: unless the Palestinians have the capacity to offer ironclad guarantees, the land-for-peace formula is inoperative. 

Great points, but as to:  The question is, how much longer before reality bites our butt?

 Reality has already bitten the butts of the maimed and dead soldiers, and thousands of family members; their numbers increasing day by day.  I've thought every 500 would be a tipping point, but I do believe that when as many young soldiers are dead as the number who died in the 911 attacks (which as we all KNOW have NOTHING to do with each other in truth-world, as opposed to Bush-world),

...well, I think that will push any Bush-supporter with a brain (?) or at least a conscience who is left, away from him.

Jan Knaus

Do any of you historians out there recall an American leader actually admitting he was wrong about something.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Yup. Ike and U2. And JFK with Bay of Pigs.

I disagree. I think that accountability provides a mitigating effect in that it prevents the continuance of unwise or inept policies.

Iraq/Lebanon is a perfect example. Both represent dramatically failed military experiments. Israel pulled out of Lebanon after 35 days. The United States committed to years of failure in Iraq and is bound and determined to continue to fail for years more.

Accountability, I would also argue, has a genuinely deterrent effect on many potentially reckless or foolish policy options. More accountability in the intelligence gathering might well have avoided the Iraq war altogether by negativing the wmd theory conclusively. (Hypothetical of course - the reality is that the wmd allegations were all a windy bag of obvious lies and fabrications knowingly peddled) (However, more accountability might have exploded these lies and left the invasion without support).

Finally, accountability is effective in maintaining minimum standards of competence. If, for instance, FEMA and Homeland Security had been subject to greater ongoing standards of accountability, New Orleans would be a different place today.

I must say that your thesis as to the principle effect of accountability being 'morale' building for opposition parties strikes me as so profoundly counterintuitive as to be bizarre and ... silly.

Do you have any study or analysis by any reputable party that would support your novel and quixotic notion.

So far as I understand, in both commercial, professional and military venues, accountability is one of the highest principles used to maintain and enforce both efficiency and standards.

Clinton in 1998 went to Rwanda and apologized for not acting. link

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

I heard Jimmy Carter list the things he would have done differently; most of them had to do with the Iranian hostage crisis. I can't recall all his words, but as usual they were thoughtful and honest.

Clinton said he would not have approved the Special Prosecuter -- ok that's about a scandal.

Other than those 2, I'm at a loss. I guess no one else ever realized he made a mistake!

Jan Knaus

Ahhh and so you did. I'll thank you for reading it through and not mocking it.

I'll add a couple of thoughts to it. First, the methods I outlined were not radically different from the sorts of things that the British did in India, which lead them by turns into control of the entire subcontinent.

I'm not suggesting that Israel start up the Lebanon East India Company or anything like that. But merely pointing out that these sorts of tactics have a long and distinguished history of success and have produced productive empires and productive relationships at low cost.

The second thing is that I think your insistence that the Arab states must come to Israel is a strategic mistake. It hands all the initiative and all the control over to the other side and makes you dependent upon their timing and their politics.

The British did not do it that way. If they'd simply waited for Indian Princes to come to them, they'd still be sitting in their little trading enclaves.

Israel has the power, and so Israel can have the initiative, and I think that it would be in Israel's interests to wield that initiative. At the very least, it gives an advantage in setting the terms of the discussion.

What's your alternative? Wait for some spontaneous moral and spiritual transformation to overcome both parties so that they'll simultaneously dash into each others arms in slow motion across a field of flowers to stirring music? When does that ever happen?

Israel is prepared to take the initiative in war, and has proven that it can think brilliantly and systematically in pursuit of war. So why can't Israel approach peace the same way?

Anwar Sadat had the courage to go to Jerusalem.

What Israeli leader has the courage to go to Damascus?

Is the peace movement withered away to virtually nothing within Israel?

This is news to me. Certainly certain elements in Israel appear to be quite willing to assassinate or do violence to those who believe in peace, as witness the assassination of Rabbin...

But withered away to virtually nothing?

Mr. Rosenberg, you seem to know something about Israeli politics. Could you comment on this?

The peace movement does not mount the kind of demonstrations it once did. Although thousands of Israelis did attend protests of the Lebanon war.

However, public opinion polls consistently show that 60% of Israelis would exchange all of the West Bank in exchange for peace with the Palestinians. Is that a movement? Not really. 60% of Americans oppose the Iraq war but that does not constitute a movement.

It does indicate however that the majority of Israelis understand that there is no alternative for Israel except the two-state solution i.e. land for peace. The Greater Israel movement is completely dead and settlers are unpopular with Israelis across the political spectrum.

In short, it is possible that Olmert could seize the post-Lebanon moment and negotiate a deal with the Palestinians. If he did, he would have wide and deep support. The unilateral option, however, appears dead which is no great loss.

It takes two sides to make peace. Unilateralism is one hand clapping.

A tad snide, don't you think. I doubt a single history textbook cites Grant's apology.

His apology wasn't much of anything anyway. He remained the leader of the corrupt "Stalwarts," hung out with the odious crook, Roscoe Conkling, and did everything he could to thwart President Garfield's efforts to clean up the GOP.

The fact that he might have won a third term testifies only to the fact that Americans esteemed Grant the general and essentially ignored the cesspool that was his administration.

In your reply to Valdron you characterized the Beruit initiative as '"Do everything we say, then maybe we'll talk".'

The relevant text reads:

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

I'm not seeing the 'maybe'.

Valdron,

I checked. Nothing. There's no indication of specific diplomatic tensions between Israel and Egypt or Jordan, beyond the expected complications of the Lebanese thing. Forget about Mauretania. Were you referring to some previous recent history I missed?

Nothing eventful, obviously -- or beyond mundane spikes in tourism anyway.  I look forwrad to you reconsidering, perhaps even retracting, your characterization of Israel as "a warlike and aggressive state... continually mak[ing] demands... backed by threats of things it will eventually do anyway."

So far as I understand, in both commercial, professional and military venues, accountability is one of the highest principles used to maintain and enforce both efficiency and standards.

Yes, moreover, accountability reinforces integrity, honor  and dependability, all character traits necessary to sound leadership and in short supply in the current administration.

By the way, the last time a "senior administration official" resigned from office (Attorney General) because he was asked to violate his integrity was Elliot Richardson during the Nixon administration.

Valdron,

What's your alternative? Wait for some spontaneous moral and spiritual transformation to overcome both parties so that they'll simultaneously dash into each others arms in slow motion across a field of flowers to stirring music? When does that ever happen?

I thought we didn't like mocking?

Meanwhile, what about the rest of the world?  You're keen on the idea of interested third parties.  The world body, the Organization of Islamic Conferences, lots of folks that the Arab establishment is open to discuss things with.  The EU is Israel's largest trading partner AND it sustains productive relations with most Arab states.  Maybe they can even vouch for the old Arabic expression "haq al-Yahud" (with even a second from Mauritania)?

Here's an article about professional finger-pointers;

Error is human; Refusal to admit error is journalism

It wasn't intended to mock you, and if you feel that I was targeting you, you shouldn't.

It was the metaphorical exageration of a particular premise for comic but pertinent effect. There was no malice.

In terms of getting third parties involved to try and break the stalemate and get actual communications with both parties? Sure. Excellent idea.

I think that the trouble with the United States in this context is the trouble that the US has had in other forums. A weddings it must be the bride, at funerals it demands to be the corpse. In Somalia and Lebanon, the United States attempted dual roles as both neutral and independent peacekeeper and as a partisan player. The consistent lesson is that you can't be both.

The United States can't be a patron of Israel and hold itself out to the third Arab world as an honest broker.

But that doesn't mean that there can't be honest brokers who can't break through the situation. It just means that its not going to be the US.

So maybe the US should just resign itself to being Israel's patron and let some other power come in as honest broker?

America is being broken in Iraq, and its picking a fight it can't win in Iran. There's gotta be a way off this merry go round before it rolls off a cliff (mixed metaphor, hoping you appreciated it).

Wow. You're right. It's just "do what we want, period."

I was scrolling down this thread waiting for someone to get to this issue.  Not only do I not recall any politician take responsibility for mistakes I harken back to Nixon.  President Nixon was forced to resign in the wake of Watergate and what did he say on his way out?  You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore.

I was struck by your desciption of how "haunted" Begin was by the Israeli military deaths and contrast it to how unapologetic Bush is about all the death he has wrought in Iraq.  Not only does Bush show no contrition he exaults the deaths as "freedom on the march".  All you need to do is contrast Bush and Begin to see why Israel and the US are so different in terms of accountability...we celebrate and praise death in the US...especially the current administration, including that disgrace Feith.

Sad. This is the mirror image of what some Arabs say about Jews.
I love the reference to "overprotective, overprivileged [Israeli] moms" who don't want their boys dying in war.
I guess this poster admires the mothers of suicide bombers who happily send their kids off to die. Or the settler moms who choose to have their kids grow up in the midst of a population that despises them.

Such bravery. Obviously selfinterest is no mom!

Such bravery. Obviously selfinterest is no mom!

Every soldier has a mom. If you had your way there would be no soldiers. What a fool you are.

"Israel has recently tried to create a diplomatic relationship after Syria removed its troops from Lebanon, but the Lebanese government deferred to solidarity with the Arab League's overarching policy of diplomatic, economic and cultural isolation of Israel."

Do have cites for this claim?

AFAIK until Peretz suggested opening a dialogue with Syria (and got roundly trashed for it), I'm not aware of any overatures from that direction.

In fact, I believe that just the opposite is true. Although Sharon probably didn't care to respond to Assad's repeated calls for dialogue, it was the word from Washington that stymied any attempts for establishing a relationship with Syria.

DC was pushing Israel to attack Lebanon AND Syria, which thankfully, Israel declined to do.

Birds of a feather. You two are a match made in heaven.

What I'd like is to see you off this site. Anyway, I assume you are in uniform fighting those A-Rabs. How can you take time off for posting?

Surely, you aren't a chickenhawk.

You mean like FDR? Surely you can do better than that Mr. Rosenberg.

I asked you a question. You never responded. What would the Arabs have to do to make you admit your policy of peaceful compromise was a failure, the wrong approach?

Ratings are fun and all, but if you think I'm wrong try explaining how I am wrong.

It is apparently not in the interest of selfinterest to have any sort of bio page on TPM Cafe, click on the name and you get:

You are not authorized to access this page.

Sure, life is cheap. But most of these countries do their slaughtering at home. Seriously... Syria and Iraq hated each others guts, did they ever do anything besides exchange rude letters? Egypts one non-Israeli war was a pissy little nothing of a conflict with Libya. Who the hell has Jordan ever fought, I hear they picked a fight with Sri Lanka once but backed down.

Look at the nastiest conflicts in the Arab world that aren't with Israel and what do you have? Two episodes of really bad judgement by Saddam Hussein, and the rest of it is internal civil wars - Lebanon, Sudan, Yemen, Algeria, and assorted nasty uprisings ... Hama in Syria, the Kurds in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, that fracas at the Shrine of the Rock in Meca back in the 80's, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (sorry Anwar).

I'm not getting why you seem to be insulted. Israel is uniquely warlike. It fights real wars. Kicks real ass. Its a militaristic society. Look at Israel's mobilization capacity, for Pete's sakes. Look at its military budget per capita and compare that to the per capita military budgets around the region. Israel is buff, its muscular, its pumped, its cut.

I expect you're right that a state with a culture of accountability will often 'prevent the continuance' of a failed policy sooner than one without. I never doubted that. I did not address that aspect of accountability. Nor was I adressing its effect on 'minimum standards of competence.' Neither of these are directly relevant to the effect of accountability as a before-the-fact deterrent to bad policy.

Accountability is no deterrent - all the accountability in the world won't prevent a bad policy from being implemented in the first place. Accountability can be punative, and this punative nature often has the side effect of giving comfort to the opposition. (and this paragraph is a more serious and hopefully more clear restatement of what I was trying to convey)

Because it is purely speculative, your WMD counterexample was, to be kind, unconvincing. Maybe you could come up with a real world example of accountability preventing bad policy BEFORE the policy was implemented?

That msg may indicate that he's been booted.
For awhile.
Be on the alert for chimeras.

In Memorium

Access:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/user/12264/comments?page=12On July 16,

To find:

2006 - 3:11am selfinterest says Can the crap.

All our descriptions of reality are inexact. Outside of certain disciplines like astronomy and physics, very inexact. I can't tell you exactly who is a Jew or Chinese or Catholic or Republican but I can make very good guesses based on very simple observations.

Getting back to anonymity. At various times in my life I've had to sleep with a gun or a club beside my bed. Usually the reasons were sexual or romantic, but sometimes they were political or financial. It's only common sense to try to avoid that situation by using anonymity when expressing controversial views. What I want to know is why you don't display such common sense?

reply | write to author | link |
Rated 0 by one user.

You're right...that wasn't the quote.  But he did remain defiant and unbowed even as he was boarding the helicopter to leave DC.

One of the interesting items in today's news:

"Israel's UN ambassador says he doubts that a new Arab League initiative to end decades of Arab-Israeli conflict would fairly consider Israel's security needs.
Arab League foreign ministers have asked to send a high-level delegation to a ministerial meeting of the Security Council in September to initiate a new effort to bring lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese.
Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman said Friday that the country's top priority at the moment is "solving the Lebanon problem" and making sure the UN resolution ending Israel's 34-day war with Hezbollah is implemented - not starting a new Mideast peace process."

So please correct me if I have this wrong. The Arab League calls for a new effort for an overall peace initiative; Israel is too busy with a failed commando raid (a massive violation of the ceasefire accord) to bother to engage in a general peace process. We all know that whatever there is in the truce concerning disarming Hezbollah that that is dead in the water. You don't win that sort of concessions unless you have a stunning battlefield victory and only your mother and George Bush would tell Israel that the recent campaign was a stunning victory...certainly not the Israeli public. So it seems Israel itself has decided it doesn't like the situation and is ready to fight forever and ditch the "all we want is a lasting peace" rhetoric. Zionista, you have spoken repeatedly about the importance for Arab countries to recognize Israel; I think you will agree this is no way to encourage that end.

You're a better man than me, amike.

We have always been at war with Eurasia.

This raises another point. What does this say about academia? Does David Horowitz know that our failed stupid deangerous policy makers are flooding academia with faux-academics? What does it say about Stanford that an intellectual lightweight like Cond. Rice is made president. I guess it says that the money behind the Boards of Trustees carries a lot of heavy weight.

I don't see why you keep advocating that Israel maintain a passive and supine pose in international diplomacy.

Do you believe that Israel bringing initiatives or making first moves is a sign of weakness?

I would dispute this. The relative strength or weakness of the parties is not determined by their diplomatic actions, it is the opposite, the relative strength or weakness of the parties enables their diplomatic options.

Richard Nixon went to China. Nikita Kruschev went to Washington. Anwar Sadat went to Jerusalem.

The world we live in was shaped by these men in those moments. There is a real chance that in this nuclear age the world we live in exists only because of these men in those moments.

There's all kinds of courage. Violence is one, but hardly impressive. The truth is that it takes very little courage to let loose the dogs, merely a moment of anger or resolve. Given Israel's overwhelming military superiority in the region, it took very little courage to attack Lebanon, merely poor judgement.

What politician in Tel Aviv has the courage and daring to go to Damascus?

Just for the record, its one thing to restart a fight when the advantage has swung dramatically your way.

Its moronic to restart a fight when nothing has changed.

The price in lives, resources, money and credibility simply was not worth this appallingly stupid risk.

(And, by the way, the Israeli seat of government is Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv).

Sigh.

Poetic license? Sure, Sadat probably really went to Tel Aviv. But there's no poetry or literary resonance to that. "Nixon to China" that's a phrase that's embedded in culture now. Kruschev to Washington, not as well known, but still a seminal event in recent history. Substituting Jerusalem for Tel Aviv makes for a more satisfying analogy, and has resonances back to both Christian and Jewish heritage and even the old Hope and Crosby movies. And best of all, it provides a connecting bridge to the 'Road to Damascus' concept, alluding directly to Paul/Saul's life and world changing epiphany.

Sheesh. It's bad enough I have to work on your sense of humour. But cultivating a bit of literary style as well? You use words with no more imagination or sense of fun than mowing the lawn. That's barely acceptable.

You know what you are?

You are a PROJECT.

hmmph

But I don't see Brad lying at all, Valdron. If all that we are talking about is what floats by on the cathode ray tube, you'd have to acknowledge that there's no viable peace movement since it's not something that has been addressed by MSM.  Lies of ommission are the work of the Ministry of Truth.  Think of mass media as an extension of the personal senses.  Without it we are only able to witness the world within the range or our big 5, so it would be impossible to make any meaningful statement about conditions that exist on the other side of the planet.  

So there's no trick, I think.  But I am silly. 

Neoboho

It is appalling that Israel and the US have ignored the Arab League initiative.
But they have also ignored the Hamas/Abbas offer yesterday of a total ceasefire in Gaza, so long as it is reciprocal.
The days when Israel proclaimed that it would talk to any Arab, anywhere about peace are over.
Golda Meir once said: "They know our phone number. If they call, we'll come."
Hello, Golda.
You there?
No.
Put Olmert on the phone then!

Here are your relevant quotes...

- Israel is ready to discuss the initiative

- we will endorse and enter a dialogue with the Saudis or anyone else

- the Saudi crown prince was able to get the peace initiative passed is a very interesting development,

Proves my point. This is not Israel taking any kind of initiative. This is Israel tepidly reacting to the Saudi initiative. At best it is a faint response.

The real point however, is that it is a Saudi initiative. Israel can only react. This is my whole point...

Now, this is slightly better in supporting your case, but not much...

- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has expressed the wish to attend the Arab League Summit in the Lebanese capital of Beirut later this week, and has asked the United States to intervene in his favor.

- "I suggested I'll go to Beirut to talk to the Arabs directly about what might be achieved," the prime minister said in his interview with the Washing[ton] Post published on Saturday.

- "I would welcome an American initiative to advance such a move," he declared.

- "Cheney took note of it... but there has been no answer from the Americans,¡±the source added.

Okay, first of all, let me say up front that when it comes to Ariel Sharon, I have a very definite opinion. The man was a murderous butcher, he was a cheap thug, a petty sadist, a war criminal. For whatever services he rendered Israel (and he did render service, performing heroically, even brilliantly, in the Yom Kippur War) it did not change the fact that he was a monster. I do not believe that he ever reformed. He went to the end of his life as a hateful shit.

So in this light, I have to say that his proposal was a pretty positive development, and it might well have changed everything, or at least opened a dialogue... if it had been real.

The question is, was it for real? I would really like to say yes. But the truth is that politicians often right cheques that they know won't ever be cashed, and quite often they right cheques in the belief or the assurance that they won't be cashed.

So was Sharon's initiative a cheque that was ever intended to be cashed? Look again.

Sharon's 'initiative' was contingent upon the Americans' 'initiative.' In an operational sense, it wasn't an Israeli but an American initiative. It would take America to make the key move.

So, in this sense, once again, it is Israel being diplomatically passive and supine, rather than commanding the field.

But there is another issue. Sharon was waiting for the Bush administration? But we know from Ron Suskind that the Bush administration, literally from the start of its term, had decided to leave off peacemaking efforts in the middle east. In Bush's view, force would clarify things for the parties. Sharon must have known this.

So when he opened his mouth, he essentially was asking the Americans publicly to do something that both he and the Americans privately knew they would not do. In essence, he carefully framed his 'initiative' in a way that he could rely upon not going forward. He carefully wrote the cheque so that it would not be cashed.

You'll notice that he never said or offered up any such thing during the Clinton administration, because they would have leaped for it. The cheque, written then, would definitely have been cashed. So it didn't get written then.

So what was he doing? Playing to the house. Politics. A wink to his supporters and pals, saying the right and hopeful things to the dreamers, taking no risks and reaping popularity points. He was point scoring. He was game playing. One more shitty little game from a shitty human being.

Some day, this crap will get us all killed. Life and death is not a matter of scoring points.

amike

Ahamadinejad has stated that the primary concern for his nation is the complete destruction of Israel. In addition, the man and his government have publicly denounced the Jewish Holocaust.

If you can provide a viable starting point to negotiation, I'd love to hear it.

The way I see it, you can't negotiate when neither side is truly interested. This is not at all similar as past negotiations with Mao or Kruschev, who actually embraced the idea of improving relations with the United States. In both of these cases it was the U.S. who was persistently stubborn and late-arriving to the table.

With Iran, they have no interest in truly negotiating. They want Israel and all of its people destroyed.

At various times in my life I've had to sleep with a gun or a club beside my bed. Usually the reasons were sexual or romantic…

Happiness is a warm gun. Is it a snub-nosed or a long barrel? No, what you do with your gun behind closed doors is nobody’s business.

Excuse the snide jokes. I might not be making them if we were talking face to face, so, I guess this kind of proves your point about anonymity, especially online.

The United States negotiated with Stalin -- the man responsible for more killing than any human being in history.

Except for one, Chairman Mao, who Nixon and Kissinger negotiated with starting in 1972.

VLaszlo:

This is what is here now. If Israel doesn't want to engage in a peace process (to be fair if OLMERT and the neocons), then they forfeit support for their policies and should be opposed. You don't have to, but you cannot have it both ways.

Valdron:

Sharon's 'initiative' was contingent upon the Americans' 'initiative.' In an operational sense, it wasn't an Israeli but an American initiative. It would take America to make the key move.

Thus Sharon's initiative to the Arab League in 2002 amounts to an ersatz US initiative while the recent Arab League initiative to the UN Security Council is taken at face value.  Selective scrutiny makes everything so convenient!

Yet again, if it is right, sensible and reasonable to reverse the Bush administration's policy of isolation against Iran and engage in direct negotiations with Tehran, then why is it right, sensible and reasonable to maintain the Arab League's policy of isolation against Israel and evade direct negotiations with Jerusalem?

Perhaps someone reading this can comment on Khruschev's actual Russian words, but I've been told by a couple of very good Russian linguists that "we will bury you" is a bad translation of the idiom he used. According to them, it wasn't as confrontational, but more like "our system will outlive yours, so we will be around to bury you." The usual English translation suggests the Russians intended to kill and bury the West.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Zionista, Valdron is a bright smart guy. Answer him directly. I am not Valdron. Don't marry me to him just yet. (I do not think you wish to have your viewpoint attached and reduced to every other zionist).
In terms of your reply as it refers to my comment, it is not right, sensible and reasonable for the Arab League to have a policy of isolation and direct negotiations with Israel (I do not know what your point is in writing "Jerusalem" instead of "Israel". I do not think it was accidental).
But the big picture is getting a peace agreement. And sometimes small gestures can lead to important results; and sometimes small gestures disdained can lead to unnecessary bloodshed. Now do we have Zionista's and Israel's sine qua non before ANY negotiations may begin "direct negotiations" initiated by the Arab League with a visit to Jerusalem. If so, I am skepticaql that you or Israle wants peace.

Again, the Arab League is not right or sensible or reasonable in dealing directly with Israel. In my opinion, it is less right, sensible, and reasonable for Israel to persist with its policy of settlements on the West Bank, with its withholding of tax monies collected from the Palestinians and with the policy of its ruling neocons to refuse negotiations and try to control the area through military force. But there may be aspects of this situation I am unaware of although I try to follow it closely.

Gettysburg says:

If you can provide a viable starting point to negotiation, I'd love to hear it.

Let me begin by stating that I'm not using "negotiations" in the sense of manufacturers and union leaders sitting around a table hammering out a collective bargaining agreement.  I'm quite willing to begin with far more modest goals, talking to each other and also past each other to others who may be standing by, watching avidly, and forming opinions of their own.  My model would be based on the kind of exchange between two New England ministers several centuries ago:  Roger Williams and John Cotton.

You will remember Williams was exiled to Rhode Island on the basis of his religious beliefs and that John Cotton was the most prominent clergyman in Massachusetts Bay Colony.  Cotton, having suffered persecution for his religious beliefs in England, was yet no friend of religious toleration.  Williams could be called the father of religious toleration in the United States.

In the years following his exile, Cotton and Williams engaged in the most extraordinary exchange of views in the public press.  Williams wrote The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience.  Cotton fired back with The Bloody Tenet Washed and Made White in the Blood of the Lamb (Sorry I can't provide a link...the net is a bit shy on American Documents favoring religious persecution.)  Williams returned the fire with The Bloody Tenet of Persecution Made Yet More Bloody When Washed  in the Blood of the Lamb. 

Were these negotiations?  In the narrow sense no.  But they were a dialog and they were parts of a contest for the hearts and minds of New Englanders and the English alike.  Williams remained an exile.  Other exiles (Mary Dyer for one) returned and suffered the consequences. 

My point (and not mine alone):  By refusing to dialog we lose.  The only contest I'm guaranteed to lose is the one in which I don't engage. 

Ahamadinejad sent an open letter to George Bush last May.  The document in pdf format is available courtesy of the Council on Foreign Relations. As one might expect from a country with which we've had no diplomatic relations for about a quarter century, the letter is a full throated assault on American Foreign Policy.  The administration chose to dismiss the document rather than engage the document and its author. Was this wise?  I would argue no.

Any document as long as this letter is going to have points of weakness. Any document as full of rhetorical questions as this one is would offer points to make counter-arguments, both to the author, but more importantly to the bystanders...those whose hearts and minds we are "trying to win" (though not very hard, mho).  Let me give one example of my own and then direct interested persons to a source which provides many arguments why Bush should not have ignored the openings this document provided.

Here's mine:  Ahamadinejad says

September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

There are at least two openings here.

1. Bush could have drawn attention to the fact that the United States has offered both sympathy and concrete aid to the government in Tehran during at the time of devastating earthquakes.
2. Bush could have remarked that regardless of what one thought about the State of Israel, one could hardly call the little children there anything but innocents, and to support acts which result in their killing is "deplorable and appalling".

It would not be difficult to find enough counterpoints to write a letter as long and detailed as Ahamadinejad's was.  Would any of this have made him a different person or changed Iranian policy?  I doubt it.  But it would have put the ball back in his court, kept the dialog open, and perhaps have had an impact on those "hearts and minds" open to conviction elsewhere.  Certainly someone in the Administration could have crafted an elegant and persuasive response, even if that would be beyond Bush's capacities.

What happens if one doesn't respond?  The lack of response becomes the story.  The Iranian President gets the press. 

The best argument I've seen for using openings of this sort comes from Tom Porteous, formally of the BBC and British Foreign Office.  In part he says:

It might be constructive to answer Ahmadinejad by lobbing some of the issues he raises back at him. Twenty seven years after the Islamic Republic was founded, Iran (like most Middle Eastern states, including Israel) is hardly a haven of justice and fairness, let alone of political freedom. A critique of the Islamic Republic’s internal policies could be part of the answer to Ahmadinejad’s letter. A staunch defence of societies based on liberalism and democracy might also appeal to a large international constituency both in the West and in the Muslim world. That would be a real dialogue of civilizations.

The whole essay is well worth a read.

aMike