Israel's "Best Friends" Are Its Worst Enemies
The other day Israeli Nobel Laureate Robert Aumann chastised his countrymen for being so upset by their losses in the recent Lebanon war. "We are too sensitive to our losses, and also to the losses of the other side," he said. "In the Yom Kippur War, 3,000 soldiers were killed. It sounds terrible, but that's small change."
Aumann, an ultra-Orthodox Jew who won last year's prize in economics -- believes Israelis need to toughen themselves so that they can sustain more losses, without losing faith in the Zionist mission.
Of course, the Zionist mission was to establish a state where Jewish young people would be safe, not one in which a certain percentage of 18-year old kids would die in battle in each generation.
Aumann's upside-down Zionist vision -- a Jewish state perpetually at war -- would neither have inspired Jews to build a state nor would it have sustained it.
Fortunately, few Israelis share Aumann's views. The widespread reaction to his cavalier remarks about losing soldiers was that he should stick to economics.
To Israel’s credit, there has always been a deep resistance to sending young people off to war unless it is considered absolutely necessary. That is why a clear majority of Israel is more than ready to get out of the West Bank.
Aumann also chastises Israelis for being overly concerned with losses on the other side i.e. Palestinians and other Arabs. The idea that a Nobel laureate (even if it is in economics) would criticize Israel for being “too sensitive to losses on the other side” is obscene.
But it is just as well that we know that people like Dr. Aumann exist. Anytime one wonders how the world became such a bloody place, we can remember Aumann who, with all his brilliance, believes that the ticket to Jewish survival is, of all things, killing and being killed.
But there is a certain logic, brutal as it may be, to Aumann's position. He is a self-proclaimed hardliner on Israel. He fiercely opposed last year's Gaza withdrawal and any land-for-peace deals. For him, every last inch belongs to Israel and any suggestion that it does not is anti-Jewish.
But Aumann also understands that the only way his Greater Israel vision can be sustained is at a high cost in Israeli lives.
Give him credit for honesty.
This week in Ha'aretz, Danny Rubinstein, the West Bank-Gaza correspondent, wrote that the situation in Gaza is deteriorating rapidly and that a Third Intifada is likely to break out soon. “The collision course is clear. It is not going to come as a surprise."
And what are we all going to do in the meantime? Sit back and wait for the collision? Or for Professor Aumann's “Apocalypse Soon”?
The other night I had dinner with an Israeli who bemoaned the world's lack of interest in helping to bring Israelis and Palestinians to an agreement.
He said that it angered him that virtually every international conflict is resolved with international involvement but not the one that threatens his family. He cited the EU’s role in Cyprus, US mediation in Northern Ireland, US and EU involvement in Yugoslavia and South Africa.
“In every other conflict, there seems to be an understanding that the parties can't do it alone. The US and the Europeans come in, not to dictate a settlement but to make sure one happens. But, for whatever reason, we Israelis are left to fend for ourselves."
I asked him what he wanted to see happen. He said that he wanted the US to bring Israelis and Palestinians together “and not quit until there is an agreement.”
He said that is what Jimmy Carter did in the late 1970’s to achieve the Egypt-Israeli treaty. “I wonder how many of my friends are alive today who would be dead if Carter had just allowed Begin and Sadat to leave Camp David without an agreement."
I told him that unfortunately the politics that surround the Arab-Israeli issue in the United States make it unlikely that our government will take the lead in the way he suggests.
"I know the politics," he said. "But somebody needs to think about real people like me who want to have a life in Israel. Someone needs to tell your Congress that not encouraging President Bush to take action to end this conflict is not pro-Israel. As far as I am concerned, it’s anti-Israel.
"Because this conflict very likely will end up destroying everything we have built here. Those who claim to support Israel but oppose a strong US role will have contributed to our destruction."
Hopefully, we still have time to prevent that catastrophe. The Bush administration enters the last two years of its term in January but, in fact, it was during the last two years of their terms that former Presidents Bush and Clinton made their most significant contributions to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Those two Presidents essentially left behind a blueprint for an agreement that would end the conflict once and for all.
A President cannot solve the national health crisis in two years. Or end nuclear proliferation. Or put social security on a permanently sound financial footing.
But he can produce an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. After all, as my Israeli friend asks: Why do Israelis and Palestinians deserve less than the Irish, the Cypriots, the Serbs, the Bosnians or the South Africans?
Why indeed?
George W. Bush will probably not be able to solve the national health crisis in two years . . . . But he can produce a peace agreement.
I agree with the gist of your comments, but I don't share your optimism that anything good or worthwhile can come from this Administration. After all, many in the President's base are waiting for the the Mideast to go up in flames as the sign that The Rapture is at hand.
Ovid
October 24, 2006 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he does for peace what he has done for health care, perhaps everyone should pray for his indifference on the matter.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
October 24, 2006 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The U.S. spent the last thirty years trying to broker a peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The only benefit from the agreements was that both sides had a lull in the hostilities that provided them the opportunity to rest and rearm.
Now it is too late for the U.S. to broker a peace or even conduct "talks". We have nothing left to offer either side - any political capital (which was always minimal) is gone, we have no troops to enforce any agreement and everyone in the Middle East knows it (which is why they're acting with impunity now) and we will soon be in such a financial predicament ourselves that we will lack the funds to bribe both sides into a peace. It is over for the U.S. in the Middle East, we no longer have the upper hand, we have no moral authority, there is nothing the U.S. can offer to Israel and the Palestinians.
Israel must eliminate its dependence on the U.S. for its survival. If Israel wants peace, it must broker its own agreement.
October 24, 2006 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"To Israel’s credit, there has always been a deep resistance to sending young people off to war unless it is considered absolutely necessary. That is why a clear majority of Israel is more than ready to get out of the West Bank."
MJ - As I wrote in my posting - Israel, A Personal Journey, I believe the polls showing a majority wanting out of the west bank to be illusionary. I traveled throughout the west bank and visited a dozen of the settlements and saw tremendous construction. At this pace of growth it will be impossible to leave in 5 years when peace negotiations are once again a possiblity. Have you seen what is going on there lately? Note the article in this morning's Ha'aretz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/778767.html
October 24, 2006 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Rosenberg
"But, for whatever reason, we Israelis are left to fend for ourselves."
I was quite astonished your friend could believe this. I can't think of a conflict in the world which has more outsiders try to intervene, going back to Eisenhower after Suez, Nixon after Yom Kippur, Carter at Camp David, Bush I in Madrid, Clinton throughout both terms. Even Bush II gave it some effort with the road map.
In contrast: - Is there a "Quartet" of powers trying to help Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers end their war? Have Burma and its many insurgent groups ever been invited to a roundtable at the Wye Plantation? Over the last 10 years, how much time have US/EU leaders tried to help Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army come to an agreement?
"But he can produce an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement"
No. Only the Israelis and Palestinians can do that. Look at Ireland. Despite what your friend seems to think, no US president did or cared much about Ulster until Clinton. Clinton did good work, and Senator Mitchell did HEROIC work, but the real advances had already been made before any of them got involved. The process had started, American support simply expedited and helped what would've happened anyway. Similarly, the ANC and the SA whites had both realised they needed to compromise for peace, and by the 1990s they were ready to take the plunge.
I don't see that in Israel/Palestine. Given that Avigdor Lieberman is entering the Israeli Cabinet whilst the Palestinians elected Hamas to represent them, it seems there's a lack of will for compromise on both sides.
Instead of endlessly bawling for the World to come in and solve their problems for them, each side needs to grow up and start doing the difficult work needed for peace.
October 24, 2006 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note that the so=called Nobel prize in Economics is not considered by everyone a "real" Nobel prize. The five Nobel prizes established Nobel were for Chemistry, Physics, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace, first awarded in 1901. And then in
October 24, 2006 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see that in Israel/Palestine. Given that Avigdor Lieberman is entering the Israeli Cabinet whilst the Palestinians elected Hamas to represent them, it seems there's a lack of will for compromise on both sides.
Well, yes, but part of the reason for the growing extremism on the Palestinian (and to a lesser extent, on the Israeli) side is that there haven't been any meaningful negotations between Israel and Palestinians in 2001. An environment where Palestinians are suffering immesurably and are devoid of hope is a very fertile one for radical groups. On the Israeli side, the continued violence strengthens reactionary voices like Avidgor Lieberman.
There's also the issue of the imbalance of power between the Palestinians and Israelis. Politically, economically, militarily, the Israelis are the vastly stronger power vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Leaving both parties to handle the issue by themselves means, in practice, giving the Israeli a free hand to try to impose their will on the Palestinians. This, in turn, radicalizes the Palestinians, and, as we have seen, empowers groups like Hamas.
Finally, you can't ignore the criticism of the United States that it has never been an "honest broker" between the Israeli and Palestinians, i.e. that while it has often intervened between the Israelis and the Palestinians, it has always done so on terms that favor Israel. Polls show that virtually no Palestinians trust the United States, and even many Israelis think the United States is too biased towards Israel. Personally, I believe that if the United States were to make tough demands of Israel as well as the Palestinians - oppostion to settlements in West Bank as illegal, recognition of the pre-1967 borders as the starting point for territorial negotations, etc.-- both Israel and Palestinians would benefit.
Right now, we are heading toward a frigthful future in the Middle East. In a few years, we may ver well long for the days of Hamas and Hizbollah.
October 24, 2006 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are missing one crucial difference between the situations in Ireland, Cyprus, South African, Bosnia and Serbia, as opposed to Israel. In none of the first four cases was one side devoted to the destruction and genocide of the other as the Palestinians are. This is not a conflict about land, it is an existential conflict.
An important part of the "Oslo Accords" was the end to incitement. Both sides were supposed to prepare their people for the compromises that would be necessary for peace. Israel did that. The Palestinians continued and even increased their incitement against Israel and Jews. The current generation of Palestinians has been poisoned by the rhetoric of jihad and its cult of death. They have internalized that and sadly because of that peace will not be possible for another generation.
As to your friend's suggestion that Jimmy Carter was responsible for the Camp David Accords, he is simply ignorant of the history. The negotiations between Egypt and Israel were conducted in secret without the knowledge of the US. It was only after they had an agreement that they brought it to the Carter, for the US to act as guarantor.
Clinton's actions during the last two years of his presidency vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had one direct result - the Oslo war and the radicalization of more Palestinians.
October 24, 2006 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno. Strikes me that when someone is talking existential conflict, perhaps he's thinking about advocating a little genocide of his own?
It seems to me that all too often, discussion of Israel/Palestinian issues fruitlessly comes down to mindless partisanship. Palestinians = EEEEEEVVVVVIILLLL!!!!!, Israel = Angelic goodness; or in rare cases vice versa.
It doesn't strike me that this is terribly effective for solving a problem or searching for a solution. Nor does it seem fair or balanced.
Rather, this sort of maniacal polar viewpoint just seems to be a license to work up to the sort of genocidal ruthlessness we've seen too often in the world.
Throw in large doses of paranoia, hysteria and self pity, and you have a viewpoint that is immune to reason.
But hey, what do I know. You just go ahead and call anyone who dares to disagree with you an anti-semite, that'll show em.
October 24, 2006 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you meant first four, excluding Serbia, but in both Bosnian and Serbian conflicts, there were any number that looked to the total destruction of at least some ethnic groups.
Regretfully, Israel seems to be internalizing a cult of death as well. I base this on detailed knowledge of the weapons known to be used, and announced targeting in Lebanon. It is possible that the IDF's extreme censorship, which does it no good, if lessened might have satisfactory explanations of the use of the M26/M270 rocket system. It might have explanations for the apparent use of fighter-bombers, rather than tube artillery, for counterbattery on single-launch GRAD rockets. It might have a systems analysis showing a direct relationship between the Lebanese electrical power system and Hezbollah's fighting ability.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
October 24, 2006 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nudnik - The existential threat from the Palestinians to "eliminate" Israel is non-existent. The Palestinians could no more eliminate Israel than Venezuela can eliminate the USA. However, the reverse is certainly true and based on my visits to Israel, that is becoming a more real possibility.
October 25, 2006 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Today I have finally read the news I've dreaded, one of Israel's true "best friends" a true man of peace, Robert Rosenberg, has lost his battle with cancer.
I stumbled across his blog Ariga several years ago and "The Situation" became a daily must read for Rosenberg's perceptive and thorough analysis on the complexities of internal Israeli politics and the Middle East.
Although RR approached his subjects from a jounalist's perspective, his passion for Israel and dedication to peaceful solutions informed his work. Sometimes his voice was angry, sometimes humorous, sometimes critical, but one could never doubt his love for his adopted country,
Thanks to him, this admirer had an invaluable window into Israeli/Arab concerns and realities . For me, Ariga provided context completely lacking in the vast majority of writings on the situation in the ME.
Robert Rosenberg's last entry on September 21 was titled "Fighting Back". As his silence continued day after day, that phrase became more and more emblematic of his fight against cancer (never mentioned on his blog except in a poem by a friend) and for the peaceful solutions he so relentlessly sought.
Somehow, this quote from one of the tributes by a friend says so much;
"After Robert died this morning, the heavens opened and thunderstorms roared and flashed across Tel Aviv all day.
And so they damn-well should. The city knows it's a poorer town tonight."
The city and indeed, the world, is a poorer place for this terrible loss.
http://www.ariga.com
October 26, 2006 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it is a struggle over much the same turf, between two competing national narratives. The threat to the Palestinians is Israel's material advantages, while the threat to Israel is the dominant sense of Arab political supremacy in the region.
October 26, 2006 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Self-deleted
October 26, 2006 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peter H,
Nudnik,
There is truth in both of these statements. But with a responsible and serious leadership the existential nature of the conflict can be unlearned by the principal parties. The trouble is that there are more than two principal parties to the conflict. The foreign ministries of Egypt and Qatar and the king of Jordan have recently stepped up to that level of leadership by applying pressure on Hamas to recognize Israel and honor all previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel didn't dismantle settlements and redeploy its troops from Gaza only to put it all back. Arab League member nations are beginning to make noises about normalizing relations with Israel. While it isn't pretty, there still is some potential for progress.
Meanwhile, US leadership plays it all for politics. Somehow, the ruling American party which only recently discovered the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam has the nerve to present itself comic book-style as the only thing that stands between Enlightenment civilization and the Mohammedan hordes.
October 26, 2006 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel kept expanding settlements and grabbing Palestinian land, and it is still doing so.
Moreover, in a sociological experiment from hell, Israel fostered very intense contact between the most thuggish and violent members of its own society and the Palestinians, by tolerating and supporting illegal "hilltop settlements" and many allegedly legal small settlements occupied by extremists who did their best to make the life of "neighbors" miserable. It had to have some influence on Palestinian mentality.
Israelis, under stress, succumb to extremist influence, Palestinians live under a larger stress to put it mildly. Barak's idea of negotiation was to build up pressure and he was the most open-minded partner for Palestinians. Or the least sincere. Right after the "failed negotiations" (accept our offer or we will send you to hell) Barak advocated a plan to create a Palestinian statelet on less tha 50% of West Bank territory --- makes you wonder if he really wanted his "generous offer" to be accepted.
Right now, why Olmert did not offer a cease-fire for the West Bank? Why Barghuti was kidnapped? Why before the elections in which Hamas narrowly won there was no negotiation with Abbas? Was there a single good-will step by an Israeli government since Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount --- quite a few years back?
There is only one rational conclusion here -- Palestinians were radicalized by Carter.
December 19, 2006 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink