Israel and Palestine: The Prez Candidates Can No Longer Pander Thanks to Us
The Presidential campaign is heating up which is amazing considering that we are a year away from the first caucus and primary. Not long ago, Presidential campaigns didn't start until the year of the election and sometimes well into the year. LBJ's campaign in 1960 did not start until days before the convention, but of course he didn't get nominated!
But here we are in February 2007 and, in both parties, the campaigns are in full-swing.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has barely been mentioned by any of the candidates. If past history is any guide, it won't be mentioned much and, when it is, only in front of Jewish audiences where ritualistic albeit effusive utterances of support for Israel will be offered.
That approach is not limited to this one issue. Candidates invariably tell audiences what they think an audience wants to hear. That will certainly be the case at next month's AIPAC conference where each candidate will try to hit as many applause lines as possible without actually saying anything that might constrain policy he or she actually becomes President.
It's a fine line candidates have to walk.
Hillary Clinton walked it fairly deftly at AIPAC's New York conference last week. She was cheered loudly for her statements of support for Israel, cheered just as loudly for her tough talk on Iran but received an icy response (and some heckling) when she made clear that she would negotiate with Iran before turning to more drastic alternatives.
Clinton surely knew that her measured approach to Iran would not fly with that crowd. But she also intends to become President and the last thing she is going to do is commit herself to is another Middle East war. She also knows that tough talk that will elicit applause at AIPAC is not likely to play very well with Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire, Iowa or pretty much anywhere else. Nor will saber rattling win her votes in the general election if she is the nominee. It would, in short, be politically suicidal for her to rule out talking to Iran.
Besides, she no doubt believes that any President must explore every other possibility before resorting to war. To her credit, she was willing to take her share of heckling for that.
But not on Israel-Palestine. If Clinton's speech is typical, speeches at AIPAC in March will enumerate every conceivable Palestinian failing without mentioning that just possibly the Israelis have done a few nasty things during 40 years of occupation. And her speech wasn't even that bad. It was restrained but it still could be distilled down to four words: Israelis, Good: Palestinians, Bad.
In the days before the internet, a candidate could get away with saying one thing to one audience and a contradictory one to another. President Franklin Roosevelt once said that it was hard for him to pursue his New Deal spending programs because, while speaking in Pittsburgh during his 1932 campaign, he promised to balance the budget.
"Just deny that you ever were in Pittsburgh," he was told.
But those days are long gone. If you say something to Arab-Americans in Detroit, the Jews in New York will see it on the internet within hours. Same with the United Mine Workers and the Sierra Club. Or the Archdiocese of New York and Planned Parenthood.
Former Senator John Edwards has learned that the hard way. He gave a hawkish speech about Iran at the Herzliyah conference in Israel (although, like Clinton, he did wisely endorse negotiations). The speech was a hit in Israel.
But back home it bombed. In fact, the strongest attacks on Edward's position were posted on his own campaign website. Edwards supporters apparently are not big fans of issuing military threats to Tehran. Of course, he could always deny that he ever was in Herzliyah!
Candidates simply have to deal with a new reality. If a statement will offend caucus goers in Iowa, perhaps one should think twice before uttering it in Beverly Hills. Someone in Beverly Hills is going to post the remarks and, within hours, the netroots will know about a candidate's double game.
This does not mean that candidates should avoid saying anything controversial out of fear of offending someone somewhere. No, it simply means that they should say what they believe and not pander to every crowd they appear before especially because the internet guarantees that the pander will be exposed to the broader audience.
So what is a candidate to say, particularly about the hot potato that is the Arab-Israeli conflict?
The answer is plenty and they are things that probably everyone of them believes and will not offend anyone other than the most extreme partisans of the Israeli or Palestinian cause.
It is this.
"If I am elected President, I will do everything in my power to bring about negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for Israel and a secure contiguous state for the Palestinians in West Bank/Gaza. As a supporter of Israel, I believe that Israel's surest route to security is by reaching an agreement with the Palestinians. Furthermore, I believe that achieving an equitable Israeli-Palestinian agreement will advance America's interests throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world. Peace between Israel and the Arabs will only be achieved by means of US leadership and I intend to provide it."
That should be the basic message just as it should be our basic policy.
Grandstand rhetoric about a candidate's undying love for Israel is meaningless if not coupled with the promise of leadership to help Israel secure peace.
This does not mean that a candidate should avoid expressing warm feelings about our Mideast ally. A majority of Americans share those feelings and would agree with any candidate who said that one of his or her priorities will be to ensure that Israel survives and thrives.
But no candidate should be allowed to simply stop there. Anecdotes about friendly and helpful Israelis are very nice but they get us nowhere. Americans, all Americans, need to know what a candidate would do end a conflict that not only threatens Israel's survival but has harmed American interests throughout the world.
Four years ago, Howard Dean was skewered because he used the word "even-handed" to describe the policies he would pursue in the Middle East. His explanations went unheard as his opponents and right-wingers jumped all over him. For them the even-handed remark offered them a twofer: the always welcome opportunity to pander and the chance to kill off Dean).
That wouldn't happen today because now the battle would be joined. Those who prefer the deadly Middle East status quo would holler and threaten. But those determined to break out of it would also be heard, and they would allow the candidate to get beyond the soundbite into a fuller discussion of the issue. Howard Dean backtracked fast in '04; the netroots (also known as Democratic primary voters) would not allow him to in '08).
The web opens up the process so that all voices can be heard, not just the usual ones who grab candidates at fundraisers and tell them which platitudes are most acceptable.
It's a new day. TPM is not just a fun place to gather information and most opinions. It (and our brothers and sisters in the blogosphere) can change the world.
Comments (203)
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=17190
February 9, 2007 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, the US has enough problems on its hands without dealing with Olmert and Hannya. Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan are external problems while healthcare for all, poverty, education and deteriorating middle class are internal problems.
Its about time, the people whose center of the world is El Kodesh stop this nonsense. As important as the Israeli-Palestinian peace is, and opposite to the moronic Baker/Hamilton statement, it's now quite isolated and impacts none of the major problems the US has, Iraq in particular. The Arab states such as Egypt, Saudis and Jordan are way more worried about Iran than Israel.
OK guy, you have an official invitation to the 21th century and get of the Hannya pot.
February 9, 2007 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I respectfully disagree that this should be our basic policy. I take exception to the assertion that agreement between Israel and Palestine 'advances' American interests in the ME and throughout the Muslim world. America's attempts at 'advancing' have resulted in an escalation of terrorism abroad and domestically. Further, I disagree that the only way for Israel and the Arabs to achieve peace is with US 'leadership' and I especially disagree that America should continue to provide leadership in the ME which is biased towards Israel, in turns of our foreign policy.
The basic message as you have framed it would be appealing to pro-Israel lobbyists and supporters but certainly not to the millions of Americans who find the ME foreign policy, to date, unacceptable. It begs the question of how has America gained from having Israel as a permanent ally?
This 'basic message' is not good policy for America nor America's standing in the eyes of the Muslim world or globally.
February 9, 2007 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ:
This post you have written should be prominently displayed on the bulletin boards in every 2008 presidential candidate's war room, and read by every American, Jew and non-Jew, who believes for one reason or another that a peaceful and stable Middle East is in the best interests of the United States.
I would only add the modest caveat that with the power that the blogosphere brings comes responsibility. The blogosphere promotes healthy debate and we do our best--on here, for example, with folks like Howard-- to police ourselves. Moving out to the world where people become more than screen names with strong opinions calls for a different approach to changing minds and forging consensus. No simple task.
Thank you MJ. Sometimes I think that in good faith you write things that, though relevant, you know are going to get the keyboards singing in response. But MJ this post is a home run hands down.
Bruce
February 9, 2007 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Bruce. I really believe we can change the terms of the debate.
MJ
February 9, 2007 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, you don't get it. The message I propose here would not be acceptable to AIPAC, no way, but is essentially what (according to the polls) the majority of Israelis and the vast majority of Palestinians want. It is essentially the position of Israel Policy Forum, American Task Force on Palestine, Brit Zedek, Americans for Peace Now, the Arab-American Institute and MOST Americans.
Those who think that either the State of Israel or the future State of Palestine should not exist would reject it. But this is a message for the center not the fringe.
Thanks.
February 9, 2007 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who thinks that Israel-Palestine is not central to America's problems in the Middle East should talk to a Muslim sometime, and not just Arab Muslims either. Why is it that people accept the idea that Jews in America care deeply and genuinely about Israel but that Arabs and Muslims (many of whom live near Israel-Palestine) only use Palestine as a pretext.
I do not know a single Arab or Muslim for whom Palestine is NOT at the top of their agenda.
It has to be dealt with, and with justice.
February 9, 2007 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
One need not be on the fringe to disagree with this message. There is nothing centrist about continuing to commit America's 'leacdership' in the ME, when it has resulted in escalation of terrorism abroad and here at home. The fringe are those who agree with this message and they are warhawks, pro-Israel suporters as well as neo-cons. They are not individuals interested in what s best for America.
February 9, 2007 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have every right to support the status quo. It's a free country.
February 9, 2007 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like wrb above, I too focused on your statement:
...but my take on it differs from wrb's or the previous poster's, in that I think that the question of Israel-Palestine peace is very much one that the US should remain involved in (or, more accurately in the case of the current Bush Presidency, become involved in). One need only to remember that one of ObL's justifications for 9/11, and as stated in his fatwa, was the continuing support of the US of Israel's Occupation to realize that a resolution to the I-P conflict is very much in the best interests of the US. Our previous favoring of the Israeli side has only provided a recruiting tool for ObL. Additionally, there is the issue of basic humanitarian concerns regarding the Israeli treatment of Palestians in the OT, and how our disregard of these concerns plays in the rest of the world. Dean was right: only an evenhanded US approach can lead to a real peace in the region.
Consequently, I would suggest one change to the statement MJ has suggested that potential candidates use:
I add the word, "equitable" because I sincerely hope no candidate will support the apparent Israeli plan to annex additional Palestinian land in the West Bank, as such a plan is not truly a "peace" plan at all. Support for such a plan does not represent "US leadership," but would merely be more of the same pandering that MJ wisely recognizes has run counter to true US interests.
Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery
February 9, 2007 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fully agree with you Wordie, except--with us we always have a caveat or two it seems :) -- that I think that the final line between the two states, in taking equity into account, has to be flexible enough (by both Israel and Palestine) to make sense in terms of security and the daily lives of people on both sides of the border. (I hope you take this for what it is: identification of a factor that will have to be addressed in negotiations, and not as a cloaked rationale for land grabbing).
February 9, 2007 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, why do you persist on framing this issue as to what the interests are of Palestinians, Arabs, Israel etc vs. Americans?
This is due to unbalanced media reporting and the failure for of this issue being able to be openly discussed. Jewish interest in America as well as here on TPM cafe consistently dominant and are pro-Israel and do not engage about the Arab-Palestinian/Israeli conflict from the perspective of America's interests. The discussion is slanted and framed as to what Israel wants, needs. How can Americans speak to Palestinian interests, when even Jimmy Carter a former President is shouted down and demeaned in the press for mentioning the apartheid conditions that Palestinians live under in Israel. This is our democracy?
More importantly, no one ever discusses how these issues are PRO-AMERICAN. Where is the pro-American lobby? Congress has been purchased by pro-Israel lobby to the extent that we never even hear political candidates nor elected PRESIDENTS discuss American's interests in terms of the ME foreign policy without American policy being held politically captive to the pro-Israel interests.
February 9, 2007 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cite source for any of those assertions please.
And for the record, I respectfully disagree that any AMERICAN policy should be established by what either Israelis or Palestinians want except insofar as it coincides with what is best for Americans.
I happen to strongly agree with the poster above that the U.S. is not, and has not been, an "honest" broker since that now-anti-semite of a president, Jimmy Carter, brokered the Camp David Accords. (heavy snark-asm)
The U.S. government is not trusted and cannot be trusted by most muslims. One cannot broker anything -- or sit at the negotiating table even -- if trust is absent.
Moreover, no true diplomacy can take place as long as there is a such a huge power differential between Palestinians and Israelis. Israel is a behemoth occupying military power all my itself, but when combined with the U.S. on its side so outweighs any other party in the region as to make "negotiating" a joke.
1947 was a long time ago. Poor little Israel doesn't need us to hold their hand.
That is not to say that the U.S. does not have a real interest in a resolution to Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Certainly, as MJ points out, the U.S. has a real interest in reducing the tension there - one of the sorest points among Arab/Muslims and the "West."
It is the means I differ with, not the ends.
The U.S. does not belong at the table. In my view the U.S. belongs at the end of a carrot/stick mechanism. Only the U.S. has the means to "encourage" both Israel AND Palestine to negotiate through offering or withholding economic aid.
Moreover, in my view, attempting to put a suggested policy statement in the mouths of candidates is counterproductive. Let them come up with their own policy statements. And may the best man or woman win.
February 9, 2007 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, equitable belongs in there. Thanks.
February 9, 2007 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not clear how you have arrived at the notion that MJ Rosenberg's call for the US to embrace the Peace Now position on Israel/Palestine is somehow a neo-con warhawk stance. Generally when I hear interpretations that pretzel-like, they tend to come from followers of Lyndon LaRouche.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
February 9, 2007 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The U.S. does not belong at the table. In my view the U.S. belongs at the end of a carrot/stick mechanism.
If you think about this again, I hope you will realize that that sounds like a message Dick Cheney or John Bolton would embrace. As a general policy, the US belongs at far more tables, and should be employing far fewer carrot/stick mechanisms. Carrots and sticks are for people who presume themselves to be masters, and who take others to be their beasts of burden. And please recall that for the past 6 years, the US has essentially not been at the table in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. We pretty much checked out after Taba, shrugging our shoulders and blaming everything on the Palestinians. Things in the world were far more peaceful while we were at the table than after we left it.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
February 9, 2007 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The real question is whether we want progress or the illusion of progress. Simply supporting negotiations with whoever happens to be the Palestinian leadership at the moment side-steps the critical issues of how exactly a Palestinian state is to be built. Who is going to disarm the various militias? Who is going to ensure that areas Israel withdraws from don't become launching sites for rocket attacks?
The idea of Hamas signing onto a peace agreement is laughable. Fatah had its opportunity during Oslo and ultimately chose to competing with Hamas rather than suppress it. (Moreover, for Fatah to turn the clock back to 1998, it would have to fight a bloody civil war with Hamas at this point.)
I think we've learned well enough from the Iraq experience that NATO or American troops aren't a good answer. Other Arab troops as part of a comprhensive Arab-Israeli settlement? This seems like the best option, but extremely dicey given the stability of the various governments who would have to supply the forces.
I'm not throwing this out to defend the status quo, but rather out of frustration that no one is thinking creatively about how to come to a two-state solution. We've tried installating Arafat as a mini-Mubarak - didn't work; we tried holding elections in the absence of functioning civil society - it didn't work either. Rather than reading the umpteenth essay which simply asserts that a peace process has got to work, I'd like to see something that indicates how it can.
February 9, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
But you and your leftist ilk are being pandered to whenever anyone foolishly talks about negotiating with the insane, genocidal mullahs in Iran, when they know full well that such an undertaking would be absolutely pointless. Do you think that any of the Democratic candidates can really be so naive about Iran?
February 9, 2007 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is not what I want to hear from our next President. We should certainly encourage and support those in both camps who seek a fair and just peace but why should the US take the lead? We've tried that for 50+ years and haven't succeeded. Does Israel even want peace? It doesn't always seem like it.
February 9, 2007 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sure hope that this debate changes. I've read AIPAC speeches from Frist and others, and I get the feeling that today's AIPAC is no better than yesterday's KKK. After reading one of Bill Clinton's speeches to AIPAC, and knowing that Palestinian leaders had access to it, I stopped believing that mainstream politicians were serious about "middle east peace;" they seemed to simply use the Palestinians as a bread and butter "heart string tugging" campaign issue.
February 9, 2007 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mhpine:
I appreciate your frustration about the lack of discussion about a viable plan and how you believe that the lack of such a plan presents an obstacle to effective negotiations. I also understand what looks to be your implicit contention that, in order to negotiate, you have to have someone to negotiate with.
Negotiations often have to be undertaken without there being a plan in place, and, of course, negotiations take many forms and are often on multiple tracks. Thus, there are often meetings going on between intermediaries that aren't properly characterized as negotiations across the table per se, and there are often informal talks between leaders and their trusted aids. The problem comes when, as with respect to the status quo in the Middle East, such channels are effectively cut off and the talks that occur are piecemeal and face-saving at most.
In short, you often don't get the solution until the hard work is done at the multi-dimensional barganing table. And the fact of the matter is that negotiated settlements often encapsulate terms that the parties to the agreement never would have agreed to before negotiations commenced. In fact, it has been stated more than once that a good settlement is defined as one that nobody likes.
February 9, 2007 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Peace between Israel and the Arabs will only be achieved by means of US leadership and I intend to provide it." Oh, you know, I dimly recall a time when the U.S. sought peace and peaceful solutions. I'd tell you when, but sorry: God is interrupting to tell me to go to war.
Seriously, I think the hope is greater than it may seem. In the past, it often felt like it was all the U.S.'s burden, or perhaps all one person's, whether Carter or Clinton. I suspect that the Saudi overtures are only the most visible sign of an interest in other nations in sharing some of the burden. They are tired of supporting a dysfunctional party in a dispute and afraid of the boost the conflict gives Islamic extremism, which is no doubt a more palpable disruption in Europe or Arab nations than in the United States. Thus, one has more negotiating partners and also more sticks as well as carrots.
Besides the benefits to the United States in pushing for peace, owing to the dangers of perpetual Mideast war, there are other reasons to pursue peace here that MJR could also have mentioned. One is implicit in all he writes, just the moral sense of not wishing to live in a world in which Palestinians go stateless and Palestinian families homeless or destroyed, without economic development and burdened by checkpoints, while Israelis live in fear and bear the costs of a major, perpetual military effort that makes them only more unsafe. Another is that enough Americans have personal and emotional attachments to the parties at war to make it an American concern. Another is that the U.S. actually gains in stature and power internationally by standing for peace in any part of the globe. (Witness Bush's damage.)
As far as the objections, which always boil down to, "but the other side will never be satisfied," it'd be more convincing and less childish if both sides weren't always using the same excuse.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
February 9, 2007 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
This lefty Zionist chooses not to condone your reference to "leftist ilk" or your allegations of foolishness and naivete direced at those of us, zionist or not, who seek peace in the Middle East through negotiations.
And please, I'm not interested in getting into a debate with you about who loves Eretz Y'srael or the U.S. of A. more. Candidly, I find what you have written to reflect an incomplete understanding of what is going on in Iran. I am not claiming a complete understanding either, but I submit that you are wrong if you think that the Iranian people have formed a consensus that is reflected in the saber-rattling of this or that mullah in that time-honored nation.
February 9, 2007 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about a reference to cutting off the billions of dollars of US aid that goes into directly and indirectly subsidizing Israel's apparatus of terror, expansionism and "settlement" construction?
How about a statement that donations to Israeli "charities" (ie: settlement building) will no longer be tax-deductible?
See, saying you're going to be "fair" is one thing (even then you'll get skewered by AIPAC because they don't think Israel should be held to the same standard as Palestinian) but doing something about it is something else entirely.
February 9, 2007 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Twentyoneth Century?
February 9, 2007 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
New reality: pandering Dems will make no warlike committment, unless they are inclined toward a political suicide.
In a stroke of genius, some guys designed two-for-one package: support of Israel and support of military threats (and perhaps military action) against Iran -- and quite possibly, the support for indefinite extension of the occupation of Iraq.
February 9, 2007 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since it is Israel that chooses to eat at the trough of the U.S. largesse of economic support, they ELECT to submit -- no one is forcing them.
Likewise, Palestinians submit to the carrot/stick of wealthier arab nations' purse strings and rhetoric.
I don't think its a matter of whether I choose to put either in master/submission positions rather that THEY choose them.
They could both elect to deal with eachother on an equal basis without the interference of their proxies -- or masters using the terminology that you put in my mouth.
In any event, you chose the term "master" --giving the whole thing a negative connotation. I prefer the term "leaders" -- again if they elected to take on that role.
I certainly agree that things were more peaceful while we were "at the table" -- but that was long ago and under CLINTON. And for all his pecadilloes with interns under his leadership the U.S. was more trusted in world affairs, although not entirely. See my original post on the issue of trust.
Palestinians, rightly or wrongly (rightly in my view) distrust the United States and percieve the U.S. to be entirely biased toward Israel. The U.S.'s perceived bias against arabs/moslems increases with every second we remain in Iraq and worse, escalates tenfold with the saber rattling vis a vis Iran. Escapades like last summer's invasion of Lebanon -- unimpeded by words of U.S. or deeds by the Security Council - do nothing to alleviate this perception.
The U.S. cannot come to the table with all that baggage. They cannot.
February 9, 2007 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thinking about the ultimate solution, however, ensures that the right parties are at the table. There's a difference between questions such as which settlements get dismantled or how much compensation the Palestinian refugees will receive and the more fundamental question of who will actually execute the agreement for the Palestinians. I think we need to radically rethink the role of Egypt, Jordan and the Saudis in any potential settlement. I don't think having them simply stay out the way, or providing behind-the-scenes support is going to be sufficient.
February 9, 2007 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I guess what I'm saying is that the people who should be at the table is actually part of the multi-faceted negotiations process. This is, after all, an international problem.
February 9, 2007 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Letters to the Times.
Re “Noted Arab Citizens Call on Israel to Shed Jewish Identity” (news article, Feb. 8):
Discuss.
February 9, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
George Soros is a man, he admitted his mistakes. Would you?
George Soros v. Martin Peretz
Only at TNR Online | Post date 02.09.07 Discuss this article (9)
Martin Peretz falsely accused me of having been a "young cog in the Hitlerite wheel" ("Tyran-a-Soros," February 12). I need to set the record straight. In 1944, when the Nazis occupied Hungary, my father arranged false identities for his family. He placed me with an official of the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture who claimed that I was his godson. In return, my father arranged a false identity for the official's Jewish wife. In my capacity as 14-year-old godson, I accompanied the official on a trip to inventory the estate of a wealthy Jewish family that had fled the country. That is the episode "60 Minutes" quizzed me about in the interview that Peretz quotes. In the same interview I also said "I had no role in taking away that property." The facts are documented in Michael Kaufman's biography, (Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire). I have also described the events at length in my own books and my father, Tivadar Soros, gives an account of our adventures in 1944 in his book Masquerade.
As regards my use of the term "de-Nazification," I am not too proud to admit this was a bad choice of words. I certainly do not put the United States and Nazi German in the same moral category. What I meant was that the United States needs to engage in a profound soul searching about the harm the war in Iraq has done to others and ourselves. Post-war Germany underwent such a process to its lasting benefit. Perhaps truth and reconciliation would have been a more felicitous expression, although it is also inaccurate because we need to be reconciled with ourselves not the terrorists. For the record, I am not equating the U.S. to South Africa either.
George Soros
February 9, 2007 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am unfamiliar with LaRouche.
I view it as a neo-con warhawk stance because it claims to need America's leadership (imperialist actions) to achieve peace, it pledges America to the goal of working towards that peace and it suggests that somehow it is in America's interest to pursue peace between Israel and Palestine. No such case has been made.
Which is why my question was how does America having, and presidential candidates continuing to pledge commitment to, a biased one-sided ME foreign policy that favors Israel benefit America? Nothing pretzel-like there. Unless, your perspective is so pro-Israel until you are unable to acknowledge that America's ME foreign policy should be about prioritizing America's interest not Israel's sovereignty.
Bottomline: This 'peace now'' pledge offers no peace for America, has plunged us into a war, lost American lives, has us in hundreds of billions of debt and escalated terrorist attacks on American soil. I do not want that type of 'peace now' in America nor presidential candidates making such a pledge in terms of our global role as a 'superpower'. We certainly are not making this type of pledge to any other countries so why should it be acceptable for our ME policy?
Are we going to make the same promises to the Cubans in Miami about Cuba, how about the Mexicans and Dominican Republicans...do we favor all these groups and their political desires regarding foreign countries as well?
February 9, 2007 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The US may no longer be in a position to lead. But at least it can follow or get out of the way. Indeed, since 1967 the US has mostly chosen the posture of getting in the way of a just resolution of the Israeli-Plaestinian conflict. So possibly the most important thing the US can do is stop doing that, and rejoin the rest of the international community.
The US should re-commit itself to UN 242, for which it voted in 1967, which is binding as international law, and which has been at the core of a broad international consensus on the conflict since 1967. The US government should also stop embarrassing our country by applying weasling sophisms to the interpretation of that document, and clearly affirm that it understands that resolution to require the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from all of the territories occupied in the 1967 conflict. This should be a red line. Without the existence of such red lines, any more "negotiations" on final status will only degenrate in the same way they did during the Oslo process.
The Palestinian matter is a question of international law and justice. It's not an issue to be resolved by coercive deal-making between highly unequal parties. It is especially not an issue to be decided by a negotiating contest between one pathetically weak and stateless negotiating partner on one side, and a double-nuclear power tag team on the other.
The United States can never be an honset broker of a Israeli-Palestinian settlement. A new administration might alter our policies somewhat in a more positive direction, but it is clear to all the world that the US has a partisan rooting interest on one side of the conflict, and it will ever be thus. So if we want to help, we need to get out of the way rather than purport to lead the way.
A "contiguous" Palestinian state means nothing. The parking lot at my office is contiguous. So is the guest bathroom in my house. At the end of the day, you get Israel once again trying to hand Palestinians the keys to the bathroom, and calling their offer to fulfill only a part of their international obligations "generous", while the US stands by, shrugs its shoulders and says smirkingly to the Palestinians, "don't look at us - we got you your damn negotiations."
Adding "secure" to the formula also does nothing but toss in some wishful thinking. There is no magic amount of West Bank add-ons that will turn a tiny parking lot state into a "secure" state. No matter what size that state turns out to be, it will be tiny - even more tiny than Israel - and thus inherently insecure. And clearly any corridor of artificial contiguity connecting the West Bank and Gaza will be perpetually vulnerable, and will do little to guarantee Palestinian security. Their security can only be guaranteed by outside forces - and for that purpose size is irrelevant.
The reason to support UN 242 is not that returning the occupied territories to the Palestinians will finally give them the security they crave. It won't. Any power or wanna-be power with a single nuke will be able to wipe them off the face of the earth with the flip of a switch. The reason for honoring UN 242 is to uphold law and justice, and restore just a bit the rapidly unraveling dignity of what used to be called the "international community". The issue is giving back something that what was illegally taken, and which the world made a commitment to restore.
February 9, 2007 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet there is so much doubt that Israel is an apartheid state.
It is time for the US to boycott all business with Israel and to prohibit international aid.
February 9, 2007 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or the reference about the amount of campaign money that comes from single-issue, neo-con influenced backers. High-level staffers whose background and influence has been in the pro-israel single issue political world.
Does $$$ talk and carefully hand-picked pro-israel staffers have more influence, or a bunch of bloggers -- ummm let me think?
On Hills AIPAC talk: Like she is really going to be blunt in her AIPAC 'minions' speech, I think her actions speak louder when she went to her ALL-HAWK think-tank Hillary campaign sponsored war meeting.
We need an HONEST broker in our next president, one who actually understands and stands by international law, especially when the US wants to stick its nose into other countries business, and a war is at stake.
February 9, 2007 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel and Palestine aren't comparable. With some exceptions, there are few Jews who do not understand that there have been numerous efforts not just to be bigoted against Jews but to experminate them. Even American Jews who are fairly secure, though since participating at TPMCafe much less so, know that Israel is the ultimate guarantor of the safety of Jews.
It what way do Palestinians or Palestine play the same role for Arabs? Initially when there was an effort to carve out a Palestine there was an objection that it was part of greater Syria. When Nasser and the Arab League created the PLO in 1964 it was designed to put himself at the head of a pan-Arab movement. Palestinians after the Gulf War were tossed out of the Gulf countries. Islamists want Jews, particularly the very successful Jewish Nation, out of the Middle East.
Carter a former President unfortunately has his facts wrong and effectively called another fomer President, Clinton, a liar. Bush a current President is called far worse than anything Carter has been called.
Fortunately the anti-Israeli crowd at TPMCafe represents only a very small group in America and even smaller number within the Democratic Party. I am not sure what Mr. Rosenberg is celebrating. Israeli and Arab negotiators have been trying to reach various agreements for 50 years. American Presidents have been involved in peacemaking since Kissinger stopped Israel from crushing the Egyptian Army. Until realism, which seems to be grabbing Egypt, Jordan and the Saudis also engages the Palestinians and the America Left there will be no peace, no Palestinian State and lots of frustrated yelling on the Left.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 9, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your paranoia is precisely why you are willing to commit atrocities. Neither your paranoia nor your atrocities are justified.
February 9, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The United States does endose 242 Dan K. I think what you're saying is that the U.S. interpretation of 242 is wrong, no? Isn't the dispute over whether return of territories in the resolution means return of all of the territories?
I am no fan of the occupation or of illegal settlements. But what do you mean when you say that Israel took the OTs illegally? Are you saying that Israel acted illegally in June of 1967, or that Israel has acted illegally since then by not returning the territories?
February 9, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Delete
February 9, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, John Edwards never went to Herzliya. He gave his speech over a satellite link.
This is another good article by MJR. I am encouraged that we are seeing finally a broadening of the discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Given the mess caused over the last three decades by our inability to debate rationally about that conflict more open discussion can only be beneficial.
February 9, 2007 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Then what is America to Jews in terms of safety? America where there are no terrorists attacks on Jews daily like in Israel? What is America to Jews ultimately?
February 9, 2007 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with this picture?
Announcement of House Hearing Next Week on Israel Palestine from the new Democratic House Committee on Foreign Affairs
SUB COMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE
- Hide quoted text -
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C . 20515-0128
Gary L. Ackerman (D-NY), Chairman
February 9, 2007
***REVISED***
TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, to be held in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building:
DATE: Wednesday, February 14, 2007
TIME: 2:30 p.m.
SUBJECT: Next Steps in Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process
WITNESSES: Mr. David Makovsky
Director
Project on the Middle East Peace Process
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
The Honorable Martin S. Indyk
Director
Saban Center for Middle East Policy
The Brookings Institution
***The Honorable Daniel Pipes
Director
Middle East Forum
Via Teleconference
***NOTE: Witness has been added.
February 9, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What's wrong with this picture?"
They all are f-ing Jews, Jews are everywhere. Let's unite and stop Jews from screwing America and whole world.
They already started 2 World Wars, and about to start third.
February 9, 2007 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Good, just so I understand what I think is your "America First" position, is it your belief that the U.S. should just get out of the Middle East, or do just think that the U.S. is on the wrong side of this issue, and that's why you are pushing for a boycott and a prohibition on international aid? If it's the latter, is your position fairly described as follows?:
America's interests are not Israel's interests. America should stop supporting Israel, and start supporting the Palestinians more by boycotts and aid prohibitions because that is in America's interest?
February 9, 2007 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Davai,
MJ is not saying--I don't think he is anyway--that it's bad because they're all Jews, but these folks are known entitities and they happen to be Jewish. The point is that they are not exactly a reflection of a cross-section of the debate. You know Pipes, I know Pipes, and we all know Pipes. There is no counterweight to Pipes on Ackerman's schedule.
Bruce
February 9, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm shocked!
February 9, 2007 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have not answered my last question to you.
February 9, 2007 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jews? That's not the issue. Where are the Palestinians or Arab-Americans on this panel? Can anything be more colonial than an Australian, an Israeli and a crazed fascist Arab-baiter on a panel to discuss the Israeli-Palesinian issue.
February 9, 2007 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I don't recall that Good (I generally try and answer questions), but you are of course free not to answer my question. By the way, my question wasn't a trick question; I've seen you post quite a bit and I was trying to understand the basis for your screen name and how it fits in with your proposal for boycotts and aid restrictions against Israel.
P.S. I remember you asked me about the basis upon which I find Israel legitimate. I answered with a lengthy response and you replied to my answer with a lengthy response. If that's what you are speaking of, you might not have liked my response but I was, in fact, fully responsive.
February 9, 2007 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Jews? That's not the issue.
It's always the issue :-)
"Where are the Palestinians or Arab-Americans on this panel?"
Can you name a one of the activists who is not a crazed fascist Jew-baiter?
Most moderate of them are more extreme than Pipes.
In anyway, to follow your logic, where are the Palestinians or Arab-Americans in congess in press in government.
There are too many Jews and too few Arabs.
This is your bottom line.
February 9, 2007 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Israel should proclaim what it is along with the inevitable consequences. It cannot be a pure democracy, but it certainly can be more democratic than most other countries."
In any European country who would be making that argument?
And should the US go out of its way to defend such?
February 9, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate what you say about the uselessness of pandering, but there are some very important questions that candidates have to fudge, if not avoid.
First is Zionism - for an American presidential candidate to be elected, must he/she be a Zionist? The history of Zionism reflects racism of the worst order. If one is to be a true-believer Zionist, must one also be a true-believer segregationist. If the opposite is true, what is the consequence of that? A god-ordained Jewish State or not? Must Israel maintain hegemony in the region to assure the security of the god-ordained Jewish State? A kind of god-ordained hegemony.
Second what is our general policy in the Middle East generally and the Arab countries specifically? If we favor Israel, then all the Arabs are secondary and deservidly so because they are not god-ordained. Is this true? If it is not true, then what does fairness, justice, evenhandedness mean with regard to the Middle East?
Third, based on one's feelings about the first two items, does the U.S., Europe and Israel have any amends to make to the Arabs? If not, then, again, what does fairness and justice mean with respect to policy in this area?
It is not enough to denigrate pandering, one has to deal with these larger issues. Maybe pandering isn't so bad after all.
February 9, 2007 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean essentially the latter bslev, although one doesn't need to appeal to UN 242 to make that case. The resolution empahsized the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force - a principle that was already well-established in international law before UN 242 came along. It is clear that given the fact that Israel came to occupy the territories by force, and given the fact that Israel is using that occupation to settle the territories in addition to occupying them, that Israel is in the process of acquiring territory by force, and has been for some time.
It is my understanding that the US has refused to endorse the view that the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East should include the withdrawal of allIsraeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict. Instead it has indulged the minority Israeli interpretation that the absence of an explicit definite article "the" in the text of the resolution means that this part of the resolution can be fulfilled through the withdrawal of only some Israeli armed forces from some of the territories occupied in the "recent conflict".
Even though the US voted for UN 242, and officially endorses UN 242, it is my distinct impression that the US has not in recent years lead with it in its public statements and other diplomatic acts and representations, and has tended to bury it. Thus it would be a good thing for the US to, as I said, re-commit itself to UN 242, and the dominant interpretation thereof.
February 9, 2007 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't pretend to be so clueless davai. It's not that they are Jews. It's that the Saban Center, WINEP and MEF all have very pronounced pro-Israel orientations, and the three speakers invited also have individual records of pro-Israel partisanship and advocacy ranging on a spectrum from merely strong and vigorous to fanatical and zealous. Indyk was a head of AIPAC, Makovsky an editor of the Jerusalem Post - and Pipes needs no introduction.
The hearing purports to deal with the future of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace process. All three of the invited figures are appropriate invites to such a hearing. But Washington and its environs are also crawling with Palestinian journalists, Palestinian and Arab advocacy organizations, non-partisan Middle East scholars with area expertise and US Middle East diplomats with experience in Arab capitals. Yet none of these people are invited to the hearing. I wonder why?
February 9, 2007 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indyk? Puhleeeze!
(SOURCE: Washington Post article dated
Feb. 2, 1995, by Al Kamen, entitled "Choice for Israel Took Unconventional Route
- Quick Rise")
Indyk was given a US citizenship fast-track and appointed by Clinton to shape US foreign policy on the Mideast (where he implemented the "Dual Containment" stategy on Iran and Iraq) and was then appointed as the first Jewish ambassador to Israel, in violation of a rule that prohibited such obvious conflicts of interest (no Polish americans are sent as US amb to poland either) but the real conflict of interest was in the fact that Indyk was an active participant in the pro-Israeli lobby community and was brought to the US by AIPAC, and started his "Washington Institute for Near East Policy" in ordre to give "think tank" legitimacy & cover to AIPAC's policy proscriptions. So, a pro-Israeli activist was sent to represent US interests in Israel. Think about that.
So the bottom line is that the full spectrum of views are HARDLY represented by the likes of Pipes and Indyk and such pro-israeli agentsat these Congressional show hearings.
That's obvious but instead you're trying to label others as being racists for suggesting that Arabs and Palestinians may have something legitimate to contribute to the debate.
Incidentally, Martin Indyk was once stripped of his security clearance for passing secrets to Israel. The same happened to Perle and Faith - but they all managed to get top level policy jobs. It seems that passing secrets to Israel is no big deal anymore - even frmr CIA director Woolsey who is tight with the NeoCons has espoused releasing Pollard. Talk about Israeli infiltration!
February 9, 2007 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Davai: you are an anti-semite
February 9, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed that US foreign policy is about US interests, not promoting Israeli interests except when they promote US interests -- not the emotion of some US blocs.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 9, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are not speaking rhetorically, I'll mention my talks with very close friends, really extended family, in a mixed Muslim and Christian clan from Sierra Leone. The immigrants are all naturalized citizens or in the process, and the children are now in the second generation. One, about 14 or 15 now, is of a level of wisdom, charisma, and peacemaking ability to make one wonder what impact Ibrahim will have on the nation and the world.
It's hard to think how many hours I've spent talking about both race and religion with my friend Mariatu. She is an American who happens to be Muslim in religion. While I know how badly she wants to go on the Hajj, she is intent about not having her American patriotism challenged. In many ways, some of her fears of being painted with the terrorist brush remind me of my grandparents, emigrants from the Czar who remembered the secret police and the pogroms, showing real fear -- that I remembered from a young age -- as Joe McCarthy created a climate of fear.
Palestine isn't a big issue for her. Assimilated African-Muslim-American, I guess -- as I've mentioned, the Hajj is a goal, but her daughter is renowned for her glazed ham. Her big foreign issue is the violence and disorder in West Africa.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 9, 2007 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do seem to have a binary view. An American does not have to be pro- or anti-Israel, any more than one has to be pro- or anti-Tibetan, or pro- or anti-Fijian, or pro- or anti-French. Well, maybe not so pro-Parisian.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 9, 2007 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason is that I am not an isolationist. I am not an American Firster. We live in one world and I don't limit my empathy to Americans.
February 9, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
THANK YOU!
This is not an either/or debate. We can certainly negotiate with Iran's leaders, as a way of reaching Iran's people, and we can still defend Israel in the process.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
February 9, 2007 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think ya'all nailed it in an excellent exchange. We can't expect extremists to change their minds overnight (hope is not a plan) but we can engage actively in a lengthy negotiation that will bring all parties, some not obvious at the moment, to the table.
Oslo failed. But it was still a great achievement, in a lot of ways. It came close. The problem is, since then, the US has given up.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
February 9, 2007 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Daniel,
Here, you're making an argument that I've never been able to understand, but that I've heard a lot. If I'm paraphrasing fairly, you're saying that Israel serves as a refuge of safety for Jews and that Palestine doesn't serve the same function for either Arabs or Palestinian Arabs.
I'm willing to grant that point.
But, and here's where I disconnect... is that the standard for having a country? I mean, can't a country be legitimate without serving as a safe haven for an ethnic or religious group? It strikes me that there's no such requirement for nationhood. It's enough that people live there and want to govern their own affairs.
Am I missing something? I'm not asking that rhetorically, by the way.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
February 9, 2007 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Davai: you are an anti-semite"
Finally, we discovered an anti-semite in this blog :-)
Do you suspect anybody else on this blog to be anti-semite?
February 9, 2007 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: Seeking more information about the hearing, I went to the site of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, but find nothing about it there, although other hearings scheduled for next week are announced. Do you have a link or more information?
Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery
February 9, 2007 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If I am elected President, I will do everything in my power to bring about negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for Israel and a secure contiguous state for the Palestinians in West Bank/Gaza. As a supporter of Israel, I believe that Israel's surest route to security is by reaching an agreement with the Palestinians. Furthermore, I believe that achieving an equitable Israeli-Palestinian agreement will advance America's interests throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world. Peace between Israel and the Arabs will only be achieved by means of US leadership and I intend to provide it."
I think you are confusing goals and outcomes with process. It is called the peace process for a reason. The "Surest route" to "security" is reaching an "agreement".
What agreement? Israeli/Palestinian Negotiations about what? US talks with Iran about what? Talks for the sake of talking?
The reason why the "even handed" statement got Dean in trouble is because Israel wants to compromise and thier neighbors want it all. All or nothing. The only way to engage in talks or agreements with someone like that is to convince them that they might just get nothing.
There is a tendency by the left to imagine that if one side couldn't possibly budge, then put pressure on the side that you think you can bully, in this case Israel. Israel occupied the Sinai for one reason, because it was leverage, and when Egypt decided it wanted peace, it got the Sinai back. The same goes for the Palestinians.
Edwards remarks shows that he knows Iran is nuts and they can not be allowed to acquire Nukes, but he can't say that forcefully on Meet the Press because it sets off a chain reaction, that begs the question, what are you gonna do about it? Talks? Regional conferences? Sending a bouquet of flowers and a box of chocolates?
How is an offer from the US to talk with Iran going to solve anything when they have firmly announce that no gifts or trinkets or anything from the US will buy them off and deter them from acquiring Full Nuclear status. What does the US bring to a negotiating table like that?
If a candidate says Nukes are not acceptable, and the Iranians have categorically ruled out the carrot, then what is left other than a non-military or a military stick?
We are dealing with a regime who's hobby is Hitler worship and holocaust denial conferences, and the American holocaust deniers are emboldened when we sit in silence as they parade their genocidal promises. When message boards of left wingers denounce Joe Lieberman with "Mixed loyalty" slurs and worse, is it any wonder Elie Weisel gets stalked and acosted in a San Francisco elevator by an emboldened Holocaust denier?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070210/ap_on_re_us/wiesel_accosted
It is events like that, that make me shutter to think of the times we live in and see Jew hating come back into Vogue. First it was France and Austria and now right here in America.
I am not saying any one that opposes Israeli policies is in that camp, but just as we expect Muslims to stand up and vociferously denounce Al Qaeda. If we do not go on the offense (figuratively speaking) against the increased beligerance in France, Iran, South Lebanon, and even here in San Francisco, then we are all complicit in this new frightful era of hate.
If Pro Israeli groups here want to hear a candidate that cares enough about the peace and security in the mideast to reiterate our military responsibilites in the region then that candidate has a tough choice to make. Do you reiterate the security commitments we have made to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey as well as Israel, or do you holler "Redeploy" and then whisper, "and if you really need us we'll come back". As you said, no candidate wants to hint at another mideast war.
We all know, if we leave, we are not coming back. If Turkey or the Saudis were overcome by a widening regional conflict with Shias, Does Hillary or Edwards bring the troops back from Okinawa? We didn't in Cambodia. We averted our eyes. Remember, to his credit, McGovern recomended that we send troops to Cambodia, and his colleagues quietly laughed him off as impractical. Maybe, but he was right.
Candidates have a tough decision you are right. One set of audiences that demands clarification as if their lives depended on it. Another group that is not interested in clarification, just action and that action is, get out and forget the consequences.
Tough decisions is right.
February 9, 2007 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
removed.
not worth arguing with an idiot
February 9, 2007 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
For any one that is wondering, this genius edited his remark out....
here's what he said...
"...Fuck you asshole!
I'll back Iran over Likud anyday and so will most of the world!..."
I think he pretty much made my point. Fine at least we know where you stand, Seth. Like I said, there are some tough decisions people need to make. You have chosen to side with President Ahmedinijahd, because your hate has overcome your ability to recognize an evil hitlerian regime that advocates Genocide as their spiritual obligation to usher in the return of the 12th Imam.
I think you have advocated a poor choice.
February 9, 2007 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
No that's not all I said. I posted a link
And I called you a racist.It's not easy being a Jew in Iran, as the article makes clear. But it's a hell of a lot easier than being a Palestinian on the West Bank. And as I've said elsewhere, Iran may have an authoritarian government but there aren't many fascists among the people who live under it. I can't say the same thing for Israel.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH A BINATIONAL STATE? You racist motherfucker
February 9, 2007 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you "empathize" with the 900,000 Palestinians who were murdered & ethnically cleansed in accordance with the ideology of Zionism which envisions creating a purified Jewish homeland in palestine, which you identify yourself with?
February 9, 2007 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink