So typical. Gideon can write this piece in Haaretz but, in a million years, he couldn't write it in the New York Times. Or, if he did, the Aipac robots would come after him. But he's in Israel. His life depends on Israel achieving peace. He served in the army. So he can freely publish this.

But the big Zionist combat heroes of California and New York go nuts if someone writes that kind of thing here. God bless Israel and its free speech. Someday, G-d willing, we will have it here.

Get ready for Daniel Greenbaum, Bradthe Dad and Dava'i to respond with their Aipac talking points. They should try telling it to Levy! With his Golani Brigade training, I think he would respond forcefully!!! Just kidding.

Because for 40 years now, there hasn't been a single instance of progress in this conflict that didn't feature intensive U.S. involvement. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want peace enough to do anything on their own, Europe is too fat and self-satisfied to get involved, and the Arab League is a "league" in name only.

Sadly, the U.S., such as it is, is the only hope.

G-D help us all.

Here's how I see it seashell. And I'll admit at the outset that my view depends on a difficult to confirm and somewhat subjective "reading" of the situation:

A minority, but a very substantial minority, of the Israeli body politic is made up of right wingers who are deeply committed to the settlement and ultimate incorporation of "Judea and Samaria", i.e. most of the West Bank. That minority is so powerful, influential, devoted and implacable that it appears the rest of the country is simply incapable of mounting a successful and effective opposition to them. Despite various kinds of objections in the country, the settlement movement has continued unabated throughout several administrations, left and right.

That right-wing pro-settlement, pro-expansion minority also appears to possess some sort of strange subterranean psychological hold on even many of those who disagree with them. It's as though even moderates who are more pragmatic regard the settlers as the truest of the true Zionists. Relinquishing hopes for controlling all of what is seen by many as the ancient Land of Israel is something which moderates might be willing to do for practical reasons, but it leaves a bad taste in their mouth. They see the settlers as brave romantic heroes, who are willing to fight on bravely in the face of the world's opprobrium and stand in Masada-like defiance against the odds, and against the forces of surrender and political expediency.

Any efforts to remove the settlers by force would be extremely difficult, because the spectacle of "Jews attacking Jews" in order to achieve peace with the detested Palestinians would erode public support very quickly. The operation in Gaza was barely achievable, and the West Bank would be a much more extensive project. The Gaza evacuation was probably only achievable because an ultra-hawk like Sharon pushed it, and he possessed the right bona fides among Israeli hawks.

Because it is unlikely that any Israeli government will ever conclude an agreement on its own requiring most of the settlers to leave the West Bank, the only way Israel will ever make an agreement of that kind is if they are forced to do it. And the US is the only country with the ability to apply the requisite pressure. Middle of the road supporters of a settlement have to be able to say the right-wingers (and themselves), "It is not we, your fellow Jews, who are forcing you to leave the West Bank. It is the United States. This is the ultimatum they have given us, and our small country simply cannot survive without the economic support, and military and diplomatic protection that the US provides. If we lose them, we will be utterly alone, sanctioned isolated and doomed."

That's my theory anyway.

Mark beat me to it. I marvel at the fact that Gideon Levy, as MJ wrote, "one of the most respected journalists in Israel," would never be hired by any mainstream US newspaper. Instead, we get the flat-world jackass and his Disneyland view of the world...

Exactly right. It's at least as difficult for Israelis to really quash the settler movement as it is for Americans to really slash defense budgets (or apologize for war crimes in Vietnam, as Todd Gitlin mentions on another post today). These kinds of things only happen under massive external pressure; Israel is fortunate enough to have someone who could, at least in theory, apply that pressure. We should do them the favor.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

"This not talking to people is idiotic."

Daniel - We agree!!!!! However, then you go on to talk about "TPM Nitwits" who know nothing about the Mideast. Might I ask what are your credentials to make such a statement? What is your on hand experience in the Mideast that makes you the expert?

There's no mystery about why the far-right hate-inspired Israeli expansionist settler movement is in control. It is basic psychology.

See, Zionism-the basis and alleged raison d'etre of Israel- is built on certain assumptions: among these are that Palestinians either don't exist or are merely savages to be driven in to the desert or kept as pets and second-class citizens. To the extent that Herzl and his ilk actually considered the Palestinians, it was that they were non-humans and temporary resiidents of the land who were inferior (naturally Herzl suffered from the same 19th century racist mindset as the rest of the Europeans: the "natives" didn't count to colonizers.)

In this construct, there can be no peace with Palestinians. Because to recognize the Palestinians is to also recognize the illegitimacy of Zionism, and thus the falseness of the founding myths of Israel. Naturally, even the non-settler Israelis are averse to that. If you recogniz that you should give back Ramallah, then on what basis do you claim a right to hold onto Jerusalem, or Tel Aviv? You must either claim a right to all of "Greater Israel" based on the Bible which by its nature is not open to rational questioning, or you have to face the fact that you really don't have any claims to it superior than the residents that you ethnically-cleansed away from the land. That's why we were killing Indians on TV long after we killed them off in real life. The matter thus becomes a black-and-white thing. Cognitive dissonance kicks in - psychological defensive mechanisms rise up. After all, who wants to look around their living room or backyard and ask "I wonder what happened to the Palestinian family who owned this before I showed up?" or "Gee, was my granddad wrong in acquiring this land"? People don't like to feel guilty - the want to feel righteous, vindicated and justified. They don't want to see themselves as victimizers - they want monopolize victim-status. When cherished belief are challenged humans tend to believe in them even more, even in the face of the facts. So, rather than hate yourself for being complicit in the GENOCIDE of the Palestinans, it is better and easier just to hate the victims - the Palestinians - and transfer your sins to them: they want to destroy us (when in fact you are destory ing them) they don't recognize us (when in fact you don't recognize them) they can't be trusted (when in fact you're the one who can't be trusted) they are savages (when in fact you're engaging in savager) etc etc. This is an old story.

(And yes, it is GENOCIDE according to the precise definition of international Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, as well as common sense, and Israeli historians themselves. Israel is and will always be tainted with that fact which the whole world sees.)

which the whole world sees.

This is a phrase beloved of Communist and Fascist regimes, along with "No one can deny," "As has always been true throughout history" and so forth. It's a shortcut for people who can't reason very well. In fact, obviously, "the whole world" doesn't "see" what you're claiming at all; if it did, Israel wouldn't have friendly trade and diplomatic relations with the vast majority of the world's nations, and it would be Israel, not the PA, facing a boycott.

"To recognize the Palestinians is also to recognize the illegitimacy of Zionism" is one of the sillier things I've read recently. The Palestinian claim to a state is closely analogous to Zionism, and Palestinian nationalism has always been inspired by the encounter with Zionism. One of the minor roadblocks to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is people like you, who, not content with simply working towards the elusive but praiseworthy goal of a Palestinian state, are driven by resentment to deny the legitimacy of the Israeli one.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

"...It is the United States. This is the ultimatum they have given us, and our small country simply cannot survive without the economic support, and military and diplomatic protection that the US provides. If we lose them, we will be utterly alone, sanctioned isolated and doomed."

Thanks, Dan. I always appreciate your comments and insights.

It would seem that Israeli's, like Americans, have bought into the notion of global U.S. hegemony. Since the prospects for the future of that hegemony appear to have diminished under this administration, perhaps the Israeli's would be better off without the US's help.

As Tony Karon, an editor of TIME, wrote for haaretz.com:

Betting Israel's security on the ability of the Bush crowd to transform the strategic landscape in the Middle East is rather like leaving a party in the backseat of an SUV whose driver is cradling a bottle of tequila and slurring his words as he rebuffs offers by more sober friends to take the wheel.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

"By contrast, you would be hard pressed to find a Palestinian journalist, the equivalent of a Gideon Levy, who writes something to the effect that Hamas should recognize Israel. Palestinian media is a virtual hatefest with the rankest sort of anti-Semitism as a staple. It is government controlled propaganda of the crudest kind." --Brad The Dad

I guess you have to read the Palestinian press to know that articles saying just that appear all the time. And some are written by Abbas, Dahlan, Rajoub, Barghouti (from prison), Parliamentarians, etc. Brad is saying that the media in Palestine dares not write articles expressing the official Fatah line which is (1) Hamas must recognize Israel and (2) a Palestinian state will exist in WB/Gaza and not Israel.

Brad is off a bit. Those articles appear in the Palestinian media every single day. Actually, articles like that appear in Israel and Palestine every day. It is only here in the states where articles supporting the two state solution etc cause conniption fits, threats, name-calling and a zillion generated letters to the editors.

SeeDee

Nitwits? Bigots?...et tu, Daniel?

So did anyone notice the story in todays NYT about the 2,000 settlers reoccupying Homesh, one of the four West Bank settlements evacuated in 2005? The Olmert government promises to kick them back out, but I wonder if it has the backbone.

Sorry, but smearing me as a "fascist" won't work. The world does indeed see Israel for what it is - the worldwide polls speak for themselves. For example:

"The European Commission has apologised to Israel for a new opinion poll that shows that Israel is the country most regarded as a threat to world peace by ordinary Europeans."

And note that I didn't say anything about "Palestinian nationalism" - I said the Palestinian people - who did exist and were living on the land that the Zionist called a "Land without a people".

Time to face up to what Zionism is: a racist ideology which is built on ethnic cleasing. Israeli historians admit that the Zionist dream of a Jewish homeland would not have happened without ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, so don't blame me for stating the facts that you'd rather ignore or find inconvenient.

FACT: Israel was built on ethnic cleansing.

Israel clearly needs to free itself from the baleful influence of its own “Greater Israel” zealots, our Neo-Cons, AIPAC, the fundamentalist “Christians United for Israel, just not for Jews,” and their ilk, if it is to have any chance of surviving over the long haul. As long as its policy is one of keeping the Israeli boot firmly planted on the neck of every Palestinian man, woman and child and of depriving them of every shred of dignity, it will never have either peace or security. (For that matter, it is certainly well within the bounds of fair argument to compare such a policy with “Apartheid” and “Jim Crow,” without having to endure taunts of “anti-semitism.”)

Having said that, I find comments such as Haas and Mooser posted unhelpful and entirely counterproductive. Those who fantasize a world in which the “hated Zionist entity” gets its “just rewards” are indistinguishable from the self-described “Christians” who feed on such grotesque images as this, from the latest installment in the “Left Behind” series:

"Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and a yawning chasm opened in the earth, stretching far and wide enough to swallow all of them. They tumbled in, howling and screeching, but their wailing was soon quashed and all was silent when the earth closed itself again."

Matt: In response to your comment regarding the complete lack of  involvement of the EU, I offer this interesting tidbit, which comes from - of all places - the Voice of America News (see my post below for information about the Arab's peace proposal).

In an interview with the left-of-center Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, Ban Ki-moon said the International quartet of Mideast negotiators made up of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations could invite the so-called Arab Quartet, made up of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates to its next meeting.

Speaking at a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Mr. Ban said in his talks with Israeli officials he also urged them to reconsider their rejection of the new Palestinian unity government.

Still, it's hard to know if all these recent developments indicate actual movement, or merely a choreographed appearance of movement.

brooksfoe,

"To recognize the Palestinians is also to recognize the illegitimacy of Zionism" is one of the sillier things I've read recently.

Beyond silly.  Insisting that Jewish and Arab national rights are mutually exclusive in formerly British Palestine is the mentality of a warmonger.

I don't insist on that - Zionism insist on that. Zionist want a "Jewish" homeland in Palestine and resort to ethnicall cleansing nonJews - not me. Zionism REQUIRES the subjugation and eradication of Palestinians because as long as the Palestinians exist(ed) on their own lands you can't have a Jewish homeland there. And that's precisely whey they refuse to acknowledge the absolute and unquestionable and internationally-recognize Palestinan Right of Return - thus continuing the ethnic cleansing.

I guess every now and then I have to quote Israeli historian Benny Morris just to keep people's eyes open to the facts about Zionism:

"A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads."

And if I remember correctly, you endorsed that ethnic cleansing, Zionista.

You know ZIonista, you can pretend to be "pro-peace" and spout off about "Arab" national rights (noted that you didn't say Palestinians - since they don't exist?) as if you really cared about them Arabs - and heck maybe you even have yourself convinced of that, but you can't be a LITTLE BIT of a supporter of ethnic cleansing just like you can't be a little bit pregnant. Either you support Zionism and all it stands for and all the crimes that were committed in the creation of Israel, or you don't. There's no middle way. Its time you were a bit more honest with yourself at least cuz you sure can't fool me.

You said that "the whole world" "sees" that Israel is guilty of genocide. To support this, you produce a poll showing that most Europeans think Israel is a threat to world peace. Bravo.

We got into this by discussing the 1947 partition plan. That plan divided Palestine into roughly equal portions, with a narrow Jewish majority in one and a large Arab majority in the other. The Arabs got much of the Galilee; the Jews got the whole Negev desert. 3000 square miles of sand -- what a great deal! Jerusalem was split. Had the Palestinians accepted the plan, they would now have a Palestinian state encompassing Jerusalem except for the Jewish Quarter, as well as the entirety of what is now the West Bank, half of what is now Israeli Galilee, and a Gaza area much larger than the current strip. There would also now be a much larger number of Arab residents of Israel proper. Israel would have had no excuse to kick Palestinians out of their homes and villages in '48, and the Naqba would most likely never have occurred. The only thing the Palestinians would have had to accept was the influx of several hundred thousand European Jews then in displaced-persons camps -- which happened anyway.

It is hard for me to understand how anyone can believe that the Palestinians would not have done better to accept the 1947 partition plan than they have done by rejecting it. That was my argument.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, a member of the so-called "New Historians" movement in Israel and senior lecturer of Political Science at Haifa University, offers some interesting insights on this subject. For a brief exposition see, "The History of Israel Reconsidered: A Talk by Ilan Pappe".

His latest book, "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", goes into greater detail.

Sam Thornton,

One thing that has always irked me about the Israeli position, and the free pass it receives here, is its insistence on maintaining a distinctly racial/religious hegemony. If we in the US were to base our political dialog on the primacy of maintaining our white Christian purity, I think others might offer some reasonable objections.

This is not a fair comparison.  The United States is rather unique among the family of nations in that it is a nation rooted in ideas, as opposed to ethnic identity.

The Israeli position is consistent with the dominant national context in the Middle East, whose largest and most significant regional multinational organizations are the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Conferences.

You are imposing a judgement. If you really want to understand what I'm saying, read what I wrote.

Gladly! But this will be the second time you've asked me to "prove it" and I have.

This is the time when you decided to be as "despicable" as Benny Morris by endorsing ethnic cleasing.

And this the first time you challenged me to prove your own statement - which I did.

So this is the second time I'm proving it.

But here, I'll agree to forget all that and (once again) I'll pose the question to you: As a self-described Zionist and supporter of Israel, do you also endorse the ethnic cleansing that was necessarily part and parcel of the creation of the state of Israel, or not? I dare you to answer that without evasion or trying to rewrite the factual history of Israel. Do you accept ethnic cleansing as the price for the creation of ISrael as Benny Morris does, and do you accept that ethnic cleansing of Non-Jews was justified in the name of the creation of Israel, or not? JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION.

If the United States, the UN and the EU start dealing with Hamas, the PA, and other fundamentalist Islamic groups, they must be prepared to deal with the two often stated and deeply rooted goals which they constantly seek: the complete "obliteraton" of Israel and total Islamic world "domination." These are not my opinions at all, I only say this from reading them weekly--sometimes daily--in the Arab press. Here is one minor example from three days ago.

Source: Al-Ayyam, the Palestinian Authority's newspaper http://www.al-ayyam.ps Sunday March 25, 2007.

Palestinian Authority official Mahmoud A-Zahar is quoted as saying:

"We have two important foundations: one is Koranic and the other is prophetic. The Koranic: the divine promise made in the Al-Israa Sura [Chapter 17] is that we will liberate the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, 'and we will enter it as we have entered it the first time' [paraphrasing Sura 17 (The Night Journey), verse 7]. And the prophetic foundation is the message of the prophet Muhammad, that Islam will enter every house and will spread over the entire world.

".... Our position is the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine. This is the final and strategic solution for us. There is a Koranic message for us, that we will enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the entrance to the mosque means the entrance into all of Palestine. This is the message, no one can deny it. Anyone who denies it must check his faith and his Islam."

A-Zahar's statements, as promulgated in the PA media, are restatements of views "Our position is the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine." -- Mahmoud A-Zahar
expressed in the foundational covenant of Hamas, the PA government's ruling faction. Regarding Israel, the 1988 Hamas Covenant preamble says, "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." While Article 28 of the Covenant widens the threat: "...Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Muslim people. 'May the cowards never sleep.'"

The Hamas position on the existence of a sovereign Jewish entity in the Middle East is identical to its position on any lands once conquered by Muslims. As Article 11 of the organization's covenant says: "[Hamas] believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. ...[And] the same goes for any land the Muslims have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations till the Day of Judgment."

Functionally, Hamas also sees itself as part of a global movement for Islamic domination. As Article 2 declares, "[Hamas] is one of the wings of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization...." More fundamentally, Article 5 says, "[Hamas's] place is anywhere that there are Muslims who embrace Islam as their way of life everywhere on the globe. This being so, it extends to the depth of the earth and reaches out to the heaven." ALL EMPHASIS MINE

Interesting take.

I fully agree that fundamentalists exist on both sides of the spectrum and your article points this out well. The only problem I have is that in addition to the extremism from Jews and Christians I can also read countless articles from Jewish and Christian moderates and liberals and even some conservatives who criticize their own radical fundamentalists.

But it is rare to find an article or hear a speech or messsage from any of these supposed moderate Muslim leaders I keep hearing about willing to condemn radical Islamic ideals such as the Hamas Charter which calls for the destruction of Israel or the jihadist goals of Islam which we see daily causing violence and death in the name of Allah the Merciful all over the globe.

The quote you cite by Begin indicate the thinking of the small right-wing Jabotinskyite faction in Israel, which did not become the country's leadership. The quote by Ben-Gurion should be balanced against some of the statements by the Palestinian Arab leadership, the Mufti of Jerusalem et al, about what should be done with the Jews. I don't think it will take much tortured logic to construe the racism of THOSE statements.

Benny Morris's point is that the Israelis were happy with the provocation granted by Palestinian Arab rejection of partition, as it gave them the pretext for expansion. And? Politics is everywhere and always a matter of compromise. Of course you always want more than you got. If your enemy throws away the compromise, miscalculating his strength, then obviously you take advantage to better your position.

The Jews kicked pregnant women out of their homes and seized them, sending them off to walk across to Jordan. That was wrong. The Palestinian Arabs seized Jewish kibbutzes that were on lawfully purchased land and killed or drove the Jews away. That was wrong too. The Jews did more cleansing, because they were stronger. Neither side "started" it. It was ethnic civil war, in a polity that had not yet even come into existence.

I'm interested in how you feel about the rights of the Moroccan, Iraqi, Egyptian and Yemeni states to exist, given the ethnic cleansing they practiced against their Jewish communities in 1948. Or is that "genocide", according to your interpretation of the UN definition, to be left unpunished?

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

"Begin indicate the thinking of the small right-wing Jabotinskyite faction in Israel, which did not become the country's leadership."

Really? Begin and Ben-Gurion didn't become an Israeli leaders? Israeli didn't continue its expansionism exactly as they said it would? Has Israel even today stopped appropriating Palestinian lands and ethnically cleansing non-Jews from their homes and properties?

Get real. Stop trying to justify ethnic cleansing.

Well, Sam, it's about the best reply to such a Colbertesque question that I could come up with.

Sam Thornton,

...the equivalence of "the dominant national context", as you put it, for Israel and its neighbors argues for equal treatment by outside actors, such as the US.

It's not how I put it, it's how it is.  You may have noticed the summit happening this week in Riyadh.  The Arab League is a significant multinational organization in the region.  You wouldn't suggest that Arab peoples are the only peoples native to the region and thereby monopolistically entitled to assert their national rights throughout the Middle East (would you?).  But aside from Israel, the national rights of no others but Arab peoples have been asserted in the region's modern history, from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic coast and between Iran and subsaharan Africa.

To return to the original topic of the post, the equivalence between the parties you correctly argue for makes dialog with all parties to resolve differences the only reasonable course.

Agreed.  But Hamas remains consistent, recently sustaining its policy of radical rejection of Jewish national rights in Israel; and to the point of rejecting the legitimacy of negotiated agreements between previous PA governments and Israel.  What is the point of dialogue with an adversary that denies your right to exist, and proudly rejects its commitment to resolutioins previously discussed, negotiated and agreed upon?  Similarly, the Bush administration says its offer to Congress to discuss the US Attorney purge with Karl Rove and Harriett Miers, in private, not under oath, and without a trascript, is an offer of generous cooperation.  I'm sure you are encouraging your representatives and senators to accept it in good faith.

Unahomer, though most nations of the world unanimously condemn the violence and havoc poured out by radical Muslims, I don't think anybody should be suprised that there is not a great outpouring of criticism toward radical Islam from within the Islamic world.

Any public criticism of fundamentalist Islam can prove costly. Even the seemingly silly posting of some cartoons in a Danish newspaper caused riots throughout Europe by "everyday" Muslims (not radicals belonging to terrorist or militia groups). Imagine if public leaders in the Muslim world were to actively speak out harshly condemning Hamas and other terrorist groups? I think they would be the targets of those suicide bombs filled with nails and screws soaked in rat poison that are usually reserved for mothers and babies sitting in bus stops and marketplaces.