5. The diasporas of both sides of the conflict have to help promote peace and economic development in a coordinated fashion. Communicating the sense that both diasporas are working together is critical. The Friends of Belfast is a good example.

MJ, you've identified what you think the role of the American Jewish diaspora should be.  Who are the partners in the Arab diaspora committed to reigning in the Palestinians?  There are a number of regimes (Jordan, Egypt and the Saudis) that have dipped a toe in the water here, but what real committments are they willing to make to end the conflict?  And who is the Arab equivalent to the IPF, willing to condemn (rather than explan) their own side's violence without ceding the justice of their position?

<br>

On a related note, MJ is starting to convince me, dafka, to worry far less about an increasingly likely second term for Bibi.

The IPF equivalent is the American Task Force on Palestine, an increasingly effective lobby. Another is the Arab American Institute 

which also lobbies for the two-state solution and is increasingly being heard.

I do not understand the fascination this author and this website has with Jews and Israel. That is just another religion of many in this country. That is just another country of many in this world. We do not need constant updates on Jews in Israel, especially considering that like much of the middle east, nothing ever actually changes there.

Glad to see the author finally branching out and focusing on different religions and countries. Please don't stop with Ireland and the Catholics and Protestants. For example, I haven't seen any recent stories on Norway recently. You could write about them. Or, you could write about Lutherans, those guys don't get many articles. Or, you could write about atheists. There's about nine times as many atheists as Jews in the US alone, and about a billion more atheists than Jews worldwide, but Jews get many more articles. How about you balance that out.

Here's another bit of common sense wisdom from a former negotiator involved in "the Troubles". Rt. Hon. Michael Ancram, MP is a Tory and was with Blair on the invasion of Iraq.

His lecture is titled "Dancing with Wolves: the importanceof talking to your enemies." and as a member of the Conflicts Forum, he has actually talked to the opposition, including Hamas and Hezbollah. He champions "exploratory dialogue" without preconditions:

Ancram's bullet points:

# First, conflict and insurgency can be contained by military action; it cannot be defeated by it.
# Second, negotiation towards a settlement of conflict nearly always needs to be preceded by informal dialogue.
# Third, dialogue which is exploratory and non-committal can often make more progress than seeking commitments.
# Fourth, undeliverable preconditions are an end rather than beginning to dialogue.
# Fifth, exploratory dialogue should be as multilateral as possible to seek out potential areas of common ground.
# Sixth, low profile dialogue is more likely to succeed than that carried on in the bright spotlight of international publicity.
# Seventh, it is a better use of your time to talk to your enemies than your friends."

[snip]

Re Israel

"None of this however is worth a candle if at the end of the day Israel is not prepared for reasons of principle to build reasonably swiftly on the outcomes of such explorations. It will not be easy for Israel to engage with those who have wrought such personal destruction upon them. But then it was not easy for me as a government minister to sit in private conversation let alone formal negotiation with the man who sanctioned the assassination of my best friend in politics.

I believe that there are others of us who can initiate such exploration. What we must ask of the Israelis is that they do not seek to derail it, and that if it shows potential for progress they will in the peaceful interests of their people be prepared to engage. Israel, somewhat like the Ulster Unionists, has too often been the reluctant player in terms of exploratory dialogue. Many of her senior thinkers are now however thinking differently."
http://conflictsforum.org/2007/dancing-with-wolves-the-importance-of-talking-to-your-enemies/

It's imperative that American involvement in the ME undergo a drastic recalibration and hopefully, the hard slogging of MJ and others involved in changing the status quo will show some concrete gains when 2009 rolls around. Until then, the Elliot Abram's school of peace-making-through-death-and-destruction will prevail. Those Israeli "senior thinkers" Ancram says are "thinking differently" need the determind support of their counterparts within the American disapora.

As aside on this lecture, Ancram also sounds an alarm that echoes warnings I've been making on this blog:

"The position with Hezbollah is a little different. However in their case it is even clearer with the growing Salafist threats to them in Lebanon that they also are a bulwark against the attempts of Al Qaeda to spread its influence within the region. It is deeply concerning to hear that there are parties who may be encouraging the Salafists to undermine the power of Hezbollah. They are playing with fire."

He also notes that Hamas performs a similiar function in countering AQ in the West Bank and Gaza.

Xopher: you strike me as something of a bigot. And you are woefully ignorant of geopolitics. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict harms this country's interests worldwide. I suspect that you are just bothered by Jews. Sorry, that is what it sounds like.

"However, there is one critical difference between the two conflicts. In the case of Northern Ireland, once the decision to pursue peace was made, .... Irish Americans wanted President Clinton to put his weight behind the peace process.
.....
"That never happened after Oslo."

Really? In MJ history book Clinton didn't spend any time to help peace in ME .

Rosenberg states that "In the case of Northern Ireland, once the decision to pursue peace was made, the constituency for continued conflict started disappearing not only in Ireland but in the diaspora as well."

then goes on to show that jewish groups were "ambivalent" to Oslo and that groups were established to "monitor" and point out flaws in the Oslo agreements.

Rosenberg doesn't claim jewish opposition to Oslo. (He also doesn't mention little things like unilateral withdrawl from Lebanon and intensive negotiations being pushed by President Clinton, but without any push at all from arab allies of the palestinians.

But OK! THat was israeli reaction. Palestinian reaction? Rosenberg doesn't even bother to say. Guess that in Rosenberg's mind, the reactions of the palestinians was irrelevant. Why am I not surprised. In Rosenberg's mind it is somehow always israel's fault.

But Rosenberg is correct that the Irish and everyone who contributed to the settlement are to be congratulated and the rest of us can only hope and pray that israelis and the palestinians are able to accomplish something similar.

Shabbat Shalom, mj. for the paletinians, for the israelis, for all of us.

Oh M.J. You are a good and kind man. I read your posts sometimes just to experience the dauntless and inexhaustible energy of your effort to find peace for the people of Israel/Palestine. Most of the time the substance of your writing is too erudite for my meager knowledge of that troubling subject but that doesn’t inhibit my admiration for your commitment and determination. You are an example to us all.

But looking to the Irish for answers may be a bridge too far. There is a very old joke that says about Ireland that “all their songs are sad and all their wars are merry.” So here we are, ten minutes after the sectarians agree to a “final” (?) peace arrangement and they are already issuing ten point e-mails on how to solve internecine conflicts. A young colleen once said to me about the gift of gab “It doesn’t surprise me that we can talk so well. What surprises me is how many people believe what we say.”

My ancestors fled Ireland around the time Abraham Lincoln was starting his law practice. So maybe you should just leave a note for your great grandson that if the Arabs and Israelis are still fighting that there might be an occasion to look at how the Irish made their peace. Four hundred years ago the Spanish were making conversos of your Jewish ancestors, and Shakespeare was writing his thirty-eight plays in all of which there was only one Irish character (the sea captain MacMorris in Henry V), perhaps because the Irish were at war with the English for independence even then. By this measure the Arab/Israeli conflict is more quarrel than war. Be happy you have as small a conflict to resolve as you do. You are doing god’s work but you are not saddled with the misfortunes of Job.

A young colleen once said to me about the gift of gab “It doesn’t surprise me that we can talk so well. What surprises me is how many people believe what we say.”

Demonstrating powerful evidence, we Irish are not never very good at math either. :-)

It is little wonder Mr. Rosenberg and the experts he consulted missed a key event that paved the way to a possible end to the centuries-old "Troubles" but few Irish should.

When Clinton invited Gerry Adams to the White House, the shock to the English and probably even the politicians in Eire made possible progress nearly impossible previously.

Of course it was the luck of the Irish to have such a "hardliner" as Adams.

Best, Terry

To Terry and Freespeak. You are so right. I left out the Adams visa and Clinton. I went back and fixed the piece.
My apologies and thanks.

Who is going to keep order in Gaza? US?

I think your posts are partially correct. There are those, especially on the American Left, who delude themsevles the if the Israeli-Palestinian issue would be resolved all else in the Middle East would also be resolved. This resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli issue also tends to involved Israel effective putting its existence at risk to the applause of the the real bigots.

However, as the slaughter between Sunni and Shia in Iraq, the invasions of Kuwait and Iraq by Iran, the near civil wars between Fatah and Hamas and Hezbollah and much the rest of Lebanon all demonstrate Israel is an excuse not a cause of these problems.

As for the focus on Jews. The neo-Cons are for the most part Jewish. AIPAC is seen to have all the secret power that has in the past been attributed to Jews in in general. Since many at this site want to see Israel surrender and blame Israel for the Arabs own moral failings it is a nice way to be an anti-Semite to go after the neo-Cons and AIPAC. Your pointing this out violates the unwritten rule of the real bigots.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Here's where I come from on this--

The King of Jordan just came to the US a few weeks ago with *ONE* message:
Solve the fight over land between Israel and Palestine in a way that is seen as just to moderate Arab nations like ours, and the problems in the Middle East will begin to be resolved.
Don't do that, and they will never be resolved.

OK, I'm not saying I know anything.
I'm just saying if we can't listen to the King of Jordan for friendly advice, who in the world (literally) CAN we listen to?

Daniel A. Greenbaum writes:

“As for the focus on Jews. The neo-Cons are for the most part Jewish. AIPAC is seen to have all the secret power that has in the past been attributed to Jews in in general. Since many at this site want to see Israel surrender and blame Israel for the Arabs own moral failings it is a nice way to be an anti-Semite to go after the neo-Cons and AIPAC. Your pointing this out violates the unwritten rule of the real bigots.”

How do we talk about these things in a civil, candid, and un-stilted manner? Daniel can, but many cannot.

How do we open our political discourse to recognize, in the same breath, that American Jews are central to most domestic progressive movement, important in Peace Now, and also central to the neo-conservative disaster of the past decade?

Daniel sets up the question nicely.

One of the villains of the peace, as far as the neocon dimension goes, is Allan Bloom.

I studied with Bloom and lived at Telluride when Bloom was den-mother to Wolfowitz and a gaggle of 20 year old neo-cons-to-be. Bloom could never resist linking his Platonic enlightened despotism ideas to Jewish history.

His acolytes were mostly Jewish and he encouraged a sense of their belonging to an elite club within an elite club. Never mind that the major liberal and left student organizations at Cornell were also predominately Jewish, Bloom encouraged the notion that his followers were twice-chosen.

I recall the tempest at TPM not so long ago when the Walt/Mearsheimer paper appeared. Those who found an iota of legitimacy in the paper were savaged as racists. Those who criticized the paper were blasted as Israeli lackeys.
There should be space for a calm discussion of the issues that flow from Daniel Greenbaum’s observation that “The neo-Cons are for the most part Jewish. AIPAC is seen to have all the secret power that has in the past been attributed to Jews in in general.”

I suppose it will happen in time. We do seem to have reached the point where one can write that Trotsky was Jewish without being seen either to indict Judaism with the “sin” of Communism or, conversely, to taint Communism with the “sin” of Zionism.

I hope that the era of civil discussion on this subject comes sooner rather than later.

Professor John Stuart Blackton

alright, I don't even know if you are serious, but I'll bite. Point by point...

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not effect US national security at all. The Palestinians could stop fighting and it wouldn't help the US in the least. Israel could fall to the Arab states and the US would not be hurt even slightly. In fact, the US would probably be better off since the Arab nations would have less reason to hate us.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict does effect US national security, if anything does. You could just as easily say that nothing overseas effects US security and we can dismantle our army since we are at peace with Canada and Mexico.

On the other hand, the US has vital interests around the world (stability for trade, oil, not allowing small situations to turn into big ones that are much harder to stop later, like WWII, ethical concerns). To protect these interests, it is vital that we have friends and allies around the world. Some parts of the world its easy to have friends with (Europe). Other parts of the world have countries that are hostile or may become hostile to our interests (Iran, China, Russia) and the countries that are our friends in those parts of the world need a bit of extra help and protection (Taiwan, Poland, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait). In Israel's case, our help and support is complicated by the Israel-Palestine conflict, so the conflict has clear national security implications for the US.

Second, Israel is a fairly powerful country and right now its an ally. Its not going away, but if its not our ally, it will be someone else's. Not Iran, but possibly China. Chinese-Israeli military agreements would give China a new and big edge in weapons, which could threaten Taiwan or force Japan to militarize. This could impact US-Chinese relations, and since we are now very dependent on China economically it could sink us into recession (not that we're not going there anyway). It could also lead to war in Asia, which we would surely get sucked into.

Additionally, you said, "Israel could fall to the Arab states ", but, setting morality aside, Israel cannot fall to the Arab states. Its shown that time and again. You may wish Israel was wiped from the map, but since its not going anywhere, then any increase in chances for war just destabilizes the region, and since its our troops that will have to re-stabilize it to protect world oil resources, then that does impact our national security.

You said, "the US would probably be better off [if Israel were to fall] since the Arab nations would have less reason to hate us."... again, setting morality and also US domestic politics aside, Israel isn't going down without a fight, and it would not be a pushover like Iraq (not that Iraq turned out to be much of a pushover), so you're essentially talking about a regional war fought between nuclear powers that makes anything since WWII look like a minor skirmish. Since our entire national security strategy - including creating the UN -- is predicated on preventing war and international stability to promote trade and improve people's lives (including our own), how is this advancing our national security interests?

The reason the middle east effects the US so much has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with oil. Your reason is not sufficient enough to focus on Israel above everything else, especially since we don't get oil from them.

All of the countries we do get oil from care deeply about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its their region. Next you're going to be telling me that we shouldn't be caring about Taiwan because we're not in Asia and its not a world power. We don't care about Israel and Taiwan because they are world powers, we care about them because other world powers care about them. Again, this is setting aside morality and our own personal interest in Israel. Not only is Norway not a world power, no world power cares about Norway (no offense Norwegians, I had a lovely 48 hours in your country once). Its not strategically important.

the real reason that the American media focuses on the middle east is because of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the media, Israel is a boring side note to more important national and world affairs since nothing ever actually changes there. There's no need for the constant updates. That is just another religion of many in this country. That is just another country of many in this world.

Let's set national security and the government aside. The reason the MEDIA focuses on Israel is because because over half the world cares deeply about Israel. The media is out to sell newspapers and get television viewers. If nobody cared about Israel, they wouldn't cover it. Afghanistan and Iraq are tactically important right now, but in the greater scheme of history they are far less important. People have been fighting over Israel for thousands of years longer than Northern Ireland, or pretty much anyplace else, except perhaps a few spots in India or China. Remember, Al Queda is fighting for the Caliphate and the Arabs are still pissed about the Crusades. You do know where the Crusades occurred, right?

I'm going to guess you are not very religious, because otherwise you wouldn't even ask these questions. However, the 2 1/2 or so billion Christians, Muslims, and Jews in the world who are religious are tremendously vested in Israel. There are parts of the world where the only reading material they have have is the Bible/Koran and the only place they know significantly about other than their own country is Israel. 2 1/2 billion people is a lot of newspapers to sell, and that is why the media will always care about Israel more than Norway.

Lastly, lets talk US domestic politics. One of the great strengths of the US is our immigrant population, which lets us have close ties to countries all over the world. The US regularly leverages this, for instance by sending Congressmen of a certain heritage to talk to governments of various countries. It makes other countries feel connected to and comfortable with us. Its why we rock at international trade. Its why even now most foreigners say they hate Bush and our government but they still love the American people.

The flip side of that, though, is that we have to care about countries around the world. The reason we were so helpful and so invested in Northern Ireland is because there is a huge Irish Catholic community in the US. All US politicians are always going to prioritize Irish issues because Irish-Americans care about Ireland, and in a representative democracy, the representatives in theory at least care about what the people care about.

Similarly, Jews vote around 80% Democrat and have the ability to influence Democratic primaries in several key states - CA, NY, FL - and thats setting aside the fundraising issue. So Democratic politicians are always going to support Israel.

Evengelical Christians make up probably 30% or so of the Republican party and Israel is a deeply important issue to them. So, likewise, all Republican politicians are always going to support Israel.

Since politicians are actively engaged and spending time on Israel, a lot of news occurs about Israel - speeches, etc. - that the media then covers. That's why you hear about it in your media (in addition to them wanting to sell papers to all those people who just directly care about Israel).

Lastly, you said, "Israel is a boring side note to more important national and world affairs since nothing ever actually changes there. "

Things do change in Israel. Just slowly. Very slowly. One of the things many foreigners tend to hate most about Americans is how short term all our policies and thinking is. Its a definite disadvantage we put ourselves at. Probably the shining example of this is Bush, who seems almost clinically incapable of thinking things through. Since things change slowly for better and for worse in Israel, if we're not actively engaged for each slow change, then one morning we may wind up with either WWIII or peace on earth, and shouldn't we be caring about or paying attention to the outcome of that choice?

terry hallinano says:

"Demonstrating powerful evidence, we Irish are not never very good at math either. :-)"

Terry, being Irish, shouldn't the "o" at the end of your screen name be in the front? :-)

I am sorry to be the one to break this to you, but the two are mutually exclusive.
I know it sounds nice, it sounds like a reasonable compromise, but it can never work. The Palestinians were offered an independent Palestinian state on two occassions, in 1947 and 2000. Each time they (or at least their leaders, it is questionable how much of a role public opinion really plays in their society) rejected it and went to war, and both times they were defeated. The rise of Islamic political movements like HAMAS and the demise of "secular" Arab nationalism pushes away even further any possibility of a compromise.
Any Israeli withdrawals will simply lead to more interal strife and bloodshed among the Palestinians and more attacks against Israel.
Read the following article from the (Leftist) Ha'aretz newspaper:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/857308.html

I beg to differ.  No one ever thought that the Protestants and Catholics could share power in Northern Ireland either...and at the forefront of that sentiment were the supporters of the "no compromise" position on both sides. 

And just like what was done in Ireland the people on both sides who say it will never happen must be told they have no choice but to make it happen...and eventually it will.  The only question is how long will it take?

And just like with the Irish example both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute have shown they are incapable of resolving this on their own so it is going to take outside parties to get involved...including, but not limited to, the US, the Saudis and the Jordanians.

Professor Blackton, I think you're creating an opposition that doesn't exist in any sort of meaningful equivalence on MJ's threads when you equate "anti-semites" on one hand and "vicious protectors of Israel" on the other. I simply don't see the alleged anti-Semitism coming from the liberals and lefties who criticize Israel here on this blog.

Since I've started reading MJ's blog plosts, I tend to see a lot of cogent, hard-hitting and deserved criticism of Israel and the US relationship with Israel on one side and knee-jerk insinuations of anti-Semitism and--even more--a sort of cowardly questioning-the-motives-of those-who-criticize on the other side. It's interesting that the Israel First crowd has a marked tendency to immediately go toward psychological motivation rather than deal in the empirical and the rational spheres. Perhaps playing psycho-analyst and questioning intentions is an effective way of diverting attention from the cold, empirical root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the ongoing, daily brutalization and de-humanization of the Palestinians. I think it's clear to any objective, thinking observer that the Palestinians have become the ultimate Other the past several decades.

Wow, you really went off the deep end there.

Let me address my feelings about this with an analogy. Your love for Israel is like a parent's love of their child. A parent may love their baby so much that they want to go tell every other adult every single detail about their baby nonstop without end.

In this analogy, I am like that other adult, childless in this case. Yes, I like and can appreciate your child. But, I am sick of you constantly bringing up how great and important your baby is during every single conversation you can possibly fit him in. My saying this does not mean I hate your baby - that is a complete knee-jerk reaction on your part that is totally unwarranted and actually makes you look bigoted. There is a whole world of other children out there, which I also like and appreciate. Maybe, for once, we could talk about them without bringing your baby into it. For example, we could possibly talk about the nice Irish child without bringing up your own baby.

I don't necessarily want to hear the gratuitous details of every fight your baby has on the playground with some of the other children in your neighborhood. No, that doesn't mean that I want to see your baby bullied. And no, I don't want to see your baby bully the other children. I would prefer that everyone live together happily in peace. However, if that is not possible, I don't care to keep reliving every, single, small detail over decade upon decade of fights. It gets old after a while since no real progress occurs. I'd be more than happy to just get the substantial updates, like when the bullying actually stops.

Israel is first and foremost your baby, not mine, and therefore of great importance only to you. The things I say are from my point of view and have nothing to do with whether I like your baby or not. What happens to your child has absolutely no effect on me and my future. I'll still get everything I want regardless of what happens to your baby.

I suggest you gain some perspective and stop thinking everything is about you and your baby Israel.

A Conservative Brit MP directly involved with the negotiations doesn't seem to believe that the IRA was defeated. Go figure.

Your examples are localized and geographically limited. The ME is another matter altogether and insurgencies are spreading far beyond the borders of states in the region.

Nasrallah's posters now hang on the walls of buildings in Muslim villages in rural India.

If you want to defeat the Palestinian/Hezbollah insurgencies, you can if you are willing to commit genocide. However, the blowback would put Israel's very existance at risk. For real.

"Since I've started reading MJ's blog plosts, I tend to see a lot of cogent, hard-hitting and deserved criticism of Israel and the US relationship with Israel on one side and knee-jerk insinuations"

It's very interesting. Anything we don't agree with is "knee-jerk insinuations", demagogy and so on. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, he would use exactly the same word to describe liberals.

Before we start giving our prescription how to resolve complex conflict abroad, why don't we start with being a little bit more open minded here

"It's interesting that the Israel First crowd has a marked tendency to immediately go toward psychological motivation rather than deal in the empirical and the rational spheres."

You don't even notice that rather than deal in the empirical and the rational spheres you question patriotism of people with whom you disagree.

The British basically defeated the IRA in Northern Ireland

The way they defeated the colonialists in this country you think?

Best, Terry

Sorry, when last I looked, there were as many or more Jews in the US than in Israel. While I in no way am in favor of such, if Israel were obliterated, it would not be genocide of the Jewish people. It would be a democide of those who support the Zionist point of view, just as wiping out various Hasidic areas would be a different democide.

Are Hamas and Hezbollah calling for the killing of all Jews, or only those in Israel? There's quite a bit of ethnic cleansing in this world, and the Israelis are the least likely to be cleansed of whom I can imagine. I have more sympathy for the Fur.

As far as equating enemy calls for the obliteration of Israel to the Holocaust, I regard that as the exhaust of a fast-moving male bovine. I am an American. If some organization tried to kill Americans who happened to be Jewish or Catholic or Muslim or Wiccan, I'd fight to defend them. Israeli citizens are not Americans, and I see them as having no more claim on American defense than the citizens of most other countries -- and considerably less than those of countries without one of the most powerful militaries in the world. Sorry, I'm not going to fight to protect a country quite able to take care of itself, and, with actions in Lebanon and elsewhere, I would support the US drastically cutting back on military aid to Israel until Israel is willing to abide by the conditions of sale.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I find most discussions involving foreign affairs to be sort of kabuki dances. The operating concept in such discussions really is what is in the self-interest of our nation, pure and simple. But that is too crass to admit. Instead, what is interjected are --at best--tangential subjects such as what is the just thing to do, or what is fair...etc, in short: ethics.

The result of this "changing of the subject" is that discussions generally degenerate into heated shouting matches that are a lot of hot air.

The professor is right that these tirades are totally fruitless and turn our little discussion forum into a circus.

It is also almost always the usual suspects.

Now you can say that either they simply don't know any better or they are obfuscators

If I understand MJ's position correctly, it is in our and Israel's best interest not to continue in this maximalist course and I agree.

But there is another deeper concern I have. It is un-natural for one power to identify its national self-interests with that of another so strongly as the US has identified its self-interests with those of Israel.

Realist orthodoxy forbids it. Yet it seems that this is where we are with US foreign policy as it regards Israel.

For different reasons, it is neither in our or Israel's self-interest in the long run to have this synchronic approach to our respective foreign policies.

I agree that for some quirky reason Israel is an important domestic issue in USA, but I fail to see why Israel is more strategically important to us than Mongolia.

Second, Israel is a fairly powerful country and right now its an ally. Its not going away, but if its not our ally, it will be someone else's. Not Iran, but possibly China. Chinese-Israeli military agreements would give China a new and big edge in weapons, which could threaten Taiwan or force Japan to militarize. This could impact US-Chinese relations, and since we are now very dependent on China economically it could sink us into recession...

"Second, Mongolia is a huge country, and if it is not our ally... what if they would ally with China? ... critical to the security of our supplies of cashmere and pashmina, and shortage of these essencial materials could throw us into a recession as the spouses of Wall Street financiers would grow disconsolate, financiers would grow distracted (or disconsolate, if female), our capital markets would grow erratic .... recession ... riots in the streets ... ".

Not to mention that our foreign policy is pissing off Russia, which in turn may well enter an aliance with both Iran and China, resulting in rather dramatic improvement in the armaments of both and what? We do not care!!! And with a good reason!!! At the end of the day, the high-falutin strategic importance issues do not matter much.

Another comment: not only things do change slowly in Israel, it is very unclear if they change in a desirable direction, and if our influence does any good.

More salient is the fact that OUTSIDERS have very slim chances of defeating an insurgency. Argentinians defeating Argentinians, Peruvians defeating Peruvians etc. are different stories altogether. British DID NOT defeat the insurgency in Malaya (or in Kenya etc.): "With the independence of Malaya under Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman on August 31, 1957, the insurrection lost its rationale as a war of colonial liberation. The last serious resistance from MRLA guerrillas ended with a surrender in the Telok Anson marsh area in 1958. The remaining MRLA forces fled to the Thai border and further east."

"I'm not going to fight to protect a country.."
I don't think aqnybody ask you to do this.

Although I do think the Israeli-Palestinian issue has a more important bearing on US interests than Xopher admits, I have to say that I share Xopher's gut reaction to the tedium and needlessness of the Daily Israel Reflection. Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel ... is that the only other country in the world? One would think so based on the exhorbitant amount of space devoted to it on this site.

It would be one thing if the discussions of Israel were only one part of a wide-ranging consideration at TPM Cafe of many equally significant global affairs issues. But as we know, the rest of the world seems, quite mysteriously, to have almost totally vanished from the site. Aside from the endless and redundant dissections of the foibles of our 51st state, the front page content here now appears to be about 99.5% devoted to US domestic policy and US electoral politics, with some blogospheric meta-analysis thrown in about the phenomenon of the blogosphere itself, about whether blogging is better than marching, etc.

I know that others don't all share my particular interests, and maybe the new introverted, domestic wonkery format really grabs a lot of readers. But for me, TPM Cafe has turned into a sort of flat earth society meeting, where all the rest of non-Americo-Israeli humanity has apparently fallen of the world's edge. I find increasingly less reason to vist the site, and fewer posts on which I am moved to comment. I also don't think the management has been either forthcoming or entirely honest with us about what is going on here.

Let me understand what you are saying. Since 6 million out of 7 million Jews in Europe were murdered in the Holocaust, but it didn't affect North America, it WASN"T genocide?

How do you justify President Franklin D Roosevelt sending MILLIONS of American boys to shed their blood fighting for the liberation of Frenchmen, Dutch, Belgians and for the defense of Englishmen?

As Davai pointed out: No one is asking you to fight for Israel. That is why many of us in Israel strongly oppose the introduction of foreign forces to "straighten out the Palestinians" which would be seen a "protecting Israel", in addition to Bush's false claim that he is "protecting Israel" by pursuing his Iraqi fiasco. And if you resent giving aid to Israel, I pointed out in another thread that the US would be doing Israel a favor if it cut off its financial aid...Israel doesn't need it, it damages the Israeli economy and is given for political purposes.

I just came across an article from the New York Times Magazine pointing out the difficulties in Iraq. This is relevant to this thread because MJ and others seem to think that "if only the US would get really engaged, they could force the Israelis and Palestinians to make peace". This article talks about Iraq. Iraq should be much easier to straighten out since the US is "engaged" every day and is using armed force to try to impose a democratic, peaceful. Remember that all Iraqis are Muslims (the Christians have been run out), speak the same language, have similar culture and similar, although not identical religious practices. The Israeli/Arab conflict is several orders of magnititude much more difficult.
Read and decide for yourself:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/magazine/13refugees-t.html?ref=magazine

As both a historian and a descendant of 4,500 years of Hebrew culture, I see the future of the Jewish people in Israel as something much more important than the "Irish troubles" of a mere four hundred years.

This is exactly the attitude that is troublesome. How do you think an Irish person feels about this? The Jews are always more important? Oy weh!

Remember Emily Post.

I wonder how many people do think TPM is too Israel-centric. MJ always gets lots of responses (more than most of the columnists). Also, posters like us are not necessarily representative of TPM readers at large. Some people just read and, I don't know, think.
But if people here at TPM are tired of this debate, MJ can post elsewhere. There are plenty of other writers who are just as good and can write about issues TPM folks are more interested in.
No insult intended, MJR. But if the consensus is that your posts are not interesting to TPM people, then you should not post here. Or just once in a while.

hcberkowitz,

I tend to agree with an awful lot of what you say but I think in this case you are 180 degrees off kilter.

From an online dictionary:

gen·o·cide /?d??n??sa?d/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[jen-uh-sahyd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Nowhere does this say that those committing genocide need scour the earth to exterminate some poorly defined racial grouping. It is enough that they intend to target a group that they define for extermination.

It should be a concern of every human being on earth if whole peoples are marked for extermination in my view and not just those targeted.

Even Jews. :-)

Best, Terry

XopherMV,

The media focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does more to flame the fires than douse them. Were all the religious fanatics in the region to calm down or stop their religious rhetoric, that would allow great strides to be made toward peace, similar to what happened in Europe. That certainly can not happen with constant media attention.

While it may not have been the best route to get there, I have to agree with and state a strong appreciation for this conclusion.  Of course, it's not like it can change anytime soon.

Purple State and Dan K,

I believe much of what you are responding to is the microscopic media attention that has made policy into Middle Eastern socio-political theater.  If I can point to XopherMV's comment further upstream,

The media focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does more to flame the fires than douse them. Were all the religious fanatics in the region to calm down or stop their religious rhetoric, that would allow great strides to be made toward peace, similar to what happened in Europe. That certainly can not happen with constant media attention.

I believe it all remains a riveting media magnet because of all the dynamic theatrical elements that converge there: conflict, drama, mystery and suspense.  That the huge stage upon which it plays out is the common landscape of Jewish, Christian and Muslim scriptures is almost certainly the key ingredient for perpetual stupidity.  And around and around it goes.  We may do better trying to change human nature than changing our infotainment industry's habits.

You and I would, I think, be in agreement if the "national" group being discussed were Israelis. My objection is the drumbeat that the only bulwark against another Holocaust against Jews is the State of Israel. If anything, I regard that as a libel that the United States would fail to protect any group of its citizens from extermination. I also consider the suggestion of the unique role of Israel, in preventing a Holocaust, to make a less than viable comparison between the 1938-1945 ability of European Jews to protect themselves agaist the Third Reich, and the defensive abilities of the Israeli Defense Forces.

Postwar Germany gives up what Americans might consider free speech rights in order to prevent even the suggestion of rekindling of the Holocaust. While the United States did not have the technological efficiency of the Nazis, its record vis-a-vis American Indians is not exactly spotless.

It is also unfair to say the US population has not been under threat. True, oceans largely protected the Americas in WWII, but, during the Cold War, they were not a significant defense against Soviet strategic nuclear forces. Had the USSR attacked, the damage would have been far greater than by a technologically and industrially limited Iranian threat of the future.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I don't want to point to one specific entry, but may I say, with sincerity, I've been admiring the fairness and good sense of your posts as of late?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Apropos of comparing the I-P and I-I situations, it was said that when Robert Briscoe became the first Jewish Lord Mayor of Dublin, many in the pubs swore they were seeing leprecohens.

The US isn't providing billions of dollars in tax-payer money to Norway as it does with Israel to finance an expansionist racist state that denies the existence of Palestinians. That's one reason why. And the head of pro-Norwegien lobby doesn't blantantly boast to the media that he can get 50 US Senators to sign his dinner napkin. That's another reason.

You can't insist on taking billionsof US dollars then expect the world to turn a blind eye to what you're doing to the Palestinians. Sorry, I know it would be more convenient that way.

Howard,

It is not a criticism of Israel to call it the Zionist state. I reject, however, that it is the definitive Jewish state. Should there be a threat against Jewish citizens of the United States, that is a threat to all Americans.

That is a fine lofty ideal.  But it is not tethered in reality.  Israel is a Jewish state, containing and reflecting the unifying national components of Jewish identity, and its identity as such is every bit as legitimate as Arab identities of the 22 member-nations of the League of Arab States.  Further, there will always be a kinship among particular ethnicities within a nation so unique as the USA.  Generally speaking, you will never get the Ireland out of Irish-Americans, the Italy out of Italian-Americans, or the Kuwait, Jordan, Palestine, Libya, etc. out of Arab-Americans.  Futhermore, I'm not sure I like the idea of implementing policies that would do so.  Maintaining (or perhaps reestablishing) a strong civic value in our public education system is about as far as I would be comfortable in implementing such a policy.  Overall, multiculturalism is one of those self-sustaining ambiguities that will remain a part of the American democratic experiment for a long, long time.  Like the ambituities between law and liberty, freedom and security, etc.  It is very much the cost of doing business in setting up a nation-state based on an intellectual heritage like the Enlightenment, rather than on a particular ethnic heritage.

MJ is Jewish, no doubt, which is why his take on the I-P conflict is so valuable. I have NEVER seen him take a position that was parochial. On the contrary, if I had to label him pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian, I'd say that he's pro-Palestinian.
But as he says all the time. If you are pro-Israel, you have to be pro-Palestinian.
The I-P conflict cannot be overemphasized. US one-sided support for Israel handicaps this country every day and could well lead to more 9/11's. I wish more people were writing about it, not fewer.
I'll bet it's not easy for MJR to take a position so at variance with the Jewish "Israel uber alles" crowd.

I really hope I don't write something insulting here, but I did live in Ireland for a brief period during the late 90s and I met people on both sides of this debate.

To me, it doesn't compare to Israel/Palestine at all.

Though the divisions between Catholics and Protestants and between liberationists and royalists in the North go very deep, the cultural schism between northern Ireland and England was never so deep as the cultural schism between Palestine and Israel.

Though I do tend to see the issue of Palestine as one of liberation from imperialism, the IRA was always advocating of independence. The IRA never advocated the destruction of Englad or the dissolution of England or the takeover of England. There are myriad reasons why they didn't, of course, most related to the fact that England's history as an imperialist power has been mostly so successful that it's a given. But, that fact remains -- the struggle for northern Ireland has long been a struggle between those wanting independence from Britain and those wanting to live as part of Britain.

There are elements of that in Palestine. But there are also elements of outright war where Palestinians have asked for and fought for causes that the IRA never adopted, such as the complete destruction of Israel.

If we look at this through the lens of the American Revolution, we can see some differences. The US revolutionaries never intended to, or even envisioned, invading England and making it part of the US. While I support whole-heartedly Palestinian self-determination, I think we have to recognize that a lot of militant Palestinians want more than that -- they're not all fighting for their own political freedom -- some are fighting to utterly destroy Israel.

Obviously, a two-state solution is the only solution to the Palestine/Israel conflict. I think everyone knows that. Details of land and access to resources have been a devil to work out. But when drawing comparisons to northern Ireland, I think it's important to recognize that the IRA never doubted the valibity of England as a country and that they never sought to take it over.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

You and I would, I think, be in agreement if the "national" group being discussed were Israelis. My objection is the drumbeat that the only bulwark against another Holocaust against Jews is the State of Israel. If anything, I regard that as a libel that the United States would fail to protect any group of its citizens from extermination. I also consider the suggestion of the unique role of Israel, in preventing a Holocaust, to make a less than viable comparison between the 1938-1945 ability of European Jews to protect themselves agaist the Third Reich, and the defensive abilities of the Israeli Defense Forces.

We are not just on totally different wavelengths but seemingly in a parallel universe.

With regard to the Jewish population of Israel alone, imagine being advised as we were that if one has to have kosher should we fly to Tel Aviv, the "City of Heretics," that it would be advisable to bring some from New York. (We are not Jewish and are most unlikely to ever visit Israel but our adviser didn't know that.) Then consider the parasites that do nothing but study the Torah and are paid by the theocracy for that "service."

I am told there is a color line and caste system that is far more rigid than in our country. That is only what I am told. I know none of that of my own experience.

And then there are the Arab day laborers that are treated with the contempt that the "guest workers" received in our country I saw picking fruit in California long ago. The only ones treated more shabbily were Americans.

What has any of that to do with the Holocaust and geopolitics and idiots that want to exterminate a "race" because of some foreign ideologies and historical revisionism that eat their own brains and see only Jews?

Genocide is a very bad business no matter who is victimized and what the conditions in my view. It might even be helpful to know something about the people being threatened.

Best, Terry

That is true, but it never stopped the IRA from planting bombs in English cities or killing British soldiers.

Excellent point. Still, big difference (I think) between tactics which were sometimes shared and stated goals.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

No one is threatening to eradicate Norway.
That makes all the difference.

"thus, Israel is legally guilty of genocide"
Correct, as well as all sides in all military conflicts in the world. Therefore Israel is no better or worse compare to the rest of the world.

Point taken. That's why I was worried about trivializing.

Still, an African-American? Dad made the right choice. They're the ones that didn't create an empire by force...

I am so going to be in trouble for saying that.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Many have rhetoric about eradicating Israel, but I don't see any with the rhetoric and military capability.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Then if it will never work, a Social Darwinist analysis would call for a Final Solution to the Palestinian Problem, would it not? There might even be a conference center available in Wannsee...

Oh, that's not acceptable as a solution? That's a problem, isn't it?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"Many have rhetoric about eradicating Israel, but I don't see any with the rhetoric and military capability."

Correct, and Israel should keep it this way.
However, if Israeli start listen to people like MJ,this might change.

when the IDF starts agitating for the historical land of the Iroquois, I might start taking some of the complaints seriously

Man oh man, you have hit every nerve possible except taking on Transylvanians.

Hal Halbritter is an Oneida chief who doesn't take no guff from the Great White Father. When D.C. sent Running Deer down here to settle tribal warfare, she was sent running back to Washington. Oneidas it seemed didn't take to that democracy stuff.

When Halbritter laid claim to the ancient Oneida lands, it got the settlers riled up so bad they picketed the casino.

The Chief allowed as how he empathized with the settlers seeing as how he and the Oneidas had suffered through hundreds of years of having their lands taken from them. Halbritter didn't appear hundreds of years old but I guess you never know.

They must have smoked a peace pipe or maybe just cheap cigarettes from the store because the pickets are gone.

Take care, my friend. You really are a delight to discuss things with.

Best, Terry (reindeer herder wannabe)

Debka is reporting that Jordan is secretly talking about an annexation of the West Bank -- which they actually controlled pre-67. This would be a huge success -- if they can pull it off, because Jordan has the security apparatus (trusted by the Israelis) to reign in militants and they can guarantee the security of the West Bank, which means disarming Hamas.

Debka is not always right in their intel reporting though, so it could be very preliminary.

Correct, as well as all sides in all military conflicts in the world. Therefore Israel is no better or worse compare to the rest of the world.

That is incorrect. Military conflicts generally focus on taking out military targets while minimizing civilian death.

For example, the goal of the US military in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Germany, France, and Japan was to neutralize the military threat. It was never to kill everyone. They worked hard to reduce civilian death, which they were quite successful at doing. Germany and Japan, our previous enemies, are now two of our strongest allies.

Militaries that focus on killing everyone are committing genocidal war crimes. If that is what the Israelis are doing with the Palestinians, then they are worse than the rest of the world.

I agree that the Israelis are pretty bad in their treatment of the Palestinians. But compared to what the United States has done to Iraq, the Israelis are saints. The Palestinians are at least a threat. The American war on Iraq is, like Vietnam, an exercise in pure imperialism which (as is standard with America) demonstrates utter disregard for the lives of innocent people, esp if they are less than white.
My country, America, has more blood on its hands than all the Middle Eastern countries put together and, in fact, more than any country except the USSR, Germany, and China.
So a little humility please. WE suck!