Surviving Neocons Scramble to Block Israel-Palestine Breakthrough
People seem to be waking up. Initially following the Hamas takeover of Gaza, conventional wisdom coalesced around the idea of flooding the West Bank with aid to strengthen President Mahmoud Abbas and also teach Hamas a lesson.
This was fine advice which some of us have been offering (without success) since 2005 when Mahmoud Abbas became President following the death of Yasir Arafat. It became even more urgent when it was clear that Hamas was going to mount a serious challenge to Abbas in the parliamentary elections of 2006. Our position was simple: if we wanted Hamas to lose, we needed to make sure Abbas could show the Palestinian people that he could deliver for them.
The response from both Israel and Washington was predictable; as a precondition for serious engagement and aid, Abbas would first have to do this, that, and the other thing. As for Congress, it grandstanded to the skies with Congressmen railing about Palestinian textbooks and indicating that there was little difference between Abbas and Yasir Arafat. Even following Arafat's death, Congress was still engaged in Arafat-bashing rather than looking for ways to bolster Abbas.
Flash forward to the inevitable Hamas victory over Abbas in the 2006 election. And again Congress rushed to put more conditions on the aid they were so stingy about providing even before. Again there was an opportunity to strengthen Abbas with significant aid but it was rejected with enthusiasm in favor of a Palestinian-bashing field day.
That brings us to the latest crisis. Suddenly the very people who demanded that we treat Abbas as if he was Arafat are urging that we flood him with aid. With Abbas having lost Gaza, we suddenly realize that our policies were wrong all along. At last, we are prepared to do what we might have done when it counted. Better late than never, I guess.
An editorial in Wednesday's Washington Post demonstrates the shift in the conventional wisdom. The Post editorial page (unlike its news pages) is a bastion of neo-conservative thinking on the Middle East. There are few editorial pages more hard-line on Israel than the Post's, and none more unrealistic about Israel's chances of achieving security absent a deal with the Palestinians.
But on Wednesday, the Post shifted big time. To its credit, it not only moved to the easy way-station of supporting more aid to Abbas while ignoring Gaza (the position Dennis Ross took in the Wall Street Journal), but all the way to the common sense understanding that believing we can freeze out Hamas is downright ridiculous.
Referring to the Bush-Olmert summit, the Post writes: "The most dangerous illusion to emerge from the U.S.-Israeli discussions is the idea that Hamas can be isolated in Gaza while Mr. Abbas is built up in the West Bank. The Palestinian president is unlikely to abandon the 1.5 million people of Gaza to a de facto military and economic siege. If he does, Hamas will use its own forces to ensure that the West Bank also is ungovernable or to start a new war with Israel. As repugnant as its terrorism and ideology are, Hamas won a free election and still has the support of a large part of the Palestinian population. It cannot be abolished by decree, and isolation will only make it more radical and more dependent on sponsors in Syria and Iran."
Also in the Washington Post, former Clinton Middle East advisers Rob Malley and Aaron Miller (who have been consistently right about US policy) wrote: “We should not be fooled by Abbas's rhetoric. Sooner or later he will be forced to pursue new power-sharing arrangements between Hamas and Fatah and restore unity among Palestinians... And should a national unity government be established, this time [the Bush administration] should welcome the outcome and take steps to shore it up. Only then will efforts to broker credible political negotiations between Abbas and his Israeli counterpart on a two-state solution have a chance to succeed.”
Unfortunately, Congress is already being heavily lobbied to block Abbas’s ability to bring about Palestinian unity. According to Nathan Guttman in the Forward, lobbyists are pressing Congress to put onerous restrictions on any new aid to Abbas – aid that would make it impossible for him to reach out to more moderate elements in Gaza. For some people, the more things change, the more they are determined not to.
So what should the United States do?
First, we should ensure the delivery of aid to President Abbas, starting with the tax revenues which Israel has refused to turn over since Hamas won power. The economic siege of the Palestinians needs to be lifted so that salaries can be paid, infrastructure can be restored and the descent into Third World economic chaos can stop.
Second, we need to send a clear, unambiguous message to Hamas that if they undertake and enforce a full and complete cease-fire with Israel, the United States and the West will re-consider our attitudes toward them. The demand that Hamas recognize Israel in advance of negotiations (which neither the PLO, Egypt or Jordan were required to do) is not a condition, it is rhetoric designed to preserve the deadly status quo. Hamas should also secure the release of Gilad Shalit and BBC correspondent Alan Johnston – actions that would have a powerful effect on public opinion in Israel and Europe.
Third, we need to emphasize, as Secretary Rice stated earlier this week, that the United States has no interest in establishing a West Bank Palestinian state but remains determined to establish a viable West Bank/Gaza state connected by a highway, tunnel or some other device.
Fourth, and most important, the United States needs to sponsor the resumption of final status negotiations with the goal of the establishment of a Palestinian state, with permanent borders, by the end of President Bush's term.
Fifth, the United States needs to push for the appointment by the Quartet (the US, EU, Russia and the UN) of a mediator who can coordinate the movement from a state of war to a state of peace and who will broker a final status deal. That person could be Tony Blair or someone else, but whoever he or she is the mediator needs administration backing rather than being cut off at the knees by officials in Washington who see their role as putting the brakes on the Middle East peace process.
The situation is changing and, perhaps, this time an envoy would be allowed to do his job.
Will any of this happen? Who knows? Washington is buzzing with reports that the Secretary of State is determined to salvage the "two-state" policy President Bush announced five years ago Sunday. Word is that top State Department staffers, including the Secretary, are burning the midnight oil in what would be a last ditch attempt to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian agreement by 2009.
It could happen. But, as everyone knows, there are key players in the administration who are determined to torpedo Rice the same way they sabotaged her predecessor, Colin Powell. Although most of the Bush administration's neo-conservatives have disappeared since it became clear that their Iraq war is the worst foreign policy disaster in American history, there remain a few key neocons who are determined that Israel-Palestinian peace not break out on their watch. And they are watching.
The preponderance of evidence is that change for the better is coming. We'll know by next week.


Comments (172)
Me suspects MJ is talking about Elliot Abrams, convicted felon, who is the White House pointman on Israel, not to mention son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, brother-in-law of John Podhoretz, son of Midge Decter, and cousin of Bill Kristol.
Actually Abrams is just the archetype for Scooter. Conviction. Pardon. And back into a GOP White House to promote Mideast war.
He could also be talking about the VP's top guy, the aptly named David Wurmser. His crazed Israeli wife, Meyrav, lets Wurmy promote Likud at the White House while Meyrav does her part at AEI.
June 22, 2007 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Abrams is Podhoretz's step son-in-law. His wife is the daughter of Moshe Decter, another neocon. She was adopted by Podhoretz after some internal neocon split over "black anti-semitism" and the New York school system produced an ugly divorce.
Decter was not a racist, just a neocon. Podhoretz made his name with a 1963 article about how blacks drove him nuts.
June 22, 2007 5:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ - Your posting contains a lot of common sense which is probably why it will not be followed. Common sense is not an attribute of ANY party to the Mideast turmoil. For what it is worth, my sources in Israel(IDF sources not political)is that at the upcoming summit Olmert is prepared to offer Abbas Area A back. If that occurs I think Abbas will walk out.
June 22, 2007 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
To see the usual anti-Israeli crowd bleating once again is endlessly humourous. However, it will be a lot more interesting to see what happens when Egypt, Jordan, Abbas and Olmert meet in Egypt. I don't notice any neo-cons nor anti-Israeli Americans in attendance just people who actually have something at risk.
You have to love a sight in which Palestinian kills Palestinians, Israel takes in refugees and it is all about what Israel should do.
Those who attack Podhoretz are merely his left-wing counterparts.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
June 22, 2007 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the brilliant Greenbaum:
"Those who attack Podhoretz are merely his left-wing counterparts."
Holy shit. What a smart syllogism.
"Those who attack Mitt Romney are merely his left-wing counterparts."
Or substitute for Romney: Hitler, Paris Hilton, Steve Martin, Judd Aptakow, Travis Tritt or Jeremy Piven. It's fun!
June 22, 2007 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
jdledell,
I hope you're not too disappointed....
Yediot Ahronot,
June 22, 2007 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greenbaum's syllogism works with Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz too. It's fucking brilliant.
June 22, 2007 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jar Jar Binks goes name-dropping. How delightful.
June 22, 2007 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
Once again you knock it out of the park; now, if only your sensible solution is adopted by the administration and other reasonable leaders, ala the Quartet. Blair's name has certainly been floated. A bold, brilliant, but "no way" move would be to tag team Blair with his former partner in our country: Bill Clinton.
Howard Salter
June 22, 2007 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of what MJ, Yossi Belin and others may think, terrorist leader and Holocaust denier Abbas has no more interest in building a peaceful Palestinian state than does the HAMAS. More terror operations are carried out by the FATAH-(and Abbas-)affiliated "Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade" than the HAMAS. He, like HAMAS is committed to a long-term war of attrition against Israel.
He has never said he will agree to peace with Israel on anything like terms Israel could ever agree to. He has insisted on the so-called Right of Return. I maintain that he is happy that HAMAS took over Gaza. He now is considered an "international statesman" and will have money showered on him, but he will claim he is "weak" and can't do anything about terrorism or the HAMAS in Judea/Samaria so he will have none of the responsibilities of power while enjoying all its perqs.
Any money given to him will go down the sinkhole of corruption. Any weapons given to him will end up being used against Israel or in the hands of HAMAS, as we saw in Gaza. Michael Oren and many others have written this in recent days. The HAMAS victory in Gaza is an earthquake and its again seems to show that Islamic extremism is on the march and winning one victory after another.
However, looking at commentary in Israel in the last few days, it seems many (most?) of those who supported the Oslo fantasy now realize there will never be a Palestinian state, Israel MUST control Judea/Samaria and eventually Gaza also, Israel is doing the Arabs a FAVOR by doing this, and it is in the Arab's interest (although they will realize this and yet curse Israel at the same time - just like polls in Iraq show majorities supporting attacks on US forces there and also opposing an American withdrawal-truly Orwellian doublethink!). "Democracy" and "self-determination" are irrelevant concepts for the Arabs, the Israeli-Arab conflict is a zero-sum game.
Someone in this group recommended the blog
www.angryarab.blogspot.com
and I have learned A LOT about how the Arabs, particularly educated Arabs think. I urge everyone here to read what is written there and the comments. MJ's approach to dealing with the Arab/Israeli conflict has nothing to do with reality. His mistakes are just like Bush's mistakes and both Bush and MJ's crowd have brought misery to the Middle East. It is time everyone wake up and face world AS IT IS, and not has how we want it to be.
June 22, 2007 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aaahh, yes, it sounds like a generous offer. But the devil's in the details. If MJ is correct (and the Israeli government operates in it's usual manner), there will be so many strings attached to this generous offer (ultimately boiling down to a requirement that Abbas cannot do anything that might eventually lead to Palestinian unity), that Abbas will not be able to agree.
You'll notice that Israel has already ruled out a prisoner release, which is something that would bolster Abbas considerably. If Abbas could secure the release of Barghouti, the Palestinians would be assured of a competent leader with street-cred, who has said he supports Abbas. Why won't Israel take this good-sense step, which would do so much to support their stated aims?
"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals..." ~~ Iraq Study Group
June 22, 2007 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista - The release of Palestinian tax funds was already a foregone conclusion. The recognition the article talks about is nothing more than stating that Israel recognizes Fayyad as the legitimate Palestinian Prime Minister instead of Haniyeh. Big whoopy ding. Israel will have to do a LOT more if they want Abbas to survive. Frankly, the only thing that will save Abbas is the start of final status negotiations. I'm sure that will be his demand at this conference.
June 22, 2007 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
bar - Sometimes you are laughable. Do you think that the world should perceive Israelis by reading the talkback sections of the Israeli newspapers? Some pretty serious inflamatory words appear there. Take for example, Michael Freund's column in today's JP entitiled "Take Back Gaza" where he advocates Israel killing lots of Palestinians and transfering the rest out so Israel may have Gaza all to itself.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1182409609548&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Those Israelis sure are moderate.
June 22, 2007 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think your characterization of Abbas is accurate. But if you feel Abbas is too weak a leader, why not advocate the release from Israeli prision of Marwan Barghouti, a Fatah leader who has a lot of clout and has campaigned against corruption (even criticising Arafat)? He is almost universally admired among Palestinians and could do so much to bring along the Palestinian public to move away from Hamas and toward hopes for a functioning and secular Palestinian state living in peace with Israel.
But I don't think that you'll actually advocate for Barghouti's release; you belied your true intent when you talked about how Israel needs to retain all of the OTs. That's what it's really all about, isn't it? And don't bother going into the "terrorism" litany. After all, Begin (among other Israeli PMs) was a terrorist too, and no one in either the U.S. or Israel raised an eyebrow.
Additional reading on Barghouti, for those who are unfamiliar with him:
"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals..." ~~ Iraq Study Group
June 22, 2007 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Can Bar Koca Kola really be this dumb. "MJ's approach to dealing with the Arab/Israeli conflict has nothing to do with reality. His mistakes are just like Bush's mistakes and both Bush and MJ's crowd have brought misery to the Middle East. It is time everyone wake up and face world AS IT IS, and not has how we want it to be."
You, see, Cokeboy, it is your rightwing Likud neocon positions that have produced the current situation and which have been the Bush administration's policy. Bush says that his position on the Palestnians from that dwarf, Sharansky, hardly an MJ type dove.
I think you are a troll. No one can believe the crap you write.
June 22, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's called DIVIDE AND CONQUER.
I posted that quote a few days ago, and now M.J. Rosenberg starts up with this crap. As if dividing the Palestinians in two is good for themlink.
link
again.
and again
June 22, 2007 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seth, I doubt you read a goddam thing I, or anyone else writes about the Middle East. You simply assume that every Jew is a rightwing nationalist and procede on that basis. You are a true bigot (even if you are a devout Jew).
June 22, 2007 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, do not respond to Seth Edenbaum. As a regular blog reader, a couple of years ago I came across a Seth Edenbaum post on some NFL website that I saved because it was clear evidence of some kind of mental disturbance.
Edenbaum was responding to that Peyton Manning Mastercard (I think) ad in which my second favorite QB played himself as a guy who asks autographs of postal clerks and the like. Really funny and designed to out-funny an AmEx (I think) ad by Tom Brady. Here is what Seth E wrote. Remember, it is about Peyton Manning.
"There's a difference between the ad was made and the way you are perceiving it. For the people who made it, who were involved it it after the idea was thought up, the ad is simply a thing they made. We've com to the point when advertising where pure invention is the equal of intent (Giotto made billboards for the Catholic Church.)
This is the result in how capitalism is perceived by those who live in it: it is no longer a question of Capitalism as ideal but simply as fact.
Advertising is has always been seen as an intellectual act, as certain forms of popular literature are seen by their fans as primary intellectual or illustrative. Sci Fi, Fantasy, 'Speculative' Fiction, are usually nothing more than advertisements for ideas. As a philosophy of art it's basically Stalinist; though that's become the template for all theoretical activity. The academy has become Intellectual technocracy; it doesn't matter if you're talking about analytic philosophy or deconstruction: ideas take precedence over acts."
YUP. Seth Edenbaum manages to invoke Stalin in a post about Peyton Manning. Wow.
June 22, 2007 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"sometimes" -- I congratulate your generosity of spirit, jdledell.
By the way, the "talkback sections of Israeli newspapers" see, to be a good source of info. I have no stomach to ever read JP again, but ostensibly this is not a fringe newspapaper and people writing there should be as mainstream as, say, Charles Krauthammer (who is perhaps insane, but in a way representative for a part of our ruling elite).
On edit: actually, this article is relatively tame as JP goes. No massacres were advocated, just restoring the abandoned settlements and arresting and trying all Palestinian leaders. That the rest of Palestinians should be isolated in what would amount to concentration camps was perhaps implied, but not clearly. This is current policy in any case.
MJ: can any help to Abbas bolster his "credibility" in the absence of withdrawal from settlements that Israel herself judged "illegal" and abolishing hundreds of checkpoints and barriers that make hell out of West Bank?
June 22, 2007 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, that is indeed the worst case scenario, and I worry too that the eventual outcome of the situation will just be more of the same. But on the other hand, it's conceivable that some of the relatively sane elements within the Israeli government will realize that time is not on their side, and that a failure to seize the moment will ultimately only lead to further violence and weakening of the Israeli security situation, no matter what the U.S. neocons may want or say.
The same goes for the U.S. Congress. Perhaps, this time, they'll finally realize that the neocon approach has not benefitted Israel at all, and that true support for Israel requires doing everything possible to politically neutralize the more extreme elements within Palestinian society - as well as the extreme elements within Israeli society (whom the neocons support and represent) - by doing everything to create a viable, flourishing, secular, and peaceful Palestinian state. Perhaps, given the recent events, they will realize that nothing less than this is going to work.
"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals..." ~~ Iraq Study Group
June 22, 2007 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gaza
June 22, 2007 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, pray tell us, who is the left-wing counterpart-author of 'My Likudnik Problem - And Ours?'
June 22, 2007 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
There is something that has been in the back of my head for a while now, and it jumped into mind yesterday at the bookstore. I was browsing the section on Middle Eastern History when I saw a book entitled "One Country." (Here at Amazon)
As you might tell from the title, the book advocates a one state solution. I bring it up since you used quotes to describe Bush's two-state policy. So, what do you think? Did you use the scare quotes because you think the two state policy can't be effective?
Generally, I try to avoid supporting idealized solutions to real problems, but a one state policy appeals to me for some very straightforward reasons. I've spent the last three years of my life in law school, and I suppose I am infatuated with the concept of equal protection.
I can't shake the belief that, provided a legal system that respects the rights and individual dignity of every human being regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion, Israelis and Palestinians could live together in a single constitutional democracy. And that, in fact, this would be a preferable solution since it would redress some of the nationalistic impulses that Israel seems to be founded on.
Those are my reasons: 1. Law is powerful. 2 Equal protection is good. 3. Nationalism is bad.
I have little doubt that I will be roundly criticized by other commenters, but I would like to hear some serious thoughts about the future of the two state policy and possible solutions to the Israeli/Arab conflict.
June 22, 2007 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an idea: grow a backbone, recognize the right of the Palestinians to exist, instruct Israel to immediately return the illegally Occupied Territories and recognize the absolute and unqualified right of the Palestinians to return to their homes, and to formally forswear the notion of creating a "Greater Israel", and share Jerusalem.
How's that for a start?
Then, immediately cut off all US funds to Israel, and impose sanctions until they agree to give up their nuclear weapons and accept Iran's proposal to turn the Middle East into a nuclear-weapons free zone as in Latin America.
We've had enough spin-doctoring and slick politics while the settlements continue expanding, thank you. The best way to fight Hamas is to establish - for once - some justice for the oppressed by recognizing the Palestinian's Right to Exist.
But of course that won't happen while our Presidential Candidates line up to pander to Israel.
You just can't start on the assumption that Israel wants peace - that assumption is false. The fact is that Israel does not way peace - Israel wants land. Israel wants wars and conquest. And specifically, Israel wants to continue eradicating the Palestinians, surely but slowly, and everything else is just PR in the meantime.
June 22, 2007 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't you heard? Advocating a single state solution in which Palestinians and Jews live as equals is denying the Jews their Right to Exist in a Jewish Homeland - and is therefore a form of Anti-semitism.
or something like that . . .
June 22, 2007 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. The neocon-Likudniks are all wise and compassionate now. The U.S.-Israeli sponsored coup against Hamas failed, so they paint it as a Hamas coup and dissolve the government. Abbas new government is illegitimate despite blessings from the U.S.-Israel-Eu-S.A. or anyone else. To wait until Abbas carries out his U.S. written instructions and removes the legitimate government, Hamas, by decree, then turn around and say we need to somehow bring Hamas into the government is more than a little disingenuous.
Abbas tried to fight U.S. pressure to remove Hamas but he caved, and can only be seen as a puppet now. Yes, many people urged Israel to work with Abbas when he was the only one to deal with. But to portray him as the voice of the Palestinian people after he has caved is ludicrous. It clearly reveals Israel's hypocrisy and desire to avoid coming to terms with Palestine.
Israeli supporters were shocked by Hamas' victory. For a minute, this was seen as a blessing- isolate those uppity Palestinians to this forsaken strip of land. But they are afraid that their two state solution will be impossible if Palestine is divided. The facts-on-the-ground paradigm has changed. Hamas does not believe in ceding any Arab land to Israel, which is why they are demonized. Hamas had a cease fire for two years, so what? In the first eight months of Hamas leadership, 491 Palestinians were killed by Israel while 19 Israelis were killed by Palestinians.
No one wants to see the Islamist Hamas who associates with terrorist factions as the ultimate government of Palestine, not even Hamas. But they were freely elected to rid the OT of crime and corruption. And this effort to divide and conquer will not prevail. It will only radicalize the Palestinians more and thwart peace prospects (especially a two-state solution). The whole concept of isolating and squeezing an impoverished people (forty years now) and withholding their monies to force a "settlement" on them is sick and disgusting.
June 22, 2007 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure MJ can answer your question in his own way but your question is one that is on a lot of minds and deserves an answer. This is just one Jews viewpoint.
I am a passionate supporter of a JUST 2 state solution by withdrawing to the 67 borders but including expanded access in Jersualem proper. For me, Israel must exist as the Jewish homeland as a cornerstone to my faith. It binds me to all who have come before me. My Grandfather took me to Israel in 1956 as a bar mitsvah gift. It was a magical visit as my Grandfather explained all the sites and their meaning. Even being unable to visit Hebron and the Western Wall I was filled to the brim with the concept of judiasm. My faith became permanent as a result of that visit.
I don't think I am that different from a lot of other Jews. We have wandered the globe for a long time. As a result of this rootlessness, we felt different and apart from the worlds we inhabited. Partly, we liked it that way and partly it was thrust upon us. While I was only 4 years old when Israel came into being, I still have dim recollections of the joy my family and their friends had at the occasion.
Israel is my faith and my faith is Israel. What I mean by that is, for me, my faith is not complete without a Jewish homeland at it's core. There may not be a theological justification for that feeling but it is an important one that is shared by many Jews I know.
To make the picture complete, if a one state solution were adopted, Israel would become just another country. It could be all the things you want it to be in terms of egalitarian with the rule of law etc. but it would not be Jewish. Call me selfish for wanting Israel to be Jewish but that's how I feel.
As I'm sure you and others are aware, I have been highly critical of Israel. I feel it has lost it's vision and will soon lose it's soul. It must get back to the idea of being a Jewish homeland and a keeper of the flame of our faith. Unfortunately, it has wandered into the desert of thinking of itself as a secular regional and world power and the hubris associated with that misguided vision.
June 22, 2007 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any sentence which begins "Israel wants" or "the Palestinians want" is most likely false.
Accumulating Peripherals
June 22, 2007 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main reason why the one-state solution is utterly impossible isn't the issue of Israel's founding ideology as a Jewish state. It is that you cannot put two peoples together in one state when those peoples hate each other so much, for historical reasons accumulated over the course of fifty-odd years, that at the slightest disagreement they will walk out into the street and beat each other to death with their bare hands.
Incidentally, as a law student, it is EXTREMELY important that you learn something: Law is powerless in states which lack the political will to enforce the law, and where the government lacks a universally recognized sense of legitimacy. That political will is almost always absent in newly created states, where the law is seen as a set of somewhat arbitrary new rules, and is easily overridden and circumvented by personalistic arrangements. There has been very little rule of law, for example, in the Palestinian Authority. A one-state government in Israel/Palestine would lack legitimacy in the eyes of almost all its inhabitants. You could throw the law out the window.
Accumulating Peripherals
June 22, 2007 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The post was about advertising, as most of the blog seems to be. The post is here with my comments.
The point was that we do not look at Giotto because he was a good salesman for the church; most people who look at his work these days aren't even Catholic. We look at him because there is "an added value" which I won't bother to try to define. The interesting thing about the Peyton Manning ad and others is that commercials are now becoming small films with taglines at the end; becoming more independent of their original limited purpose.
Ads are a new form of entertainment in themselves. Here's another very different but still related example.
"Sci Fi, Fantasy, 'Speculative' Fiction, are usually nothing more than advertisements for ideas. As a philosophy of art it's basically Stalinist;"
Ever heard of Socialist Realism? Or Arno Brecker? You've probably heard of Ayn Rand.
What I said wasn't even very original. I only pointed out that someone else's claims to originality were bullshit. The idiot was trying to claim advertising qua advertising as a new art.
That's vulgar productivism and fascist logic.
Go back to school son. We can continue this discussion when you graduate.
June 22, 2007 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know damn well that your primary interest is in the preservation of a racially defined "jewish state" not in peace and not in democracy. You're opposed to the binational state that would mean both. You've said you worry about the rise of arab democracies and that it's important for Israel to work with the kings and dictators in the middle east who are as worried as you are. You've said it's necessary to work with arabs in general "even if we don't like them."
And you've called me "a hater"
I supplied 5 links. Is Helena Cobban a hater? That would be the first time I've heard a member of the Society of Friends, a Quaker, described in this way. Is Mark Perry a hater? have you read either of them? I'm pretty sure you have. As have I.
June 22, 2007 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Abdul-hass:
I thank G-d that nobody in Washington except President Kucinich takes your nonsense seriously.
June 23, 2007 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
TO M.J. ROSENBERG
Please tell us the names of all U.S. Representatives and Senators who think we should deal with Hamas even if it refuses to say that Israel has a right to exist period, let alone exist within the pre-'67 borders.
There is only one right answer for dealing with Hamas: kill them. After that we can all proceed to implement the Clinton-Barak Plan of 2001 which is the only realistic path to peace. Dennis Ross is absolutely right.
You are still living in utter fantasy land.
June 23, 2007 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
jdledell and Wordie,
A recent poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research shows the Palestinian electorate favorable for new elections. So, I admit that you both are correct in that the premiership of Hanaiyeh is perhaps at best as legitimate as our own commander guy in the US.
Nevertheless, unless Abbas really isn't into the presidency of the emergent Palestine, the poll doesn't show how it is in his interest to secure the release of Marwan Barghouti as, even as both Abbas and Barghouti are both more popular than Hamas, Barghouti is Abbas' chief rival.
Ha'aretz reports,
Perhaps the strongest argument I've seen in favor a single-state solution to the conflict is the leadership crisis that both Palestinians and Israelis appear to have in common.
June 23, 2007 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Arab Links
June 23, 2007 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the 2004 Palestinian elections, Barghouti withdrew his candicacy for Palestinian president in the cause of Palestinian unity. This guy appears to be a statesman, who cares more about his people than political gain. As a Fatah member, he's campaigned against corruption in the Fatah ranks, even taking on Arafat himself. And he's issued a statement in support of Abbas' recent actions. His release could assist Abbas in consolidating Palestinian public opinion, as "He is considered to be the leader of Fatah's 'young guard', and is renowned for his unparalleled grassroots popularity and pragmaticism with regards to making peace with the state of Israel." (from the Bargouti wiki)
Here's the text of Barghouti's recent statement from prison:
New Israeli President, Shimon Peres, is said (Ynet) to have offered to free Barghouti if elected to the presidency:
I have nothing against Abbas, but he is increasingly seen, rightly or wrongly, among Palestinians as a tool of Israel and the U.S. Barghouti's release and support of Abbas could make the difference. He isn't part of the "leadership crisis" you speak about - in fact he is a strong and pragmatic Palestinian leader. So why not release him, if peace is the goal?
"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals..." ~~ Iraq Study Group
June 23, 2007 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scroll down to my comment this morning or go here and here.
"rightly or wrongly"
the important question
June 23, 2007 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ...
Near the end of your piece you said;
Hamas should also secure the release of Gilad Shalit and BBC correspondent Alan Johnston – actions that would have a powerful effect on public opinion in Israel and Europe.
I am curious about why you left out what effect it would have on American public opinion and only cited Israel and Europe? Was that an intentional omission? It might seem like a little detail in the full scope of your post but with as involved as the US government is in the issue I think it is important enough to ask about.
June 23, 2007 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an Israeli, I would be interested if you would provide us with an example of a Middle Eastern "constitutional unitary state" that would serve as an example of what this unitary Arab/Jewish "constitutional state" would look like. Do you have Lebanon in mind?
What makes you think us Jews are going to give up our hard-won state simply because some people think "nationalism" is bad?
Where in the Arab world is "law" supreme? Where in the Arab world is there "equal protection under the law"?
June 23, 2007 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It strikes me that if one released Nelson Mandela from Prison so he could be Richard Nixon's running mate, the result would not be the elevation of Nixon but the degradation of Mandela.
Why should Barghouti support Abbas? Hasn't Abbas disgraced himself? Hasn't Abbas proven both his incompetence, his corruption and his obeisance to the west.
Better for Barghouti to stab Abbas in the neck and take the job himself.
Mind you, if he did that, he'd be his own man, wouldn't he?
Much better to have him as a eunuch chained to Abbas?
But then, who would care?
June 23, 2007 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seth: It's possible that there was some funny business involved in the Hamas takeover of Gaza, but there's not much to suggest that Abbas was involved. And Abbas has fired his head of internal security, Rashid Abu Shbak*, the commander of the Fatah Gaza forces which were overtaken by Hamas. Perhaps the firing has to do with the information you cite, although Abbas has not cited a reason.
*This step, btw, also weakens Mohammed Dahlan, who was closely allied with Shbak.
(http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/873847.html)
"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals..." ~~ Iraq Study Group
June 23, 2007 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron: I can see why you might think the way you do, but respectfully disagree.
The circumstances are just too different for this analogy to work, imho.
I think Abbas has not so much disgraced himself as he has been completely outmanouvered, through no particular fault of his own. After all, he didn't want to move ahead the elections that brought Hamas to power but was forced into them by the Bush administration (under the influence of the neocons), and the unilateral withdrawal by Israel from Gaza just played into the hands of Hamas, who claimed it as a Hamas victory.
What was Abbas supposed to do upon the Hamas' win? I think most of the actions he's taken can be seen as having been taken primarily in the hopes of establishing a Palestinian state. Also, my understanding is that although some of those under Abbas have had charges of corruption leveled at them, Abbas himself is clean.
"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals..." ~~ Iraq Study Group
June 23, 2007 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there was a plan to let Hamas win in Gaza. A Fatah faction fought tooth and nail for days. It's true that Fatah commanders ran, but in most cases, it was at the last minute. But, while Abbas was not directly involved, he acquiesced and took advantage of the situation to implement the U.S./Israeli plan to oust Hamas.
Abbas promoted Dahlan at the urging of the U.S. and was accepting the arms from the U.S. He was well aware of what the Preventive Security Forces were up to. Look at his statements immediately after the Hamas victory. He does not criticize Hamas or deny that they were defending themselves at first. But within a day, he is rounding up Hamas politicians and implementing the U.S. plan to declare an emergency, illegally remove Hamas from the government, and accept withheld monies and "aid" for the West Bank only.
June 23, 2007 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still not seeing any motive for Barghouti to support Abbas.
I dunno, being a weakling and a puppet is simply not an appealing job description.
June 23, 2007 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps reece's point is there is no "equal protection under the law" in the Arab world or the Israel/West Bank/Gaza world. Commentary relating to Israeli law by Nurit Peled-Elhanan, Gush Shalom
As far as 'two peoples hating each other so much they can't live together', Israel already has 20% or more Arabs living as Israeli citizens.
Show me a successful, peaceful, secure, democracy in the world in which government in the country is predicated on control by one ethnic or religious group, many of whom were brought in from other parts of the world, and the country is surrounded by and is considered to 'occupy' lands of a different ethnic/religious group.
June 23, 2007 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
deleted by me
June 23, 2007 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't answer my question. Who is going to protect our rights as Jews?
June 24, 2007 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ's entire working theory is wrong. There is NOTHING the US can do to force a two-state solution in the Middle East, other than to support the process diplomatically.
The idea that you can buy your way into the hearts and minds of Palestinians is rubbish. We've poured billions into Gaza and the West Bank for years and have zero to show for it in terms of co-operation from their side.
The US didn't create the economic deprivation there -- Yasser Arafat and his incompetent thugocracy did. You'll find these exact same desperate conditions in Yemen, Algeria, Syria, and a host of other Arab countries. Who is responsible for that?
Palestinians have had the worst political leadership of any peoples on Earth, with few exceptions, and they are paying the price for it. I don't want another dime of my taxpayer money going into that rathole, until I see a united government committed to peace. Until then, let the rich Arab nations and Iran support them.
June 24, 2007 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pulling out of Gaza was a major concession on Israel's part, and a clear opportunity for a new start for the Palestinians. What did they do with this opportunity? They launched daily rocket attacks into Israel and a civil war among themselves. I'm finding it difficult to find any sympathy for the plight of a people that squanders every opportunity afforded them.
Anyone familiar with the situation there will tell you there's never been any rule of law there. Hamas has always held themselves above the law and been a law unto themselves. Do you know how many Palestinians have been executed by Hamas on suspicion of collaboration with Israel? None of these vigilantes are ever brought to justice, just as none of the Hamas terrorists are ever prosecuted.
The Arab world is the most troubled region on the planet for many reasons -- most of which have nothing to do with Israel or the West. As long as we continue to give them a pass and blame their plight on ourselves, nothing is going to change there.
June 24, 2007 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some believe that Sharon's intention in withdrawing from Gaza was to isolate Palestinians while continuing to claim more of the WB. Someone should wake him up because it is working out just like that. Hamas maintained a self-imposed cease-fire for a year and a half until the bombing of the girl's family on the beach, followed by more Israeli incursions, bulldozing, bombings of infrastructure, assassinations and arrests of legitimate government officials.
Generations of Palestinians have been without a home over 60 years. But if Israel has nothing to do with the plight of the Palestinians, as you say, I guess it's their own fault for being Arabs. Since September 29, 2000: 118 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 943 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis; 1,023 Israelis and at least 4,160 Palestinians have been killed; 7,633 Israelis and 31,403 Palestinians have been injured. But Israel has nothing to do with the Palestinians. 1 Israeli is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 10,756 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel including hundreds of children. But Israel has nothing to do with that. Over 65 UN resolutions against Israel have been passed, none against the Palestinians. But Israel has nothing to do with the Palestinians.
Hamas is the terrorist group du jour. Fatah factions were the scary terrorists previously. But I'm not defending either one. I'm defending the Palestinians' right to choose their government and not be starved to death because of that choice. I'm defending the Palestinians' right to exist as full citizens on some piece of land if not their own.
June 24, 2007 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The U.S. and Israel have put the Palestinians in an untenable position by expecting them to take on all the responsibilities of full government, but offering them only continued occupation in return. You say that Hamas considers themselves to be above the law, but the same can certainly be said about the IDF, which certainly has greater resources, and therefore greater power than either Hamas or Fatah.
And it's curious how you point out that Palestinian fighters have not been brought to justice. Was Menachem Begin ever brought to justice by Israel for his terrorism? No, he was revered as a freedom fighter and elected PM. You ought to think about this...
"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals..." ~~ Iraq Study Group
June 24, 2007 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brook,
If your mad about all the taxpayer money going to the Palestinians, you're really going to be pissed at what we give Israel. Israel gets over $7 million a day from us and the thing is, it's borrowed money that we have to pay interest on. That's $7 million more a day than we give to the Palestinians because we give them nothing. We even cut off humanitarian aid after Hamas was elected. I have heard that we have provided a ton of weapons to Fatah to foment this "civil war" they're having, so I guess your taxes did pay for that. Write your congressman.
P.S. I know what you mean about the Palestinian leadership. We just can't get a good one. Well, all we can do is to keep changing them until we get one we like.
June 24, 2007 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this satire? If so, well done.
June 24, 2007 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's actually far simpler than that. Advocating a single state solution is akin to denying the Jews their Rights, period. Until you can point to any of the approx 52 states that self identify as "Muslim states" (through membership in various international organizations), that guarantee full and equal rights to Jews, a one state solution will invariably lead to Jews as second class citizens.
I would never argue that Palestinians who do not have Israeli citizenship, but who do live under Israeli rule, are afforded the same rights as Jewish Israelis. However, for the most part, Israeli Arabs can exercise their rights as equal citizens in Israel in ways that Jews cannot in most if not all of the countries in which Muslims are a majority.
Cases in point? Jews cannot own land in Jordan, Jews cannot set foot in Mecca, Jewish women do not have equal rights in places like Iran, or most of the gulf states. Malaysia uses a form of sharia for Muslim citizens and civil law for non-Muslims. This led to the recent ruling that a woman who had converted out of Islam (to Christianity) had her conversion declared non-operative because the code she falls under (the one governed by sharia) did not allow for it.
If a Malaysian Muslim converted to Judaism, she'd be Jewish and yet, not considered to be a Jew by the laws of her country. Consequently, she would be held responsible, though Jewish, to a standard dictated by Muslim religious law. If Jews, both men and women, could be assured that their basic rights, as citizens under a one state solution, would not be regulated unfairly, then a one state solution would be worth discussing. Then, perhaps, we could talk about whether rights to live in a "Jewish Homeland" were problematic.
However, based upon the reality of current behavior, that is an impossible guarantee to make. As it stands today, the primary concern of Jews within a one state solution is for their basic human rights and not specifically for their religious rights.
June 24, 2007 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
So does anyone seriously believe Israel can hold the West Bank?
Anyone believe that either Olmert or Bush believes it?
There's a significant delusional section of Israeli public opinion that does (and another significant section of Palestinians that share this delusion).
Most of what's been going on seems to be aimed at demonstrating to delusional Israelis that they have tried everything and it doesn't work.
This depressing exercise reinforces delusions of impotence among Palestinians but one only needs to look at the postings from zionists here to note that it is having a totally demoralizing effect on their delusions.
Not even a "decent interval" between Olmert refusing to deal with Abbas because he won't suppress Hamas and is therefore irrelevant, to Olmert having to offer Abbas something because he cannot possibly suppress Hamas.
Barghouti will be released and evacuation of the West Bank will begin. They've tried everything else now.
June 24, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don, the only people denying Palestinians a state are Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and all the other radicals in the region. You cannot expect Israel to cut deals with 5 different groups in Gaza and the West Bank. Cease-fires are a joke when you have so many different groups with their own agenda. The rockets have not stopped raining down on Sederot for a single week. The Israeli's are ready to cut a deal, just as they cut a deal with Egypt when they pulled out of the Sinai.
Hamas wants a state only on their terms with no compromise. All they have to do if they don't get their way is launch rocket or suicide attacks into Israel. The Palestinian government is too weak to stop them.
My perspective is it's going to take intervention from Egypt and Jordan to maintain security in the West Bank and Gaza, stop terror attacks, and allow the negotiations to go forward. The Palestinian Authority is too weak to rein in these radical groups.
June 24, 2007 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to factor in a few things here -- the matching funds we give Egypt and Jordan as part of the deal Jimmy Carter cut. This amounts to as much or more than we give Israel. Add to that the UN refugee camps (we provide 25% of their budget), so we have been spending a lot of money on Palestinians and Israeli's for 60 years. I'll support cutting off funds to both sides at this point, until they get back on the UN road map.
June 24, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
what i am saying is that rogue, radical Israeli's have launched terror attacks against Palestinians, and these people are prosecuted under Israeli law.
Your theory that the breakdown of justice is Israeli's fault might hold water, if it wasn't for the fact that we see the same thing in Lebanon, where Hezbollah is untouchable by the Lebanese justics system, and Iran where radical regime loyalists from Iranian Hezbollah beat and intimidate Iranian citizens with impunity.
June 24, 2007 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Egypt and Jordan- friends of Hamas. And them damn refugee camps. We got 'em in Darfur and Iraq, too. Gotta do something about those. I bet Halliburton could run them cheaper. Anyway, cutting funds to a homeless guy is not equivalent to cutting funds to the landlord.
The road map has always been a road block. It wasn't a plan but conditions to get to the table and was always a stall as Israel continued with settlements and the Palestinians continued with resistance. An honest U.N. plan, sans U.S. veto, would call for pre-'67 borders. Palestinian control of Jerusalem, and right of return. Is that the road map to peace Israel would negotiate with Palestine?
June 24, 2007 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No sale. Anyway, under the Mecca Accord forming the unity government, Hamas readily agreed not to be a negotiator or to speak for Palestine, that was deferred to Abbas and Fatah. Hamas wanted to run the day to day inside Palestine to restore law and order. They kept their cease-fire. How many thousands have been killed from this never-ending rain of rockets?
June 24, 2007 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so if you were the President of a nation, you would sign a peace agreement with another government, without demanding they disarm rogue militant factions that basically run their own foreign policy. Sorry, Don, I wouldn't vote for you.
Body count is not relevant. If it were, you would be far more concerned about people suffering in Tibet, Sri Lanka, the Congo and many other places in the world where the body count is much higher.
Show me a soverign governnment anywhere in the world that is going to allow rockets to be fired into their cities? Would any Arab country respond any differently than Israel? Would Russia? Would Iran? In fact, Iran has been the victim of terror attacks on their soil, and if you study their history, you will find that they have responded in a far more brutal fashion than Israel. Most recently, they shelled a Kurdish village in Iraq in response to a terror attack -- a clear violation of int'l law.
You seem to want to hold Israel to a standard you are not willing to hold other countries to. I'm curious why this is the case.
June 24, 2007 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
the road map amounts to a compromise for both sides that will have to make painful concessions. Palestinians are not going to get right of return and absolute control of Jerusalem. This is the real world. You know Israel is never going to agree to your scenario. The question is -- do you believe Palestinians should settle for less -- if it means they can have their own soverign state?
June 24, 2007 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don Key,
Ray Hanania argues that you defend no such thing....
June 24, 2007 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the Hamas organization is morally corrupt. It used violence not as a weapon of resistance,"
the hypocrisy here is amazing
June 24, 2007 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sign a peace agreement to end the fighting. I am not the one with double standards. Frankly, I don't think we'd be at war with Iraq and threatening war with Iran if not for the pro-Israel neocons. We are proxies. Of course, there are other coinciding factors but I think the instigation flows from there.
You cannot ignore the history of a situation. Israel is not in a war with Palestine. Or you could say it's a 60-year one-sided war where Israel has taken Palestine and formed itself out of it. First, 50% that the U.N. was twisted into sanctioning, then 75% in '48, then occupying the rest in '67. Personally, I think there should be a secular Jewish homeland but not at the expense of another people.
Anyway, Israel has occupied the territories for forty years. They are not inside Gaza now, but have surrounded and cut it off from the world- same thing. Believe it or not, it is responsible for the welfare of the Palestinians and it controls what happens by and large. Give them justice, freedom and their state and why would they attack?
June 24, 2007 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on now, Zionista. Ray Hanania is a professional comedian writing about Hamas from Orland Park, Illinois.
He is also a fucking liar whose message is designed to resonate with those on the most radical Israeli (and American) right who tippy-toe right up to advocating genocide.
June 24, 2007 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me, when your Zionist daddy was raping Palestinians women and shoving their bodies into the village well in places like Deir Yassin, was it because the Saudis don't allow Jews into Mecca, or because of some judicial ruling in Malaysia?
I love it when Zionist on one hand murder palestinians and steal their land on a daily basis and yet again attempt to monopolize the victim status and whine about how ill-treated THEY are, or they trumpet how well they supposedly treat the Israeli "Arabs" (note they don't call them Palestinians) as if they're doing a favor to the world by not murdering them too, and then they set up these pathetic false comparisons as if what goes on in Saudi Arabia etc is somehow a valid justification for the deliberate and pre-planned Israeli policy of genocide and apartheid and ethnic cleansing which were always intended to artificially create a mythical purified Jewish homeland in an area where a lot of non-Jews happened to be living.
From Day 1, Zionism has always been about ethnic cleansing of the non-Jews from Palestine. What did they call it? A "Land without a People" - my foot.
Incidentally, a lot of those ethnically cleansed Palestians AREN'T EVEN MUSLIM.
Tell me, whose stolen home do you live in? Which family did you drive into the refugee tents? Israel is a disgusting country built on disgusting crimes against humanity and that will never ever be forgotten by the entire rest of he world, no matter how hard you try to hide behind the Saudis or Malaysians.
So, let me clarify things for you: The "one state solution" is not open for debate. It is not a concession you get the consider. Israel is OBLIGATED UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW TO ABSOLUTELY AND UNQUESTIONABLY ALLOW PALESTINIANS TO RETURN. AND UNTIL THEN, YOU'RE ALL CRIMINALS COMPLICIT IN GENOCIDE AND ETHNIC CLEANSING, WORSE THAN HITLER.
PERIOD.
And if that recognition of the rights of your Palestinian victims ruins your fantasies about creating your