Jerusalem: It's Sharing Not Dividing
Here is the only thing you need to know about Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s plan to divide Jerusalem: there is no such plan. There never was one and it is safe to say that there will never be one.
Nor is there a plan by any other Israeli leader to divide Jerusalem. Additionally, neither the Mahmoud Abbas nor the Palestinian Authority he heads favors the division of Jerusalem.
From Olmert to Ramon to Beilin to Abbas and Fayyad, there is not a single proposal to divide the city.
So what is all the yelling about?
And there is already plenty of yelling. Right-wing American Jews are already taking out ads and organizing to stop the division of Jerusalem. Right-wing Israelis are saying that once Jerusalem is divided, Jews will have no access to the Western Wall and that snipers will be firing at Jews on Jaffa Road from the Old City walls.
All this despite the fact that no one is proposing dividing Jerusalem.
Here is what is being discussed. It is the formulation President Bill Clinton devised in 2001.
“First, Jerusalem should be an open and undivided city, with assured freedom of access and worship for all. It should encompass the internationally recognized capitals of two states, Israel and Palestine.
“Second, what is Arab should be Palestinian, for why would Israel want to govern in perpetuity the lives of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians?
“Third, what is Jewish should be Israeli. That would give rise to a Jewish Jerusalem, larger and more vibrant than any in history.
“Fourth, what is holy to both requires a special care to meet the needs of all. No peace agreement will last if not premised on mutual respect for the religious beliefs and holy shrines of Jews, Muslims and Christians.”
The Clinton language is the full-blown version of the ideas Israelis and Palestinians have been discussing. Not only does it not call for Jerusalem’s division, it specifically rules it out.
Why the hysteria? Simple, it’s tactical.
The howling about Jerusalem is not really about Jerusalem at all. It is about the West Bank. It is about the settlements.
The far right understands that the Israeli public is not going to get worked up over the possible “abandonment” of the West Bank and its Jewish settlements. On the contrary, polling shows that in exchange for full peace, Israelis would relinquish the territory and the settlements in a Tel Aviv minute.
That is why the far right has decided to focus on Jerusalem instead, to which Israelis are as legitimately attached as they are relatively indifferent to “Judea and Samaria.”
Those favoring negotiations and compromise should stop using the term “dividing” Jerusalem because that is not on the table at all. The issue is “sharing” Jerusalem. Are Israelis and Palestinians willing to share the city? Polls show that a majority in each camp is.
Those majorities do not favor erecting physical walls to divide it but rather setting up a legal framework which preserves physical unity of the city while sharing sovereignty.
That only does not divide Jerusalem, it will re-establish its unity.
The last time Jerusalem was truly undivided was before the Jordanians took over East Jerusalem and erected a wall separating it from West Jerusalem in 1948. The Israelis took a giant step toward unifying the city when, following its Six-Day War victory in 1967, it tore down the walls and allowed Arabs and Jews to move freely in one city.
Unfortunately, every year since 1967, Jerusalem has grown more and more divided. The Israelis have even extended the security wall into Jerusalem, cutting some Jerusalem neighborhoods off from each other.
Israeli Jews rarely set foot in the parts of Jerusalem which, under the Clinton formulation, would come under the Palestinian flag. As part of a Jewish student group when I was in college, I actually spent three months living on East Jerusalem’s Main Street (Salah al-Din Street) in 1968. Whenever I’m in Israel, I walk over to Salah al-Din, as bustling as ever but on which one rarely sees an Israeli, other than police or an occasional soldier. East Jerusalem may not yet be the capital of Arab Palestine but its Main Street is, by no stretch of the imagination, a part of Israel either.
The thing that keeps Israelis out of East Jerusalem and Arabs out of West Jerusalem is fear. Arabs are uncomfortable when in West Jerusalem and Israelis are uncomfortable when in East Jerusalem. Jerusalem today is divided in two and anyone who knows the city (not the propagandists of the far right) understands that.
There is only one way to unify the city. That is by reaching an agreement that will end the conflict.
And no resolution can be reached without dealing with the issue of Jerusalem.
That is what the screaming is about. The Israeli far right and its backers in this country do not want an end to the conflict on any terms -- other perhaps than “transfer” or “ethnic cleansing”. They seize on the emotional issue of Jerusalem to build a consensus against peace. Right now their goal is to thwart Secretary Rice’s peace conference. Should the conference go ahead, their goal will to ensure its failure. Should it succeed, they will fight to ensure that Israel does not implement any commitments it may have made (“concessions,” as the right likes to call them).
For these people, Jerusalem is just a pretext. They know that no Israeli government will ever allow the city to be divided or the Western Wall to become off-limits to Jews.
But they will keep yelling, taking out ads, and misleading Members of Congress.
To his credit, Prime Minister Olmert appears undaunted. He even told an audience of right-wingers this week that he saw no reason why totally Arab neighborhoods – including a Palestinian refugee camp – need to be under Israeli rule.
He also says that Israel is finally facing a Palestinian leadership it can do business with, a Palestinian leadership that desperately wants peace with Israel. (Secretary Rice reportedly told him that without a deal with Abbas now, Israel will soon be facing a Hamas controlled West Bank, one that will have itself been transformed into a kind of Al Qaeda, which will delight the right because then they can scream “no partner” again).
Forgive Olmert if he does not believe that allowing Palestinian flags to fly over Palestinian neighborhoods is too steep a price to avoid that. But understand one thing. This former Likud Mayor of Jerusalem has no intention of dividing his city. You can take that to the bank.
The word is “sharing” not “dividing.”














MJ,
Agreed. But the problem is much bigger than just the Israeli and American right, as vividly illustrated by the cancellations of yesterday's OneVoice peace concerts in Jericho and Tel Aviv due to the intimidation tactics of anti-Zionist progressives of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI).
October 18, 2007 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know after reading this whether to laugh or cry......laugh at the MJ's unbelievable ability to ignore reality and/or delude himself, or cry that any thinking person could believe the city could be "shared". "Shared" means "DIVIDED" and "DIVIDED" means "DESTROYED". Look at the Palestinian towns under Palestinian rule, look at Gaza, look at the destruction, corruption, lawlessnes. Why do you think the Arabs of Jerusalem OPPOSE being under Palestinian rule, as Meron Ben-veniste pointed out last week in Ha'aretz?
Regarding "shared" sovereignity (particularly meaning "shared" between basically hostile groups):
Berlin had "shared" sovereignity from 1945-1990. Did that work? Nicosia had "shared sovereignity" under the power sharing plan the gave Cyprus independence.
Baghdad is a "shared" city between Shi'ites and Sunnis, Beirut is "shared" between Shi'ites, Sunnis and Christians. And these are all Arabs who "love one another". MJ believes that the Arabs would "share" Jerusalem with the Jews whom they DON'T like?
This should prove to one and all that Bush is no "friend" to Israel and, for that matter, not one particularly concerned about the interests and rights of his own Christian "brothers" in Eretz Israel, because if this plan, G-d forbid, were every carried out, the Christians in Jerusalem would be the FIRST to suffer. Islamic radicalism would snowball, seeing as how they succeeded in driving the Jews out of the Jewish holy city, and they would turn on the Christians in Jerusalem, just as happened in Gaza recently with the murder of a Protestant activist and desecration of churches, and is ongoing in Iraq where the Christians and Yazidis (another minority group) are being murdered daily and driven out of the country.
There is only one possibility for peace and prosperity for ALL groups, Jews, Muslims and Christians...i.e. for the city to remain UNITED under exclusive Israeli rule and Israeli security control.
Olmert babbles about giving up "outlying" neighborhoods and even that political demagogue Avigdor Lieberman is mouthing this. This is nonsense.....when the boundaries of united Jerusalem after 1967 were drawn, it was in order to secure the entire city. The fear was the if Arab terrorists got control of these outlying areas, they could shoot into the Jewish areas. This is exactly what happened in Beit Lehem when gunmen took over and fired at the Jerusalem suburb of Gilo.
Carrying out the "Clinton paramters" (i.e. what is "Jewish will be Israeli and what is Arab will go to the Palestinians") would mean barbed wire dividing isolated enclaves from each other and the need to travel in armed convoys between different parts of the city, whereas today everything is open .
It is true that Israel made mistakes in the Arab part of Jerusalem...not enough was invested there. But just because one mistake was made, the whole city should be destroyed?
Olmert is lying when he says this is a "new Palestinian leadership that recognizes Israel as a Jewish state". He is spewing out one untruth after another in order to save himself from the 4 (IIRC) criminal investigations he is under and so he is hoping to prove to the post-Zionist clique that in effect controls Israel that he will carry out their policies and they should "etrog" him (i.e. leave him alone).
However, people do FINALLY seem to be waking up and the Jewish people will NOT allow this to pass . If you looked at the Steinment Peace Center poll I posted in the previous thread, you will see that a large majority opposes this insane plan.
This shall not pass!
October 18, 2007 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I was born and raised in California. I see you like stereotyping your political opponents. So what if I was a Russian? MJ and yourself are decendents of immigrants to the US. American Indians could consider you to be the decendents of "settlers". How is that different? Shimon Peres is Lithuanian. Amir Peretz is Moroccan. Olmert's parents were from Eastern Europe. SO WHAT?
You also obviously know nothing about the history of the Jews and the Middle East. Jews have been living CONTINUOUSLY in the Land of Israel far longer than the Arabs.
Jew have been in Hevron for 4000 years, in Gaza for 2200 years, in Jerusalem for 3000 years.
I know some people think "ignorance is bliss", but knowledge is strength.
October 19, 2007 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually a far left site, not liberal, with a great deal of anti-Israeli bordering on anti-Semitic attitudes and statements.. M.J. represnets the dishonesty and myth makers of the far left. Bar Kochba is just his mirror image.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
October 19, 2007 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between you and BarKochba is that you have an unnatural obsession with MJ and are always attacking TPM posters.
You have every right to any position you feel like expressing, you do not have the right to your nasty personal attacks on TPM authors or posters.
You are very unpopular here and that is why, not your opinions.
Keep it up and I'll ask Andrew to ban you.
October 19, 2007 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you mind telling us where you live in Israel? Perhaps it might help us to understand your mindset.
October 19, 2007 4:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent piece MJ. I feel similarly and have often wondered why this city, holy to so many, could not be shared. Sharing (or charity) certainly seems to be a virtue shared by the religions of all of the party's involved is it not?
I look at large and old European cities or even many large American ones and I see communities within the larger whole. These are varied and diverse communities which have held onto their traditions, cultures and in many cases their languages. Sure, there may be tensions now and then between those different communities but in the end they find a way to coexist as a part of the whole. Why can't Jerusalem behave in a similar manner? Why should it be so controversial to suggest that is does? Resistance to this kind of coexistence strikes me as a racist/supremist position more than anything else.
On a related note, religions need to begin behaving in accordance to their own teachings. Religious leaders need to step up and take a leadership role in calming the masses and bringing them together. And people need to stop blaming the actions of bad people on religion. If there is one thing that I find most disturbing about these darkening times it's that this distinction is not being made and entire (and innocent) groups of people are being demonized and persecuted as a result. I myself am not a religious man. I personally do not subscribe to any faith or belief system. But I do believe that religion itself can offer benefits and improve mankind if we can simply keep our eyes open to what are the wrongs of a particular religion (and there are some in my mind) and what are the wrongs of man. And simply because a bad man says he's doing something because of his faith does not mean that it is the faith that is doing it. We really need to start acknowledging the clear difference between the two. Again, this is another opportunity for the leadership of all of the various religions to step up and offer guidance and support in reinforcing this concept.
I certainly hope that Jerusalem can someday know a peace that includes Muslims, Jews and Christians coexisting in religious tolerance and freedom - side by side. And together I hope they can start to behave as shining examples of their respective faiths instead of walking contradictions of them that only help to tarnish and belittle their ancient beliefs.
October 19, 2007 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a great piece.
Let's hope Hillary Clinton supports her husband's proposal.
October 19, 2007 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sharing would be a great solution. But not going to happen until the shooting stops. That is not possible as long as Israel and the US refuses to recognize the democratically elected leadership of Hamas. Any deal made only with Abbas will be worse than failed. It will lead to a poisoned atmosphere for a real peace agreement in the future. That is, if a deal is made with Abbas that excludes Hamas then terrorism will continue. A few major attacks inside Israel will convince an even larger segment of the Jewish population that there is no one to talk to. Hence, future negotiations will be even more difficult.
October 19, 2007 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's true that the antagonism that's a part of the conflict has fueled the divisive politics in Jerusalem, but your blame for it is misplaced. Here's what B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights group has to say:
It's the Israeli tactics used to seize Jerusalem for themselves, and in an attempt to restrict and reduce the Palestinian presence in the city that have led to much of the animosity. And, for that matter, one can't separate the Israeli efforts to drive Palestinians off the land in other areas of the OT, efforts which escalated in the 80s and 90s, as a cause for increased animosity. Stop the settlements, return the seized land to the Palestinians, stop opposing the formation of a viable Palestinian state, and most of the reasons for the radicalization that you refer to would be greatly reduced. But in the far-right Israeli world view, the Palestinians have no justifiable complaints, and have become increasingly radicalized just for the hell of it.
To insist, as so many far-right Israel supporters do, that peace has to happen before a successful settlement to the conflict, is patently absurd, and again demonstrates the obscurantist anti-peace spin that so often takes place in these discussions. Peace is a result of negotiations. To try to make it a precondition is nothing more than an obstructionist tactic.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 19, 2007 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the only people howling are the anti=Hilary Clinton crowd who took her position that Jerusalem should not be divided to mean Jerusalem should not be shared.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
October 19, 2007 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the deal, Bar Kochba. Nobody here much cares what you think except that you illustrate MJ's points about extremists.
This is a liberal American site and MJ is talking to Americans.
Other than the trolls here, your Russian settler point of view is not very interesting to anybody.
By the way, do you think Russians like yourself have more right to live in Palestinian territory (i.e. the West Bank) than Palestinians do.
I know your answer. I took a course a few years ago on the Boers of South Africa.
October 19, 2007 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Z,
I agree about the "One Voice" situation. The Israeli (and American Jewish) fanatics have their counterparts among the Palestinians. That is for sure.
But everybody knows who and what the Islamic terrorists are. They (especially in Washington, DC) neither know nor care about the Jewish ones.
I always remember the 1996 Israeli election when the Israeli right and the Hamas suicide bombers both wanted Netanyahu to win. I guess it's fairly standard that the fanatics on each side help their counterparts.
October 19, 2007 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
"THIS SHALL NOT PASS"
Brave words, big guy!
October 19, 2007 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I previewed this comment the first paragraph was highlighted as quotes are supposed to be, but, as can be seen, it is not now highlighted. I used the
tags that worked before. Any suggestions?October 19, 2007 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bar K is from California. Sweet. He did learn to write English poorly though.
October 19, 2007 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good piece, MJ. Question: what happens if Hamas does take over the West Bank after Israel relinquishes the Arab neighborhoods. Would that not bring Hamas to Israel's doorstep.
My assumption is that if Hamas takes over, they will be there anyway. But will this make it easier.
I'm not interested in responses from settlers but anyone else's would be welcomed. It's a serious question not an arguing point.
October 19, 2007 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you regard PACBI as an "unbiased source"?
October 19, 2007 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's it, in a nutshell.
I agree, up to a point. I also think it's important to challenge these statements because a TPM member or other reader wandering into one of these discussions might easily get confused. After all, there are some here who portray themselves as exceedingly reasonable, yet will complain loudly about any ad hominems directed toward Bar while ignoring similar ones from their own "side." And given all the other misinformation afloat about the ME conflict, who knows if there might be those who would take the propaganda so often posted here to heart.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 19, 2007 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are settlers banned? Are Russians okay?
What about Sefardim? What about Leftists?
Could you provide us with a politicall-correct checklist of approved people?
October 19, 2007 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, you have gotten in your share of put-downs and ad-hominem attacks. What do you have to say about the substance of what I have written?
October 19, 2007 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but...
Hamas doesn't want peace, either...but victory over Israel...not just in "the territories" but over all of the land.
The same goes for Hezbollah.
These points are written into their charters and voiced by their leaders.
The asymetry in military power obscures these points.
As to the ad hominens, isn't there enough blame on this point to go around? Do you complain when folks beat up on BK?
Do you criticize Abdul Hass, who's said the most outrageous things?
To be honest, I've been on a LOT of sites, and this one is by far the most balanced I've seen.
October 19, 2007 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reece:
I've uprated all of bar's comments that you've troll-rated. You're misusing the ratings system as far as I can see.
October 19, 2007 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi back, MJ,
And I would add, keeping within the style of parenthetical amendments, "(and American and European)," since much of the self-styled progressive fanaticism of the PACBI and International Solidarity flavor seems to be coming from the UK and USA. All too often, as we see right here in TPMCafe fora, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gives way to a mindless and soulless proxy war between self-styled progressives and cynical wingnuts.
[Update] MJ, please tell us you are not proud of the way this discussion is rapidly descending into an excuse to pile on bar_kochba132. "BK" and others (as well as myself) have often enough been able to argue coherently within your discussions without this sandbox bullshit.
October 19, 2007 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sean1979,
Then please stop giving liberals a bad rep and give us less insults and more genuine arguments (if you can articulate one)....
WTF does that even mean?
October 19, 2007 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I may have to kick myself, but this time, and this time only, I totally agree with you. I still think, that countries rarely share sovereignty and it will be difficult the convince the Olmerts and the Abbasses to do it. I still agree though.
October 19, 2007 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The apologists for the Palestinians ignore their failures is true. However, to allow the past to control the future is foolish for Israelis. They can't control all the Palestinian territory and remain a democracy. Their best bet is to all a Palestinian State with a part of Jerusalem administered by the Palestinians as their capital If they keep Jews from Holy Sites that will become apparent quickly. If the new state becomes a haven for terrorists or other efforts to eliminate Israel Israel can treat the state as a foreign enemy and act accordingly.
It does not matter if a new Palestinian State will treat Israel as a legitimate Jewish State. It will have to fend off Syria and Jordan and show a governmental competance that not only have they failed to do so far, but which no Arab government has done since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
October 19, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fear it's the Wild West out here.
One of the real problems with the proposed boycott of Israeli academics is that they are boycotting one of the most progressive segments of Israeli society.
Quite counter-productive and ironic given how counter-productive the West's actions have been in responding to terror.
October 19, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I uprated this post, and would give it more points if I could. The three religious faiths who hold Jerusalem holy lived in peace with one another in the past. They can do it again. It is only the extremists preventing this.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 19, 2007 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
So when the Israelis tore down the walls that were put up by Arabs to prevent Jews from reaching their holy places, among other reasons, that was a step forward for unity. But "every year since" the city has grown more divided.
Let's speculate, shall we, on WHY the city has grown more divided. MJ places the blame on the separation barrier that, it is true, has come into the city. But the separation barrier is only a few years old. How could that have been a factor in all those years before?
The real reason why the city has grown divided is that the populations reflect the antagonism of the overall conflict. When relations between Israelis and Palestinians were good - or at least civil - then relations in the city were OK as well. The real division of the city started after the first intifada in the late 1980s. Things got worse as Palestinians in Jerusalem, like their brethren elsewhere, were radicalized, both by Hamas as well as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs.
So given the overall state of enmity between the Palestinian people and Israelis, it seems to me that the fears that "sharing" will quickly deteriorate into a de facto "division" are not misplaced. Like everything else in this conflict, it all depends on how much good will you want to assume exists in the Palestinian people. If the Palestinians relations with Israelis are good overall, then it can be assumed that it would be possible to "share" the city without it becoming divided again.
It also can't be stressed enough how important and traumatic was the experience of 1948-1967, when Jerusalem was truly divided and Jews were not allowed to go to the Jewish holy sites. Think about how despicable that is, how utterly disgusting. Imagine if Mecca were occupied and Muslims were not allowed in. Imagine if Catholics were not allowed to go to St. Peter's. Then you might get some sense about why Israelis and Jews are so attached to the idea of maintaining full, undiluted, undiminished, unquestionable sovreignty over the whole city.
For a full, real, lasting peace, Israelis might reconsider. But as always, the peaceniks like MJ are asking Israel to take it all on faith. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. Peace and reconciliation need to happen BEFORE any changes in sovereignty, not after.
October 19, 2007 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is the ambiguity about what the word "divide" means. Some see the calls for an "undivided Jerusalem" as M.J. does, indicating shared sovereignty between the Israelis and Palestinians. Unfortunately, there are those on the far right who wish for an "undivided Jerusalem" solely under Israeli control.
It's not at all clear what Hillary means.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 19, 2007 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ does not blame the separation barrier which he mentions only in passing and which separates Arab neighborhoods from each other. His whole piece is about the separation between Arab and Jewish neighborhoods which he blames on mutual hostility.
I find Brad's thinking very interesting. He is so locked into the Zionist mindset that he is utterly incapable of judging any issue related to Israel on the merits.
I just read this on a website called Magnes Zionist. The author writes about "liberal Zionists" like Brad. He specifically addresses Samuel Freedman who trashed the Mearsheimer book in the NY Times.
"Here you have, in a nutshell, the faith of the liberal Zionist.... the Israel-Palestinian conflict could have been solved via Oslo, were it not for the al-Aksa intifada, "that brought terrorism as deeply into sovereign, pre-1967 Israel as the Tel Aviv beachfront."
"As I have written before, this is pure balderdash.
"Nobody in Israel, except those on the extreme left, have ever supported the establishment of a Palestinian state -- rather, they support an emasculated demilitarized "state" that could survive only because of its neocolonial relation to Israel, and that would never pose a threat to the security of the Jewish state.
"That the state of Israel would pose a threat to the security of the Palestinian state is dismissed -- after all we are Jews, and we honor agreements.
"Freedman, qua liberal Zionist, seems to believe that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. That is also balderdash, as many people have written many times. Israel never "withdrew" from Gaza; it redeployed its troops for the most part on the other side of the "Green Line" and later imposed a crippling siege against Gaza, when the Palestinians elected Hamas.
"So what really happened was that the Israelis who felt that Gaza could be most effectively controlled by the presence of settlers and IDF troops lost out to the Israelis who felt that Gaza could be most effectively controlled by withdrawing the settlers and the IDF. But the control of Gaza "for the security of Israel" was never once in doubt. This is the classic Zionist debate – the sort of "Jew vs. Jew" that Freedman should have written about: How does one control the maximum amount of territory with the minimum responsibility for the native Arabs?
"Had Ariel Sharon been interested in giving peace a chance – and, to his credit, he never once even hinted in that direction – he would have negotiated a withdrawal with the PA, and, more importantly, he would have negotiated a final settlement. But the Gaza withdrawal was never about paving the way to peace – and Sharon had the guts to say that. In fact, the unilateral Gaza withdrawal was intended to humiliate the Palestinians by implying that negotiating with them made as much sense as negotiating with wild animals.
"(Remember the liberal Zionist Benny Morris's solution for the Palestinians in his interview with Ari Shavit – put them in cages.) Only a liberal Zionist, who identifies troop-redeployments with peace overtures, can spin the Gaza withdrawal as an opportunity for peace.
"Because Freedman is a liberal Zionist – and I criticize not him for that, only the editors who asked him to review the books without demanding him make full disclosure -- he is shocked that Walt and Mearsheimer lump Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross in the Israeli lobby. How dare they throw these two liberal peacemakers into the same camp as Abe Foxman, AIPAC, Daniel Pipes, and Norman Podhoretz? I mean, how many times were Indyk and Ross called self-hating Jews by the rightwing? And how hard did they labor for peace? But the truth is that virtually all Jews in the US, from the far right to the Peace-Now-Meretz-Tikkun left, are a part of the Israel Lobby, or if you don't like that term (I don't), they are strong supporters of Israel, each in their own way.
"Again, this is not a criticism – believe me, some of my best friends are liberal Zionists (full-disclosure: I am a card-carrying member of Meretz, although, in my defence, I joined the party just to vote for Yossi Beilin in the primaries) . To see how deeply Zionist a Dennis Ross is, one needs only read a few pages of The Missing Peace. The fact that he doesn't share the "Islamofascist" neuroses of Podhoretz and Pipes doesn't make him into a centrist on Israel-Palestine. So, who is on really in the middle and not just in the "middle"?
"Well, Walt and Mearsheimer, Carter, Chomsky, Khalidi, for a start. They are all willing to allow a strong Zionist state in Palestine -- more than I can say for most Israelis with respect to Palestine. In fact, most of the one-statists I know of are in the center -- they do not call for a transfer of populations against their will. If you are for transfer -- either Palestinian or Israeli Jewish -- then you are most definitely not in the middle. If your willing for you national self-expression to come at the expense of the other group's national self-expression -- then you are definitely not in the middle.
"Because the Zionist narrative has been accepted by the mainstream liberal press in the US, (but not by Middle East experts), one doesn't need an AIPAC or a Foxman or a Dershowitz to make the case for Israel. The latter will always serve as the "bad cops" to "good cops" like Tom Friedman, Richard Cohen, Dennis Ross, etc.
"The real question is – and Walt and Mearsheimer don't raise it – why has Israel been so successful in getting the Zionist narrative accepted? It is not just the alleged political clout or money of an Israel Lobby. There may be many factors -- liberal Christian guilt for Christian antisemitism, sympathy for the Jews after the Holocaust, the shared Judaeo-Christian heritage on the Bible (the secret weapon of the Zionist), the success story of Jews in the US, including the high intermarriage rates, which makes it more difficult for Christians to act against members of their family. The Palestinians have failed to make the same impact on the consciousness of American non-Jews as have the Jews. They haven't been around as much. And they are "oriental" in the a way that ashkenazi Israelis are not. And they are Arab, and, mostly, Muslim."
October 19, 2007 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
To insist, as so many far-right Israel supporters do, that peace has to happen before a successful settlement to the conflict, is patently absurd
Of course it is absurd. The far right does not want peace, it wants victory over the Palestinians. I think it is important that the rightist such as Bar_k post here because they really do let you know what their position is. It is important that American liberals know what they believe. These guys go into negotiations for only one reason and that is to use them as a cover for their goal of defeating the Palestinians and establishing a permanent settler state on the Westbank. At the same time that we should read and be aware of their thinking, arguing with them is pointless since their goals are so different from our goals.
Now for the really depressing news. Bar_k does not represent some tiny fringe, but views like his score in the 30-40% range in public polls and on occasional issues can go into the 60%-70% range. We should realize how the Israelis really feel. That can help us figure out what we can realistically expect from them in any negotiation. Which is to say not very much. That is why I continue to argue that we should simply not involve ourselves in the IP conflict, withdraw our support from any faction and come on back home.
October 19, 2007 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that extremists cause problems, but in this case, it's not so clear what's really going on. Here is a PACBI statement on the issue:
My first reaction was as yours, MJ, that only extremist would shut down a "peace concert." But if the information in item 2 above is true, it does give one pause, doesn't it?
I feel I don't have enough info from unbiased sources to make a judgement on this.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 19, 2007 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm.
Which "past" are you referring to?
October 19, 2007 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realize that many in Israel, and many of the hyper-philo-Israel people here, describe as antisemitic any call for a boycott of Israel and any mention, such as that made by President Carter in his recent book, of it's engagement in apartheid actions in the Occupied Territories. PACBI is involved in actions involved with the boycotting of Israel.
It would seem to me that those who are vehemently opposed to the boycott effort, or who rushed to define W&M's work as antisemitic, etc., etc., might then be considered suspect when reporting the actions of PACBI. In all honesty, I don't know much at all about PACBI - they raised issues which did give me pause, but I don't know enough about them to be able to judge any of this at this point - so for me, the jury is out.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 19, 2007 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, how unreasonable! Imagine that. Not wanting a hostile neighbor that can actually inflict harm on you right next door. How could they ever expect anyone to sympathize with that! And they only have 75 years of unrelenting Arab hostility as evidence that security considerations should be paramount!
Yes!
Absolutely! And the problem is...?
Whether or not Sharon intended to deliberately humiliate the Palestinians, they sure did a pretty good impression of wild animals after the Israeli withdrawal.
Cue the "racism" charges. Eek! Comparing Arabs to wild animals! <<Snore>>
Show me which liberal Zionist "spun" the Gaza withdrawal as an opportunity for peace. On the contrary, liberals like me supported the unilateral Gaza withdrawal because peace negotiations had become plainly impossible.
So how then is the software engineer in Rehovot, the farmer in Afula, the shopkeeper in Haifa or the housewife in Netanya i.e. ordinary Israelis living their lives in undisputed Israeli territory - how are they "not in the middle?". What part of their "self-expression" interferes with the self-expression of Palestinians? And a majority of these people do not support the settlers and say they want to live in peace with their neighbors. Meanwhile, on the Palestinian side, while it's true that a majority of them say they want to live in peace, a majority ALSO say they support suicide bombs and "armed resistance". It's hard to think of something better designed to interfere with the self-expression of Israelis than blowing them up.
And yet it's the Israelis that are "not in the middle".
Wow, what a mystery! I can't imagine how sneaky those Jews must be!
Here's a crazy idea. Maybe the Zionist narrative has been accepted because it's - what's the word I'm looking for? - correct?
October 19, 2007 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a narrow sense, this is true. Often, after a war, there is a treaty and peace is declared. That was the pattern through centuries of European wars.
Problem is, that model doesn't really fit this situation. We're not talking about ending a war between two matched armies by coming up with a political settlement. We're talking about trading something tangible - land and peoples' homes - for something intangible - peace.
The fundamental challenge to overcome is how to make the party giving up the tangible items, in this case Israel, have enough trust to make the concession. After all, once they give up the land, getting it back would be extraordinarily difficult. Meanwhile, all the other party has to offer is, essentially, promises. Sure there are various mechanisms that would be put in place to deal with security. But if the crowd turns ugly, they aren't worth a hill of beans. And there are few effective mechanisms that can reliably change peoples' hearts.
The leftist argument is that once the Palestinians get a state, they'll be satisfied and they'll be willing to live in peace. Thus Israel should make the concessions and have confidence that peace will ensue. But given the history, why should Israel believe this? Isn't the most likely outcome, assuming a deal got done, that some Palestinians will continue the fight, that the new state of Palestine will erupt in a civil war and that Israel will still be an enemy?
That's why it makes no sense from the Israeli point of view to give up ANYTHING until there is a new "history" to compete with the old history of unremitting Arab hostility. Only after it is clear that Palestinians have given up their fight to destroy Israel, or at least that the proportion of people who are unwilling to live alongside Israel is diminshed to a point of insignificance, can Israel develop the trust needed to make the tangible concessions.
It is simply unreasonable to ask Israel to have faith in this instance. Not in an area so core to the survival of the state. The best thing Israel can do now is try to help build the civil institutions that will form the backbone of an eventual Palestinian state. Furthermore, Israel should aggressively pursue peace with the rest of the Arab world, as that is a completely different dynamic. But with the Palestinians, there is a limit to what can be expected at this time.
October 19, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel,
Of course, this is a judgement call and somewhat relative.
But I can't see how you can call this a "far left" site.
Bruce is far left?
Zionista is far left?
Davai?
Howard?
BevD?
Bar Kochba?
Me?
What is "far left" anyway? How do you define it?
October 19, 2007 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to Sean for posting that exposure of the Brad mentality. Then Brad walked right into the trap. BINGO!
October 19, 2007 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. Important forces on both sides appear to want to fight to the death. Every one knows that is what the Arabs think. It is not that well known how widespread that thinking is in Israel. Mostly because they have better PR people to hide that aspect of their society.
That is why I believe we should should just get out of the way. There is no need for the US to fight this fight or to bankroll it. Nor do I believe we can force either side to make peace.
October 19, 2007 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Show me which liberal Zionist "spun" the Gaza withdrawal as an opportunity for peace. On the contrary, liberals like me supported the unilateral Gaza withdrawal because peace negotiations had become plainly impossible."
Well...
It is often said, "Hey, we pulled out of Gaza...gave them the land...and look what we got in return."
In other words, the Gaza withdrawal was "spun" as Israel acceding to Palestinian desires and thus as a move toward peace.
It was seen as a "painful" Israeli concession, yes?
October 19, 2007 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Sean you have helped expose him. Brad does help illustrate one thing with this quote:
and that is how deeply racists so many Israelis are with respect to their attitudes towards Arabs. From my experience American liberals simply do not believe that a sizable fraction of the Israeli public hold views that are considered unacceptably racist in this country. As we can see from the quote Brad is totally oblivious to how American liberals think.
October 19, 2007 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a question I've pondered for a while:
Why would a Palestinian state in Gaza and on the WT be more of a threat to Israel militarily than what exists now?
In fact, if there were a Palestinian state, it could be held much more accountable for the actions of its citizens and security forces than the divided, quasi government that exists now.
Israel would retain an overwhelming military advantage.
It could retaliate if it was attacked.
And Abbas et al couldn't claim that they had insufficient authority or control to handle its own miscreants and extremists.
The Palestinian people and the world couldn't argue credibly that they were under occupation nor that their rights were being tradduced. They'd be less interested in pissing off the Israelis and provoking a retaliatory attack.
Even if Palestine had a standing army, perhaps especially so, it would become a clearer and easier target for the Israeli army should retaliation be necessary. There'd be a "return address."
And if Palestine actually went to war against Israel...that would be it.
Anyway, Brad, can you give me your thoughts on this?
October 19, 2007 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
We aren't fighting it.
This is often said, or predicted, but it isn't true.
The U.S. has only fought "on behalf" of Muslim states and people, in however a misguided way.
October 19, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
After all, once they [the Israelis] give up the land, getting it back would be extraordinarily difficult.
Yes, just ask the Palestinians!
October 19, 2007 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ wrote:
You have said this before and I was skeptical. I looked around for some of those polls and found this: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10522.htm
That doesn't seem to support your position. Especially since almost as many Israelis support the transfer option (ie the euphemism for ethnic cleansing) as abandoning the settlements.
October 19, 2007 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well 1982 in Beirut we lost those 242 marines fighting on somebody's side. Somehow, I recall it was Israel that got us involved.
And, of course you will reject this mightily, but why are we fighting in Iraq today: Israel again I am afraid.
October 19, 2007 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the Zionist narrative has been accepted because it's - what's the word I'm looking for? - correct?
Indeed, if might makes right.
October 19, 2007 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad - I can understand from an Israeli point of view that the arabs have been absolute enemies for a minimum of 60 years. That is the history you reference. Do you really believe we need "calm" for another 60 years before Israel ends the occupation?
The problem with waiting for any meaningful period of time is that there will be no territory left for a viable Palestinian state. The settlements and outposts are expanding. New ethnic roads are being built. The ground has already been prepared for the massive settlement expansion in the E-1 corridor. That cuts the northern west bank off from the south. Ariel keeps expanding eastward leading to another territorial cutoff. More settlers and industry are moving into the Jordan Valley. In 5 years(maybe earlier) a two state solution is dead. What then?
October 19, 2007 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Meanwhile, on the Palestinian side, while it's true that a majority of them say they want to live in peace, a majority ALSO say they support suicide bombs and "armed resistance".
Brad, I am intimately aquainted with the Jewish struggle for independence from British occupation from my Grandfather's Irgun days. Jewish murder and bombing in those days was quite acceptable. You would think Jews would understand the Palestinian's desire for independence also.
October 19, 2007 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. So many of the far right supporters of Israel seem to think that the return of the Occupied Territories to their rightful owner represents a "concession," and fails to see (or perhaps the better word is acknowledge) that the land issue is what drives much of the violence in the first place. The argument is circular.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 19, 2007 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm getting confused by all these conflicting poll results. I did find an interesting statement regarding a longitudinal study of the Tel Aviv University's Jafee Centre for Strategic Studies ongoing poll's results (pdf available here). I believe it's the same poll to which you refer. Seems it was conducted only among Jewish Israelis, and excluded the 15% of the Israeli electorate comprised of Israeli Arabs.
So the opinion of a full 15% of voting Israeli citizens is deemed simply irrelevant, a "statistical artifact"? Can you imagine a study of "American Public Opinion" that included only whites, excluding all blacks or other minorities? It's unbelievable that in a supposed democracy, the ethnic minority's views simply do not count.
The study was funded by the American Jewish Congress, which in it's mission statement says that they fight in defense of the "...right of Jews to participate as full partners in American society." This is a noble and just goal. It's a blind spot that prevents some from seeing that the situation of Israel vis a vis the Palestinians represents the same sort of horrible intolerance and injustice that Jewish people have traditionally opposed.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 19, 2007 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with waiting for any meaningful period of time is that there will be no territory left for a viable Palestinian state.
JD, I suspect many who make Brad's arguments understand this but see it not as a problem but an opportunity.
October 19, 2007 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hard to imagine. But if you want a poll in Israel that reflects the opinions of those voters that actually chose the government, then the only group in the population that is relevant are the Jewish voters. Arab parties have been excluded from the government. Notice in the above poll, that is also supported by 75% of the Jewish Israelis. This is crazy from an American perspective. I do not think we should judge them by our standards. But we should just back away as carefully as we can. It is their fight, not ours.
October 19, 2007 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It also can't be stressed enough how important and traumatic was the experience of 1948-1967, when Jerusalem was truly divided and Jews were not allowed to go to the Jewish holy sites. Think about how despicable that is, how utterly disgusting.
Yes, the Jews couldn't get to their holy sites in Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees couldn't get to their homes and orchards in Israel. Now that the Jews have access to their holy sites again, how about giving the Palestinians access to their homes and orchards?
Despicable and disgusting, indeed!
October 19, 2007 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
syvanen.
"Every one knows that is what the Arabs think. "
Come again?
Hezbollah has no territorial interests in Israel beyond the return of Shebea Farms. Hamas doesn't aspire to occupy Tel Aviv, either. In fact, there is actually a growing opinion within Israel that both groups can be bargained with. It's been done in the past.
Do both groups have trained fighters who will battle to their deaths? Hezbollah surely does and Hamas as well. They are fighting for their own survival. One of the results of the stupid summer war was much discussion about how the IDF has changed for the worse since the earlier days of Israel's wars of survival. No one's fault, really. Changing times and circumstances.
Unfortunately, the US can't seem to butt out of this business just yet. We can act in a more positive manner, however and Israelis can act in their own diplomatic interests against US designs that are counterproductive.
October 19, 2007 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jews have been living CONTINUOUSLY in the Land of Israel far longer than the Arabs.
But you were living in California.
October 20, 2007 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken about Hamas and Hezbollah--now, for symmetry's sake, please explain, irrespective of ideology, how they differ from Lehi in the 1940s.
October 20, 2007 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
forget your lame attempt at being Politically Incorrect, Brad--why don't you just go all the way, and refer to them as untermenschen?
October 20, 2007 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the most extreme elements in both societies are a mirror image of one another. But the Israelis do hold the upper hand, because of their superior military power (as you mentioned), because they are the occupiers, and because of the extensive support they receive from the U.S.
No, but I've uprated those comments that seem reasonable, such as Bar's acknowledgment recently that Jerusalem was holy to Muslims. I agree wholeheartedly that this site itself is by far the most balanced, but that doesn't always apply to the comments in any individual thread. And it doesn't mean that there aren't those who are promoting a specific unbalanced agenda posting here.
Edited to add:
I'd also like to draw your attention to what happened in this thread. While it's true that Bar was attacked by others, wasn't it he that started the personal attacks?
With comments such as those, I'm unlikely to chastise the next person aiming the same sort of ad hominem at Bar. Yet someone jumped to Bar's defense, ignoring Bar's swipe at MJ. I personally would prefer if all of us ceased the personal attacks and focused on the actual issues.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 20, 2007 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense. These statements completely distort the truth of the situation. Most Palestinian Christians support the creation of a Palestinian state every bit as much as the Muslim Palestinians do. Yet Israel has the gall to actually attempt to interfere in church decisions, as this BBC article reveals:
And it's not just Palestinian Orthodox Christians, but Palestinian Roman Catholic Christians who also decry the occupation. See this 2005 BBC article:
There may indeed be Palestinians who oppose those Evangelical Christians who are funding the illegal Israeli land grab in the West Bank (and not all Evangelicals are involved in this effort, it's important to point out). Tell me, Bar, do you support them? Do you support those Christians from the U.S. who are sending millions of dollars to settle the West Bank with Jews who they expect to convert or die?
Also, I've seen you refer on a couple of occasions to the Ben-Veniste article about the Jerusalem poll. I find no reference to it but your comments when I google. I can't help but wonder if the poll results are being given a spin, as the Palestinians of Jerusalem want to live in a Palestinian state just as much as the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank. Could it be they oppose being transferred to the Palestinian Authority because they recognize that such a proposal is merely an attempt for Israel to avoid it's responsibilities as an occupying power to the arab population of Jerusalem? (Israel hasn't been providing a decent level of services in East Jerusalem.) That strikes me as a very likely possibility. There may be other possibilities, but I can't know without more information about the poll. Could you post a link? I'd also appreciate a link to the Steinment Peace Center poll. Again, googling gives me only references to your post here.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 20, 2007 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think about how despicable that is, how utterly disgusting.
How does it compare, though, with creating a state for one's own ethno-religious group against the will of a very large percentage of the population, which happens to be of a different ethno-religious group?
The Arabs knew from the beginning that the creation of Israel as a specifically Jewish state meant their disenfranchisement. Is it really so despicable and disgusting that they resisted, even violently, against that disenfranchisement?
This is not to claim that the Jews should get out of Israel. Far from it. They have a right to be there and to live in peace. But to hold the Palestinians in such contempt for resisting what any group would resist seems rather thuggish to me.
October 20, 2007 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ seems to prove bar_kochba132 point:
In both cases Jerusalem was not under of shared sovereignty.
Wordie seems to prove bar_kochba132 point:
There were no shared sovereignty of two countries over Jerusalem at that time
October 20, 2007 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
October 20, 2007 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism:
liberalism emphasizes ... the free exchange of ideas.
October 20, 2007 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel did understand the Palestinian's desire for independence and tried to negotiate with Arafat.
However, according to M.J:
How Israel can negotiate with Palestinian Leaders if they have no clue what they really want?
October 20, 2007 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although it is true Arab parties are not generally part of the coalition, they do get benefits in return for their votes on the budget and the such. And it is important to remember that both the Oslo Agreements and Sharon's destruction of Gush Katif were dependent on Arab votes and the parties were paid handsomely for their support.
October 20, 2007 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The opinion polls published in the media in Israel claim to include Arabs in proportion to their percentage of the population. Since they have the right to vote, it is ridiculous not to. As I recall, the Steinmetz Peace Center polls (I posted one recently in a previous thread) says specifically that they poll only Jewish opinion.
October 20, 2007 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you say about the "ethno-religious" state called Pakistan who creation lead to the deaths of something like 1 MILLION people and the uprooting of several million Hindus from Pakistani territory?
What do you think of the "ethno-religious" state called "The United ARAB Republic" founded by Nasser in Egypt which expelled virtually all non-Arab people in the country, including Jews, most of whom had been born there?
What do you think of the Irish Catholic minority in Northern Ireland demanding that the Protestants there be forced into the "ethno-religious" state called "the Republic of Ireland"?
What do you think of the creation of "ethno-religious" Bosnia which caused a huge war with hundreds of thousands of casualties.
What about "Ethno-religious" Kosovo?
What about virtually all the Arab states that define themselves as "Arab", such as Algeria, that discriminates agains non-Arabic minorites like the Berbers? In addition to them calling themselves "Islamic" states which discriminate against non-Islamic minorities?
Or is your problem only with Jewish national/religious self-determination?
October 20, 2007 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only problem is that the Palestinians are not "fighting for an independent state". You and MJ and the rest of the "progressives" have convinced yourself of this falsehood, because that is the way you want the world to be. That is, wishful thinking. They are fighting to eradicate Israel. They will not tolerate any minorities in the Middle East having self-determination.
This is what they say openly.
October 20, 2007 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want a lesson in racism, I suggest you read Arab propaganda, and I mean the official state-run media. For example, there was the Imam in the Mosque in Gaza, whom in Arafat's presence said that it was incumbent on all good Muslims to kill every Jew they can. Mike Wallace of "60 Minutes" confronted Arafat with the tape of this. Arafat replied that he didn't hear it.
Then there is the golden oldie "Jews are decdendents of pigs and monkeys.
Go ahead, read what they themselves write. See how "tolerant" they are.
October 20, 2007 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Arabs started the war , and lost it. It is just like the Germans who were expelled (not just fled like in Israe) from Pomerania, Silesia, East Prussia and the Sudetenland. No one, including yourself talks about forcing Poland, Russian and the Czech Republic to take them back in. I also don't see you demanding the Hindus who were driven out of Pakistan be brought back or given compensation.
Every single Jew that was in the Arab contolled areas of British Palestine, including Hevron, Jerusalem, Shechem (Nablus), Gaza, Jenin, Gush Etzion, Atarot, Beit Ha'aravah, etc, etc, were killed or driven out. Whereas most Arabs fled Israel, some were driven out and many thousands REMAINED, become today's Israeli Arab population.
Enough of your "progressive" double-standards.
October 21, 2007 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
"How Israel can negotiate with Palestinian Leaders if they have no clue what they really want?"
Davai - Do you reaally think Israel knows what kind of borders etc IT WANTS and NEEDS? The Palestinian situation is complex because the needs of the greater muslim population must be considered due to the Holy sites as well as the Palestinian refugees. The Israeli situation is equally complex when one considers the needs of the settlers as well as the desires of the world of Judiasm which considers Israel the core of our religion.
In the 1940's when Jews were fighting to throw off the yoke of occupation, they did not know the contours of their independent state but they did know they wanted a Jewish state. The Palestinian desires are similarly undefined.
October 21, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
bar - I speak and read Hebrew and I have attended many a West Bank synogogue where my relatives live. Every time I'm there I hear the Jews speak openly of Palestinian transfer and/or annihilation. Should I generalize this to the entire Israeli population as you have about the Palestinians?
There are unrealistic extremists on both sides yet I believe the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want a just two state solution.
October 21, 2007 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
As you well know, there is no political party sitting in the Knesset, even on the so-called "far right" that advocates violence or "annihilation" against the Palestinians. On the other hand, the OFFICIAL FATAH and HAMAS charters call for the eradication of Israel. Also the PLO Charter, which has not been officially recinded. I would certainly expect someone as knowledgable as yourself would not fall in to the "moral equivalence" trap. Arutz 7 never called for violence against Arabs, nor their expulsion. OFFICIAL Palestinian media calls for violence against Jews.
October 21, 2007 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine the embarassment: Some of Olmert's FATAH "friends" and "peace partners" wanted to bump him off.
But don't worry, we can hand Jerusalem over to these people and they will "share it" with us, like brothers.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/915163.html
October 21, 2007 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally, somebody uses word “COMPLEX”.
I agree, I/P conflict is complex.
However, my point is that in 2000 there was yet another chance for Palestinians to get an independent state but their leadership was not ready.
When Jews had a chance to get an independent state, Jewish Leadership were ready.
October 21, 2007 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever--all I have to say in response is 'Avigdor Lieberman.'
While we're at it, why don't you tell us what you think the fundamental difference between Lehi and Hamas/Hezbollah would be.
Also, I'm still waiting to hear you tell us where you live--my guess is that you don't want to, for obvious reasons.
October 21, 2007 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie:
Here is the link to the Steinmetz Center Poll (I am sorry I didn't spell their name right):
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/913237.html
I am also sorry I didn't post Ben-veniste's article, but I can assure my quoting of it was correct: The Arab residents of Jerusale do NOT want to live under Palestinian rule.
Also look at the following link. Those like "Leftist" Ha'aretz and "Rightist" Avigdor Lieberman who advocate redividing Jerusalem in order to rid Israel of excess Arabs (yes, that is Ha'aretz's argument) and to save "national insurance payments to the Arabs" have been shown to be using demagogic arguments by the following study by an organization that favors dividing Jerusalem. Israel would be forced to offer ALL Jerusalem Arabs full Israeli citizenship and the right ot move anywhere in the country they want, and even those who would remain in the Palestinian-controlled areas would have to be able to continue to receive Israeli National Insurance payments:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/915139.html
October 21, 2007 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this is your biggest weapon against Israel, worst case of Israeli racism?
He argues that the residents of the Triangle are Arabs who see themselves as Palestinians and therefore should be re-united with them as part of establishing two separate national entities: one for Israelis and one for Palestinians.
While we're at it, why don't you tell us what you think the fundamental difference between Avigdor Liebermanand's proposal and Iraqi Biden plan.
October 21, 2007 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears you misread the Haaretz article, which says this:
Just to make sure, I downloaded a pdf of the Steinmetz study (available here), and it says:
As a side note, this comment in the Haaretz article regarding opinions on the proposal to civilianize the operation of the checkpoints may also apply to some of the opposition to the transfer:
As I mentioned earlier, the reasons behind the answers for the 37%* of Palestinian Arab respondents who did not support the transfer of Arab neighborhoods to Palestinian sovereignty may not be consistent at all with your interpretation. You have assumed a motivation unsupported by anything in the poll. That 37% may indeed be motivated by concerns for the livelihood of their families. After all, it's undeniable that there have been severe economic effects experienced by Palestinians throughout the occupied territories. These concerns might be assuaged by a settlement that ensures that the Palestinians have a good level of support from the international community until they are able to rebuild their own economy.
* 37% (100%-63%) would be a maximum number - there may have been many who answered "don't know" or some other answer. Unfortunately, the Steinmetz center didn't post either the raw data or the questions, so we can't know for sure.
Also, it appears to me that you misread the second Haaretz article you linked as well, which, rather than advocating the division of Jerusalem as you claim, is a description of a report by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies (JIIS). The report describes the reasons why that group's (not Haaretz') previous support for a division was unwise. From the article:
Because the word "division" in the context of Jerusalem is at times ambiguous, it's difficult to know for sure, but it appears this article refers to a unilateral separation:
Since you've stated erroneously on numerous occasions in several threads now that the Jerusalem Arabs prefer to remain under Israeli rule, it seems to me you ought to go back and correct the error or delete those posts."If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 21, 2007 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
leftAhead asked:
While we're at it, why don't you tell us what you think the fundamental difference between the fighters in American Revolutionary War, and Hamas/Hezbollah/Al-Qaeda would be.
October 21, 2007 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Falcon 10.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 21, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Falcon 10.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 21, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those who might need them, the current, although subject to revision, Falcon Codes. I am morally certain that the Israeli Air Force has its own version, probably the Jordanians and Kuwaitis, and perhaps the Egyptians. I just can't see a sense of humor in the Syrian, Saudi, or Iranian militaries...although perhaps the Regular Iranians, but not the Revolutionary Guard.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 21, 2007 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you talking about the Israeli Arab public
or Jerusalem Arabs?
Maybe Israeli Arabs don't mind transferring Jerusalem's Arab neighborhoods to Palestinian sovereignty but they don't want transferring Arab-populated "Triangle" area of the Wadi 'Ara region to Palestinian sovereignty.
October 21, 2007 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
October 21, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
bar.
"there is no political party sitting in the Knesset, even on the so-called "far right" that advocates violence or "annihilation" against the Palestinians."
You're a little behind the times on your reading of Arutz Sheva about threats posed by those allied with Knesset parties:
(IsraelNN.com) Moshe Ifargan, a member of Likud and long-time opponent of the Likud’s Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) faction, wrote an article in “Likudnik” over the weekend warning that the next assassin could come from the Likud. In his article, written shortly before the anniversary of the assassination of then-Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin, Ifargan wrote that assassin Yigal Amir came from “the fringes of the religious right.”
“In these fringes we find [Manhigut Yehudit head Moshe] Feiglin’s sect that has infiltrated the Likud, a sect speaking a language saturated with violence and filling the radical Kahanist characteristics typical of political criminals,” Ifargan wrote. He said that harsh language used by Feiglin and other Jewish Leadership heads in criticizing the government and the Supreme Court could encourage “extremists” to violence, “which would, at least officially, become a ‘Likudnik’ action.”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/135013
Of course, the author isn't concerned about threats of violence to Arabs. He's worried about some of of the extremist right associated with settlers killing Jews.
October 21, 2007 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
October 21, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
bar kochba: When you said,
...it gave me pause. I spent a considerable amount of time searching for the article, only discovering this morning that the name is spelled, "Benvenisti." I suspect then, that this is the article to which you refer. If you re-read, you'll notice that what Benvenisti is saying is that Israel is responsible for the breakup of Palestinian society, which rather weakens your argument. Further, Benvenisti offers no source for the claim that Arabs in Jerusalem don't want to be put under Palestinian rule, referring to it almost in passing, so we don't really have a chance to evaluate the reliability of his information, nor have any way of knowing whether this is in relation to a unilateral transfer, which they might have every reason to oppose, as it would represent no more than an effort by Israel to avoid it's responsibilities, or a transfer of soverignty in the context of the creation of a Palestinian state, which is an entirely different thing.
I mentioned elsewhere in the thread that another claim you have made several times, in several threads, was false. In fact, the Steinmetz poll determined that nearly 2/3 of Jerusalem Arabs favor transferring the Arab areas of Jerusalem to Israeli control:
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 22, 2007 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Benveniste speaks Arabic and was Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem for many years, in close contact with the Arab population. He knows what they are thinking.
I reject his claim that "Israel destroyed Palestinian society through the 'occupation'. The Jews were under British occupation for 3 decades while the British were fostering splits in the Jewish community ('divide and rule') and yet the Jews built a protostate and its institutions.
October 22, 2007 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
To me the issue comes down to this:
Would the Arab states and Palestinians have allowed a Jewish state of ANY size in terms of area and population?
Or was the only just solution for them to have an Arab state with a Jewish minority?
Because if you see it the latter way, then Arab resistance is perfectly understandable--although it's a little unclear why Iraq, SA, Egypt, and Jordan would be so opposed to a small Jewish state, given that they had no claim to the land themselves, either, and they possessed much greater land masses than what the Jews claimed.
If you see it in the former way, however, then the fighting or resistance seems like simply an attempt to deprive Jews of ANY sovereignty in that region, no matter how small.
Part of the problem, of course, stems from the Jewish experience of being an extremely oppressed minority. So minority status in a Palestinian state--especially given the mufti's anti-Semitism--wasn't going to wash for people fleeing the European disaster.
Having a "Palestinian" state with Jews and Arabs really is having a state for the ethnic Arabs with Jews in a subservient position.
October 24, 2007 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting case.
I'm not sure that Lebanon IS able to make this case vis a vis Hezbollah.
In fact, I believe that many in Lebanon BLAME Hezbollah for the summer war and have beefed up the regular army as a result.
As a matter of FACT, Hezbollah IS strong, does cause problems--but I'm not so sure that this is a viable excuse for the Lebanese.
Israel isn't blamed for retaliating...it is blamed for the WAY it retaliated.
October 24, 2007 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought I was ALREADY establishing symetry:
The folks in Israel like Bar mentioned by Syvanen vs the Palestinians like Hamas and Lebanese like Hezbollah.
I guess it's worth noting that DESPITE Lehi in the 1940s, the Zionists were able to come to a two-state proposition.
Lehi was also disbanded by force in 1948.
October 24, 2007 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I do reject this assertion.
It's obvious (to me, at least) that things are much more complex.
Not sure you're right about 1982, either. As I recall, we were there to keep, or establish, the peace between warring Lebanese factions.
The US has a long history of meddling in the Mideast...
October 24, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but...
I would say that "those promoting an unbalanced agenda" appear on both sides of the divide.
Abdul Hass is, most definitely, promoting an unbalanced agenda--and it is the agenda one sees on a LOT of leftist/liberal blogs.
I also see a number of folks criticizing davai, Bar Kochba, Brad, Daniel, Emmet1--including crits by Zionista, jdell, me, and MJ who is, after all, a Zionist.
Sorry, I forgot to respond to your main point.
Yes, Israel holds the upper hand militarily and, to me, that gives them a special obligation to try to make a just peace. However, they can't force Hamas to accept Israel; nor Hezbollah. Lally seems to think that parties within Israel feel that Hamas can be negotiated with. I've heard the same and certainly believe Israel should try.
And, to answer your point from a previous thread, I do believe that a halt to settlements is key to success...and justice.
However, Hamas openly says something different, and its charter says something different. And it acts differently. So has Hezbollah.
So if the plan is simply to chip away at Israel, take what it can get in terms of an agreement, and then keep chipping in the name of "resistance" because they are still fighting 1948 and the injustice done to the Palestinians... well, then, it's war...and the ultimate outcome is anyone's guess.
In my reading of things, this is Israel's greatest fear...that any agreement will be treated as just a stepping stone.
October 24, 2007 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Falcon 2.
I have a philosophical problem with almost all the states that you name, other than Northern Ireland, where it is a minority of a minority wanting Union.
I don't like ethnic/religious national self-determination wherever it occurs. On an operational basis, however, there are variables depending on the extent to which the US is perceived as sponoring the discrimination, and to the extent by which the US is threatened by the conditions in a particular ethnic/religious state.
Once there is a threat, the next question becomes what can be done about it, in the interest of the United States. If overthrowing a bad government would get something worse, then such, which is probably the case in Pakistan, is unwise.
Israel can damn well do what it pleases as long as it doesn't use American arms or money to do so, in a manner that creates propaganda opportunity for enemies of the United States.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 24, 2007 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and Iraqis were living Iraq; Egyptians in Egypt; Jordanians in Jordan; Saudis in SA, Syrians in Syria...and yet they all felt it was important to them and their brother Arabs to quash a Jewish state in their midst.
Although there is a right of return, as a practical matter very few Jews make aliyah. The notion that there's a "place" for me in Israel and I'm pushing out a Palestinian is a strange construction.
Though I support Israel, I ain't moving. If I did move, I wouldn't be pushing out a Palestinian because there is now a state called Israel. And hopefully, there will be a state called Palestine. The Palestinian can go to Palestine; I can go to Israel.
Maybe if there can be true peace and coexistence for a little while, life will ease up for all the minorities in all the Middle East countries and their full rights will be protected. And the populations will mingle.
One of the most overlooked aspects of this conflict is that it changes the longer it goes on.
October 24, 2007 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hass is promoting a one-state solution, which, although unpalatable to many, from a purely moral point of view is hardly unbalanced, and entirely consistent philosophically with liberal American values. The problem with such a solution is that at this point, after so much fighting, it's just not practical. Of course, there are many in Israel who may prefer that solution, and who work tirelessly to promote it by refusing to allow a separate and viable Palestinian state to develop.
If Zionista has actually criticized davai, Bar, Brad, or Daniel (G), I'm sorry but I missed it. Generally what I notice among the hard core Zionists here is complaints that those particular posters are being treated unfairly, even when they have clearly engaged in either ad hominems directed at M.J. (or other posters) or ranting about M.J.'s posts. If there is a significant history of this criticism, I would surely stand corrected. Please post the links so I can take a look. Please understand that I'm not defending the ad hominems that I have seen directed at the Zionist posters. I would prefer that we would all remain civil. But I'm hardly going to down-rate those later ad hominems when the person to whom they were directed was guilty of the same thing.
If Israel had at all been willing to engage in a serious effort toward peace before the rise of either Hamas or Hezbollah, your comment might hold more weight with me.
Here's something interesting I ran across recently:
It does appear that the Occupation is invisible to a number of TPM Cafe posters, who generally never, ever, refer to it, nor acknowledge it's inhumane effects on the Palestinians (not to mention the cheapening of Israeli society by it's continuation). Why is that, Peter?
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 24, 2007 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could tell you, but that would be thoughtcrime. Had the Inner Party's wise peace policy of promulgating Newspeak been completed, you would be unable to phrase the question.
Lest I be accused of ethnic stereotyping by referring to Emanuel Goldstein as the enemy of the State, I shall, in interfaith spirit, offer the answer attributed to St. Augustine of Hippo, when that worthy Bishop was asked what the deity had been doing before creating the heavens and the earth.
"Preparing a hell for those with the audacity to ask such questions".
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
October 24, 2007 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes! I'll consider myself forewarned, Howard. But don't expect any fewer "audacious" questions.
A further musing: Perhaps there is also a special place in hell prepared for those who respond to comments before the author has had an opportunity to correct the formatting.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 24, 2007 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hass is promoting a one-state solution, which, although unpalatable to many, from a purely moral point of view is hardly unbalanced, and entirely consistent philosophically with liberal American values."
I think much of this is what "we" see and what we don't. What we're sensitive to and what we aren't.
Hass has said the most despicable, and untrue, things about Israel. But I'm not going back to look for the links and try to convince you of this, because generally I'm not into the meta-discussion here--where posters become the topic of conversation.
You read the posts and come to your own conclusions, as do I.
The people to whom a one-state solution is "unpalatable" are the Israeli people, or most of them. In what sense is it correct, from a "purely moral point of view," to ignore the people involved in the situation--the citizens of the country? If the Israelis change their minds, then I'm fine with whatever they decide.
If you ignore this fact, or find it illegitimate, then you are, in essence, going back to 1948 and calling the establishment of the state of Israel illegitimate on moral grounds.
This is Hass's position, as far as I can tell--so he is, in effect, fighting 1948, but using current events to do it.
If you start there, then the rest of your post is immaterial, because the discussion is no longer about the territories, but about Israel per se.
And THAT, I would submit, is one principal reason this discussion, and the conflict, never goes anywhere. Some folks find Israel illegitimate per se; others don't.
From the beginning, Israel accepted a two-state solution--the Arab states have not, until relatively recently. If they had been willing to engage in a serious two-state discussion with Israel, then Palestine might have come to fruition a long time ago. To be sure, both sides have "missed" opportunities for peace mostly, I think, because at various times both sides felt they could get the "whole enchilada" without compromising with the other side.
Wordie, it's not as if the Palestinians' beef with Israel STARTED with the territories. It started with Israel. And it may even have started with a large influx of Jews into the region, I don't know. I have often wondered why Palestine didn't come into being when the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab rule.
And frequently, when you read around in Hass land, you end up in discussions about whether the Jews ever lived in the region, whether Jews are Jews, whether Jews are a people, whether anti-Semitism exists, whether anti-Semitism shouldn't include all semites, whether the Holocaust happened or was as bad as everyone says it was, whether Jews control the US or the West or the world, whether Jews have Judaized the West, whether Zionist wants to rule the world, whether Zionists are international bankers or international communists...and on DOWN from there.
So discussions about the West Bank and Gaza and what Israel is doing there have this long tail--a tail the never seems to exist with any other despicable situation in the world.
You know, when it comes to this conflict, nothing is off the table.
Having said all that, my unequivocal position, which I have stated, but will again, is that Israel should negotiate with the full range of Palestinian parties, including Hamas if they are willing, toward a speedy and complete resolution to the conflict and the creation of a Palestinian state. The preamble to this should be an immediate freeze to all settlement activity and violence. It would be nice, but not necessary, if Hamas dropped certain things from their charter about Israel not existing. What is happening in the territories is horrible and dehumanizing to the Palestinians and Israelis both. Moreover, the American Jewish establishment needs to engage in a real discussion about this and stop squelching debate, to the degree they are. They could play a constructive role.
I'm personally committed to this and am putting my shoulder to wheel to try to bring it about by joining Lerner's Network of Progressives.
October 26, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink