Lobby Reeling Over House Letter On Palestinian Aid
The good news from Capitol Hill is that the Ackerman-Boustany letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has 135 signers so far. This is a big deal. The letter supports the upcoming Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, urging more vigorous U.S. diplomacy to promote its success and calling for more U.S. aid to the Palestinians.
In the past, far too many letters and resolutions circulated on Capitol Hill originated with conservative pro-Israel lobbying organizations and were essentially exercises in Palestinian-bashing.
Significantly, Ackerman-Boustany is supported by a very different array of organizations: Israel Policy Forum, the American Task Force on Palestine, Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, the Arab American Institute, the Union of Reform Judaism (which represents 1.5 million Reform Jews, the largest Jewish denomination), the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation and Churches for Middle East Peace (representing 21 Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox denominations and tens of millions of congregants).
Perhaps most remarkable about this letter is its wide range of signatories. Several of the most senior Jewish House Members have signed on, as have all the Arab Americans and the one Muslim Congressman.
It is signed by liberal Democrats, conservative Republicans, and top leaders from both parties. In other words the message that movement on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is central to America’s security may be sinking in.
This effort builds on last year’s success when a House-passed bill that would have stopped virtually all humanitarian aid to the Palestinians was stopped dead in its tracks.
The House bill, AIPAC's #1 legislative priority, was killed in the Senate, which passed, in its place, a far more moderate bill. This is not to say that morning has broken on Capitol Hill. Not at all.
In fact, with elections looming—and the Bush administration dipping its toe into the negotiating waters—we can expect a host of initiatives designed to both score partisan points and shoot down any possibility of an Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough.
For instance, in Thursday’s Jerusalem Post, Congresswomen Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Shelley Berkley (D-NV) join in a bit of bipartisan Palestinian bashing. The two House members want the United States to end all dealings with and aid to the Palestinians—both Fatah and Hamas—because “continuing to assume the existence of a viable Palestinian partner for peace” endangers both Israel and the United States. “The United States must settle for nothing less than a genuine partner for peace with Israel that leads, and sets the tone in achieving results,” they write.
It’s par for the course in almost all respects, but with a twist because, in the past, even the Congressional hardliners recognized the existence in Palestine of both moderates and extremists and understood that it was in our interests to strengthen the former. When they argued against the Palestinian Authority, it was ostensibly because the authority, with its strong Hamas presence, had not clearly disassociated itself from terrorists.
But since the Gaza-West Bank split, the Palestinian Authority is completely run by Fatah and governed by the PLO’s support for the two-state solution. The PA recognizes Israel’s right to security, opposes terrorism, and supports the signing of a peace treaty with Israel that would allow it to establish a state in 22 percent of historic Palestine (while agreeing that the Jewish state would encompass the other 78 percent).
In other words, the Palestinian Authority has called the bluff of the hard-liners, by recognizing Israel, rejecting terrorism, and divesting itself of Hamas. By ignoring these moves and implying that Hamas and Fatah are interchangeable, the Congressional hawks reveal yet again that they just oppose negotiations with any imaginable Palestinians.
By their reckoning, Israel can hold on to the settlements and the territories forever. They deny that this is their intent. Ros-Lehtinen and Berkley argue that they just want the Palestinians to work with Israel to meet “their commitments to combat terror, incitement and corruption.”
I won’t repeat the extensive laundry list of commitments the Palestinians would have had to implement before meeting the standards laid down by last year’s House Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. Suffice it to say that Israel and the United States would have a hard time meeting some of them.
And that is the point. The American hard-liners want the status quo to continue. Times like these—when there is a glimmer of hope for peace—are, for them, the most threatening. From their vantage point, the status quo looks hunky dory.
Of course, the Congressional hardliners are far removed from the Mideast turmoil so can afford to indulge in drafting laundry lists of requirements for Palestinians to fulfill in order to become acceptable to them. The Israelis, led by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, have no such luxury which is why they believe that President Abbas, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, and the Fatah leadership are not only acceptable partners but represent an opportunity that might not come again.
The Israelis, of course, are aware of the facts on the ground, facts that don’t show up in the Ros-Lehtinen-Berkley piece. They understand that any opportunity for peace must be pursued. They also know that the Palestinians are in fact working hard to live up to their “commitment to combat terror” and they are doing it in full cooperation with the Israelis.
On Thursday, the daily Ma’ariv reported that “security relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank have not been this good in years.” It quotes Israeli military sources as saying that “there has been a real change in the willingness of the security organizations affiliated with Fatah to confront Hamas” and that in general, “the Palestinian police are working with great courage against lawbreakers and against Hamas activists.”
The article goes on to list a host of incidents in which Fatah vigorously went after Hamas and its supply of weapons. “No less than 20,000 armed Palestinian police are working today in all the Palestinian cities. . . . It happened quietly and gradually, almost secretly. Palestinian security forces began to trickle from Ramallah to other towns: to Bethlehem, Hebron, Jenin—where a preventive security service force recently rescued an IDF officer who accidentally entered the city—and in Nablus, where about 300 police recently entered.
“In Nablus, the city most hostile toward Israel, there are now 2,500 police altogether. In every Palestinian city there are now thousands of Palestinian policemen in shifts of a few hundred people” working on security, according to the IDF.
In other words, the Palestinian Authority is, with very limited resources, trying to do exactly what the Americans and Israelis have asked them to do. This is something the hard-liners choose to ignore. They also ignored (and still refuse to cite) the last time Israelis and Palestinians worked together to fight terrorism. That was during the last three years of Oslo (from the fall of 1997 to the fall of 2000) when Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation made Israel virtually terror-free and safer than at any time in its history.
It is foolish to think that Israelis and Palestinians cannot do it again (including, most importantly, ending the shelling of Sderot). But that is going to require both the United States and Israel to provide more assistance to the Palestinian Authority, including more equipment to fight terror, rather than making them jump through hoops to get walkie-talkies and night vision equipment, etc. And it also includes looking for ways to bring Hamas supporters who reject violence into the process.
Needless to say, the Ackerman-Boustany call on the United States to strengthen the Palestinian Authority makes infinitely more sense than the Ros-Lehtinen-Berkley plan to cut it off at the knees and thereby further empower Hamas’s most violent adherents.
Yes, the Palestinian security forces need to do more. But that means they need more. Those who call on them to act against terrorism but would deny them the resources to do so are clearly content with the status quo. It’s just not their problem that the status quo is so lethal to Israelis, West Bank Palestinians, and to school kids in Gaza.
LATE NEWS FRIDAY NIGHT. THE ACKERMAN-BOUSTANY letter is causing big problems for AIPAC. To its credit, it is feeling the heat from the peace camp and is trying to triangulate a bit. But its far right donors ain't happy. With one far right donor paying for AIPAC's new 8 story HQ in DC, it's not hard to see how this little tempest will end. It's all here.
Top donors criticize AIPAC
on backing for P.A. funding
| Published: 11/16/2007 |
Sheldon Adelson, a casino magnate ranked by Forbes as the third wealthiest American and the sixth wealthiest man in the world, told JTA he raised the issue in a phone call with Howard Kohr, the executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
An active Republican, Adelson likened AIPAC to a friend assisting Israel's suicide. "If someone is going to jump off a bridge, it is incumbent upon their friends to dissuade them," he told JTA. He added: "I love and admire the concept of AIPAC."
The objections to the letter underscore debates within the Jewish community over possible Israeli concessions to the Palestinians. It also illustrates the tension between AIPAC's mandate to support Israeli policies and its need to navigate differences among its own constituents.
The other donor who has raised questions is Gary Erlbaum, a property developer prominent in the Philadelphia Jewish community. He said he would urge others to lobby against the letter.
"We should lobby our own congressmen never to sign the letter, unless there is clear evidence Palestinians have changed their educational system and have fought terrorism," Erlbaum said.
The letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was initiated last month by U.S. Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and Charles Boustany (R-La.). So far 118 of 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed, including 12 Jewish Democrats. It casts increased assistance as necessary to help Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, make the changes needed to guarantee Israel's security.
"Addressing corruption and public safety in the P.A., while continuing to engage with Israel to coordinate a remittance schedule for Palestinian tax monies and to improve access and movement," the letter states, "will ensure that assistance will be effective in reviving the Palestinian economy and creating the atmosphere of hope required for the success of diplomatic efforts."
Neither Adelson nor Erlbaum would address whether AIPAC's support for the letter would influence how they donate to the group. Speaking generally, Adelson said, "I don’t continue to support organizations that help friends committing suicide just because they say they want to jump."
An AIPAC spokeswoman confirmed that both men are supporters of the organization, and described Adelson as a "major" donor.
Adelson, with an estimated net worth of $26.5 billion, often contributes in the millions to favored Jewish causes. He donated $25 million last year to Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust memorial, and gave birthright israel -- the program that flies Jewish youth to Israel for free tours -- $55 million over the past two years.
The casino magnate is believed to have pledged a significant portion of the money AIPAC is using to pay for its new seven-story premises, opening in February. His latest project is FreedomsWatch, a group promoting President Bush's commitment to staying the course in Iraq; Adelson is believed to have contributed the bulk of the group's $15 million startup costs. Erlbaum is also a backer of the new group.
Ackerman, who is Jewish, chairs the House's Middle East subcommittee and has a close relationship with AIPAC. In the past year, however, he has wondered aloud whether Israel and the United States have missed opportunities by failing to encourage Palestinian moderates.
A coalition of three dovish groups -- Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, Americans for Peace Now and Israel Policy Forum -- joined the Arab American Institute, Churches for Middle East Peace and the American Task Force on Palestine in lobbying for the letter. Much was made at the outset of Ackerman being Jewish and Boustany being an Arab American.
AIPAC did not initially back the letter, something JTA reported on Oct. 19. Within days, however, AIPAC officials reached out to JTA to say the lobby decided to back the letter after assurances from Ackerman's office that the money requested would be "project based" -- a provision that guarantees strict oversight. AIPAC sought the assurances even though the letter makes explicit that the assistance is to be "project-focused."
It is not clear what else was behind the switch. The Bush administration has launched a concerted effort to rally U.S. Jewish support for the Annapolis summit, which is slated to occur during the week of Nov. 26.
Separate from the Ackerman-Boustany letter, the White House surprised lawmakers last month with a new request for $410 million in extra funding for the Palestinians. AIPAC has yet to take a position on that request, which includes $150 million in non-specified funding.
On Capitol Hill, sources say AIPAC's support for the Ackerman-Boustany letter appeared limited to telling lawmakers -- and only if they call and ask -- that the organization is on board, a significant difference from AIPAC's usual full-frontal lobbying blitzes, which often garner majority support. Another recent AIPAC-backed letter urged the Bush administration to press Arab nations to reach out to Israel as a means of reinforcing peace talks; out of 100 senators, 79 signed.
Adelson told JTA that Kohr, AIPAC's executive director, assured him on Tuesday that the group did not yet back the Ackerman-Boustany letter. AIPAC officials would not discuss the conversation between the two men, except to restate that AIPAC still supported the letter. They said that Kohr would not comment.
Erlbaum also called AIPAC officials; he said he was told AIPAC backed the letter, but not the Bush administration request for $410 million.
The news of the contretemps drew praise for AIPAC from an unexpected corner -- Brit Tzedek, a group that considers itself a grassroots dovish alternative to the lobbying powerhouse.
"We are very pleased that AIPAC has stepped up in support of the Ackerman-Boustany letter, joining the overwhelming majority of American Jews who support a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," said Diane Balser, Brit Tzedek's vice president.
Adelson, who recently launched a giveaway tabloid in Israel, said his research showed that vast majorities of Israelis opposed the concessions Olmert is reportedly considering, particularly sharing Jerusalem.
"Governments have to listen to the people -- of course, Olmert was duly elected, but promises made" on not dividing Jerusalem "are being neglected," Adelson said.
Rice has acknowledged pressing the sides toward a solution before her boss leaves the Oval Office. Still, Adelson would not criticize the Bush administration.
"The Bush administration and Condoleezza Rice can't be holier than the pope if the government of Israel wants to accept the destruction of Israel," he said.
Adelson and Erlbaum are also donors to the Zionist Organization of America, which has driven a campaign against any further funding for the Abbas-led Palestinian Authority.
"It is high time to condition any further U.S. aid on the Palestinians arresting terrorists, outlawing terrorist groups and ending incitement against Israel in their media, schools and speeches," ZOA president Morton Klein said. "Otherwise, the message is sent that the U.S. is not serious about the Palestinians changing their actions."
POSTSCRIPT Another sign of the times. Tom Dine, AIPAC's most prominent Executive Director, who left the organization to go into the Clinton administration, has now joined our Israel Policy Forum Washington team. He has the kind of savvy the good guys needs.
CURRENT SIGNERS OF ACKERMAN-BOUSTANY: Ackerman, Boustany, Lantos, Alcee Hastings, Crowley, Rahall, James Moran, Ellison, McCollum, Capps, Blumenauer, Jackson, Honda, Frank, Doyle, Schiff, McGovern, Coble, Faleomavaega, Sestak, McNulty, Baird, David Price, Lee, Wynn, Farr, Melancon, Boswell, Cardoza, Costa, Boyd, Kaptur, Baldwin, Hodes, Holt, Doggett, Delahunt, Carnahan, Geoff Davis, Maloney, Schakowsky, Woolsey, Altmire, Hill, Fortenberry, Mike Thompson, Kucinich, Jackson-Lee, Gonzalez, Waxman, Van Hollen, Issa, Markey, Lahood, Pascrell, Conaway, Velazquez, Meeks, Olver, Alexander, McDermott, Chris Smith, Capuano, DeLauro, Dingell, Fattah, Conyers, Norton, Larson, Baker, Putnam, Jefferson, Stark, Kuhl, Susan Davis, Carney, Christopher Murphy, McNerney, Neal, Langevin, Gwen Moore, Sanford Bishop, Dennis Moore, Braley, Cohen, Larsen, Kennedy, Berman, Matheson, Rangel, Brad Miller, Adam Smith, Lynch, Bonner, Kildee , Hinojosa , Gilchrest, Wasserman, Sires, John Lewis, George Miller, Grijalva, Norm Dicks, Filner, David Scott, Scott Garrett, Pastor, Gillibrand, Tierney, Sarbanes, Arcuri, Diane Watson
Comments (275)
Tom Dine abandoning the pro-Israel right is pretty cool. Maybe Rahm Emauel can take some time off from his anti-immigrant alliance with Tancredo and doff his IDF uniform (Rahm actually served in the IDF but was too minuscule to be in a fighting unit.) I bet our army would take him in Iraq though. He is over 5 feet tall and quite fit.
November 16, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Progress should be appreciated in the small steps that lead an eventual peace. Perhaps the diplomats and politicians that are pushing this process realize that this small step is first needed before moving on to the larger goal of Israel withdrawal from the West Bank and recognition of a viable Palestinian state. But here is the problem. These are the same small steps that began in 1992. They were so tiny and moved so slowly that Likud governments could easily undermine them and thwart the whole process. But today there is one new difficulty and that is that the Palestinian people elected Hamas to lead them. And this entire process is designed to exclude Hamas. And to the extent that MJ comments on this problem he seems to agree that Hamas should be excluded. I see nothing but failure in this formula.
Those who accept this process as it is now defined must also believe the following. Even though the Abbas faction has lost the support of his people, it is hoped that the US and Europe can pour in sufficient amount of money that will buy his co-operation and create a viable government. This money, as did the sums that poured in during the 90s, will make the highest PLO officials quite wealthy. In addition, they will be able to pay good salaries for body guards and for police to restrain an restive Palestinians that object to the on going occupation. (Yes the occupation must be allowed , at least for an 'interim' period in order to see if the peace agreement holds, this latter compromise is needed to get Likud support for the agreement). So for this to work we will have to have bought Palestinians whose job it will be to quell the rest of the Palestinians in their struggle against the occupation.
The last time this worked for 8 years because the PLO had popular support in the beginning and the people had hope. This time it would optimistic to see this lasting more than 8 weeks. Someone, somewhere must be saying that Hamas must be involved.
November 16, 2007 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 16, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear teacher MJ,
I'm sure that you must be proud of your best deciple, Sean1979. With Sean on your side, the victory is around the corner.
November 16, 2007 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets forget what the PA demands of Israel. In the last week Hamas kiled seven members of Fatah and have started rounding up journalists. Hamas has threatened to take over the West Bank as they did Gaza if their is a settlement. Abbas said that Hamas will have to give up Gaza if they want to be let back into the PA.
The Palestinians don't seem to be able to stop killing each other nor honor any agreements between each other.
I must have missed the posts discussing and denouncing these actions. These must have been with the ones condemning Syria's control of Lebanon.
Israel has little to worry about from Congress as long as their opponents are the Palestinians.
I wonder, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine were all part of Greater Syria within the Ottoman Empire. Does anyone think Syria will leave any new Palestinian State alone. I will predict now this will be greeted with deadly silence.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 16, 2007 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't quite decipher your point, are you saying that Palestinians are savages through and through, and so can be disregarded?
November 16, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
He presented you with some information, and you can make any conclusions you wish.
November 16, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you talk about historic Palestine what in heavens name are you referring to? Did the land that is now Jordan simply not exist in ancient times?
November 16, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to defend MJ, he is just using PLO talking point. Don't blame him, blame PLO.
November 16, 2007 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that this is a virtual impossibility but maybe if we turned off the flow of weapons (and the money used to purchase them) to the region we might be able to start making some progress. This of course applies to all parties involved. So for every person screaming about Syria and Iran and who they supply weapons to, you need to also mention the United States.
It seems a bit silly to me that people continue trying to find a peaceful solution and yet fail to deal with the reality that there are weapons everywhere. Weapons are probably more available than food. Just look how many weapons we're supplying to god knows who with our fast and loose actions in Iraq. Does anyone want to deny that some of those missing or black marketed crates of guns and ammo will end up involved in violence elsewhere in the region and not just in Iraq? I'll bet they do. And I'll also bet no one will start rattle sabers and talking tough to the United States about how WE are supporting terrorism and violence in the region as they do for the countries of Syria and Iran. If Syria and Iran are knowingly supporting this kind of violence what are we doing? While on the surface we may be able to say that we're not doing it intentionally but we also don't seem to really give a damn that ultimately we're doing it too. And I'm personally not so sure one is any worse than the other.
November 16, 2007 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 16, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I'll take your "screw you" reply and raise you a "let's divest and let them all fight it out amongst themselves."
November 16, 2007 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back on MJ's post, my thoughts are the establishment is coming to the conclusion that the Palestinians are turning more and more into people that have nothing to lose. This is how I interpreted the Hamas electoral victory, "What the hell, how much worse can it get?"
The establishment has come to except the obvious, probably with the help of the happenings in Iraq, that people with nothing to lose are rather inclined to do some rather violent, hateful things towards those they feel persecuted by. Hence why we have the Shia-Sunni violence, complete with finger-nail pulling torture and summary executions, and the Palestinian continuation of violence against Israelis and this new trend of Palestinian killings.
So does this mean that concessions are finally on the table?
November 16, 2007 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
Davai, With all due respect I'm supposing that you prefer peace and its benefits to war and the resultant horrors.
Everyone knows there are myriad problems which present difficulties to reaching accord between Israelis and Palestinians.
What I ask you to furnish, if you will, is an outline of the requirements that YOU expect the Palestinians to conform to (on the one hand) and the concessions and/or requirements incumbent on the Israelis to achieve peace. Will you comply with this request?
Constant snark toward MJR is certainly your right, but it is not very productive in addressing the main question of Peace in the Middle East.
November 16, 2007 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
syvanen,
Hamas has pretty much excluded themselves, even rejecting the Arab League Beirut/Riyadh initiative. And while Hamas won a majority in the PLC, a look further inside the numbers showed that Fatah had often split their own votes running more than one candidate per seat in a district where Hamas would run only one. Khalil Shikaki's research has also revealed less actual popular support for Hamas among Palestinians as well. I don't have the data at my fingertips, but it's out there somewhere -- If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll try and find it and post it when I get a better chance.
November 16, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, that's really not necessary. Calm it down.
November 16, 2007 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hamas has pretty much excluded themselves, even rejecting the Arab League Beirut/Riyadh initiative.
Wrong. Important factions within Hamas did accept the Arab League suggestion at the time it was made. Shortly afterward the US denounced them, placed Hamas in the humiliating position of pleading to join the talks and they backed away.
"There is no one to speak with" is the Israeli and their right US wing supporters line used to sabotage any potential progress. Why do you join them here? This is a poison pill that will render any agreement useless.
November 16, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I long for "peace in the middle east" and hope it can be achieved. But as long as Rosenberg and others continue with nonsense like:
"The PA recognizes Israel’s right to security, opposes terrorism, and supports the signing of a peace treaty with Israel that would allow it to establish a state in 22 percent of historic Palestine (while agreeing that the Jewish state would encompass the other 78 percent)."
it is difficult to have sensible discussions.
The term "historic Palestine", if it means anything, must mean the mandate, land on both sides of the Jordan. More than 2/3rd were taken out for arab settlement in "transjordan" before the area west of the Jordan was even considered. Whatever the final outcome, Israel will have not 78 percent, but less than a quarter of "historic Palestine".
With that, I wish the conference great success with the result of a safe and secure israel.
November 16, 2007 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't speak for Davai but I have an remote in-law that makes similar public arguments. I once asked him the same question with the same assumptions that you posed -- just what would a final agreement look like. His answer was a real conversation stopper. Namely, it is a fight to the death. Victory for Israel would be uncontested control of 100% of the British mandate. Transfer would solve the occupation problem. Short of this the Arabs would annihilate or drive the Jews into the sea. At the time he resided in the Westbank and served in the IDF patrolling in the Westbank. After he married and had a child he came back to the US out of fear for their safety. Maybe he has changed since then.
November 16, 2007 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that this time, Israel is saying explicitly that they do have a partner.
November 16, 2007 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
I guess the big--and hopeful--surprise is that AIPAC is supporting this letter, even if it's less than a full court support.
Moreover, they seem to be standing up to some of their biggest supporters.
Very interesting development.
November 16, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly there was a "what do we have to lose" aspect to Hamas's electoral victory. But at least as important was the fact that Palestinians were fed up with Fatah's culture of corruption and longstanding failure to address the need for basic municipal services. (A cynic might suggest that this was just a continuation of the historic pattern of Arab leaders, including Arafat, intentionally keeping the Palestinians in desperate straights to forestall complacency in the struggle against Israel. But I digress ... ) So there was a certain "throw the bums out" attitude that was not directly concerned with Israel. All of which militates toward assisting with any efforts likely to help the Palestinians achieve measurable progress toward a decent level of economic and civic success. Is that a concession - or a smart move for Israel's benefit?
November 16, 2007 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is good. It is also interesting that their #1 donor is the guy who funds that loathsome neocon Iraq-Iran war booster org, Freedom Watch.
November 16, 2007 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Historic Palestine is where Palestinians live and have always lived i.e. in what is now Israel and the West Bank. It also refers to the so-called Holy Land. The East Bank of the Jordan (i.e. the country of Jordan) is not and never has been historic Palestine but is Bedouin country.
What Palestinian city or town has ever existed there? Palestinians lived in Israel, Jerusalenm Hebron,Ramallah, Jenin, Nablus etc.
The idea that Jordan is Palestine is a joke invented by Likud propagandists.
November 16, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 16, 2007 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
I was NOT making an argument syvanem, public or otherwise.
I was asking for Davai (and now you, since you have entered into my quest for answers) to furnish an outline of what you think would be terms acceptable to you RE the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Your implied suggestion of a 'fight to the death' hardly advances any meaningful terms for discussing the issue. Perhaps a 'fight to the death' is what we are seeing at present...albeit in the opening stages.
But, at any rate, why do you take a serious request for opinions and turn it into an 'argument'?
November 16, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
tmp still has your old headline:
M.J. Rosenberg thinks Capitol Hill orthodoxy on Israel is slipping.
--David Kurtz
Let them know.
November 16, 2007 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Andrew,
I'll try.
I would like to ask you about journalistic standards of tmpcafe.
The headline of the first version of the MJ’post was “Capitol Hill Orthodoxy on Israel Slipping” He created impression that Ackerman’s letter was some kind of victory ove AIPAC.
I pointed out that AIPAC supported this letter proving that the first version of MJ post was misleading. Then MJ changed the headline and added new comments without without acknowledging the change Do you approve such actions?
November 16, 2007 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 16, 2007 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You missed my point. I wasn't making an argument but simply relating an answer to a question similar to the one you posed.
November 16, 2007 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you MJ for clarifying that about what was once Palestine and Arab. So my ancestors who were (and the current generation is) Jewish, don't count? They've lived for all of our history in the Yaffa area, but that's irrelevant? Because the Arabs who are now known as Palestinians also have lived there for probably the same length of time? And what about the stories in the fictional works know as the Bible and Torah who ascribe the Hebrew tribes living in that area long ago. Totally fictional, no? Never happened obviously. Likud propaganda in your view?
If what you say is the real truth and all the area was Palestinian Arab back then, why then let any Jews stay there? They have no right to be there at all. Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Yaffa, all Arab cities stolen by the Jews. Kick them all out and however it's done is right and justified. Yes, sir.
November 16, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What in God's name are you talking about? I don't know about where your ancestors lived. But I do know that Palestinians and Jews both lived in what now consists of Israel and the West Bank. They did not live in Jordan.
And that was your original point, that Jordan is Palestine. It isn't.
As for the Torah and Bible being works of history, who could argue with that? God only wrote non-fiction.
November 16, 2007 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, Californians live in California, they don't live in Oregon or Nevada. So, what's your point?
In any case, Israel is a tiny coastal strip (10-15 miles at the narrow point, 60 -80 miles the widest point) plus desert Negev. I think people don’t understand how small Israel really is.
November 16, 2007 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The critics misunderstand your importance davai. You're very useful to Mr Rosenberg. Your fascism gives him cover to pursue his more moderate racist policies. And you forget he's already come out against Arab democracy. His support for Abbas is just continuing that logic.
And I've read nothing on this site about what the Israelis are doing in Gaza.
November 16, 2007 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Seth,
From your point of view, why I'm an fascist but
Mr Rosenberg is only moderate racist?
November 16, 2007 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Colore Oscuro, Wordie, leftAhead, Andrew Weakland
You rated my comment 0 and 1.
I’m guessing you don’t like my comment at all, however you seems have no problem with ugly personal attack on Rahm Emauel by this jerk, Sean. BTW Rahm Emauel was one of the leaders of Democratic Party, most responsible for the Democratic victory in 2006. I understand your reasons, so I’m not surprised.
But I’m still waiting for MJ Sister Souljah moment. Will he ever have a courage to say to his so called supporters, such as Sean, that they are not his supporters or will MJ have a courage to say that they are real base of his support and is proud to have Sean as his supporter.
November 16, 2007 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I troll-rated you because your major activity here is attacking, rightly or wrongly, MJ's position. I believe it is fair to say that most posters here don't really care about your opinion of MJ, but will form their own opinion of MJ based on the way they will read MJ's points.
I say this only to say that I will continue to troll rate any attack on MJ, not because I am defending MJ, but because you have long ago made your point. You are not going to change and MJ is not going to change.
Reporters shouting "do you have a comment" or "will you resign" do not add clarity after the fortieth or so time they say the same thing and get the same non-answer. Are you willing to move on in discussion of the subject of these threads, or is your major action to be your one-sided feud with MJ?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 16, 2007 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point MJ is in 1947 the Arabs were offered more than 50% of the land we're talking about, and refused the offer saying they wanted it all, and to prove their point attacking in an attempt to get it all. Or do you think the Jews started that war just like they did start 1956, 1967, 1973 (oops, bad call), and 1982?
Also please take a look at the Palestinian internal polls, most of which seem to me to be good and accurate and not propaganda tools like some US polls. Whatever are we going to do about the fairly substantial group who not only do not accept the existence of Israel but will never accept it. Yes, there are also a smaller number of Israeli's who feel that all Palestinian must go, but I think the history of Israel proves that at some point point they will fight their own terror groups and beat them. There's a reason that no Son of the Stern Gang and no Son of Irgun exists in Israel and hasn't for a long time. And no, please don't tell me their role is played by the IDF or the Golani Brigade of the IDF or something like that. If you think the IDF is a terrorist organization that's fine with me. Idiotic in my opinion, but fine. But there is a difference between terror that is part of the government and terror that is uncontrolled like the militias in Iraq. Calling the Revolutionary Guards or whatever of Iran or its Quds Force a terrorist group is equally idiotic. They're, like the IDF, agents of their government, which can be good or bad.
One last point. Howard in a comment close to this one has indicated he will troll rate disagreements with you. Nice. Although he says he's not defending you. You might tell him something that Justice Robert Jackson wrote in 1943 (I think): "Effort to coerce uniformity of opinion lead only to the uniformity of the graveyard."
November 17, 2007 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fluffy said:
Your statement presents the Israel-centric view of what happened, which isn't an accurate picture. The British had promised the Arabs a state for all the inhabitants of Palestine - both arab and Jewish - but they reneged, and that ultimately led to a exclusively Jewish state being created and the nakkba. Is it really so surprising that the Arabs objected?
Your statement about "sons" of Irgun or the Stern gang is quite curious. What occupation is it that they would be fighting today, exactly? The fact that there were terrorist groups fighting to create the state of Israel, just as there are now similar groups fighting to create a Palestinian state ought to make you re-evaluate.
While I can't speak for Howard, I've been downrating those comments of davai's that consist of nothing more than attacks on M.J. I do so because they fill up the thread with meaningless nonsense rather than because I wish to defend M.J. It's not a disagreement over opinion, because generally davai isn't posting anything of substance, only an attack.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 17, 2007 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
After reading all of the posts I've come to the conclusion that the area that is now Israel, including the West Bank and Gaza, should be renamed IsraPales and all inhabitants should be equal and should be called Israpalesians.
November 17, 2007 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest you reread what I said, because you seem to be misinterpreting two things:
For whatever reason, you didn't address these criticisms to me, when your problem is with me. You directed them to MJ, as if he is my leader in some way. He's not. I don't believe in the Zionist ideology, but I'm certainly willing to recognize Israel as a real and significant country. Not supporting Zionism as such, I suspect, would establish just a leeeetle difference between my positions and MJ's.
Zionista and I have had a number of discussions where we disagreed, but I hope we each clarified our positions, even to ourselves. She made a point about the unusual commitment of the US to a mixed society, and correctly pointed out that many countries are much more religiously or ethnically selective. That helped me clarify that I am most willing to see the US support countries that want that culture, although the relationship with any country needs to be evaluated in terms of quite a few features of its relationship with the US.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 17, 2007 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me first tell what would make me happy.
If Clinton plan could be implemented I would very happy.
If newly Palestinian state would be stable functioned state that was able and willing to prevent any terrorist activities from it’s territories and would not be used as a base for Iran or other enemies of Israel. , that would be great.
However, no matter what Abbas is willing to tell you today, the chances that future Palestinian state will be such state are very remote.
Therefore I don’t know what to do. One of possibilities is to move 100K Israeli who live outside the fence back to Israel, therefore completing separating of West Bank from Israel, and use US reconstruction of Japan as an example, slowly build Palestinian state over next 20 year. Another possibility is for Jordan to take over West Bank and Gaza.
November 17, 2007 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a great idea. I think this should be a first step. I've come to the conclusion that the area that's now Israel, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Balkans, and etc should be renamed
Ottoman Empire and all inhabitants should be equal and should be called ottomanians.
While we there, I've come to the conclusion that the area that is now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, should be renamed IndiaPakistanBangladesh, and all inhabitants should be equal and should be called IndiaPakistanBangladeshians.
November 17, 2007 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
November 17, 2007 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think Davai's thought patterns could be set to music. They are quite interesting in a weird way. I guess he's trying to be arch but comes off as Jughead.
November 17, 2007 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
syvanen,
No, I am not wrong. At the time of the March Arab League Summit in Riyadh, Ha'aretz reported that, at best, Hamas leadership was prepared to adopt a policy of ambiguity toward the initiative. Further,
Meanwhile, the Palestine Center for Policy and Survey Research reports ongoing trends in diminishing support among the Palestinian electorate for Hamas and increasing support for Fatah:
syvanen,
I really don't. I appreciate that it would be an easier position for you to argue against, but you will just have to stretch your intellectual capacities this time.
November 17, 2007 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 17, 2007 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying Arabs never lived anywhere?
or maybe
Arabs all lived in Oklahoma until Israel was created then the Okie Arabs moved to Israel?
November 17, 2007 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, I see you are regurgitating the same falsehoods that I refuted in the past, but I will repeat them here for the sake of new readers..
There NEVER was an Arab geopolitical entity called "Palestine". The Arabs don't even have an Arabic name for the country. Palestine is a corruption of a Roman name given by Emperor Hadrian in order to eradicate the Jewish identity of the country which had been called "Judea". They named the country after a long extinct ethnic group who were the "Philistines". There never was a political border along the Jordan River that gave any sort of different ethno-political distinctions between people living on both sides of the Jordan River before 1922. This artificial was made by Churchill and the British, not the Arabs. Churchill gave something like 80% of what they called "Palestine" (i.e. the East Bank) to the Arabs. The Arabs rejected the term "Palestinians", preferring to call the area "Southern Syria". Before 1948, the term "Palestinian" mean "Jew", again, because the Arabs rejected the geopolitical entity called "Palestine" saying it was an artificial vivisection of the Arab world, done by the British and French.
The nation states of the Arab Middle are artificial creations of the European colonialists in the last 100 years, there really is no concept of "nationalism" in the Western sense, with the exception of Egypt. Of course, the Arab world is riven by tribalism, with much mutual divisiveness, but this is NOT based on geopolitical divisions which are of recent vintage. Before 1922 there was no "nationalistic" differences between the east and west side of the Jordan, the difference were tribal only, but these tribal difference also exist within the Arab societies existing in both the East and West Banks. However, the overridding religion and culture of the East and West Bank was Muslim and Arab, with some minorities. The concept of "Historic Palestine" IS TOTALLY ALIEN TO THE ARABS, it is a western, Christian concept.
November 17, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great points.
I should add that now PLO is using "Historic Palestine" and numbers 78% and 22% as their talking points to prove how unfair deal Arabs got.
November 17, 2007 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jordan is the MAJORITY OF "PALESTINE" territory. Churchill, by an artificial sweep of the pen in 1922 confined "Palestine" to the West bank only. The Balfour Declaration originally applied to the East Bank as well.
The Arabs never defined themselves as Palestinians. Jews have lived in the east bank throughout history. The reason there aren't any today is due to ethnic cleansing. Large numbers of Arabs today live in areas under Jewish rule, ZERO Jews live in historic Eretz Israel areas under Arab rule, they were either massacred or expelled. Jews lived in many places in Judea/Samaria before 1948.
In fact, the Arabs only arrived in this area in large numbers after the Arab conquest of the 7th century. They then proceeded to ethnically cleanse the Jews AND Christians out of the country by imposition of the discriminatory "dhimmi" laws.
November 17, 2007 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
There never was an historic place known as the United States of America either. So I guess I'm not really an American.
How odd for a Zionist to argue about other people's national myths.
It's okay for some kid in Great Neck, Long Island to claim a connection (deep, loving, entrenched) to a place 6000 miles away that he has only visied for a week and when the only place he can prove his ancestors came from is Poland or Russia,
But it's not okay for people who have lived nowhere else but Palestine to claim they are Palestinians.
November 17, 2007 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
In general, I'm not a manager of MJ, who should provide MJ with constructive critisism, we are not discussing a new RFC. There are different standards here set by a moderator.
November 17, 2007 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so now you admit there is no such thing as "Historic Palestine", and the "Palestinians" started using this name in 1948. Fine.
November 17, 2007 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you like John and my ideas.
Let's get started. IndiaPakistanBangladesh ahead!!!
November 17, 2007 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
hahha, Jughead, remember him? :-)
November 17, 2007 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if Davai wears that hat!
November 17, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if Davai wears that hat!
November 17, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I may have come to one the roots of the problem!
I was talking to the daughter of a friend, she just graduated from a great college. She was saying that the Palestinian people are a "fiction."
I asked this blond American Jewish girl whose family came from Poland in 1910 or so. "So you think you have more of a connection to the land of Israel or Palestine than a Palestinian Arab who was born there and whose family has been there for a thousand years or more."
She not only said "yes." She said it was a stupid question because "everyone knows that land belongs to the Jews."
She is not religious at all. Everything she knows about Israel came from one of those free trips Jewish college kids get.
The good news is that, according to the latest polls, very few Jews feel that way, only a tiny minority of young American Jews feel that way.
But still.
November 17, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ-prove your assertion that "most Jews don't feel that way" about what the girl said. I presume you know that the Balfour Declaration was given to the Jewish people by the Western world because they were well aware of the preeminent link of the Jewish people to Eretz Israel, and then reconfirmed by the League of Nations. Eretz Israel is recognized by the these declarations as "the National Home of the Jewish people". No mention of any "Palestinian people". UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which date as late as 1973 make no mention of any "Palestinian people".
I find it encouraging that young non-religious Jews feel attached to their people and land. Your guilt feelings (and this type of of Jewish reaction is nothing new) are not representative of world Jewry or the people of Israel. Your nonsensicle statement in a previous thread that "Israel is a pariah" simply shows how out of touch with reality you are. While it is true that the Arab/Muslim world hates Israel and is the preeminent source of antisemitism in the world, the rest of the world is generally neutral or even friendly to Israel and in awe of the achievements of Israel. A French President was elected easily who, during the election campaign, took an openly pro-Israel and pro-American line.
November 17, 2007 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hamas made some significant changes in their position during those talks. Of course they did not concede every point that the US and Israel were demanding but they did signal that they were willing to enter into negotiations. That was rejected by our side. By insisting that we will pick the Palestinian negotiators we are dooming any possible agreement with Abbas. Israel going from "there is no one to talk to" to excluding the democratically elected Palestinian representatives after picking "our" man to negotiate with is not much of an improvement.
There is one sliver of hope in these talks and that is that Rice has brought in the Saudis by promising them that once the talks begin Hamas will have an opening to join. If progressive proIsraeli forces in the US wish to help in this process I believe they should encourage that development. Your continued opposition to Hamas involvment will just play into the hands of those forces that see these talks as a means to delay and allow the occupation to continue indefinitely. The fact that AIPAC is not mounting a frontal assault against the talks probably means that they to agree with my assessment that nothing will be accomplished but more setbacks that will strenghthen the Likud forces here and in Israel.
November 17, 2007 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good. It nice to see for a change that you wonder about something. It's a good start.
But now I see doubts in you mind. See Howard, not everything is lost.I was afraid that you had mindset of the people described by famous Samisdat poet and bard Alexander Galich:
November 17, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ cited "polls" as his evidence. Granted, he might have been a little more specific, but at least he cited some kind of evidence that can be checked.
After challenging him, you yourself provide no evidence at all for your contrary claims. Sorry, historical talk about the Balfour Declaration and UN resolutions, whatever truth it may have, proves nothing one way or the other about MJ's assertions about Jewish opinion.
November 17, 2007 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
the Palestinian people are not fiction. However, Palestinian people are very recent phenomenon. There was no country Palestine, there were no separate people called Palestinians until very recently.
Please, MJ, don't create more fiction.
There are very few Arabs how now live in Israel, West Bank or Gaza can claim that their family has been there for a thousand years or more.
On another hand, it doesn't matter. For resolution of I/P conflict it doesn't matter if majority of Arabs can can claim that their family has been there for a thousand years or only for 120 years.
November 17, 2007 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
You've just proven Howard's point more powerfully than he or anyone else could possibly do. You really cannot tell the difference between your random, scattershot attacks on MJ and reasoned disagreements with him on specific issues, which others, and even occasionally you, make. You can't tell the difference between good arguments and bad. To the rest of us not so blinded as you, the former are just noise, but the latter have some value.
November 17, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reread MJ's post. It's quite clear what views he's talking about.
November 17, 2007 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The polls MJ is referring to will show that a majority of Jews supposedly favor the unachievable "two-state solution". I am sure the large majority who say they are for this do so because it seems the "reasonable" course to follow. This is a far cry from his assertion that most Jews do not believe that the Jewish people have an ussailable claim to Eretz Israel. Of course, there is the problem of how to deal with the non-Jewish population, but this does not infer that they have "national rights". I mentioned Balfour because those who granted it (Britain and the League of Nations) viewed the Jews as having exclusive national rights in Eretz Israel, so it is not surprising if the majority of Jewish people feel the same.
Again, I admit that many Jews want to give the Palestinians a state, because they wrongly feel that the Palestinians want "self-determination". This is not a contradition to what I am saying. In the end, there will not be a Palestinian state becaue they Palestinians are not interested in "self-determination", they are interested in eradicating Israel. Ultimately, MJ is in the same boat as the rest of us he denounces at "Likudniks", "pro-settler", "religious fanatics" or whatever, because he does recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish settlement called "Tel Aviv", and even he says that the flight of the Arabs who attacked Israel in 1948 (the so-called "refugee problem") is irreversable, and all of this can only be justified by referring back to the historical fact of