Do Democratic Candidates Back Annapolis Peace Process?
I've been out of town and not spending my usual massive amounts of internet time. So I really don't know if the Democratic candidates for President have spoken out in support of the negotiating process that was kicked off at Oslo.
I do know that the subject of Israel-Palestine never comes up in debates, as if the moderators don't want to waste time listening to the candidates, one after another, express undying devotion to the status quo (and then maybe bash Walt-Mearsheimer and Jimmy Carter for good measure).
But now the Israel-Palestine issue should be front and center.
I give Bush, Olmert and Abbas credit. Talking is better than not talking and the Americans not only have set out a timetable to achieve a Palestinian state and a peace treaty but intend to establish an enforcement mechanism. It's almost like the Clinton era. (Give him credit. He really tried).
So what do our candidates think? Does Hillary Clinton support the so-called Clinton parameters by which Israel exchanges the territories, shares Jerusalem and achieves peace and security? Do the others.
Frankly, I don't expect straight answers from candidates on this issue. They invariably are more concerned with a few very right-wing donors than what Israelis, Palestinians or the vast majority of American Jews (who support land-for-peace but tend not to write big campaign checks) think.
This is one of the best litmust tests for Presidential leadership. Does a potential President support the Prime Minister of Israel when he commits himself to getting out of the territories and establishing peace with the Palestinians. Or do other (obvious) considerations matter more?
Readers in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc, should ask the candidates point black and let me know. A candidate too "cautious" to support a peace process inaugurated by Bush and Olmert is, in my opinion, a panderer not a President.
Let's find out.
Note: You don't have to bother asking Bill Richardson. He has been strong and forthright on this issue since day one. Ask the others.


Comments (282)
MJ,
It would be refreshing to see or hear the matter articulated in that way -- ie, "Do you support the Prime Minister of Israel's goal of ending the occupation and implementing Palestinian political independence beside Israel?"
But we all know that is seldom how the question comes out. Typically these questions seem loaded up more provacatively, and phrased in terms of concessions and competition. Our punditry needs to get off the usual script as much as, if not more than, the candidates.
November 29, 2007 6:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, MJ, Amen.
And I agree, the question is well put.
Very clever, in the GOOD sense of the term.
November 29, 2007 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 29, 2007 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 29, 2007 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
as far as I see it, "Annapolis" was a dog and pony show. our politicians probably think: "if there was peace, I'd be out of a job."
To boldly go...
November 29, 2007 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
mcs,
Why? What were your expectations, and how did the conference fall short of them?
November 29, 2007 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm only saying that it's a "wait and see thing." every US president, it seems-- just before leaving office, does their Israel/Palestinian peace thing. Maybe things will be different this time...
To boldly go...
November 29, 2007 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. I could agree with you about the dog-&-pony aspect of the conference, at least where Bush & Co. are concerned. But at the same time, I believe that the principal parties take it all very seriously. My greater hope tends toward the Arab League delegations' willingness to enable the Israelis' sense of confidence in their security with real policies that normalize relations with Israel. I am confident that such tangible efforts would create the political atmosphere for Olmert's government to succeed in meeting their obligations, and also motivate the Palestinians to build and maintain the civil infrastructure necessary to emerge as a functional state.
November 29, 2007 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Walt-Mearsheimer and Carter express anti-Semitic views over and over. Rosenberg never fails to support these bigots. It calls into question anything else he says.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 29, 2007 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ says "talking is better than not talking". Under current circumstances, the opposite is true. Starting with Oslo in 1993, each time there have been "negotiations", progress, optimism", there has been an INCREASE in violence. Violence was minimal when there was NO "progress". Oslo was signed in 1993, and was followed by the first wave of suicide bombings. Oslo II was signed shortly before Rabin was assassinated. Israel then pulled its forces out of the Arab towns and then a bigger wave of suicide bombings occurred which had Arafat's explicit approval (this was revealed in the Knesset by Peres in response to a question by Benny Begin). It was this wave that caused Peres to lose the 1996 election. Netanyahu's election slowed "progress" down and there was a significant decrease in violence. Barak in 2000 tried to wrap up a final agreement at Camp David and later at Taba and this led to the biggest wave of terrorism Israel had ever seen, with over 1000 murdered and thousands more wounded. Sharon replace Barak and finally, after the Pesach Night massacre in Netanya in 2002, Sharon was finally forced to move against the Palestinians, and their towns were reoccupied, and after eight years, Israel was able to begin regular anti-terrorist operations in addition to locking Arafat up in his Mukata HQ in Ramallah, which led to a major improvement in the security situation. Sharon then decided to throw away all the advantages this had brought
and to destroy Gush Katif. This brought the big increase in rocket fire from the Gaza Strip and the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit and killing of IIRC another soldierthere, in addition to encouraging HIZBULLAH to attack across the northern border killing and kidnapping more soldiers.
Thus, we see here that negotiations with terrorists (I am including the whole Palestinian Authority and Abbas in this category) simply encourages them to attack. Their policy is to negotiate and kill at the same time. They view Israel's pushing for negotiations and willingness to make concessions as weakness and this encourages the violence. When Israel stands fast, they lose the motiviation to attack, seeing that it doesn't help. Thus, the way to make peace is not through nonsensicle theatrics like Annapolis, but by Israel REFUSING to make concessions, and by putting off INFORMAL talks about improving the lives of the Arabs in an economic and security sense
until the Arabs prove they are willing to live as civilized human beings and reject the cult of death they have adopted.
November 29, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please, MJ, stop your nonsensicle talk about "sharing" Jerusalem. The Israeli Left who generally supports the suicidal policies that you espouse don't call it that. They call it "dividing the city" and they know very well what that entails.
I have already shown in earlier threads that "sharing" or "dividing" Jerusalem means DESTROYING Jerusalem, and turning it into a cauldron of violence like Beirut, Belfast and Baghdad. You know this perfectly well, so please use more accurate terminology.
November 29, 2007 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
Just wanted to offer props on the mention in last week's Economist article "Cinderella at Annapolis." Fourth graf, nicely done.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
November 29, 2007 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no reason that a means can't be devised to keep Jerusalem physically undivided but administratively separate. It is also a matter of what one calls Jersualem. The Old City, the more modern areas.
How would having Israel govern the Arab parts of Jerusalem in perpetuity produce any less violence than some form of political division as part of a peace agreement?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 29, 2007 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently the Jewish Lobby knows no bounds.
From Haaretz.com:
ALGIERS - France's Foreign Ministry expressed surprise Wednesday about an Algerian government minister's remarks about a "Jewish lobby" being behind French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
TDaniel A. Greenbaum
November 29, 2007 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love for all that to happen. the tougher thing, I think, is healing... The reason why I'm suspicious is that I support a one state solution but, if relationships can be normalized-- as you indicated, that's great too.
To boldly go...
November 29, 2007 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would having Israel govern the Israeli Arabs in perpetuity be any different than ruling Arab parts of Jerusalem? Arabs in Jerusalem are entitled to full Israeli citizenship if they want it, and even if they don't, they get National Insurance benefits.
November 29, 2007 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I realize mentioning Daniel Pipes to this crowd is like waving a red cape in front of a bull. Nevertheless, he brings up a very interesting issue in The Jerusalem Post.
The Arab response to this is very telling:
Pipes draws the only possible conclusion:
Those who think that negotiations as they are currently envisioned will lead to peace need to grapple with this issue. Why is the Palestinian leadership unwilling to acknowledge the Jewish character of Israel? If they were negotiating in good faith, this should be a non-issue. The formula of "two states, Palestinian and Israeli, living side by side in peace" implies that the reason for two states is that one should be Jewish and the other Arab. If not, why have two states at all? Indeed, declaring their acceptance of Israel's Jewish character would go a long way towards giving Israelis the confidence to make concessions.
The only possible explanation for their refusal is that to acknowledge the Jewish character of Israel and to accept it is to say that once the details of a treaty are agreed, the conflict will be be well and truly over.
Consequently, while the Arabs may agree to an Israeli state, as long as Israel is a Jewish state, the conflict will go on. Now it is possible to acknowledge that and still say that a treaty is better than no treaty. Similarly, it is possible to say that acceptance of Israel's Jewish character is part of reconciliation and that a treaty is the first step towards reconciliation. I don't agree with either of these statements, but I can at least agree that they are honest. What is totally not honest is asserting that a treaty between Israel and the Palestinians constitutes "peace".
November 29, 2007 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Even though I have no idea as to what is going on, am not a party to the negotiations, do not know the parameters or metrics of the talks nor am I privy to any discussions, promises, guarantees or rewards promised to the participants, have no access to private discussions, conversations and negotiations and have not personally assessed the situation and having no personal involvement whatsoever,I wholeheartedly support and endorse PM Olmert in whatever is going on at Annapolis because no matter how ignorant or in the dark I am as to the details or process some people want me to throw prudence and caution to the wind and utter a blind, uneducated endorsement as a litmus test of leadership."
Yours truly,
The candidate
November 29, 2007 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
BradtheDad says:
Has anyone ever asked them?
November 29, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
DanielGree said:
If someone told me Jesse Jackson supports
David Duke I doubt if I'd believe them.
November 29, 2007 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Israel should recognize Palestine as a Muslim state and they can toss a coin to decide who has the better imaginary friend.
November 29, 2007 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ you point out the one positive thing that I have seen come out of Annapolis and that is to open a discussion in national politics for the creation of a Westbank Palestinian state. The conference itself was designed, perhaps out of Rice's sheer incompetence, to fail. We could even be in a worse place today than before.
There is one thing that has emerged that may have set back future talks. This is the new demand, so enthusiastically endorsed by Pipes, that the Palestinians must now recognize Israel as a Jewish state, not just recognize Israel as a state which has already been done. Possibly Olmert made this demand simply to appeal to the Israeli right and it can be forgotten. But if not it is a deal killer.
Has any country in the world recognized Israel as a "Jewish" state? What does that mean? Someone provide a definition. Then will rest of the world be required to recognize this new entity? By what definition can one come up with that would not relegate Christian and Moslem Israeli citizens to second class status? How could any Palestinian accept such a demand? Just asking these questions and thinking a few seconds about their implications shows the utter and total bad faith on the part of Israel to even place this demand on the table.
November 29, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you actually think that if someone did ask them, the answer would be worth anything?
November 29, 2007 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What other country in the world demands that other states formally recognize the perpetual right to dominance of its dominant ethnic group? This is just another moving goalpost.
November 29, 2007 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad I'm getting my new glasses in a couple of weeks. At first, that registered as Jesse Jackson supporting Donald Duck.
That led me to a bit of cartoon meditation. When Donald was asked a question, he'd quack, squawk, and wiggle, but never actually answer, rather like GWB at a press conference.
I wonder if the AFLAC duck, being somewhat smoother, is really Huey, Louie, or Dewie who managed to get through Harvard Business School?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
Are politics transcending parody?
November 29, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
syvanen,
You are making the common mistake of limiting Jewish identity strictly to its religious component. To whatever extent that certain national components of Jewish identity may be rooted in ancient and medieval religious traditions is by now beside the point. Israel is a Jewish state the same way 23 member nations of the Arab League are Arab states.
November 29, 2007 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
William Burns,
Most of them. A significant privilege of national sovereignty is the determination of who gets to be a citizen of the state. It works this way in Ireland, and it will work the same way in Palestine.
November 29, 2007 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Eric. By the way, I'm on Bill Moyers Journal Friday tonight on PBS discussing the Christian Zionists.
MJ
November 29, 2007 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you please elaborate on this view because I just don't get it. The Arab league is made of countries in Arabia aka The Middle East. Israel isn't a member because it wasn't invited to the region. I understand that "Jewish" can represent both religion and cultural identity, but I don't see how either of those apply to state-hood in a democracy. An Arab state is a state in Arabia, the same way a European State is in Europe. It seems a Jewish State falls along the lines of the group based in South Carolina claiming to be a "Christian State," or a country-club declaring itself a "Caucasian State" etc.
My reaction to this is why can't Israel just ask to be recognized as a Free Democratic State with equal rights for all, that just happens to have a lot of Jews? Thats not rhetorical, I really would like an explanation of this thinking because I think it could be a serious roadblock to progress in the IP conflict, since it is such an intangible issue.
November 29, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
But do these states require other states to recognize this? Is there even a formal mechanism by which other states recognize the right of Ireland to exist as an "Irish state"?
November 29, 2007 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Such a silly issue. Why should Israelis care whether Palestinians recognize Israel as anything other than as Israel. It's not up to the Arabs to determine the Jewishness of Israel just as it is not up to the Israel to recognize Iran as Shiite or Ireland as Catholic.
The whole point of Zionism was for Jews to have a state and to define it as they see fit.
It's a total non-issue, literally designed to move the goal posts.
November 29, 2007 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ireland's right of return requires that the prospective Irish returnee be able to demonstrate at least one grandparent born in Ireland. Much as I find meaning in the Celtic tradition of the Tuatha de Danann, as much as I find appealing the archetype of Lugh Ildanach and the exchange between Lugh and Nuada's doorkeeper, there's no recognition of ancient rights, of an identity more than two generations old.
I believe Germany and several other countries have roughly the same rule for right of return as a citizen: one grandparent born in a place that was part of the nation at the time of birth.
These are reasonably objective standards. Ironically, even the Nuremberg Laws of the Third Reich essentially went back two generations, although far further for such dubious honors as being qualified to join the SS.
Not all of these states, incidentally, recognize dual citizenship. If you want to claim citizenship when you return, you commit to it, much as certain people affixed their signatures to a document pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. No reserve citizenship if things aren't what you expected.
I know we disagree about Jewish identity being other than religious. Still, the idea of establishing personal descent within a verifiable historical period, and restricting return to those, strikes me as reasonable.
Luckily, I can prove I was born in the miasma of Newark, New Jersey. I happened to work on the first automated version of the US immigration system, and, as part of our orientation, the INS people offered us the option tracing our ancestry. Even though I knew the names of the vessels on which my grandparents arrived, the approximate date, and the port of entry, there was no record in the archives. For that period, they were ledgers from Ellis Island, and also ship manifests. Couldn't find anyone, even when we got my grandmother on the phone to help in narrowing it down.
One of the things that really bothers me is the idea of a Biblical right to land, somehow beyond the UN partition resolution.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 29, 2007 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gag. Maybe the Arabs won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state because that requires them to delegitimize the Arab Citizens of Israel. If that isn't offensive to you, then let's make a deal: Let's agree to ask all Americans to recognize America as a White Christian State...and if you object, I get to call you a bigot.
November 29, 2007 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the proof that Walt-Mearsheimer are anti-Semitic except you saying so? And is that all it takes? I also question the utility of ethnic lobbies on foreign policy. I guess that means I hate Jewish-, Cuban-, Irish- Armenian- Pakistani- and Indian-Anericans, among so many others.
Or...it could mean your libel of Walt-Mearsheimer is just that: libel.
November 29, 2007 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment is false. While it is true that the Catholic Church has a special position in Ireland--like the Church of England does in England--to compare that association with the privileges that attach to Israeli Jews versus Israeli Arabs or Arabs under Occupation in the West Bank and Control in Gaza is really, really misleading.
November 29, 2007 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew Weakland,
Israeli non-Jews in fact are enfranchised within the electoral system, and there are Arab parties represented in Israel's parliament (Knesset). Israel is ruled by civil law, not rabbinic law (halacha). Admittedly, Israel's society needs to catch up with the spirit of its civil law, and that is why there is a body of case law before its independent civil judiciary (again, not a rabbinic court [beit din]) regarding issues like land ownership. Israel is a democratic state with a Jewish character, much the same way Ireland is a democratic state with a Celtic character, or Lebanon struggles to be a democratic state with an Arab character.
November 29, 2007 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
mythbuster,
Recognizing the Jewish character of Israel no more delegitimizes Israeli-Arabs than recognizing Iran as a Persian state deligitimizes Iranian Jews.
November 29, 2007 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ireland and Germany determine who gets to be Irish and German. If it is to be considered somehow nefarious that Israel determine who gets to be Israeli, then that consideration appears to be discriminatory.
November 29, 2007 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, so why not just say "Israel is a democratic state with a Jewish character" instead of all this demanding-recognition-as-a-Jewish-State nonsense?
November 29, 2007 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The status of Israeli Arabs is altogether different from that of the Arabs in the Palestinian territories, because there was a war launched against Israel from the Arab countries that had been occupying those territories before Israel was. Israel needs to end the occupation, for its own sake if not for the sake of the people of the territories. Meanwhile, you keep imposing a bogus limitation on Jewish identity depending on the religion of Judaism. That is arrogant and it is wrong. So, you should stop that.
November 29, 2007 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe such recognition is implied through the diplomatic network of the international community.
November 29, 2007 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Than if Arab (or any other) states recognize Israel diplomatically, what would be the need for a separate recognition of "Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state"?
November 29, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
mjrosenberg,
Agreed. That said, I can understand and even relate to the sensitivity of the issue. No one questions the legitimacy of the Arab character of any Arab League member nation, even though Arab peoples are not the only peoples indigenous to the Middle East region. Even here in our own enlightened discourse, we find a wide opinion that refuses to accept or otherwise recognize that Jews are a legitimate nationality.
November 29, 2007 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not a "separate recognition" as long as only three out of 23 member nations of the Arab League recognize Israel diplomatically.
November 29, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
No I am not making any such mistake. I am saying that insisting on the Palestinians to recognize Israel as Jewish state is to ask them to officially acknowledge that her non-Jewish citizens will have secondary status. This is asking too much of Abbas.
This problem has infected Bush's rhetoric as he stated at Annapolis: "And the United States will keep its commitment to the security of Israel as a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people."
This is new folks. Our official recognition of Israel never raised its Jewish citizens to a preferred class. Hopefully Bush and Olmert are just throwing red meat at the Aipac and Likud followers and this is just empty rhetoric. But if it represents negotiating positions of the Israel and the US, we are guaranteed continued war.
November 29, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if you say Israel not only is a Jewish state, but "has the right to exist as a Jewish state" what would this imply, in a hypothetical situation where Israeli Arabs, as a result of differing rates of population growth, have become the majority of the Israeli population? Would preserving Israel's Jewish character justify depriving Arabs of the franchise or even expelling them from the country? And if the "right to exist as a Jewish state" doesn't imply that, what does it mean?
November 29, 2007 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew Weakland said:
Well, that sure is a mouthful, but it does seem to be less...........what is the word I'm looking for here? Separatist?
November 29, 2007 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, do those three states then have the obligation for the second recognition? Why in the case of Israel and not in that of Ireland? And before you say that Israel has enemies and Ireland doesn't, I will point out that if recognition of the ethnic character of states were a part of formal diplomacy, Ireland would be strongly motivated to extort such recognition from the United Kingdom.
November 29, 2007 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because, as of now, only 3 out of the 23 member nations of the Arab League (or Israel's neighboring states in the immediate region) even recognize Israel at all, and the reason for that is that Israel is a Jewish, and not an Arab, state.
November 29, 2007 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, well let's look at this way...
Should a Palestinian state be founded, what will it be called?
The State of Palestine.
A Free Democratic State with equal rights for all that just happens to have a lot of Palestinians in it.
Will the state have the right to restrict who moves there? Will they have the right to have immigration quotas? Do you think they will be open to a lot of non-Palestinians moving there?
The Palestinians are seeking the right of return. If the right is attached to the new state, will there be room for all other peoples who might want to move there? Will any other people have the right to move there?
Israel is a Jewish state the way the State of Palestine will be a Palestinian state. Their whole quest for a state is to have a state FOR the Palestinian people, not just any old people who wish to live there.
Somehow, we accept the idea that a Palestinian state would be (at least primarily) for Palestinians. But that same idea doesn't seem to flow so naturally when we are talking about the Jewish people and their state. Maybe because Jews also are attached to a religion, whereas Palestinians are both Christian and Muslim. But what if they were only Muslim?
Besides which...
Israel, and Zionism as such, emerged as a reaction to overwhelming anti-Semitism. I think it's safe to say that had the Holocaust not occurred, Jews themselves would not have moved to the region as they did. Of course, there were many positive aspects to the founding as well; but I'm not sure they would have been enough.
Now, I agree, we've had it "up to here" with the Holocaust. But really, for Jews, it's a recent event, much the way the naqba is a recent event for Palestinians. Living people's brother, sisters, and fathers and mothers died there. Some people don't have grandparents because of the Holocaust. And there was the expulsion from many Arab countries after 1948...
So I think until the memory of the Holocaust becomes distant...until anti-Semitism really becomes a chapter of history and not something that periodically recurs in, say, France, or Argentina or Russia...and perhaps until OTHER groups, such as the Muslims in Saudi Arabia say, "You're right, let's have the Free Democratic State of SA where all can come and live and worship as they please without fear...and anyone can become a citizen with full rights...until that time, a lot of Jews (though hardly all) will just feel better about having a Jewish state.
And really, it hardly takes up any room at all--certainly not compared to its neighbors.
When you look around the world, it isn't as big an anomaly as you might think, living here.
Now, I already feel Howard breathing down my neck...so, gotta go!
November 29, 2007 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Refresh me, then, on the rules. I may actually be confused by some of the admitted extremists that insist they have Biblical justification for a Greater Israel.
What are the criteria for someone exercising the right of return? Matrilineal only? How many generation? How much documentation?
Ireland and Germany put some fairly tight restrictions on their definitions. I would really like to know if Israel's definition is generally consistent with those major nations that claim an ethnic identity. Not all nations do make such a claim, and I find that rather healthy. Saudi Arabia is far less liberal than Israel, I'm sure, but Saudi Arabia makes no pretensions of being a liberal democracy.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 29, 2007 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
syvanen,
How so? Israel's non-Jewish citizens are Israelis. Politically, non-Jewish Israelis are fully enfranchised, if unfortunately they remain socially contrained. But I like to think that once the conflict is on its way to resolution, the civil and human rights circumstances in Israel will begin to sort itself out. Don't you think Palestine's non-Arab citizens will enjoy equal rights within the Palestinian legal structure?
November 29, 2007 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Separatist"? How is it that Israel gets tagged with loaded terms like that when the only multinational organization in the region, the Arab League, obviously excludes non-Arab states and has maintained an economic, cultural and political boycott against the only non-Arab state in the region for about the last sixty years?
November 29, 2007 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
William Burns,
It means that the Jewish people has national rights equal to the national rights that Arab peoples assert in states that heve the right to exist as Arab states.
November 29, 2007 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're all semites, aren't they?
November 29, 2007 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
hcberkowitz,
I believe the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs can provide the details. They have a website, I don't know the URL off the top of my head, but a Google search will get you there.
But does national legitimacy really depend so much upon a matter of degree? Have we redefined the idea of national sovereignty so that some aspect of international law requires consistency of citizenship requirements for, say, membership in the UN General Assembly?
November 29, 2007 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a silly issue. It's also disengenuous - if the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, then what's to stop Israel from claiming that parts of the Mideast are "Jewish?" Jerusalem is Jewish, Judeah is Jewish - if the Palestinians have to recognize that Israel is a Jewish state, then they must recognize whatever is claimed by the Jews to be Jewish.
November 29, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 29, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine, so my question returns, why is there a legitimate need for a separate, formal recognition beyond the normal process by which states recognize other states here? Has Israel recognized the "right of Arab states to exist as Arab states"? And for that matter, don't Arab states exist as separate states with separate citizenships, so that the issue is the right of Jordan as a Jordanian state? To which the analogy would be Israel's right to exist as an Israeli state, which is a tautology?
November 29, 2007 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Moscow initiative on the front page of the Wapo today strikes me as positive--even if it is just Russia trying to keep her hand in.
November 29, 2007 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should the new State of Palestine be recognized as a state for the Palestinians (at least primarily)? And are the Palestinians not a people?
November 29, 2007 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 29, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
William Burns,
Again, because Israel has been, and still remains, economically boycotted, culturally demonized and politically isolated by virtually all of the neighboring states in the region since its establishment, based upon the idea that only Arab peoples are worthy of national rights in "the Arab World." Because the ultimate goal of Zionism is not simply to establish a Jewish state in the historic homeland of the Jewish people, but to reintegrate the Jewish people into its native region with all the national dignity it deserves.
November 29, 2007 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Notice how, once again, MJ reflexively blames Israel and misses the main point to boot. If it's such a silly, trivial issue, why are Arabs making such a big deal out of it? They could easily issue a statement saying something like "We recognize that the goal of negotiations is two states living side by side in peace, one Jewish and one Arab." It would go a long way to shoring up support in Israel for concessions. The fact that they refuse is significant. This isn't like the demand that they "dismantle the terror infrastructure" something that probably isn't even possible even if Abbas wanted to do it. This is a simple statement.
It just exposes the Palestinians for what they are: duplicitous hucksters who will bank any Israeli concession and continue the fight indefinitely.
November 29, 2007 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
delete
November 29, 2007 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 29, 2007 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I'm missing your point, but how would this work?
In the case of Ireland, for example, it's how many generations removed are you from the motherland.
For Jews, it would be thousands of years since their families lived in the motherland. That ain't gonna work, obviously.
And it's part of the argument used against the State per se and certainly the right of return.
I think the problem disappears practically. Most Jews will never exercise this right because they prefer to live where they live, including Zionista.
And I imagine that Israel couldn't "fit" all the Jews in the world if they ever decided to move there.
But as far as being Jewish, and for how long, most Jews have come from Jewish families whose ancestors were also Jews and so on for many generations. Unless I misunderstand you, it's sort of a meaningless question, IMO.
November 29, 2007 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we also have the reverse arguments being made, i.e., that certain land is "Palestinian" land. That never seems to cause a problem.
November 29, 2007 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But now the Israel-Palestine issue should be front and center."
I just returned from a nice long Thanksgiving weekend with my family in Iowa.
Sorry to break it to you folks, but Israel-Palestine didn't come up during in the political discussion over the turkey and corn casserole.
November 29, 2007 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was most interesting to me was that the diggee had been interred in the 14th century, and the diggers were still annoyed about that. To me, that is a tale of carrying tribalism too far.
Much of the difficulty in the Arab world is that its politics are often more tribal than national. If one examines the range of military forces of Saudi Arabia, the National Guard, which is not a reserve but has the principal mission of guarding the Holy Places, is Bedouin. The conventional military tends to be made up of city folk.
I was born in a part of Newark that had been ancestral lands of the Lenni Lenape, whom I don't believe really exist as a tribe any longer. Still, at what point should they have a right of return? Mind you, the desire to return to Newark should be grounds, in most jurisdictions, for at least a 72-hour psychiatric hold. I don't know how you define national sovereignty. Two relevant, if different, comments are attributed to Clemenceau. One is "Must every little language have its own country", and the other is "a language is a dialect with an army." The process of smaller and smaller "nations" wanting sovereignty continues, and is the source of a good deal of low-level war. That Czechoslovakia partitioned peacefully is an exceptional event among nations.
Should Chechniya become independent? Nagorno-Karabakh? What about Darfur, where one faction wants independence from Sudan and one does not? Should Biafra have been protected in its desire to secede? The Confederate States of America?
Does it make sense to declare further countries that have no chance of economic self-sufficiency, are landlocked, and water poor? Before answering, tell me how such tribes would not be able to point to Israel and say "they did it so we should do it too?"
France, Russia, and China may have a national identity, but they are certainly not of one ethnicity, religion, etc. I get nervous when I see a state, surrounded by enemies, insisting on ethnic purity and equipped with large numbers of nuclear weapons.
A statement such as Bush's at Annapolis, if I heard it correct, that the US is committed to maintaining the integrity of Israel as a Jewish state frightens the hell out of me. Yes, we do have such obligations, by treaty, to NATO. There is no such treaty obligation with Israel, which, as far as I am concerned, is quite capable of managing its own defense. -- Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 29, 2007 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I'm confused on the indentation. Is this addressed to me?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 29, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It causes problems every day of the week and both sides do it.
November 29, 2007 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jews and Arabs are semites - they are not different races. Why are Israelis making a big deal out of it? So it is about religion after all?
November 29, 2007 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It just exposes the Palestinians for what they are: duplicitous hucksters...."
I guess the only people on earth it is acceptable to make racist statements about is the Arabs, Palestinians, in particular.
Just imagine if someone wrote: "It just exposes the Jews for what they are: duplicitous hucksters...."
Sickening stuff.
November 29, 2007 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It really comes down to population sizes.
No one questions the Arab character of, say, Egypt, because a LOT of Arabs live there and have for a long time.
Folks question the Jewish character of Israel because Jews are a small people and are always on the verge of being outnumbered, just based on birth rate. And Israel as a state is a relative newcomer.
Plus a lot of folks wish Israel didn't exist per se. Had she lost any of the wars against her, she might not. No one really has felt that way about any of the Arab states. I don't even think the Israelis have ever really felt that way.
If Jews would only "get on it," this question would probably disappear. But I fear we are destined to have a small carbon footprint.
Plus, neither Jews nor anyone else is interested in changing the Arab character of, say, SA or Egypt. But a lot of folks would like to see the Jewish character of Israel disappear. It offends their sensibilities.
(I think it comes down to this: Changing the Arab character of, say, SA seems like an impossible task. Plus, who's trying to move there? Only other Arabs! And somehow, Americans don't feel they are propping up this state of affairs. And this: They don't live next to many ex-pat Saudi-Americans the way they live next to many Jews. When an American or European Jew argues for keeping Israel Jewish, it strikes folks as insane and somehow unAmerican--almost as if THEY were arguing for it. Americans aren't supposed to think like that. Saudis? Okay, what are you going to do, and besides, that's "over there." Not so with Israel which, the Lobby et al notwithstanding and specifically excluded here, seems much more like "us." We're embarrassed that an ally, that is, "someone like us," is acting in such a medieval way.)
Again, the Palestinian character of a Palestinian state seems to be a no-brainer to many folks (maybe because we start to get all anthropological when thinking about "other peoples), while the Jewish character of Israel calls forth UN condemnations of racism and, in some quarters, charges that the Zionists wish to take over the world. I guess molecule by molecule.
November 29, 2007 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sort of like American blacks were socially constrained in the South up until recently. Like real estate covenants that restrict Arabs from buying land. The use of live bullets to suppress Arab street demonstrations but complete nonviolent techniques to deal with Jews. Arabs can vote but their representatives are barred from serving in government. Citizenship rights for Jews living in the Westbank but not for the Arabs.
I don't care how you cut it, this sounds like second class citizenship. That is the facts on the ground today. However, the Palestinians will not officially agree to accept these facts. If that is what you demand, then do not expect an agreement with them.
November 29, 2007 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
William Burns,
Really? Then what was all the fuss about back in 1920?
Weird, huh? But that's the deal that was offered to Israel. Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania are member nations of the Arab League, and the deal from Beirut and Riyadh as I understand it is that Israel receives comprehensive recognition and normalization from the Arab League pending Palestine's approval of terms. So, from an Israeli perspective, it would seem to be something worth working for to have Palestinian recognition secured so the Arab League can begin the process of normalization as swiftly and easily as possible. Not to mention facilitating Israeli concessions and its cooperation with Palestine as it establishes its own sovereignty.
November 29, 2007 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And while we have been discussing the Annapolis conference and the issues that came with it, the bluebell family turkey and corn casserole didn't come up at all here either. Go figure.
November 29, 2007 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Serbian and Croats not only belongs to same race but they speak the same language, but still they made a big deal out of it? So it is about religion after all? If so, what's your point.
November 29, 2007 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, that is why there is a peace process happening, and why I support it.
That's bullshit. Raleb Majadele is the Israeli Minister of Science, a cabinet portfolio. If you have a real argument, you shouldn't have to make shit up.
November 29, 2007 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but I'm tired, so I may be confused as to your point.
November 29, 2007 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can imagine, you wrote some many racist statements about religious and Russian Jew, that I don't think you should so shocked by such statements.
November 29, 2007 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bluebell is correct, it really marginal issue, nothing important would change, no matter what the result of this conference
November 29, 2007 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but the women cooking the turkey and the corn casserole get to caucus on January 3rd.
Now for what did come up over the stuffing - jobs, manufacturing, Asian competition, real estate prices, farm prices, college tuition, taxes, Iraq, and the stock market.
November 29, 2007 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the heads up - I'll be able to record it.
November 29, 2007 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that it is stupid. I don't care if it is Serbian, Croat, Israeli or Palestinian. People using religion to rationalize and justify cruelty and misery intentionally inflicted upon each other.
November 29, 2007 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what's your plan for the world?
Open border for everybody? No countries?
Let's force Serbs and Croats to be one country again? Let's stay in Iraq until Shiites and Sunites live peacefully together again?
Let's unite India and Pakistan, USA and Mexico?
or let's just screw up Israel?
November 29, 2007 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista - Is Israel going to require every country in the world to recognize it as a Jewish state? Is Israel willing to have diplomatic relations with countries who insist Israel is JUST a "country".
Please drop the "poor abused Israel" meme. It doesn't befit you or Israel. The Jewish state enjoys worldwide economic and social ties, it has a powerful military and it's citizens enjoy first world benefits. If you want to feel sorry for someone, how about the poor sucker who was unlucky enough to have been born in the Congo.
Israel and Jews already have dignity - there are a few billion others who do not.
November 29, 2007 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should the Chechens have a nation, dignity, or both? The Karen? The Cubans...oh, wait, they do have a nation, but the US won't recognize it as a Cuban state. Isn't there something wrong with that? Shouldn't Israel be demanding that the US give all the dignity to Cuba that Isra