Again, the only chance that real peace will be achieved is if the Israelis and Americans resort to Extreme Generosity. Can a right-winger like Olmert take the process in that direction?

Who is going to apologize to Jimmy Carter for attacks against him for invoking apartheid, now that Olmert has also done so.

And then look at what the last seven years have been.

If you don’t understand that ending the occupation and achieving peace with the Palestinians is better, you are no friend of Israel. No way.

See, we are in total agreement. It's exactly what I advocated here for a long time.
1. Final status.
2. Removing settlers.
3. Building Palestinian state.
4. Ending military control.

mj your optimism is almost infectious. I hope you are right but I remain cynical. It was very interesting that he almost used the word 'apartheid' to describe what Israel would become if the two state solution failed.

Olmert can manage to bring the Israeli populace along.

Thanks, Davai

This analysis has the same flaw that most discussions of the conflict have when they come from the left.  That is, they implicitly assume that Israel is the only actor in this play and the Palestinians are just bystanders.

The title of this post is "Olmert and Abbas Go for It"  Yet the entire piece is about Olmert.  The whole analysis is about the effect of Olmert's decisions and whether Olmert has transformed and why Olmert is making this decision.

Nowhere is there anything about Abbas.  And in fact there is never anything about Abbas or the Palestinians or the Arab states in MJ's posts.  Leftists like him keep talking about "achieving peace with the Palestinians" but never say how negotiations and concessions will bring about the change of mindset in the Arab world that is the only guarantor of true peace.  They don't talk about those things because they can't.

They think that Israel needs to press on with negotiations and concessions regardless of whether it leads to peace or not. Some think that the occupation is bad for Israel, period.  Others think that the occupation is just evil.  If removing the occupation results in peace, then so much the better, but removing the occupation is a good idea regardless of whether peace ensues or not. 

Their problem is that they know that this position has virtually no appeal to most supporters of Israel.  Most supporters of Israel will support concessions if they lead to peace but will not support them if they don't.  So the left has to peddle the fantasy that negotiations are about "achieving peace" to maintain and build public support.  But it's nothing but pure cynicism in the end.

Of course there are also many who are just naive and think the grand ceremony on the White House lawn with handshakes and smiles will be the end of the confict. 

I can't decide whether MJ is naive or cynical.  I guess in the end I'd lean towards cynical.

MJ: I just finished watching the Moyers program on Christians United for Israel. Scary stuff. I hope you're right and they won't be able to influence the process negatively, but that letter to their conference from Bush is a cause for concern.

Thanks to Moyers for bringing the information to PBS and to you and Ron Sidel for appearing. I was so happy to hear Sidel say that most U.S. Christian Evangelicals aren't at all as extreme as CUFI, and about the letter he and many of the more moderate Evangelical leaders wrote in support of the two-state solution.

A mea culpa: I realize I haven't been careful enough in talking about Evangelicals and their relationship to Israel, and when I speak of their influence in the future, I'm going to try to make certain I don't paint all Evangelicals with the Hagee brush.

It was a great discussion, MJ - your passion for Israel is palpable.

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

Yes, the creation of a Palestinian state may be becoming more important to the Israelis than to the Palestinians. As time goes by, the Palestinians have less and less incentive to agree to a minimal Palestinian state because the facts on the ground (the large Arab population combined with the dispersed Jewish settlements that make it difficult for Israel to disentangle itself from the Palestinian areas) may give the Palestinians rights to the whole state. Sharon realized this transition was taking place and believed the time was optimal to offer the Palestinians a minimal state. But Sharon may have been too late. The time for this solution may well be past. The one-state solution that Olmert so fears may be inevitable.

But really, what would be so bad about a state for both Arabs and Jews? Isn't that basically the American solution? A state for everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion. Isn't this what we as Americans stand for?

You did really well last night on Moyer's journal, R.J., very impressive.

We Americans stand for that, and I'd prefer US foreign policy to reward such approaches. Some societies have other systems that work either better or worse. For example, Singapore is fairly authoritarian, but it seems to be a comfortable sort for the people under it.

Israel is quite another matter. There has been, for a long time, a running argument here about "Jewish identity". I regard it as religious and an individual choice. Others, such as Zionista, have argued thoughtfully for a much broader definition, with which I disagree heartily but is internally consistent given certain assumptions.

For those who want to see a state with Jewish identity, which they often equate to Irish or German identity, a one-state model is rather frightening, because Arab birth rates are such that they will eventually predominate. Germany has its problems with immigration, but they are neither as rigorous as defining German identity or as threatened by a growing internal population. Germany has a limited right of return, which I believe is like Ireland's: you must be able to document at least one grandparent who was born in a territory that was German (Irish) at the time.

While I need to check the specific rules of Israel, my sense is that they are much more liberal for self-identified Jewish immigrants, and much more restrictive for people who identify as non-Jewish.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Wordie:

"Stupid, stupid, stupid. This action has probably undone much of the goodwill that was projected at Annapolis, and the extremists can use it to sow doubts. It didn't even take the administration a week to screw up."

I agree that the United States, in a diplomatic sense, acted with absolute and extraordinary imprudence by first offering and then withdrawing the Security Council Resolution. Clearly, as reflected in the piece you cite to concerning the reaction of Hamas, such a clumsy diplomatic maneuver gives fodder to those who claim that Annapolis is a farce.

It appears, however, from the first article you cite that both the Israelis and the Palestinians opposed the introduction of the Security Council resolution (although there is no direct Palestinian confirmation), and I have to tell you that from a negotiating perspective I believe that the introduction was, at best, extremely ill-timed, especially since it was done without first consulting with the two principal parties to the negotiations. Annapolis, if it was anything, gives a broad, albeit not entirely complete international imprimatur for negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians to proceed. Now, if it has any chance of working, you have to let the Israelis and Palestinians have a go at it.

The toothpaste is out of the tube and the bargaing table is set. . .again. There will be time later and it will be necessary for others, including in my view the voices now reflected in political Hamas, to chime in on what will be. As in this case, the continued missteps of the Bush Administration in the diplomatic realm has and will continue to make things that much more difficult. But it is what it is. The real measure of success or failure will emerge from the proverbial smoke-filled room.

Bruce

THANKS. I appreciate it.

yeah, brad, everyone who knows me is taken by how cynical I am.
you aren't though. you are the opposite. utterly credulous. like a 1930's stalinist who gets the line from party hq and swallows it whole. i admire that.

Too bad TPM Cafe software doesn't offer a rating number for missing the point. 

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

So what's you point?
What should Israel do with terrorists/freedom fighters while negitiating with Abbas? Let them fight Israel and don't respond and don't try to prevent?

MJ I just watched the Moyers show online and I was very impressed by you and Mr. Sider. I was raised as a southern baptist so I guess technically I'm an evangelical but I'm not the nutjob wishing for end times type of evangelical. This nutjob Hagee is a scary person. Sadly my local NBC affiliate airs his "sermons" every Sunday,and I keep the tv on mute until it's over as I can't stand the guy or his rhetoric. I agree with you and several other posters that the only way Israel will see peace in the mideast is the two state solution. In the book Imperial Hubris the author stated that most of our problems in the mideast are due to the United States "Israel right or wrong" policy. I hope that we continue to see progress between Israel and Palestine toward peace.

1. If US had thought that Israel would continue to attack US ships, I'm sure US wouldn't wait for another attack.
2. Your another question is what would be US reaction if Mexico allowed Venezuela and Iran to create a Hezbollah style group in border areas with US and that group constantly harasses US border guards and one day capture five border guards and killed another five.
It’s hard to image, but there would be hell to pay.
3. What would be reaction of US to every day indiscriminate firing rockets on San Diego from Mexico? I don't know for sure, but again there would be hell to pay.

"Maybe, as lally suspects, the Israelis aren't as serious about peace as they claim to be."

Maybe you and lally are right that the Israelis might not be serious about negotiations. I'm not here to argue the contrary, or to question the bona fides of the Palestinians. My principal point was plainly and remains about the negotiations process. I guess I believed that was a critical point to make in this discussion frankly. But if you're right that this could be all about the Israelis having no interest in good faith negotiations then of course the process would not matter and what I thought was critical becomes irrelevant.

1. That wasn't my question, was it? Are you saying Israel never, ever retaliates unless it is convinced another attack will come from the same source?

I will ask it again: if Israel took a significant number of dead and wounded and had a ship almost sunk, by Syrian vessels operating out of Latakia, are you saying that Israel would hit that base only if it thought a second attack would come from there?

2. I think this is a hypothetical question, but it is so twisted that I'm not sure what you are asking.

3. Rockets from San Diego? First, tell me specifically what kind of rockets, and where they are landing. I can tell you quite specifically about the reaction to rocket fire in Iraq, which is one hell of a lot more precise and controlled than what Israel is doing.

Of course, if Israel hadn't stopped joint development of the Nautilus (former MTHEL) laser defense against rockets, and its own development based on the Swiss Oerlikon 35mm gun system, both countries might have better active defenses.

Passive defenses have their role as well. Most light artillery rockets fired as singles tend to be low trajectory. High chain-link fence, or a modern variation on WWII style barrage balloons, might be a fairly effective passive defense.

I could very well see the US demanding to put launch sensors in Mexico, perhaps in a joint center, and take counteraction if the Mexicans did not. The equivalent is something I have repeatedly suggested for Israel: get the settlers out of the settlements NOW, and put military observation posts, or at least unmanned launch sensors, in their place.

I would have to study the geography and patterns of rocket fire to make specific recommendations, but if there were a problem with rockets put on ramps and fired by timers, I'd consider a variety of sensors to try to spot them before launch, and engage them with fairly precise weapons, such as guns or missiles on a UCAV after spotting by a electro-optical surveillance UAV. I certainly wouldn't rule out, again if I had a good idea of where the groups firing were headquartered or have weapons dumps, using direct action by special operations forces. A couple of Raufoss rounds from a Barrett .50 rifle will do interesting things to a rocket in a truck.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

You must be kidding. What's San Diego if not American settlement on their land.
In any case, Israel doesn't build settlements on Lebanise land.

I will ask it again: if Israel took a significant number of dead and wounded and had a ship almost sunk, by Syrian vessels operating out of Latakia, are you saying that Israel would hit that base only if it thought a second attack would come from there?

2. I think this is a hypothetical question, but it is so twisted that I'm not sure what you are asking.

3. Rockets from San Diego? First, tell me specifically what kind of rockets, and where they are landing. I can tell you quite specifically about the reaction to rocket fire in Iraq, which is one hell of a lot more precise and controlled than what Israel is doing

The equivalent is something I have repeatedly suggested for Israel: get the settlers out of the settlements NOW, and put military observation posts, or at least unmanned launch sensors, in their place.

I hope nobody has any illusions that even a single Palestinian will be allowed to "return".

Indeed, what are they thinking--in Israel, this 'right' is for 'Jews only.'

The point davai is that multiethnic states are the model and have been for most of the post-war era. One could even argue that for civilized people at least, they have always been the model. And you don't know much about the breakup of Czechoslovakia if you're using that to defend your point.

Perhaps it would be better if all the immigrants from Europe's former colonial territories went home. I don't think so. Perhaps we should bring back segregation and Marcus Garvey. And, davai, what's the Muslim population Of India?

I will not defend in the modern era the racial definition of a state, in theory or in practice. I will not defend it for the US and I will not defend it for Germany and I will not defend it for Israel, though Israel was founded on that logic. You will do so, and so will Josh Marshall, MJ Rosenberg and Ehud Olmert. Your claims that Palestinians and Egyptians and Syrians are all Arabs is based on the same racial logic; cultural difference mean noting. Try using that logic to resolve border disputes in South America.
For the rest of you read the interview and know what you're defending if you defend the morality of Olmert and his policies.

Well, actually no Davai. Ten million Arabs don't have to be allowed to return to Israel. For there to be a reasonable chance of peace, however, there may need to be an accomodation more generous to the Palestinians than what the Israelis are now offering and less generous than what the Palestinians are demanding. That's all. No reason to run to one extreme or the other. But starting the negotiations with the condition that the return of even a single Arab will not be allowed is really the same as ending the negotiations.

MJ, I understand you're up for an Emmy for that performance. :-)

So how many Arabs should be allowed to move to Israel?

I know there are an awful lot of Jews who live in Israel, but what exactly is it, exactly, that makes Israel "Jewish"?
Or does anything Israel might do become "Jewish" by default?

Israel does whatever it does due to the exigencies of the position they have put themselves in, and the things they wish to accomplish.

If what Israel does is "Jewish", we Jews are in a lot of trouble.

So Judaism is a religion of colonial projects, opression, dispossesion and illegal occupation?

It is an afront to Jews everywhere, I hope, and an insult to every Jew who has suffered for their religion.

It's better for Israel if somebody support Israel for self serving reasons, than hate Israel for self serving reasons.

And, davai, what's the Muslim population Of India?

7,226,000 Muslims went to Pakistan from India while 7,249,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan immediately after partition. About 11.2 million or 78% of the population transfer took place in the west, with Punjab accounting for most of it; 5.3 million Muslims moved from India to West Punjab in Pakistan, 3.4 million Hindus and Sikhs moved from Pakistan to East Punjab in India; elsewhere in the west 1.2 million moved in each direction to and from Sind.[citation needed] "With the tragic legacy of an uncertain future, a young refugee sits on the walls of Purana Qila, transformed into a vast refugee camp in Delhi." Margaret Bourke-White, 1947 A crowd of Muslims at the Old Fort (Purana Qila) in Delhi, which had been converted into a vast camp for Muslim refugees waiting to be transported to Pakistan. Manchester Guardian, 27 September 1947.The newly formed governments were completely unequipped to deal with migrations of such staggering magnitude, and massive violence and slaughter occurred on both sides of the border. Estimates of the number of deaths range around roughly 500,000, with low estimates at 200,000 and high estimates at 1,000,000.[5]

I will not defend it for Israel, though Israel was founded on that logic.

If you don't think that "it would be better if all the immigrants from Europe's former colonial territories went home", what do you propose?
Also, don't forget about Jewish refugies from Arab countries.

Howard, as you probably understand every mile makes a diffrence. Demilitarized Sinai, Golans, West Bank under Israeli military control makes defending Israel possible.

a diplomatic protest to Mexico, and then a serious sit-down meeting between Mexico

Mexican forces, perhaps with some technical assistance, should be able to locate the firers.

The population is denser in Iraq, so they tend to go with infantry and helicopters to avoid collateral damage

There are probably more people killed by gang warfare in San Diego than a few Qassams would manage; they are rather light weapons.

It was one of my better roles!!

You are assuming that a Mexican government control the insurgents. What if weak Mexican government have no control of border area with US and such groups are controlled by Venezuela.
Again, let's assume that Mexican goverment have no control of border area with US and such groups are controled by Venezuela. See Pakistan Afganistan border area, or parts of Columbia for SOMEWHAT similar situation.

So what, there are more people killed in fires every years than in 911 attacks, many more in gang warfare or auto accidents, medical errors and so on.

But somehow, after a small 911 terrorist act, US went to war and invaded 2 countries with full support of American people.

This is why it's called terrorism because it causes fear far beyond real demage. So, don't expect from Israel to be much more "rational" than from American people.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I can't speak for MJ, but I have been saying that the two-state solution as presently conceived (which includes ending the occupation, giving the Palestinians some fraction of the West Bank and Gaza, etc., etc.) will not create peace because it will not be enough to satisfy the Palestinians and will therefore not end their resistance and therefore not provide security to Israel. The question then becomes: "What alternative will work?" Or maybe even more important prior to that question, "Does anyone have the will to find an alternative?"

I suspect that the new peace process will come down to a take-it-or-leave it proposition from Israel to the Palestinians. And, if it comes to that, I expect Abbas to do exactly what Arafat did last time around. Walk out.

No one knows what the alternative solution that would work is--or even if one exists. That will require substantial work. And even if the two sides can find a solution that seems as if it has potential to work, there will never be a guarantee in advance. The future is too hard to predict. So an end to the stalemate will require great willingness to find a solution, great work to create one, and great courage to proceed despite immeasurable risks.

Maybe it will happen.

In the meantime, a lot of meaningless drivel will be written over and over again (and I don't exclude this).

Want to try some specifics, Davai? I think I know what you have in mind, and it may not fly.

However, "we" do not know the answer. You have yet to pose a coherent question, although you can certainly wallow in the emotive loaded question.

I suspect you are misremembering when four, not five, American contractors were killed, and their bodies exhibited, in March 2004. There was urban fighting after that, for about a month, which ended with an agreement that Iraqi forces would keep order in Fallujah.

I'm not defending the legitimacy of either the Iraqi government or the US presence, but what most people refer to as the major fighting in Fallujah was in November 2004.

Of course, if one were to listen to a Big Lie propagandist like you, Davai, one might assume that the US, immediately after the bodies were discovered, ordered large-scale bomhing and shelling of the city. If one were to listen to you, no American soldiers were at risk in either April or November, and no Iraqi troops were involved in the Second Battle of Fallujah.

Was that a wise battle? That's a hard question. It did achieve some of its tactical objectives, but there is the fundamental question of what the US was trying to accomplish.

Nevertheless, Davai, there was no cause and effect, and, as is often the case, you are caught lying when you argue something else and look silly. I notice you aren't commenting on my observation that the IDF is dealing foolishly with the rocket problem, that there would be ways to deal with it, but the geography created by Israel may not be defensible.

To what irrelevant topic would you like to try to divert the conversation at this time?

So, please don't tell me about American military manuals anyumore.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It takes a village to make an idiot.