Israel, the Palestinians and Elections
I'd like to weigh in supporting my TPMCafe colleagues, Daniel Levy and M.J. Rosenberg, regarding the proper role for America and Israel. For those of us as American Jews, many of us approach U.S. foreign policy in the region with great affection and concern for Israel, but we also (yes we do and by the way, yes we can) temper it with concern for the role of America and how any policy will play out for America in the world. Indeed, for those of us on the peace side of the equation it's our belief that a final resolution of a two state solution with an Israel and a Palestine will be good for Israel, for the Palestinian people and for America....and not necessarily in that order.
That's why the debate among surrogates of the various campaigns is so distressing.
As Daniel mentions, Daniel Kurtzer is a seasoned ambassador who knows the nuances of the region; Obama couldn't ask for a better surrogate. Ann Lewis, representing the Clinton Campaign, is someone who has been long involved in Jewish issues--I had the pleasure of working with her at the American Jewish Congress on Jewish women's issues years ago, but it's simply wrong to say that the role of the US is to let Israel do its thing by supporting the will of the Israeli people, as her remarks were reported. And as for McCain, he's getting a hero's welcome in Israel right now, but it's not clear that he has anything new or useful to add to the debate that will move any of the peaces forward to ensure any stability for Israel and without stability for Israel, there is not stability for the U.S. or the region as a whole. The role of the U.S.--and as any superpower would see itself, no doubt, has to be to shape foreign policy where its interests are concerned.
Things are getting worse by the minute in the region, much due to the lack of involvement (or sometimes worse, the actions of) the current Administration so to say that America should step aside and let Israel do its thing is blatantly bad for the U.S. and bad for the region.
And while electoral campaigning continues here at home, campaigning for the 2009 Palestinian presidential election has just begun in a little noticed pronouncement by Marwan Barghouti, the jailed Palestinian leader. (In Israel, campaigning never ends, especially with the current fragile coalition government under Ehud Olmert).
Last summer I spent time in the region meeting with Palestinians and Israelis who are close to Marwan Barghouti and I wrote about it for the American Prospect. Since Barghouti's pronouncement from prison this week that he plans to consider a run for the Palestinian presidency and a new poll by the well-respected Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki from Ramallah which shows a frightening rise in support for violence among Palestinians--including more than majority support for the murders of the Yeshiva students in Jerusalem--I thought it would be useful to post some of what I wrote last summer. Also, one of the Israelis I interviewed, Knesset member, Haim Oron, known by his nickname, "Jumis," was just elected yesterday as head of the Meretz Party, long considered the base party for Israel's peace movement.
Of all times for the U.S. to say that they should sit idly by while Israelis (or Palestinians) do their thing....well, this is not the time....
Barghouti's popularity continues to trump all others, Hamas or Fatah leadership. He's considered the one secular leader among the Palestinians who can possibily bring the sides together and regain support among the grassroots that Fatah lost with the corruption of the Arafat years and now, the weakness of Abu Mazen's regime against the Hamas onslaught.
Whether the clock is running out and whether in fact a moderate Palestinian state can indeed still be created to live side-by-side with Israel is the question of the moment. Both the Palestinian people and the Israelis need to decide if they want to make one more go at it. As one high-ranking Palestinian official posed it to me, the "Palestinian people have to decide if they go back to democracy or settle on a Pakistani, Bangalore situation," with Hamas and Fatah battling it out, but "Israel is a major player" too.
That's why Israeli politicians are talking about possible release for Marwan Barghouti, the Young Fatah leader who is serving five consecutive life terms in a southern Israeli prison for his role in the second Intifada. "Marwan Barghouti was the key person in establishing the new Palestinian government," Haim Oron, a Meretz Knesset member, told me. "I know because I was there... Salaam Fayyad (the Palestinian Prime Minister) sees him as a leader but not in competition to Abu Mazen."
Haim "Jumis" Oron is close to Barghouti, and has been meeting with the Palestinian leader in prison for the last several years, though their conversations are private. "I think that now the Israelis, the Egyptians, the Americans and the Europeans know how important Barghouti is to them. It's clear. They hear it from Abu Mazen and Fayaad," Jumis said when I sat with him last summer in the Knesset members' dining room with a backdrop of a flat screen television showing the Knesset proceedings. (It was the day when members could introduce private bills, and just like in the U.S. Congress, they were speaking to an empty plenum, with more members in the dining room than in the Knesset hall itself.)
It's not simply that the various players are figuring out that Barghouti may be the last best hope for the nationalist camp. It's also that, as Jumis painted in a scenario for me, his leadership in or out of prison may be inevitable. "Barghouti will run in the next election and Abu Mazen will not run," Jumis explained. (Indeed, Rafik Husseini, Mazen's chief of staff also confirmed to me that Mazen would not run again.) "So there is no Abu Mazen; there is Marwan. Then, the option is that he runs from an Israeli jail. If he loses, Hamas wins. If he wins, there is an elected Palestinian president in an Israeli jail. Then there will be pressure from all over the world to release him."
While some on the right in Israel and the United States are reviving ideas of a Jordanian option and even of separating Gaza from a future Palestine, Jumis thinks that this is out of the question -- as do the Palestinians, of course. "Gaza is not an island in Antarctica," he said. "It is part of the Palestinian state and those who live there are part of the Palestinian nation, and if there are Israelis or Palestinians who don't see that they are crazy... Hamas has no power to build, but they have the power to destroy the situation."
But for Hamas to be weakened, the nationalist camp must rebuild. And it's not clear that the nationalist camp can do that with Barghouti still behind bars. The Barghouti game plan was also confirmed to me by Qadora Fares, a soft spoken, thoughtful leader of Young Fatah who, deposed by Hamas in the Palestinian legislature, now runs an NGO dedicated to supporting the Palestinian prisoners.
Fares (who spent 13 years in Israeli prisons himself for his activities during the first Intifada), was a signatory of the Geneva Initiative, the extra-parliamentary peace document conceived of by Israeli politician Yossi Beilin and Palestinian Yassar Abbed Rabbo. Fares told me that he signed the document with Barghouti's knowledge. At lunch with Fares in Ramallah, in a side-street restaurant over beer, Arab salads and lamb, he, like his friend Jumis, expressed the understanding that Barghouti is the leader needed to strengthen the Palestinian nationalist camp. “This is the last chance for the peace camp, with Marwan..." he said, his voice trailing off.
The inter-Palestinian warfare showed the world how weak, indeed, Fatah is. For them to succeed they need to win the Palestinian people's hearts and minds, which the new Palestinian government hopes to do by governing with transparency, breaking the global economic blockade, and beginning serious negotiations with Israel. But they also must rebuild on the ground among their own population, in the West Bank and especially in Gaza. As one knowledgeable Israeli source speculated, Barghouti is key here too, not as a challenge to the Fayaad government but to strengthen it. "Marwan sees rebuilding the ground for Fatah outside the government. If you ask him what he will do the day after he is free, he will say, 'go to Gaza and go to the villages in the West Bank and rebuild the nationalist camp.’"
Jumis sees the future this way: "I think that the fight for Gaza will be on the West Bank. We need three simultaneous tracks. First, a 180 percent change of Israeli policy on the West Bank -- not just money, check points, prisoners, all these issues and more" pertaining to daily quality of life; “second, we need to begin negotiations about the long-term core issues. Everyone more or less knows the endgame -- Clinton, Geneva, Taba... If the Palestinians agree on basic principles then we have to go very deep into what some call phase two of the roadmap, some will call re-deployment of Oslo, and some will call it something else, but everybody in Israel understands that unilateralism is out of the game. I think that the Palestinians understand, especially after Gaza, that a 10-day withdrawal is not an option. In the West Bank, we are talking about three to five years. There are many obstacles; you can't do it in half a year. The Palestinians also need time to strengthen the government, democracy, and Fatah."
For Fares, the choice is also clear: "Israel's choice is between empowering Fatah and the peace camp," he said. As we were eating in the Ramallah restaurant, with members of the Fatah old guard seated at a table on the floor below us, the Israeli cabinet was deliberating a prisoner exchange to restart talks with Mazen. Fares' phone kept ringing. As we sipped our coffee, he recalled an article by the Israeli novelist A. B. Yehoshua. who "wrote about how Israel can be a true superpower by the way the Jewish state aids flood victims in Africa, etc." Although, Fares stressed, "I believe that Israel can play this role and that the Arab world is ready to accept Israel, but the Palestinians are the key."
Jumis understands that the peace camp in Israel is also facing a pivotal moment. "The question of peace camp mobilization is the question of a partner -- with whom" do we make peace? "The perception is that Abu Mazen is weak," but "now you have the most dovish and democratic, secular government that could ever exist among the Palestinians. If there is an option, we know that the peace camp can be activated in weeks," he predicted.
"We know we are speaking about the most critical issues of Israel and Jewish life. There is no second chance. I think that the Israeli government must take a risk because doing nothing is worse. If there is an agreement and Abu Mazen goes to a referendum and loses, Israel says to the world and to the Israeli people -- including to Jumis and to Yossi Beilin," he acknowledges, as leaders of the peace camp, "'Okay, there is no partner.' It will be a very bad situation, but what do we have to lose? The alternative is that Gaza will be in the West Bank."
Comments (16)
Jo-Ann, there is some objection to whether the comments were quoted in their proper context. But let's say they were. While I don't believe our policy should be to rubber stamp any foreign electorate's decisions, isn't a big criticism of US foreign policy in general that we entirely ignore the will of local populations, oh, most of the time?
In that sense, don't we owe some sort of deference to the people who will be affected by our policies? Now, it's obvious that not just the wishes of Israel's voters should matter here. We have to take Palestinian will into account. And our own needs.
But it is ironic to me that everyone is up in arms over a comment that would actually fix one of the major thought blunders in our current foreign policy: our insistence on not taking the will of non-Americans into account at all.
Do you think the Columbian people are happy that we're fighting a drug war on their turf? Maybe we should always be asking what those who will suffer our policies think about them.
March 19, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, destor23. Who knows what could have been accomplished had the Bush administration taken the will of the Israeli voters who elected the majority-Kadima government coalition into consideration before prohibiting it from entering into talks with Syria last year. Meanwhile, it only took 30 minutes from when MJ Rosenberg posted his piece about Ann Lewis' remarks before we had a comment equating them with the idea of "taking orders" from Israel. No one could have anticipated....
March 19, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jo-Ann Mort writes:
The operative phrase here is "as her remarks were reported." If I may draw upon the example of destor from the comments under Daniel Levy's piece, it would appear Lewis' remarks were reported erroneously. Destor links to BevD's comments in Levy's post as it appears in the reader blogs:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/hillarys-chosen-personand-the.php#comment-2663323
So, now we have MJ Rosenberg, Daniel Levy and Jo-Ann Mort posting pieces whose theses are based upon misrepresentations of remarks by a presidential candidate, on top of Dana Milbank's shoddy reporting as it appeared in the Washington Post. It's a red letter day.
March 19, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction [yeah, I miss the editing feature]:
So, now we have MJ Rosenberg, Daniel Levy and Jo-Ann Mort posting pieces whose theses are based upon misrepresentations of remarks by a surrugate for a presidential candidate, on top of Dana Milbank's shoddy reporting as it appeared in the Washington Post. It's a red letter day.
March 19, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you want, Jo Ann? Do you want the American government interferring in the domestic affairs and elections in other countries? There is no difference between invading a country with troops to despose a leader and interferring by other means in their elections and governments. Wouldn't our interferrence in South American elections and politics have taught you that? We have NO right to attempt to influence, change or interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations. Gee, why do they hate us? Do you think perhaps it might be our penchant for organizing others' governments in our own image and dictating to others the proper conduct and political thought?
"It is the Right of the People to alter it or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundations on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form as TO THEM shall seem most likely to secure THEIR Happiness and Safety." Every single politician, elected official, self-described pundit and person with a political blog should be required by law to memorize this.
March 19, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev - I understand your isolationist attitude but are there any red lines that a country, with the will of the people, cross before interference is justified. I call your attention to Ruwanda, Kosovo, and what is happening in Tibet today amoung numerous examples in history.
If the will of the Israeli people was to transfer the Palestinians out of Gaza and/or the West Bank should we do nothing?
March 19, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't isolationism, this is according other people the same rights that we ourselves hold as unalienable rights, chief among them the right to determine our own destiny and form the government most likely to ensure our own happiness. Isolationism is non-egagement with other nations. We can engage other nations without reliance on force, interference and undue influence in their domestic affairs and accept that the responsiblity for the arrangement of those internal affairs belong to the people of those nations.
We have no more right to tell the Israelis whom they should elect than they have the right to tell us whom we should elect.
March 19, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is, I think, a very informative and well-written piece, except that it makes no mention of the all-important problem of settlements. This is central to US policy as well, which has consistently been to state opposition to continued settlements in Palestinian Jerusalem while turning a blind eye while building immutable goes on. This sort of bare-faced duplicity is, I bet, at the heart of the increased acceptance of violence among Palestinians. Violence tends to be seen as a solution only when words are shown to be empty.
March 19, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I alwasy appreciate posters to my entries, even when I don't agree, so thanks all for the comments. Two points-one, to the lack of my mention of the settlements--anyone who has read me in the past knows that I am staunchly opposed to the settlement project, and believe that Israel's unwillingness to abide with a settlement freeze and the Bush Admin's refusal to force Israel to do so (as per the Road Map agreement) along with the Congress' unwillingness to press Israel here, is as problemmatic as the Palestinians not complying fully with the Road Map either, (or either side with any of the various agreements fallen by the wayside)
but as to those arguing re intervention in other's domestic issues-this is not a domestic Israeli issue. what happens between Israel and the Palestinians is of vital security interest too, to the US and to the world-and as the world's largest power the US has a critical role to play in dictating policy and bringing all the sides along. The Bush Admin has been terribly and dangerously delinquent. I believe that a new Admin will in fact exert power in the region to come to a just settlement for all concerned. It's precisely the role of the US to promote US foreign policy and no candidate should shrink from making that case to American audiences, including American Jewish audiences. That's what elections are for, after all!
jo-Ann
March 19, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Jo Ann, you are wrong. What happens between the Israelis and the Palestinians is the responsibility of the Israelis and the Palestinians and no amount of intervention, interference or influence is going to change that. The U.S. "dictating policy" in the Middle East is the cause, not the solution to the problems in the Middle East. That is exactly why the U.S. is not seen as an "honest broker" in the Middle East by anyone but the Israelis. That is why they hate us - they have seen the last 50 years of our dictating policy, the propping up of dictators, of authoritarian governments, our hypocrisy in proclaiming that all persons are entitled to determine the form of government best suited to them while we subvert and undermine that right for others and they know that we are not trustworthy. If the last five years has taught the Middle East and the world by extension anything, it is that we are not the most powerful nation on earth, that we cannot enforce our will on others and that our grasp of democracy is as tenouous as our grasp on morality.
The lesson the Israelis should have learned from the last five years is that they should not and cannot depend on the United States to enforce a peace on the Middle East and that the Israelis themselves must by necessity find the solution to their own problems. The United States is broken - it is morally bankrupt, it is financially bankrupt and as dictators of policy in the Middle East it is over for us. As long as Israel is dependent upon the U.S. to enforce a peace on the region, it will be in peril, and the best thing for Israelis to do is stop prolonging the agony and misery of all those suffering in the area and find a way with the Palestinians to stop torturing each other with this endless and painful warfare they are inflicting upon each other.
If you love America and Israel you will do everything in your power to make the people of Israel understand this. This is what this war in Iraq has done, it has finished the United States once and for all as the "broker of peace" anywhere in the world.
March 19, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Bev. I'm no isolationist and I know you aren't either but the other people of the world are not children that we're leading to adulthood. Only our neutrality can make us an honest broker in the region. But we can only be neutral if we take the wishes of the people who have to live with our policies into account.
March 19, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J Rosenberg is such embarrassment to tpmcafe. You can’t trust a single word of his writing
March 19, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jo-Ann Mort,
Do you share the Pastor Wright view who sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam?
March 19, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 19, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
For such a long essay on IP there were two gapping holes. First no mention of Hamas as a legitimate political force in Palestine. They did win an election, if you haven't forgotten. Your only mention of them is that all peace loving forces must rally behind Barghouti so he can defeat Hamas. I guess implied here is that he will then become a puppet much like Abbas.
Second there seems to be no mention of the current policy of the the Isaeli government to expand West bank settlements. You seem to think Meretz is a significant political voice in Israel. They are tiny. They have no influence on policy compared to the forces that support the expansion of the settlements. To summarize that support: first the 400,000 settlers, probably a majority of the officer corp of the IDF, a clear majority of the recent Russian immigrants and the orthodox Jews as well as overwhelming support from the more fundamentalist. And of course those Ashkenazi who built Likud and majrities of Sephardim. This is about half of the country. This is the armed half and the fanatical half. And they are opposed by whom? Tel Aviv suburbanites that may deplore what the settlements represent but surely are not willing to go to the streets object. Basically, the prosettlement movement is highly motivated, the 'peace' camp is not.
I mention this because I do believe that the Israelis themselves will resist any effort by the US to force withdrawal to the green line. They may not have defied us publicly so far but as we have seen since 1992 they have subverted every attempt slowing West bank settlement expansion. If we try to force them to stop they will likely just thumb their nose at us. Then what do we do? Probably, the only thing left is for the US to step aside and finally allow these events to follow their own course without our intervention.
March 19, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Progressives continue to ignore that Israel offered Palestinians the peace in 2000 based on almost complete withdrawal to the green line.
March 19, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink