Stop Using Israel As a Bludgeon
Gershom Gorenberg has a terrific piece in the latest American Prospect about Robert Malley who has faced a Salem witch style type shunning because he has been deemed unfriendly to Israel. Malley was a top foreign policy adviser to President Clinton at the Camp David negotiations. He's Jewish, a first-generation American, and a Rhodes scholar with a Harvard Law degree.
Gorenberg's piece explores why Malley was tagged with the anti-Israel label. Marty Peretz, former proprietor of the New Republic called him a "rabid hater of Israel." The New York Times idiotically reported the "charges" against Malley without explaining how ridiculous they are. And a million emails went out to Jewish primary voters warning about the dangerous Malley.
So what is the evidence that Malley is anti-Israel? As Gorenberg -- an Israeli and Orhodox Jew -- reports it stems from several articles Malley wrote following Camp David which made the claim (get ready to be shocked) that the failure of the 2000 Clinton summit was not all Arafat's fault but that Ehud Barak was also to blame.
That's it. For stating something that everyone (including Bill Clinton) says is true, Malley is condemned as a Jew-hater. Of course, politics in involved too. Malley was one of Obama's informal advisers which meant that he could be used by some Clinton and McCain supporters as evidence that Obama is, you know, like Jesse Jackson and the rest of them.
Pretty nauseating. But this is what the Marty Peretz/Alan Dershowitz crowd lives and dies for: shutting down debate on the Middle East by demonstrating that the slightest deviation from the line is a career destroyer.
Another would-be victim of this McCarthyist campaign is General Merill McPeak. He is the former Air Force chief-of-staff who said Bill Clinton was engaging in McCarthyist attacks by seeming to imply that Obama -- unlike Hillary and McCain -- is less than a loyal American. Almost immediately, McPeak was smeared as an anti-semite. The evidence: on occasion, he has suggested that Israel return to the pre-'67 lines. That's it.
I'll tell you, all this stuff worries me. We Jews are a tiny minority in this country. I don't think that it helps us when Americans at large keep seeing self-declared leaders of our community trying to destroy anyone who obliquely criticizes Israel or departs from the pro-Israel narrative. Think about it. You can say anything you want about US policies in Iraq or anywhere else. You can call Bush, Obama, Clinton or McCain any obscene name you want and you can do it in print. You can be Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh and become millionaires by smearing Presidents, former Presidents, NFL quarterbacks and the New York Times.
But you can't say that you think Ehud Barak is an arrogant negotiator or that Israel should return to the international border.
This is absurd. It is also, as the phrase goes, "bad for the Jews." Most of us are liberals, Democrats, support a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and are not racist against Arabs, African-Americans or anybody else. We are the segment of the American population which, according to the polls, are most against the Iraq war and any attack on Iran. We venerate the memory of Rabin and have no use for Barak or Netanyahu.
What right does Marty Peretz and Alan Dershowitz and company have to speak for us? We didn't choose them, no more than African-Americans chose their equivalents . I'm not saying Peretz and Dershowitz have no right to speak. I'm just saying that -- as is the case with Al Sharpton or Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- their paranoid worldview should not be attributed to a community they in no way represent.
I'm also saying that it's time to stop the name-calling on Israel,. Malley will survive. He has a great resume and will be a foreign policy player in Washington no matter what the ranting Likudniks think. General McPeak is a hero with a lifetime of service. Neocon armchair warriors can't lay a glove on him.
The only people hurt by these smears are those of us in the American Jewish community. It's us who are ultimately being smeared by Peretz and Dershowitz, not Malley or McPeak. And Israel too. After all, Israel, like America, is a place where one is free to criticize government policies all one wants. It is ridiculous that what is said every day in the Knesset will never be heard in Congress or that advisers to candidates like Clinton or Obama cannot say what most Israelis say all the time.
In short, the libeling of Jews and Israel has to stop. Are you listening Peretz, Dershowitz and, of course, Krauthammer? You are hurting the American Jewish community and damaging Israel too, or don't you care?
Yes, well this is hardly the first time Marty Peretz has said wildly off base, over-the-top things on this matter.
Good for you for working to undo the damage that, ridiculously, given his extreme views on this issue, Marty Peretz was able to inflict in the short run on Malley. He speaks for a minority of Jewish Americans on this, certainly not this one. Long ago he lost all credibility on this issue with me. But it is a boisterous, sometimes unscrupulous, and unfortunately influential minority. Those who think the US needs to be in a different place on I-P must oppose it vigorously and you are doing that.
March 28, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
One good thing about the Democrats' defeat in 2000: Marty Peretz will never again be able to pick a vice-president.
March 28, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right Michael,
It was Marty Perez Teh Jew who chose Joe Lieberman for VP, not Al Gore, the benevolent, good-hearted, but ultimately a bit naive Gentile. And it was Teh Jewish Neocons who invaded Iraq, not G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Condi Rice -- the benevolent, good-hearted, but somewhat gullible and easy-to-manipulate Gentiles.
Oh, and while we're at it, please never forget that it was Teh Evil Jews who crucified Jesus, our Lord and Savior, and definitely not Pontius Pilate the ruler of Judea - that brave, humane, benevolent, good-hearted, but oh so naive and impressionable Gentile.
Who are you, Michael? Uhm, let me guess: Mel Gibson's sibling!
March 28, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on point.
There are so many real issues for candidates to debate when it comes to the Middle East: What are the consequences of the current US-Israel relationship in the broader Middle East? How would you pursue Peace? Does the special relationship with Israel allow you, as President, to suggest Israel make tough decisions like removing settlements?
These are valid points for a foreign policy discussion. Those who are afraid of what the right answer might be, avoid the debate with far fetched stories and slanderous accusations.
March 28, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
March 28, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. He did say that. And it's not only true, you have repeatedly said the same thing. Can you find someone who will NOT say that Jewish voters (actually donors) in New York and Miami and LA etc play a big role in sustaining Mideast status quo policies. So what? That's like saying that gay voters and donors
in San Francisco and New York have a major influence on our party's stance on gay marriage. Or women on choice. Or big pharma on health care.
March 28, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. Rosenberg,
Sure, you have a right to defend his comments about Jews. I'm not interested in debating this issue. Just don't say that McPeak was smeared as an anti-semite because he has suggested that Israel return to the pre-'67 lines. That was not it.
March 28, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
[Moved from below to "reply" position]
MJ,
Hold the phone. McPeak was talking about voters, not donors, actually. Please explain how the American Jewish electorate is an obstacle to the peace process when Jewish voters traditionally turn out 3-1 Democratic, including in John Kerry's 04 run that was supported by McPeak?
March 28, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the original smear job. Note: it's about the '67 borders.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12937
March 28, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
M.J.,
Frankly, I don't see a good reason to defend McPeak, a self-identified conservative, whose presence on the Obama team is as baffling to me as that of Bob Malley.
Malley's jewishness has nothing to do with his approach to Israel. After all, the rabidly anti-Zionist Neturei Karta -- Ahmadinejad's best buds -- are as Jewish as they come.
Malley's views on Israel are likely rooted in his family history (a Marxist father, who rejected ethnic and religious identities and was a PLO sympathizer.)
Both McPeak and Malley are well out there on their respective subjects, as is Jeremiah Wright, and the fact that of all available human resources in the U.S. political mainstream, Obama chooses to surround himself with these people, should give pause to everyone. As the saying goes: "Show me your friends, and I'll tell you who you are."
A few more quibbles with your post. You wrote:
The 1967 "Green Line" is not an international border. There has never been a Palestinian state. If and when one is established, it and Israel will have to negotiate mutually recognized international borders. This is not a Left-Right issue; it's a fact.
And by "the Jews" you mean: Jews in the U.S. Well, when in comes to Israel, I'm afraid all this is hardly relevant. There are now more Jews in Israel than there are in the U.S., and it's their opinion that counts. After all, 80 percent of American Jews have never visited Israel, and less than 50 percent really give a damn. Those who wish to affect Israel's fate, should move there, try to promote their political world-view, and be prepared to enjoy (or suffer) the consequences.
It appears that after the collapse of the Oslo process, two bloody Intifadas, the disastrous disengagement from Gaza, the foolhardy experiment with Palestinian democracy which brought Hamas to power, and the unsuccessful 2nd Lebanon War, the Israeli public is a mood for a change and a shift to the right, i.e., like it or not, Netanyahu or someone else in the same mold will be Israel's next PM. Get used to it.
As to Rabin worship, it's about time for the Left to re-examine his legacy. Clearly, pushing through the Oslo accords in the Knesset on a single vote majority and with support from anti-Zionist political parties, was a huge miscalculation. The Oslo-based peace process never really gained legitimacy in Israel, Rabin paid an awful personal price, and Israel's political Left is still being blamed for everything bad that happens between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
As a result, both Labor and Meretz are in the worst shape they've ever been, with nothing but worse news on their political horizon. Yes, Ehud Barak also had something to do with it, but the 'original sin', so to speak, is Rabin's and Peres's (and Beilin's).
March 28, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
iaf,
That's an unfair statement. It was Ariel Sharon who led the Gaza withdrawal, and it is Ehud Olmert who has sustained the peace process in its current form. These and the increasing number of former leaders in the Israeli military and intelligence establishment that advocate direct talks with Hamas can hardly be considered examples of "leftists" as we understand the term.
March 28, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bar Kafka,
(This is a bit off-topic.)
With personal approval ratings consistently hovering around 7-10 percent, Olmert is a political corpse (Bar Minan). No one in Israel has any illusions about the peace process as long as Olmert is at the helm, and the Palestinian side knows it. (Dubya can't help either: his influence is waning by the day, while Iraq looms larger.)
My sense is that most Israelis no longer distinguish bet. Kadima (Olmert's party) and Labor, i.e. both are considered center-left. In fact, in the next elections they may merge and run together.
Sharon is not officially dead yet, so it's kinda impolite to critique him for his role in the disengagement from Gaza. (Not that politeness counts for much among Israeli politicians ;-), but still... ) In the mean time, Olmert who was the behind-the-scenes architect of the Gaza withdrawal, gets most of the venom.
I don't take these folks too seriously. After all, they are out of office and carry no responsibility. Furthermore, many of these fellas have political aspirations, and in Israel's tight media market, advocating a contrarian position is often the only way to get face time on prime time TV.
IMHO, as long as Hamas sticks to its principles and proclaimed goal of eliminating the Jewish entity, direct talks between it and Israel makes as much sense as direct talks between the U.S. and al Qaeda.
March 28, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether you agree that Israel ought to enter into direct discussions with Hamas or not, my point remains that approaching the course of Israel's regional foreign policy through a left-right paradigm is simplistic, possibly suspect and likely counterproductive, since such an approach creates unnecessary divisions within interested third parties like the USA and EU. Ideas with which to approach the peace process ought to be considered on the merits of their contingencies, not according to an arbitrary standard along a myopic socio-economic continuum.
March 29, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bar Kafka,
I'm afraid you are not sufficiently familiar with Israel's political landscape. The Left-Right divide in Israel's politics happens to be strictly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has nothing to do with socio-economics.
In simplistic terms, Left-wing parties (Labor, Meretz, more recently - Kadima) want an immediate etablishment of a Palestinian state, retreat to the 1967 Green Line borders (though not in Jerusalem), complete evacuation of Jewish towns in the West Bank (some of which now house tens of thousands of families), etc.
The Right-wing parties (Likud, Israel Beiteynu, religious parties) were until recently against a Palestinian state, want a territorial compromise which will keep most of the Jewish towns in the West Bank as part of Israel, and some parties also advocate 'demographic separation' - through border corrections that will exclude some of the Arab-Israeli population from what is currently Israel and place it within the future Palestinian state.
Both the Left and the Right in Israel are in complete agreement on the following two issues: (1) the future Palestinian state must be forever fully demilitarized; and (2) no past Palestinian refugees will be allowed to return into Israel.
Strangely enough, on the socio-economic continuum in Israel, unlike the U.S. and other Western countries, the positions of the Left and the Right are actually reversed. The Left's constituency is mostly middle and upper-middle class, hence despite its strongly socialist past, Israel's Left now advocates market-oriented economics (EU-style, not U.S. style.)
OTOH, the Right's constituency is traditionally low-income and religious Orthodox, hence historically its economic policies tended to be populist, with significant govt. handouts to the underprivileged. In fact, it's fair to say that on socio-economic issues, Israel's Right is to the left of Israel's Left. Needless to say, both are significantly to the left of what we in the U.S. recognize as socio-economically liberal Democrat Party positions.
Between 2003-2006, Netanyahu, who is both a hawk and a fiscal conservative, was Finance Minister and tried to re-orient Israel's stagnant, heavily regulated, high-tax and high-unemployment economy. He was spectacularly successful: taxes, govt. spending and some red tape were cut, govt. owned companies were sold, competent professionals were appointed to key policy positions (e.g. Stanley Fischer who became Governor of Israel's Reserve Bank), and Israel's economy took off. Since 2003, it grew an average 5-7 percent/year: inflation is very low, unemployment is down, foreign investments are through the roof (some $25 billion in 2007 alone), Israel's normally wasteful govt. runs budget surplusses, Tel Aviv stock exchange indices are at all-time high, and the Shekel (Israel's currency) is up not only against the USD but also against the Euro.
However, in 2006 elections, Natanyahu's opponents managed to paint him and his Likud party as stooges who benefited the rich and grossly neglected the poor and the elderly. Guess what? Likud suffered a humiliating loss. Politics is a harsh business, huh ?
March 29, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
iaf,
This is remains beside the point. As long as we force the issues of the Iraeli-Palestinian national conflict into the simplistic paradigm of an arbitrary left-right political spectrum within our discourse here outside of the region, then there can be no viable third-party arbitration since any subsequent policies can only be approached as a proxy campaign between liberals and conservatives within the political dynamics of the ostensible arbitrator. For example, we see in this country an absurd notion that presumed political realists such as Professors Walt and Mearsheimer become icons of the "left" and demonized by the "right"; Ron Paul is reinvented as a liberal presidential candidate; and Daniel Pipes refers to socialist European Parliamentarians as "conservatives" because of their efforts to hold the Palestinian Authority accountable for EU foreign aid.
March 30, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bar Kafka:
Sorry, I didn't mean to bore you.
I agree with that, although the lines are not drawn as neatly as you suggest. There are committed liberals who are strongly pro-Israel (Alan Dershowitz, Joe Biden, Tom Daschle) and rabid wingnuts who are vocal critics of Israel (Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Darrell Issa.)
I think the two professors got themselves in hot water not for their critique of Israel which is perfectly legit., but rather for trying to blame AIPAC and other Jewish-American pro-Israel lobbies for the U.S. failures in the Middle East. One must wonder why these two academics decided to single out the Jewish pro-Israel lobbies when: (a) lobbying is as American as apple pie; (b) Christian pro-Israel lobbies are more numerous and just as effective, if not more so; and (c) where were these academics when Irish-American lobbies were bringing Sinn Fein members into the White House, causing much friction between U.S. and the UK?
Regrettably, thus far the impartiality of all third-party arbiters of the Israeli-Pal. issue -- U.S., UN, UK, EU, Russia, The Pope, Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, you name it -- has been questioned by one of both sides. I'm afraid this stalemate will continue for the next 25-40 years when the the Middle East is projected to run out of oil. Maybe things will get better sooner, if there's a viable source of alternative energy...
March 30, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear MJ...great post.
Also wanted to thank for your IPF piece called The Next War.
The solution always seems to near...and yet so far away.
March 28, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an outsider to this controversy, it seems to me to be just like the self-appointed leaders of the Cuban-American community who have similarly held American Cuban policy hostage to their demands, backed up by the destruction the political careers of anyone who doesn't slavishly follow their extremist line.
Dershowitz and Peretz seem to be using the same tactics as the Cuban-American leaders do. In each case, individuals supporting a foreign nation are fighting within American politics to get the American government to support their personal view of the way that foreign nation should be treated.
I recall that supporters of the Chang Kai-Shek government in Taiwan behaved similarly, and there has been a similar South Korean lobby. Is there a similar Mexican lobby?
Of course, in the cases of Cuba, Taiwan and South Korea it was always clear that the supporters of those countries were Cuban, Chinese and South Korean rather than American.
March 28, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
March 28, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, tnathan, this is from Obama's March 18 Philadelphia speech:
"But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that 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."
On the claim you specifically raise, could he possibly be more clear?
Do you have other statements by Obama himself in mind that you believe reflect a different and contrary view?
(He is self-confident and, yes, wise enough to deliberately seek advisors with disparate views, believing that hearing a range of views is more likely to lead to better decisions. There is social science evidence the benefits of such an approach. See, for example, Cass Sunstein, Why Societies Need Dissent.)
But, really, that's all I want to say on this. Not interested in participating in the 291,874,793,298,665th argument about I-P. You're certainly entitled to your views.
March 28, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If M.J. Rosenberg believed that Obama is sincere, he wouldn't support Obama
March 28, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
AmericanDreamer:
Hmm, that's a good point. So, tell us, AmericanDreamer, how many scientists who deny the existence of global warming serve as Obama's official or unofficial advisors?
What about stem cell research? Does Obama have any stem cell research opponents on his advisory committee?
Does he still hear a range of views on other controversial topics, and what are those topics? Is evolution theory one of them?
I guess my inquiring mind wants to know whether Obama's wisdom, intellectual curiosity and open-mindedness are truly all-encompassing, or are they strictly limited to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
March 30, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are there no limits to the diversity of Obama's advisors? Of course not.
My point is about Obama's temperament. He seems not only comfortable with openly exploring different points of view but to find benefit in such an approach.
This obviously is not the preferred MO of all people who make institutional decisions on a regular basis and so this characterization will hardly be uniformly appealing or reassuring to all. Indeed some are nervous about some of the advisors in Obama's camp, fearing that the candidate indeed does seem to value their views and listen to them even when he does not always side with them in the end. In any case, although personally I find much to recommend in a "diverse views openly engaged" type of approach where it is feasible, my observation was meant to be more descriptive than normative.
Obama's approach stands in marked contrast with the current occupant of the Oval Office, who as even such admirers as David Frum have pointed out, is uncurious about things which a president should probably not be uncurious about. Bush is far too sure that his initial instincts and judgments are the ones he will in the end want to act on.
If I was somehow taken to imply that I think Hillary is uncomfortable in the presence of multiple viewpoints, that was not my point and I don't agree with that view. Hers is to my way of thinking an excellent intellect as well.
April 1, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Richard. It is definitely analogous. My brother-in-law is Cuban-American so I know that story first hand.
But read this settler dude, tnathan. He lives here but his heart lies in some West Bank settlement. He thinks, votes, lives and breathes as if America is his exile. But it does not stop him from trying to influence events here to favor settlements, etc.
My brother-in-law is a proud Viet veteran, a 9/11 firefighter first responder at the WTC, as patriotic as you can be (he had to retire from the FDNY as a result of the weeks he spent nonstop at the pile). But he defies the rightwing of his community, goes to Cuba, and opposes the embargo.
Sadly he is also a Republican!
My point though is that like most Cuban Americans, his home is here. He's not returning to the island. And he does not vote based on the interests of the Cuban exile community.
99.999% of Jewish Americans are like him. The tnathans are the loudmouths, the vocal tiny minority.
March 28, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you defend his smear against 99.999% of Jewish Americans ?
Why do you have to smear me? We just have honest disagreement. You see the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel. Omama and me see the conflict emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. Let's discuss the real issues. Stop smearing people you disagree with.
March 28, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Palestinians have less freedom of action than the Israelis do. Their government also has less control over the Palestinian peoples, in large part because every time they gain some level of control as a government, the Israelis used some pretext to eliminate that control. Yet those very actions by the Israelis strengthen the power of the terrorists while it reduces the power of the Fatah government.
The roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict go back to both the Zionists and the radical Muslims. There is no value in apportioning how much blame each might have as well as the blame due the Turks, the British, and, yes, the Americans. The problems today are that there is no peace and that every effort to approach peace gets crushed by a few radicals on both sides of the religious aisle.
The route to peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not got through racheting up the war and punishing more civilians for the actions of a few terrorists while refusing to speak to and support those leaders who might be able to cool the criminality down.
Historical blame for the problems that bedevil that benighted land today is a fool's game. The problems today demand a solution today, and the solution will bring peace and stable government to everyone, Israeli and Palestinian alike. The next missile out of Gaza isn't going to bring that peace, nor will the next airstrike by an Israeli chopper.
Israel has an effective government and a lot of international support. They have a great deal of freedom of movement. The Palestinians do not have an effective government, and while I see a lot of other Arab states saying to fight Israelis, the people in Gaza aren't getting a whole lot of material support. More airstrikes by Israelis will only perpetuate the problems, and there is no one yet who can stop the terrorists from setting off the next missile.
So who has more freedom to make a move towards peace? The Israelis or the Palestinians?
Somehow there has to be trust between the two sides. That is the key, and it will be very difficult to achieve. I see the Israelis as possibly being able to do something useful first. I don't see the Palestinians as being able to do anything effective.
That's not blaming our allies for the conflict. That's trying to pressure both sides to move to a better situation. As I read the news, the people in Gaza simply have no hope, so they are cornered rats. They are effectively dead anyway, they might as well take as many Israelis out with them as they can. They can't be frightened any more than they are.
The Israelis, however, do have some freedom of action. They are the ones who will have to start the process. Trust will be provided by someone from the outside, probably American, and Bush has forfeited all credibility as someone who can build trust.
Do you see any other mechanism or any realistic solution, or do you think that for the Israelis to lay cluster bombs all around the state of Israel and wall off the West Bank is the solution (as they permit/create more settlements to prevent a solution) is the answer?
March 28, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
An excellent and sensible post, Richard. I couldn't help but think as I read it how great it would be if our next President, whoever that may be, had someone equally sensible on his/her foreign policy staff, promoting this sort of view of the conflict. (This would of course require a President who was capable of recognizing the sense of it, and acting thusly.)
March 28, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
to M.J. and Richardxx
Very good points and good analogy to Cuban-Americans. I'm Jewish but have some Cuban-American friends who complain about the fanaticism of some the older generation. And I feel the same way about my generation and the older generation of Jews who can't see any misdeeds by Israel.
For many years, Israel deported moderate Palestinian leaders and treated Israeli Arabs as second-class citizens. That certainly doesn't help the current peace process.
OTOH, the unending enmity of the Arab nations surrounding Israel has not encouraged peace either. And 2nd rate leaders like Arafat who held power for so long didn't help either.
And M.J., I really appreciate your perspective, enjoyed (in a sick sort of way) your story about Krauthammer in your synagogue, and sent your piece about talking with Hamas rather than invading Gaza to a Jordanian-American friend who feels pretty pessimistic about prospects for peace.
Keep up the good work!
March 29, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
Hold the phone. McPeak was talking about voters, not donors, actually. Please explain how the American Jewish electorate is an obstacle to the peace process when Jewish voters traditionally turn out 3-1 Democratic, including in John Kerry's 04 run that was supported by McPeak?
March 28, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. Rosenberg thinks "that it's time to stop the name-calling on Israel." That's right - Marty Peretz and Alan Dershowitz should stop spreading their "paranoid worldview" and waging their "McCarthyist campaign." It all contributes to the "Salem witch style type shunning."
Far be it from me to point out that the pot is as black as the kettle. But is it possible that comparing overheated rhetoric on the Middle East to hanging innocent people is, well, a tad excessive?
March 28, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, extremism in the defense of his views is no vice!
March 28, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, Look, the terms of the debate have to change, they have become so circular and predictable, that the arguments are simply a treadwheel.
You change the terms of debate by proposing something entirely different, not when are the parties going to finally sit down and agree to the pre-Oslo outline or framework, but something that will steam people up on different paradigms.
I have long thought the debate would benefit from a good dose of Izzy Stone's 1947 Solution -- the Bi-National State concept. When asked to describe it, he would always say, you know, something like Switzerland with its Federal System and Cantons. So what would happen if some sincere folk worked up an outline-framework for what that might look like in practical terms, and start advocating the realism of the solution? Yes -- Izzy was not invited to speak before a Jewish Audience between 1947 and about 1973 -- but I actually doubt if it would be as acceptable today. The point is not so much to build a new Switzerland but to crack open the debate and get it off the treadwheel, and in the process drive Dershowitz and his polarizing sputtering crowd a little nuts. If they thought Cantons were catching on anywhere, they would be pushing the Oslo Framework fast and furious.
March 28, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I believe some Israeli Palestinians have been working on a Switzerland-like deal. I'm not sure how analogous the situation is or how workable it would be. Don't know enough about Swiss history or the rivalries between the three big groups, four really.
Our two groups here have been severely traumatized by history, which is part of what keeps the debate on a treadmill.
I always enjoy your posts, because you bring interesting historical information and insight to the table.
March 28, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 28, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you could call properly anything I've said a smear.
Nor was I referring simply to the Israeli people, but the Jewish people as a whole who, as you say, have suffered greatly.
Trauma is, I think, the natural result of this amount of suffering. But I'm not in any way saying that they can't act rationally.
As to your diagnosis, it would be hard to pin the chronic I/P conflict solely, or even mostly, on radical Islam. Radical Islam was not a factor in any of the wars up through 1973. Radical Islam was and is not the creed of the PLO, which has always been a secular and, at times, a Marxist-leaning organization.
So while radical Islam is playing a role now, it has not been a player for most of this conflict. It's also not too much of a stretch to say that radical Judaism (i.e., Greater Israel, settlers) is contributing to the conflict at this point as well.
March 28, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peter,
1. It's not my diagnosis, it's Obama diagnosis
in this latest race relations speech.
2. So why do you bring Trauma to this discussion if it doesn't affect the ability of Jewish people to think and act rationally?
March 28, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sara,
You remind me of Obama who wants to talk about the need to talk about educations.
Just go ahead explain your concept of Bi-National State. Why it would work better than Lebanon. Why not a federation between Jordan and Palestinian territories?
Go ahead.
March 28, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, MJ, for a good post. It is absolutely amazing to me that, as you point out, arguments made every day in Israel cannot be made here because they do not toe the party line.
March 28, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can make any anti Israel argument you want. Nobody is going to surround you crossing the Columbia campus" . It’s more likely you’ll be surrounded crossing the Columbia campus if you make pro-Israel argument.
However, people have a right to not to vote for you and don’t contribute money to your campaign if they don’t like your views
March 28, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ I always appreciate your posts and you've been very enlightening as to the backstory as to much of what is reported in the MSM. I've been meaing to ask you about your thoughts on the connection between the donor letter, the Clinton campaign stoking the Wright story, and the worrisome percentage of Democrats who report they won't vote for the other candidate. It does seem to me there is a connection in that at least some of the donors are foreign policy neocons first and domestic liberals second. Take Haim Saban, for instance, one of the signers of the letter and a major Clinton supporter. It does seem to me, based on his Wikipeida article and his 2006 interview, that his choices would be Clinton first, McCain second, and Obama never. The critical issue is not the specifics of Obama's Israel policy as such but his general stance of reconciliation. Saban, as I read him, is opposed to the overall message. Therefore, from his perspective, the logical strategy would be to destroy Obama as a viable candidate. If Clinton wins the nomination as a result, that's great. If Obama loses the general that's great too. Obviously, the Clintons are subject to a multitude of internal and external pushes and pulls, but it does seem logical to me that at least some of their supporters would genuinely rather see McCain as president than Obama, based on the foreign policy issue.
Do you have any thoughts on this?
March 28, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
tnathan, it isn't my idea, it originated with Izzy Stone, the Journalist who wrote the series in Pall Mall titled, "Underground to Palestine" published over a number of months in 1947. He republished it as a book, and spoke about it on many occassions over the years, except never in a Jewish Institutional Setting.
So if you want to know what he meant, get his early book, and then read through his later commentaries on the ideas.
I only offer it as something that will get folk off the treadwheel of useless passionate argument that goes nowhere. Perhaps someone else can come up with yet another idea that would break up a frozen discourse.
And yea, Switzerland is interesting. Very Rich, very long history of protecting both group and individual rights, Four languages, the way I count them, eight religions, and no war for hundreds of years. There are lots of good books on Switzerland -- though some wags comment on the peace and security they enjoy, and remind that their great contribution to the world was watches that work and the cookoo clock.
I was very upset last week with the reporting of the Argument about the 2nd Amendment before the Supreme Court that no one mentioned the fact that the Swiss Militia was actually the model our founding fathers studied when they wrote that confounded 2nd Amendment.
March 28, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't answer my questions:
Why it would work better than Lebanon. Why not a federation between Jordan and Palestinian territories?
March 28, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ:
I value your posts to TPM and agree with much of what you write. However, while I agree with the following paragraph, I take exception with the last clause of its last sentence:
"This is absurd. It is also, as the phrase goes, 'bad for the Jews.' Most of us are liberals, Democrats, support a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and are not racist against Arabs, African-Americans or anybody else. We are the segment of the American population which, according to the polls, are most against the Iraq war and any attack on Iran. We venerate the memory of Rabin and have no use for Barak or Netanyahu."
Though Barak made mistakes as prime minister and some would say continues to do so today, he did try to negotiate a deal with the Palestinians in 2000. Making him Netanyahu's equivalent is unfair. I think liberal Democratic Jews in America, at least those who take the time to be informed about Israel, would support Barak and the Israeli Labor Party and see a real difference between him and Netanyahu.
March 28, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Malley's crime against the forces pushing for West Bank Jewish settlements was very serious. He helped pop Barak's lie that there was no one to talk to. This has been since the collapse of Camp David talks the number one argument for maintaining the West Bank settlements. That is the only defense that the settler's defenders in this country can muster.
The lobby is now going to make it clear that Malley will never again have a high government position. He will be the example to other aspiring government officials that talking out of turn will have dire consequences.
Now the only question remains will the threat work? Does anyone seriously believe that say an Obama administration could afford to appoint him to any position?
March 28, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, some of the supporters of Israel go over the top. I'm not a fan of Martin Peretz.
But I see little evidence for the proposition that anyone who criticizes Israel is out of a job. For one example, go to most campuses today, and it is the anti-Israel voices that dominate.
It is troubling to hear people try to blame the Jews/Israel without context and often without limits. The idea that "rich Jews" are pushing Hillary to trash Obama is silly, but apparently has some traction here. The idea that the Jewish vote/donors control the Dems is also worrisome and false, so statements to that effect should be criticized.
The biggest supporters of Israel since the 1970's (remember "Zionism is Racism"? aka, everyone by you gets a homeland) has been the from the Christian largely Republican side. Bashing Dershowitz (who is no worse than a mixed bag) is almost irrelevant in political terms.
March 28, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we can never have a serious debate about the role of one of our allies how will we ever resolve anything. As a non Jew I find that the problem is not just the Palestinians but the Isreal government as well. Both are equally at fault and both should be condemned when they step over the line. Peace in the Middle East runs through Gaza...period. The Isreal government will have to make some tough decisions very soon if they want peace and the Palestinians should do the same. America will not be able to sheild Isreal for ever as more and more American of non Jewish heritage are starting to look negatively on the Isreal State. I know because I feel that Isreal is too hard and too rigid and is unwilling to give in order to receive. Isreal takes a really hard stand on issues that they do not need to and the Palestinians have no choice but to fight. A child who dies in Palestine has the same value as a child that dies in Isreal..period. Lately I have started to feel that I need to defend the child in Palestine more agressively, because no one is speaking about them or no one worries about them. The Jewish community here has to realize that this sentiment is growing among Americans at a very high rate. The sentiment is even greater in Europe......
March 28, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, what's the Palestinian fault?
You wrote that "Both are equally at fault"
but aren't saying anything about Palestinian fault. Is "equally" just a word without any meaning for you?
March 28, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Baraka,
Before trying to lecture others or to dispense advice, it's always useful to apply it to oneself. It's kinda, if you're a physician, consider whether you would have taken the medicine that you prescribe to your patient.
For instance, suppose I had transcribed your
as follows:
Both the U.S. and al Qaeda are equally at fault for 9/11, and both should be condemned. Peace between the West and the Muslim world runs through Tora Bora (or, through removal of all U.S. military presence, incl. troops, Air Force, Navy, the CIA and spy satellites, from the Middle East, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, you name it.)
Do you agree with the above? If you do, do you think many of our fellow Americans will agree? I seriously doubt it.
Let's take another example. You wrote:
Let me transcribe it as follows: A person who died in 9//11 has the same value as a person who died in the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
If that's true, then how come we count 3,000 dead in the 9/11 attacks, but well over 100,000 dead in Afghanistan and around 600,000 dead in Iraq? What's wrong with that math?
Finally, you wrote:
Not true! Two years ago the Palestinians were given a chance: free democratic elections, and full control of the entire Gaza strip -- to the last inch, and completely free of any Jews.
Instead of using this opportunity to build something for themselves and their children, instead of showing to the rest of the world that, given a chance, an independent Palestine would become a peaceful nation among nations, they chose to engage in a bloody civil war, and proceeded to build a "Hamastan" -- a mini terror state right next to Israel, which constantly launches deadly rockets and mortar shells into neighboring Israeli civilian towns and villages.
I say, the Palestinians have made their bed; let them lie in it.
For the future, Baraka, since you're non-Jewish anyway and Israel/Palestine are so far away, let me recommend that, for the sake of your sanity and general well-being, why don't you simply ignore the whole bloody mess, tune it out of your mind and let it be someone else's concern.
If you plan to continue contributing to this issue, I urge you to: (a) visit Israel ASAP -- you'll be surprised how tiny the country is, and how lively and peaceful (and yes, beautiful) it is, despite all the brouhaha and the disproportionate media attention; and (b) learn to spell the country's name: it's Israel, not Isreal.
March 28, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I almost always agree with your analysis, M.J. I wonder why we can't hear more from American Jews who recognize a little more nuance in the Israel/Palestine situation than say AIPAC does?
I look forward to the day when Congress can have a real conversation about it, but it won't happen until the American Jewish community signals to them that it is okay to do so. As long as AIPAC and Dershowitz remain the overwhelming public voice of American Jewry, policy makers won't feel comfortable broadening the discourse.
I hope that more progressive Jewish voices can start muscling in. When something like this McPeak situation comes up, it needs to be Jewish pundits on TV making it clear that they don't find it offensive, and that they may even agree with some of McPeak's points.
Outside of the progressive community, which visits sites like this one, I would dare say that much of gentile America doesn't even know that there is disagreement in the Jewish community on our Israel policy.
March 28, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you tell us what does say AIPAC really say,
what little more nuance do you want us recognize?
March 28, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tnathan, your comments are an embarrasment to Jewish People who love Israel. That is not Adhominem. I have no idea if you personally are. But your comments are.
The nuance you should recognize is that the problems in the Middle East are EVERYONE'S FAULT. Palestinians. US. Israel. Arab nations.
AIPAC says Israel can make no mistakes and does nothing bad.
There is no nuance. I challenge you tnathan. I challenge you right here. right now. to say this:
"there are many things the Palestinians have done that are terrible. That is part of the reasons for all the troubles in the MIddle East. At the same time part of the reason we are in the position we are in in the the Middle East is because of bad things that have been done by Israel"
If you can't say that. AND ONLY THAT in a comment. then you are no more than ideologue who has no ability to recognize nuance or fact.
March 28, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, Israel is not perfect and has made many mistakes, what's the big deal about such bold statement?
There are so many difficult decisions Israeli government and Israeli people have to make every day, there are so many conflicting limitations are forced on Israel, it’s hard not to make mistakes.
March 28, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "difficult decisions" and "conflicting limitations" aren't forced on Israel--they are the result of the choice Israel made to be a Jewish state despite the fact that a large portion of the population of the territory Israel has chosen to control is Arab and not Jewish.
Once the choice to be a Jewish state was made, Israel was faced with a dilemna--it could only remain a democracy if it violated the human rights of the Arab population--by excluding them in some form from the state. Hence we have the ongoing stalemate. Israel is reluctant to give up the terroritory, but it can't incorporate the Arabs that live on that territory into its democracy without losing it's ability to stay either a Jewish state or a democracy. Israel isn't quite willing to actually completely expel or exterminate the Arabs, so it's instead settled on keeping the vast majority of the Arab population under indefinite occupation in a confined area, hoping maybe that the problem will go away over time. It is impossible to be a democracy, respect human rights for all people, and be a Jewish state while simultaneously governing over a large non-Jewish population. That's the reason for Israel's many "difficult decisions" and "conflicting limitations" and ultimately it's all the consequence of a single, simple choice in favor of becoming and remaining an ethno-religious state.
March 29, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have the member nations of the League of Arab States made a conscious choice to be Arab states, or are Arab peoples really entitled to a regional monopoly on legitimate national self-determination?
March 29, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The people of Israel have a right to self-determination, just as the people of Arab states do. The problem though, is that there can be no legitimate self-determination in Israel and its territories as long as the "self" is defined as a Jewish self and therefore excludes the vast population of Arab selves. As long as Israel controls a huge Arab population, it's as much an Arab state as it is a Jewish state, despite what the Jewish-dominated government officially proclaims. Legitimate self-determination in Israel would be a process that created a unique Israeli self that is neither Jewish nor Arab, but something that unites both the Jewish and Arab populations in a common culture and body politic.
March 29, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State,
Hmm, do you mean something like the unison and harmony one observes between the Flemish and the Wallons in Belgium, after close to 200 years of living together ? Or maybe the tranquility, love and understanding between Quebec and the English speaking rest of Canada ?
I'm afraid this is wishful thinking.
Regrettably, tribalism is still a very strong, well entrenched driving force. You don't need to go very far for recent examples. Take a look at the split between Slovakia and the Czech Republic -- despite the miniscule ethnic differences between the two peoples. Another good example is former Yugoslavia: only an expert can distinguish between the ethnic Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The primary differences are sectarian religious, although all three groups are Christian.
There is far more that separates the Arabs and the Jews.
March 29, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yes, the hatred between Jews and Arabs grows stronger every day creating greater and greater psychological separation. But physically, Jews and Arabs are sharing a tiny slice of land and are barely separated at all. So they will need to work something out. What supporters of Israel always seem to be arguing is that the Palestinians should just settle for the absolute minimum and be happy about it. Well that's just wishful thinking, too. The Palestinians won't settle for the minimum. Instead they'll keep kicking against the pricks. The Israelis will either have to give the Palestinians more to reach a peaceful settlement or will have to get rid of the Palestinians altogether by force. I argue for the Israelis giving the Palestinians more. Most supporters of Israel, however, seem adamant about holding out as long as possible and giving the Palestinians as little as possible. Violence will surely come of that strategy and eventually Israel will be left with the choice of capitulating to the Palestinians or committing a genocide against them. I can't imagine that's a choice the Israelis really want to make, but their policies seem destined to drive them to that point-- slowly and painfully, maybe, but nevertheless inexorably.
March 29, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State,
Look, Israel has already moved quite a bit towards accommodating the Palestinians. It now accepts the concept of two-state solution and I believe that some sort of a territorial compromise is possible (with some give and take on both sides.)
I have yet to see any movement from the Palestinians on the two issues on which no mainstream Israeli will ever compromise: (a) the right of return of Palestinian refugees into Israel proper; and (b) re-division of Jerusalem. Now, I realize that the PLO hard-coded these two items into the Palestinian consciousness, and deprogramming will have to take place. Unless and until this happens, there will be no progress.
I agree -- neither is acceptable. However, give Israel some credit: it's been around for 60 years now, and it has been successful in the past, against some very unfavorable odds.
March 29, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State,
And yet, that is exactly how politics is done everywhere throughout what we casually refer to as The Arab World. Poltically speaking, there are no selves other than Arab selves in the respective populations in each and every one of the member nations of the Arab League. This is a significant purpose behind the promise of comprehensive recognition of Israel in the Arab League's Beirut peace initiative. However, the Arab League initiative exposes its cynicism by backloading the offer of comprehensive recognition, because the chances that the initiative would positively effect the Israeli electorate -- and, subsequently, the adoption of the initiative within the policies of Israel's elected leadership -- would be tremendously increased if the offer were frontloaded. In other words, the comprehensive formal acceptance of the political validity of the Jewish people in the region would go a long way toward establishing the confidence within the Israeli electorate to choose an Israeli leadership with the kind of mandate capable of reaching the formal settlement to the conflict.
March 30, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bar: By frontloading you appear to be saying that the Palestinians/Arabs should relinquish some of their important negotiating points prior to the negotiations. Resolving these sorts of issues is the purpose of negotiations, and insisting that your enemy should cave before negotiations doesn't seem to provide evidence of negotiating partner particularly willing to compromise.
March 30, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie,
Don't you think the Arab League member nations could have a greater and more positive influence on the peace process (not to mention with regard to many other issues and concerns across the region) if they were to establish normal relations with both Israel and an emergent Palestine? Heck, even short of recognition, the Arab League could advance their initiative with preliminary diplomatic exchanges. How would that amount to any kind of a "cave"?
March 30, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bar: Why should Arab leaders take these sorts of actions, which favor Israel, and would undermine Arab leaders within their own countries, while Israel is not willing to stop the settlements? That's the what the impasse is all about; it's important to note that there are two sides to it. But there is a difference. In the case of the Arabs, it's simply a failure to take an action, which at any time can be remedied, while in the case of Israel, actions (settlements) are being taken which influence the outcome profoundly and may indeed ultimately prevent any peace at all.
March 30, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not only the peace process, Wordie. Israel has achieved alot in areas of scientific research. There are ongoing joint projects between Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority, such as the academic cooperation at the Arava Institute, that would not have been possible in the absence of viable diplomatic relations. Beside the opportunity to play an effective role in facilitating a formal settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the vast majority of Arab League member nations are blowing off many such opportunities by rejecting comprehensive diplomatic relations with Israel.
March 31, 2008 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's hard to get away from the fact that Israel was created through an in-gathering of Jews, whereas other recently formed countries were created by drawing a border line around peoples who already occupied the land in question.
Now, I don't mean to suggest that this fact de-legitimizes Israel, or the concept of a Jewish state, in any way. There's a lot to be said on this point, but that's a different post.
However, it's undeniable that Israel came into this world in a different way than any other RECENTLY formed country I know of. This asymmetry is the cause of this disagreement. Of course the Arabs have made a conscious choice as you say, but no one pays it any mind because the Arabs are said to have "owned" the land from the beginning.
March 29, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, Peter. I'd add that the ingathering of the Jews is not problematic and that Jews have a right to be in Israel and that somehow trying to remove the Jews from Israel or delegitimize their presence there in any way would be highly problematic.
My only issue with Israel as it exists today is with its official Jewishness when the territory it controls is so heavily Arab. This does strike me as problematic since it results in the disenfranchisement of a huge percentage of the population under Israeli control.
A two-state solution would, of course, solve the problem. I think, however, that the time for a two-state solution is long passed. There is too little land left for the increasing Arab population and the settlement policy has made fully separating the populations almost impossible. Because of this, I think a federated solution (discussed elsewhere in this thread) is maybe the most promising solution. I wonder, though, if there's will to move forward--or whether the two primary parties (Israelis and Palestinians) would rather just wait until the situation explodes and one side finally and completely defeats the other.
March 29, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
petermschwartz52,
True, but this was borne out of necessity. Although Zionism is a 19th century philosophy, it was considered a utopian idea by the vast majority of the world's Jewry. All that changed during WWII, when it turned out that life in Diaspora and attempts to assimilate in the larger gentile society were literally lethal for the Jews.
Recall that although the Nazis hated the Jews with murderous intensity, the Holocaust was not their first urge. They wanted the German lands, which by then included areas to the east of Germany, to be cleared of Jews (Jüden rein). Since no other country in the world would agree to accept their jewish population - in spite of the fact that most of it was highly educated, prosperous, enterprising and productive -- led the Nazis to conceive "The Final Solution".
The state of Israel was created to prevent this from ever happening again. The process of in-gathering has been slow, mostly because the two largest concentrations of Jews in the world -- the U.S. and Russian Jewry, each due to its own unique situation, wouldn't or couldn't emigrate to Israel. That has changed in the 90s. There are now more Jews in Israel than in the U.S., and this trend will continue.
I guess it all depends on what you consider to be "the beginning." :-) Believers will find all the answers they need in the Bible. Lawyers will remind us that possession constitutes 90 percent of ownership. See my other comments here with regard to wars and their consequences.
March 30, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State, you wrote:
First, there is a fallacy in your argument, which is commonly repeated and actively promoted by Israel's detractors. Israel is not the only country in the world that has an official state religion -- in Israel's case, Judaism. Look here for an entire list of other countries with official state religions, many of which are well-respected democracies.
I assert that the State of Israel is a democracy. The only counter-claim some make is re: Israel's immigration policy (aka The Law of Return), which gives preferential treatment to ethnic Jews. This is an unfair criticism, since many other Western democracies (Germany, Ireland, etc.) have, or had until recently, similar laws whose purpose was/is to preserve or to enhance a specific ethnic/cultural heritage. Besides, each sovereign country, incl. Israel (!), asserts the sovereign right to set its own immigration policy, no matter how discriminatory it appears to others.
When you talk about an 'Arab population whose human rights are violated', you must qualify whether you mean the Arab-Israelis or the Arab population of the West Bank. (The Gaza Strip is no longer administered by Israel.)
Assuming that you meant the latter, these people are not Israeli citizens and thus cannot expect equal rights under Israeli law. Israel gained control over this population as a result of a war. Jordan -- their former (if temporary) homeland -- has revoked their Jordanian citizenship and gave up its territorial claims over the West Bank, while Israel has never annexed these territories (except for East Jerusalem); it merely administers them until their final status is resolved.
Some like to call it an occupation, but this term is legally inaccurate since the West Bank has never been an independent country. The correct legal term is disputed territory, since multiple parties have claims over all or parts of it: the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Israel and Syria. (Syria sees the entire historic Palestine, incl. Jordan, as part of Greater Syria.)
Since the West Bank Arabs do not aspire to become Israeli citizens, their human rights will have to be asserted under what ever future national entity or identity they manage to achieve -- through negotiations! (I'm sure you don't condone violence.) An independent Palestinian state seems to be 'the flavor of the decade', but I remain highly skeptical.
In this admittedly long and arduous process, Israel has its own legitimate territorial claims and, based on past history, it has extremely legitimate security concerns. Israel has already gone down the road of an unilateral withdrawal -- see the 2006 disengagement from Gaza, with pretty disastrous results. It's highly unlikely to do it again.
March 29, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iaf, a reasonable post, but I think you miss my main point. Israel was established as a Jewish state, by the Jewish population, without consulting the large Arab population. Israel did, initially, invite the Arabs to become citizens, but it didn't ask their opinion or input on the nature of the government. Creating Israel as a Jewish state was a unilateral decision of the Jewish population (supported and facilitated, of course, by the UN). The Arab population--which was more than 40% of the population even of the original Jewish area created by the UN and more than 60% of the population of the whole of Palestine--was not given any voice in creating Israel or its government. During the war that followed, Arabs fled Israeli-controlled areas as refugees, and after the war, Israel refused to let the refugees return to their homes and denied them citizenship in Israel, thereby reducing its Arab citizenship to less than 20% of the population. So yes, these Arab refugees and their decendants aren't citizens of Israel, but only because Israel refused (in violation of international law) to allow them to return home. Of course, you are right that these Arabs don't want to be citizens of a Jewish state--they've been opposed to the state being Jewish since Israel was created as a Jewish state through the unilateral decision of the Jewish population. But they might very well be happy to become citizens of a bi-national state if it allowed them to live in their historic homeland with full political rights and equal status to the Jews. As it is, Israel prefers to limit its Arab citizenship as much as possible, since it can remain a Jewish state only by doing so. Still it continues to control the West Bank and Gaza (yes, Gaza's borders remain controlled by Israel, even if Israel isn't acting as the governing authority with the territory). You can quibble over whether the word "occupation" is the right word, but whatever word you use, you can't deny that Israel remains the controlling authority over the Palestinian territories and their people--it controls the borders, controls ingress and egress, controls airspace, controls water and much of the energy supply, and continues, in the West Bank at least, to control movement within the territory through checkpoints and other means. It also continues to settle large areas of the West Bank. Furthermore, Israel shows no sign of significantly relinquishing this control or ending its settlement of the land. This increasingly makes it clear that Israel will eventually have to take responsibility for the Palestinian Arabs living under its control and intermixed with its own populaiton--and incorporate them into its nation--or pursue a course of anti-democratic repression of the Arab population.
So Israel is a democracy--but it is a seriously flawed one that can remain a democracy only by limiting the numbers of Arabs it accepts as citizens and by violating the political rights of those it controls but refuses to accept as citizens.
March 29, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State,
You have omitted an important step in the process that created the State of Israel. This was not a unilateral decision which somehow got UN's stamp of approval. The UN decision was the partition of the land west of the Jordan river, with two states established: one for the Jews, and another one for the Arabs. The Jews accepted this partition, but the Arabs rejected it and declared war on the nascent Jewish state -- a war which Israel won.
I think it's fair to say that the Arab flat-out rejection of what the majority of UN members at the time thought to be a reasonable compromise is at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This rejection was reinforced after the Six Day War, when the Arab League at a 1967 meeting in Khartoum issued its famous Three No's: "NO peace with Israel, NO recognition of Israel, NO negotiations with Israel".
Furthermore, let me remind you that whenever an opportunity presented itself for Israel to make peace with its neighbors, Israel took the necessary risks and made the sacrifices, which is why it now has peace treaties and full diplomatic ties with Egypt and Jordan.
This is not to say that Israel has always been perfect, but I think any reasonably person should recognize that placing most of the blame on Israel for the failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- only because Israel is for the most part an economic, political and sociological success story with a strong military, whereas the other side is none of the above -- is patently unfair (and some might add, un-American: we don't punish people or enterprises for being successful in this country; quite to the contrary.)
I'm all for protecting the lives and for humane treatment of innocents and for minimizing pain and suffering on all sides. But let's not reward extremism, fundamentalism, rejectionism, the inability to compromise, poor and corrupt leadership, cowardice, etc. None of these could serve as a good foundation for any successful enterprise, and, God knows, this world doesn't need yet another failed state.
March 29, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State,
In the aftermath of WWII, millions of ethnic Germans were expelled from the territories in Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania former Yugoslavia, and some parts of the former Soviet Union -- territories where some of them lived for hundreds of years. I don't hear many voices in the U.S. demanding their right of return.
Also in the aftermath of WWII, the Soviets expropriated from the nascent East Block countries territories bordering the Soviet Union -- as punishment for supporting the Nazis. These territories -- Hungary's Eastern Carpatia, parts of Polish Galicia, Romania's Bucovina and Eastern Moldova, etc. were supposed to be held by the Soviets for 20 years, but when the time came to return these lands, the Russians changed their mind, flooded these lands with ethnic Russians and permanently annexed them to the Soviet Union. A similar thing happened to Hungary's Transylvania, which, though ethnically still majority-Magyar, is now part of Romania.
I'm not even gonna touch on the China/Tibet or India/Kashmir issues.
Guess what: war is hell, and to the winner go the spoils. I don't see any justifiable reason to single out Israel for its behavior in the aftermath of a war that it did not initiate, except for the simple reason that we can.
I am particularly amused to hear about International Law from Americans, in light of our own cavalier disregard of it whenever it suits our national interests. Need I remind you the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strikes, or the repeated calls in the aftermath of 9/11 to withdraw from the Geneva Convention (which we probably turned into shreds anyway) ?
I mean, what gives us the right to lecture other nations on issues of morality and international law ? Is it the old good American Exceptionalism ? Honestly, I thought that this was a strictly Conservative/Neocon paradigm that we, libruls, reject.
March 29, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iaf, I doubt you'd want to make the argument that all peoples at all times should comply with all UN resolutions. If that were the case, Israel would hardly be a shining example of compliance. The UN does make mistakes, and certainly people have a right to reject UN resolutions that treat groups unfairly or lead to injustice.
In my mind the Arab rejection of the UN partition plan was indeed legitimate and reasonable. UN Resolution 181 left the Arabs with just 43% of the land, despite the fact that they constituted about 67% of the population. The 33% of the population that was Jewish ended up with 56% of land. Indeed a portion of the land was desert, as supporters of Israel like to mention, but the Jewish minority also got much of the prime land along the coast and in the north.
While supporters of Israel tend to focus on the partition authorized by Resolution 181, it's also important to understand that the Resolution didn't just divide the land, but established a process for electing constituent assemblies from the entire population of both states (both Arabs and Jews). Those democratically elected and fully representative assemblies were supposed to write constitutions for their respective states. According to the UN resolution, the British were supposed to oversee the process, but they ignored the resolution and abandoned Palestine precipitously. In the vacuum, the Jewish Agency jumped the gun and created unilateraly a Jewish State without any participation from the Arabs (Israel still doesn't have a constitution, by the way). This only exacerbated the problem and confirmed Arab fears that they were about to be disenfranchised by the Jews. Even in the Jewish state, Arabs were 45% of the population, so the concern was significant and real. Arabs were nearly half the population of the new Jewish state and, despite the provisions of Resolution 181, had been completely excluded during the creation of the state's government by the Jewish Agency.
So while the partition may have been approved by the UN, the process of creating the government of Israel was not the process envisioned in the UN resolution. Instead of being established through a democratic process which included representatives of the entire population, both Arab and Jew, the Israeli state was a unilateral creation of the Jewish Agency, established without Arab participation and without Arab consent. Even if one thinks the Arabs should have accepted the UN partition plan, it is hard to argue that the Arabs didn't have a legitimate grievance against a government that was created against their will, without their participation, and through an undemocratic process that was not the process specified in the UN's resolution. In my mind, this unilateral process, is at the heart of the conflict--and, furthermore, seems to confirm the Arab's fears that the Jews were out to take the land and leave the Arabs disenfranchised. If the Jews really wanted not to disenfranchise the Arab population, why didn't they include them in some democratic process of creating the state?
One other comment on your second post: certainly populations have been expelled before. That hardly justifies such a crime against humanity, but it does happen as we all know. The problem in Israel, though, is that the expelled population is still there, under the control of Israel. It has been expelled from citizenship and confined to certain areas on the periphery of the state, but with the occupation of the territories, those areas and the people in them remain under the control of the Israeli state. They do not, however, have many political rights. While the expulsion was an injustice, the primary problem today is the ongoing injustice of occupation and denial of the right to self-determination.
March 29, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State,
Ok, suppose that you're right -- the Arabs' grievances with UN 181 were legit. However, you must grant me that, once they elected to resolve these grievances through military means -- an all out war on Israel, they must accept the outcome of that armed conflict and learn to live with it. (I mean, what do you think would have happened to Israel, had the Arabs prevailed in 1948 ?) This is not a movie: you can't rewind the tape and have another take if you don't like the way the scene played out.
If you look at the history of jewish resettlement of Palestine in the late 1800s through early 1900s, you'll find that much of the land along the Mediterranean Coast and in the Upper Galilee was legitimately purchased from the Arabs.
The land was swampy and poorly drained, hence its Arab owners deemed it unsuitable for agriculture and were glad to sell it to 'teh stoopid Jews'. (It's a little bit like the story of agriculture in California's Central Valley.)
Again, you're singling out Israel for something that you admit has happened before, and after, in many different places in the world, and is still happening today -- in Darfour, Iraq, etc. In armed conflicts populations get displaced, period. Israel did its share: it granted citizenship to its own Arab population, and it absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews who were expelled from the Arab countries in the aftermath of 1948.
The control over the rest of the Arab population (West Bank and Gaza) fell in Israel's lap as the result of the Six Day War. It could have been a temporary situation, had the Arabs been more conducive to sitting down and finding a solution to the conflict (remember those pesky Three NO's in Khartoum?) Again, that's not what has happened, but putting most of the blame on Israel is simply unfair.
Btw, Israeli citizenship was granted to denizens of the areas that Israel decided to annex after 1967 (East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.) The rest who are still administered by Israel (West Bank) will have to wait patiently until their leadership decides it's in its best interest to strike a deal. Same goes for the rest of Palestinian refugees -- in Lebanon and Syria. (Jordan granted full citizenship to its Palestinians, so they are ok.) The Gazans are now on their own. Personally, I wish them luck -- they'll need it.
March 29, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iaf, before I make my comment, I just want to say that I'm enjoying our discussion. You make good points and argue cogently and respectfully. It's a pleasure to find this kind of dialogue on the internet.
I'm about to log off and read a book, so I may not respond if you post again, but I think you are right that the Palestinians will need to come to grips with the situation--not simply because they lost the war, but because history moves on and the Jewish population of the region is now a large, vital, established community that has every right to remain where it is. Peace can only happen if the Palestinians accept fully this right of the Jews to live in Israel. At the same time, though, the Israelis must recognize that the Palestinian Arabs are also a large community still very much present in the territory Israel controls. The creation of two separate states--one Palestininan, one Jewish--would have been a satisfactory, if not perfect, way of resolving the problem while preserving most of the rights of both parties. Maybe the two-state solution is still possible. However, I strongly believe that Israel's policies since 1967--especially the policy of settling large areas of the West Bank--have made the two-state solution less possible than it once was. If the two-state solution ever becomes truly impossible (and it may be very close to becoming that), then some other solution must be reached. You can't have the Palestinians existing in limbo for ever. That solution is much likely to be either a federation or a single-state solution. These solutions will require quite an adjustment in the mindsets of both Palestinians and Israelis--but those adjustments will be essential to avoid the only other possible solution--the expulsion or extermination of one group or the other. That solution is so unacceptable that it must be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately, however, the current "roadmap" with all its preconditions and restrictions seems to me almost perfectly designed to halt all progress and therefore make an evenutal violent and genocidal explosion more likely.
March 29, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State, you wrote:
Oh, Purple State: you make me blush... NOT! :-) Thanks much for the kudos, you're a fine debater and I'm enjoying this too.
Agreed! The questions is: what single state, or federation with whom? IMHO, such a structure between Israel and the Pals won't work: there's too much baggage, insurmountable ethnic, religious and cultural differences, and, most important, after the 2nd Intifada Israel has discovered that it doesn't need the West Bank
March 30, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, my above post got truncated.
In the part that got eaten by the evil net daemons, I proposed a federation or a single-state solution between Jordan and the Palestinians, rather than between Israel and the Palestinians.
The advantages are obvious, plus Jordan would gain a port on the Mediterranean. The pitfalls are considerable as well, not the least of which is a potential new "axis of evil" between radical Pals and Iraq's Sunnis, or between Hamas (should it win the Pal. civil war) and Iraq/Iran Shia.
March 30, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are protected by what is called academic freedom so it is not possible to threaten faculty that are critical of Israel. Yes tenure can be denied as we see with the Finklestein case. Somebody threatened DuPaul's endowment, but the university's reputation itself will likely suffer.
But you are quite wrong -- the anti-Israel voices can be heard but they certainly do not dominate. This is the ultra right wing talking points that are being used to attack academic freedom on Israel's behalf.
March 28, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
academic freedom is of some value, but doesn't cover that much. I wasn't talking so much about faculty anyway, but note that tThere has been a movement in Britain to boycott ALL Israeli academics, even those who are left wing. It was narrowly averted, but likely will come back. Is there any movement to boycott academics from Arab countries? No. And the dominant student voice at many campuses is to demonize and de-legitimize the State of Israel per se. Not the original "borders" or the "settlements," but the idea of a Jewish State. I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss my observation as a right wing talking point. I'm not right wing. I have seen and read about threatening and sometimes violent demonstrations against supporters of Israel (San Francisco State, Berkeley) but I have not seen or read about the pro-Palestinian students being threatened. Maybe I've missed it, and would certainly look at more information if it were offered.
Of course Israel makes mistakes and has faults, and can be fairly criticized. But only Israel is held to a different standard than other countries, some with much, much worse human rights records.
Another thought. Many of the posters identify themselves by religion. I'm not sure of the purpose. The ideas need to be evaluated on their own. Being Jewish and critical of Israel doesn't mean the criticism is necessarily fair.
March 29, 2008 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You asked what the purpose of identifying one's religion in writing on this topic.
Of course you are right when you point out that being Jewish does not make criticisms of US I-P policy or of specific actions Israel has taken correct--or incorrect.
As a denizen who has sometimes identified myself as Jewish when writing on this topic, I can only speak to my own reasons for doing so. I do so precisely to do what small part I am able to do to make clear that Jewish Americans are not of one mind on I-P and that many of us strongly want US I-P policy to be in a different place than where it has been of late. Some ask why Jewish Americans who disagree with prevailing I-P policies do not speak up. I identify my religion in part to say, in effect, this is one Jewish American who is trying to do just that!
March 29, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the way you think and reason, Mr. Rosenberg.
tnathan sounds extremely Traumatized to me. His postings read to me like paranoid outbursts. His thoughts seem fixated by fear, locked beyond rational comprehension. Sad dude, to be sure.
I'm Jewish, too, and love the people of the U.S. and the people of Israel and the people of Palestine and elsewhere. Hating the sin, though. Hating the paranoia that vaporizes any attempt at an equitable and fair solution.
Not too worried though. An equitable and fair solution will be implemented one day despite the arsenal of paranoia and scaremongering of the tnathan's of the world. Too bad they'll get so many people killed in the process.
March 28, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's kind sad that all have have to say is to personal insults on the people you disagree with instead of discussing real issues.
Why don't you explain why equitable and fair solution has not been implemented so far? Is this a fault of Traumatized Israeli people and their leaders? Is this a fault primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
Be honest!
BTW, what did I say "beyond rational comprehension"?
March 28, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that uncommon a view. The problem is, it is not a view that wins votes when the voters are afraid, so the hardliners get on media repeating the word "Terrorists" thousands of times, equating Islam with terrorists, and shouting "Islamofascists" repeatedly.
The classic will be "We don't want the smoking gun to be a nuclear cloud" either from Condi or Bush. The White House Iraq Group had to build fear to reelect Bush in 2004 and to retain control of the House for the Republicans in 2002.
Apparently it works in Israeli politics also. Once elected, the hardliners don't dare back down on the aggressive hard line.
Which simply won't work. Think about the Palestinians in Gaza. Fatah did nothing for them, so given a chance the voted Hamas in. Hamas has nothing it can do except fire missiles at Israel. The reports I have seen state that the population of Gaza is literally hopeless. What do people do when they are hopeless and being attacked?
Two choices. The either get depressed and do nothing or even commit suicide. Or they get angry and decide to take their attackers with them. The angry ones will encourage the rest to join them in their anger, and they will do whatever it takes to kill their attackers and anyone they love.
Somehow the hardliners think they can stop such people by escalating the attacks. It hasn't worked in Chechnya, it hasn't worked in Afghanistan, and it won't work in Gaza. So it's time to do something different.
But doing something different means that the hardliners will lose their leadership positions. That's true for both Likud and for the Hamas leaders.
Someone has to do something to offer hope to the people who have had it before and found it dashed over and over. And there has to be some way to build trust between Israeli's and Palestinians, which is made harder because both sides have their religious extremists who will die (or kill) rather than compromise with someone not of their religion.
Clinton at least tried. Bush is a passive figurehead who imagines that leadership means he should find a leader, assign him to a problem (like he did Rumsfeld), then hope the appointee will deliver a successful solution without guidance, direction, criticism or assistance in coordination with the rest of the government. Bush can't even fire a failure. He hates conflict. He doesn't understand the issues well enough to provide guidance to his subordinates, and the result has been a federal government that has run on autopilot except where Cheney or Rumsfeld wanted something to happen.
The failure who is Bush has been a disaster for the Israelis and Palestinians, as well as the Iraqis, Afghanis, and people in New Orleans. It wasn't until the Chinese, Japanese and South Koreans realized what a non-entity Bush was and acted on their own to recreate something almost as good as Clinton's deal with North Korea that anything happened. Unfortunately, there are no strong nations in the Middle East who have any strong motivation to get mixed up in trying to resolve the Problems surrounding Jerusalem.
It's a shame that there is no big money being lost there. If there were, the Fed could be induced to sell Palestine to Citibank and Israel to BankofAmerica and everyone would sit down with the wealthy banker and resolve the conflict because it would be bad for business. But unfortunately, it's just people getting killed and kids growing up with no education or jobs, so no one cares much.
March 29, 2008 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
March 29, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State,
Israel is NOT reluctant to give up the territories. Let me remind you that Israel didn’t have the “territories” before 1967.
Israel offered to give up “territories” in exchange for peace after 1967.
In 2000, Israel offered to give up 96-98% of “territories” in exchange for peace
Few years ago Israel gave up Gaza. However, as you alluded, the real issue is not “territories”, the real issue is the right of Jewish state of Israel to exist in any border. Hamas and PLO are still committed to destruction of of Jewish state of Israel. Many “progressives” in US and Europe share Hamas’s goal.
March 29, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
A Jewish state is fine if it evolves out of the common and shared culture of the population. But the Jewish state in Israel has always been possible only by actively excluding a large segment of the very large Arab population from full participation in the state. Because of this, Israel's existence as a Jewish state is indeed problematic to those who believe such exclusion of a large part of the population is wrong.
Just to clarify, I use the word "territory" in a broader sense than you did in your comment. In 1947, at the time of the original partition, the territory of Israel was about 60% of pre-partition British Palestine. This territory had a population that was nearly half Arab (the remaining 40% of Palestine was almost all Arab, as Arabs were two-thirds of the entire population of British Palestine). Israel wanted to keep that territory, but still wanted to be a Jewish state against the will of the large Arab population. After the 1947 war, the territory of Israel increased to 80% of British Palestine and many of the Arabs had fled during the war as refugees or been removed to the West Bank, Gaza, and surrounding countries. Israel (against international law) refused to allow the refugees to return, thereby managing to acquire more territory with fewer Arabs. If Israel had stopped there, it may have succeeded in its goal of creating a truly Jewish state on the territory it then controlled. But after the 1967 war, Israel took control of more territory (West Bank and Gaza) with a huge Arab population (many of them the refugees it had managed to rid itself of in 1947). Instead of trying to immediately separate itself from that territory and its Arab population, the Israelis embarked on a policy of settling the territory. That has created the untenable situation in which Israel finds itself today. It cannot easily give up the territory, but because of that it cannot rid itself of its Arabs without committing a crime against humanity. Demographically, Israel (with its territories) is now as much an Arab state as it is a Jewish state and maintaining itself as an officially Jewish state can be done only by violating the human rights of the Arabs. This is accomplished by maintaining an indefinite occupation, which leaves the majority of Arabs in limbo without any political rights in Israel, but also without any control over territory in which they live. That situation is highly unstable, and while it may last for a long time, will eventually be resolved, either through the creation of a larger and more powerful Palestinian state than is currently envisioned by the Israelis or by a binational or federated state.
March 29, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State,
blockquote>Instead of trying to immediately separate itself from that territory and its Arab population
I agree, looking back, it was a huge mistake.
It can and It did. Israel gave up Gaza. Israel also has built the fence that separated itself from that territory and its Arab population. So, it’s up to Arabs to accept reality and build the own state or the federation with Jordan on 94-98% of West Bank and 100% of Gaza or continue to fight for the lost cause, the destruction of Jewish state of Israel one way or another. Unfortunately, the forces of perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam will do everything they can to prevent Palestinians from making the rational choice.
March 29, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel never really gave up Gaza, it just withdrew its settlers. It continued (and continues) to control pretty much all access to Gaza. Besides, Gaza is hardly in position to become a stable state at this point. It would be like the US putting a fence around South Central LA and saying to the residents there that they now have their own state. Too many supporters of Israel like to delude themselves into thinking that shoving the Palestinians into some tiny and devastated corner of the Israeli state, walling them off with a fence, and telling them they're on their own is a fair and even generous deal. Really, all it amounts to is creating vast open air prisons for Arabs. Sorry, creating a viable Palestinian state--and a viable solution to the conflict--will require a bit more from Israel than that.
March 29, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 29, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would indeed be nice to see Gazans take control of their destiny and build a prosperous economy--I'll agree with you there. And religious fundamentalism is a dead end, whether Muslim, Christian, or Jewish, in my mind. But the reality is that Gaza has none of the advantages of places like Singapore, Hong Kong, or Dubai. Unlike those first two cities (and to some degree even Dubai), it's not an important trading outpost of the British Empire. Nor does it sit on vast reserves of oil. Instead it's a relatively resource-poor place in a poor location with its borders completely controlled by Israel. Not much chance of anything significant developing there anytime soon. For Gaza to succeed, a more comprehensive solution will need to be established that links its economy to the economy of some larger region with more significant advantages.
March 29, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gaza’s borders are completely controlled by Israel to prevent the smuggling of weapons and materials to build weapons.
I’m not saying that Gaza is going to be like Hong Kong tomorrow. Kosovo is not going to be like Hong Kong any time soon. However, we live in a global economy. Several billions of dollars in assistance, if not stolen, can help in building a prosperous economy.
BTW, Israel is not an important trading outpost of the British Empire. Nor does it sit on vast reserves of oil. Instead it's a relatively resource-poor place in a poor location.
March 29, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richardxx
It’s true. However, the reason is that Hamas war criminals are using own people as a shield in launching rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. The rockets are built with money and material provided by Iran. Israel left Gaza. There is nothing to negotiate about borders between Israel and Gaza. They just need to stop fighting, accept reality and they’ll get billions dollars in help to build a prosperous society. Unfortunately, the forces of perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam will do everything they can to prevent Palestinians from making the rational choice. The only solution I see is for international community to overthrow the criminal gang in Gaza and start Nation building there.
March 29, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I have pointed out, a small minority of radicals can keep the population from achieving some stable situation.
If the population of Gaza could trust the Israelis, then they would allow someone to prevent the radicals from continuing their attacks on Israel.
Can Israel do anything to gain their trust? I'll guarantee that such actions will not include laying cluster bombs across large swathes of the land as they did in Southern Lebanon.
Can the Gazans do anything to gain the trust of the Israelis? I don't think they have the freedom of action to actually do anything. They don't have the stable society such action would require. The missiles fired by the Hamas prevent that society from developing as much as they threaten the Israelis.
The solution requires mutual trust and respect, and neither side dares offer trust to the other because of the radicals - on both sides - who abuse that trust. So fear and anger decree that there is nothing possible except revenge.
It'll take a trusted outsider to break that cycle. And the governments of Syria, Jordan, Egypt and probably Iran will also have to be part of the agreement. I see the Bush administration's refusal to even speak to Syria and Iran as a real stumbling block to any resolution in the I - P situation.
And you are correct that the Muslim Brotherhood and the Wahabi extremists and their off-shoots are part of the problem. So what is the source of their social and political support in Egypt and Saudi Arabia? How can that support be removed, and how can they be brought into the process? While some individual religious leaders may be batshit insane, the groups exist and recruit for rational reasons.
Air Force thinking (cluster bombs and hellfire missiles) don't resolve those real social problems.
People who practice American Exceptionalism assume that American is perfect and right, then apply Air Force thinking to deal with their enemies, who are by definition evil and wrong. I don't know if there is an equivalent Israeli Exceptionalism, but I suspect there is. Something of that sort is behind the placing of settlement outside the 1967 borders.
So tell me, Trathan, how will the needed trust be developed between Israelis and their enemies short of the grave?
And don't forget, trust isn't given. It is earned and paid for, and must be continually reinvested in, both in what people give and what they give up. Then that effort to build trust is itself very risky. It comes with no guarantee.
But without it, there will be no resolution of the I-P conflict.
March 30, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 30, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me ask you a question about “mutual trust”
What’s exactly Gazans need to trust Israel about? What they have to lose if they cease fire tomorrow? Why do Gazan need to trust Israel to behave rationally? It seems to me that you suggest that Palestinians behave like a spoil child, who would threaten to hurt himself if he would not get the toy.
March 30, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State, you wrote:
Oh, Purple State, stop! You make me blush... :-) Thanks much for the kudos, you're a fine debater and I'm enjoying this too.
Agreed! The questions is: what single state, or a federation with whom? IMHO, such structures between Israel and the Pals won't work: there's too much baggage, hatred, insurmountable ethnic, religious and cultural differences, and, as important - after the 2nd Intifada Israel has discovered that its economy can get by without the West Bank/Gaza labor force, so from Israel's POV there's really zero incentive for such arrangements.
OTOH, a federation or a single-state solution between the Palestinians and Jordan could work out well. Jordan's population is already over 60 percent Palestinian, both populations are very closely matched in almost every respect, and Jordan would gain a port on the Mediterranean that could be a major boost to its lagging economy.
There are problems too: political demise of Jordan's ruling Hashemite minority which is very close to both EU and U.S., potential new "axis of evil" between Pal. radicals and Iraq's Sunnis, etc., but overall -- I think such a union is more viable and has a better chance to succeed than either an independent Pal. state or a bi-national state with Israel.
I don't share your pessimism. Contemporary Judaism is very strongly anti-genocide, and also vehemently anti-suicide, so any Massada-like scenarios are highly unlikely.
Israeli people have proven to be very resilient under pressure, capable of adapting, and quite happy with who they are and where they are. Indeed, a recent poll taken a few months after the 2nd Lebanon War (pub. in both Haaretz and Ynet) shows that 78 percent of Israelis was either 'happy' or 'very happy' with their lives in Israel. Under the circumstances, that's an astonishingly high percentage among the Jews, and probably not such a small percentage as one might expect among the Israeli Arabs. Don't you just wish that this kind of vitality and optimism would rub off on the Pals. ?
March 30, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iaf, while a federation between an independent Palestinian state and Jordan might be economically beneficial to both states, it would require a two-state solution as a pre-requisite. A single-state solution, with Jordan essentially annexing the West Bank and Gaza, might also be possible, but it would still require significant concessions from Israel similar to those required for a two-state solution to work. Most important, Israel would have to relinquish complete control of the entire (or nearly the entire) West Bank and Gaza. Jordan (or the Palestinian-Jordanian federation) would have to be given complete control of airspace, water, etc. Everything that Israel has been reluctant to give to the Palestinians would have to be given to the Jordanian-Palestinian state.
The reason for suggesting an Israeli-Palestinian federation as an alternative is to avoid some of the problems Israel has with giving the West Bank and Gaza completely autonomous status, while also giving the Palestinians a greater ability to live and work in Israel proper. Here's how a federation might work:
The advantage of this solution over a two-state solution is, in my mind, significant. Most important, it makes borders less important, because both Jews and Palestinians have freedom to move, work, and live throughout the territory. It also allows a managed return of Palestinian refugees (as citizens of Palestine) without causing any demographic problem for Israel. Israel remains a Jewish state with a majority Jewish population, even though more Palestinians might be sharing the land.
Now I understand all the problems and obstacles to restoring trust and cooperation between Arabs and Jews. But I'm old enough to remember a time in the 1970s and 1980s when Israelis and Palestinians lived and worked together in much greater harmony than they do today. The situation has worsened greatly over the past two decades, as peace process after peace process has failed to generate any results, violence has increased, and the economic condition of the Palestinians deteriorated. Still, I don't think that cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis is impossible--I've seen it in the past and I believe it could be restored were a solution reached that gave the Palestinians more hope.
I might just add that the "vitality and optimism" of the Israeli population won't just "rub off" on the Palestinians any more than the vitality and optimism of antebellum Georgian planters would have rubbed off on their slaves. Happiness is possible, but only after the chains have been broken.
March 30, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 30, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tnathan, here in the US, our 50 states all have their own civil and criminal codes and things work out just fine.
It's also a great place for Jews to live, by the way, and we're not a Jewish state. It's really a marvelous system. Maybe you should try it some time?
March 30, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but we don't have the system that you advocate:
.If you are a "citizen" of CA and live in NY you don't vote in CA elections.NY state laws applies to you. So, what you propose has nothing to do with the American system.
March 30, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
tnathan, the Israelis have already learned to do what you think is so impossible. In Tel Aviv, an Arab couple gets married and a Jewish couple gets married. The marriage laws that apply to each couple are different yet they live in the same city. Expand that concept to other types of law . . . and there you have it. Jews and Arabs living together, with different laws applying to the things that make Jews and Arabs different. But for the things that unite Jews and Arabs (commerce mostly), one set of laws for all . . .
March 30, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you’ve described Israel today. There is a strong Jewish majority state of Israel committed to respect of the right of minorities to the best of Israel’s abilities given the state of war with the countries around them. I don’t see any need or desire on Israel part to be part of federation with any Arab country including Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, West Bank or Gaza.