The Next President and Israel
It is fascinating, although not at all surprising, that the candidates for president almost never discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It’s not like it is some minor foreign policy issue. Ask Americans to name two or three of the most pressing foreign policy issues and they are bound to mention the Arab-Israeli conflict. How could they not? After Iraq, there is no other that is so extensively covered by the media nor is there another one of interest to as many voters.
Nonetheless, the candidates’ silence on the issue is rather profound. Other than mouthing the usual pieties about standing with Israel, candidates approach the issue with the proverbial ten foot pole.
The reasons for this reticence are obvious. Although most voters, and certainly most voters who care about Israel, favor active diplomacy to end the conflict, the loudest voices on this issue tend to be fervent supporters of the status quo. They are single-issue voters and single-issue donors and, accordingly, they have disproportionate influence despite their decided minority status. (That is the way it works in the current system. Those who vote and make contributions based on a full range of issues do not have anywhere near the clout of those who tell a candidate that their support is tied to the candidate’s stand on one issue and one issue only).
The good news is that although candidates tend to tell the single-issue crowd what it wants to hear, it is unlikely that President Obama, Clinton, or McCain will continue the passive approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in place since George W. Bush came to office.
Although the Bush administration has repeatedly announced various initiatives to move the parties toward an agreement, follow-through has been close to nonexistent until now. This is not the fault of either of the two Bush secretaries of state. Both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have pushed hard but were stymied by a coalition of lobbyists, neoconservative administration officials, and a complaisant Congress.
It is hard to imagine, although not unimaginable, that the 44th president will relegate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the backburner, not when it is so clear that absent U.S. leadership, the situation only deteriorates.
The candidates know this. In a March 27th interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), Senator Hillary Clinton stated that she understands the need to go back to the diplomatic efforts that the second Bush abandoned.
“It was a mistake for the Bush administration to take a hands-off approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel is more vulnerable today that it was eight years ago,” she said.
She noted the benefits of Oslo and her husband’s leadership: “I think what we did in the ‘90s was beneficial in a strategic way and led to a period where, at times, there were no attacks being made, no suicide bombings and no deaths.”
Clinton is referring to the last three years of Oslo, the safest three years in Israel’s history. That period ended when, due to Arafat’s intransigence and Barak’s arrogance, the Camp David summit of 2000 collapsed. It may have been a mistake for President Clinton to convene the summit when he did. It should not be forgotten, however, that the Camp David summit and the Taba summit that followed in January 2001 brought Israelis and Palestinians closer to a final status agreement than ever before or since.
The next president, whoever he or she is, needs to build on that legacy and help wrap up the deal. It is not going to happen without U.S. leadership and it’s up to #44 to provide it.
The problem he or she will face is that any president’s political advisers are going to warn that it is way too risky to take on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. They will inveigh against doing it in the first year of a new administration (“You don’t need that kind of fight in the first year”). They will warn against doing it in the second year (“What? In a Congressional election year?”) and certainly not in the 3rd or 4th years when a president runs for re-election.
The cynics will always find an excuse not to touch this issue and it all comes down to political expediency. That is because there is no solid argument against U.S. leadership; the argument against it all comes down to the perception that it is politically dangerous to take on the status quo Israel lobby.
This is no different from the arguments against doing anything about any of the major problems that confront the country. Name an issue and I’ll show you a special interest that wants to preserve the status quo. No matter if it’s immigration, health care, education, the stagnating economy, or whatever, the forces of inertia usually prevail. The path of least resistance, no matter what the issue, is doing nothing.
Of course, no candidate will ever say that he or she favors the health care or immigration status quo. Just imagine them saying, “I think that 40 million uninsured is fine” or “the situation on our borders is precisely what I want it to be” or “our schools are doing a great job. No improvement is necessary.”
But that is no different than simply uttering trite phrases about Israel’s thriving democracy or opposition to terrorism.
These phrases mean nothing. Israel needs peace and security and it is not going to achieve it by means of lobby crafted phrases designed to offend no one and say nothing. Peace and security can be achieved if the next president ends America’s disengagement from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and puts America’s weight behind the effort to achieve a final status agreement.
As for the politics, forget about it. Ronald Reagan opened relations with the PLO. George H. W. Bush encouraged Israel to negotiate with it. Bill Clinton stood on the White House lawn with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat and put the full weight of his presidency behind peace. And George W. Bush, the least forceful of the group on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, still managed to issue a stronger call for the two-state solution than any of his predecessors.
Despite everything, the next president will confront an Israeli-Palestinian situation in which, unlike the days prior to the first Bush and Clinton administrations, mainstream Israelis and Palestinians are almost in full agreement about what peace will look like. If George W. Bush could repeatedly endorse “two states, living side by side in peace and security,” his successor can make it happen.
M.J. Rosenberg, please stop rewriting history.
April 4, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still flogging the myth that Ehud Barak offered a generous deal to Arafat? Generosity does not equate to offering scattered fragments of land, inaccessible one from another, with minimal water resources, and "Israeli-only" roads cutting swaths through the territory.
No Palestinian leader could have looked at that and accepted it. It's called suicide.
Israel is fond of insisting on end states as preconditions for discussion. They know it spikes such discussions beforehand, and they use that. Their insistence on the PA suppressing all resistance activity is likewise deliberately unrealistic, as a Palestinian Authority strong enough to do such a thing would never be tolerated on their border.
If the Palestinians were of the same mind, they'd require all settlements removed and a permanent return to the 1967 borders as a precondition to any discussion, as well as right of return for all displaced families, and refuse to talk unless and until that was met.
Since both positions are mutually exclusive, nothing is likely to happen.
In order to be the "honest" middleman the US always claims to be, we'd need to require both sides to meet without preconditions, and require both sides to cease hostilities against each other. (Yes, this would include the Israeli "targeted assassinations" that generally seem to take down entire apartment blocks and kill multiple children under the age of 5 years.)
And full mutual recognition, with a Palestinian state having contiguous borders, removal of all illegal settlements (they are llegal, under international law), and secure water resources, ought to be our preconditions.
The Palestinians need a competent, honest leadership, the Israelis need at some point to recognize that they will inevitably need to get along with their neighbors. Their futures are inextricably linked, and both sides need to recognize that as well.
I'm not looking to place any bets any time soon.
April 4, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 5, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, not wrong. Unlike many, I am quite capable of reading maps. And I'd seen the map of what Arafat was offered at Camp David. Scattered pockets of non-contiguous territory, with lines carefully drawn to eliminate water resources and reserve good agricultural land for more illegal settlements, does not a "generous" offer make.
April 5, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Old Grouch,
A quality hardly peculiar to Israel. For example, the Arab League Beirut Initiative offers comprehensive recognition of Israel by its member nations only upon resolution of its conflict with the Palestinians, while Palestinian leadership makes no counteroffer but its traditional maximalist demands (1949 armistice lines, refugee right of return inside Israel proper, removal of all Jews from Palestinian territories, etc.) in response to those presumably awful Israeli initiatives from the talks at Camp David and Taba.
April 5, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so it's fine for the Israelis to do that and no one else?
April 5, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or vice versa, I guess....
April 5, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Old Roach:
International Law? Yeah right, we Americans have the moral high ground to lecture others on international law. Roach, save it for the Abu Ghraib comedy hour at Gitmo.
April 5, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
iaf says:
I'm glad that your post implicitly encourages the principle of adherance to international law. One would hope that our next president not only returns our own country to compliance with international law, but also makes clear our expectation that our allies also comply, particularly those whose military we fund.
April 5, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie,
Don't be naive. We fund, directly or indirectly, the military of every single one of our allies: some -- by stationing our own military on their soil (Europe, Korea, Japan, etc.), others -- by directly carrying the burden of their defense (e.g. U.S. Navy patrols South China Sea and the Strait of Taiwan to protect Taiwan), or through NATO and other military alliances. Heck, even the Saudis buy our weaponry using the proceeds of oil they sell to us.
Why single out Israel, either due of our funding or due to non-compliance with certain international laws or human rights, when many of our other allies are even less saintly?
April 5, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aaahh, but the issue was how the U.S. could be considered an "honest broker" of the I-P conflict. I think the best way would be a return of our own country to adherence to international law, and an expectation that both parties, Israelis and Palestinians, comply with international law as well.
To call this position naive seems to fall prey to the cynical version of politics, a la Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Yoo, et al. And to say that I'm singling out Israel here is nonsense. Isn't it Israel (and Palestine) that this thread is about?
April 5, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie:
Again, I hate to pour cold water on this argument, but I'm afraid the notion if an "honest broker" is a pipe dream. Everyone, and I mean everyone has interests: Israelis, Palestinians, the Quartet (U.S., UN, EU, Russia), the Arab League, China, India, The Pope, Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela, Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu -- you name it.
In a perfect world, left to themselves to deal with their problems -- w/o outside interference, I believe that Israelis and Pals would either fight it out until one of the sides conceded defeat, or they could have hammered some sort of a solution. Israel, as the stronger side which won every single armed conflict against the Pals, would naturally expect to get a better deal, but that's life, and life's unfair.
However, as long as the Pals believe they can apply pressure on Israel via the "international community" (see my above list of meddlers and do-gooders) in order to get a better deal, there is no incentive for them to compromise.
Now, there are other complications: Islamic fundamentalist elements in the mix (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran), the civil war among the Pals, plus a very weak political leadership in both Israel and the PA, as well as in the U.S.
Sorry to say, but I'm with Dennis Ross on this one: in the next two years, it'll take more than a miracle for any progress to happen on the P-I issue. The PA has elections next year, Israel is also likely to have elections soon, and the new U.S. adminsitration -- Obama or McCain -- will have its hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009.
I challenge anyone else to paint a rosier (but realistic!) scenario.
April 5, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a perfect world, left to themselves to deal with their problems -- w/o outside interference, I believe that Israelis and Pals would either fight it out until one of the sides conceded defeat, or they could have hammered some sort of a solution. Israel, as the stronger side which won every single armed conflict against the Pals, would naturally expect to get a better deal, but that's life, and life's unfair.
Iaf, you understand by that logic, the Holocaust was no big deal. Life's unfair, after all.
Strange kind of perfect world . . .
April 6, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State writes:
What exactly in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict even REMOTELY resembles the Holocaust? Did any Israeli leader ever advocate the physical extermination of the Pals -- on any scale, never mind several millions? Have you heard of any gas chambers or crematoria being constructed for that purpose?
Sorry if it sounds harsh, but some extrapolations are STOOPID, especially when applied to the Holocaust.
Yes, life is unfair: there are winners and losers. Life under occupation sucks -- no one argues otherwise. However, comparing this to the Holocaust, a systematic genocide on an unprecedented scale, is vile. If you're trying to lose my respect, Purple State, you are close to achieving your goal.
April 7, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
tnathan writes:
Why should he? Presumably, TMP pays him to do this (hard to believe, I know), so I suspect he'll be doing this until they stop.
Here's a quick example of M.J. Rosenberg's favorite method of rewriting history: omit the facts that may contradict his dogmatic, Peace Now or bust POV:
M.J. writes:
Guess who was Israel's PM all through that very time period? Hint: his surname rhymes with Yahoo (funny, I know.) More importantly, his govt. pursued very aggressive anti-terrorism tactics, which evidently were highly effective.
That's an important piece of information, wouldn't you say? But, it doesn't fit into M.J.'s overall POV on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so it gets omitted.
I haven't read enough of M.J.'s writings to claim that this is a pattern, but his last week's piece, which intentionally omitted ugly anti-Semitic remarks by USAF General (ret.) Merrill McPeak, because they didn't fit the neatly concocted thesis of big, bad Israeli lobbyists who harass the Obama campaign, gave me pause.
God knows, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has more than its fair share of intellectually dishonest players (on both sides!), and of equally intellectually dishonest outside meddlers, so probably no harm done.
April 4, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the two state solution, "what peace will look like", means that Israel will have to give up the West Bank settlements and give the Palestinians the Jordan valley. This is not acceptable to aipac or to very powerful forces in Israel.
You seem to think the Oslo process was a success. It was, but not for peace. It was successful in furthering the settlement process. Camp David was also a success for them. Egad aipac had its agent Dennis Ross brokering those talks. The illusion of 'progress' towards peace, while simultaneously the settlements are expanded, has to be, for any sentient being that has witnessed the so called peace process for the last 20 years, understood as the real goal. Aipac, its allies in congress, and probably half of the Israeli nation will continue to prevail. You continually cite Israeli polls that seem to show about half of the people supporting the two state solution. What you seem to not appreciate is the fanaticism of the other half which opposes it. And that other half has the backing of the most powerful political lobby in the US. I really do not believe that the US can solve this problem. Any effort on our part will be subverted. Unfortunately this is a war that will just have to fought out. The only practical thing for us, is to get out of the way. It is not our fight and it is time for us to withdraw.
April 4, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think McCain has the potential to be really bad for I-P issues. His saber rattling with regards to Iran seems like it would put the Israelis on edge and anger the Palestinians, especially if Iran rattles back (even a little).
The good news, as you say, is that mainstream opinion seems to have coalesced around a fair two state solution. But don't we need the president's wider view towards Mideast policy to be one that creates an environment where agreements can be implemented?
April 4, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, he's 847 years old.
April 4, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the candidates have spoken on Israel-Palestine: The are all AIPAC supporters.
Obama in his Pastor Wright speech castigates the Palestinians for the troubles in the region. Also a Lieberman supporter in the Lieberman/Lamont battle.
McCain travels around the world with Lieberman. Enough said?
Clinton --ever sinbce she was called on the carpet for embracing Arafat's wife she has been pro AIPAC all the way.
April 4, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, don't you think that Clinton's subsequent run for the U.S. Senate seat in New York had something to do with this? To remind you, NY state has a significant (2.5-3 million) Jewish population, and, like 90 percent of them vote!
I surmise that, had Hillary chosen to run for a Senate seat from Michigan which has a large Arab population, it's anyone's guess how much more intimate she would have gotten with Suha Arafat. (Hey, TPM pervs, get your minds out of the gutter!)
It's called "politics", drwu. You may have heard of it?
April 4, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you may be right up to a point about Clinton, but what you leave out is that Clinton made a conscious decision to run as a NY Senate candidate - she didn't choose MI or any of the other 49 states. Clinton's experience certainly means she was well aware of the sorts of things her constituency would expect from her, and she has met and exceeded those expectations, by voting "nay" on a measure to ban cluster bombs in civilian areas, for instance. This vote was particularly disturbing since these weapons are known to cause disproportionate harm to children, of whom Clinton has long claimed to be an advocate. To me, such a vote cannot be excused simply by saying that's what her chosen constituency would expect.
While it's reasonable, up to a point, to expect that a member of Congress would support the positions of his/her constituency, one must ask, where is leadership? And we have absolutely no guarantee that she wouldn't continue her pattern of far-right Israel advocacy if elected to the Presidency.
April 5, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moreover...
Foreign policy-wise not much will change with Obama or Hillary. We still have the axis-of-evil who run US foreign policy: Wall Street/Pentagon/Florida Cuban exiles--stick in AIPAC for a quartet-of-evil.
April 4, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
And furthermore, every day Israel builds more settlements in the occupied territories..Any sane person could see where this is going--the creeping erasure of the Palestinians. Or as Golda Meir said long ago--the are no Palestinians.
April 4, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is fascinating, although not at all surprising, that the candidates for president almost never discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It’s not like it is some minor foreign policy issue. Ask Americans to name two or three of the most pressing foreign policy issues and they are bound to mention the Arab-Israeli conflict. How could they not? After Iraq, there is no other that is so extensively covered by the media nor is there another one of interest to as many voters.
Maybe so, but by any objective measure the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is really not that major.
In terms of human rights? There are a dozen places around the world with more severe human rights problems from Darfur to the Congo.
In terms of global security? Certainly the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir, the Al-Quada problem on the Afgan-Pakistan border, the Kurdistan problem, and North Korea have greater potential to explode into wider conflict or involve real WMD.
In terms of US alliances? Yes, I keep hearing that Israel and the US are best of allies. But really now. When was the last time US and Israeli troops fought side-by-side in any conflict? Ever? Dozens and dozens of countries have done so multiple times over the past half-century. Israel? Never.
I, for one, 0ften find myself reaching a level of fatigue with the Israeli-Palestinian situation that I never reach with other issues. Yes the Israelis should have given the Palestinians a state long ago. Yes the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world should have grown up and accepted the reality of Israel long ago. Beyond that I just don't have much to say.
April 4, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
texaslib:
The U.S.-Israeli alliance is not based on the two military's fighting side-by-side. The mutual arrangement is that Israel always has, and in the foreseeable future always will defend itself. Indeed, until now the U.S. was never required to commit its own military to fighting Israel's wars.
That's a much better deal than the U.S. has with any other of its allies. Think about it: in the last 100 years, the U.S. had to fight twice on behalf of the Europeans (WWI & WWII), and once each on behalf of Koreans, Kuwaitis, Bosnians, Kosovars, etc. Till this day, none of these countries (except the UK and France) can defend themselves without the U.S., and in most of them the U.S. maintains a permanent (and costly!) military presence.
The U.S. stands ready to defend Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, the Philippines and other Asian allies, none of whom can defend themselves or contribute much to U.S.'s military efforts elsewhere around the world.
Contrast this with the fact that the U.S. has not a single soldier on Israel's soil, and no American GI had to spill blood or pay with his life for Israel's freedom.
I won't even mention the close strategic cooperation between U.S. and Israel in intelligence, military reconnaissance, joint training exercises, U.S. Navy's resupplies in Israeli ports, etc., or the enormous boost the U.S. defense industries get whenever Israel's military decides to buy their products.
(The classic example of the latter is Israel's purchase of the F-16 fighter jets in the early 80s, which got its first real battle test in Israel's first war in Lebanon. Afterwards, General Dynamics sold thousands of F-16's, to many countries.)
P.S. FYI, Israel is not a member of NATO, which I think is a shame.
P.P.S. In recent military conflicts -- Gulf Wars I and II and Afghanistan -- Israel offered to join the coalition forces, but its participation was rebuffed because: (a) it would cause a revolt among the native muslim populations; and (b) in the case Gulf War I, the Arab participants in the multi-national force (Egypt, Syria) vetoed it. (In Kosovo, there was no ground war.)
April 5, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be suicidal for any of the candidates to take the aipac head on now. On the other hand considering how viciously the conservative Jewish blogs are going after Obama's foreign policy advisers ie. Brzezinski, Malley et all, maybe not all is lost with Obama as the man of peace for the Middle East.
If aipac succeeds in destroying Obama, then the next summit on peace in the "Territories" I am afraid will be brokered by either
Medvedev/Putin team or by yet another "shady" Iranian general
as just happened in Basra. It is obviously quite conceivable the Russians and the Iranians will work together on it to begin with.
April 4, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama won't want to talk about it till after the election. It's a lose-lose situation. Bill Clinton made his efforts while in office. Obama already has a tough road from conservative Jews and even moderate Jews who, when push comes to shove, fall for the "support Israel no matter what" nonsense.
April 4, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I forgot to add, that the Russian/Iranian peace offers will be
much less generous to Israel than anything now proposed by
the Americans branded by aipac as anti-Semites.
Mr. Rosenberg, how often do you hear that you are a self-hating Jew?
April 4, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's ridiculous to talk about a hands-off approach from the US when we give Israel $2 billion a year and all the bulldozers, missiles, and helicopters it needs to destroy any hope of a normal life for Palestinians. Any president or presidential candidate who hinted at rescinding a penny of that aid would be dead in a month. Anyone remember Rabin?
April 4, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The illusion of 'progress' towards peace, while simultaneously the settlements are expanded, has to be, for any sentient being that has witnessed the so called peace process for the last 20 years, understood as the real goal.
I think this is essentially true, but the great irony is that with the project is on the verge of successful completion, many of the engineers are having serious second thoughts about what they have built.
Sharon's and Omertz's conversions to the two-state solution are well known, but I was floored to also see Dan Meridor (Netanyahu's Finance Minister) quoted in the curent Atlantic magazine in support of giving up "Judea and Samaria" and arguing that if Menachem Begin (!) were still alive he'd feel the same way.
It finally seems to have dawned on these clowns that a Palestinian demand for one-man, one-vote in a unified state could pose a greater threat to the Zionist vision than all the missiles in Iran's armory.
But now it's probably too late . . .
April 4, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Although most voters...favor active diplomacy to end the conflict, the loudest voices on this issue tend to be fervent supporters of the status quo."
?????
uh, I don't hear anyone advocating for the status quo on either side. in fact, the one thing both sides seem to agree on is that the current situation can't continue. MJ--with his consistent anti-Israel stance--is probably implying that those loudmouth US Jews are happy with their "stolen" land and the Palestinians safely contained and suppressed. but I can't believe anyone who cares about Israel could be ok with the continued Katyusha rockets and suicide bombings. I'm a non-self-hating Jew, and I sure don't want to see innocent people continue to die, whether Israeli or Palestinian!
April 4, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If AIPAC succeeds in destroying Obama."
You don't want to go there. They would reap the whirlwind. Black America would not forget it. A large slice of young America would not forget it. Anyone hoping for the restoration of decent government after the Bush regime would not forget it (since the result would be a McCain presidency, not a Clinton presidency).
America has always been remarkably free of anti-Semitism compared with Europe. If Obama is seen as being taken down by "the Jews," that could change permanently.
As for Israel, even Olmert has spoken of the danger of turning into South Africa -- the very analogy Carter was crucified here for making. They are beginning to realize that their campaign to destroy PA institution is leading straight to one state -- named Palestine.
April 5, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 5, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
bluejerseyan writes:
Hmm, you're making an assumption that Obama cares so much about his (presumably pro-Palestinian) stance on the Israeli-Pal. issue, that he's willing to go down on principle, even if it loses him the election. I strongly disagree. IMHO, Obama's a pragmatist and he wants to be President. If this means that he must get closer to a POV advocated by AIPAC, he'll do it -- quickly and for real. (It's the Jimmy Carter model: ostensibly pro-Israel while in Office, and Whatever! Who cares? in retirement.)
Second, you're assuming that, should Obama lose the election, AIPAC's fingerprints will be all over it. Again, I disagree. Give AIPAC credit: they've been phenomenally successful in the past. There is no reason to assume that they've done so well by being stupid.
April 5, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The idea who's time has come, to have a full spectrum of the Jewish voices on "what is good for Israel".
A repost from the Haaretz, the Israeli center-left daily:
The new dovish Jewish lobby
According to James Besser of the Jewish Week, the new dovish pro-Israel-pro-peace looby is ready to launch
Almost a year after reports of an 'alternative AIPAC' emerged in the middle of the Jewish political world, many of the same players are on the verge of announcing a revised initiative intended to get the message to politicians that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is not the only pro-Israel voice in town.
While sources say the structure and initial goals of the new group are still in flux, it is expected to raise money for congressional candidates who advocate a stronger U.S. leadership role in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and multilateral solutions to the region's problems.
The group will be headed by [Jeremy] Ben-Ami, who served as deputy domestic policy adviser in the Clinton administration and later as a media consultant. Ben-Ami has worked with several Jewish peace groups, including the Center for Middle East Peace and the Geneva Initiative-North America.
The J-Street board of advisers includes a number of lay and professional leaders of Americans for Peace Now (APN), including CEO Debra DeLee, as well as Marcia Freedman, founder and former president of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom.
April 5, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
legalalien writes:
Great! That's all we need: a "play by play" of politics Israeli-style in Washington, DC, in case anyone thinks that our politics are not ugly enough... Scotty, beam me up!
April 5, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict must be solved by the Israelis and Palestinians. We can never be an honest broker because AIPAC owns the Congress and most other politicians. If they don't tow the line AIPAC goes after them like a bunch of hounds after a fox. And they've got the money to drive any politician from office.
Israel will never give up the occupation. They continue building settlements, egged on by a bunch of crazies in this country who want to accelerate the end times. Palestinians will continue lobbing bombs into Israel as long as the occupation continues and Israel will continue to retaliate at the rate of ten Palestinians for every Israeli lost. Both parties have lived for decades with the conflict. They're used to it. And it brings in all those American dollars. Israel won't talk to Hamas and Hezbollah, just like we won't talk to Iran. If the parties can't resolve the conflict and we're limited to supporting only one side, how can such a situation have any hope of resolution.
The next thing Israel expects us to do is take out Iran. They're already lobbying for that, and we can expect them to have their hand out for another few billion there. And if the Shiites end up ruling Iraq they've expect us to handle that problem for them, too. And we're dumb enough to oblige, all because of a powerful lobby that pulls the strings on our puppet politicians.
April 5, 2008 4:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
eaanders,
And Iraq won't talk to Blackwater.
April 5, 2008 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
eaanders writes:
Actually, Israel is quite capable of taking care of its WMD problems. Remember the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981? And, more recently, the North Korean nuclear facility in Syria? Iran is a MUCH MUCH bigger, more important country governed by a bunch of religious zealots, so its nuclear weapon ability should be of concern to the U.S. and NATO.
Israel's problem is that it's a tiny, tiny country -- with zero strategic depth. Hence, it cannot take a WMD/nuclear hit and survive, i.e. it MUST act preemptively. (Most other military powers in the world incl. the U.S., have strategic depth.)
Too late! Thanks to our glorious efforts, the Shiites already rule Iraq, with the remote control in Tehran's hands. I bet some folks in DC miss Saddam Hussein.
Right, just like 2000 years ago the powerful Jewish lobby in Judea pulled the strings of the well known nebbish puppet Pontius Pilate to crucify Jesus...
eaanders,
Anti-Semitism is not just running in the streets and shouting "I hate Jews" or "Kill the Jews." Ascribing to them some mysterious powers over the naive, innocent gentiles -- powers that the Jews clearly don't have, or claiming some elaborate Jewish conspiracy to control the world -- a la Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is just as anti-Semitic, and even more pernicious. FYI.
April 5, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't support the Israel government's spinelessness when it comes to expelling Jews from ISRAEL when they should be protecting Jewish land that God gave to Israel as an EVERLASTING covenant! If you'dlike to findout what 'nonsense' is, compare Psalms 2 to with UN middle east policies concerning Israel. 'UN' should stand for 'UNITED NEANDERTHALS'! After Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., as a last 'slap in the face' to the Jews, the Roman emporer Hadrian renamed Israel 'Palestine' after their ancient enemies the 'philistines'. The people were named 'palestinians' by yasar araflat AFTER the arabs were defeated in 1967. To the nations: Pray (and vote) for the 'Peace of Jerusalem', or, DRINK FROM THE CUP OF THE FURY OF ZION!
Learn more about voting 'Prophetically' at: VOTEFORTHEPEACEOFJERSALEMGMAIL.COM
April 5, 2008 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which of the current presidential candidates do you think would best forward Israel's interests as you see them?
April 5, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Gardener,
Oh please. While the Arab establishment ought to recognize the legitimate historical national connection between the Jewish people and what we know today as the state of Israel, there is no reasonable expectation that Israelis, Jews and Zionists should expect other peoples to submit to our mythologies. The West Bank and Gaza are not Israel. Israel is a real country now, and a policy of establishing exclusive Jewish communities in territories that no Israeli government would ever annex was and remains nothing short of stupid.
April 5, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is NO other country that America has diplomatic relations with, that is DOES NOT have the American Embassy in the caiptal ciyt of that country EXCEPT ISRAEL! To all the persidential candidates, prove your friendship with Israel by IMMEDIATELY moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL. God made Jerusalem not only the Capital of Israel, but of the whole world when Mashiach Ben David comes to rule and reign from the hrone of David FOREVER! This is a spiritual war that cannot be solved with secular solutions. To the nations: Pray (and vote) for the Peace of Jerusalem, or, drink from the cup of THE FURY OF ZION! In Matthew 24:9 Yeshua says to His Disciples, 'You shall be hated by ALL nations'. This means America too unfortunately. I saw a t-shirt in Tel Aviv that brought chills through me. It read: 'A message to America... Come visits Israel before Israel VISITS YOU!' VOTEFORTHEPEACEOFJERUSALEM@GMAIL.COM
Shalom,
The Gardener
April 5, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Gardener,
Serious question. What do you mean by "spiritual"?
April 5, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone has clearly gone off his medication.
April 5, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for bringing up this issue. I see that you would like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolved, despite the problems this may pose, and with this I wholeheartedly agree. However, I would also like to express some disagreements and/or protest at some of what you've written.
M.J. Rosenberg: "... there is no solid argument against U.S. leadership; the argument against it all comes down to the perception that it is politically dangerous to take on the status quo Israel lobby." The main argument against "U.S. leadership" is that it is led largely by the nose by AIPAC and others.
M.J. Rosenberg: "But that is no different than simply uttering trite phrases about Israel’s thriving democracy or opposition to terrorism." The statements are not only trite; they are false. Israel is not a democracy, thriving or otherwise. Google-search: "democratic rights of Palestinians in Israel?" and start with the first result.
And if Israel were opposed to terrorism, it would not be manufacturing it on a daily basis.
M.J. Rosenberg: "Israel needs peace and security ..." Palestine needs peace and security.
M.J. Rosenberg: "Peace and security can be achieved if the next president ends America’s disengagement from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and puts America’s weight behind the effort to achieve a final status agreement." And how do you think that may come about, given that the crushing weight behind America's weight is composed of pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian interest groups, not the least of which is AIPAC?
M.J. Rosenberg: "As for the politics, forget about it." I don't know what exactly you meant to communicate with this, but if it is the consideration that the politics are complex, this is false. In fact they are simple in the extreme. The bug is not political complexity but plain and simple injustice: Israeli injustice toward Palestinians. And it has been on-going for over sixty years.
"No peace without justice." There will be no justice until others, beginning with Americans, impose justice on a people, Israelis, who have been incapable of imposing it on themselves.
M.J. Rosenberg: "... mainstream Israelis and Palestinians are almost in full agreement about what peace will look like." Are you out of your mind? Would you care to expand on this?
M.J. Rosenberg: "If George W. Bush could repeatedly endorse 'two states, living side by side in peace and security,' his successor can make it happen." Any president since FDR could have made it or some other just solution happen. Why didn't they? One might guess that one or more special interests preferred they not. Who were they? Who are they? What's to be done about them?
April 5, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know to what extent this discussion may reflect current American opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. But it's one of many instances I've come across in the past year or two that seems to indicate that the Israeli-AIPAC-et al. propaganda wall is crumbling in earnest.
M. J. Rosenburg: "The good news is that although candidates tend to tell the single-issue crowd what it wants to hear, it is unlikely that President Obama, Clinton, or McCain will continue the passive approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in place since George W. Bush came to office."
If I have little idea of what to expect from any of the candidates, it's not only because of their understandable reticence, but because the scene seems to be evolving rather quickly. I would suggest that it is this evolution that is the good news.
April 5, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Those who vote and make contributions based on a full range of issues do not have anywhere near the clout of those who tell a candidate that their support is tied to the candidate’s stand on one issue and one issue only."
This could not happen if candidates had spines and principles. Almost everyone in Washington is unprincipled and spineless, so I see no hope for a healthy resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian trouble any time soon. Perhaps in a few decades when all the Middle Eastern oil is gone, a resolution might become possible.
What a sad, sad story.
April 5, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
All you have to do is look at the Israel's own "Final Status" proposal map, and you'll see why "no sane Palestinian leader" could have accepted the "offer." The West Bank was to be carved up in Bantustans, with the Israeli-annexed territory cutting it in half from east to west, and even annexing the entire western bank of the Jordan River, so as to completely cut off Palestinian access to the meager water reserves of the area. Dozens of illegal settlements were to be left in place. As a "peace plan," it was a fraud. As an "offer the Palestinians couldn't refuse," well, the only thing missing was a horse's head in Arafat's bed.
http://www.fmep.org/maps/map_data/redeployment/west_bank_final_status_map.html
April 5, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Egypt Steve,
Let's agree that Israel's proposal was not acceptable to the Palestinian negotiating team. Now tell us all about the Palestinian counterproposal?
April 5, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Arafat's "counterproposal" was simply to hold out, knowing full well that the demographics of the conflict will probably force the Israelis to make more concessions in the future than what they were willing to make at Oslo. The Arab population in Israel and the territories is nearly equal in size with the Jewish and is growing at a faster rate. The majority of the population in Israel and its territories will soon be Arab again. And the Israeli settlement policy has only resulted in greater intermixing of the populations in the West Bank, making a separation into two states less feasible. The Palestinians realize that holding out is now their best strategy, because the Israelis are eventually going to have to give a Palestinian majority equal political rights or give up any pretence of being a liberal democracy. If Israel does the first, the Palestinians will have a right to redefine the state through democratic means. If Israel does the second, it will become, like South Africa in the 1970s, an increasingly isolated pariah state under constant pressure from the international community to change its policies. Given this likely future trajectory to the conflict, the Palestinians have no incentive to accept an agreement that gives them as little as the Oslo agreement did. The only way a two-state solution will work now is if Israel offers the Palestinians much more than it has seemed willing to offer in the past. If Israel won't make a more generous offer, the Palestinians will continue to follow Arafat's lead and hold out until the fact of their majority status forces a solution more favorable to their interests.
April 6, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State,
Then there will be no more Israel, nor any Palestine, since this strategy or contingency acknowledges no will and no ability on the part of Palestinian leadership to create or implement any manner of organic civil identity of its own. In terms of nations and peoples, your analysis of Palestinian strategy appears starkly nihilistic as it exhibits no desire for the creation of any civil infrastructure, depending instead upon the destruction of another.
April 6, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure I see how pushing for one's political rights is "starkly nihilistic," but however you want to look at it, the Palestinian strategy is likely to be an effective one. Israel's population of 6 million Jews can't continue to keep 5 million Arabs in second-class status for ever. The Arabs are aware of that and are not going to agree to accept some some small, weak state in exchange for giving up all other claims to political enfranchisement within their traditional homeland--especially given the fact that they are soon likely to be the majority in that homeland once again.
April 6, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State,
Because the Arab establishment in general and Palestinian leadership in particular has historically maintained a stronger rejectionist position regarding Jewish national self-determination in Israel than any genuine advocacy regarding Palestinian national aspirations. The Arab establishment had 20 years following the war of 1948 to nurture and establish a viable Palestinian civil infrastructure in what would become the occupied territories in June 1967, but instead exploited the situation to sustain their rejectionism of a Jewish Israel.
April 6, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense. The Palestianians want the right to return to Israel proper--a right supported by the United Nations via UN Resolution 194. It would indeed be convenient for Israel if the Palestinians created themselves the Bantustan Israel wants to grant them. But the Arabs are smarter than that. Creating a "fact on the ground" in the form of such a Bantustan would give Israel an excuse to say the Palestinian problem has been resolved and that a state exists for them and nothing more needs to be granted them. The Palestinians know that and are not dumb enough to give Israel such a negotiating advantage. They'll hold out for more and with their growing population are almost sure to get it at some point in the future.
April 6, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/mapImages/41de9826af412.jpg
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/print.php?template=C06&CID=1016
April 5, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Arafat is a useful tool for Zionist apologists, like our AIPAC cutout, tnathan. (his source links are from the notably unbalanced Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which includes such non-partisan peace-lovers on its board as Richard Perle and Marty Peretz)
What they want the world to forget is that a previous generation of right-wing Israeli revanchists were responsible for the rise and growth of Hamas--which they supported and armed in a particularly stupid plan to try to topple Arafat. Brilliant!
April 5, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see, Zionists are responsible for Arafat, Hamas as well as Hitler. I got your point.
BTW, don't forget, Passover is coming. Make sure that children are safe.
April 5, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Zionist apologists"? What exactly is there to apologize for?
April 5, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dave Bowman:
So Dave, let's see: a couple of neocons on the Washington Institute's board make the entire enterprise unbalanced and its information lacking in credibility. That's the same "logic" that conservatives used to discredit the CBS report on G.W. Bush's non-service in the TX National Guard: a questionable font in one of the documents was all the Cons' needed to declare the entire story bogus.
It's a well known propaganda technique: a grain of truth is all one needs to justify a friendly POV, whereas the tiniest shade of doubt is all it takes to smear one's foe or opponent. This is right out of the Stalin/Goebbels school. You should be proud.
The anti-Zionist ideologues on the Left won't like it, but it's so easy to demonstrate that they are essentially indistinguishable from their zealot brethren on the Right. I guess, once a zealot, Left or Right, always a zealot. It sure explains such phenomena as David Horowitz and Christopher Hitchens.
April 5, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor Nate. So lonely here. Go ver to Free Republic.
April 5, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, you know better what was offered to Arafat. So why are you silent? Why are you such a coward?
April 5, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
davai?
April 5, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
tnathan:
I'm not "threatening the Jews with progroms," as if America in 2008 were Kishinev in 1908. I'm not advocating a rise in American anti-Semitism; I fear it, being Jewish myself. I am merely pointing out that the overbearing arrogance of the right-wing AIPAC element, and its tendency to target black people (Jesse Jackson, Earl Hilliard, Cynthia McKinney) has consequences.
If the most promising American leader in generations (at least since Bobby Kennedy) is seen, accurately or not, as being "taken down" by "the Jews," the results will not be pretty.
As for "Obama fascism," the Likud party is the direct heir of Jabotinsky, an avowed admirer of Mussolini who organized his Revisionist movement along fascist lines and spawned the terrorist Irgun. Today's American Christofascists, the Robertson, Hagee and Parsley, "love" Israel to death.
April 5, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 5, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is the predominately jewish controlled global media conglomerate that would be detrimental to Obama's candidacy much moreso than Jewish voters. Fox news has been pushing the muslim smear hard, thanks to Murdoch and krauthammer
April 5, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, If Obama loses, what kind of consequences Jews can expect?
April 5, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
vicissitudes:
What? Rupert Murdoch converted to Judaism? When? I didn't get the memo. Did they unplug me from the secret Jewish Conspiracy Network (aka JCN) ? Oy vey.
vicissitudes, I hate to borrow a phrase from the despicable O'Liely, but you man are a pinhead.
April 5, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
but let's not believe that it's because being jewish in america is no longer such a 'smear' these days that causes being 'muslim' today to be such a toxic smear!
that took much more than t-nate-types (now commonly coded as tnt) to instill ... altho far too many of them influenced &/or composed the failed BushCo gang!
and--let's hope Obama gets quickly cured of his Lieberman leanings ... apparently we'll have to educate him on that ...
remember the days when tnt had fuses of varying lengths? now you have to just toss the smoldering sticks themselves --
nothing else there to light and provide time to get away!
sometimes tnt even ignites spontaneously!
April 5, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/12/12/does_hillary_clinton_support_t/
So, on one hand MJ, asks Clinton to endorse the so-called Clinton parameters, on another hands M.J has no balls to defend such parameters.
April 5, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nate, you are a racist, pure and simple. You hate Palestinians, African-Americans, Pakistanis, Indians, Hispanics. Am I missing any? Is race hate fun?
April 5, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why the Obama movement is so dangerous. They don’t have to argue on the merit. They just can call people racists. It’s a great honor to be called a racist by the Obama movement.
I share this honor with Bill and Hillary Clintons and millions Americans who have voted for “racist“ Hillary Clinton.
April 5, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The MJ & T-Nate schtick is ready to hit the road.
April 5, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. --
thanks for keeping T-Nate so busy here! almost as good as locking him up! and off the threads he doesn't have time to try to corrupt ...
No wonder you got so courageous! having to always contend with his kind of attacks when dealing with these critical issues ...
April 5, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
laf...
Your comment about having Israeli-style politics infect our American version made me smile. I for one would welcome some bleed-through as Israeli bluntness appeals to me. Imagine our politicians having to put up with the kind of takedowns directed Bibi's way and their corruption put on display for all to see!
In addition, perhaps Americans could get to know a woman-of-influence who is a real tough cookie and an authentic fighter rather than the ersatz version we are led to believe is personified by Hillary Clinton.
Can you imagine Tzipi Livni crying for effect? Hah! That woman is something else again. Remember when she was frozen out of intel briefings during the stupid summer war of '06? Did Tzipi whine about how the guys had shut her out even tho as Foriegn Minister, she should have been included? Hell no. Ms Livni cut out the middlingmen standing in her way and went around them to consult with her own high-level contacts in military intel/security circles.
The biggest obstacles to peace are ensconced in thinktankland and on The Hill. Until distaff Israeli voices can be heard by those principals making FP decisions that affect Israelis, Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, Lebanese, etc the status quo shall prevail.
That's why the under-the-MSM-radar freakouts over certain of Obama's FP advisors is so intense; it's all about who gets the President's ear and in addition, who is allowed to testify before Congressional committees.
Perhaps the likes of the emerging J Street coalition can help provide access to Israelis such as Efraim Halevy and Alon Liel who want to explore other options . Lord knows we don't need anymore of the likes of Ehud Barak or Danny Ayalon providing their stay-the-course SOS crapola.
or Bibi, gawd help us all.
I keep wishing Arik would wake up. At least he wasn't so bloody foolish as to think starting a war with Hezbollah would be a good idea.
Frankly, it's also up to Israelis to wrest control of their future from the hands of their American "friends" who know what's best for Israel.
PS. Note to ALL Americans who remain clueless; the infamous Syrian "nuclear" facility wasn't.
April 5, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg, all three candidates have sided with AIPAC. What would you have them say and still be elected. Your views do not command a majotity among either Jews or Americans as a whole.
April 6, 2008 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
All 3 candidates say what they need to say to please
donors who adhere to the AIPAC line. Once in office, they can do what they want. And AIPAC can't touch them. The question is whether they are willing to take a little flack for doing the right thing.
As for what they should say -- that they will be an honest broker, even-handed, fair whose goal will be to establish a Pal state in WB, Gaza with EJ as its capital alongside Israel.
I'd offer NATO membership to both countries in exchange for that.
April 6, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. writes:
That's a pretty nasty thing to say. It's all about money, right? AIPAC pays the candidates in order to subvert the U.S. interest and to serve Israel's/Neocons' agenda. I expect this kind of a claim from the various anti-Semites -- Left or Right, as it fits so well into the biblical Crucifixion story: Judas betrays Jesus for a few pieces of silver.
As a paid writer, you really ought to be more careful. Indeed, nowhere do you allow that maybe, just maybe AIPAC makes an intellectual argument for its position that, as far the U.S.'s (and I emphasize: U.S., not Israel's) interests are involved, is actually more convincing to the various decision-makers in Congress and the various Administrations than the arguments coming from your side.
So, is it all about hard cold cash, or maybe, just maybe your side could use intellectually stronger, more convincing advocates for the agenda it tries to promote?
Hmm, did you think this one through? First, NATO is a military (defensive) alliance, whereas the future Pal. state is supposed to be de-militarized. Second, are you ready to have a Hamas-led govt. at the table in Brussels? And if not, how do you propose to prevent Hamas from attaining power - through democratic means? Shall we install a dictatorship?
Recall that the Turkish/Greek precedent -- a very strong pro-Western military that, as soon as anti-Western tendencies had surfaced, took over power in a coup d'état, can't work here since the Pals will have no army.
See what I meant by "intellectually stronger, more thoughtful and convincing advocates?"
April 6, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J.,
Sorry for coming at you a bit more strongly than is my custom. This is not personal, and, to quote Bill Maher, I do it because I love.
The Israeli-Pal. conflict is complicated, and getting more so. It is naive to believe that simplistic "Peace Now" or "Jewish Settlers" approaches will work. No one has the magic bullet.
IMHO, the TPM Cafe readers will benefit from a more nuanced discussion of the issues, and without impugning the loyalty or patriotism of the various lobbies, incl. AIPAC. AFAIK, and without any proof to the contrary, we must give everyone the benefit of the doubt that their actions reflect their best understanding of what is best for America..
This is especially true on Center-Left forums like this one. I'm sure the memory of Wingnuts calling opponents of the Iraq invasion unpatriotic or traitors, is indelibly etched in everyone's memory. No one on our side liked it, so let's not do it to AIPAC.
You M.J., and some of the commenters here are committed to a certain POV and are convinced that it's the way to go. However, political philosophy is not math -- there is no way to resolve a problem by proving a bunch of theorems, and competing ideas may be just as viable as yours.
If you're not willing to convince AND BE CONVINCED, the entire discussion turns into a giant exercise in mental masturbation.
April 6, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definition of Israeli-Palestinian peace process to date:
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
April 6, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State:
That's very good. I like this one as well: to paraphrase William Faulkner, in the Middle East the past never dies. And it's not even the past.
(Faulkner wrote this about the American South, but I think it fits the ME very well. Btw, all credit goes to NPR -- I heard this on today's Sunday Edition, wrt slavery in Florida.)
April 6, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
maturity doesn't always bring wisdom.
April 6, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Old Grouch nailed this one.
April 6, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can't change the past. Mostly we can't even change how others feel about the past. And the small chance of EVEN that happening becomes zero
if we go about it with insults.
But just suppose that after the ever popular abuse of MJ or of MJ's abusers we happened to want to move to something interesting , how about speculating on what work.
My guess is that one reason why we don't do that is that we're pretty sure that what might work would have to disappoint the side with which if push came to shove we would feel we had to support. Because any plan with a chance of success would have to disappoint both sides.
Here's my disappointment to both side.Three points.
1 Permanetly install a major US military installation in Israel. We want a base in the middle east and we've tried Saudi Arabia and Iraq without success.
Israel can be the base.
2. With respect to the borders: Taba. We don't need to reinvent the wheel .
3. A $50billion plan to empty the Palestian
camps. $10,000 to any family that agrees to settle anywhere . Plus $5000 to the country that accepts them from Albania to Zimbabwe. With some sustaining grants until the fund runs dry. AOBTW ,settle meaning settle. Moving into a house , not a camp.
Dumb idea?Perhaps. what's yours ?
April 6, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your wisdom, Grouch!
April 7, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink