Yes, The Palestinian Issue Is Central Plus Support Rob Malley
The election of Barack Obama had the effect of prying open a window in a stale room. You can breathe again.
Not everybody, of course. The neoconservatives are in shock. Suddenly they have no administration in Washington. The White House is enemy territory, soon to be staffed by people who do not see the world in black and white.
John Bolton? He will be the answer to a trivia question. Who was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who, prior to his appointment, was best known for his contempt for the work of the United Nations?
Douglas Feith? Was he really the #3 at the United States Department of Defense?
Was Elliot Abrams really a mediator between Israelis and Arabs? Stop it. You're killing me.
Along with the neocon personnel, their dogmas should be tossed too. I'd start with the ridiculous idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not thwart America's goals and interests in the Middle East.
The neocons, and their fellow travelers, insist that Palestine is like Chechnya or Bosnia--significant regional issues which some Muslims care about, but not most.
They insist that--no matter what the Arabs themselves say--they don't really care about the Palestinians or Jerusalem (the third holiest site in Islam). It is just a pretext. They hate America.
The idea of questioning another group's claim to care about others of the same nationality or faith is absurd. Does anyone argue that American Jews--most of whom have never been to Israel--are only faking their attachment to it? When American Jews marched for Russian Jews, whom they had never met and with whom they had little in common, did anyone say they were just acting?
And yet, when a Jordanian says that he is outraged when he sees footage of West Bank settlers ripping out a Palestinian farmer's olive trees, or Hebron settlers abusing children, he's supposedly mouthing propaganda, even though the West Bank is next door.
It's laughable. What it comes down to is that neocons and the Jewish right believe that the Arab attachment to Palestine is a fraud, even on the part of those who live there!
It's colonial: the idea that Arab feelings are contrived but that ours are real.
But hopefully the neocon moment has passed forever. Neoconservative fantasy mongers--having led the country to a failed war in Iraq--have no credibility. On the other hand, the foreign policy realists, who opposed the Iraq war from the get-go, have been vindicated.
So what now? Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser to the first President Bush, recommended the following in 2007:
"A vigorously renewed effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict could fundamentally change both the dynamics in the region and the strategic calculus of key leaders. Real progress would push Iran into a more defensive posture. Hezbollah and Hamas would lose their rallying principle. American allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States would be liberated to assist in stabilizing Iraq. And Iraq would finally be seen by all as a key country that had to be set right in the pursuit of regional security.
"Arab leaders are now keen to resolve the 50-year-old dispute....Resuming the Arab-Israeli peace process is not a matter of forcing concessions from Israel or dragooning the Palestinians into surrender. Most of the elements of a settlement are already agreed upon. What is required is to summon the will of Arab and Israeli leaders, led by a determined American president, to forge the various elements into a conclusion that all parties have already publicly accepted in principle."
Only one addendum. Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will also help us defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. How? Because Iran hates the Taliban as much, if not more, than we do. They supported our efforts to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban before. They will again, if we can work out the differences between us--not just the nuclear issue, but also the Palestinian question which stirs up Iranians as much as it does Saudis, Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians, Pakistanis and Iraqis.
In fact, the only issue about which all Muslims are in virtual agreement is the Israeli-Palestinian issue and the need to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
It is time to turn the page. The Muslim world, from North Africa to Indonesia, is excited about the election of Barack Obama. They believe that it means that America will adopt a more even-handed policy. They believe that a President whose father was Muslim cannot share the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views that have prevailed here since 2001, if not before.
I think they are right. I believe Barack Obama understands how imperative it is that America honestly pursue--and is viewed as pursuing--an Israeli-Palestinian agreement that will end the occupation, establish a contiguous Palestinian state, and offer security to both Israelis and Palestinians.
Barack Obama must ignore the tired voices from the past who are telling him that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not central to America's problems in the Middle East. Those who make that case don't even believe it. But they do believe that a U.S. push for peace could end an occupation which they, in their hearts, both support and believe is not so terrible.
It is. Israelis and Palestinians need it to end. But, just as much, we do. Otherwise moderate Arabs will continue to live under constant threat from the Islamist radicals. Al Qaeda and the Taliban will flourish. And America's enemies in Iraq will continue to have a banner behind which to rally. In the end, pro-American regimes--like those in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan--could conceivably be consumed in a conflict fueled, in part, by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Could it be that we will continue to jeopardize America's standing in the entire Muslim world--and Israel's future as well--just to sustain this 41-year occupation or to appease a lobby? It can't be. My hope is that Barack Obama presides over the end to this pointless conflict.
But hope, though a good thing, is not enough. Obama needs staffers who can help him achieve an agreement. No one knows yet who the next Secretary of State will be. The Bush 41 and Clinton administrations had excellent people working the Arab-Israeli issue and they came very close to achieving an agreement.
I'd be happy to see the return of any of them. That includes Robert Malley. Malley was exiled from the Obama campaign after right-wing hit men called this Jewish lawyer and diplomat anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, a terrorist supporter and an all around dangerous guy. In fact, the lies about Malley were identical to the lies spread--by the same character assassins--against Obama later on. The Malley hit was a trial run for what the rightwing smear artists tried, unsuccessfully, to do to Obama.
If President Obama is determined to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, and he is, he needs Rob Malley. Let's not allow liars and libelists to block Malley's contribution to ending this horrific conflict.
POSTSCRIPT: Here is an e-mail I just received from the Democratic party's official Jewish operation, the National Jewish Democratic Council. Guess what. It reads like something from the Republicans. It's premise: Rob Malley must never, ever work for Obama because....he's even-handed.
"The shameful right-wing smear machine that brought us outright lies and half-truths about President-elect Barack Obama during the presidential campaign is back again. Although it seems like it never left.
"Though the campaign is over, the smears keep coming. This week's on conservative blogs lies included a rumor that Robert Malley, a former staffer in the Clinton White House, is working for Obama. (In May of this year, Malley severed all ties with the Obama campaign after he met with Hamas as part of his job with the International Crisis Group. Obama said he would not meet with Hamas.)
"The second smear accused the Obama team of meeting with Hamas officials. Again, something Obama has said would not happen unless Hamas ceased violence against Israel and recognized the state and its previous agreements with Palestinians.
"These myths were immediately debunked by the Obama's aides. Malley is NOT working for
resident-elect Obama and the administration-to-be is certainly NOT meeting with Hamas.
The continuation of this smear campaign represents a serious disease within our community that must end. It's time we start focusing on the facts rather than the myths of the smear machine."
---
You're attempting to advance a rational, sensible argument. Are you telling us the world is more complicated than good guys and bad guys? No black and white? No us and them? I have never in my life heard such nonsense. Shame on you, MJ.
November 14, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ continues to miss a key element of the conflict. Israel is no longer dealing with the Palestinians. They are dealing with Iran. Hamas is now almost completely under the authority of the IRG, just like Hezbollah in Lebanon. It is an open secret militants are smuggled out of Gaza for training in Iran and smuggled back in.
Iran DOES NOT want a negotiated settlement. They want Israel to disappear, and they have made this clear many times in public statements. They were instrumental in killing the Palestinian reconciliation talks last week in Cairo aimed at bringing the two factions together. Again, this strengthens their hand and weakens Egypt's influence.
Obama can send as many envoys to Gaza as he wants. At this juncture, peace is going to require a deal with Iran, and they haven't indicated any willingness to compromise on this issue.
November 14, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make them an offer. Your living in the last century.
Go watch EXODUS. It's on AMC right now. Hurry.
November 14, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks MJ for such a fundamentally decent post. It is such a blessing to have an American Jew talk about Arabs as I know them: complete human beings.
Two quick points:
1. the Obama approach is already paying off. The Iranians who love using our idiots to paint America as an evil cartoon are genuinely worried that Obama will engage--without pre-conditions. Considering that the nuclear program is leverage for the Regime to advance its regional interests and to engage the West on its own terms, actually offering to talk is the most frightening thing we could do. Can you imagine how Obama would be received in Tehran? Can you say, rock star!
2. I thought Robert Malley was an Arab-American? Is he a Jewish Arab like Paula Abdul? (Sorry about the comparison but she's the only famous Jewish Arab I know.)
November 14, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's like Abdul. Jewish but of Middle Eastern origin.
He also was in Obama's class at HLS and was a Rthodes scholar.
November 14, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama really needs to get more people like Malley and Aaron David Miller involved in the process. It would be a great act of redemption to appoint either one of them to Eliot Abrams' old job.
November 14, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, MJ, the Iranians want Israel to disappear. Should Obama offer that?
This is the real world. Saying "make them an offer" is a bad throwaway line in a Hollywood script.
November 14, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely that Rob Malley should be back on, the screams on the right (both Republican and Democrat) be damned. Obama's playing it safe with appointments right now, but I hope he's willing to defend some appts. his adversaries will try to demonize.
I don't believe in ethnic litmus tests, Obama also needs an Arab specialist on his Middle East team, and especially the team handling Israel-Palestine. As David Aaron Miller noted in A Much Too Promised Land, there were no Arabs on Clinton's team, and virtually everyone was Jewish. At times, he wrote, they acted as "Israel's lawyer."
I know an Arab doesn't represent "the Arab view" and a Jew doesn't represent "the Jewish view," because there is no one "view" for either. But we need an Arabic speaker who is a realist, who can articulate Arab views inside the team, while being fully committed to the Obama team's initiatives. Shibley Telhami, maybe?
November 14, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think those jews on Clinton's team were able and professional ,very much including Malley whom
I've read him with interest and appreciation in the NYReview over the last lost 8 years.
Despite that ,my layman's reaction is that you're right that it would be useful to add to the mix someone with the same professionalism but also whatever additional insight comes from being of Arab descent.
I've just had the ironic thought that MJ's detractors are probably an economic plus for Josh since his columns attract such a consistent volume of predictable rebuttals. Which is fine in itself altho it's a pity that some(not all) are also predictably abusive. But,hey ,they all count in those user counts which surely help TPM attract advertising.
You're doing a grand job Bob Lane. Keep it up.
November 15, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right after Obama announces Hillary Clinton's appointment as Secretary of State, I hope and pray he finds and announces a position for Samantha Power. She was a tragic loss.
November 15, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about Rami G. Khouri?
Rami George Khouri is a Palestinian-Jordanian and US citizen whose family resides in Beirut, Amman, and Nazareth.
He is the Director of the Issam Fares Institute of Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut as well as editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star newspaper, published throughout the Middle East with the International Herald Tribune. He is an internationally syndicated political columnist and author.
Rami was a visiting scholar at Stanford University in October 2006, and in November 2006, he was the co-recipient of the Pax Christi International Peace Award for his efforts to bring peace and reconciliation to the Middle East.
November 14, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I'd like to see Rashid Khalidi brought in as an official adviser.
November 15, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: M.J.: I'd be really interested in your thoughts on that one.
November 15, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's time we start focusing on the facts..."
Okay, focus on this fact:
New York Times Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:19 AM PST
Tensions between Hamas and Israel increased markedly after Hamas fired a barrage of rockets into southern Israel, sending 18 Israelis to the hospital with shock and mild injuries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/world/middleeast/15gaza.html
Rosy claimed to be "nauseated" by all the pandering to the Zionist Entity. Will he be "nauseated" by the Hamas attack on Jewish women and children? Will he write a seething condemnation of this attempted murder perpetrated by a group explicitly dedicated to annihilating Jews? Will his wrath be mighty and horrible to behold?
No. His wrath will be dazed and confused. He will write yet another tedious column bitterly condemning Israel and its supporters.
Being MJ Rosenberg means never having to say you're rational.
November 14, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, "Bob." If it wasn't for me, who would you be? Hell, if I'm a pile of manure, you still are just the parasite feeding off me. A little gratitude would be nice.
One day I'll stop posting and your reactive existence will come to an end. So be nice. Ok.
November 14, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Bob~ If a bunch of right-wing Jews was trying to take over my neighborhood in Los Angeles with tanks and guns and 'settlements' I would probably start shooting rockets into the old Fairfax District myself. Every death toll from Palestinian and Israeli conflict is massively weighted to death for the Palestinians. The fact is when the right-wing Jews quit trying to steal every inch of land they can bully away from their neighbors, they will live in peace.
November 17, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
As sad as it may sound; having a Jew behind you is a lot safer than having an Arab behind you. I'll take the Jew behind me any day...I'll take the Arab in my site.
November 14, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still in mourning, Sarg. Told you so! Although I didn't predict an Obama landslide.
I feel your pain.
November 14, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, however, did predict an Obama landslide. And took no small amount of shit at the time. (It takes awhile to realize that I'm usually right.) *:o)
November 15, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
OldSarg,
your bigotry is on display.
November 15, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
This post has merit, unlike the impetuous post on Rahm's "classiness." This one reminded me of Albert Camus' The Stranger, in which the French court in Algeria behaves pretty much like the neocons do today in America. For them, the concern is disseminating right wing agendas, not hearing the side of the Arab or delivering justice.
November 14, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that may have been a bit much. Thanks.
November 15, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ says:
---------------
"Arab leaders are now keen to resolve the 50-year-old dispute....Resuming the Arab-Israeli peace process is not a matter of forcing concessions from Israel or dragooning the Palestinians into surrender. Most of the elements of a settlement are already agreed upon. What is required is to summon the will of Arab and Israeli leaders, led by a determined American president, to forge the various elements into a conclusion that all parties have already publicly accepted in principle."
---------------------------------
Total myth. MYTH! Yes, its true the Arabs want it resolved ON THEIR TERMS, which means the eradication of Israel. Egypt, who signed the first "peace agreement" with Israel treats Israel as an enemy state. It tells its population this explicitly. So do the Palestinians.
MJ's fellow "progressive" Yossi Alpher, who was involved in the original Oslo "feelers" wrote on 4 October the statement MJ made IS NOT TRUE. There is no agreement on any of the issues. For example, MJ will tell you that "everyone knows" that Israel will "have" to accept the (phony) Palestinian "right of return". The Left has already conceded this, but Olmert and Livni of the outgoing Kadima gov't have not officially accepted it. But let's say they do. MJ celebrates (Peace is at hand!)....all they then have to do is work out the "minor detail" of how many will actually come back to Israel and over what period of time.
Is it 50,000? 500,000? 5 million? This is not some minor detaial. Abbas himself said FIRST Israel must agree to it, THEN the "details" will be worked out.
Barak at Camp David in 2000 was prepared to hand over Judaism's holiest place, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem in totality to Arafat. All he demanded was that Arafat accept a clause saying that the Arabs recognize that the Jews also view it as a holy place. Arafat adamantly refused to agree to this, saying the Jews have no legitimate connection to Jerusalem. Clinton berated him for an hour or more to change his view. He refused. This is another "minor detail" for MJ.
Why should Abbas even agree to a peace agreement with Israel? Today he has millions of dollars per year lavished on him from the US and EU with practically no strings attached. Why should hd stick his neck out and make concessions to Israel which would likely make him end up like Sadat?...full of bullet holes and reviled as a traitor to the Arab cause. If the Arab/Israeli conflict ended, that would be the worst thing that could happen to the Arab governments, they would no longer have excuses to reform ("we can't have democracy...the Zionists would use it to infiltrate our system!").
MJ is an extrememlly provincial person...he assumes everyone in the world sees everything like he does and that everyone views their interests the way he projects his own on everybody else. He "knows" what the Palestinians "really want" even though they explicitly say the opposite. Who are you going to give Judea/Samaria to, MJ? HAMAS or FATAH? Antother "minor detail", I guess.
November 15, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is "Judea and Samaria." I'm not familiar with the term. It's not in my atlas.
November 15, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised, MJ, that you don't recall the usages of the term "Judea and Samaria"! For years, it's been extreme-Zionist-speak for the entirety of Biblical "Israel" - i.e. ALL the real estate mentioned in the Bible as "belonging" to the Jews, roughly everything between the Jordan River, the Mediterranean Sea, the mountains of Lebanon and the Negev desert.
Unfortunately, the usual usage of the term nowadays is pretty much as a euphemism for ethnic cleansing of "Jewish" land of all those late-comer interlopers, the Palestinians.
November 15, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I was teasing YBD. As soon as they start talking "J&S," it's a broken record.
It's like referring to New York as Oneida Nation.
November 15, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, you have nothing constructive to say about what I said, because there is nothing to say. The Romans called the country "Judea" 2000 years ago. In order to attempt to erase the Jewish connotations of the name after the two hard wars with the Jews, they renamed it "Palestine" after a long exinct tribe, the Philistines.
The Samaritans who you may have heard of and whom still exist, and who are mentioned in both the Jewish and Christian Bibles are named after "Samaria". They have lived in the area continuously for 2500 years. That is not as long as the "Bene Israel" AKA the Jews, who have lived there for 4000 years, continuously.
Your comment simply shows you to be uniformed about the history of the country.
And "Judea/Samaria" DOES appear in atlases. Rabin and Peres called the region "Judea/Samaria". The Israeli media, completely controlled by the Left, also calls it Judea/Samaria.
Regarding my comment about Ram Emanuel being a "grovelling exilic Jew" because of his need to apologize for something his father said (i.e. implying the Jews are somehow collectively guilty of one does something wrong), you then commented about how glad you are in Chevy Chase. This reminds me about how after World War II Jewish blood was cheap, and how American Jews, particularly those close to the Establishment, and especially the "Beltway Establishment" just like yourself, as you keep telling us, during the biggest crisis of all time during the war SAT ON THEIR HANDS worrying about "what will the non-Jews say if we try to alert everyone about the genocide going on in Europe". The fact that Jews around the world are now respected, unlike the situation I described in 1945, is because Israel has shown that we will NOT allow Jewish blood to become cheap anymore. You yourself along with millions of other Jews in the US has personally benefitted from this, WHETHER OR NOT YOU WILL ADMIT IT OR ARE EVEN CONCIOUS OF IT.
November 15, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back up a little, YBD. The Canaanites were inhabiting the real estate when Abraham (or his descendants, it's iffy) left Ur (a place in today's Iraq) to settle in the Land of Canaan. Some record the date of the emigration at around 5000 BC.
That said, the blame game between Arab and Israeli sympathizers - who's doing what to whom - leads nowhere but to further blame. Reminds me of children, 'he hit me first.' Most of us outgrow the behavior.
November 15, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's sure to upset YBD, but actually, phelicity, recent scholarship based on archaeological evidence suggests the Ur story of the Bible isn't accurate. Instead, it appears that the indigenous Jews of Israel/Palestine were descendants of the original Caananite population.
According to the cited article, the “Cohen Modal Haplotype” or “CMH,” which is the DNA marker upon which ancient Jewish lineage is based, is also present in other indigenous groups. In fact, the Bedouin and Palestinian Arab populations of the area reveal a presence of the J1 haplogroup marker, which indicates a tie to the Jewish priestly class, approximately equal to that of the Jews who carry the same marker. (see the Table 1, Modal Haplotypes* in J1 Populations in the article.)
So, essentially, the Jews and the Palestinians are cousins, if not brothers.
November 17, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
gee, i didn't know that. fascinating.
November 15, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If so, MJ, then the Balfour Declaration is illegitimate, and Tel Aviv is an "illegal settlement" as it is referred to in official Palestinian Authority literature. Are you an anti-Zionist, MJ? I am sure those who read your columns in the Jerusalem Post would be interested in knowing that.
November 15, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Balfour Declaration? Of course, it is illegitimate. Great Britain has about much right to give away any of Palestine as I have to give away Venice.
Israel's legitimacy comes not from a colonialist manifesto but from a series of United Nations Resolutions which recognize the right of a Jewish state to exist in Palestine.
These all guarantee the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state within "secure and recognized borders." Those borders do not include one inch of the West Bank.
Those who dare to compare Tel Aviv, Haifa and Israel itself to West Bank settlements which the entire world views as illegal are profoundly anti-Zionist. Take a bow, YBD. You are a colonialist. A Zionist wants to live in the State of Israel.
I'm a Zionist but only in the sense of supporting Israel's right to peace and absolute security, not in the sense of wanting to leave my own country.
You are no Zionist at all.
November 15, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Balfour Declaration is illegitimate in your eyes, how on earth can you justify the UN resolutions creating the State of Israel? They are based on the Balfour Declaration. The Arabs and Palestinians view BOTH as invalid.
November 16, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
YBD,
You sounded to me like you are singing Hashomer/Bar-Giora motto of the early 20th century: "In blood and fire, Judea fell; in blood and fire will Judea rise."
What's your point? Are you still living in the bygone era of Irgun and Lehi, and a follower of Israel Shochat, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Avraham Stern, David Razie? What's your solution? Revival of Haganah, Irgun, Lehi, and the like?
November 15, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
YBD is a West Bank settler. Yes, he's all for blood and fire!
November 15, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I have stated before, I do not live in Judea/Samaria (unfortunately), but MJ keeps insisting that I do. Thus we see his total disregard for the facts so everyone should keep in mind his repeated use of outright falsehoods in these postings of his (e.g. his assurances that the US can impose an agreement if only he would keep the Jews off the US negotiating team and put Arabs on it instead, that the Arabs have "agreed to the terms that everyone knows are the outline of the final agreement", that the Palestinian Authority "rejects terrorism").
I also hope MJ will, from now on, openly state in his deceitful columns in the Jerusalem Post and other Israeli publications that he is an anti-Zionist. He pretends to be a "concerned Zionist" when in reality he denies the Jews the right to self-determination in Eretz Israel.
November 15, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
YBD,
what is a "Zionist"?
November 16, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
A "Zionist" is someone who believes the Jewish people are entitled to set up a state in their historic homeland of Eretz Israel and that practical steps should be taken to implement this. There are both Jewish and non-Jewish Zionists. The first real political Zionists of the modern era were Christians in Britain and the United States starting about 1840. Jewish Zionists also believe that for the sake of building such a state, arguments over the religious and social nature of such a state should be set aside for the sake of advancing the agreed national character of the Jewish people which is not simply religious.
November 16, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
YBD,
what do you do with the Palestinians living there?
November 17, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ Rosenberg,
Have I missed the part when we reached consensus of what those goals and interests specifically are?
November 15, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
November 15, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nu...?
November 16, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then how come US-based arms manufacturers and distributors are still making most of the money, pouring weapons into all sides of the conflict? Or do you suggest that the consensus we have reached is the profitability of sustaining the conflict?
November 16, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, I agree that resolving the Palestinian-Israeli problem is the key to any rational denouement of the ME conflict. From my perspective, however, it seems you are oversimplifying the process. First, I don't see anything happening until each entity reaches agreement within itself. Israel must find a way to mollify and unify the right wing settlers behind a plan that doesn't include the West Bank and the Palestinians must unify and decide on a viable single government. I don't see any of that happening peacefully.
The entire area has become a seething cauldron with the rising influence of Iran and the neglect of the U.S. over the last 30 years. The lid is rattling and could pop off at any time. It is no longer an Arab-Israeli conflict. It is now an Arab-Israeli-Iranian conflict and I have grave doubts that the U.S. can do anything at all to resolve the issues that have mouldered for so long unless, as stated above the people directly involved decide take the first steps.
November 15, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well-said. But I have great faith in America's ability to get this one resolved. We provide Israel's lifeline (billions in military and economic aid annually) and defend the most important Arab players as well -- Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia -- with aid and in the Saudi case, troops.
We also aid the Palestinians (although a pittance compared to Israel).
I believe we can achieve whatever we are determined to achieve in that arena.
November 15, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're right. But an already complicated situation was made exponentially more convoluted by the invasion of Iraq and the resulting broadened hegemony of Iran.
November 16, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention Sunni/Shia, Zionist/Reformist.
November 15, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, hang in there. There are plenty of us outsiders here (neither Jew nor Arab) who have no ethnic dog in this fight but who yearn for justice. I know there are plenty of honorable Jews, both here and over there, but their voices are drowned out by Zionists who seem unable to acknowledge there might be fault on both sides in this issue.
And there is one small problem. We're all paying for this endless conflict. And the stakes are rising. Only a Jew can say some things that need to be said here without being labeled anti-Semitic while the rest of us agonize in silence. If the US government really wanted to end this conflict it could do so almost overnight. Just raise the financial stakes for Israel by threatening to cut off aid. When was the last time our country actually threatened to curtail these automatic annual billions we give to our "friends" there while they systematically choke the life out of the indigenous Palestinians.
I have been to enough public discussions on this issue to know that any criticism of Israel risks an avalanche of indignation and even hate from the many Jewish people who never miss a chance to halt any fault finding with Israel.
All MJ is suggesting here is for Obama to take a more balanced view of this tragedy by listening to legitimate voices from both sides.
November 15, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, I really admire the fact that you appreciate not only the complexity of the situation, but the necessity for compromise. You're non-partisan and you get that the Palestinians need to receive something out of the deal. And you're also willing to recognize there's a little guilt and a little innocence on both sides of this battle. You're a mensch, MJ. And that is the highest possible compliment I know to offer.
November 15, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although MJ and I sometimes disagree, I'd like to second that comment. :)
November 17, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks hrebendorf and RWH. That is much appreciated.
I think it's all going to change. If the country that elected Reagan and two Bushes, and where Lee Atwater once reigned, can elect Barack Obama, good things can happen.
The rightwingers here who think their vision will prevail are like white Rhodesians or South Africans.
History only moves in one direction, although in fits and starts.
There will be two states, the occupation will end, Jerusalem will be shared and the settlers will go home (probably to Brooklyn or LA; they can't stand secular Israel). But it will happen.
November 15, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
From The Sunday Times:
Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America’s president-elect.
Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party.
The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948 while requiring it to restore the Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.
On a visit to the Middle East last July, the president-elect said privately it would be “crazy” for Israel to refuse a deal that could “give them peace with the Muslim world”, according to a senior Obama adviser.
November 15, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is about the 5000th reincarnation of the same "peace plan" which started with the "Jarring Plan" after the Six-Day War, and then the "Rogers Plan" of about 1970, leading us through the "Reagan Plan" of the 1980's, then Oslo, then the "Clinton Paramters", "The Geneva Plan", etc, etc. They all have more or less the same terms and are all equally unacceptable to both sides, particularly the Arabs. This new Obama Plan will end up the same way, in the garbage can. The Arabs do not want peace on any terms.
November 15, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your fingers must've slipped on your keyboard. Surely you meant to write the truth:
The Israelis do not want peace on any terms.
November 16, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct in the sense that up until now, the Arabs are making demands that are suicidal for Israel. Israel will not accede to demands of this sort. Once Islamic extremism is seen to be defeated and in retreat (i.e. the Iranians run themselves into the ground and Arab/Muslim public opinion finally turns against the terrorists and suicide bombers, something that will no doubt take years), then Israel and the Arabs can reach an agreement based on the principle "PEACE FOR PEACE" (not "Land for Peace" which can never work) with the interests of the Palestinians taken into consideration.
November 16, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This new plan says:
--------------------------------------------
The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948
--------------------------------------------
Totally unacceptable to the Arabs. Abbas repeats this every day, and they Arabs can not be forced to capitulate on this matter, they US does not have the leverage.....too dependent on their oil and their dollars which are desperately needed to shore up the US economy.
November 15, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
YBD is of course right. The two-state solution is dead and all "peace processes" with the explicit goal of achieving a two-state solution are nothing more than elaborate farces that do nothing but preserve the status quo. We are headed for a one-state solution. The only question is whether it will be one state for two peoples or one state for one people and, if the latter, which of the two peoples will triumph over the other.
November 16, 2008 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting to note that NOT ONCE has MJ made any attempt to refute the multitude of facts I have mustered showing why his progrostications about Obama being the savior of the 'Peace Process' are totally wrong. If he wants to bring counter arguments, I am waiting to hear them.
November 16, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
YBD--I feel about you the way you do about all Palestinians. I will attack you but not acknowledge that you have any rights, first of which is to be seriously engaged in discussion with me. Or anybody else who posts at TPM.
November 16, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, MJ, the ONE thing that ALL of this discussion proves--and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt--and I'm going all the way back to Bar Kochba and Davai and Brad because it really has been just one discussion--is that THERE IS NO JEWISH CONSPIRACY! About ANYTHING! As a people, we couldn't conspire our way out of a paper bag.
All the gentiles who post on your site pretty much agree. They shuffle over here; they shuffle over there. They offer up this; they offer up that. Occasionally, but very seldom, you get a whacked out gentile. But mostly they're ready to move on: the solution is so obvious, what's there to discuss any more?
(It's a bit like that Jackie Mason eating-at-a-restaurant bit where the gentiles have already finished eating and are snoozing gently in their seats... while the Jews are still arguing about who sits where and what food should come on what plate.)
But the Jews? Omigod! At each other's throats. Constantly. No gentile here has said anything that even approaches the venom you regularly take from any number of landsmen. It's just like in the Torah and prophets say: The Jews are the most hard-headed and stiff-necked people...in the world.
That's why I love us so.
(But I am glad you've developed new coping mechanisms to deal with the onslaught. I like your new turn at humor. Very Jewish, of course, and certain to drive your tormenters insane.)
November 16, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can I drive people, who are already certifiable, insane?
I agree. At TPM there are only 3 rightwing Zionist under different names.
The Americans who speak good English.
The former Americans, living in Israel, who speak good English.
And the Russians -- live here or in Israel who speak bad English.
So Zionista/Bar Kafka/Brad/Aippacman all same person
Davai/Daniel Greenbaum/Bar Kochba one person
YBD one person.
The only difference between the Jews (right and left) who post here and the regular folks is that the RF's aren't as utterly bored with the subject as we are. We just can't help ourselves.
Before anyone complains about my term, RF. I cannot call RF's non-Jews or Gentiles when they are 98% of Americans and 99.999^ of the world. I don't dig that Chosen People thing. Nothing but trouble. And Jews are so obviously not chosen except in as comics. (Did you see Paul Rudd last night on SNL. He's funny. So was James Franco a few weeks ago. Our funny guys have evolved).
November 16, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ Rosenberg,
Zionista/Bar Kafka, sure. I have admitted it several times already.
Brad and apacmember? You will have to prove that or go on record as a liar.
November 17, 2008 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ writes: "So Zionista/Bar Kafka/Brad/Aippacman all same person
Davai/Daniel Greenbaum/Bar Kochba one person
YBD one person."
I wouldn't lump BK in with that bunch. "He" is much more reasonable than the others you mention.
I would only add this: You can't blog and allow comments and not expect some intense scrutiny of what you say. BK strikes me as tough, but respectful toward you, and that's what you (should) want. The others tend toward smears and ad homina.
Besides, isn't discussing/arguing the essence of Jewish interaction...or at least a big piece of it? I think Ben Gurion complained of the same thing, i.e., having millions of "co-prime ministers" to deal with.
I take your point about RF vs. "Gentiles." Well made.
November 17, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone can check it out for themselves. There is simply nothing in the record of my comments, either as Zionista or Bar Kafka, that is anywhere near the rightward end of the political spectrum. But since I don't kiss MJ's ass I must be a neocon from Beit Podhoretz.
November 17, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, that is correct that I used to use "bar_kochb132" as my pen-name. There is no conspiracy involved, I just got tired of having conversations diverted into arguments about Bar-Kochba and the Second Jewish War against the Romans.
Secondly, thank you MJ for confirming that you are incapable of refuting any of the facts that I bring forth. (I know it is cute to mask it as a matter of "principle", but your accusing me of being anti-Palestinian simply because I oppose their having an independent state is preposterous, because both you and I also would have opposed the Confederate States of America being an independent state as well, although they were more committed to such a thing than the Palestinians ever were.-not every group in the world is entitled to an independent state).
I am sure most of the people who view this site have seen through your intellectual shallowness already.
November 16, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Empirically, there is not a great deal of reason to believe that any peace process designed to implement a two-state solution will work. The two-state solution in one form or another has been pursued since the 1940s with no success. Sixty years of failure is impressive empirical evidence that the two-state solution is unworkable. Continuing the process seems to fit Einstein's famous definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. But the process will continue because, even as it fails, it benefits the following five groups:
1. Politicians like Bush who find it politically expedient to maintain the appearance of desiring a solution but who really don't care enough about the issue to do anything that might entail any political risk or serious work. For these politicians, statements about "roadmaps" and "two states living side by side in peace" are convenient platitudes to roll out on appropriate occasions.
2. Politicians like Clinton, Blair, and Rice who sincerely would like to see a solution and even think a solution is important to national security, but who are either naive (Clinton, initially) or who lack the intellectual or political courage to face the fact that the two-state solution is unworkable and something different and inevitably more controversial must be tried (Clinton after the failure at Camp David and Blair and Rice today). The peace process for these politicians is a convenient way to maintain the appearance of progress on an important issue without actually suffering the political consequences of being a real leader.
3. Well-meaning supporters of Israel like MJ, who would like to see the injustice of the Israeli version of apartheid end, but who, because they are so devoted to the idea of a Jewish state, can't come to grips with the fact that separate but equal never has and never can be transformed into real justice. For these folks, the peace process is a soothing balm for a conscience that otherwise might be more deeply troubled.
4. Cynical supporters of Israel like Sharon who know that the peace process is a farce but find it useful cover to protect Israel from international condemnation while it continues on its slow but inexorable path towards destroying Palestinian society and strangling Palestinian national aspirations.
5. Weak Palestinian politicians like Abbas who consent to the peace process as a way to preserve the Western support they need to stay in power.
It will be interesting to see if Obama will change anything, but given the substantial political risks of actually tackling the issue honestly, I suspect Obama will settle comfortably into group 2.
November 16, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Empirically, there is not a great deal of reason to believe that any peace process designed to implement a two-state solution will work. The two-state solution in one form or another has been pursued since the 1940s with no success. Sixty years of failure is impressive empirical evidence that the two-state solution is unworkable."
Except that...
There wasn't much hope that the Irish troubles would ever be solved and they appear at least as intransigent.
There wasn't much hope that racial oppression in the US would end and we've made some good progress.
There wasn't much hope the USSR would ever disappear, and yet it did.
The fact that it hasn't worked doesn't mean it won't work. Past success or failure is no guarantee of future success or failure.
I don't think you can lump all the attempts into one group and say, "See, 'it' didn't work." Conditions have continually changed, and peoples' openness to change has changed over time.
Rather than Einstein, I'd quote Heracleitus who, I believe, said: "You can't step into the same river twice."
November 16, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Racial oppression in the US did eventually come to an end, but unworkable solutions like "separate but equal" had to be dispensed with first.
November 16, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Separate but equal is only unworkable if you're talking about one state. If you're talking about two nations, then it doesn't apply.
November 16, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which, I guess, is the logic behind the Bantustan, the Indian Reservation, and Liberia.
November 16, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple, if you see the two groups as ALREADY part of the same state or entity, then you are correct. But last I heard, the Palestinians want a state of "their own." If that is the case, then what you say isn't correct.
It all depends on what one sees as "the unit" of sovereignty.
November 16, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs both want their own states I think. Unfortunately, I don't believe there's a way to partition Israel/Palestine into two states that would be acceptable to both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. That's the crux of the problem with the two-state solution. It's unworkable because the most the Israelis will ever agree to give to the Palestinians is less than the Palestinians will ever agree to accept.
November 16, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am surprised very little has been mentioned about the elephant in the living room here, namely the "Israel lobby" in all its many iterations. As long as American lawmakers live in complete fear of this group (which I doubt represents the viewpoint of most American Jews) I don't think there will ever be a just solution and the Palestinians are headed for an outcome similar if not worse than the American Indians. Unless, that is, someone starts a real war with unthinkable consequences. The only power that can resolve this problem is the United States and that will take unprecedented political courage.
November 16, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
RWH, in all our discussions on this situation, it is a given that were it not for the lobby, the US would have put over an agreement by now. Political courage? It doesn't require that. Just the will to withstand a little flack. Most politicians cower at the idea of any interest group.
November 16, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, I think you underestimate the difficulty, not in the US, but in Israel itself. A two-state solution won't work unless it gives the Palestinians a lot more than Israel probably is willing to give and probably is able to give without changing its character significantly. One of the great failings of all the peace processes to date (and the reason they really are farces) is they put off the so-called "final status issues" to some later, unspecified date. Those issues, though, must be addressed to truly get anywhere with a solution--and the fact is, they may be unresolvable in a way that's satisfactory to both parties, at least as long as the goal remains to create two states. If it truly is the case (as I think it is) that the final status issues are unresolvable in the context of a two-state solution, then the whole process of peace negotiation as presently conceived is an exercise in futility. Show me a peace process that puts the final status issues on the table right away and then maybe you can convince me that there's a peace process that does more than simply preserve the status quo. But until I see that, I remain highly skeptical that any progress can or will be made on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
I have said before that I believe a federated solution is more promising than a two-state solution--though that too would be extraordinarily difficult to actually implement. I think the actual way the problem will be resolved will be in one of three ways:
1. The Palestinians will remain in limbo indefinitely, and slowly, over time, will emigrate because they simply have little choice but to leave or live in misery. I think this was Sharon's hope, and the current regime of meaningless peace processes fits nicely with a strategy of wearing the Palestinians down. I think this is a morally bankrupt approach (it's a passive-aggressive approach to expulsion), but because it's not an overt crime against humanity it will be tolerated, especially if there's some kind of peace negotiation ongoing for the Israelis and their allies (the US, etc) to point to as cover.
2. The Palestinians will hold on and the balance of power between the West and the Arab world will eventually shift allowing the Palestinians and their Arab allies to assert their rights (either through peaceful or military means). Israel will then have to capitulate to some degree. This seems less likely to me than scenatio 1, but as the US economy falters, it becomes more likely.
3. The Palestinians won't go away but will continue to cause problems for the Israelis, and the Israelis will eventually have to change their strategy from a passive approach to an active one, which would entail some kind of massive attack on the Palestinians, forcing them out of the country or killing enough of them to make them irrelevant. I don't think this is very likely because I don't think it fits with the character of the Israeli people, but as the problem festers and the right wing in Israel keeps getting stronger, the probability of this kind of "solution" increases.
November 17, 2008 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
One other brief comment: I should point out that at Camp David in 2000, the final status issues were addressed and the peace process collapsed precipitously. While many have tried to dismiss this collapse as an abberation created by Arafat's erratic personality, I think the problem is much deeper and much more intractable. The biggest issue is that the land left for a Palestinian state is little, discontinuous, increasingly pockmarked with Israeli settlements and security areas, and (in many cases) not particularly fertile or well endowed with natural resources (including water). Building a sound state for some 10 million people (including the Palestinian refugess who will, at least to some degree, have to be accomodated) on this area is a tall order. The reason I believe a federated solution is more workable is that it preserves in some way the idea of two states, but gives Palestinians (and Israelis) more access to the whole territory and resources of Israel/Palestine. I think this access of both groups to all the land and resources of Palestine/Israel is what is required for real peace to occur. I think it's the only way to make the Palestinian state economically viable and therefore not permanently restive. Any other solution will create an economically devastated Palestine, which, even if a separate state, will never be a good neighbor for Israel and which will likely continue to cause trouble for Israel for decades.
November 17, 2008 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if the two sides could agree to that, I wouldn't have a problem with it--not that my opinion or desires count.
November 17, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin, neither of our opinions or desires count much at all--and maybe they really shouldn't count, because, ultimately, it's up to the Israelis and Palestinians to work things out among themselves. But if a federation is really a good and possibly workable idea for solving the I-P situation, it would be nice to get more serious discussion about it. I've brought up the idea in response to MJ's posts more than once, but I don't think MJ has ever bothered to respond. Maybe he thinks it's just too far-fetched. Or maybe he's too invested in the two-state solution to think outside that box. Or maybe he'd just rather trade insults with YBD. I don't know.
Anyway, a google search produces very little about a federated solution, but it does seem that others have thought of it. Maybe the most interesting thing I found was this article by Andrew Reding at the World Policy Institute
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=601
Sadly, the conventional wisdom (repeated above by MJ) that the solution to the I-P problem is known, that it is a two-state solution similar to that proposed at Camp David, and that the only reason it hasn't actually been implemented is because of AIPAC (see MJ above) or a lack of will on the part of Israel, the Palestinians, and/or the US/world community--shuts out all discussions of alternatives to the two-state solution. If the two-state solution truly is unworkable, however, the conventional wisdom that says the two-state solution is the only solution is actually a barrier to any solution. MJ and people like him who tirelessly argue for a two-state solution would then be guilty of actually perpetuating the conflict by promoting an option that cannot succeed. If the two-state solution is really destined for failure, people like MJ who think they are working toward peace may, by clinging to the failed two-state paradigm, actually be preventing peace as surely as Hamas and the right wing settlers are.
November 17, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am at times despairing of actually reaching a two-state solution after all this time. But there's one element that exists currently that may tend to move things along now, that didn't exist in the past. It's that the Israelis have become aware of the demographic realities that soon will conspire to create a one-state solution for them if they do not act to achieve a two-state solution now. In other words, the time is quickly approaching when they have to fish or cut bait. Despite Israeli resistance over these many decades to a Palestinian state, it's clear that a one-state solution would represent a far more unattractive alternative for the average Israeli and supporter of Israel.
November 17, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Wordie,
So far the so-called demographic issue has resulted only in a separation barrier. Sharon realized the problem and decided the best approach would be to unilaterally determine a border, wall off the Palestinians, and then wipe Israel's hands of responsibility. Whether that approach produces any kind of viable Palestinian state or enduring peace is yet to be seen. I think for many in Israel (and many of Israel's US supporters), the Sharon approach is how a two-state solution is conceived. Whether this conception advances or hinders prospects for real peace is yet to be seen.
It's worth noting as well that the increase in the Palestinian population, while it may make the Israelis more serious about finding a way to permanently separate themselves from the Palestinians, gives the Palestinians an incentive not to agree to a two-state solution and instead wait the Israelis out until a one-state solution becomes unavoidable. Also, the larger the Palestinian population, the harder it is to create a viable separate state on the land still available for that state. So while the demographic issue may make the two-state solution a bit more attractive to Israelis, it makes it less attractive to Palestinians and also creates additional complexities and challenges in dividing the land.
November 18, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
One more comment: Sharon's approach was clever and may indeed have been the best approach to maximizing Israel's land mass while minimizing its Palestinian population. (I'm not sure it would have achieved peace--since the neighboring Palestinians would, if anything, be even more hostile to Israel after being unilaterally walled out--but Sharon was a warrior and didn't mind living in an armed camp.)
The right-wing settlers in Israel, however, are not as smart and strategic as Sharon was. By insisting on loading "Judea and Samaria" onto the Israeli ship of state, they are likely to sink the whole vessel. The freight of Palestinians J&S brings with it will not be easily jettisoned. And if they remain onboard, they will force a sea change on Israel.
November 18, 2008 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, before we go hauling off on "people like MJ," let me say this: Both a two-state solution and the federated solution will require both sides to sit down and negotiate in good faith. To me, this is the missing element. Once you achieve good faith, many things are possible, perhaps even one bi-national state (which may be the same thing as a federated state). Bottom line, BOTH ideas are destined for failure unless some kind of good will can be achieved.
So I don't think that MJ and his ilk are, in any way, standing in the way of peace and progress. If anything, a two-state solution is more intuitively correct, because these two peoples--how to put it gently?--don't like each other very much. So keeping them apart might be the better part of valour. Eventually (I predict) the two states will sort of meld, if they can put together a few decades with no one getting killed, tortured, or bulldozed.
You should know that Israeli Arabs have put together a proposal for a federated country. I don't have the details at hand, but you can probably read about it at bitterlemons.org.
November 18, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, Tintin, you're right--I was being a bit hard on MJ. As an obstacle to Middle East peace, he's far down the list from groups like Hamas and the most fanatical of the right-wing Israeli settlers. But I think nearly everyone who reads MJ is at times frustrated with his--how should I say it?--simplistic dogmatism, maybe? MJ does a marvelous job of uniting people like me and YBD with vastly different perspectives. Unfortunately, he doesn't unite us in favor of any common solution to the I-P problem--he simply unites us in thinking that MJ's prescriptions are both simplistic and unrealistic. I don't see how this advances anything--though I will admit it's entertaining.
November 19, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excerpt from article in Ha'aretz today (17 November) regarding how Americans view Arab/Israeli conflict and America's role in it:
------------------------------------------------
w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last update - 02:00 17/11/2008
Poll: Only 6% of Americans think U.S. should back Palestinians in peace talks
By Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz Correspondent
Only 6 percent of Americans think the United States should stand behind the Palestinians in Middle East peace talks, according to a recent poll of voters conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and commissioned by The Israel Project.
Comparatively, 66 percent of those polled said the U.S. should support Israel in the peace process. Some 80 percent of GOP voters and 59 percent of Democratic were among those backing U.S. support for Israel.
Despite "all the problems America now faces at home," 58 percent of those polled agreed more with the statement that "America needs to stand with Israel" than with "Israel needs to take care of itself."
Of those polled, only 19 percent think "making peace between Israel and the Palestinians" should be among President-elect Barack Obama's top foreign policy priorities.
----- cut rest of article
November 17, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank, YBD: You have convinced me. America cannot be a good faith broker in the Israel-Palestine peace process. All future negotiations should occur in Paris or Moscow.
Thanks for the info.
November 17, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, YBD, but...
Don't you think that a poll sponsored by the...
..."Public Opinion Strategies and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and commissioned by The Israel Project"...
...is open to question just based on the potential bias suggested by its very name?
Naturally, I don't know if it was biased. But to a reader trying to pick up what he can from these back pages, the name doesn't bode well.
Okay, a quick perusal of the site reveals that Ron Silver and Joe Lieberman are on the Board of Advisors. This suggests to me that the Israel Project bends a bit toward the "right."
So, at the end of the day, how confident am I that this was a fair, impartial survey of the views of Americans in which the only object was the truth? Not very.
Look, I know that you have a point of view, as do most of us. But when you turn to sources with obvious bias problems, it doesn't help your argument or the pursuit of truth.
November 18, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. I have no other monikers on this site so don't confuse me with others who try to refute Mr. Rosenberg's blather.
2. My position on an I-P settlement is more evenhanded than other dissenters here: my position is exactly the same as Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's and Hilary Clinton's and Jerry Nadler's: two states with borders fashioned after the Clinton-Ross proposal at Taba with a Palestinian government willing and able to kill Hamas thugs who obstruct it, and an Israeli Government willing to forcibly remove settlers as Begin did at Yamit and Sharon did in Gaza.
3. Mr Rosenberg would like President Obama to threaten a cut-off of aid to Israel if the Government of Israel doesn't accept his terms for a settlement. Funny, not even his friends at J Street would even whisper such a thing. That threat simply will not happen--Rahm Emmanuel and Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer and Jerry Nadler and Nita Lowey and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Dick Durbin and two hundred other liberal Democrats will not permit it to happen because they all know how well the last President to try that in his first term did when he ran for re-election.
November 17, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Ambassador Ross thinks he can work constructively with Malley, OK with me.
November 17, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Call him, AIPACmember. He'll be relieved to know that/
November 17, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The real question is whether Robert Malley can work with Israel's lawyer, Dennis Ross. Or, like Dennis Ross, should I have cleared this comment with the Israeli government before I made it?
November 17, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are people in this country who go ballistic over the 'floods' of immigrants, legal and illegal, entering this country from Mexico and Central America.
Got to wonder how Palestinians felt when between the two world wars the number of Jewish colonists in Palestine had risen from 70,000 to about 700,000, Jewish villages had increased from 50 to 250. With respect to the Arabic-speaking Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, the ratio between them and the Jews had decreased from ten to one in 1918 to about two to one in 1938.
(The British White Paper of 1939, which sharply restricted Jewish immigration, was vigorously resisted by the Jews who actively promoted Jewish immigration on a large scale.)
I realize this is all water over the dam, but reflecting back might shed some light on the actual origin of the Israeli/Palestinian 'problem.'
November 17, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes...but, of course, it's important to reflect back on the whole picture. Those Jews didn't just come for the weather or because of the "healing waters."
November 17, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very true, but from the Palestinian perspective, why should they be asked to bear the cost of the European horrors inflicted on the Jews?
(You may already be aware of this aspect of the problem as well, but since you didn't mention it, I thought it would bear repeating.)
November 17, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there is that side to the argument.
But where would you have had those people go?
Where was "home" for them?
If you tell me "the world community" or "Germany" or "Poland" should of done this or that, then I'll say, well...they didn't, did they? They also shouldn't have indulged in 2,000 years of anti-Semitism or the Holocaust, but they did.
I'll also have to add that there was a proposal to share the land at the start.
Anyway, Wordie, I, of course, understand your point and agree with it. Maybe if there had been some truly uninhabited land somewhere, that might have been the best solution.
November 18, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin said:
Yes, certainly from the Israeli perspective, or perhaps I should say from the perspective of a European Jew of the 20th century, the creation of Israel makes perfect sense. And it probably made sense to much of the rest of the world at the time because of course the UN decisions made then reflected that.
But in making my earlier statement, I was looking at it from the point of view of a Palestinian of that time - someone who in no way created the ugly situation which led to the massive migration of Jewish people to the Middle East, disrupting the lives of people who had lived there for generations. From that person's perspective, the takeover of the land and eventual establishment of a separate Jewish state looks like a very different thing.
That's the tragedy of the situation - that the correction of one harm, to the Jews, resulted in another harm, to the Palestinians.
November 18, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
AIPACmember is the best! A free AIPACmember hologram of him should come when you purchase the Walt-Mearsheimer book.
November 17, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink