Living Next Door to Antagonists
Jonathan Chait at TNR online reasonably asks what the hell I mean by "dealing with Hamas":
if Hamas truly is seized by an implacable desire to wipe Israel off the map, then I have trouble seeing what there is to negotiate over. The only thing to do is persuade Hamas to change its goals, or persuade the Palestinians to adopt new leaders. The latter can be done by making territorial concessions in the West Bank and promoting economic development, in order to demonstrate the comparative benefits of non-Hamas government. But the task would also seem to involve some combination of crushing Hamas's power and/or persuading it -- or, more precisely, the Palestinians who follow it -- that Israel cannot be terrorized into making concessions. How a group of Hamas's nature could be drawn in through a purely concilliatory approach escapes me.
To which I have three responses and a preface. The preface is that, although I've never negotiated an agreement with an enemy force, I don't think I have any illusions about how easy it is. I just don't see a decent alternative.
That said, the hoary peacenik cliché remains no less true for being a peacenik cliché: all kinds of agreements have been worked out with states and quasi-states that had sworn undying hatred. Even during the Cold War, the US and USSR negotiated arms control and other treaties. Consider the deals Israel has made with Egypt, Jordan, and the PLO. They've held. They haven't brought the millennium but they've held. Each time, deals were made with other parties whom the US or Israel would have left out of their ideal worlds but realized they didn't have the luxury of building castles in the air.
Second response: Hamas isn't just an organization that fires rockets. It strategizes. It observes constraints. It doesn't just attack Sderot, Ashkelon, Beersheva--it's a political actor. (Here's a plausible-seeming analysis arguing that Hamas has actually been better at observing cease-fires than Israel.) It has factions. They live in a world of other factions, and adjust accordingly. They already have. This doesn't make them warm or fuzzy. It does make them calculating.
Third: Hamas and Israel are hardly the only two players in the region. If Israel concludes a peace with Syria--conceptually not so difficult--the collaboration of Damascus resident and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal could be part of it. Meanwhile, Scott MacLeod in a Time blog reminds us that the 2002 Saudi omnibus peace deal proposal is still on the table:
The Arabs offered the peace initiative as a sincere effort to end a conflict that has caused needless destruction throughout the region for decades. In effect, the Arabs are saying, "OK, we've failed to eliminate Israel, enough already. We accept Israel now, so let's get on with life."(H/t: Matt Yglesias)
In other words, bring in the whole neighborhood.
Isn't it pretty obvious that it's going to take a huge investment of political capital from the Obama administration to "get on"? Before Gaza blew up, I expected Obama to wait before committing to a new Middle East deal. Now I expect him not to wait. Who knows? But how well is the current approach working for anyone?
It is fascinating. Jonathan Chait has always been incapable of dealing with Israel other than as a Jewish guy who was born and raised to believe everything Israel says. His rightwing politics on Israel is at utter variance with all his other views.
It's generational. The Klein, Yglesias, Ackerman, Blumenthal "next generation" (the children of 60's types like me) don't buy any of it. Chait was born in 1972 so, do the math.
But he has no credibility on the issue about which he simply thinks ethnically.
January 10, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
[h/t Dana Goldstein]
Jeet Heer of the (Canadian) National Post writes:
January 10, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this was also said when I was in college in the 70s, when I was alienated from my Jewish roots and the Zionist entity. I did lots of things in college that I don't do now, some of which I miss terribly :) but we move on. Mr. Weiss, of course, must opine as he does because his whole political shtick depends on this notion of a growing and permanent alienation of the Jewish people from Israel. Indeed, he's the post-zionist poster dude. And perhaps he has a point, but I think he's pronouncing a premature disappearence of that inextricably intertwined relationship which exists between Diaspora Jews and the State of Israel.
Just out of curiousity Colore, how many Jewish kids do you speak to regularly? I've got one who just graduated college, and two still in school. We talk about this stuff all the time. Thank G-d, they question all kinds of things, and at least two of three of them see no justification for what Israel is doing in Gaza right now.
I'm totally cool with where my kids and many of their friends are at. And, as in every generation, I predict that they and most of their peers will come home. Not all of course, but for each of them, wherever they wander, there is and will always be a place at the table. There is an enduring tale that is centuries old, which we read on Passover. It involves four sons and the questions they ask about the exodus from Egypt. One son speaks of the exodus as if it doesn't involve him at all, but still he is not invited to leave the table. Indeed, in every generation, children question why and what for, and I'm sure there were and will always be a Mr. Weiss or two extrpolating and forecasting demise. Indeed I have no doubt about that whatsoever.
January 10, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
bslev writes:
I have never read Klein, Ackerman, Yglesias and Goldstein writing of an being "alienated from [their] Jewish roots." I find your assertion that they, like you, will one day return to the fold to be somewhat offensive. It is not they who have left the table.
January 10, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then you misunderstood me, and perhaps I misunderstood you. You seem to be defining each of these writers as reflecting an alienation of young Jews from the State of Israel. I wasn't addressing any of their writings in particular; I was responding to the point I thought you were trying to bring out. For the record, I don't believe that having differnt viewpoints than folks like Dershowitz and Kristol about Israel reflects an alienation from the State of Israel or from Judaism. Again, I was responding to what I understood to be the premise of your post, to wit, that there is a growing alienation of young Jews from Israel. The ultimate point is that disagreeing with the premise that that there is a growing and permanent alienation of the next generation of Jews from Israel should not, except perhaps for political purposes, be construed as an offense against anybody. I don't mean to digress off topic from Professor Gitlin's fine post so I offer you the last word.
January 10, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, just to clarify, perhaps you are offended by my implicit assumption that there is an inextricable link between Jews in 2009 and the State of Israel. If that's the case, I understand and we will have to agree to disagree. But, I'm not sure that Klein, Ackerman, Yglesias or Goldstein would disagree with me and, even if they did, upon what basis should they be offended? Because different Jews interpret what it means to be Jewish differently? Oy vey; no wonder we're always arguing with each other.
January 10, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce - I guess you could say I have done a reverse migration. When young I was observant almost to a fault. I was rabidly pro Israel but as each year passes (I am now 64) I have become more secular and more critical of Israel. The same thing has happened to my children - all solid Jews until their 30's. Now one is a Buddhist, one has become Ultra-Orthodox, and one some combination of Hindu and whatever. I wonder if our contrariness is genetic.
I have noticed a general pattern as you have in most people I know from youthful exploring and questioning to a deeper understanding and appreciation of our faith. While my faith has been severely shaken, I have become more passionate about Israel, moving from intellectual support to an emotional support. What is driving it is some sort of subliminal need to be buried in Israel - to be "home" forever.
January 10, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well said, Todd, but it reminds me of a court-room scene from My Cousin Vinny where lawyer Gambini has just presented an intelligent argument to Judge Haller:
Judge Chamberlain Haller: That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.
Vinny Gambini: Thank you, sir.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Overruled.
In other words the Dems have their noses so far up AIPAC's you-know-what that they'd never buy it. Think Rahm Emanuel, for example.
Also, it is fascinating (but unsurprising) that MJR can't deal with the issues but reverts to an ad hominem attack. But then, he loved Obama's Emanuel-led kowtowing to AIPAC last June, also.
January 10, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Don. I say consider the source. I post here on American politics and the Middle East, two areas I know well.
I do not post on economics and serious domestic policy which Jonathan Chait does brilliantly. Or gay marriage, on which he is as brilliant as Sullivan.
But he knows nothing about the Mideast.
On Thanksgiving, my brother, who just retired from the NY Fire Dept and is a 9/11 hero from the WTC, started arguing with me about Obama and how he's a Third World leftist (Limbaugh BS, all popular with his fellow firefighters.
I said: "Alan, I love you. And you are my hero. But you have as much credibility talking about politics as I do talking about the best way to rescue people from a burning building."
He fell over laughing and that was that.
January 10, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
I believe that the strength of blogging is that ideas can be fully considered and debated in the public domain, and that those ideas ought to be considered entirely separate from the people that present them. Todd presented a very lucid argument regarding settlement of the Gaza problem, which currently is a humanitarian crisis. That argument, I believe, ought to be considered on its merits.
Consider the source, you say? In a separate entry you wrote: "thank you President Bush and Secretary Rice." There's MJ thanking two war criminals. Case closed.
Regarding AIPAC, I stand by my comment regarding Obama's obeisance, your scatological violation of TPMCafe rules notwithstanding.
As a reminder:
You agree not to use the TPM websites or the Service to: upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available ("Post") any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, false or inaccurate, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
January 10, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good think I'm the one working with Dan Levy etc to change US policy. Not you who clearly has no idea how strategy or tactics work.
Yes, Thank you President Bush for sticking it to AIPAC. Bless you, sir,and your progeny for a thousand years.
And, Don, of such tender ears, sorry my language offends you.
Lefty purists are such a joy! And so effective.
January 10, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJR, your brother should talk as much as possible about politics with as many people as possible--how else can he get over his mindless views? If we're ever going to achieve democracy, it will necessarily be by everyone talking about politics all of the time (more or less).
Alternatively, for almost everyone to sit back and listen to a few experts like you or (Rush Limbaugh) (or me) is a recipe for -- well, the mindless dictatorship we have now.
Peter Miller
January 10, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, Don, you are so full of shit when you imply that I'm AIPAC.
Do you know the difference between, say, a Communist and an anti-Communist, or are they all Communists in your book.
January 10, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure that you were a Soviet Union sympathizer.
January 10, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
ShlomoA, I read your post saying the dead babies in the Reuters photos were children who died of illness and were placed there for propaganda reasons. I think you have disqualified yourself from the human race.
Do you intentionally track Nazi propaganda about the murdered Jews.
January 10, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just made this up. Don't embarrass yourself. It's not your thread. You can't remove it. Stay sane.
January 10, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Each time, deals were made with other parties whom the US or Israel would have left out of their ideal worlds but realized they didn't have the luxury of building castles in the air."
But these deals also required the other parties to give up the luxury of building castles in the air as well, which they did. Unfortunately, Hamas hasn't grasped reality yet. And it takes two to negotiate. Of course, it's easier to just blame Israel and the US than to deal with the situation, but that isn't going to help the Palestinians. And Egypt, Jordan and the PLO all became willing to negotiate only after they were defeated militarily. Don't worry. After enough military defeats, Hamas will come around. Israel just has to stick to its guns (pardon the pun), and be patient.
January 10, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are almost there:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054245.html
A senior Israeli military commander involved in Operation Cast Lead said on Saturday that Hamas militants are suffering from exhaustion and are deserting battle.
The commander told reporters that Amir Mansi, the commander of Hamas's rocket-launching program in the Gaza City area who was killed by the IDF on Saturday, fired mortars himself after junior Hamas operatives refused to go outside, fearing an Israeli strike.
January 10, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
mikep writes:
That is the root of the problem. For the last forty years Israel has stuck to its guns and been patient, watching as its relationship with the Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories deteriorates.
Israel has squandered so much time that time now favors the Palestinians. As the current spate of articles in mainstream magazines like Time and Newsweek shows, the World is moving away from its reflexive sympathy from Israel towards a recognition that the current situation is unsustainable. Israel is running out of time - the most pwerful weapon in the Palestinian arsenal.
January 10, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We are almost there."
We? You draftdodging little Soviet!
January 10, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't embarrass yourself. It's not your thread. You can't remove it. Stay sane.
January 10, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 10, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the international community moves on to fresh causes, so will the Palestinians.
Like M. Bin Ládin and Dr. Zawáhirí, M. von Gelernter (along with many other neocomrades) possesses both a "near enemy" and a "far enemy" to kiddie-krusade against. In the absence of lucid theoretical background quotations from some Hyperzionistical equivalent of Ibn Taymiyya, however, one cannot be altogether sure whether Islam and Arabdom are ‘near’, with rootless cosmopolitan l*b*r*l*sm ‘far’, or the other way around.
The sentence quoted certainly sounds as if we paleface fiends were the real threat to Wingnut City and Rio Limbaugh and Tel Aviv, the so-called ‘Palestinians’ bein’ but clay in our blood-soaked paws. But one should bear in mind that M. von Gelernter (et al.) can have a dozen times more FUN pickin’ on us l*b*r*ls than on some pack of faith-crazed rocketeers who cannot even read The Weekly Standard in the revealed original.
Without endorsing this quack's curious diagnosis, I would be interested in learning what fresh cause or causes he would recommend to us to get our minds off the wunnerful doin’s of Jewish Statism. It is not as if a number of the comrades do not already carry on idiotically about other matters -- environmentalism, stricter regulation of Finanzkapitalismus, ostracism of the Nicotine People, "votes for oysters," socialisation of medicine, . . . .
Happy days.
January 10, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Professor Gitlin:
Among the several salient points raised in your analysis, I am particularly drawn to your reminder that Hamas as an entity is made up of factions. I would go further by adding that Hamas is an entity made up of individuals and, after the dust settles, we will begin to know how disciplined Hamas remains as an entity and with respect to its factions and the individuals who jointly and severally constitute the organization. I think this organizational framework helps us to understand the report in the Guardian that PE Obama will be engaging in communication at some level with representatives of Hamas (although the Guardian story is denied by the Obama folks), which is discussed in the links below to the Times and Haaretz, respectiely:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/who-leaked-to-the-guardian-and-why/?ref=opinion
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054008.html
I think the non-homogenous nature of "Hamas" is one key factor to keep in mind as we move forward and hopefully beyond the current crisis. The other key factors, I believe, are the extent to which post-Gaza and post-election Israel will be a genuine, good-faith partner in negotiations with Palestinian and regional represntatives, including Syria at the threshold, the extent to which West Bank Palestinians continue to develop and prosper economically and thereby, among other things, serve as a model for Palestinians in Gaza, and finally, the extent to which the United States, with PE Obama at the helm, can be that honest broker most of us are hoping he will be.
Bruce
January 10, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonathan Freedland is a good reporter and a smart guy, so I credit the Guardian report more than I'd credit most British rivals. That said, the talk of talking to Hamas might be trial-ballooning. Not surprised that Obama officially denies the intention to talk with Hamas--they'd do that whatever their intention. You can't do diplomacy otherwise. Israel has been doing this sort of thing for years, decades--talking to King Hussein, Assad of Syria, others, while denying it.
January 10, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the non-homogenous nature of "Hamas" is one key factor to keep in mind as we move forward and hopefully beyond the current crisis.
What happens if we pick that stick up by the other end? Imagine Ambassador Bruce across the table from a bunch of troublemaker foreign folks who are resolved always to bear in mind "the non-homogeneous nature of the 'United States of America'."
Probably my own notions of diplomacy are mere Old Euro fuddyduddyism in the brave new Epoch of Destructive Creationism that dates from 11 September 2001, but such as they are, they require that negotiators accept one another as sole authorized representatives of their principal, the latter being taken to be not just homogeneous but monolithic.
Like a lot of other points of the former civilised behaviour, there was a good deal of fudge and make-believe in that, yet those were the rules, unless I have been misinformed for fifty years. She who was in fact playing divide-and-conquer games with her interlocutors was only nominally 'negotiating' with them.
Some traces of that prebarbarism linger still: to this day, a great many Hyperzionists and Kiddie Krusaders and LongWarriors flatly refuse to deal directly with such-and-such counterparties, because that would accord the latter more more credit than they deserve.
This refusal makes no real sense inside the neoterics’ own postcivilized systems of Weltordnung: why on earth not sit down with any and all ratfinks and try to swindle ’em? It was only in an Old Europe framework that the concept of ‘negotiation’ could meaningfully imply a promise not to swindle -- a tacit recognition of those people across the table as deserving not to be swindled.
Happy days.
January 10, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Probably my own notions of diplomacy are mere Old Euro fuddyduddyism in the brave new Epoch of Destructive Creationism that dates from 11 September 2001, but such as they are, they require that negotiators accept one another as sole authorized representatives of their principal, the latter being taken to be not just homogeneous but monolithic".
Fabulous! ;) I'm a teamster lawyer myself, and that's where my get most of my negotiating experience and perspective. Based on that experience, I can tell you that there are indeed talks across the table, but they are often done simultaneously with and preceded by months and months of conversations and meetings between this, that and the other guy. And, in reality, that's where quite a bit, if not most of the work gets done.
The point is I think that "negotiations" and "discussions" are multi-tiered and multi-dimensional, and that I don't believe that blanket refusals to negotiate with Hamas means that we won't be having discussions with elements of Hamas or individuals who are affiliated with Hamas. I think that's how I understand the Guardian leak, and I think Professor Gitlin rightly points out that Israel has been having similar sidebar discussions with its adversaries for decades and probably since its inception.
None of this means that someday, somehow Israel and/or the United States and Hamas will not sit across the table from each other. But, on the other hand, before that happens, it is likely that there will be communications between Israeli, American, Syrian and Hamas representatives, etc., and such discussions are part of normal negotiations--in the teamster world and in foreign affairs--and they can be productive and yield results.
Of course, all of this assumes that Hamas is going to come out of this monstrosity with its power base intact if not strengthened. That seems to be the conventional wisdom and I'm no military expert. We'll see.
January 10, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm always struck in these sorts of posts by the underlying assumption: It is up to Israel to act. If only Israel made this concession, accepted that premise or reached out to this group, then there would be a chance at peace. Israel is the prime actor in the conflict and has the power to alter the dynamic on its own.
I think it is a total fantasy. The conflict is NOT, contrary to the widespread assumptions of the left, wholly within Israel's power to solve.
Analogies with the treaties between the US and USSR are utterly inappropriate. Treaties between enemy sovreign nation-states are as old as the concept of the nation-state. Treaties between sovreign nation-states and genocidal terrorist gangsters have no precedent whatsoever. There comes a time when you have to realize that your enemy is implacable. That there is nothing you can do to move them off that implacability.
Does this mean we should endorse every tactical decision Israel makes? Of course not. But let's not start with some phony premise that Israel has the power to reach a settlement with Hamas. It just isn't going to happen. The best-case scenario would be for there to be some sort of pacification of Gaza monitored by international troops. Hoping for more than that for the foreseeable future is a waste of time.
January 10, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad - I don't know if I have read any comments that explicitly say it is Israel's power to negotiate a settlement with Hamas. It is within Israel's power to offer negotiations, whether Hamas accepts or whether the negotiations lead to an agreement are only partially within Israel's control.
Attitude toward an agreement is an important condition. If Israel is positive and optomistic and generous it will help but not necessarily be conclusive. In the 70's I was in Israel lots and I'll bet you could not have found 10 people in the whole country who thought peace with Egypt was EVER possible. Sadat's Jerusalem visit was a catalyst and Carter's perseverence was critical to success.
As to negotiating with non state actors, the US proves it works when they negotiated with, and bribed, the Iraqi Sunni "terrorists". If you really want peace you try any number of things to reach an agreement - not that you have to give away the store.
January 10, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Even during the Cold War, the US and USSR negotiated arms control and other treaties. Consider the deals Israel has made with Egypt, Jordan, and the PLO."
I don't recall the Soviets passing a resolution, even under Stalin, in the Politburo calling for the U.S. to be destroyed, or lobbing ICMS's at Newark. Did I miss something. The reason israel could conclde peace treaties with Sadat and Hordan's King Hissein was than by then both countries accepted the existence of Israel, and it was only after the PLO changed its charter to eliminate the call for Israel's destruction did the Oslo process begin.
When Hamas says "We recognize that Israel is not going away and are prepared to live in peace with Israel", call me, and I'll get the Israeli Government to negotiate with it.
January 10, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although I must confess knowing less about the Middle East than Jonathan Chait (though I still have opinions, and can't help but feel that the current slaughter in Gaza creates a fog of shame that engulfs the Jewish people, including myself), I have read a bit during this conflict about the cease fire, that shakily held from June to November. Apologists for the invasion note that rockets continued during that time -- others reliably have estimated the number at a TOTAL of approx ~20 for the FOUR MONTHS of July, August, Sept, and Oct. Considering that there is so much chaos and factionalism in Gaza, including powerful Fatah forces, one wonders how close to perfect it is reasonable to suppose Hamas could realistically get, even if they made their utmost efforts, which I doubt.
I think that some people who are knowledgeable on this subject (the MidEast) should put that period of cease-fire, during which the blockade of Gaza was never lifted (at least to the extent agreed on) under a microscope, and present its details and realities NOW. I know that full dress academic study takes time, but it seems that we need to know NOW all that we can (we the public) so as to really understand the underlying issues faced with this slaughter -- and how to achieve peace, to whatever extent that is possible.
January 11, 2009 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink