What's Love Got To Do With It (pt.1)
President Obama is getting nearly as much advice about Israelis as about puppies, and at times the advice seems eerily the same: we want them close, but they can get too scared, or wild, or selfish; we cannot indulge their ferocious instincts or territorial overreaching--anyway, they'll need some leashing in. "Tough love," writes the New York Times' Roger Cohen, and this counsel--these very words--have been repeated (by my count) by five other prominent journalists and diplomatic hands in recent weeks.
The people offering this advice are thoughtful, even brave, given how tender (or wary) presidential love of Israel has been since Ronald Reagan took office. But I fear the advice is out of date, and not only because of Gaza. There are three implied premises here. If the new Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, buys into them, he'll just give us more of the same.
THE FIRST PREMISE is that U.S. intervention is for the purpose of facilitating a negotiation between the interested parties, Israelis and Palestinians, so that we can finally arrive at a deal. The second premise, closely related to the first, is that America is a disinterested party: a kind of Dr. Phil, strong and well-intentioned, to be sure, but a mediator who--how did former Secretary Powell put it?--"cannot want peace more than the parties themselves." The third, and most important, is that Israeli and Palestinian leaders will sign a deal when they've overcome, or are cajoled (or bribed or "pressured") into suppressing, psychological barriers--at which point they'll exert sovereign power to implement what they've signed.
The inference for action is new invitations to summits and secret negotiations, more hand-holding--perhaps some public hand-wringing--with the U.S. providing diplomatic structure and a sense of urgency: in effect, a new Road Map like the one Mitchell gave us in 2002, albeit with a reinvigorated navigator. What we will not get is a precise destination or an American at the wheel, that is, a peace deal stipulated by the U.S. government itself and the patient, firm diplomacy over several years to bring outliers into line. Which means--no matter who wins the Israeli election, but especially with Benjamin Netanyahu's rightist bloc poised to reassume power--that we will not get peace at all, perhaps never.
A reasonable deal is already known. It was all but negotiated in Taba in January 2001, between the outgoing Labor government of Ehud Barak and the Fatah leadership now in power in the Palestinian Authority; when the parties had got stuck the month before, the American president, husband of the Secretary of State-designate, offered bridging "parameters," which along with the Taba agreements were given detailed articulation in the Geneva Initiative of 2003. The Clinton parameters were implicitly underpinned by the 2002 declaration of the Arab League.
Their terms are well known. They were spelled out recently by Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski: the 1967 borders, with minor, reciprocal and agreed-upon modifications; compensation and repatriation to Palestine as the way Palestinian refugees exercise their right of return; Jerusalem as home to two capitals, with creative ascriptions of sovereignty for the old city and Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary; and a non-militarized Palestinian state, reinforced by a significant "international presence."
The Clinton parameters were set aside by Ariel Sharon because he (and his rightist bloc) did not want to entertain its compromises; his disengagement from Gaza was meant to allow for consolidating Israel's hold on the West Bank settlements and Jerusalem. In effect, Ehud Olmert implicitly endorsed the parameters all over again before the Gaza operation, though his decision to attack so violently may say something about his sincerity; Netanyahu says he will end any negotiation over them were he elected, for the same reason Sharon did.
America is itself an interested party. Israel and Palestine are really just two-city states, together about the scale of greater Los Angeles, fitting together like jig-saw puzzle pieces. The Middle East, which their conflict roils, has the span of a continent, with the world's largest proven reserves of oil and dollars, teens and violence. The U.S. can have no leverage in its diplomacy with Iran, therefore, no orderly exit from Iraq, without a working partnership with the surrounding, "moderate" regimes of the Arab League--regimes that could provide peace-keepers, investment capital, understanding journalists, and diplomatic cover.
Which brings us to the "Arab street." Anyone who's visited Fez or Tripoli or Amman knows that a burgeoning Arab middle class hungers for Westernization; they look at Dubai and Tehran and choose Dubai. But they are surrounded by restless, mainly under-educated people, governed by mosques and fathers where state security services leave off. World economic stresses will only make them more volatile. Obama's is the face of a more progressive globalization but, as in Tehran in 1979, a throng can become a riot, a riot a movement. How many Al-Jazeera-projected images of new violence in Gaza, or South Lebanon, before crowds inflamed by western "materialism" try to storm the Israeli or American embassy in Cairo? How many times can Mubarak's police fend them off before somebody gets killed--and retaliatory violence spreads to take down Mubarak's regime itself?
The deal is not getting done, not because of psychological barriers, but because each side's moderates are in an impossible political trap, which only great power intervention can spring them from. Everyone knows by now that Palestine is really two entities, a West Bank majority, nominally led by the Palestinian Authority--really by a secular business and professional class in Ramallah--and, an Islamist minority, centered in Gaza, and run by an arguably pragmatic but inarguably totalitarian Hamas. What we have yet to learn, however, is that Israel is, in effect, two entities, also.
There is a slim secular majority, a Hebrew-speaking republic, anchored by Tel-Aviv, hugging the coastal plain, and profiting increasingly from the global grid. This Israel is McCainish about security and the IDF, but skeptical of annexation of occupied territory. It is comparatively highly educated and instinctively cosmopolitan, vaguely committed to democratic norms--or at least to a "Jewish majority"--and therefore to a peace process. It can imagine a Palestinian state alongside.
But this same Israel is not at all sure its own one-fifth Arab minority will ever accept a "Jewish state" or is even sure what this means. And since 1967, its anachronistic "Zionist" settlement policies, and laws privileging orthodoxy, have engendered a huge Judean state-within-a-state, centered on Jerusalem, largely theocratic, and deeply implicated in West Bank settlements. Judea is less educated than the rest of Israel and instinctively more tribalist. "Judeans" are largely wards of the state: most disdain peace (that is, a return of a couple of million of Palestinian refugees to Greater Jerusalem) as the end of their way of life. Diaspora Jewish big-shots are mostly smitten by Judeans, whose religious and survivalist rhetoric they understand much better Tel-Aviv's eclectic Hebrew culture.
And here is the trap. West Bank elites may want to see Hamas undermined, but they will not fight Hamas supporters for the sake of Israel. Secular Israelis, meanwhile, will not fight Judeans for the sake of Palestine. All fear the loss of social solidarity. Moderate leaders on both sides are particularly stuck: on both sides, the years of vendetta make cynicism about peace sound smart and brave; deterrence by intimidation--that is, the killing of each other's civilians to discredit the other side's policies--seems the only way to get "quiet." But when you consider that one quarter of Israeli first graders are Arabs, and another quarter are ultraOrthodox of various kinds, it is easier to anticipate a future of ethnic cleansing than quiet.
Seems like an exquisitely fair statement.
January 24, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
There will be no deal - Mitchell will just waste his time - the fighting will continue indefinitely.
The fight is intensified by outsiders meddling, supporting one side or the other, injecting their money and opinions.
Money is being made selling arms - do the profiteers want the fight to cool down? No.
Land is being grabbed as long as the fight goes on - do land-grabbers want the fight to end ?
The haters and the fighters on both sides have found each other - they will never let go.
Why does anyone think this fight will ever end ?
A squalid boring little side show.
January 24, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is really a very simple solution. The US should withdraw all money and weapons from Israel. Of course, proponents of Israel hate this idea because it likely cannot survive without US dollars and almost certainly cannot survive without US weapons. But, the US needs to no longer be a partner to Israeli violence. Let them choose based on their own resources.
January 24, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think is pretty clearly not true. But even if it is, the underlying agenda is clear: just let them be wiped out. It's difficult to build a progressive majority for building a real peace in the region when there are people on the progressive side with implicitly genocidal aspirations.
January 24, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Josh, no. That's a damnable libel and utterly beneath you. It is DISGUSTING to say that people who are unwilling to financially and militarily support Israel's war crimes, wars of conquest and ethnic cleansing are evidence of "people on the progressive side with implicitly genocidal aspirations."
January 24, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does Marquis's statement -- "Israel likely cannot survive without US dollars and almost certainly cannot survive without US weapons" -- mean to you?
I love his Israel is not the Israeli people locution. Kill off the state, but leave the people.
January 25, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being unwilling to be a party to Israel's war crimes (using white phosphorus on civilians, to take just one example) and ethnic cleansing (i.e., "settlement" policy) does not equal "genocidal aspirations."
January 25, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't your petro dollars make you a party to the racism inherent in the Saudi regime?
Does that pain you?
Or is it just life?
January 25, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Tintin, they don't. That's business. The arms sales are another matter, though that could be regarded as just business, too.
On the other hand, the Saudis aren't occupying anyone's territory and brutalizing its people. Haven't melted anyone alive with white phosphorus lately. Haven't dropped thousand-pound bombs in civilian areas, killing children in their beds. haven't shot any UN aid workers. Haven't shot in the head any children carrying white flags. Haven't bombed any schools that were serving as shelters. Haven't rounded up a hundred or so people and confined them to a house "for their own safety" and then shelled the house. Haven't let thousands of men, women and children be slaughtered in refugee camps under their control and then elected the man responsible prime minister.
It's not saying much, but the Saudis are better people that the Israelis will ever be.
January 26, 2009 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that last sentence is over the top, though less so than Josh's accusation of genocidal aspirations.
January 26, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since I said it, perhaps I should be able to answer the question. Israel is a country formed of people, government, constitution, and occupied territories that are neither able to become independent states nor integrate within the rest of the country. In its current form it is an apartheid state. Without US military support that apartheid state cannot survive. (Others may disagree, but on the occasion of Israel's last two military attacks on civilian populations (labeled wars in the western press, but where is the war when there is only one army?) it was widely reported that the US accelerated the shipping of weapons to Israel so that they could conduct their one sided "wars.")
The population of Israel, on the other hand, are those folks who happen to live within its territories (both the state proper and the occupied territories). The state of Israel is highly dependent on US support. The population of Israel is not. Yes there are fanatics who would like to do some revenge ethnic cleansing, but they are a small group and if Israel (in any form) conserves the weapons it has, it can easily *defend* itself against such fanatics. No one on this website wishes the population of Israel ill. Many question the Apartheid policies of the STATE of Israel.
January 25, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Without US military support that apartheid state cannot survive. (Others may disagree, but on the occasion of Israel's last two military attacks on civilian populations (labeled wars in the western press, but where is the war when there is only one army?) it was widely reported that the US accelerated the shipping of weapons to Israel so that they could conduct their one sided "wars.")"
Why not? Every other state that conducts itself represssively is able to get along without U.S. aid?
"The population of Israel, on the other hand, are those folks who happen to live within its territories (both the state proper and the occupied territories). The state of Israel is highly dependent on US support. The population of Israel is not."
Marquis, the Israeli people don't happen to live within Israel. They are citizens of Israel. They support their government and participate in it unlike, say, the former USSR or Iran. That's the fallacy in the so-called formulation that Israel will disappear like a bad dream. The IRANIAN dream may disappear like a bad dream because it's people don't support it. But this is not the case in Israel, which is a democracy--the people support.
Your statement that the state of Israel depends on the U.S., but the people do not is nonsensical. What could it possibly mean?
January 25, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are mistaken about who the people of Israel are. Israel has a non-citizen class who are their people... 4 million Palestinians. After holding their territories and settling them for 40 years, they are people of Israel regardless of their citizenship status.
January 25, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
As to why Israel, the state, cannot survive without US aid, I agree the statement is less than certain. However, Israel is hardly more than a city state, without powerful friends it will have to adjust to its environment.
January 25, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you not read what I said? Israel the state comprises more than its people, it includes its current form of government and current distribution of rights between citizens and non-citizen subjects. The state cannot survive... The government and distribution of rights, without the backing of the US (or some other very powerful ally).
You deny this is true, in which case the state of Israel is wasting a lot of precious resources making sure the US does not withdraw its support.
January 25, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but a majority of the people in Israel support its policies, good and bad, more or less. This is not a totalitarian state. Yes, the Arab Israelis are second-class citizens. But your distinction between the state and the people living in Israel doesn't really hold because MOST of the people there support the state.
January 27, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rather quick with the accusations of genocide, aren't you? I don't agree with him either, but his logic is this--stop supporting Israeli brutality and that will force them to be reasonable, because then they will have no choice. Do we owe Israel support if their behavior increasingly resembles that of apartheid South Africa? The problem with the logic is twofold. First, it's not going to happen. American politicians are willing to applaud as Israel bombs civilians and not at all willing to cut off the supply of bombs. Secondly, I suspect this kind of blunt approach would just increase Israel's paranoia and brutality and sense of isolated self-righteousness.
I am eager to see Bernard's next post. I'd like to know what sort of policy he'd suggest Obama adopt if Netanyahu wins.
January 24, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
But what you and expat and others don't explain is HOW and WHY removing U.S. support "will force them to be reasonable, because then they will have no choice."
If they are still going to be the overwhelming power in the ME--even without U.S. aid--what's going to force them to do anything? Sure, it MIGHT sober them up. On the other hand, it might convince them that they only have themselves to count on.
And certainly we know that when it comes to buying and selling arms, where there's a will there's a way.
Backing a country into a corner has hardly ever worked...especially if the regime is as inherently violent, racist, etc., as progressive often claim Israel is. Even North Korea is ekeing out a living.
January 25, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I have nothing against Israelis or Jews. I do, however, object to being dragged into their fights that they start as they practice Apartheid. The much feared (white) ethnic cleansing of South Africa never materialized. Ending of Israeli Apartheid will not result in Jewish ethnic cleansing either.
January 24, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it the Israelis...or the Israeli government?
Your distinctions seem to be getting blurred.
January 25, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how does this help? It is very hard to discuss this issue in this country. And you (as, with the more generous interpretation, Marshall) seem to hold each and every word up to a microscope. Honest disagreement cannot be had at that level. People should be able to say what they think without having to worry that every word they choose will be examined for possible hostile implications.
January 25, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it is you who are staking your argument on this distinction.
January 27, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also want to add that this knee-jerk accusation of antisemitism stifles honest communication as to what Americans think about the situation in Israel and Palestine. It is offensive to be accused of genocidal objectives when one asks what AMERICAN interests are in the region. Israel has played that card time after time, when in fact it was the United States that did anything at all to end the Hitler regime. It is shameful to treat your friends that way. You owe me an apology.
January 24, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must say I agree with the Marquis on this one.
January 24, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me, too.
January 24, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too.
Sad post Josh.
January 24, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me, too.
January 24, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad, Josh, really sad. I cannot believe you would accuse someone of advocating genocide simply because they do not agree with your particular views of this situation.
You might as well be on Fox News accusing dissenters of being unAmerican. Shame on you.
January 24, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, in the context of this discussion.
January 25, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes! I'm not sure how a call to not support violence gets turned into supporting genocide, but I think Mr. Marshall was out of line.
January 24, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bad form. Yes. Out of character. I am confused.
January 25, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh.
You obviously have no idea of the extent of Israel's military arsenal vs the military assets of neighboring states in the ME if you imagine that there is a remote possibility of Israel being destroyed in a genocidal purge.
The US Congress in consultation with Israel decides which states can purchase what from the American defense sector. Israel's superiority in that regard is religiously guarded and a general rule is that only defensive systems are allowed. Although, defensive technology that would provide deterrence/counter to Israeli offensive weaponry is not permitted.
As long as states in the region restrict their military buys to American products, the designed imbalance will prevail.
It's also completely absurd to seriously entertain the notion that any of Israel's "enemies" in the region would mount a military assault on Israel. Despite what the most paranoid apparently think, Arabs (and Persians) are not suicidal.
The most dangerous of Israel's enemies are those without a return address and if they can gain the lethal components under Pakistani "control", Israel will be facing her most relentless foes operating under the banners of Al-Qaeda..
January 24, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a little hard to sort this point out and what its consequences are likely to be...
On the one hand, folks claim that Israel is only able to do what she does to the Palestinians, etc., because of all the money and arms America gives her. Therefore, if we drop our support, the violence stops without anyone having to fire a shot.
On the other hand, when someone like Josh protests that Israel will be left more or less defenseless and surrounded by hostile regimes (who are only at peace with her because the U.S. bribes them or they are intimidated by her power), the same folks protest that, oh no, Israel is so militarily superior to her neighbors and other regional powers, none of the Arab states or Iran would dare attack her.
Which sort of suggests that she would be strong enough to continue her current policies toward the Palestinians without fear. Hard to reconcile these two positions. Which is it?
The other problems are these: Even if one, as some posters do, considers Israel a country bent on violence and evil, it hardly follows that Israel needs America to pursue her aims. There are many evil regimes around the world that do much worse than Israel and do it without $3 billion a year in aid from us.
If the US really were to pull away its aid, Israel is just as likely to feel more vulnerable and more isolated and would, therefore, be more likely to pursue violent preemptive and preventive measures to protect herself. A certain chunk of Jewish paranoia feeds on the fear/suspicion that Jews/Israel are alone in the world and have only themselves to fall back on. Hence the distrust of the UN's and international community's willingness/ ability to protect and a reluctance to rely on those safeguards. The law is good, but a big stick is more reliable.
So a sudden withdrawal of US support is just as likely to produce a more belligerent Israel as a chastened one.
The last point that leaves me mystified is the oft-repeated theme that Israel keeps dragging the U.S. into wars. Which wars? The Gulf War? Iraq/Kuwait and our dependence on oil. As I recall, Israel "took" several Scuds, outfitted the entire country with gas masks and did not retaliate at our request. The war in Afghanistan? It was the attacks of 9/11 that provoked the US to invade. The Iraq War? Arguably Israel and the Lobby were in favor of the invasion, but the U.S. can hardly blame Israel (alone) when any number of parties were pushing for the invasion. Nor is Israel to blame for the rise of Saddam.
Iran presents the closest case of Israel asking the U.S. to fight her wars for her--but, according to recent reports, the U.S. rebuffed the request. Which I guess shows how powerful the Lobby really is.
Now it is true, the Arab/Muslim tends to lump the U.S. and Israel together--but so what? Since when do we pick our allies based (solely) on the opinions and desires of other countries? Honestly, which country in the Middle East would make a better ally than Israel or conducts itself more in keeping with our values? Iran with a legal system that pours acid into the eyes of its criminals and stones adulterers? That seems to be Dan K's pick, but...
And isn't it really the case that the Palestinian cause is always trotted out to get the Arab street fired up when, in fact, they care very little about the Palestinians themselves. Those deplorable UN refugee camps were sitting in Jordan and Egypt for the first 20 years or so.
I guess, finally, if folks really do care about what happens to the Palestinians, then cutting off U.S. aid to Israel would also cut off the Palestinians. And since as you, and others, are quick to point out, Israel would maintain her vastly superior military, it's hard to see how the Palestinians' position would improve. Just think of our ability to influence other countries with whom we have no relations, say, Iran and its pursuit of nuclear power or, depending on what you think is happening, the bomb.
On the contrary, as long as the U.S. maintains its relationship with Israel, it has a lever for influencing her policies--if only we would use it. Throw away the lever, and there goes your influence. Then you're left with the hope that the Muslim will start loving us again and stop calling us Satan. It sure would be a shit sandwich to give up our relationship with Israel and get hit with another terrorist attack. Then who would us posters blame? I seem to recall that Qutb grew to hate the U.S. by living for a year or two in Kansas.
January 24, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin.
Do you have any clear understanding of the Israeli aresenal and those of her "enemies'?
Frankly, I tend to take the word of Israelis about their security situation(s) unless they are politically inclined sources.
We are now considered by some to have the first permanent US base on Israeli soil via the deployment of Raytheon's (how about that) FBX-T anti-missile radar because it's manned by what appears to be a combination of 120 or so American contractors and military personnel. The locale in the southern Negev is said to be off-limits to Israelis. This system is deployed to counter surface to surface missiles from Iran, Syria, whatever.
Top poobahs in the IDF are said to be displeased that it is ours alone although, given that it's hooked into our electronic military superhighway, that's a very good thing. Some say that it's the Pentagon's way of saying you don't have to attack Iran with the best we have deployed in your defense. Others worry that if Israel starts up some more foolishness, a strike on the facility would be an act of war against America as it could be considered US soil.
Obama has promised a nuclear umbrella for Israel.
Another little known benefit to Israel is the largely US funded/USArmy Corps of Engineers built "Baladia City" in the Negev; a hightech mock-up of urban warfare environments that was used to train IDF troops for the recent Gaza adventure.
...and none of the above addresses Israeli's hard military assets and their add-ons.
The only actor that gives Israel real pause is Putin's ruthless Russia.
Until we know the shape of the next Israeli government, our way forward is occluded.
January 24, 2009 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lally.
Thanks for your information. You are always a source I respect. That said, I'm not sure how what you say is responsive to what I said--and perhaps I misfiled my comment under yours -:)
Seems to me two points that arise in the general discussion are: 1) Israel can't do what it does without US support, so let's remove it and force Israel to make peace; and 2) Israel is so militarily strong on her own as it were that removing U.S. support would in no way endanger her. So, presumably, she would be free to carry on as before and might be even more likely to act in a violently, pre-emptive way against perceived threats.
I don't think both these things can be true--that was my principal point along with lots of add ons about Israel supposedly dragging the U.S. into wars. (Again, WHICH wars?)
From what I know, I tend to hold to the second point of view. Israel is strong enough to do as she pleases without U.S. aid. And your information TENDS to lend credence to it. After all, if Israel really DOES NEED the U.S. missile shield and umbrella--meaning, there are other states, perhaps Iran, that would otherwise attack her if she lacked this support--then the terms of this debate need to change radically. It's been the standard progressive line for some time that a) the Iranian threat is a chimera, and b) Israel is strong enough to defend against any such threat in any event.
Of course, if more Israelis thought as David Grossman does (see his op-ed in this Sunday's Wapo Outlook section) or Bernard and actually TRIED in a sustained, long-term way to make a just peace with the Palestinians, the equation might well change, too, and in a much, much better way.
January 25, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. I don't think Israel is in any danger of being destroyed. For many reasons, not the least of which is its great advantage in conventional military power as well as strategic nuclear deterrence. My comment was directed at a blithe disregard for the existence of one side of the conflict. And the commenter, as you can see, assumed precisely the claim, that Israel could not survive absent continued American support.
January 25, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is not the population within Israel. You are offensive. The Israeli argument is that they are entitled to a Jewish state without regard to how that affects 4 million Palestinians in their occupied territories and 20% of their own population. Without US support, they would have to reconsider that claim of entitlement and may have to either abolish their Apartheid or, perhaps, to receive a return of more modest American support, reach a true agreement for two states.
It is the United States that makes it possible for Israel to murder Palestinians and the United States should stop making it possible. If that puts the COUNTRY of Israel in its current form at existential risk, that is just too bad.
Again, you make the knee-jerk accusation of antisemitism. It is offensive.
January 25, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
With due respect, Marquis, I would like to offer one suggestion. You, of course, are free to accept or reject it:
Your second sentence. Sometimes when one is having a contentious exchange with someone, it's more fruitful to own the feeling (as in "I take offence" or "I feel offended) rather than attack the commenter (as in "you are offensive) - be it Josh or anyone.
I offer this suggestion knowing that in the heat of posting I too have sometimes said things in haste that I might have phrased better.
I hope you'll take my words in the kind way they're meant. Of course I may have misunderstood you. In which case, you can set me straight.
Honestly, I'd like for you and Josh to be able to discuss this issue and maybe find some middle ground or at least some means for a more gracious conversation. If we can do it here, that moves us forward in trying to resolve this and other issues elsewhere.
Sometimes I wish we could have literal "debates" here, where Josh or someone else debates a reader/blogger - with only those two doing the posting. It might serve us all.
Josh, if you're listening, consider this.
January 25, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thera, what a wonderful idea.
January 25, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second.
January 25, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right.
January 25, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That brings tears to my eyes, Marquis.
♫ And music to my ears. ♫
January 25, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...a blithe disregard for the existence of one side of the conflict?" Assuming you are sane, you must be referring to how the U.S. media, the U.S. Government and almost all of the American people disregard the Palestinian side of the argument. Because you certainly couldn't be claiming that anyone disregards the Israeli side.
But then that would mean you were talking about the genocidal aspirations of the Israelis towards the Palestinians in the previous comment. Seems a bit harsh, Josh, but not completely off the mark.
January 26, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. But it's equally clear Josh was talking about this discussion and what the people in it and other progressives are saying--not the US government.
January 27, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unwrap bottle. Pull cork.
I do have a hard time understanding all the fury. Never have.
Thanks for introducing us to Avishai. I am really looking forward to Part Two.
January 24, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Umm, Josh, I know it is your site and all, but jeez, wasn't that a little over the top? I don't think that Marquis said anything even approaching suggesting that we let Israel fall to genocide...That was pretty rough.
January 25, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
For me one of the primary problems is the inherent racism of the Israeli governing class (and a goodly percentage of its upper classes), as evidenced by their horrific decimation of the palestinian civilian population and infrastructure while giving token lip service to the zeal with which the Israeli army goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties. The use of advanced weapons in prohibited ways on civilian targets clearly shows the utter contempt these same officials have for the arab population. And the argument that the Hamas fighters should come out in the open to face the IDF is ludricuous on its face. I seem to recall reading that the American freedom fighters unfairly hid behind trees to shoot at their British occupiers a couple of hundred years ago.
Until the Israelis begin to view the palestinians as other than sand niggers, nothing can change.
January 25, 2009 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
January 25, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Israeli aggression towards it's neighbor's civilian populations has been atrocious, and they no longer have any moral legitimacy. But the codependent nature of the US relationship with Israel, mainly the zionist military and political establishment, will make it hard to end, but it should be.
As the first installment points out there is a slim majority of the Israeli population that could form the basis of a good world citizen and a peaceful Israeli state. I disagree with Josh that the motivation for a fundamentally different relationship with Israel has genocidal underpinnings. I think a peace loving Israeli state is a sustainable possibility.
But the patient must go through some serious purging and withdrawal from the toxic cocktail it's addicted to: US support, zionism, and ultraorthadoxy. Then maybe we can all have some peace finally.
January 24, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great article, especially your points that America is an interested party, and that Israel and the Palestinians will not negotiate a good faith (or approximately just) peace without being forced to by a third party. And there aren't many candidates for that role.
January 24, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is the key. Both sides need, actually desperately need the US to assert itself as a real arbiter.
January 24, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which U.S.?
January 24, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stick to your guns, Josh!
January 24, 2009 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought part of the point was that the United States cannot be a real arbiter, because it is one of the interested parties.
January 25, 2009 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is strange that the author leaves out Isreal's dependence on American military and other aid. There is also the matter of the US and Isreal alone obstructing United Nation resolutions on this matter.
The author talks about how the Arab street might rise up against western "materialism" as Isreal's actions become more draconian and desparate. Why would they not instead be outraged by the US active support of Isreal? Isn't that a lot cleaner logic than saying that Isreal's actions make them resent "materialsim" rather than resent the super power that gives Isreal the bombs that are dropping on their heads?
Really, what is with the handwringing over what to do with Judean intransigients? Isreal is not in a position to negotiate with us. As the reader above says, go with he program or lose all aid. The fact that we don't says that we support the Judeans. Looks to me and the rest of the world that that is the case.
January 24, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you so much, Professor Avashai. You've really described perfectly the crux of the problem. I'll be looking forward to part two and am sincerely hoping that Obama and Mitchell read TPM!
In fact, I think so highly of your advice to Obama and Mitchell that I just sent a link to this article to the President through the "Contact Us" form on the WhiteHouse.gov site. I don't know if it will really get through to either Obama or Mitchell, but I felt it was worth trying...
January 24, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
one democratic state with religious freedom and justice for all?
why is that such a dangerous notion?
I just can't see how two separated mini-states, each the size of a neighborhood could successfully provide for a 'Palestinian State.' It's ridiculous. Israel is small enough already as it is.
It's either 'learn to live with thy neighbor' or genocide.
January 24, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too many problems in this opinion article by Avishai.
Unfortunately, Josh is a proponent of the ethnic cleansing that has and is occurring in Palestine - represented by his support of the two-state solution.
As for Mr. Avishai, it is obvious that he is not being impartial here. "A reasonable deal is already known" - is code for you better give the Zionists what they want or you'll always be stuck in refugee camps. Right of return? - hah!
Also, "a burgeoning Arab middle class hungers for Westernization; they look at Dubai and Tehran and choose Dubai" is as a pathetic a statement as can be said about observing the area. First off, Tehran would probably like to consider itself as Persian, not Arab. Why would Arabs want to "choose" to go to a Persian country? Except for work - which leads us to - I am sure that if Iran had to import 85% of its workforce Avishai would consider it a failed state (Maybe I am not too sure what this guy thinks). This guy is about as Friedmanesque as you could get. I am really surprised that Josh put him in such prominence. But when it comes to Israel, Josh is not progressive at all.
January 24, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's interesting. I'm a supporter of ethnic cleansing? Is that why I support a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders? Those two things are a bit difficult to reconcile.
January 25, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh,
You seem oddly unaware of the rules of your own blog. Remember, Zionists and their sympathizers are racist until proven innocent, while anti-Zionists are innocent and any discussion of antisemitism or its implications is prohibited from stifling our free and open discourse.
Please carry on accordingly, or you may be banned from commenting.
January 25, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bar Kafka,
That comment reply did very much remind me of banned user Daniel Greenbaum. And I could also easily visualize M.J. Rosenberg using ad hominens to ridicule and demonize anyone making such a comment. But you know, things aren't always fair in the world of communication, and I would point out that its the same with foreign policy diplomacy. (Did you see this op-ed by an anthropologist and psychologist in the NYT today? It might be of interest to you and others who really do seem to want to try to practice effective communication once in a while.)
January 25, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, artappraiser. From the piece linked in your comment:
This is a valuable article, albeit a little disappointing in scope. Please forgive the imposition of personal experience here, but I have been involved for about the past fifteen years, in one form or another, with attempts to attract investment from Jewish and Arab/Muslim diaspora communities to joint Israeli-Palestinian business ventures, with notable variation and degree of success and failure. One must (repeat, must) speak the language of reconciliation in order to even begin any conversation of cooperation. What complicates these circumstances further, and unnecessarily in my not-so-humble opinon, are the attitudes of conceit in the approach by interested third-parties -- not only in the area of diplomatic statecraft but among the well-intentioned NGOs that ultimately must be the nuts and bolts of any desirable diplomatic resolution of the conflict.
Genuine arbitration demands that service distribution organizations, human rights advocates and other necessary NGOs abandon the impulse to pursue idealistic agendas and focus all of their collective efforts on the more constructive task of building better non-lethal avenues of international relations than violence, and more lucrative economic ventures than the arms trade. The attacks of 9/11 interupted some bellweather arguments resulting from the UN racism conference in Durban, South Africa, in September, 2001. But in the interest of establishing an effective mechanism for any international diplomatic initiative, these tensions urgently need to be addressed and resolved.
In sum, Ginges and Atran report extremely valuable work on their part. Unfortunately, I find its scope just a bit too narrow. Thanks again.
January 27, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Support of ethnic cleansing is implicit in the support of a two state-solution. The State of Israel has never had any plans (that I know of)for a right of return for the Refugees of the ethnic cleansing of 1948, etc.
It is rather pathetic when people throw out "1967" borders, etc, as a "starting" point. The starting point was 1948 when the mass ethnic cleansing occured. Pre-1948 should be the staring point.
Why do you think most non-bought-off Muslim dominated countries do not recognize Israel? Knee-Jerks will say "anti-semitism!" It is because they do not accept the Euro-American imperial adventure that is Israel. An Israel born in terrorism and mass ethnic cleansing.
January 25, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the problems, of course, is that ANY starting point is somewhat arbitrary. The Jews could go back to their own starting point, but then you would object to that for your own arbitrary reasons.
January 25, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"ANY starting point is somewhat arbitrary"
While this is true, there are reasonable starting points and not. I can see how people may look at the 1967 lines as a starting point - Losers weepers and all that. Going to a fantastical religious history of god-given birthright is not reasonable. This is why Zionism is not a reasonable political basis.
There is a current natural birthright for many Israelis - just not in a Zionist state.
January 26, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
But starting point for the ZIONIST state is 1948, and that's supposed to be settled international law, except that the Arab states didn't accept it until...2002. One half of the Zionist project is a safe haven for Jews from anti-Semitism. If you have a plan for eliminating that, then please, you have the floor.
That said, Israel, even at her biggest, can't accommodate all the Jews in the world, and all the Jews in the world have NEVER wanted to move to Israel. Nor does the need for "room" excuse the expansion into the territories. But this doesn't invalidate Zionism; it does mean that Zionism needs to evolve.
January 26, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comments sound like a brief description of a Faulkner novel; Faulkner on the Jordan...in which we are told: "...the past aint even hardly past..."...and everything just keeps repeating, like an old woman telling a story, on a "hot, weary dead september day..."exactly as old Bill told us...
Israel needs a reasonably (not reasonable but an approximation of) a democratic state in the cartographically fictional area we call "The West Bank" but such a state will never exist so long as the surrounding states need to maintain authoritarian regimes in order to keep tribal aristocrats in power and to keep authoritarian religious cults out of power.
Genuine peace requires open zeros and ones - that is,the mostly free flow of ideas and images - Springsteen can play a gig in London and The Stones can play one in NYC, or the late M.Darwish can be published in America and Etger Keret can be published in France...
but if post-modern Isralie society (especially the Tel Aviv society you describe)were to even gradually make an appearance in say, Damascus, or Aman, or Cairo...there would be violence...
and while one can watch the "West" on dvd or the internet from Tehran to Fez, the truth is true peace is not possible in the face of true violence.
Dick Cheney may be a fascist but while he presided over the emergence of a high-tech police state in the US and we are all under the watchful eye of the NSA, so far, our own home-grown thugs have not yet been given the green light to start taking authors away in the middle of the night and unlike Nagib Mafouz, John Updike hasn't been stabbed in the neck by a religious fanatic nor does he have to live in seclusion for fear that he will be stabbed in the neck (sure, a fellow can end up like John Lennon but it wasn't because of a mass social movement dedicated to the eradication of music).
The gap between the advanced economic conditions of the western states and the endless poverty of the Arab states bordering Israel can only be bridged by the emergence of a socially and therefore politically empowered "middle class" which can only arise if there is an infrastructure to give them jobs and an education.
That requires natural resources that do not exist and will not exist on the scale required and "investment(s)" from abroad will never work because the empowered will never willingly give up their power (The Alawites are not, for example, going to willingly let anyone vote them out of their perch atop the Syrian food chain and the Bizzari in Iran bankrolled the return of the fascist Ayatollahs for exactly the same reason; it's bad for business to let people become empowered* and reactionaries always import thugs -
from the coal mines if you're a Rumanian gangster or from the religious schools if your an Egyptian gangster and you want to crush the "leftists" at Cairo U., etc, etc, etc) and as long as the oil states can continue to import worker bees from Thailand, etc, they will never make a deal and instead will just go on doing exactly what they have been doing.
The sad truth is the "Arabs" are on their way back to the desert (while the wealthy ones will slowly morph into Brits or New Yorkers and for every Arab Quentin Compson who cracks and jumps off a bridge their will be a Snopse who doesn't and the great seismic shift we are experiencing which will have repercussions for centuries is the gradual disappearance of tribal societies and the emergence of post-tribal assimilationists of whom Barak "the era of stale ideologies is over" Obama is the first significant trope ...or as they say in the Pentagon: What will we call the Arabs in 200 years? Men in sheets...
Mitchel will achieve nothing and neither will HRC or Obama...a "democratic" "Palestinian" "state" is not a threat to Israel and it never has been. It is a threat to the Arabs and they know it.
As Hosni Mubarak said a few years back regarding Taba - the Palestinians and the Isralies will make peace...and then turn on us...
He claimed he was joking (the statement was made on the Charlie Rose show)and, no doubt, he was...joking...about the very thing he and the other thugs we've been bankrolling are afraid of:a nascent and mostly secular Palestinian state full of empowered people riding the demographic tide like Slumdog Millionaires...except it's not Mumbai, it's Aman and Damascus...
and they'll want their twitter and their facebook...and all the rest...and they wont get it because if they do, it will go viral and the Middle East will look like Eastern Europe in the winter of 1989...
and that's not going to happen...instead the post Obama landscape in the Middle East will look like the end of Shabtai's Past Continuous...or it just might sound like a wistful and ultimately very sad Amichai poem...but it sure as hell isn't going to sound like freedom...or peace...
(*that is, it's bad for business, if you are a gangster in Syria or Cairo, versus, if you're a gangster in say, Baltimore, where an educated middle class helps business by bridging the gap between the haves and the have-nots...
and while the Bizzari have created a situation in Iran that is analogous to China with a materialistically active middle and upper middle class, they are, as in China, politically disenfranchised and torn between homegrown decadence and foreign assimilation like a character out of V.S. Naipal, which is a kind of slow motion cultural suicide - sort of like Madam Bovary or Anna Karenina, except right to left instead of left to right).
January 24, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that you Marlow? or are you really Thomas Pynchon?
Your post has left me wordless.
But I'm learning why this issue is not editorialized much by Democratic blog owners. It's just too hot.
January 24, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the compliment but no, not Pynchon or even Pynchon pretending to be a little old lady (I recall he may have done that a few years back)just someone who is bored by the consistent tone of this "debate" and the absence of any reference to the mountain of literature that describes the situation there and around the world.
The problem of course is that Faulkner and Amicahi, Mafouz and Adunis or Darwish are far more nuanced and complicated than the NY Times or the evening news or the pap found in say The Weekly Standard...the Japanese intelligentsia found Faulkner to be speaking to them when he had a character say: "How could god have let us lose..."...a white southerner spoke those words as Faulkner had it and I submit that the Palestinian mytho-poetic trope that views the reestablishment of Israel as a "disaster" (Nakba I think is the Arabic word?) is an idea right out of Faulkner...with everything that implies; a sense of fate and loss and being trapped and layers upon layers of memory and confusion...or as Faulkner put it: "The facts and the truth seldom have anything to do with each other..."
For me the sad but fascinating truth is that if I want to know what's happening in Tehran or Rammalla or Tel Aviv the last place I'll go is CNN and the first thing I'll do is reread Checkov...or Oz...or AviDan...etc, etc...
And the sadder truth is that like a Shakespeare play the end is always the same - the stage will be littered with corpses and Obama will end up like everyone else...standing there looking like Wily E Coyote after his ACME Peace Plan blows up in his face and the Road Runner beeps at him...
Best,
M.
January 25, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
We won't know what really happened in the Middle East until Don DeLillo writes a novel about it.
I agree about CNN. I cut back on my cable to eliminate it. But New York Times had a good article "Bullets in My In-Box" about what it's like to be a Middle Eastertn reporter writing about this conflict and getting death threats from both sides.
Then there is the graphic novel "Waltz with Bashir" by an former IDF soldier's experience in Lebanon. Excerpts are on tomdispatch.com.
You make me want to go back and reread Faulkner, thanks.
January 26, 2009 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
marlow,
Why create anything at all, if it is not at least hoped to expand the perspective of an audience and move civilization forward?
January 27, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but all I can read from your comments are nauseating feelings of western superiority.
Israel's reactions to the resistance to their occupation has, over the years, been nothing less than barbaric. Full stop. So let's cease speaking of the inequality of the two world views in the middle east, shall we ?
January 26, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
January 26, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well put, complete, and balanced, and thus quite different from typical US media coverage.
Looking forward to the second installment to come.
January 24, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with so many writing here about potential solutions that include the usually unnamed "moderate" Arab states is that they are still operating in a ME that no longer exists. Instead of using the absurdist terminology ie "moderate Arab states", just call them what they are, allies and designate who they are in order of compliance; the Saudi princes, the Mubarak regime and the feckless Hashemite ruler of Jordan.
Focusing entirely on the American/Israeli actors is at the core of the problematic assumptions of how any kind of deal can be crafted that includes the other neighboring states. It's as if those so concerned are completely ignorant of the shifts and rifts among the Arabs, Turks, Persian actors who are all key players.
So far, this "old school" thinking is the prevalent one among those designing/implementing policy within the Obama administration. I see little evidence of wider expertise in the region among the appointments thus far and the rhetoric reflects it.
Although the old bulls from administrations preceding Clinton's are somewhat in evidence on the periphery, the youngsters with real expertise including fleuncy in the languages of the region are out in the cold. Where are Marc Lynch, Joshua Landis,Trita Parsi and the like?
Will Ephraim Halevy be allowed to contribute his expertise on Israel's security situation to Obama's understanding of the wider regional context in which we must operate?
It's as if those trying to discern a way forward are peering through a microscope at the region instead of the wide-angle lens absolutely critical for any viable progress towards stability.
January 24, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"this "old school" thinking" is exactly what this needs to be called. lally, thanks!
January 24, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
seedeevee.
The brief cable kerfluffle over Obama's use of "oldschool" inspired me.
;~{)
January 25, 2009 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I remain unconvinced of the premise- that an outside power or any number of powers can provide the political will necessary to overcome the political division and paralysis among the interested parties.
The states themselves are decrepit and becoming more so with each paroxysm of violence
Nation building?
C'mon.
January 24, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The one thing that I learn from reading about the life of Churchill is that one has to recognize the legitimate rising aspirations of ones adversaries. - This is not to say that one has to recognize the illegitimate rising aspirations of ones adversaries.
In this case, I'm not sure what that would be for both sides. If neither side is permitted legitimate rising aspirations for their people there can never be piece.
What would be legitimate aspirations of Palestinians look like? Do they want to live in a Bantustanned country? Can Israel accept a non-Bantustanned Palestine? Could Israel accept a Palestinian state where GNP/Per capital was equal to Israel's? What if the Palestinians got on a role and had a GNP double Israels?
Israelis sympathizers decry that Israel is only 12 miles wide at the waste - A Green Line Palestine would be a negative 28 miles at it's waste.
I hope to see this worked out. But I'm reading where more and more people on both sides don't want a two state solution. That means terrible violence and ethnic cleansing. The U.S. should make a very strong effort to avoid this.
But if it fails then plan B would be a single state solution. If that means ethnic cleansing then, the U.S. is going to have to wash it's hands. Love of Israel notwithstanding, I don't think we should go over the cliff with them on that. Plan C is single state with a federal interior, similar to Belgium. That would in the end, end up looking a lot like the 1948 plan.
The 1948 boundaries for the two peoples was equitably distributed. I'm certain that's not acceptable to Israelis now.
Personally I am torn between a just settlement, and a Jewish homeland. I'm finding it hard to reconcile both of these.
What a terrible situation.
January 24, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Personally I am torn between a just settlement, and a Jewish homeland. I'm finding it hard to reconcile both of these." - Tim, I appreciate your honesty. Please remember "no justice - no peace"
January 24, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want nothing more than the US to be a third party, I want nothing more than to end the alliance with Israel.
January 24, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bernard Avishai makes from his perspective a rather insightful political class analysis of the situation. If he didn't speak to the U.S.'s role in supporting Israel, presumably he will clarify his opinion in the next installment. For sure, Israel has and continues to represent for the U.S. a powerful tool for playing divide and conquer in the Near East.
The problem is that sooner or later that political strategy is going to come back to bite the U.S. big time. At that point, Americans are going to discover rather abruptly how little the U.S. ruling class really cares about the Jews and Israel. And the Israelis are going to discover what a hell hole the've wrought. The Zionists possession of and willingness to use nuclear weapons - the Masada complex - is what makes that situation particularly scary.
Stepping back a bit, the Israeli-Palestinian situation has for decades been of a kind with Northern Ireland (and previously apartheid South Africa). That is, the fundamental issue is two peoples claiming the same plot of land, with one side backed by an imperialist power. In the case of Israel, the basis of the country is theocratic - what other reason is there for its existence? Not until that (and Islamic forces like Hamas) are faced head on, i.e., the axis of struggle becomes social class rather than religion, will the possibility of a two nation or bi-national solution be achievable. And I'm not talking about one of those nations being the Bantustans that Gaza and the West Bank represent.
For those who've missed it over the years, Josh Marshall is - I'm forgetting the post-WWII term - in the moderately conservative imperialist mold of George Kennan when it comes to U.S. foreign policy.
January 24, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The idea of ending U.S. military aid is a sound one, but the aid is really just a $3 billion subsidy to American arms companies. The U.S. military capacity also benefits from Israeli R&D and avionics. Certainly it would be good PR for the U.S. to do. However, Israel already produces a lot of its own military goods-- and could certainly purchase the rest on the world market. I agree that it wouldn't have any practical impact on the conflict-- and it would reduce whatever leverage the U.S. has on Israel.
I think a key is that the leaderships of both Hamas and Israel benefit from conflict. Remember, we re-elected Bush because he would "keep us safe." Netanyahu's future depends on it. Ditto with Hamas-- their nightmare is a prosperous, peaceful West Bank. Neither side is particularly interested in peace until the costs become really signficant. There's not much material in Gaza left to destroy, and the civilian loss of life, while considerable and tragic, was a relatively small percentage of the 1.5 million Gazans overall. Hamas uses Israeli restraint (scoff at the term if you will, but I'm amazed that the carnage wasn't greater, given the population density of Gaza) to declare its survival as a great victory. Meanwhile, while cities like Sderot have been terrorized and suffer economically from the conflict, Israel as a whole hasn't taken too hard a hit. Its strength in technology has allowed it to sustain its massive military budget and still keep a decent standard of living. The Gaza action appears to have been wildly popular in Israel, while possibly increasing Hamas support in Gaza (that's less clear). Whatever U.S. policy is towards Israel and the Palestinians, there has to be a political price for the leaders of both sides to continue their advocacy of conflict. It will be interesting to see what Avishai proposes.
January 24, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bernard, I don't think a realistic formula for peace can ever be found which partakes of your unrelieved contempt for religion and bias in favor of secularism. Your division of the Palestinian community into two halves, one led by a "secular business and professional class in Ramallah" and the other by an Islamist and "totalitarian" Hamas, seems utterly simplistic, and your suggestion that people "governed by mosques" are under-educated, at least in comparison with middle class people who yearn for Westernization, strikes me as bigoted.
These simplifications, it seems to me, also influence your judgment of the Israeli scene, which you seem to divide into those good old, irreligious socialist Zionists of yesteryear, and the religious Zionist extremists of today. But those old Labor Zionists were just as committed to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine as their more religious successors.
It is also self-defeating and limiting to constantly suggest that the "moderates" are on the side of secularism, while the religious are the root of the problem of immoderation. Both religious traditions, in Judaism and Islam, possess abundant resources for peacemaking.
This conflict will never be resolved if we further burden it with Western liberal anxieties about religion versus "modernity", and entangle our peacemaking with culturally imperialistic drives toward Westernization, material values and secularism. Such talk actually might hinder the pursuit of peace, by convincing people in the region that intervention from the West on behalf of a peaceful political settlement is part of a Trojan Horse campaign to destroy their religion.
January 25, 2009 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, this will sound churlish, but had you read my Hebrew Republic, you'd know I do not dismiss religious imagination in anything like the way you suggest. Secularism does not mean anti-religious. It means skeptical, committed to excluding religious considerations from civil affairs. America is the most secular democracy in the world, and also the most religious society. A spirit of skepticism is good for any truly religious person. (You may have a look at William James, too.) More important, Hamas and Israeli ultraOrthodox and national-orthodox seem to be closer to cults than religions. Both are largely totalitarian in spirit, inspired by closed-minded leaders, certain of divine will--the kind of attitude a religious person should find disgusting.
January 25, 2009 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only secular solution to the conflict is a single secular state where Jews and Arabs are equal citizens. The two-state solution only sounds just to those who want to maintain a Jewish state. I consider all advocates of a Jewish state to be a dangerous religious cult.
Some secular advocates of a Jewish Israel do not demand Jewish theocracy, but a state for the Jewish race. I consider them to be a equally dangerous race cult. No solution is possible till we can have an honest and compassionate discussion of the race/religion cult inherent in Zionism.
January 25, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Israel is rejected by all but three of all the member nations of the Arab League (as if Arab peoples are the only peoples worthy of national self-determination in the region), but it is Zionism that is the racist religious cult.
January 25, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel as a Jewish state is a dangerous race/religion cult. All right minded people should reject it. Islamism, Arab nationalism and the various polygamous Arab monarchies are all dangerous cults worthy of rejection. The only way forward is secular equality for all. Obama, Marshall and Avishai are too tied up into the cult of Jewish state to see a way forward, but plenty of other people do.
January 25, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
But somehow you buy into--or at least don't object to--the Muslim/Arab cult. Course you add all that into your rejection to cover your flank, but what would you actually DO to reject Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan--that are self-consciously Muslim states--to get them to hew to your principles and ideals?
The answer is...nothing.
Outside of Turkey and Indonesia (perhaps), there isn't a Muslim dominated state that even makes a pretense of ascribing to the ideals you claim to hold dear. But what do you propose we do to bring them to heel?
Again, nothing. Don't tell me we're going to boycott every country from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf? What would we do for oil? Does anyone talk about stopping arms sales to S.A., Egypt, and Jordan? Does anyone talk about getting Iran to stop pouring acid in the eyes of convicting criminals or stoning adulterers? Not at all. We get the likes of the estimable Dan K telling us how Iran is "almost" a democracy and deserves better treatment from us.
I can get with treating Iran better. And I can get with talking with Iran and trying to improve relations. But it's just too hypocritical, IMO, to paint Israel as a "Nazi" state, as many progressives do while, out of the other corner of their mouths, they want us to acknowledge how things are bound to get better in Iran if only we would "talk" with them.
Much better, and easier, to force this half a postage-stamp-sized country to reform itself than to get anyone ELSE in the region to follow suit.
January 25, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin, that is just a bunch of disjointed strawman arguments. Maybe some "progressive" on some other forum called Israelis Nazis. Some Jews go to soccer games each week to scream "Death to Arabs". None of this has anything to do with my arguments. It reminds me of the "other black countries are savages" arguments that I used to hear from those who defended Apartheid South Africa.
Absolutely, stop all arms sales to Saudi, Egypt and Jordan along with Israel. There is nothing I can DO about any of them. All I am doing is demanding that Israel and its neighbors give up their cults of racial and religious exclusivity. I demand that Josh Marshall and Bernard Avishai do the same.
January 25, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh-huh.
Please show me the threads where progressives go on and on about how racist the Arab/Muslim states are.
Please show me the threads where progressives are appalled at Iran pouring acid into the eyes of convicted criminals or stoning adulterers. Instead you get apologists like the estimable Dan K telling us they're "almost" a democracy.
Please show me the threads where folks complain bitterly about the dhimmis status of all the minorities being protected by the Muslims.
Please show me the threads where progressives show even minor umbrage at the theocratic nature of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.
You won't. Apart from a comment here or there, progressives save all their venom for Israel. Just look at the number of comments.
January 25, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
My instinct is to attribute to the Israelis motives made visible by observing the results of their actions. The decimation of Gaza and the slaughter of its civilians is a byproduct of a basically racist attitude. Who cares from what this racism originates ? However, my bet for now is on the core of the Jewish adherence to the label of a specially chosen group.
January 25, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whose racism? Does anyone ever stop to consider what may have happened had not the Arab UN delegations not walked out on the General Assembly partition vote in 1948? In a region dominated by member nations of something called The League of Arab States, how does it figure that Zionism and Jewish national self-determination in Israel is uniquely racist?
January 27, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
i think ya just got outed Josh, of course as much as it shows a polarity, it is not necessarily incredible or intellectually depraved in its given...its side..its directassumpt... as a matterof published fact, its clarity may well elicit even greater and more potent and less deniable conscience to the talk. moving on gently..~\- stay posted
January 25, 2009 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
this would have more punch if it made sense grammatically. can you try again?
January 25, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha, its good to see the editor-in-chief down in the trenches slugging it out with us rabble-rousers. Thanks for working hard to make TPM more than just news!
January 25, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am with Weakland here. I don't normally post directly in the Cafe nor do I get involved with the Israel/Palestine argument here very often.
I think it is beneficial to us all to have these arguments, and I think it's great that Josh gets "down in the trenches" now and then.
But it's apparent to me that the written word, versus the spoken (preferably, in person, face to face) is so often so much more productive. Nuances can get lost in the written word. Things can be taken out of context, or lost.
Friendship, like readership, has a value. Keeping it friendly is becoming more and more rare when this topic comes up. It's a necessity, not a splurge.
Just my 2 cents.
January 25, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, I said that second paragraph backwards. I meant to say that the spoken word is more productive than the written. My bad.
January 25, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have to say, "nuance" again, LisB. Much nuance gets lost if the reader can't hear the voice in the writer's head.
January 25, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nuance.
January 25, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
ride a unity pony, let your spinning wheels spin...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi9sLkyhhlE
January 25, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This bears repeating:
Everyone thinks that Obama is the Messiah--the man who will solve all problems and bring paradise to earth. In reality, Obama is a Chicago politician, nothing more, nothing less. (see Jesse Jackson, Mayor Daley, Sr. and Jr., and Rod Blagojevich)
We have/had a disaster in Gaza. Obama is, has been and will be, pro-Israeli. His chief of staff is an Israeli dual citizen, his foreign policy team in pro-AIPAC. So is he. Waiting for Obama to resolve the crisis in the Middle East is like waiting for Godot. It ain't gonna happen.
What is to be done? Well, Israel feels insecure, as well they should be, and Palestinians feel on the brink of disaster. We need UN/NATO/Someone intervention. We need to "pull a Kosovo."
Every day Israel grows larger and Palestine grows smaller. They were supposed to share the land of the "Palestinian Mandate"--it's now Israeli 80 percent, Palestinian 20 percent.
Israel and US preach a two-state solution, but they practice the creeping erasure of the Palestinian people.
People rebel under such desperate circumstances. Let's hope there is some power to get Israel to stop, just like NATO stopped the Serbs from attacking Kosovo.
January 25, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. However, I believe Obama may indeed come out with a statement and policy suggestion sooner rather than later, and that he won't just let this situation continue as is, as far as he can weigh in, of course.
So many different interested parties are involved...just like our health care system as is stands today. I'm of the belief that the less cooks in the kitchen, the better the meal.
Things are too complex for that philosophy these days, unfortunately.
But I still remain an optimist, for the most part.
January 25, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink