Roger Cohen on Engaging Hamas
Roger Cohen is definitely my favorite New York Times columnist. Every week he brings us thinking on the Middle East that leaves his other MSM colleagues in the dust.
I read today's column and thought, for a moment, that I was reading The Independent or The Guardian. Or Ha'aretz.
But Cohen is in the Times and he reports on an amazing shift among some of the biggest foreign policy thinkers (and doers) in the United States on the subject of Hamas. He writes about a letter organized by the US/Middle East project in which Brent Scowcroft, Thomas Pickering, Chuck Hagel, Paul Volcker, Lee Hamilton, James Wolfensohn, Carla Hills, Nancy Kassebaum, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Ted Sorensen urge that we recognize reality and start dealing, in some form, with Hamas. Henry Siegman from the US/Mideast Project and long time Jewish community leader quarterbacked the effort.
As Andrew Sullivan writes today, the "realist" school is gaining strength. How long can Israel survive through war with Palestinians, threatening war with Iran and, today's latest, bombing Sudan (during the January war to intercept weapons supposedly headed to Gaza).
As Cohen puts it, it is time to "stop being hung up on prior Hamas recognition of Israel and watch what it does rather than what it says. If Hamas is part of, and remains part of, a Palestinian unity government that makes a peace deal with Israel, that's workable.
Self-proclaimed friends of Israel who support the status quo are anything but.
This is just pitiful. To paraphrase... Let's assume what Hamas says about Israel isn't true, and hope they stop killing Fatah long enough to negotiate something we're willing to believe instead.
Oh, hell no. Not a chance, not going to happen.March 26, 2009 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter is helpful as always.
MJ: If Obama is serious, he will let a unity government form and then bring both sides to Washington where they must publically sign a statement agreeing to bound by all past agreements.
I can't wait to see the look on Lieberman's face (I don't care if its Avigdor or Joe.)
March 26, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Realism coming to Washington? Rethinking of our Israeli policies? I may faint!
In all seriousness, this, while still very much an idea rather than actual policy, is looking to me to be real honest assessment and change. Not nearly soon enough of course, but isn't it nice to have a President who LISTENS TO ACTUAL EXPERTS?!? What a change...
March 26, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: Don't you feel it's a dangerous precedent for the US to recognize an unrepentant terrorist group? Will al Qaeda be next? Or is terrorism against Israel somehow different?
Also, I noted that the list of people cited by Cohen do not include any strong supporters of Israel (probably not any lukewarm supporters either, for that matter).
Also, Roger Cohen has said strange things about Iran which suggest that he is not at all alert to Middle Eastern geopolitics and to the threat that radical states and non-state actors continue to pose to Israel
March 26, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some day the A-rabs in the region will evolve enough to support leaders as sophisticated and humane as Bibi and Leiberman, who pose no threat to anybody, and only want peace and mutual respect and tolerance for all mankind.
Shalom!
March 26, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Progressive,
define a "strong supporter of Israel"?
March 26, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really need a definition, or are you asking a rhetorical question?
March 26, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Progressive Conscience,
I am not sure how you define a supporter of Israel, but I can't find anyone on the list of signatories who I would characterize as an opponent of Israel. I don't see a threat here, to either Israel or any liberal values. But then of course, to MJ and his psychophants, I am just another neocon likudnik anyway, so take this reply with however many grains of salt you wish....
March 26, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who in this august group has the ear, or any other part of Obama, or can get past his gate keeper Emanuel. Nice try, but what change in policy has even been hinted to date? I hope they emailed the letter to save the paper.
March 26, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I received this message from banned commenter YBD, and I promised him that I'd pass it on to the crowd. If you'd like to say your farewells to someone whom I believed to be both a right-wing extremist but a gentleman and a valued contributor, you can reach him at realisticdove.org, an excellent website on I-P matters. It is hosted by Dan Fleshler, who apparently is a colleague and good friend of MJ's. Here's what our banned former colleague writes:
"Bruce-
I don’t know if you are aware of it, but MJ banned me. In fact, I am banned entirely from commenting anywhere on the TPM site. Obviously, he finds it hard to take criticism. However, I am really distressed to think that the TPM management is simply willing to accept his word for whom is an “extremist” because there are people who regularly comment there who are far more incendiary than I ever was.
Sorry to use this thread for this personal comment but I didn’t know of any other way to communicate this message."
http://www.realisticdove.org/archives/299#comment-4467
By the way, I took the liberty of telling YBD that people coming from all different perspectives on I-P matters espressed regret that he was banned and, full disclosure, I specifically referred to lally and DanK.
Finally, for those interested, Fleshler is coming out with a book called "Transforming the Israel Lobby", I believe in May, and it includes a foreward by MJ.
http://www.potomacbooksinc.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=183894
March 26, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Wherever there's a douchebag blogger banning a guy, I'll be there...."
March 26, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was born a contrarian BK, and as far as I can tell I'm going to die one too. You know, I should research this, but I believe there was a rule in Sanhedrin capital cases that if an execution verdict was unanimous, then the defendant could not be put to death. Interesting, eh? I gotta get back to work now as I've just wasted my whole lunch hour writing this stuff. Ciao.
March 26, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looking into the punim of Tom Joad, I just couldn't keep from extrapolating from that image.
March 26, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I gotcha. I was great in that last scene, eh? But what you didn't know is that Tom was also a talmudic scholar.
March 26, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry that YBD/bar_kochba132 was banned. I miss the guy.
It's unclear if TPM policy is that banning=a life sentence or if there is a policy of granting parole.
I would hope that he and MJ could come to some sort of agreement for rules of engagement.
Good on you for taking up his cause, Bruce.
March 26, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
lally,
re: rules of engagement
Something has seriously changed regarding that.I think it's very sad, and it's also considerably ironic in several ways.
In the past, I've seen management ban users that frequented threads on Israel/Palestine who were mostly well-behaved commenters, but did eventually get so riled because they posted so frequently, and got so familiar with each other, that they eventually broke the TPM/Josh Marshall long-stated "rules of behavior," now posted as a link called "Comment Policy" above each comment box:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/faq.php#1
They were both pro-Israel and anti-Israel people, and I could see that they were banned not for their opinions, but for their behavior. It sometimes seemed unfair, because they were mostly well-behaved. But I could see,m as a former moderator elsewhere, that it really wasn't, because they weren't always well-behaved. All it was was selective prosecution, but it was still about behavior and not content.
But now that seems to have changed. I never saw YBD break behavior rules as stated in the link above, especially never saw him use "insults, personal attacks and the like" against other users that seemed to be the reasons for all former bannings besides outright spammers.
(I admit there might have been some instances by YBD that I missed, because I don't always read Rosenberg's threads, but mainly what I saw is YBD enduring a lot of insults and having a lot of discipline in not returning in kind.)
On the other hand, and there are a lot of instances, M.J. Rosenberg often breaks that behavior rule. Indeed, Rosenberg actually most often seems to respond in comments when he wants to react to a challenge to his content with "insults, personal attacks and the like," which TPM standards specifically request that people not do.
The other irony and hypocrisy: seems to me that Rosenberg has been given the power to have totally different rules? Rules that actually contradict TPM rules? He can ban people according to the ideological or factual content of their posts? Well, doing that, seems to break TPM's #1 Comment Policy point here: All political viewpoints are welcome.
Can anyone find evidence to the contrary of "do as I say, not as I do" on TPM Management's part with MJ's behavior? And evidence that there has not been a special dispensation for M.J. to alter the rule that "all political viewpoints are welcome"?
So we have an enforcer that doesn't believe in TPM's Comment Policy? Is it just because he threatens he will leave if he doesn't get the kind of content he wants, and can police his own threads anyway he wants, or what? Funny, that didn't work out so well for Billy Glad, and he brought a lot of clicks to this website, too.
March 26, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe it was YBD's/bar_kochba's insistence on ascribing thoughts to or positions to MJ and using "....." around YBD's interpretations of the same. His use of the parantheses around words and/or phrases made it appear that he was actually quoting MJ when in fact, he was making them up to suit his own ends.
Here is a portion of AG's post on the topic:
"YBD also, apparently, placed quotation marks around some sentiments he attributed to MJ which may not have been accurate."
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/24/the_new_mccarthyism_peretz_goes_after_jim_lehrer_n/index.php#comment-3418391
That's absolutely verbotten and as I recall, YBD refused to abandon that bullshit tactic. Sorry, but there's no defense for a poster who insists that's a legitimate use of punctuation.
(Can't remember which thread the back-and-forth about this issue was on...but do recall MJ warning him on this specific offense)
March 26, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first and probably last time I am quoted by Lally in a Middle East related thread: a moment to savor.
March 26, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, AG.
Don't worry, I'll get around to your myriads of unbalanced, overrought and hysterical claims one of these days.....maybe.
Just been there done that for so long now that I bore myself at this point.
March 26, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't we just wait for the YBD movie? I'm sure it will be an update of "Exodus" with YBD cast in the leading role.
Gotta go. I'm heading off to Rushmore to chissel YBD's rhetorical profile for posterity.
March 26, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And of course this example of garbage and your usual level of comment is well within MJ's and TPM's guidelines. Fine by me.
March 26, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Soft wimpering heard in background......)
March 27, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Roger Cohen's head was on the chopping block? And what about Nicholas Kristof? Shouldn't they be cowering in the face of the new McCarthyism?
I read the full report Cohen is talking about, link here (http://www.usmep.us/bipartisan_recommendations/A_Last_Chance_for_a_Two-State_Israel-Palestine_Agreement.pdf). It is sober, thoughtful and sensible. No objection here.
Whether Hamas can be "moderated," is of course an open question, as the report acknowledges, in terms more cautious than Cohen, encouraging limited engagement with Hamas "in ways that might help clarify the movement’s views and test its behavior."
Even setting aside its support for terrorist and rocket attacks, however, I have a fundamental problem with engaging an organization whose founding principles include arguably genocidal and inarguably virulently racist incitement. Seems to me those points are non-negotiable.
Also, it bears pointing out that recent talks over a unity government fell apart recently over Fatah's demand that the new government abide by all previous agreements that were signed between Israel and the Palestinians, a not very encouraging sign:
"Osama Hamdan, Hamas's representative in Lebanon, said that his movement would never agree to the formation of a government that would meet conditions "made by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Knesset."
He said that Hamas would never recognize Israel's right to exist or agreements between the PLO and Israel." (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236764183436&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
It is telling that offered a chance to greatly enhance their international standing and potentially alleviate the suffering of their people, Hamas remained bent on its confrontational course.
Let's hope this gets more interesting.
March 26, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand what you are saying AG, and as you know I am one of the Hebes branded with the neocon label around these parts, and I don't mean to confuse people by offering a non-linear perspective. But, if I might not so humbly state, I would venture a guess that over the past 20 years I have more negotiating experience than just about anybody else who has contributed or commented at the Cafe, albeit in the labor-management setting and not in the international realm. I cannot tell you how many times we have sat across from management fully believing, and for good reason, that an agreement will never be effected, and we're always right, until we're wrong and agreement is reached.
[Now, we've also had quite a few strikes and I'm not sure what the analogy to a strike is in the international realm. Check out how I spent much of my summer vacation last year. :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/nyregion/02concrete.html?ref=nyregion}]
My point is that, notwithstanding the mocking and chiding that so pollutes these discussions, I wouldn't rule out negotiations with Hamas in a unity government based on what they have or have not committed to in the past. Let's not be dumb, but let's not put our heads in the sand either. I like American for Peace Now's take on this, and they're far less obnoxious than folks around these parts and, therefore, probably a helluva lot more effective and convincing. Here's APN's take, in pertinent part:
"Today, APN calls on the Obama Administration to make the formation of such a government an explicit U.S. goal, and to make clear that relations with such a government - including U.S. assistance and U.S. political engagement - will be determined based on the positions and actions of that government and the national security interests of the U.S., not on the basis of whether Hamas is included in it.
"Such a government - one that is seen as representing all Palestinians - would have both the legitimacy and capacity to enforce its will in terms of security and governance. Such a government is vital to sustain the current fragile Gaza ceasefire and to provide a Palestinian counterpart capable of holding up its side of security arrangements. Such a government is also crucial to the stabilization of the current situation in the Gaza Strip, the rebuilding of Gaza, and to the achievement and implementation of any future peace agreement. The opportunity to be included in such a government might provide a powerful incentive for Hamas to moderate its rhetoric and behavior, and potentially adopt more pragmatic positions toward Israel. Conversely, a Hamas decision to reject or torpedo such an opportunity - depriving the Palestinian people of the benefits of U.S. engagement and assistance - would likely have serious consequences on the group's legitimacy in the eyes of all Palestinians.
"For those who argue that neither side is interested in such an arrangement, it should be recalled that such an arrangement was reached in 2006 in Mecca. It cannot be known how that national unity government would have fared, and how the situation today might be different, if the U.S., Israel, and the international community had welcomed and engaged it. What is known is that this is not what happened, and that national unity experiment was over almost before it started, in large part due to the decision of all relevant parties to undermine it."
http://www.peacenow.org/updates.asp?rid=0&cid=6038
March 26, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I pretty much agree with everything you wrote there, Bruce, though I am perhaps less sanguine about Hamas' capacity for moderation, Others will undoubtedly and accurately point out that the PLO entered negotiations while still calling for Israel's destruction, so yes, it can be done, and hopefully will be. But I don't see much incentive for Hamas to do so since it is its confrontational, religiously-inspired, intransigent absolutist stance that seems to enhance its credibility with the Palestinian people. If that is the case, the best solution would seem to me to be taking real, concrete, not-superficial steps to better conditions on the ground, hopefully paying off with increased support and legitimacy for Fatah. Israel hasn't done that, IMHO.
Nice job there in the NYT. We could use you over at the illustrious Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, of which I am an executive officer (a thankless job that few are willing to sacrifice their time for). As has been said of the Palestinians, we are famous for never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity. There is hope, though, since after a long period in the radical wilderness, we have moderated our previously absolutist positions.
March 26, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Armchair Guerilla,
I would not be so certain that is the case, regarding the Palestinian electorate. I wrote to this effect in the comments thread of Steve Clemons' latest post....
Hamas did not win the 2006 legislative elections as much as Fatah lost them by running too many candidates in the districts, compelling voters to split many Fatah ballots while Hamas won pluralities. The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research reported on it HERE.
March 26, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You raise a good and accurate point about Hamas BK and how it managed to win the election. My hunch is that, in the short run, Hamas has acquired increased popularity with some segments of the Palestinian community since the 2006 elections, but my hunch also is that lots of lefties falsely (or should I say condescendingly) posit that the Sharia society envisioned by Hamas in the long run is what Palestinians in the aggregate are looking for. It is entirely plausible that, somewhere down the line, the Palestinians will be facing the same secular/religious conflicts now challenging the Israelis. I have heard MJ directly on this subject and I will leave it to him to speak on where he believes Hamas might fit in with Palestinians in the long term. In the interim, however, I just don't have a fundamental aversion to pursuing talks in one way or another that is at least perceived by the Palestinians to be representative. My major shtick is, if the views of American Jewish community is important with respect to acceptance of Hamas at some level, then the way that certain folks are going about it on the left side of Obama's flank are not helping him at all.
To the contrary, if the American Jewish community is important politically, and if there is no trust in the community for a change in direction, then it's dead in the water and the only ones who benefit are the ones who make a living or a name for themeselves taking on that evil inpenetrable Israel Lobby (if ya know what I mean .
Roger Cohen? My hunch is that, in light of his bonehead life is beautiful for Iranian Jews series, has the credibility of a newt in much of the American Jewish community. MJ Rosenberg? The kid still has potential but he needs to work on his backhand.
March 26, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon my multiple and embarassing grammatical errors, to numerous to list.
March 26, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
um. . . "too numerous to list". :)
March 26, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
bslev,
Not really, according to subsequent study by PSR. They do some very intrigueing work there, and I highly recommend their site.
March 26, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
So much for my hunches. Thanks. I'll check it out.
March 26, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ has been practicing his backhand on Brad The Dad.
March 26, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link to the PSR polls, Bar. I don't draw the conclusion you do.
While more of those surveyed identify with Fatah than Hamas, support for the PA government itself has collapsed. Abbas would lose a presidential race to Haniyeh. Also, both on the West Bank and in Gaza, the ousted Hamas-led government, not the Abbas-Fayyad one, is seen as legitimate.
That's a poor starting position for an incumbent.
If Israeli leaders really wanted a secular Fatah government, they would free Marwan Bargouthi to run (he'd win over Haniyeh), but Palestinian disunity suits them just fine.
Bruce: I'm one of those lefties you talk about, and I don't at all posit that most Palestinians are looking toward a sharia society, despite identifying themselves as religious.
Hamas knows this: In 2006, it campaigned against the ongoing corruption of the Fatah elite, linking that to Islamic values. But during its brief rule, it made no move to impose Gaza-style conservatism on the West Bank.
Intimately linked to the corruption argument is the fact 15 years of "peace process" have made daily life worse; the PLO elite are seen as collaborators selling out their people for personal gain.
Now we get Netanyahu's reformulation: no serious talks, no self-rule, but "economic development" that will supposedly boost Abbas on the West Bank. Even he knows it's a non-starter -- and in any case, incompatible with mushrooming settlements.
The Group of 10 report is a good starting point for what must be done. Since Armchair's link doesn't work, I've posted one here:
http://www.usmep.us/bipartisan_recommendations/A_Last_Chance_for_a_Two-State_Israel-Palestine_Agreement.pdf
March 26, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, so you're a union guy, you commie rat varmint. I shoulda known.
March 26, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, Armchair: I proudly claim membership in the commie rat varmint club (Canadian branch).
March 26, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back in the 90s we were to Giuliani as PATCO was to Reagan. That was before my day - back then I was representing the alleged Gambino union infiltrators. Go figure.
March 26, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew I liked you acanuck. A Canadian trade unionist; you guys have like rights and stuff. Cool!
March 26, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Utter nonsense: "It is telling that offered a chance to greatly enhance their international standing and potentially alleviate the suffering of their people, Hamas remained bent on its confrontational course."
What you mean if they forget about the Nakba, there will be no problems. Begin couldn't have said it any better.
March 26, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Myth: Who said they would need to forget about the Nakba? Why are you putting stupid words into the mouth of a commenter who chose his words carefully?
March 26, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Replace "carefully" with "wantonly" in your comment for a closer picture. That substitution, by the way, was in fact carefully chosen.
March 26, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mythbuster: Requiring that Hamas abide by previous agreements as a condition for participating in a unity government is really the equivalent of forgetting the Nakba? If that is the case, there would seem no alternative to war.
March 26, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Extortion as the negotiating tactic. SOP for Zionland, actually.
March 27, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cohen's is a perceptive and positive piece by a thoughtful and talented commenter, but it is far away from a realistic plan for substantial progress in the Mideast.
It is certainly true that the land-for-peace based compromise plan outlined is the only viable solution for that region, and that it cannot be achieved without pressure from the USA. This has been patently obvious for fifteen years, however.
It is also obvious that the Bush Administration did absolutely nothing for its eight years except act as a mouthpiece for AIPAC and its ilk.
It does not follow, however, that simply having a White House team not composed of incompetent hypocrites, crooks and traitors is going to accomplish much of anything towards normal civilized life for and between Israel and Palestine.
The are two key factors that need to be borne clearly in mind, even if it is politically incorrect to utter them:
1. Peace in the Mideast is and long has been fundamentally blocked by the reinforcing tactics of fanatical Israelis, fanatical Palestinians, and a US Congress composed overwhelmingly of cowardly fools (on this issue more than most others).
2. Acting under what effectively amounts to permanent standing orders from the Israeli fanatics, the US Congress takes the unrelenting though utterly asinine position that ANY act of violence committed by any Palestinian (fanatic or otherwise) against any Israeli for any reason whatever is sufficient justification for
a) The Israeli government to do almost anything it pleases in response, morality and civilization and international law be damned.
b) The U.S. government to avoid putting any significant pressure on the Israeli government to press any "peace process" forward.
Clearly under the arrangement resulting from these two factors, any peace process can be readily torpedoed at any stage. The arrangement must change or nice thoughtful columns by the likes of Roger Cohen will continue to be pretty theories of little practical import.
There have always been fanatics in every people, nation, region of the world throughout history. It is not hard to agree that the Mideast in recent years has had more than its fair share, but America has about has about as much chance of reducing its own prison population to zero as it has likelihood to eliminate the ability of Mideast fanatics to commit acts of violence, i.e. zero chance.
What Americans CAN do is to demand that THEIR government, particularly their legislative representatives in that government, stop acting as mindless drones for one set of Mideast fanatics. If that transformation occurs, many of the things Roger Cohen, MJ Rosenberg and many of us here commenting on TPM hope for become possible, albeit not at all easy. WITHOUT that transformation, proposals of Cohen et al are almost certain to continue to effectively go nowhere.
March 26, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No argument here, PTroub. However, what happens now in terms of US foreign policy depends on how effectively the message reaches our leadership. J Street endorsed some new and returning legislators, and would be wise to maintain their awareness of their constituents' thoughts on these matters.
March 26, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This sounds positive, Bar, laudable, even. It also sounds like about 1/1000th of what will be needed to achieve meaningful change. Liberating the U.S. Congress on this issue will take a hundred Rosenbergs and Cohens focused on that Congress, undistracted by what some fanatic once yelled at a synagogue x years ago. It will need the functional equivalent of an anti-AIPAC on the scale of AIPAC.
America needs to finally become realistic on this, and pronto. Time is not on the side of Mideast peace. It some respects it may already be too late to save Israel and Palestine from their own fanatics (in which case America had better get cracking on damage control strategies, such as keeping those desert feuds from going nuclear.). It is high time meanwhile to stop tolerating the Schumers, Feinsteins, Pelosis, etc. of the Congress kowtowing to foreign fanatics instead of representing Americans, and to do so before those foreign fanatics drag our country into their hell. It is also past time to cease being sidetracked into time-wasting if not irrelevant sideshows. There are no grand conspiracies run by any councils of elders or trilateral commissions, no vast empires of media puppets dangling on strings pulled by Pat Buchanan, William Kristol or builders of pipelines in the Caucasus. This is NOT fundamentally a question of Israel versus her "enemies", Jews versus Anti-Semites, Islam versus "Dhimmi", or a fictitious "Eurabia" versus America. Nor is the core problem one of a mislabelled "Israel" lobby versus career diplomats, of religion versus secularism, of imperialism versus the masses, of blue states versus red states, or even progressives versus neo-cons. It is a question of Mideast barbarians versus the civilized world in and outside of the Mideast. We need the U.S. Congress to switch sides and start actively promoting civilization for a change.
March 26, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone think peace is going to break out in five years or less ? Ten years ?
How about we bet a coke ? Five bucks ? Any sporting blood here in the cafe ?
How many square kilometers of this debate does one have to read to get the point ? Hate and fear are the driving forces.
Peace, indeed.
March 26, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The three-headed blind dragon in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict consists of hate, fear, and land greed. Inside the dragons's middle head are the souls of Sharon and Arafat playing poker with people's lives as chips.
Where is St. Michael?
March 26, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good image ...
Please note : this poster is not choosing sides.
A couple of things about the debates in here :
1.) There is no agreement on facts. One side says it is day, another says it is night. One side says 100 innocents were killed; the other says no one was killed.
2.) There are a lot of people not being heard from. Can you guess who they are ? Please describe the debaters that are in here - and what sort of people are NOT here? Is anyone missing who has a point of view that matters ? Yes.
So what we have is a debate going nowhere.
Any bets, anyone ?
March 26, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, I'd appreciate your opinion on the recent (yesterday's) Oliphant "cartoon" with the wheeled , fanged Star do David saw I guess. Please ignore Foxman's drivel in regard to it.
March 26, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
ssame silly suspects spouting the same silly arguments no matter the issue.
Give back the stolen lands and stop the genocide of the Palestinians and you can start achieving peace.
And if that doesn't work, arm the Palestinians the same we do israel.
March 26, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant, thoughtful position that is destined to rule the day.
March 26, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Almost 2 years for reality to strike? Woo-hoo!
Although I remember the hard-Protestants objecting to sitting down with the IRA, I don't remember anyone else except the uncompromising extremities of the IRA objecting. They are still around -- as seen lately -- but unlikely to derail peace because they have so little support, reduced to a criminal fringe.
Hamas' power will recede in proportion to real hope extended to the Palestinian people. They were voted in democratically to replace a corrupt Fatah (who Israel then would not talk to, constantly undermined, but now see as somehow dealable with) and for their resistance to the oppressor. Israel continues to ghetto and beat down the Gazan population (and the rest to some extent) expecting submission. Well, it's been 40 years now and their policies continue to exacerbate the situation.
Time to change direction before it's too late. Otherwise Israel will truly become the beseiged and threatened society they believe themselves to be today.
March 26, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as Israel is at the mercy of people (Israelis AND Palestinians) who WANT it to become "a besieged and threatened society" it will be difficult for it to "change direction." America can provide a counter-pressure (on Israel and on the Arabs) however. To do that America does not need a similarly drastic political upheaval or miracle. It would however require a government that represents the interests of Americans with respect to Mideast policy
March 26, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hamas' power will recede in proportion to real hope extended to the Palestinian people."
I'm not convinced of this - but BarKafka has a link above to some opinion polls that may support this view. I can say that Hamas was borne in opposition to the peace process - during the most hopeful time in our lives - and rose in prominence because of this opposition. Through terror and now rocket attacks, it has managed to create the conditions of despair it thrives on. My skepticism is not without justification.
Still, I hope I'm wrong.
March 26, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The peace process doesn't exist. It was killed when Israel put 250,000 more settlers on the West Bank and into East Jerusalem after Oslo.
March 26, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Israel killed the peace process single-handedly? Do you read the newspapers?
March 26, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but they are not owned by Conrad Black or Murdoch.
So they say something different from the ones you read.
March 27, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure I'll get branded a defender of the status quo. But - whatever.
There's a fundamental reason why the formula that Roger Cohen lays out in his column is doomed to fail. The Oslo peace process in the 1990's was based on the notion that Israel and the Palestinians could, though negotiations, actually end the conflict. Israel would have to give up land, uproot settlements and agree to many distasteful things. But the payoff would be that the Palestinians would declare all future claims null and the parties would formally declare the conflict ended.
For it's entire existence, most Israelis have craved the moment when the conflict would be declared done and over with. It was powerful incentive to go through the Oslo process and to deal with a charlatan like Arafat. It was the reason why, until the catastrophe of the Second Intifada, a solid majority of Israelis endorsed the land-for-peace formula.
Now we seem to be talking about something else entirely. Israel still has to make the painful concessions, sure. But in return, it doesn't get a formal, internationally-recognized end to the conflict. It gets...what exactly? A promise from Khaled Meshal (and let's not forget who he is) not to walk out of the government if it signs a peace settlement? This is the incentive for Israel to take on the settler fanatics? While Hamas rockets are still flying out of Gaza on a daily basis?
I don't think so.
The proposal as described is absurd on its face. Until the proposal can address the deep desire of Israelis to see the conflict ended once and for all and for there to be an internationally recognized end of Palestinian claims, Israel has no incentive to confront the settlers.
As I said, I'm sure I'll be branded as a pro-settler defender of the status quo. But my point is basically a political one, not defending the settlers per se. To confront the settlers and their political supporters, they basically have to be painted as the obstacles to ending the conflict once and for all. That's what will get the broad middle of Israeli public opinion behind it. If all that's being offered is a wishy-washy sort-of peace and we'll see what happens, then they won't go for it. At the end of the day, any reversal of Israeli policy on settlements - something that everyone can agree will eventually be necessary to overturn the status quo - must go through the Israeli democratic process. The settlers must be defeated politically. And it won't happen without the support of the Israeli public.
It costs Khaled Meshal nothing to promise someone like Henry Siegman that he'll play nice. Meshal can make Israel look like the obstructionists and Hamas gets to look like the reasonable party. Of course any subsequent violence can then be blamed on Israel, who didn't immediately jump at his cynical gambit.
Siegman is what the Marxists used to refer to as a "useful idiot".
March 26, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
IF a "wishy washy" and "see what happens" arrangement precludes statehood in Palestine (for Palestinians) then only a hypocrite can defend the existence of a recognized Israeli state that was established on that same basis. You can relax, Brad, you are not really in favor of the status quo, after all (since I suppose you are not consciously a hypocrite). Logically then, it can be presumed that you, like Ahmadinejad, favor the return of Israeli Jews to Poland, and of Palestine to Britain (or the Ottomans or the dinosaurs?). A radical if not exactly innovative approach which I doubt will supplant the two-state solution supported by nearly all of the civilized world.
March 26, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF??
Once again, we must go back over basic historical fact. Israel was established as part of the UN partition plan for Palestine. There was supposed to be a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted the partition and the Arabs refused. And let's remember the Arabs didn't just complain and ask for something else. They went to war. And in that war, they lost more land. Thus Israel was established not on the basis of "let's see what happens". It was established on the basis of a partition of the land, legally sanctioned by the UN. And even if you didn't think the partition was fair, the proper response would have been to negotiate, not try to destroy the nascent Jewish state. Had the Arabs accepted the UN partition, not only would there have been peace for these past 60 years, but the Palestinians would have had more land. And no refugees.
Of course I'm guessing you know all this, so the only reason to make such a fatuous analogy is to play to the anti-Israel peanut gallery.
March 26, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Brad, your latest proposal is also a radical one but quite different than the earlier back-to-Poland plan (or was it just Everlasting Hypocrisy and No Palestinian State Ever?). Now you DO endorse no more waiting and no more seeing: two states side by side, the land partitioned between them as authorized by the UN in 1947. That's more land for a Palestinian state than even Arafat wanted. Good luck getting that through the Knesset.
Maybe you should stick to supporting the status quo, after all. Less confusing than all this flip flopping. A straightforwardly Fanatics' Settlements über Alles position of pure hypocrisy. Israel gets to keep its sixty year old state which Stern Gang and Irgun terrorists helped it get, and the Palestinians never get one ever because we can't accept THEIR terrorism. No more mumbo jumbo about "wait and see."
March 26, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm always amused when apologists for Palestinian terrorists bring up the Stern Gang, which had maybe 200 members tops and were detested by the vast majority of Jews. They were so nutty they actually contacted the Nazis to form an alliance against the British. They would have been nothing more than a footnote had not one of their leaders, Yitzhak Shamir, gone on to become Prime Minister. How significant they were in terms of getting the British to leave Palestine is debatable, but no one thinks they were anything but a minor factor.
It's just another feeble attempt to establish a moral equivalence in this conflict when there is none.
March 26, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Count me then as a minority of one who does NOT think that the killing of 91 people in the King David Hotel and the celebrations 60 years later by the new prime minister designate for Israel was a "minor factor" in contributing to the moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy of those who insist on zero violence from Palestinians as a pre-condition for statehood and who persist in ramming this hypocrisy down the throats of U.S. Congress members who are supposed to represent the interests of America. The attitude that there is no shame if it is your side committing crimes, that the West Bank settler fanatics are always right no matter what and we must serve them daily on TPM is the moral equivalence of nothing any American should want anything to do with let alone tolerate as influencing his country's foreign policy.
March 26, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
PTroub,
Sure, but now you have reached a point in your conversation that has gone way past your adversary, and your comment is more diatribe than discussion with BradtheDad.
March 27, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Discussion" with brainwashed dupes is a difficult proposition at best, Bar, but thanks for the thought. I trust you noted the cheap propaganda playsheet lie about me being an "apologist" for Palestinian terrorists. As if one must be either on the side of one lunatic fringe (e.g. Palestinian terrorists about which everlasting paranoia must reign ) or its mirror opposite (Israeli terrorists the existence of which must always be denied with jerking knee). No possibility of being against BOTH groups of Mideast barbarians and in favor of the USA. This kind of idiocy has been over-tolerated for far too long by American intellectuals. I would be just as far "past discussion" (if not much more so) if pressure groups and professional deceit-mongers operating for Palestinian fanatics had hijacked my Congress.
March 27, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad - The Stern Gang was a minor factor in the resistence. However, my Grandfather who was Irgun said they were 1500+ strong and considering the size of the population back then could be considered a pretty major military faction.
March 27, 2009 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know if Herr Hitler hadn't gone on to be chancellor in 1933, the NSDAP (Nazi) Party would have been a historical footnote as well.
Electing a terrorist like Shamir tells us a lot about Israel.
March 27, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be so defensive about being branded Brad. A bunch of us have been "branded" and, after the initial sizzle and shock, it ain't so bad, except they did do a really lousy job on Armchair Guerilla. He got it right smack in the middle of the forehead. On the other hand Bar Kafka looks absolutely fabulous; you can't even tell.
March 26, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no Gold Medal for Passive Aggression. Just thought you should know.
March 26, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to pop our bubbles, Commander Buzzkill.
March 27, 2009 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTD: "It costs Khaled Meshal nothing to promise someone like Henry Siegman that he'll play nice. Meshal can make Israel look like the obstructionists and Hamas gets to look like the reasonable party. Of course any subsequent violence can then be blamed on Israel, who didn't immediately jump at his cynical gambit."
You mean like it costs Netanyahoooooooo nothing to says he will negotiate peace when he already told the Likud Party that he opposes a Palstinian state.
So, strategery only works one way?
March 26, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Myth: When you respond to an intelligent comment that is written in English, why don't you try to write your response in Standard English and also try to improve its coherence and cogency?
March 26, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
School-marm alert.
I'm sorry nobody talked to you in high school. If they had, they would have realized what a blessing you are.
March 27, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad - You are correct that Israel does not want to go thru the trauma of tearing down the settlements without knowing a pemanent peace is at hand. On the other hand, the Palestinians want to have ironclad guarantees on their state before giving up their claims. None of this Camp David nonsense about maybe giving the Palestinians the Jordan Valley in a couple of decades if they are good boys and girls. Remember, the day after Wye River was signed both Sharon and Bibi called for Israelis to take all the hills. I had a bunch of relatives who took off like jackrabbits to several of those hills. Trust is a two way street.
That is why EVERYTHING has to be negotiated down to the street level and enshrined by the UN and all major powers plus the Arab countries. Said peace agreement must be then approved on a take it or leave it plebecite by both Israel and Palestine. Hamas has said numerous times they would honor such an agreement IF approved in a plebecite. I recommend a take it or leave it approach because otherwise we will continue to have negotiations forever. If it doesn't pass then wait a year and vote again. My own guess is it will take several years of voting before it will pass.
If the Palestinians don't honor the agreement Israel will be free to use military action against any agressor - just like they did in Lebanon. Remember, Israel's trauma in removing the settlements is their own damn fault - if there were no settlements I think peace would have happened years ago since there would not be much to argue over.
March 26, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two points:
1. Your assumption about the Palestinians wanting ironclad guarantees before declaring an end to the conflict is a tad naive. The Palestinians never talk about ending the conflict AT ALL. Sure, some talk vaguely about "peace". But if you actually count up the number of times a senior Palestinian waxed rhapsodic about the end of the conflict, you wouldn't count very high. It just isn't part of their rhetoric, which might tell you something. The dynamic isn't the same because the deal itself is asymmetrical. Israel is being asked to give up something concrete for a promise.
2. Negotiating a take-it-or-leave-it agreement and then trying to shove it down the throat of both parties is almost certain to fail. Israelis have always been suspicious of any "internationalization" of the conflict as they feel that only they can make tough decisions about security that might involve actions the world doesn't like.
March 26, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stated concisely: Since I don't want to do it anyway, it's okay if I distrust them.
March 27, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will repeat my question, which has been ignored, perhaps because it's an uncomfortable one for putative progressives.
MJ (or anyone else, if MJ wants to pass on this important question): Don't you feel it's a dangerous precedent for the US to recognize an unrepentant terrorist group? Will al Qaeda be next? Or is terrorism against Israel somehow different?
March 26, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it not also dangerous for the US to condone or, worst yet, do the bidding of terrorist groups such Irgun, the Stern Gang, the Hayil Party, the Kahane Party, Hilltop Youth, Youth for a greater Israel, etc.? Will unrepentants Yigal Amir and Baruch Goldstein be next? Or is terrorism perpetrated by Israeli settlers, assassins and land thieves somehow different, perhaps if one is a settler-advocate-hypocrite masquerading as a "progressive conscience"?
March 26, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happened. You used to be a reasonable voice. Now your off in mythical land with the same tone and the same somewhat odd regard to facts. Please come back.
March 26, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a rather low tolerance for imposters and hypocrites. Sorry about that.
March 26, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Progressive - It seems to me that the US was losing the war in Iraq until Patraeus recognized the Sunni terrorists and negotiated a deal with them. Those terorists were responsible for thousands of US deaths and unbelievable civilian carnage. Hamas is kindergarden kids in comparison. Yet we negotiated and it saved our butts.
March 26, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Americans believe that any part of Iraq was land promised to them by "their" God.
March 26, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Ledell:
The key word in my post is "unrepentant" terrorist. Israel, as well as the US, has on many occasions sat down, held its nose, and made deals with people that had been terrorists in the past. Arafat himself is an obvious example, but there are many others. Hamas has shown no signs of renouncing its policies, and in fact has a formal, official policy of genocide on its books.
Hamas is not kindergarten anything, as you certainly know from the death toll of innocent women and children they have killed, not to mention the many more maimed. Their attacks are calculated to maximize civilian casualities and destroy as many innocent lives as possible.
Don't progressives have any principles? I'm so puzzled by MJ and many others on these threads who are gleeful about the possibility of negotiating with unrepentant terrorists, as if that doesn't fly in the face of every principle that progressives stand for.
March 27, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The key word in my post is "unrepentant" terrorist.
Progressive - what BS. How many times has Israel sat down with Hamas and said lets deal. Unrepentent is until it isn't. Do you think the Iraqi terrorists would have quit fighting if all they got from the US was a total lack of respect. No - we gave them guns, money and a place at the table and for that they repented.
March 28, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, YBD got banned. That's cold, bro. He made some good points and at the very least provided a snapshot of the settler mentality. What's the point of having a blog if you're just going to kick off all the people that disagree with you? No wonder the Israel lobby has been so successful. It's like Bushies in the bubble.
Cohen's piece is fine. We should be talking/negotiating directly with Hamas. As Bishop Tutu says, you can hold peace talks only with your enemies, not your friends. However, it's important not to be naive and expect that Hamas will use a lull in the conflict for anything but rearming. I'm as disappointed and appalled by the recent news about IDF war crimes as anyone outside Gaza itself, but I still support the Gaza action overall, or at least the reasoning behind it. You can negotiate peace only from a position of strength. If Western Europe is willing to put its military where its mouth is and send a peacekeeping force to Gaza that will protect Gazan civilians and keep Hamas from acquiring Iranian long range missiles, that would be great. But so far they're not willing to risk their own troops.
March 26, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Europe's days of sending in peace forces to that region reached their zenith during the crusades, and its been a long downhill since. Much more to that non-starter than risk aversion.
YBD, it seems, was misquoting Rosenberg, badly, and the misquotes were going all over the web. And he was warned and responded with arrogance rather than cleaning up his act. At least that was my bystander's impression. Certainly there are times when West Bank settlers ought to be banned, for example, from financing election campaigns in countries that are not theirs. Free speech, for example, does not include libel or trying to corrupt politicians that should be representing other people.
March 26, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love ya MJ but what in the hell are you talking about?
Talking to Hamas....Talk about academic! Israel isn't going to really talk to anyone, certainly not any time soon
Israel's headed for exactly the place you wishfully thought they never would
Mearsheimer
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/26/please_tell_me_where_is_israel_headed
March 26, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, this is where the government shows its colors: a reported agreement between top government coalition leaders about a minor specific numbers of “units” to be built in a specific area that will produce a specific outcome (one not directed to peace, but an immovable obstacle to it). How can anyone argue anymore that Israel is not “cleansing” Eretz Israel of any impediments to a grand Jewish state?
Still, we'll soon have our new "Annapolis" roadmap of some kind. And even though it is progress when the US press and leaders begin to speak sorta, kinda honestly, and George Mitchell seems a good choice, politically, as a serious diplomat. But, what has any I-P peace process produced besides many breathless musings here and in the press?
The media can be half-assed straight regarding atrocities, here and there, yet there are always reasons to forestall forward movement. It’s foolish to pretend that changes are happening or even possible when admissions and actions by political leaders are naked pretexts for entrenching the status quo.
March 27, 2009 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Abu Brad: "This is the incentive for Israel to take on the settler fanatics? While Hamas rockets are still flying out of Gaza on a daily basis?
I don't think so.
The proposal as described is absurd on its face. Until the proposal can address the deep desire of Israelis to see the conflict ended once and for all and for there to be an internationally recognized end of Palestinian claims, Israel has no incentive to confront the settlers."
This is really strange statement. Israeli have no "deep desire to see this conflict ended", otherwise coddling "settler fanatics" (something that Ehud Barak did very well, by the way, during the last government) would not be viewed with such combination of popularity and indifference as it is. Mere fact that settlers are stealing, forging documents, harrassing and threatening, and venerating terrorists is insufficient to "take on" them.
The debate if Gaza should receive lentils and chickpeas is not over, in the meantime. "Rockets are flying on daily basis" because Israeli goverment refused a ceasefire. The deal was ready, but Olmert added Shalit issue. The prisoner exchange for Shalit was ready, but Olmert announced that he can release at most 350 folks "with blood on their hands" (what does he have on his hands, by the way?).
And Netanyahu refuses to acknowledge that Palestinians have a right to exist. Should we start a siege?
I say, it is realistic to recognize that recently both sides achieved moral parity, at least for the purposes of not making sanctions on the respective entities.
somibear: "I still support the Gaza action overall, or at least the reasoning behind it. You can negotiate peace only from a position of strength."
By that principle, Palestinians cannot negotiate right now. And this is what indeed happens: Israel has so much strength that is unable to make a smallest concession. A little hammer in the opposite direction is needed. For example, if Israel will not start dismantling settlements and block commercial traffic from Gaza (and West Bank, if they do it), lift sanctions on Hamas and break the siege without asking Israel. US and EU can access Gaza from the sea if they are so inclined, aren't they?
March 27, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad is sadly misinformed about " Hamas rockets flying out of Gaza on a daily basis" or, he is simply making it up because he thinks it looks "good".
The Israeli media reports on every single instance of rocket fire and perhaps Brad missed the recent 10 day stretch when no rockets were launched.
Why do some "supporters" of Israel revel in imagining that the situation is far more dire than it already is? Similiar claims of rockets "raining" down on hapless civilians are also commonplace without the apparent understanding that the rainfalls-of-rockets phenomenon only occurs during Israeli military offensives.
Does it make these serial exaggeraters feel better to enhance the real dangers faced by Israelis to a mythical land of horrors that exists only in their paranoid imaginations?
One would think they'd be more interested in reality but perhaps, misguided and kneejerk efforts at hasbara precludes honesty.
I have a suggestion for Roger Cohen. In the future, he should consult with Israelis of the likes of Mossad man Ephraim Halevy and ret. head of Military Intelligence Ze'evi Farkash when writing about Hamas and Iran.
March 27, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
ProgressiveConscience writes: "MJ: Don't you feel it's a dangerous precedent for the US to recognize an unrepentant terrorist group? Will al Qaeda be next? Or is terrorism against Israel somehow different?"
An "unrepentant terrorist group? Like, say, the government of the State of Israel?
March 29, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v installation, microsoft iscsi target 3.2
March 31, 2011 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of what is high availability
April 28, 2011 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink