Watershed: Peter Beinart of TIME (Former Editor of New Republic) Says It's Time To Deal With Hamas
Check it out.
Peter Beinart of Time, former editor of The New Republic, believes that it's time to deal with Hamas. And he wrote his piece saying so before Hamas chief. Khaled Meshal, told the New York Times that he had ended the rocket fire against southern Israel and would accept a West Bank/Gaza Palestinian state (seeming to abandon his call for dismantling Israel in its entirety).
Beinart says we should seize this opportunity.
He concludes: "I don't need any lectures on the evil of Hamas: 13 years ago, the organization blew up a Jerusalem bus carrying one of my friends. But sooner or later, America and Israel will have to start dealing with a Palestinian government that includes it for the same reason the U.S. is dealing with an Iraqi government that includes Baathists and is trying to broker an Afghan government that includes the Taliban -- because it's our best shot at getting terrorists out of the terrorism business. If there were an easier way, we'd have found it by now."
Check Beinart's piece out here. It is very significant.
Honest question with no hidden agenda:
Other than the fact that Beinart got a job at Time magazine, why should anyone care about what he writes about anything? Who is he? Does he bring anything other than a resume to the table? Does he have any experience in foreign policy, etc...?
May 5, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well he was a rabid and uncritical supporter of the Iraq war, a real Judith Miller.
May 5, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I happen to agree with Beinart on this issue, that it's in fact long overdue, I lost respect for him in the run up to the Iraq War and I haven't seen a consistent body of work from him to demonstrate he's improved.
In fairness, I haven't been paying much attention to Beinart.
May 5, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The article is well-written and convincing. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. The author is young, intelligent, and wrote a whole book three years ago in which he admitted that he was wrong to have supported the Iraq invasion of 2003.
May 5, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peter Beinart's article is "very significant"? The absurdity of these posts by MJ is unbelievable. If you want to see something truly significant, look at this map published by the United Nations:
http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_west_bank_closure_map_a3_2008_09_11.pdf
Look closely at all the purple areas. Those are the Jewish settlements scattered all across the West Bank and now home to some 500,000 Jewish settlers. Look closely at all the closed zones that Palestinians are already excluded from and that the Israeli military controls and that no Israeli government will ever fully relinquish.
Then ask how does one create a state out of this fragmented torn rag of a Palestinian area?
I don't think there's an answer. The map seems to confirm the obvious. The two state solution is impossible. It is dead.
That is significant. But no one will look at the map.
May 5, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any discussion of a two state solution presumes that many of the settlements will be dismantled. What's typically discussed by Jimmy Carter for one example, is that there would be some land swaps and some settlements be dismantled, allowing for a contagious Palestinian state and Israeli State.
May 5, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
whoops. Meant to say contiguous states. We already have a contagious (and spreading) Israeli state.
May 5, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any discussion of a two state solution presumes that many of the settlements will be dismantled.
It may as well presume that the sun will rise in the west, too.
That's the problem. Look at the friggin map. Recognize that there are half a million people living in those purple settlement areas--and those areas are continuing to grow in both area and population every single week that a solution is delayed. And then figure out a plan to remove all those people and their property that won't result in a massive civil war in Israel. You can just say "settlements will be dismantled." You need to show a plan for actually doing that. I don't see this plan. And I don't see any way for such a plan ever to be implemented if one did exist. We're much too far down the road of settlement. The best the Palestinians could hope for now are a few, separated autonomous regions. That's reality. That's all the Israelis can offer. The facts on the ground--whether you like them or not--are facts on the ground.
We can keep saying the sun will rise in the West till our faces turn blue. But the sun keeps rising in the East. When will we stop deluding ourselves and face reality? When will anyone truly get serious about peace?
May 6, 2009 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's significent in that Beinart's adding his voice to the growing chorus singing ditties about dealing with Hamas. It's another indicator that there is some serious shape shifting going on within the FP community/commentariat CW. That's what MJ is taking note of.
Not to worry, the DoS is still standing firm against common sense.
Something else of significence is the discussion of report in Maariv about one of the IDF's preparations for their next adventure:
"IDF Preparing Troops to Fight Arab Fifth Column in Wartime
by Gil Ronen
(IsraelNN.com) The IDF is training troops to fight against Arab Israeli citizens, if they rise up during wartime as they did in 2000. According to Maariv/NRG, the army is training infantry battalions to seize control of the strategic Wadi Ara (Nachal Eeron) road in wartime, should the need arise.
The battalions are currently employed in routine security in Judea and Samaria. However, should a northern war front develop, they will be attached to the Home Front Command and sent to Umm El Fahm to beat back any attempts by the Arabs there to block the road. They have been trained in urban warfare for this purpose and have been acquainted with the methods for carrying out this “sensitive” mission.
Highway 65 connects the coastal area near Caesarea with Megiddo and Emek Yizre’el (the Valley of Esdraelon) and is strategically vital for the IDF when it seeks to transport tanks and other vehicles between northern front and the other fronts. The section of Highway 65 that passes through Nachal Eeron, or Wadi Ara, is part of the Biblical “Sea Road” (Via Maris), which connected Egypt with Babylon and Assyria and was used by armies and traders since ancient times."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/131207
Yeah, I can see why this would be a very "sensitve" mission.
The 5-day Israeli countrywide civil defense exercise, "Turning Point 3," starts May 31. The Hezzies suspect that the Israelis might be up to some shenanigens and have provided the other sectors with "details on targets, scenarios and steps to counter a possible threat."
Their information is considered credible:
"Lebanese Armed Forces Commander General Jean Qahwaji said: "The military takes seriously and with great caution the Israeli military maneuvers mentioned by Hizbullah representative on [Tuesday's] national dialogue session."
Qahwaji reiterated to the daily an-Nahar, the Lebanese military readiness in confronting any aggression adding that the army remains in contact on this issue with the political leadership."
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/8ACEC1624718CE20C22575A7002D38DD?OpenDocument
Lebanese busted a major Mossad asset last fall and have been reeling in a major network over the past few months.The products provided to Israel by their Lebanese recruits are largely related to collecting and transmitting targeting information.
(Haaretz' Yoel Melmon wrote a critique of the Israeli MO recently)
May 6, 2009 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
But where will talking with Hamas get us? Sure, I'm all for talking with them. They're an important party in the conflict. But if you think you can negotiate a two-state solution with Hamas (or anyone else), you're completely deluding yourself. I won't be impressed with any "shifting" in the FP community until someone has the courage and integrity to admit the obvious: that the two-state solution is an emperor with no clothes.
May 6, 2009 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point was that MJ's comment that Beinart's piece was "very significent" is correct within the context I described.
You appear to want argue about something entirely different ie the futility of the two state solution as it currently stands. I have little disagreement with those observations.
BTW, MJ has gone bigtime now and along with J street and the IPF, is being attacked by rightwing fanatic Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post:
"One of the disturbing aspects of the AIPAC scandal was the readiness of pro-Palestinian Jewish organizations like the Israel Policy Forum and J Street to defend the persecution. As James Kirchick from The New Republic noted over the weekend, M.J. Rosenberg, the Director of Policy Analysis for the IPF, wrote recently that "as a guy on trial for espionage," Rosen had no
right to point out that Charles Freeman, US President Barack Obama's initial choice to serve as Director of the National Intelligence Council, had a record of egregiously anti-Israel behavior and action. What the behavior of the likes of Rosenberg shows is that anti-Israel forces in the federal bureaucracy can depend on having an anti-Israel American Jewish amen corner
backing any decision they take to persecute Israel's supporters.
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=43536
May 6, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
More on America's war on Hamas:
Steny Hoyer told the AIPACers that in regard to Hamas rockets:
“America must make it clear that every single one of them is a war crime."
Arutz Sheva's "News Briefs" reveals that he's not alone:
"US Attorney Generals: Hamas Guilty of War Crimes
Reported: 17:52 PM - May/06/09
(IsraelNN.com) 10 United States Attorneys general wrote a letter last month to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defending Israel's military action in Gaza Strip and condemning Hamas’ rocket attacks on Israeli citizens and blending between civilians and combatants as war crimes. "By intentionally targeting 6,300 rockets against Israel's civilian population, Hamas is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a war crime in that it has violated … the Geneva Convention of 1949," says the letter.
The letter accused Hamas with committing “atrocities against the Palestinian civilian population” by using them as human shields. It defended Israel’s response to continuous Hamas rocket and mortar fire as a means to end the war acts and, therefore, not subject to being proportionate. The 10 attorneys general represent the states of Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah and Washington."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/164707
WTF?
May 6, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmmmmmm.
Perhaps Steny and the butinski Attorneys General mentioned above could be provided with a translated version of the following:
"Film: How the Almighty Fought for Israel in Gaza
Reported: 00:15 AM - May/06/09
(IsraelNN.com) A new 40-minute film in Hebrew entitled “How G-d Fought in Gaza” interviews soldiers from the IDF who describe miraculous events during Operation Cast Lead. The film also points out that out of thousands of rockets which hit Israel before and during the Operation, almost none caused injuries.
The movie can be viewed at http://kabalasite.org/."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/164659
May 6, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point was that MJ's comment that Beinart's piece was "very significent" is correct within the context I described.
Fair enough lally, though I'm still quite skeptical that there really is much changing. We'll know more after Obama talks with Netanyahu maybe.
You appear to want argue about something entirely different ie the futility of the two state solution as it currently stands.
Yes, I admit I'm annoyed that there's so much talk about Israel on TPMCafe and none of our illustrious commentators seems willing to address any of the real issues. It's all so superficial. I wish somebody would say something interesting, meaningful. I mean really, in the grand scheme of things, who cares a rat's ass about what Peter Beinart says?
May 6, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all so superficial
It took me a long time to see it (duh) but I finally figured that whole thing out: MJ's topic is rarely really Israel/ME, rather, it's Beltway players related to Israel (and often personal grudges for/against seem to be underlying the post.) I'm the type that could find even that interesting if it were presented in a transparent fashion, if the whole history was told, but it's usually not, it's just sniping, and the readers are innocent bystanders, as it were.
May 6, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
p.s. I think the real news is in the AP report which was in my NYTimes today. While Ahmadenijad and Bashar al-Assad met with Hamas et.al. and affirmed rheir support to same, Defense Sec. Gates said Ahmadinejad's response to Obama admin outreach was "not very encouraging." He also was in the process of assuring Arab allies that the admin would be "very open and transparent" about any efforts related to Iran.
I think that it's a pretty good bet that means not much is really going to happen until the Iranian elections June 12, and State focus until then is going to be on Pakistan and Afghanistan until then. Sec. Clinton did find the time a couple of days ago, however, to complain about the growing "economic and political connections" between Iran and Latin America.
May 6, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
One has to hope, I think, that Ahmadinejad loses to Moussavi in the election. I think we should be following the lead of our neighbors to the south and strengthening relations with Iran (or at least with the Iranian people, whom I believe are more open to a relationship with the West than their leaders may be)--at least we should be striving to do this over the long term. In the short term, however, it's hard to build a relationship with Iran when they have a nut like Ahmadinejad as President. In a wierd way, Ahmadinejad reminds me of Dubya. The two leaders seem to me to share the same kind of idiotic provincialism. Moussavi is a much more intelligent, sophisticated, and mature person. He'd be much easier to deal with, and if he comes to power, our whole dialogue with Iran may be able to change for the better.
May 6, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right AA! It's become a gossip column.
May 6, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, with Hamas, it's kind of difficult to keep up with tevents or their lies.
Like this:
http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2009/05/hamas-speak-with-forked-tongue.html
"Hamas Speak With Forked Tongue
This today:
The military wing of Hamas claimed responsibility on Wednesday for three mortar shells which struck Israel earlier in the morning. The shells fell near the border fence in the Sha’ar Hanegev region and caused no injuries or damage.
And this just other day:
The leader of the militant Palestinian group Hamas said Monday that its fighters had stopped firing rockets at Israel for now.
And what happened in between?
First this was in the works:
Egyptian security forces discovered on Monday a new tunnel used for smuggling foodstuffs at the border with the Palestinian territory of the Gaza Strip
and this, too:
A Palestinian young man was killed on Saturday evening after a tunnel, dug under the borders between the Gaza Strip and Egypt and used for smuggling, collapsed, medics and security sources said.
Then, on May 2, we had this:
Israeli warplanes bombed tunnels beneath the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt Saturday killing two Palestinians, after militants fired several mortars at Israel from the coastal territory, medical workers said.
So, they are not truly firing missiles.
They are just smuggling them in to store them for future use and they are just firing mortar shell, not missiles.
Hamas for you."
or this:
http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2009/05/ever-heard-hamas-joke.html
"Ever Heard a Hamas Joke
Told to the New York Times:
Khaled Meshal, said during a five-hour interview with The New York Times...that he would not recognize Israel, saying to fellow Arab leaders, “There is only one enemy in the region, and that is Israel.”
But he urged outsiders to ignore the Hamas charter, which calls for the obliteration of Israel through jihad and cites as fact the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Mr. Meshal did not offer to revoke the charter, but said it was 20 years old, adding, “We are shaped by our experiences...To understand Hamas is to listen to its vision directly...
...On the two-state solution sought by the Americans, he said: “We are with a state on the 1967 borders, based on a long-term truce. This includes East Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees.” Asked what “long-term” meant, he said 10 years.
Anyone laughing?"
May 6, 2009 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only at you. Israel lies about everything. Strategic ambiguity anyone?
May 6, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and Kozmik 10:31 PM:
You got it right the first time. A true Freudian slip. (from someone on that map)
May 6, 2009 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another point for those (if there any any) who have stopped blowing wind and actually contemplated the map. Assume as you must that most of the large settlment blocks cannot be removed. What does this mean for the resulting Palestinian state should two states ever be negotiated?
As you start to ask the questions you realize quite clearly that the possible Palestinian state will not please the Palestinians. Even if some Palestinian leader agrees to such a state, continuing conflict with the Israelis is inevitable. No sooner will this state have been created then something will happen that will force the Israelis to blockade the West Bank cantons (just like Gaza) or re-occupy them. The Palestinian state will exist, but it will be meaningless. Everything will just revert to where it is today. Except, maybe, the Israelis will feel more justified in using lethal force on a population they are no longer legally responsible for.
I wish someone would get serious and discuss these problems in detail. But instead, I'm sure all we'll get is more reading of tea leaves.
May 6, 2009 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Kozmik and Oleeb point out, Beinart was a supporter of the Iraq War and is a relentless liberal interventionist. He's been wrong too long to be right anything; he got his Time job because he's a Convenient Hack, and circulates among the right crowd. And if his heart is in the right place, he wouldn't describe Hamas as "evil". What's "evil" in that blood-drenched part of the world? Here's a better short list: what's "good"? What's "justified"? Let me translate for Beinart: We and the Israelis have tried everything else, and the bastards won't "transfer", so we'll open talks, let them rot on the vine over a period of years, like we did with Fatah, and on and on and on... If Israel can't force them out, they'll string them out.
May 6, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Focus on the good news: Liberal interventionism (an oxymoron) is a total failure.
Personally, I think that anyone who championed the Iraq war deserves to roast in hell.
May 6, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink