Obama vs. Netanyahu: Who Wins? ++++ The Incipient Effort to FREEMANIZE General Jones
Reporters are always asking me if I think President Barack Obama would prevail in the oft-predicted "knock down, drag out" fight with the Israeli government (and lobby) over the peace process.
That question is especially relevant following this week's AIPAC conference. Vice President Joe Biden made it abundantly clear that the administration intends to push hard for a Palestinian state. (While Prime Minister Netanyahu is talking about everything except a Palestinian state.) The Israeli media is picking up the signals too. Writing in Yedioth Achronoth, Eitan Haber says that all the signs point in one direction and he's worried. "When Obama roars, who will not tremble?" he asks.
The new president is committed to the two-state solution and intends to insist that the Israeli government not take actions that thwart that goal. That means moving against ever-expanding settlements (which the Israeli press today reports are about to be expanded even more by Netanyahu), easing the flow of goods in and out of Gaza, and removing checkpoints and other obstacles to Palestinian freedom of movement. The administration is also moving away from Israel's ironclad opposition to dealing with Hamas.
For instance, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted that although we do not deal with Hezbollah, we do deal with a Lebanese government that includes Hezbollah. Why not apply that model to a Palestinian unity government?
Meanwhile Obama's top White House adviser on foreign policy, National Security Adviser James Jones, told the Washington Post that Obama does not intend to wait for the Israelis and Palestinians to come up with a formula.
"The United States is at its best when it's directly involved," Jones said. He invoked the successful U.S. efforts to end the fighting in the former Yugoslavia. "We didn't tell the parties to go off and work this out. If we want to get momentum, we have to be involved directly."
Then there is Iran. President Shimon Peres was in Washington for the AIPAC conference, pushing a hard line on Iran (when it comes to Iran, Peres is as hawkish as Netanyahu). He did not expressly oppose President Obama's diplomatic overture to Tehran but did indicate that Israel was less than enthusiastic about it. The Israelis want us to set a firm expiration date on diplomacy. If Iran does not deliver by that date, then we, or they, will move to the next step (whatever that might be).
In short, the Israeli and American governments are far apart on most of the key issues.
So is a clash inevitable?
In my opinion, no. That is because I believe that no Israeli government can successfully oppose a popular American president who sets out to pursue Arab-Israeli peace.
Neither the Israeli government (nor the lobby) was happy with President Jimmy Carter's aggressive efforts to promote the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty in the late 1970s. But Carter was undaunted and the peace deal was signed--by Prime Minister Menachem Begin, of all people. The same applies to the Reagan Plan of 1982 and Reagan's recognition of the PLO in 1988. In neither of these cases was a challenge successfully mounted. The lobby loathes the idea of confronting any American president, especially a popular one.
There were, however, two occasions when challenges were launched, the first against Reagan's sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia and the second against President George H. W. Bush's decision to withhold loan guarantees in protest of Israeli settlement policies. In both cases, it was the U.S. president who won. In the latter case, Shamir's government actually collapsed and was replaced by a government (led by Yitzhak Rabin) that Bush preferred.
Bush did not engineer Shamir's downfall. He was brought down by an Israeli political establishment (and public) that did not want its government fighting against Israel's only significant ally and weapons supplier. Few Israelis, or their U.S. supporters, would be willing to jeopardize what AIPAC's founder, IL Kenen, called "Israel's lifeline" in order to retain West Bank settlements.
If Obama holds firm, it will not be Obama who blinks.
And not only because it is the United States that is the super power. It is also because President Obama will not be asking Israel to sacrifice any vital interest. On the contrary, in leading an effort to achieve peace, Obama will be advancing Israel's security, along with our own.
That is also why American Jews will rally behind him. It is not because they are indifferent to Israel's security but because they understand that maintaining the occupation undermines Israel's long-term survival.
Proponents of the status quo believe that Israel can maintain the occupation and remain a democratic Jewish state. But that is impossible. In fact, on Israel's Independence Day last month, the official Central Bureau of Statistics announced that territories under Israeli control are already 51 percent non-Jewish (5.6 million Jews vs. 5.8 million non-Jews).
Continuing the occupation means a significant Arab majority in a few years that would achieve power through the ballot box and terminate the Zionist enterprise. Or Israel could maintain the territories, deny the Arab population the vote, and become an apartheid state like South Africa before Nelson Mandela.
The final possibility--the one the United States is working to achieve--is the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Essentially, Israel would go back to being what it was before 1967--an overwhelmingly Jewish state. The difference would be that now it would have ironclad peace treaties with the Palestinians, Egyptians, and Jordanians. In other words, Israel would achieve what every Israeli dreamed of before June 5, 1967: peace and security in a Jewish country. How terrible is that? (For those too young to remember, pre-1967 Israel was not terrible at all. In fact, it was pretty wonderful. It is forty years of occupation that has been terrible.)
It should be noted that despite what some may think, American Jews are Americans and, it must be said, overwhelmingly Democratic. They will back their president if he pushes hard for Middle East peace. They are not Israelis living in exile. They are Americans who not only share the general enthusiasm for our new president, but also feel it more than any group except African Americans. Seventy-eight percent voted for Obama over John McCain, a figure unmatched by any other white group. They will not turn against Obama to protest his actions advancing . . . peace. They voted for Obama, in large part, because he ran on his record opposing the Iraq war and favoring diplomacy with Iran.
As for the lobby, it will not go head-to-head against this president. It won't because it doesn't like losing any more than it likes losing access to the halls of power. As for the Democratic majority in Congress, with the exception of a few House members who are to the right of Likud, they will stick with the president who gave their party its first electoral landslide since 1964.
In short, Barack Obama is uniquely positioned to achieve two states for two peoples. It's now or never. And if it's never, we will see the "one state solution" instead. That one state won't be called Israel.
**Note: the lobby is not happy with any of this and is, I hear, already going after NSC chief James Jones, who served in Israel and does not take a sanguine view of the occupation.
Here is Michael Goldfarb of The Standard taking shots at him. The goal, a knowledgeable friend tells me, is to get rid of Jones quietly. "They can't afford another Chas Freeman situation. As with Freeman, it's all about Israel but, this time, without fingerprints. " We should be hearing from Krauthammer, Goldberg, Kristol, Peretz, Steve Rosen (formerly charged under the Espionage Act), Brooks, Bolton,and the rest soon. Although not if mums the word. Also see Robert Dreyfuss in "The Nation" on how the Israel-Palestinian issue is producing an NSC/Foggy Bottom split.
I sincerely doubt there is going to be any "knock-down, drag-out" fight between Netanyahu and no-drama Obama. The Obama administration is completely lacking in the political will and courage, or the strategic vision, that would be needed to insist on the very dramatic steps that would be needed to create a truly viable Palestinian state.
Instead, Obama will insist on a few modest adjustments to the staus quo: halting expansion of the colonies, but not reversing the colonization that has already occurred; calling for the dismantling of rogue "outposts" that most Israelis don't care about anyway; promoting economic ties that will cement the existing facts on the ground in place as a fait accompli.
Netanyahu will then engage in some stage-managed dramatics about how onerous it is to accept these hideous demands, which he has planned all along to accept anyway. Obama will take bows for "standing up" to the Israelis, and the press and J-street will acclaim Obama's Mighty Roar.
Maybe the US, Saudi Arabia and Egypt will then somehow prevail upon the hapless and defeated Palestinians to accept the new chopped up, parceled up and stripped down Republic of Bantustania - sovereign in name only - that the powerful have carved out for them, and then just shut up.
Then Rahm Emanuel, Dennis Ross, Bibi Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah can get down to their real business, which is crushing Iran and Hizbollah, and figuring out how to get the US administration to ship more weapons and 19-year old cannon fodder over to their neighborhood to do it. Of course, the US Congress is always a done deal wherever Israeli whims are concerned. But they might have to work on Obama for a few months.
May 8, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
This may be the goal of the usual suspects, but the Empire is broke. And peace is less expensive than war.
While I strongly support MJ's position, it is only the "last chance" for an American-engineered peace. If Israel likudes this moment, then in 30 years, there will be a future State of Palestine, but it will run from River to Sea, not River to East Jerusalem.
May 8, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he stands up to Israel and the Lobby like he stood up to the banks, the Lieberman twins should be trembling.
What's the connection between the banking oligarchy and the power of the AIPAC lobby? Is there one?
May 8, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Walker, thanks for your attempted linkage of AIPAC and the always-useful lie of an international Jewish banking conspiracy. You've shown that the line between the anti-Israeli left and the anti-Semitic fascist right can indeed be microscopic.
Back to M.J.: great article, and I hope you're right. I just saw a blurb in Haaretz today that Netanyahu stated categorically that he would never give up Golan, so we're not starting at a hopeful place. But if Obama really decides to give this a full-court press it will indeed be hard for the Israeli government to stay that intransigent.
May 8, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering when I read this in MJ's email - Did he read this in Yedioth Achronoth and then decide to build a piece around it.
What a quote!
May 8, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. What was this guy's other gig? Sounds like a movie script writer. James Earl Jones could do the voiceover.
May 8, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has he EVER roared? The only person to suffer his scorn is the hapless subordinate who approved the Air Force One flight over Manhattan. Everybody else gets stroked, coddled, and caressed.
May 8, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ask Hillary and McCain, or any of the Republicans to have gotten the boot.
May 8, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the image of Obama that I had too, but did you notice the photo that TPM has attached to this article, up at the top of the page? Obama looks absolutely ferocious. I can hear the roar right off the page.
May 9, 2009 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting. MJ has expressed what are my greatest hopes, while Dan has expressed my greatest fears. It's hard to know which way things will go. Dan's scenario is believable, given the history of our government's involvement in the I-P conflict. Quite frankly, given Obama's Jerusalem gaffe at AIPAC during the election - there had to be someone advising him to use the term "undivided," and shouldn't we suspect that whoever it was may have meant it? - there's reason to believe that he has at least one extremely "pro"-Israel person as an advisor. Rahm, maybe. OTOH, it really could have been no more than a gaffe. But as I understand it, AIPAC is already mobilizing, and Hoyer and Cantor are circulating a letter for Congress members to sigh, even as we speak, asking Obama to essentially defer to Israel in any peace negotiations and preserve the status quo.
J Street is circulating a petition that challenges the conservative forces that are trying to stifle change, here: http://action.jstreet.org/t/3251/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=583
Here's what the letter says:
*****************************
Hey there -
On Sunday night, Newt Gingrich delivered an ugly attack on President Obama's Middle East agenda at the annual AIPAC conference, recycling failed Bush-Cheney “Axis of Evil” ideas.
Then on Tuesday, Biden pressed for tough, principled diplomacy with Iran and argued that a two-state solution is in the essential interests of Israel and the United States.
I was one of nearly 15,000 people who stood up to side with Biden and Obama over Newt's recycled Bush / Cheney views by signing a petition with J Street, the new progressive, pro-Israel, pro-peace lobby. I hope you'll join me: JStreet.Org/Newt
We've got to make it absolutely clear to Congress and the media that the majority of our community stands with Obama and Biden's vision for America's role in the Middle East.
Thanks,
[Put your name here]
*********************************
(Forgive the goofy formatting - I just don't know HTML, and I'm sick of trying to fix things that the rich text editor used to do automatically.)
I so deeply want to believe with MJ that Obama genuinely intends to go in a new and different direction, one that will actually result in a real peace.
It strikes me that a successful Palestine, with a vibrant and healthy economy, is the greatest security guarantee that Israel could possibly wish for. The Palestinians will never accept Netanyahu's economic co-option as an alternative to an independent state.
May 8, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to believe Begin would have signed Camp David even if Carter had him in a sleeper hold. The '78 accords were in the best interest of the Israelis, they knew it; whether or not they were happy with all aspects of the result, it pacified their southern border. That year, Israel was surrounded by enemies and genuinely challenged by aggressive military action. (I don't think any nuclear power is "imperiled" by non-nuclear states, if worse comes to worst.)
Today, it's different. Israel's biggest challenges are long-range, piecemeal, demographic. The Israeli government doesn't have answers to these complex issues, so it chronically falls back on tried-and-true military remedies; that it periodically shells and terrorizes its neighbors to quiescence is proof of Israel's weakness, not its strength.
Netanyahu doesn't seem very smart, neither do many in his cabinet. For a guy with an MIT engineering degree, his first regime in the '90s was one blunder after another.
In the future, Israel must come to terms with its responsibilities as an operative state; it's days are over as a detached "realm" nursing the wounds of past catastrophe and tormented journey. It is a militantly purist anachronism in a world that has, simply, moved on. The fundamental necessity of Israel has changed, if not erroded entirely.
At its birth, 800,000 people were uprooted and thrown out; since then they have been relentlessly assailed and denied. That issue must be settled, without guns... too many have died already.
Somehow, I don't see Netanyahu as the man of this particular hour. Maybe the Israelis can play for time, as they have for the past three decades. String out talks, occasionally erupt, stall, endure. Or maybe something different. Netanyahu is the wild card for Obama. I see clash.
May 8, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, my first line should read, "It's hard to believe Begin would have been forced to sign Camp David..."
May 8, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why all the hand-wringing about Netamyahu admin saber rattling, MJ? Just to keep the rabble roused?
May 8, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is not the coming conflict between the American and Israeli Governments, the problem will be the conflict between between Israelis themselves and then between the Isreali and American people. What I mean by this is that the true test will come when settlers are moved by force, and Isrealis start killing Isrealis. History suggests that this will happen, and history also suggests that when that occurs, we give in to the extremists. When a right winger threw a hand grenade into a Peace Now march in 1983, the whole country pulled back and said, "Whoa, maybe we shouldn't push the peace issue so hard." When a right winger assassinated Rabin, Isrealis elected a right-wing candidate to replace him. In effect, they were handing the assassin a victory (I realize it is more complicated, then it was a close election, that the voting boycott by Israeli arabs played a crucial role, but still).
History suggests that if Obama wins his case, settlers will be moved by force, a few settlers and soldiers will die, the country as a whole and American Israel supporters will pull back in horror and say, "We have to think of another way." The extremists win.
Obama will have to prepare people for that and promise that we do not give into what is, in effect, blackmail on the part of extremists.
May 8, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. And while I have sympathy for Israel in having to deal with the settler cowboys, they are a sovereign state and they must take responsibility for their own citizens, and that is their problem, not ours.
We had the Civil War with half our country that didn't want to accept the authority of the national government. It was painful, but necessary, and we are better now.
Besides Israel's dealt with this on a smaller scale in the Sinai and in Gaza. It was ugly but necessary and they're fine now. My guess is that the silent majority of Israelis don't really like the settler cowboys and won't be sad to see them uprooted. The cowboys' advantage is that they are vocal, well-organized and willing to resort to violence. If Israel falters as you suggest they may, then the U.S. will have to prevail upon them by the force of our ideals (and our pocketbook and foreign military sales program). Sometimes friends have to tell friends when to say when.
May 8, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The settlers aren't cowboys that have moved into the West Bank in defiance of Israeli government wishes. Most of the settlements have been officially authorized by the Israeli government, and settlers have been encouraged by the Israeli government, through the use of benefits and financial incentives, to emigrate to the settlements.
We are never going to get any kind of sensible and realistic policy in this country so long as mythology reigns and the settlements continue to be viewed as some kind of anarchic accident or the work of rogue Israeli elements. The settlements are the result of an official and deliberate Israeli policy, supported since 1967 by governments representing all of the major political parties, to expropriate the land of the West Bank and colonize it.
Read here:
http://www.btselem.org/English/Settlements/
May 8, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I partially agree with you. Most of the settlements are authorized and incentivized by the Israeli government, but there's also some significant illegal construction and rogue elements at work.
There's also something to be said for Israel's idiotic parliamentiary system with no hurdles where any extreme element like Shas or YB can exert influence disproportionate to their electoral share, so much that they can make or break a government. Yes, they should fix it...just like we should fix the electoral college...easier said than done.
Still, Israel's policies aren't totally just or perfect, but far better than the Palestinians and Arabs at least. I'm really not interested in laying blame, it's academic, and there's plenty to go around. The point is, I hope Obama exerts strong pressure to get them out of the territories and to tear down the settlements and if they resist...well maybe they feel the settlements are more important than Apaches F-35s.
May 8, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No way.
All the settlements are allowed and abetted by the Israeli government, militarily protected, and even have roads built out to them by the Israeli government which the military then patrols to prevent anyone but Israelis from using.
None of the settlements could even get building materials out to them or stop from being overrun otherwise.
May 8, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately this is an accurate assessment of the situation. Even the outposts that are explicitly illegal under Israeli law are assisted by the state and the IDF. Just yesterday there was a clear example of this near Kiryat Arba:
http://acrosstheborderline.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/hill-26/
May 9, 2009 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent piece, and I hope it proves true.
The settler cowboys not only hurt Israel's security interests, but they also dishonor the noble intent of Israel's founders.
Hopefully Obama will inflict pain on Israel in the form of denied aid, arms, cover at the UNSC and other measures if Israel does not roll back the settlements and engage in a good faith peace effort with the Palestinians, Syria and the rest.
Israel should accept that whatever is best for the U.S., is by extension good for Israel. In this case, Israel-Palestinian peace and statehood, peace with Syria, and anything to isolate Iran and Hezbollah is good for the U.S. (and Israel).
Justice for the Palestinians and democratic security for the Israelis are 2 major goals and they are an ends in themselves and a means towards sidelining IRGC/Quds Iran and Samir Kuntar-worshipping Hezbollah--the greatest threats to future peace and stability in the Middle East.
May 8, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly the Obama Admin is going to make a serious attempt at resolution. This is a significant contrast to Cheney-Bush who could not manage to pretend to make a weak attempt.
The key question, however, is not who would win a "knock down, drag out" fight between Obama and Netanyahu, but will there even be a fight at all? Will, as Dan suggests, Obama&Co settle for token improvements and cave on the substantive issues: rooting out settler-terrorists from their deal-killing "outposts", adhering credibly to the unmistakeable position that terrorist acts will not be allowed to derail a push for a two-state deal, etc.?
"When a right winger assassinated Rabin, Isrealis elected a right-wing candidate to replace him."
Not just A right-wing candidate, Christov. THIS right-wing candidate!
Obama has principles where Netanyahu has none. He has a country dozens or hundreds of times stronger. He also has dozens of equally compelling if not more compelling issues competing for his attention.
Despite some optimistic signs, the outcome of all this remains quite unclear.
May 8, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strong stuff, M.J. Bravo.
The deal has been so obvious for so long -- I bet Obama might just be the guy to close it.
May 8, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOU just gotta be kidding! 308 million Americans being dictated to by a two-bit state of 6 million that thinks it's a world player even though it has no natural resources, it's non-self-supporting and totally dependent on US aid and handouts from the Jewish Diaspora, it boasts the world's most recalcitrant troublemakers, it's arrogant, it has an endemically corrupt political class, it's ethno-centric, it's contemptuous of international institutions including the UN, the EU, the Geneva Conventions and the World Court, it's one of the smallest states in the world being only 20,000 sq m - AND IT INTENDS TO DICTATE TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE MOST POWERFUL STATE IN THE WORLD! You are kidding me, right? They might have been able to talk rubbish to the baby Bush but that era of stupidity and crass incompetence has passed. It wouldn't even make a B film script now.
May 8, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're an angry man. I thought you were describing Iran (other than the Jewish part).
I love how ethno-centric is suddenly a bad thing. You mean like Great Britain which is greater than 90 percent white and Christian? I don't think there's anything wrong with that either, but Israel is a far more heterogenous country whether among only the Jews or the entire population.
And it's funny, people usually say the same thing about Britain, that it's nothing more than an American lackey...which is pretty ignorant, as it is to say it about Israel.
And natural resources are not a claim to greatness. Having gold or oil in your soil means nothing.
Also, I think the argument being made was that Obama was going to dictate terms, not be a pushover like Bush.
May 8, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Garry Owen: "And natural resources are not a claim to greatness. Having gold or oil in your soil means nothing."
So why do American presidents suck up to Saudi Arabia?
May 8, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you pretty much answered your own question there and I don't disagree with you about Saudi Arabia.
I was just trying to debunk this idea that Israel is worthless (cuz it has no oil) and is nothing more than a cancer on the U.S.
I think Armchair Guerilla put it pretty good actually.
May 8, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
COLINDALE periodically drops by to splash some vitriolic anti-Israel invective on the boards. Sometimes he posts them on his own blog where they are generally ignored. I believe he does claim to be of Jewish descent which he seems to think adds to his credibility or at least insulates him from the charge of antisemitism.
May 8, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The bold type does not make your comments any more readable. For such a piddling and insignificant state, Israel really does seem to arouse your deepest ire. I might wonder why this is so, but I have other things to worry about.
May 8, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a piddling state. But it is strong enough to brutualize my wife's family. When the Palestinians are liberated from the Zionists, then I will wish the Zionists well.
But not before.
May 8, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Palestinians wanted to liberate themselves from the Zionists (as you put it) they could have accomplished that long ago. It's quite apparent that "liberation" is not their goal.
May 9, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
How? By leaving quietly? Or by agreeing to live in whatever fragmented semi-state the Israelis might agree to give them? This isn't "liberation," it's submission.
May 9, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fantastic MJ - excellent analysis as always. One quick note: one of the comments rightfully noted that some settlements are gov't backed and others are just illegal. Seems easy to me: if they are illegal: tear them down and arrest the people who erected the settlement. Not difficult in concept. Might prove difficult for Bibi, who is slightly dumber than Sarah Palin!
May 8, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The settlements that are "government-backed" are every bit as illegal as the "unauthorized" ones. The artificial distinction is a red herring for Western consumption.
May 8, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I'd generally agree with that cuz the distinction between legal and illegal is in the eyes of the Israeli government. Regardless they're all a moral blight and they all need to go.
May 8, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it is a useful distinction because the "illegal" settlements should be the low-hanging fruit. If the government of Israel can't get it together enough to get rid of the settlements that every government on earth agrees are illegal, then that's a sign of trouble ahead.
May 8, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
They get rid of the "illegal" settlements all the time. They just make them "legal." Then they make them bigger. Look at the map--all those purple areas are settlements.
http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_west_bank_closure_map_a3_2008_09_11.pdf
I'll try to write in-depth about this over the weekend, but there's simply no way a two-state solution can happen anymore. The settlements are too large and too populous to be dismantled. And the remaining area left for the Palestinians too small and too infertile to allow for a viable state. It's over guys. Obama can't make a two-state solution happen any more than he make the sun rise in the west.
It's time to move on to one state--achieved by adopting real pluralistic, non-ethnic democracy or by ethnic cleansing. Take your pick. Two states is impossible.
May 8, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gasing the Kurds was legal under then-Iraqi law.
The "legal opinions" of the Israeli government and $2.71 will get you a quad expresso at Starbucks.
May 8, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure the Israelis are as far from the Obama administration as MJ posits, but all in all, I think this is a worthy analysis.
Plainly, the settlements are an obstacle to peace and the sooner the Israeli government confronts the problem (with whatever prodding the US administration has at its disposal) the better.
However, the post typically deals with only one obstacle - the settlements - while ignoring what I believe the more fundamental cause of the impasse: the unwillingness or inability of any Palestinian leader to accept any peace proposal that does not fully honor the "right of return" or all 1948 refugees and to accept any compromise over Jerusalem. Add to that Israel's legitimate security concerns over the creation of a state alongside it that contains a sizable armed population that does not accept its existence and is prepared to go to any extreme to prevent implementation of such an agreement regardless of the consequences to its own people, and the outlook is not as rosy as Rosie portrays.
If the settlements were the only problem, we could have had our peace long ago along the lines of what MJ (and I) would currently propose. Indeed, take a look at Bernard Avishai's recent post detailing Olmert's recent offer to Abbas. (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/04/olmerts_unprecedented_offer/)
The response of the moderate Abbas, echoing every Palestinian leader before him, was to categorically reject any offer that did not provide the full right of return for all 1948 refugees and their descendants. In other words, a rejection of the two-state solution.
So while I agree that Israel can and must deal with the settler problem of its own making, the notion that this will somehow magically lead to peace is both naive and dangerous.
May 8, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
AG,
Reply (quoting two lines from your comment) further downthread; somehow the reply box got unticked in the preview process.
May 8, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am so sick of hearing about what Israel wants. I am more interested in what the Middle East as a whole needs. And it isn't Israel.
May 8, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah! You can keep dreaming. They've been trying to get rid of Israel since '48 and last I checked they haven't been very successful.
But I'm sure you'd like to keep fighting the Palestinians wars for them from the comfort of your home office.
Arabs better realize that Israel won't go away without hell to pay. Israelis better realize that the Palestinians won't quit until they get a state. I hate to oversimplify, but I don't think a simpleton like you will comprehend it any other way.
May 8, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Crusader States lasted about 100 years.
May 8, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, but you're smarter than that. Shouldn't the Israelis be just as entitled to a homeland as the Palestinians? It's funny how there are 180 something or so states in the world and the only one whose right to exist is so persistently questioned is Israel's.
I'm not saying anyone has to like Israel, nobody even has to recognize it (they can keep doing what they've been doing since '48 and similar to the Cuban embargo that hasn't worked either), but I'd hope that even those who don't like Israel would grudgingly accept it a a minimum because the alternative is non-stop war or annihilation.
May 8, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is entitled to the preservation of its state since that state is a UN member, and its existence and legitimacy has been recognized by most of the world's other states. That's about the extent of it.
But I reject the ceaseless efforts of Israel's supporters to make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a dispute between two "nations" with airy and metaphysical "national rights" to the land of Palestine.
I don't think any people are collectively entitled to a "homeland". For me this conflict has always been about the individuals and families who were simply kicked off the land they and their families had occupied for centuries , land which commonsense and common law principles of fairness would say that they posessed.
Individuals and families are things I can understand, and wrap my little mind around. "Nations" and "peoples"? Not so much. It doesn't matter whether those people who were booted out of their farms, villages and towns are some "nation" - the Palestinian Nation - or are just a bunch of random folks who had their land stolen by uninvited colonialist intruders under the protection of a foreign imperial government in London. They latter kind of ripoff is ripoff enough.
May 8, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Dan. The very foundation of modern, pluralistic government is the idea that every individual has basic rights regardless of that individual's ethnicity, religion, race, etc. The idea that somehow a group--whether it is defined ethnically, religiously, or some other way--has rights that supersede those individual rights is pernicious in every way.
May 9, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Angry - Moi? Tell you what - when the inevitable reprisals come to my street, in my town, in my country, after Iran is attacked with US supplied aircraft, missiles and cluster bombs - I'll just try to remember your kindly, laid-back, words of wisdom - written no doubt from your reclining armchair.
BTW, on reflection, I suppose that could just be your street. But never mind - it's better to ignore scaremongering people who shout and scream of coming dangers. After all, what could they possibly know of war, in England?
Toodle-pip!
May 8, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that was eminently readable!
May 8, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
And not at all angry. Hats off.
May 8, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does "toodle pip" mean?
May 8, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It means F*** you, I imagine.
May 10, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure the Israelis are as far from the Obama administration as MJ posits
I am sure (that they are not.) Why not just say it? It's hyperbole for agitprop purposes.
It's a temporary situation, though, as all hinges on who gets elected June 12 in Iran, everything's on hold. With one result, Israelis and the Obama administration head further in opposite directions, with another result, they move closer together.
the notion that this will somehow magically lead to peace is both naive and dangerous
You can take this further, and I think a lot of passionate people on the "two state" topic could do well to do so. As I pointed out before, check out the results of the two-state "solution" as to Pakistan and India. There is no miracle fix to that level of hatred and history, folks simply expect too much out of changing borders.
You know, I think sometimes it is helpful to do the exercise of looking at this from the perspective of actually being an American Secretary of State, who is hearing about ruthless bloodshed and other horrors allover the world on a daily basis, in updates every morning, afternoon and evening. It makes it easier to see where one might not have the perspective of urgency that is pushed by lobbying interests of all sides on IP, unless U.S. strategic interests like the stability of the oil supply or a nuclear race in the region are seen as being immediately threatened.
Think waxing and waning over 100's of years, steps in the right direction, steps in the wrong direction, think Northern Ireland or Kosovo, you might "seize the day" if opportunity presents itself, otherwise, status quo is ok while you tend to other things. If it was simply about unfairness or oppression or horrible things going on, they would be giving equal time to Darfur right now. I certainly think IP is being giving a back seat to Afghanistan/Pakistan right now, and depending upon results of the Iranian elections, it could be even more "back seat."
Would two states really change everything? Even with them, segments of the population of each of the two neighbors will find other things to blame on each other and others within those states, like in Pakistan and India. My bets, from what I have seen the Obama administration do so far, is that they (and he in particular) see it that way, there's no miracle solution and one does not have to drop everything to jump everytime Israel and Palestine want attention--taking liberty with a line from Casablanca comes to mind: the problems of two little countries only amounting to a small hill of beans in this crazy world.
What would a change in borders really mean? There will still be too many Palestinians (with more being born every day, and many poor and uneducated) on a very small area of land, and Israelis who want certain pieces of that land back because of ideological or religious reasons..../rant :-)
May 8, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The cliche of the insoluable problem of the relentless enemy:
"What would a change in borders really mean? There will still be too many Palestinians (with more being born every day, and many poor and uneducated) on a very small area of land, and Israelis who want certain pieces of that land back because of ideological or religious reasons..../rant :-)"
And people say irony is dead.
May 8, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note to artappraiser:
Imagine the outrage if I, in homage to you, were to write, "What would a change in borders really mean? There will still be too many Jews (with more being born every day....."
And you wonder why Zionism is getting to be a harder sell to the open-minded?
May 8, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
you did not continue far enough to see the absurdity of his statement. allow me:
1st reading:
What would a change in borders really mean? There will still be too many Palestinians (with more being born every day, and many poor and uneducated)
2nd reading:
What would a change in borders really mean? There will still be too many Jews (with more being born every day, and many rich and wanting to control the world)
May 8, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who suggests that the two-state solution will result in world peace is naive. But I think without a doubt it will be an improvement, and a start. I can't imagine any Palestinian not wanting a real state (not the Netanyahu vision). India-Pakistan isn't ideal, but surely cold peace is better than settlements and intifada, no?
May 8, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Italics in my comment above are quotes from Armchair Guerilla's comment upthread, and not from Rosenberg's post; my comment was meant to post as a reply to AG's.
May 8, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA: Hyperbole for agitprop purposes is MJ's stock in trade. Given that as a starting point, I'd say this is a relatively sober piece.
Two states won't solve the conflict, but it's at least a start. Whether it's something either of the sides can live with is of course an open question. Sixty years of history says otherwise.
My sense of Obama's priorities is similar to yours. I do see a more concerted push on steps to minimize the violence and bring the parties closer together, but at least at this point with Iran hanging out there, I don't see him trying to shove an agreement down the parties' throats, particularly with the current Palestinian/Israeli leadership - if you could call it that.
May 9, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ says
"(For those too young to remember, pre-1967 Israel was not terrible at all. In fact, it was pretty wonderful. It is forty years of occupation that has been terrible.)"
Me:
I miss the days of Kafr Qasim and martial law for the Palestinian citizens of Israel. Those were the days. "Wonderful", not so much for the Palestinian citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafr_Qasim_massacre
May 8, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . the official Central Bureau of Statistics announced that territories under Israeli control are already 51 percent non-Jewish (5.6 million Jews vs. 5.8 million non-Jews).
Continuing the occupation means a significant Arab majority in a few years . . .
The final possibility . . . is the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Essentially, Israel would go back to being what it was before 1967--an overwhelmingly Jewish state.
When one reads statements like this, one gets a strong sense that the two-state solution isn't really about achieving justice, but simply about keeping the Palestinians out of Israel in order to maintain a Jewish majority. In fact, one gets the strong sense that the two-state solution is really just another form of ethnic cleansing--albeit a form less troubling to the consciences of certain people who like to think of themselves as progressives.
May 8, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I must say I find the almost hysterical focus of supporters of Israel--especially the "liberal" ones like MJ--on "demographics" creepy. In some ways, I respect the right-wing supporters of Israel more than the left-wing, because the right wingers aren't hypocrites. They know they are trying to get rid of the Palestinians and they make no bones about it. What they are doing is wrong, in my opinion, but at least they're honest. MJ and his ilk like to talk a progressive game, but really, once they start harping on "demographics" and giving statistics like MJ gave, you know that they are really just looking for a way to accomplish the same thing the right wing is trying to accomplish--ethnic cleansing--but to do so in a way that permits self-delusion so that their sensitive consciences aren't overly troubled by what, if they were real menschen, they would know is wrong and would stand against.
May 9, 2009 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Conceptually, this is all too narrow.
I would suggest that the "realist" -- best interests -- goals of the US and virtually all of Western Europe, and probably at the root, the Russians and Chinese, is "normalization" of Iran's international position. Normalization does not necessarily mean strengthening Iran, rather it means getting it sufficently engaged in the international system so its interests are served by standing by agreements, and following the normative rules. It means negotiation toward a workable power balance between Sunni and Shia forces and states -- a rough power balance that sets the ground rules for settlement of Iraqi and Afghanistan issues, places that Iran can and does profoundly influence.
I would suggest that Obama will have extremely limited tolerance for Bibi -- or infact any other Israeli representative, sitting opposite him in negotiations who proposes to give some sort of "deadline" for the evolution of an Iranian relationship, or indeed making precise demands regarding the outcome. And the Obama team will have even less tolerance for threats and talk about demands that if not met will result in Israel "blowing stuff up" and all.
As I see it, US and indeed Obama's interest involve creation of a workable international framework for the whole region that in the end keeps the US engaged as a principle player in shaping this framework, but the US is only one player -- the EU, Russia and China also have differing interests, and are key players, and the US leadership position in establishing a working framework rests not with Israel at all, but with the other outside players who all, in slightly different ways, share interests in formal normalization. Since Israel has not nurtured and developed strong alliance style relationships with parts of the EU -- with Russia and China, in fact any clear headed look at the situation would comprehend that Israel's interests really rest with the success of Obama and his team moving toward a normalizing framework that ultimately controls and diminishes the conflict points between the Sunni and Shia orientations in the region...in clear language provides for Iran to be one significant power pole in the future Middle East framework.
I suspect the EU, Russia and China will be following Obama's meetings with Netanyahu very closely. If he cannot both lead the various forces in the US Government (including Congress) in negotiations with Bibi, and fairly represent the general interests in a normalized Middle East framework, Obama will have lost his opportunity to reposition the US in a leadership role, and probably have lost any possibility for multinational negotiations with Iran. So huge stakes.
Obama has an interesting strategy -- bringing Egypt, the Palestians, and the Israeli's to DC at the same time, and combining private meetings at both State and the WH with joint events. His opening to Iran, his earlier meeting with Jordan's Abdullah, and his diplomatic missions to Syria, all background this several days event. It is a most interesting strategic contrast with either shuttle diplomacy or one on one meetings and negotiations -- or for that matter, Camp David's or ill prepared events such as Annapolis style meetings. I think the real question here is not so much "who wins?" but whether one or several of the parties will attempt to sabotage Obama's strategy.
May 8, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment, Sara (is more like what I was trying to get at in my comment in the "pretend you are Sec. State" thing.) I especially agree with you on the "all too narrow" part. Strikes me lately how most "fans" of talking I/P issues on the internet are stuck in a "Zionists & AIPAC vs. Palestinians" box that Obama has left behind (given his background, he may never have partaken of the box in the first place.) I myself get the very strong impression that the future of Iran is the president's priority and that I/P is seen as subsidiary, and not the other way around.
May 8, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I should have said "great comment as usual." I really look forward to your rare comments on this site, they never disappoint.
May 8, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK I get it. You don't dig reality, you prefer polite words, sanitized sentences and nothing that will upset the folks ... I can understand that. It's easier to handle and makes reading the thread enjoyable. Bounce an idea here, throw out a suggestion there, discuss the philosophical meaning of the atrocity in Shatila whilst Sharon slept. That sort of gentle argument.
My focus is on brutal reality. Women and children dead and dying. Blood. Bullets. Bombs. Tanks. Smoke. The ear-shattering noise of explosions as the missile strikes and the house is destroyed and the family killed. The screaming and the terror of burning to death by shards of white phosphorus. The smiles of the tank crew and the missile pilots safe in their steel envelopes. The vomiting and the despair as loved ones are killed without mercy or reason. The pain and the agony of blown-off limbs and the unspeakable terror in the eyes of the innocent victims. The morning after amid the rubble. The lives cut off. The graves. The nothingness but the burning hatred of those who brought death and destruction. The knowing that God whoever he may be has forsaken them. The urge for revenge that rises in the throat. And the utter futility of it. The knowledge that there will of course be a Palestinian state - though maybe Sharon and Olmert and Barak and Netanyahu may have gone by then to join Arafat. In the meantime there are broken bodies to bind up and traumatized minds to heal - if ever. But we don't want to talk of blood and death and terror when we can indulge in the satisfying pastime of gentle discussion ... or what the First Ladies will be wearing or how Netanyahu will come and conquer America.
May 8, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take it easy there Sam Kinison.
Sabra and Shatila were war crimes, I have no problem acknowledging that. Israel is guilty too, I don't think the great majority of Palestinians have any problem acknowledging that.
But your good-bad dichotomy is quite naive. You make it sound like Hamas doesn't target old people at a seder, young people eating pizza in Tel Aviv (undisputed Israel proper to the civilized world), Hamas and Hezbollah don't rain down rockets indiscriminately on populated areas. And Samir Kuntar and Farfour aren't the creations of that altruistic, peaceloving side. Oh yeah, and Hamas doesn't hide among and fire weapons from the homes, schools and hospitals of slaughtered Palestinian innocents.
If the Palestinians have the right to resist violently, certainly the Israelis have the right to defend themselves. And that's what happens when you resort to violence-you should be prepared for its consequences.
May 8, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Oh yeah, and Hamas doesn't hide among and fire weapons from the homes..."
Garry - I assume you know that the IDF's urban warfare doctrine requires soldiers to seize strategically located Palestinian homes, herd the residents into one room, and then have snipers positioned in the upper floor windows to take out any Palestinian fighters within their field of vision.
Whether it's Hamas, the IDF or the US Army, they all use the same urban warfare tactic. WWI was the end of armies facing each other over open ground and making suicidal charges at each other.
What upsets the IDF about the tactic of insurgents/terrorists in occupying and fighting from civilian homes is that Israel cannot use it's superior firepower to neutralize the situation by blowing up the house with artillary or tanks because of the collateral innocent deaths. What upsets Hamas about the IDF using the same tactic is they have NO weapons which could be used to neutralize the situation by blowing up the house, with or without civilian casualties.
The red herring charge about Hamas hiding behind civilians is only for the naive to swallow. Sure it is terrifying for the IDF to enter urban Gaza not knowing which building the enemy is going to shoot from. It's just as terrifying for the other side when a 2000lb bomb is dropped from 40,000 feet and everything and everyone on the ground is obliterated. In the former situation, any civilian casualties are called a "dirty tactic" of Hamas. In the latter situation, any casualties are just called collateral damage.
As my IDF nephews can testify, there is no morality in war - just might with winners and losers.
May 8, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not going to hold my breath. Obama officials are not the first to try to lobby for a two-state solution. Hey, even Dubya publicly supported it early in his presidency. Perhaps it is because I was jolted by Walt and Mearsheimer's book, but the power and influence of the lobby are staggering. The words are nice, but I am waiting for the public actions.
May 8, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE:"Obama vs. Netanyahu: Who Wins?"
MY COMMENT: A thoughtful analysis. I hope that Mr. Rosenberg is correct.
May 8, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's apparent the Jews and Arabs need some fatherly guidance.
Time for the Sixteenth Benedict to preach a Crusade. Although there being no Christians left in Europe, whether anyone would heed the call must be open to doubt.
Next year Jews and Arabs out of Jerusalem!
May 8, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if that's the case, the eagle has already landed in Amman. It's on to storm the gates next week, and apparently Peres plans to give him a supposed nanotechno Old Testament. Which is just perfect fodder for conspiracists, a nice mix of James Bond and "DaVinci code;" as the AFP article sez The 86-year-old president is a known enthusiast of nanotechnolgy, which he has branded as the a key to solving the Jewish state's security woes.
May 8, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew it!
The Pope's on a LRS -- craftily hiding in plain sight.
May 9, 2009 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
eh, fuggedaboutit, it's going to be a sorry- ass crusade, with few knights assisting:
May 9, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Ellen, what a great idea! LOL!
May 9, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink