David Grossman's Appeal
The Israeli writer David Grossman's reaction in Ha'aretz last Wednesday to Netanyahu's awful speech has now been translated, if a bit awkwardly. It's drenched in despair. The Israelis, Grossman writes, want to bunker down for the duration, and Bibi obliged their moral cowardice with his own:
If we turn from the skilled orator to his audience, we will see how passionately it barricades itself behind its anxieties, and we will feel the sweet stupor from pulsating nationalism, militarism and victimhood, which were the heartbeat of the entire speech.
He slams the prevailing Palestinian reaction, too. The whole piece is worth reading, but the last graf deserves the most particular attention:
Netanyahu's speech, which should have aspired to the new global spirit that U.S. President Barack Obama has generated, tells us between its contorted lines that there will be no peace here if it is not forced upon us. It is not easy to admit it, but it seems increasingly that this is the choice Israelis and Palestinians face: a just and secure peace - forced on the parties through firm international involvement, led by the United States - or war, possibly more difficult and bitter than those that came before it.
In other words, the ball's in the American court. It's long past time for the US to bang heads.
Tony Judt's impressive op-ed in yesterday's NYT concurs:
President Obama faces a choice. He can play along with the Israelis, pretending to believe their promises of good intentions....Such a pretense would buy him time and favor with Congress. But the Israelis would be playing him for a fool, and he would be seen as one in the Mideast and beyond. Alternatively, the president could break with two decades of American compliance, acknowledge publicly that the emperor is indeed naked, dismiss Mr. Netanyahu for the cynic he is and remind Israelis that all their settlements are hostage to American goodwill. He could also remind Israelis that the illegal communities have nothing to do with Israel's defense, much less its founding ideals of agrarian self-sufficiency and Jewish autonomy. They are nothing but a colonial takeover that the United States has no business subsidizing.
I'm not prepared to go all the way to Tony Judt's other conclusion, that "there is no realistic prospect of removing Israel's settlements"--on the grounds that (a) they're huge, (b) they carry the cultural cachet of Israel's self-image as a pioneering society, and (c) they're overrepresented in Israel's ramshackle government. It seems to me, rather, that if there's no dismantling of settlements, there's no deal, no two states--ever. If Judt is right that the concrete settlement facts are on the ground to stay, there's nothing but despair and disaster ahead.
"...In other words, the ball's in the American court. It's long past time for the US to bang heads..."
Something needs to be done. Netanyahu has just given Obama the middle finger:
So, where does our Democratic Congress and Harry Reid stand on this? What did the House and Senate Jewish Caucus have to say to Lieberman last week? Are they going to back the President of the United States or Israel?
June 23, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our president can't even speak strongly in support of a public option for health care, and is willing to make major concessions to the health care lobbyists despite having the support of 75+% of Americans for a public option.
Watch him back off his demand for a halt of settlements, and agree that they should merely be part of ongoing "negotiations" that will be designed to go nowhere.
Israel had an obligation under the b.s. "Roadmap" to stop all settlement activity.
And where have anti-settlement protests been held in America by Jews for the past 30 years?
Where are they now? Where is the fight for control of AIPAC and ADL?
June 23, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll say this situation merits despair. It drives one to despair that the most basic aspects of this conflict need to be repeated again and again.
-Peace will not be had by "forcing" Israel to give up land.
-Israeli security concerns are not just the product of a fevered imagination. 80+ years of Arab and Palestinian savagery and terrorism indicate otherwise.
-Israelis will not evacuate settlements without the prospect of a true end to the conflict.
Most importantly - and perhaps most controversially to the left-leaning - the status quo, while certainly not ideal by anyone's standards, is actually pretty livable for most Israelis. And if it doesn't change for the next few decades, which is by far the most likely scenario, the odds are overwhelming that Israel will remain a prosperous, reasonably stable place. This is not a reason for complacency, but it does help explain why there is such a wide gap between the apocalyptic pronouncements of left-wing commentators and the reality of most Israelis' lives.
June 23, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...the most basic aspects of this conflict... is that the Settlements are Illegal.
Security is a separate matter which has been discussed many times. International forces can field initial security problems.
Plus, Israel has weapons up the ying yang whereby the 'security issue' is really moot. You need to give back to the Palestinians their dignity and land -- that's your security.
June 23, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel had had overwhelming advantages in weaponry for decades, but it has not prevented hundreds of Israelis from being killed or injured in Palestinian terrorist incidents. As the old cliche has it, terrorism is the weapon of the weak. But it is still intolerable.
The debate about Israel's presence in the West Bank tends to revolve around the fanatic ideological settlers. As secularists, we rightly condemn these nutjobs. But if it were just the nutjobs at issue, this would likely be somewhat easier to solve. The fact is that the occupation enables Israel to prevent terrorism. You can certainly argue that the occupation also creates the circumstances for terrorism but increasing the oppression of the Palestinians. That's probably true. But it does not follow that removing the occupation will remove the reasons for the terrorism. Every shred of evidence, from the existence of terrorism before the occupation began, to the experience of the Lebanon and Gaza wihtdrawals, indicates that occupation and terrorism are only loosely linked. It is overwhelmingly likely that if Israel were to leave the West Bank tomorrow, the threat from terrorism would not subside substantially.
Israel is in a predicament - partly of its own making, to be sure - where it can't withdraw unilaterally and it can't count on the Palestinian Authority to enforce a peace treaty. There are no good options and that is why the status quo, while hardly ideal, will likely continue.
June 23, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Been through this...
Brad: "...The fact is that the occupation enables Israel to prevent terrorism...". Well, I think the secret is well and truly out now -- the occupation was all selling to the Jewish diaspora to come and populate a 'Greater Israel' -- always has been. And the 'secularists' knew about it, funded it, and were complicit.
The settlements are illegal. Israel has always been stealing land, and continues to steal land -- that's why Israel is being attacked. Also, Israel never left Gaza so that excuse can't be used.
Again, if you left the West Bank -- the international community would help Israel and Palestine to keep the peace. Occupations don't work out well long-term.
June 23, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The two state settlement died with Arafat. There is no Palestinian leader capable of delivering an agreement, nor is the Israeli leadership the slightest bit interested in making an offer.
The two state solution is no more than a way to allow US Jews to feel good about continuing to support Israel.
Its not the terrorism that is the threat to Israel, its the demographics. The West cannot support a state that treats non-Jews as second class citizens. And that is precisely what Bibi's 'Jewish state' means.
Since Israel has no intention of giving up the land it has absolutely no choice but to take the people who go along with that land. And if that means the end of the Jewish status of the state, well they should have thought of that earlier.
Let us imagine for a minute that Iran's theocratic system does collapse and is replaced by a modern democratic state. What is going to make the more attractive partner for the US, Israel with no oil and an obnoxious apartheid system or Iran? It is really no accident that so many Israel hawks are clearly hoping that the reform movement fails.
June 23, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying that--even if Israel were to agree to a two-state solution--it would have no partner for peace on the Palestinian side? Your first paragraph sounds like that.
June 24, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad - Why is it that in your world view only the Israeli lives count. If Israelis are prosperous and safe, it doesn't matter to you how miserable life for the Palestinians is in order to make that happen. Are Palestinians not equal human beings in your eyes?
I'm not trying to be snarky with this question, I am truly trying to understand your perspective. To protect themselves are the Israelis allowed to do anything they want to Palestinians? Right now, both Gaza and the West Bank are multiple open air prisons. Is this what our faith has taught us?
While we are members of the Jewish tribe, I cannot condone what our people are doing. Maybe I am losing my tribal instincts but the thought of one people making their lives better at the expense of another people makes me ill. Remember when it was done to us, we were not very happy with it. The people in the town where my Grandfather lived in 1943, took every penny and possession he spent his life achieving - his land, his house, his store, his dignity. Why do we feel the right to do this to someone else, namely the Palestinians?
June 23, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're misunderstanding my position. I am not saying Palestinians don't have any rights. I'm not saying Israel has the right to treat them any way they want. There are human rights norms that all countries must follow.
My point was about the prospects for peace, not about Palestinian human rights. I just don't believe that the occupation of Palestinian land is the key to peace. Removing the occupation may have its own intrinsic merit. But no one should think that peace will break out as soon as it happens.
I believe the key is to aim for stability, not peace. I also believe that the biggest issue is the undefined border, not the occupation per se. The international community would do well to seek to define the international border, not be fixated on removing settlements.
June 23, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if we define the border, then everything not within the border is not in Israel, but somewhere else. Yes?
June 23, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
A few things...
"But it does not follow that removing the occupation will remove the reasons for the terrorism.
Tintin: This is true to some degree. Some folks just don't like Israel and want to go back to 1948. They won't be satisfied; but others will. And I think it's easy to argue that the latter are more numerous than the former especially if they really see the prospects for living a normal, peaceful life.
Every shred of evidence, from the existence of terrorism before the occupation began, to the experience of the Lebanon and Gaza wihtdrawals, indicates that occupation and terrorism are only loosely linked.
Tintin: Historical evidence is tricky. First, what applied then doesn't necessarily apply today. Why? Because we've passed through a period of history that often changes peoples' minds. It's ridiculous to think that if we go back to 1967 borders we are going back to 1967 mindsets. You don't live in a 1967; why do you think other people do. For one thing, we have Fattah's 1988 recognition of Israel. We have the Saudi Plan. Whatever you think of these things, they were not around in 1967 before the occupation. Second, the withdrawal from Gaza has been soundly criticized, including by folks in the know, for not having been a negotiated withdrawal. Just leaving leaves a power vacuum. Now, it's perfectly true the Palestinians could have done much more with this opportunity. But the Israelis didn't put in a good faith effort--didn't do all they could be reasonably expected to do--to make it work, either. Prisoners who don't get some basic support post-prison often backslide. Not a perfect analogy...but it just makes no sense to pick up and leave and not hand it off to someone in charge. There are no absolutes in these things--do x and get y--but there are good guesses and wise thinking, and it's incumbent on all of us to do that.
It is overwhelmingly likely that if Israel were to leave the West Bank tomorrow, the threat from terrorism would not subside substantially."
Tintin: If Israel negotiated borders and a peaceful transfer of land to a sovereign Palestine, then the ball would be in their court to crack down on terrorism. Terrorism isn't like water, so they can't be expected to turn it off that way. But as long as the flow is slowly steadily and substantially, then that should be fine. But if it doesn't, then I think we're in a whole new ball game and the world recognizes that and the pressure will go the other way. But bottom line, Israel doesn't know if it doesn't try.
June 23, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then let the Israelis live with this "livable" situation without US support. They need us far, far more than we will ever need them.
June 23, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel -- Our Ally in the Middle East!
Since when does the most powerful nation the world has ever seen need an "ally" in a little backwater that can barely tie its own shoes?
June 23, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you're arguing for the "go it alone" approach.
Are you a GWB administration "orphan" Ellen, looking for work?
June 24, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad...if, in fact, Israel becomes an apartheid state, it will become easier for the rest of the world, including, eventually the US, to boycott her. How easy will that be to live with?
Surely the loss of aid will follow. How easy will it be for Israel to live without any of that? Might it not embolden her enemies to attack after a while and all that weaponry has rusted a bit?
Moreover, what will it do to the national psyche to be living in a country where more than half of its occupants don't get equal rights and fair treatment?
Things may be okay "for now," but how long does that last? Zionism is supposed to be built on a certain farsightedness, at least as far as the Jewish people's future is concerned. How farsighted is this?
June 23, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "the sweet stupor from pulsating nationalism, militarism and victimhood"
MY COMMENT: WOW!
June 23, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
here will be no peace here if it is not forced upon us. It is not easy to admit it, but it seems increasingly that this is the choice Israelis and Palestinians face: a just and secure peace - forced on the parties through firm international involvement, led by the United States - or war, possibly more difficult and bitter than those that came before it
Slowly, ever so slowly, the realization gradually dawns - even among conservative Jews in NY and CA - that Israel's government has no intention whatsoever to collaborate in the establishment of an autonomous Palestinian state. Ever.
Netanyahu is a relic of another age, when Zionism was a magnet for Jewish youth around the world, imbued with good intentions and idealism for a better world - for themselves and all others who had suffered during a devastating world war. That was over 60 years ago before Netanyahu was born and Zionism was a movement of which to be proud.
The answer now must be for the US to stop all aid and trade without further delay. Take the Israeli government by the neck and bring it back into the community of nations and let the Middle East and the world progress. Political Zionism is as dead as Communism.
June 23, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
One part of Grossman's piece that the "Israel wrong or abominable" crowd seems to gloss over:
Yes, settlement activity must stop and Israel must confront the reality that the settlers (or at least the 30% who are not straddling the "Green Line) will have to go.
But the question I've been asking is, what is the Palestinian peace proposal other than an end to Israel as we know it? Is there such a thing?
June 23, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't answer your question precisely. Fatah has recognized Israel since 1988 within boundaries roughly approximately 1967, I guess with land swaps. Then there is Hamas, whose position seems to approximate your formulation. They have proposed a long hudna, but that is less than satisfactory (IMO).
However, were Israel to implement via negotiations with the PA a boundary roughly at the 1967 borders, then the Palestinians' true intentions would become apparent: Either they'd conform or they wouldn't. If they did, well and good. If they didn't, then I think the world would consider the conflict resolved, and Israel could deal with the Palestinians along strictly military lines.
Is there some risk in this? Yes. Is there some risk in holding on to the status quo? Yes. But doing nothing does nothing to resolve the conflict. Doing something real and concrete does. I'm not trying to play G-d with anyone else's lives; simply giving my opinion about what feels like the right way forward--morally and pragmatically.
June 23, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
AG - The Geneva and Taba plans are the Palestinian response to Israeli offers. Both were worked out with Israeli concerns taken into consideration. Read those plans and you can see what a MUTUALLY acceptable peace plan looks like. While Geneva was not official, the players who put it together were knowledgeable officials (past and present) of both sides. Barak walked away from Taba because of the Infitada and upcoming elections.
June 23, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If Judt is right that the concrete settlement facts are on the ground to stay, there's nothing but despair and disaster ahead."
Welcome to reality, Todd. The two-state solution is deader than a doornail -- thanks in large part to the likes of Netanyahu (with a huge assist from generations of invertebrate American politicians).
The only question now is what the ultimate one-state solution is going to look like -- apartheid South Africa, 1970s Lebanon or (least likely) a democratic secular state. And, of course, how many more children will need to be slaughtered to get there.
My question: If Israel/Palestine is supposed to be the Holy Land, why does God hate it so much?
June 23, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some have so much confidence in their own prognosticatory wisdom that they can blame Israel for things that are yet to happen!
My predictions: Ariel and Gush Etzion aren't going anywhere, and the coming two-state solution will include them on the Israeli side of the international border. Most of the rest of the settlements (I should say: Jewish resettlement of Eretz Yisrael) will be dismantled, just as those in Gaza were. Displaced settlers may wave the bloody shirt for a generation or two, but once Israelis can stop worrying about Palestinians trying to kill their children, hostility like Avigdor Lieberman's towards Arab Israelis will get even less traction than now.
Life in Israel in peace is easy to imagine, but I have no idea what the Palestinian national project will look like when it ceases to be contention with Israel and shifts to something positive in its own right. I hope we will enjoy the pleasant surprise of a Palestinian renaissance -- but if the Palestinians would rather continue to excuse their national failings by blaming the Israelis, I expect some TPM commenters will be eager to continue to excuse and enable them.
June 23, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Some have so much confidence in their own prognosticatory wisdom that they can blame Israel for things that are yet to happen!"
I haven't read everything here, but surely Brad is as guilty of "prognostication" as anyone--blaming the Palestinians for things that haven't happened yet, either.
June 23, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of windows server 2008 hyper v, iscsi windows 2000
March 28, 2011 9:37 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 high availability solutions
April 28, 2011 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink