« Ha'aretz Columnist: Life In Israel Is One Big Party | Home | GAO: VA Failing to Serve Women Warriors »
US To Israel: Stop Building In East Jerusalem Now, Bibi Flatout Refuses
The pressure builds.
The New York Times reports that the administration is telling the Israeli government to stop constructing a settlement in East Jerusalem, funded by right-wing American Irving Moskowitz.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has already said "no."
Here is Ha'aretz on this impressive move by the administration.
And the story of Moskowitz and how he pays for his projects in Israel.
Plus: a call from COMMENTARY (the voice of the neocons) for American Jews to abandon President Obama in solidarity with those illegal settlements Secret from MJ to Commentary: It ain't gonna happen because, get ready, American Jews are...Americans.
Advertisement
Thanks (as usual) for this, MJ.
The fact that the Israeli Ambassador to U.S. immediately replied "Overreach THIS!" to the rebuke shows that the Netanyahu government has planned its moves well ahead. If Obama does X, they already know they will do Y. If he does X1, they will do Y1. I hope our guys are ready for this. It's not going to be an easy ride.
July 19, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how this is going to play out?
How will AIPAC organize to destroy Obama?
What weak point will they discover to break him down?
What I don't see them doing is bending their stiff necks.
The personal power of the individual men and women that make up AIPAC, in dozens of areas that have nothing to do with Israel, will be deflated if they don't prove to Obama, and everybody else, that they are stronger than he is.
This is the "Gunfight at OK Corral".
Certainly if Obama goes this far, touching Jerusalem, and then backs down, he is toast.
Because if the President of the United States puts the prestige of his office on one side of the scale and the the lobby of a foreign power on the other side of the scale and the lobby wins, then the USA with all its power is proven to be nothing more than a glorified Golem or a Shabbas goy and everybody, friend and foe, will despise him... That is why no president since Eisenhower has had the nads to try anything this.
If Obama doesn't climb down, if he can convince Congress to, for example, suspend aid to Israel till it complies with US demands, than it will be like air leaving a balloon, like sunshine for Dracula, ding, dong the witch is dead.
Frankly, I think that AIPAC will find some way of letting the air out of Obama's balloon.
I much hope that by Obama tilting at Middle Eastern windmills, the American people end up without, for example, health care... I don't think anybody in the Middle East is worth that much to the American people.
July 19, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect -- I think the American people should be just as concerned about their foreign policy and national security interests being dictated by a foreign lobby group such as AIPAC, as they should about their health care being dictated by a group of domestic corporatist lobbyists.
I think the spotlight should be on the corruption of Congress, and not to have the burden of responsibility piled on Obama.
July 19, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The stakes are this high: "Certainly if Obama goes this far, touching Jerusalem, and then backs down, he is toast."
What is Obama going to do? Back down? And then start demanding Arabs normalize with Israel? He would be worse than toast. He would become an object of ridicule. Our very own Mahmoud Abbas.
July 19, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll believe Obama is serious when he freezes $2.2 billion in aid (this year) and prohibits exporting weapons to Israel.
July 19, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel needs to tell the U.S. and the world that it has every right to keep the territories. (This does not mean that in the context of a final settlement Israel should not give up land, only that it should be clear that Israel has a right to the land.) Especially in Jerusalem, which will remain under Israeli sovereignty, Israel must settle Jews in as many homes as possible.
I only hope that Bibi does stand up to American pressure and explains that Israel is a sovereign country that will make its internal decisions free of foreign influence. As for American aid, I would like to see Israel reject this aid.
Avi Goldstein
July 19, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Avi.
Since American "aid", both the public and the under-the-radar versions, is overwhelmingly military, there's not a bloody chance in hell that Israel would reject it.
The Generals-of-the-IDF would disembowel any Israeli in a leaderhip position who would dare to suggest such an option and some American politicians would be handing 'em the shivs.
July 19, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"every right"?
How do you figure? Brute force I suppose is what you think gives Israel the "right" to the occupied territories? Outside of Israel, last I looked there wasn't one other country on earth that recognizes that Israel has any such "right". FYI---the age of imperialism and colonialism is over and done with. Ya just don't get to pull that shit no more.
July 19, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually nobody much cares what Bibi says. Our concern is what Obama says. And does.
July 19, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
avigold says;
Maybe Obama should stand up to Israeli (AIPAC) pressure and explain that America is a sovereign country that will make its internal decisions free from foreign influence?
July 20, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Ha'aretz article reports:
"Netanyahu told ministers at the weekly cabinet meeting that Jerusalem is the united capital of Israel and that all citizens are allowed to purchase property in any part of the city they choose."
What about this? Is there, or is there not, any historical or treaty basis for treating East Jerusalem as a separate issue from the west bank settlements?
July 19, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
let's just hope that obama does not have any skeletons in his closet. these skeletons will first be privately hinted at to obama and if the continues turning up the heat on israel, they will come out dancing on the main stage.
July 19, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Oleeb: Putting aside your use of a curse word, I don't know what "brute force" you are referencing. Israel took the territories in a defensive war in 1967. It begged Jordan, which had occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in 1948, not to enter the war, but Jordan ignored Israel's pleas.
Territory taken in a defensive war does not need to be "returned." Moreover, Israel, as the Jewish state founded upon the historic land of the Jewish people, is not required for any legal or moral reasons to give up these lands. There is no imperialism here and no colonialism, just the return of the Jews to their home.
Despite the above, Israel has made repeated offers of land for peace, in accordance with UN Security Council Res. 212, the accepted basis for negotiations. These offers are routinely rejected by the Arab parties.
One thing almost all Israelis agree upon is that Jerusalem will remain Israel's united capital. Therefore, Israel should make every effort to build homes for its citizens there.
Lally, I don't know if Israel would actually offer to give up military aid from the U.S., but I doubt the U.S. would accept the offer; it needs a reliable ally in the region, and Israel is the only one.
All the best, Avi
July 19, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "Moreover, Israel, as the Jewish state founded upon the historic land of the Jewish people..."
SEE: "Ancient Israeli Myths Deter Peace", By Robert Parry, 07/09/09
(EXCERPT) The rationale for formally designating Israel a Jewish state – as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now demands – rests on three religious-political pillars: God’s purported covenant with Moses instructing the ancient Israelites to conquer the land, the injustice of the Roman-era Diaspora that supposedly removed them centuries later, and the brutal persecution of European Jews in the Holocaust.
Yet, two of these pillars – Moses conveying God’s covenant to the Israelites and the Roman Diaspora – appear based on almost no historical reality, the stuff of legend and possibly even lies that crumble under any serious scrutiny.
Normally, such ancient stories might be regarded as harmless tales that some people treasure as part of their Judeo-Christian faiths, except that Netanyahu’s new demand means that these myths now threaten peace in the Middle East and conceivably could push the modern world into more bloody warfare. Therefore, they must be given fresh examination....
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/070809.html
July 19, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
SEE ALSO - "Zionist nationalist myth of enforced exile: Israel deliberately forgets its history", by Schlomo Sand, professor of history at Tel Aviv university
An Israeli historian suggests the diaspora was the consequence, not of the expulsion of the Hebrews from Palestine, but of proselytising across north Africa, southern Europe and the Middle East
(EXCERPT)...But during the 1980s an earthquake shook these founding myths. The discoveries made by the “new archaeology” discredited a great exodus in the 13th century BC. Moses could not have led the Hebrews out of Egypt into the Promised Land, for the good reason that the latter was Egyptian territory at the time. And there is no trace of either a slave revolt against the pharaonic empire or of a sudden conquest of Canaan by outsiders.
Nor is there any trace or memory of the magnificent kingdom of David and Solomon. Recent discoveries point to the existence, at the time, of two small kingdoms: Israel, the more powerful, and Judah, the future Judea. The general population of Judah did not go into 6th century BC exile: only its political and intellectual elite were forced to settle in Babylon. This decisive encounter with Persian religion gave birth to Jewish monotheism.
Then there is the question of the exile of 70 AD. There has been no real research into this turning point in Jewish history, the cause of the diaspora. And for a simple reason: the Romans never exiled any nation from anywhere on the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. Apart from enslaved prisoners, the population of Judea continued to live on their lands, even after the destruction of the second temple. Some converted to Christianity in the 4th century, while the majority embraced Islam during the 7th century Arab conquest...
July 19, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see, maybe it's just brute force that keeps the OCCUPIED territories occupied? Maybe.
I guess all those guys from the IDF are just gardening over there in the occupied territories right? It amazes me that anyone would even attempt such a weak argument and be so obviously disingenuous about what is going on over there.
Israel has no "right" to the occupied territories except the rights asserted by a conqueror or an imperial army. Such a claim asserted as a "right" is made good only by brute force and that is why it is not recognized by any legal authority anywhere outside Israel. Israel has no legitimate claim at all to the occupied territories and that is the whole point of the US government finally telling them to stop colonizing those territories which is the biggest favor we could do for Israel. The colonies don't help anything and they make Israel less secure, not more so. The colonization of the territories threatens not just the peace and security of Israel but the entire region and possibly the world. It has to be put to a stop.
July 19, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, according to international law (as opposed to meaningless statements from the UN General Assembly and Article 6 resolutions from the Sec. Council that are not legally binding), Israel has as much claim to WB as anyone else. The WB was never part of any country. It is simply the unallocated portion of the original Palestine Mandate, and as such its status is subject to negotiation.
July 20, 2009 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Balderdash! Pure self-justifying balderdash.
July 20, 2009 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your reasoning regarding the '67 War is worthy of the most slippery, subtly reasoning Jesuit (and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?). What's Yiddish for 'Jesuitical?'
There's nothing in the UN Charter about keeping land from a defensive war. And Israel's legal charter for nationhood was granted by a UN resolution, not something on some stone tablets.
July 20, 2009 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
To Carey,
You are correct; there is really no difference between Jerusalem and the rest of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). Jews should be free to live anywhere in these areas. The differences are not in rights but in practicality. Most Israelis, although recognizing Israel's right to the territories, are willing to give up substantial portions in exchange for true peace (the emphasis is on "true"). But very few would be willing to give up Jerusalem. This is why Israel, based on its priorities, not the priorities of the Obama administration, needs to proceed carefully with settlement building outside the Jerusalem ring and corridor.
July 19, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Gates will be discussing the latest request for military aid with the Israelis. This should be an opportunity for Obama to instruct him to say that we are in the process of reconsidering. It would not have to be public. Maybe Geitner could ask some of his wall street buddies in the bond markets how he should go about rescinding US guarentees on Israeli bonds. Very privately of course.
Obama has to do something, this is such blatant defiance that it cannot go without a response.
July 19, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
To syvanen:
I am unsure what you mean by "defiance." Israel is not America's lackey; it is a sovereign state that has the right to make its own decisions.
Israel receives U.S. aid for a number of reasons, but these reasons are not dependent uponn Israel obeying whoever happens to be in the White House at a particular moment.
If you would like to punish countries that don't listen to the U.S., let's start with Egypt, the second largest recipient in the region. It oppresses its people, stifles dissent, is not open to democracy, and tolerates the smuggling of terrorists and weapons into Sinai.
July 19, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as we are paying her an allowance, then we have some skin in the game. And yes defiance is a good word, like when a teenager defies her parents and is thereby punished. I saw above thay you think Israel should stop being on the dole. I agree with you. Then Israel can do as she wishes and will not have to listen to anybody in the whole world.
I have a certain sympathy for the Palestinians but believe it is up to Israel and the Palestinians to sort it out, as long as the US isn't bankrolling the Israelis.
July 19, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "Egypt, the second largest recipient in the region"
MY COMMENT: This aid is given to Egypt for the benefit of Israel (certainly not the Egyptian people).
July 19, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What kind of stuff are you smoking?
Israel is a client state of the US and would not be able to survive without US backing of all sorts above and beyond the several billion dollars we dole out to Israel annually. This has been true since Nixon saved Israel. It is true we have a "partnership" as they say, with Israel, but it seems somebody over in Israel misunderstands who is the managing partner and who is the junior partner. The one on the dole doesn't get to call the shots.
July 19, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel receives about $2 billion in aid from the US. Almost all of that aid has to be used to buy US weapons systems, i.e. it is a US government subsidy for the US defense industry. Israel's GDP is around $120 billion per year. So $2 billion is not a very large percentage. Israel could live without that aid very easily. Moreover, the aid actually hinders Israel (go learn about the Lavi and why it was canceled).
Nixon did not "save" Israel. By the time US aid arrived in Israel in 1973, the Egyptian army was in retreat and the IDF under Sharon had crossed over the the west bank of the Nile and was in the process of encircling the Egyptian 3rd Army. The vast majority of that US emergency aid never reached the battlefield.
It helps to actually have some facts and knowledge of history when you are trying to make an argument, oleeb.
July 20, 2009 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're full of it. If the US withdraws it's support it is only a matter of time before Israel collapses of its own weight. You think all we do is put in $2 Billion annually? Who buys what Israel makes? Who shields Israel from even greater condemnation and isolation in the world?Who is Israel's ONLY real friend and ally? Get off your high horse pal. Israel is nothing without the United States backing and everyone on earth knows it except those like you who suffer from delusions.
July 20, 2009 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
er, pot kettle black on the hyperbole there--it's a big world after all:
July 20, 2009 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then let's see Israel make it on the trade they do with India then shall we? Without the US, Israel can't make it economically or militarily.
July 20, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...Israel is not America's lackey; it is a sovereign state that has the right to make its own decisions..."
All we're asking for is the US to cut off the 'apron strings' and to no longer protect Israel from International Law, nor to cover up its nukes -- and for us to basically see what happens from then on.
July 19, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "...the story of Moskowitz and how he pays for his projects in Israel"
A GOOD MOSKOWITZ BIO - http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Moskowitz_Irving
July 19, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
As ever I am having a difficult time connecting MJ's analyses to news reports.
Sounds to me like they're telling our President to piss up a rope
July 19, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm also having trouble connecting with Ha'aretz
Following MJ's link brings up one of those "on line virus scan" ads that you can't get rid of except by exiting browswer
July 19, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last update - 03:09 20/07/2009
'No difference to U.S. between outpost, East Jerusalem construction'
By Akiva Eldar, Barak Ravid and Jack Khoury
Tags: israel news
The United States views East Jerusalem as no different than an illegal West Bank outpost with regard to its demand for a freeze on settlement construction, American sources have informed both Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
This clarification came in the context of a growing crisis in U.S.-Israel relations over the planned construction of some 20 apartments for Jews in the Shepherd Hotel, in East Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. The U.S. has demanded that the project be halted, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the cabinet meeting Sunday that "Israel will not agree to edicts of this kind in East Jerusalem."
"United Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people in the State of Israel, and our sovereignty over the city is not subject to appeal," he continued. "Our policy is that Jerusalem residents can purchase apartments anywhere in the city. This has been the policy of all Israeli governments. There is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the west of the city, and there is no ban on Jews building or buying in the city's east. This is the policy of an open city."
Advertisement
Saying that Israel could not accept Jews being forbidden to live in anywhere in Jerusalem, Netanyahu added: "I can imagine what would happen if someone proposed that Jews could not live or buy in certain neighborhoods of London, New York, Paris or Rome. A huge international outcry would surely ensue. It is even more impossible to agree to such an edict in East Jerusalem."
Asked to comment on these remarks, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was in New Delhi, said the administration is trying to reach an agreement with Israel on settlements, and "the negotiations are intense," the Associated Press reported.
Later Sunday, Netanyahu met with his advisors to discuss Israel's response to Washington's demand.
"I was surprised by the American demand," a source present at the meeting quoted him as saying. "In my conversation with [U.S. President Barack] Obama in Washington, I told him I could not accept any restrictions on our sovereignty in Jerusalem. I told him Jerusalem is not a settlement, and there is nothing to discuss about a freeze there."
"In my previous term [as premier], I built thousands of apartments in the Har Homa neighborhood of Jerusalem, defying the entire world," Netanyahu added. "Therefore, it is clear that I will not capitulate in this case - especially when we are talking about a mere 20 apartments."
Other ministers also criticized the American stance at the cabinet meeting. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, for instance, termed it "puzzling," while Interior Minister and Shas Chairman Eli Yishai declared that "no agency in the world can stop construction in Jerusalem."
And Shin Bet security service chief Yuval Diskin told the ministers that the PA and its security services are engaged in widespread efforts to keep Palestinians from selling land in Jerusalem to Jews. He also said that Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi of Qatar has allocated $21 million to Hamas activists to buy buildings and establish infrastructure in Jerusalem.
Washington's objections to the Shepherd Hotel project were first voiced by senior State Department officials at a meeting with Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren last Thursday, in response to a request by PA President Mahmoud Abbas. The officials complained that the construction would change the neighborhood's demographic balance and harm its Palestinian residents.
Oren responded that the land in question was privately owned, having been purchased in 1985 by American Jewish tycoon Irving Moskowitz, and the project has received all the necessary permits from the Jerusalem municipality.
Also Sunday, Abbas' bureau chief, Rafiq Husseini, said he hoped the U.S. would not back down on its demand for a complete settlement freeze, including in East Jerusalem.
In an interview with the Nazareth-based radio station A-Shams, Husseini said, "from our standpoint, there is no room for a compromise [on this issue], and we expect the American administration to stick to the determined stance that envoy [George] Mitchell expressed as far back as 2001. Any compromise that enables continued construction ... will do nothing whatsoever to advance the diplomatic process."
Related articles:
July 19, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks!
July 20, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jeez
Contrast Ha'aretz with the Time magazine recap
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1911683,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
July 20, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Memo to Bib - All Jewish settlements in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank are illegal under international law because they are built on occupied land that does not belong to Israel.
Bibi is on his way to bankrupting Israel of the last threads of any respect it has in the international community.
His stated policies are racist, resoundingly hypocritical, and smack of apartheid. Each speech he gives where he expects full right for Israeli's while continuing to oppress the Palestinains will leave Israel standing alone as they should. Israel is the new apartheid South Africa.
Example ? East Jerusalem, the family of Fawzieh and Mohammed al-Kurd, members of a family who became refugees in 1948 when they lost their home.
A Jewish settler group wants to obtain the property the al-Kurds now own, along with the homes of 23 other Palestinian families in the Sheik Jarrah neighborhood, in order to tear down the houses there and build new housing only for Jews.
The settler group registered a claim to ownership of the Palestinians' property in 1972, asserting that it had purchased the land in the late 1800s. An Israeli court ordered the Palestinian families of Sheik Jarrah to pay rent to the Jewish group, despite the fact that the families had owned and lived in their houses for decades.
The Sheik Jarrah families naturally refused to do so. In 2006, after an expensive legal battle, another Israeli court found the settlers' ownership claim to be fraudulent, but the land registrar of the Jerusalem municipality refused to reinstate the Palestinian families' ownership.
Fawzieh and Mohammed were evicted last November for refusing to pay rent to the settler group on the basis of the settlers' fraudulent claims. Mohammed al-Kurd had a heart attack on the night of the eviction and died a few days later.
Fawzieh remains homeless, a refugee once again, and is living in a tent. This is what happens when a Jew can live 'anywhere' but not a Palstinian.
July 19, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Memo to Bib - All Jewish settlements in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank are illegal under international law because they are built on occupied land that does not belong to Israel.
---
if the president is serious about his/our credibility on the matter of illegal settlements in east jerusalem, he could start by retroactively renouncing our "abstention" from S/RES/252 and demand unambiguous applicability/compliance of/with article 49 to same. (see "change we can believe in")
q.v.
Article 49 - Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War; Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War; adopted on 12 August 1949, enforced 21 October 1950.
Resolution 252 (1968) in re Country Occupied Palestinian Territory, UN Security Council, of 21 May 1968:
July 19, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
About the right of CITIZENS to buy properties anywhere:
the area controlled by Israel has a substantial proportion (half?) of non-citizens who emphatically do not have that right.
Israel has a quasi-justice system that applies rules (or what passes for rules) very unequally for roughly 3 classes of individuals: Jews, non-Jewish citizens, and the subjugated non-citizens.
Last weak, to provide a fresh example, a prosecution of a citizen was dropped, a person accused of assault with deadly force because he shot and wounded two subjugated non-citizens, and was filmed while doing so.
Can a non-Jewish resident of Israel buy a property anywhere in Israel?
By the way, did anyone read the story about IDF distributing a donated booklet discribing how the leader of Hezbollah was invited by Vatican to Auschwitz to learn how to kill Jews? The booklet was donated by an organization of citizens who were not deemed suspicious, so the donation was accepted without any scrutiny (I think that a booklet donated by a group of citizens with well-known sympathies to non-citizens would be flatly rejected, I guess T'selem should make an experiment).
July 19, 2009 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny how the left is now in favor of the very things it accused the right of wanting: ethnic cleansing (removal of all Jews from the West Bank), different rules for Arabs and Jews (Arabs can build anywhere in Israel or the WB, but Jews can't).
Why King Barack is demanding this is unclear to everyone. Does he really think that Bibi, who built 20,000 units in Jerusalem will not allow the building of these 20 units? If anything, these demands for a settlement freeze will make peace tougher to achieve, since the Palestinians are less willing to negotiate.
And what ever happened to his doctrine of not "meddling"? I guess that only applies to dictatorships whose ass he wants to lick.
July 20, 2009 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are out of your mind. What is wrong with you? Is there nothing but you and what you want? You need your head examined.
And don't diss the President for doing what should have been done long ago on insisting that the colonizing of the occupied territories cease.
July 20, 2009 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto.
July 20, 2009 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a battle that America and Obama can win at a stroke, without a single life being lost and within a matter of weeks or months.
Bring in legislation to ban all bilateral trade with Israel until its government complies with international law, the UNSC and the Geneva Conventions.
No problem, just takes the will to confront AIPAC and to demonstrate to all lobby groups that there is only one government and that, currently, is headed by elected President, Barack Omama.
300 million voters have both the power and the money to make AIPAC completely insignificant. It's called democracy.
July 20, 2009 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 20, 2009 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just takes efficient PR. President Obama and his team have proven expertise in this. And there is a very good chance that a program will be implemented to bring people power to bear on an untenable situation that drains time, money and energy from the political process.
I have faith in Obama, his integrity and his will.
July 20, 2009 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I was just wondering, what happened to the pro-Israel horrors some in the blogosphere promised me would come with Dennis Ross being moved to the White House at the end of last month as NSC presidential advisor? So when's that bad influence Ross stuff going to start? Huh? Or is this some kind of triple quadruple "The Lobby" conspiracy game?
July 20, 2009 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good question Art!
Right off the bat, the only thing that occurs to me is that Obama would rather have these people inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.
July 20, 2009 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
To Nudnik and AviGoldstein - Bibi wants Jews to be able to move anywhere they want not only in East Jerusalem but the occupied territories also. I assume in fairness he will also allow Palestinians to buy or rent apartments in the near Jerusalem settlements like Har Homa, Ma'ale Adumim, Pisgat Ze'ev etc. I'm sure Bibi is not a hypocrite but an aboveboard and fair leader.
July 20, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
jdl, Palestinians are allowed to buy apartments anywhere they want to. I spent 4 months this spring living in Pisgat Ze'ev. My next door neighbors were Palestinians. In the Pisgat Ze'ev mall there were plenty of Palestinians. In the neighborhood I saw plenty of Palestinians on a daily basis. Maye you should actually visit those areas first before making inane statements.
July 20, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nudnik - You are right about Pisgat Ze'ev and I should not have included it in my example. I've been to the Mall numerous times and I've seen the overt animosity and danger toward any Palestinian walking around. Remember, the gang beating in early June? I have a nephew living in Har Homa and as far as I can tell that town is 100% Jewish.
July 20, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, you don't like that one, try this one. The point: your reply to nudnik was more hyperbolic than the comment he was making. "Everyone in the world hates Israel except the U.S." is just not true. And the depiction of them as our puppet/client state, a narrative that seems to be a favorite of some commenters on MJ's threads, is not realistic. And they got the basics of what they needed from us defense-wise long ago. Sure, our input into their economy and defense is major, but they would not "collapse" without it.
(Example: Iraq didn't collapse under sanctions, they didn't even succeed in making him do what the IAEA wanted, and food for oil didn't even keep him from finding all kinds of profit outside the rules. And those sanctions were put in place after Iraq lost a war against a coalition of most of the rest of the world because of their behavior. Like I said, it's a big world.)
July 20, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above comment was meant as a reply to oleeb's reply above @ July 20, 2009 11:10 AM, sorry to mistakenly not tick the reply box.
July 20, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank G-d for you, AA.
The US can NEVER get really horrible regimes to do what we want even though we never give them a dime.
But somehow, by pulling out all of our dough, we're going to get Israel, a reasonably vibrant economy, if small, to do what we want.
Isn't this what is sometimes called...magical thinking?
I don't doubt that the US can figure out a way to use its relationship with Israel to move them--or should at least try.
But some folks' hatred of Israel blinds them to certain realities as you constantly point out.
July 20, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Magical thinking is spelling God without an "o."
July 20, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Magical thinking is spelling God without an "o."
god bless, that's funny.
July 20, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do spell D-G that way, however. I worship Him.
July 20, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheap shot, MJ, but I appreciate why you said it.
One could call ALL religious expressions "magical thinking"--why light candles, after all? Or put on tfillin? Or eat a wafer? Or drink some wine? Or spell God without an "o." None of them matter, IMO, without the correct personal intention.
But here you seem to think that the way I spell God says something about my political views. I don't think it does.
I know you don't care for AA much, but I happen to find her usually pretty balanced and sensible. Sometimes she's off, but then, so aren't we all?
For example, a little while ago, you published a post in which you at least seemed to be supporting the view that a nuclear Iran was a real threat to Israel and should be stopped. I thought you were over the top in that (unsupported) assessment and said so. Others were much harsher on you than I.
Since then, I understand, you've withdrawn the entire post, not the first time. MJ, in general, I support your point of view on this conflict, but you have a tendency to shoot from the hip. You shouldn't put so little thought into your posts that a few negative comments from folks who normally support you causes you to withdraw your post entirely. Think twice; write once.
July 22, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"And they got the basics of what they needed from us defense-wise long ago."
That could not be more wrong. They just went to Gates with a huge shopping list of military items they deem essential.
Military equipment does not have a long shelf life because the enemy develops countermeasures.
Israel is totally depend on the United States which is why Bibi will cave.
The Iraq comparison is ugly. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died because of sanctions which is hardly a model anyone should be citing.
The US holds all the cards.
July 20, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/2012_match_ups_obama_romney_tied_at_45_obama_48_palin_42
Obama doesn't holds all the cards. He can't afford to lose a single Jewish vote. If he refuses to sell military items essential for Israel's survival, he'll lose many Jewish voters how are committed to Israel survival.
July 20, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bad news Anna. He didnt need a single Jewish vote last time to carry a single state but he got 78% of them. Jews are Americans (have you noticed). They vote like other Americans only much more liberal.
In other words, he can do what he wants the the West Bank and he loses no votes. If he nominated an anti-choice justice to the supreme court, he'd lose them all.
That's a fact! The only way NOT to carry the Jewish vote is NOT to be a liberal Democrat.
July 20, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true he he didn't need a single Jewish vote last time to carry a single state, but he would need many Jewish votes next time.
It's not a fact:
1976
Ford (R) 27
Carter (D) 71
McCarthy (I) 2
1980
Reagan (R) 39
Carter (D) 45
Anderson (I) There is nothing he can do in The West Bank. He can only apply pressure on Israel to do something in the West Bank. If he start appying a presure that would cripple Israel he would not get 78% of the Jewish vote. It's just a common sense. If you are trying to convince Obama otherwise, you are probably secretly working for Romney. If he start applying a pressure to stop new construction a few blocks from the Hebrew University In Jerusalem, he'll lose even more votes.
July 20, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. The Jews voted 80% for Ted Kennedy over Carter in the primaries because Carter ran a conservative Dem administration.
They abandoned him in the general in large numbers for a liberal Republican, Anderson.
Sorry, Anna, we are Americans. Love it or leave it. (Or have you emigrated already).
July 20, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that in 1980 Reagan got 39% of Jewish
votes. If Obama refuses to sell military items essential for Israel's survival, as you suggest, he can easily lose at least 39% of Jewish votes next time.
July 20, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Hazony
July 20, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA - I agree that sanctions are not going to bring Israel to it's knees or even necessarily to do what we want. However, if the US starts withdrawing it's political cover and aligns with the EU diplomatically against Israel the emigration of the best and brightest from Israel will will increase. That will hurt more than sanctions and prevent Israel from fullfilling her true potential.
July 20, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am really puzzled by this claim of yours, aa. You aren't out on a limb on this post, you aren't even in the vicinity of a tree.
And they got the basics of what they needed from us defense-wise long ago.
This assumption is false and is completely at odds with Israeli and US official, ongoing commitment to maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge. Do you imagine that any country dedicated to maintaining a military advantage is ever satisfied with making do with out-of-date technology, much less that Israel, of all countries, would be among them?
MJ's reference to the most recent Israeli purchase request involves a squadron (25) of the Joint Strike Fighter (JF-35) which at present, would cost $100million per plane, due for delivery in 2014. There is an option to purchase 75 more at a later date.
I suggest you read up on the JF-35 to understand why the Israelis really really want them.
Your claim is so without any link to reality that I'm shocked that you would make it. It's unlike you to be so completely, utterly wrong.
Sure, our input into their economy and defense is major, but they would not "collapse" without it.
Was someone imagining that Israel would "collapse" without our contibutions? As far as our economic vs military aid to Israel, the formula for apportioning aid to the different sectors involves a gradual elimination of all economic aid. The total amount won't diminish; all US foreign aid will be strictly military.
When it comes to Israel's defense exports, we have a sort of "veto" power over what and to whom Israel sells for export. Our veto is roughly based on whether or not the specific products contain US technology and if the potential customer such as China, is considered to be a threat.
There is also a strictly business competition aspect involved if the Israeli product is in direct head-to-head competition with the American version.
The link to the following article provides an example of how the later scenario is being played out; the Gripen was destined for India's air force:
http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2009/07/13/Israel-bows-to-US-pressure-on-Gripen/UPI-48991247493191/
July 20, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA is one of those people who don't much care what happens where she lives but only in the land of her dreams, 6000 miles away. I'm like that too. I live in Maryland but my heart is in Wyoming.
July 20, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. Rosenberg,
Do you care about Israel? If not, why do you write so much about Israel?
July 20, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I care about Israel a lot, have spent years there. And don't want it to be destroyed due to the perpetuation of an occupation that would give up Israel tp hang on to the West Bank.
I am pro-Israel; anyone who supports the occupation is not.
July 20, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you vote for a politician who is advocating a destruction of Israel by supporting the position shared by 95% of Israeli people, no matter how much you agree with him on everything else?
July 20, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, you're very wrong, and will have to find yourself another strawman. I was born and raised Roman Catholic in Milwaukee, where there are so few Jews that I didn't meet one until I lived in a dorm in college in Madison. Israel still to this day has nothing to do with me and mine. Personally I don't much care if the U.S. gives it aid and/or support, since I don't even have a chip of a bone there, and to me it actually sounds like a rather unattractive place to visit even as a tourist, there are a gazillion other places I'd rather visit first. Politically I tend to think it would be better if we didn't.
That said, I think it's real foolish to state, like oleeb did, that Israel would collapse without U.S. support. I think that would highly unlikely unless we were planning to invade it and occupy it. Seems to me the citizens of Israel, and many supporters of it elsewhere have an extremely strong desire for the country to continue to exist, and that will and desire to exist is so strong that it would no doubt include doing without or struggling, rather than agreeing to conditions requested by patrons that they considered detrimental for one reason or another. Seems to me they would never cotton to the idea of owing anyone anything. Israel seems to me to be an exceptionallty independent-minded nation, for many special reasons, always ready and willing to go it alone by its very nature.
July 20, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was someone imagining that Israel would "collapse" without our contibutions
The someone I was replying to.
July 20, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are distorting what I've written and you are simply wrong if you believe that Israel is not a client of the US which it most obviously is and has been now for decades. It is also true that Israel's best and only true friend is the US. If not for US insistence, the world community would have long ago abandoned Israel. Isreal's current leadership is far too extreme and is living in the past. They believe they can just ride roughshod over the Palestinians forever and that is just unbelievably shortsighted and counterproductive for Israel let alone for the Palestinians. Israel has been exacerbating the problems it has in the occupied territories for a long time via it's policy of colonizing the occupied territories. The leadership in Israel seems not to understand that the days of the Likud mentality dictacting US policy are over. The President is to be commended for his insistence that the junior partner in our partnership start behaving and living up to it's promises instead of saying one thing and doing another.
July 20, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb,
I can support what you say here. But it's dishonest to say you're be distorted when your words are directly quoted in full. If you stand by those words, say so. If you think you misspoke, say so.
Unfortunately, the IP "conversation" has taken on the traits of the conflict itself: Never give an inch. Greet every challenge with a counter-attack.
July 22, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS The automatons on the right supported Golda Meir when she refused Sadat's offer to end the state of war with Israel if Israel pulled back 2 miles from the Suez Canal.
Likud and the lobby here prevailed upon Nixon not to force Meir to accept Sadat's offer.
The result. Sadat attacked two years later and 3000 Israeli boys were killed. Had the left or the Nixon administration prevailed, those 3000 would be alive today.
The Israeli right and its fellow travelers here have contributed nothing to Israel. Their sole "contribution" is to make the lives of Palestinians miserable. For most of them, that is good enough.
July 20, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seems to suggest that Israeli people always choose very foolish leaders such as Golda Meir while American people choose very wise leaders, such as Nixon. Therefore, American presidents should govern Israel.
July 20, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can Israel alienate USA and survive?
Most probably, yes, but the cost can be large.
First, the biggest potential vulnerability of Israel is its dependence on EU as trading partner. EU as a foreign policy "superpower" is basically an amorphous blob that is easy to stop in its tracks, and USA has many levers to do so. But if American influence goes in the opposite direction, and it does so "for the good of everyone involved", then settlers can meet the fate of baby seal hunters: subjected to trade sanctions.
Keep in mind that terrorism is basically gone, while Israel is applying various idiotic policies in full swing, like settlement expansion, blockade of Gaza (did they relent with chickpeas, or the ban is still in force?), hundreds of checkpoints, censorship of cultural activities in Jerusalem, dropping prosecution of settler shooters, various quasi-fascist legislative initiatives, totally ghastly propaganda within IDF conducted by religious nuts etc.
I hope that Palestinians will see the light and realize that the time is ripe for non-violent resistance. Which makes sense only if there exists a public opinion that can be influenced and influence events in turn.
July 20, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is terrorism basically gone? Have you considered a possibility that terrorism is basically gone as the result of idiotic policies, such as blockade of Gaza and hundreds of checkpoints? Do you have a better exlanation? BTW, can you point to any recently adopted quasi-fascist legislative ?
July 20, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J., sorry about the delay in commenting (eight days!), I just don't have much time to blog.
I support Israel remaining in the liberated territories, for now all of them, and in a final settlement in part of them. How exactly does that make me not a supporter of Israel?
Israel has, as I stated, the right to keep every inch of the disputed territories. The Golan for sure; it would be an act of suicide to allow the Syrians back onto the Heights.
But re the West Bank, do you really think Israel should just leave? Even the U.N. does not think so; the operative resolutions, accepted by Israel and the Arabs, call for some land to be relinquished in exchange for full peace. Until the peace offer is on the table, why should Israel unilaterally give up anything?
Avi
July 27, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
To Morsus Mihi:
You titled your piece "Resolution 252 (1968) in re Country Occupied Palestinian Territory, UN Security Council, of 21 May 1968." Check the UN website and you will note that the resolution in question does not refer to "occupied Palestinian territory," for the simple reason that the expression "Palestinian" in reference to the territories simply did not exist in 1968! The move to carve a separate national identity for Palestinian Arabs is of very late vintage; any UN resolutions in the sixties regarding the territories envisioned a settlement among Israel and the Arab states, not with Palestinian Arabs as a separate entity.
July 27, 2009 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
To Dickerson3870: The idea that the Jews today are not related to the Jews of Ancient Israel is an anti-Semitic canard. We have an unbroken history dating back to the times of the Temple in Jerusalem. Indeed, Jews have continuously lived in Israel since those times, even in the face of Roman, Muslim and Christian persecution.
July 27, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink