Robert Kaplan, Former Neocon, Former IDF Fighter, Wants US To Impose Peace On Israel & Palestinians
I like Robert Kaplan's writing. Even though he was a big Iraq war supporter, he publicly repented in 2004. His book, Balkan Ghosts, is terrific.
But, in general, I have not admired his work on Israel. Kaplan, who is an American, served in the IDF and I think that bonding experience colored his work. I'm sure he'd agree.
In any case, he is now off the reservation. Writing in Atlantic this month, he warns Israel that it is not only the administration which is critical of Israel, it is also Americans at large. He sees a parting of the ways unless Israel ends the occupation.
This is significant. I don't know how many American Jews have joined the IDF, a few thousand tops. 99% of American Jews wouldn't even consider it. But Kaplan cares about Israel so much that unlike the armchair warriors, he went over there to fight. That makes his endorsement of an imposed peace all the more significant.
"Both politically and demographically, time is not on Israel's side. Now that Iran is weakened by domestic turmoil, it may actually be in Israel's best interests for America, Saudi Arabia, and other moderate Arab states to impose a peace agreement by leaning hard on the Palestinians, as America twists Israel's arm. The result would be the return of almost all of the West Bank to a fundamentally demilitarized Palestinian state, even as many Israeli settlements are dismantled. What other resolution can there be?," he writes.
Interestingly, he sees the Walt-Mearsheimer book as critical in the change in the zeitgeist, not that the two professors changed it -- but that their book was evidence it was changing.
"One striking indication of the extent to which Israel has lost American sympathy was the publication in 2007 of The Israel Lobby, a controversial book by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. The book alleges that it was Israel's supporters in America who played a pivotal role in influencing the Bush Administration to go to war in Iraq in 2003. Their argument has several flaws and was roundly denounced by a majority of reviewers, but the fact that two highly distinguished political scientists--one from Harvard and the other from the University of Chicago, who have contributed significantly to their field in their other works--felt confident enough to go so far out on a limb on this sensitive issue is telling. Nobody takes such a risk without outside encouragement. Indeed, it is in the nature of these things that, for every reviewer's condemnation, one can assume that many others are quietly nodding their heads in agreement with the authors.
"As for the matter of Israel's influence on U.S. policymaking, that will only wane as a new generation of immigrant elites - from Asia, the Muslim world, and the Indian Subcontinent - take their places inside America's civilian bureaucracy and military ranks. Israel is not central to the analytical concerns of these young, newly minted Americans. To them, it is just another country with which America must engage according to its interests. If anything, for this new generation--and, in fact, for the Obama Administration - it is countries like China, India, and Indonesia that are becoming the principal areas of focus. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's two trips to Asia in the first six months of her tenure were arguably the Administration's most important expression yet of what it sees as the new geopolitical locus of the 21st century. The Israeli-Palestinian problem is increasingly becoming seen as a leftover irritant from a passing era."
I am not a fan of "Balkan Ghosts". As I recall, it was rather ahistorical.
August 4, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will be our total dependence on oil that will ultimately precipitate the unraveling of the American-Israeli alliance. We are, in the end, beholden to the "enemies" of Israel, and we will side with them for our oil.
Bummer for Israel. They should have seen the writing on the wall when Bush/DICK was installed. That was the signal that oil would be king, and therefore the others in the Middle East would win out.
August 4, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is not central to the analytical concerns of these young, newly minted Americans. To them, it is just another country with which America must engage according to its interests. If anything, for this new generation--and, in fact, for the Obama Administration - it is countries like China, India, and Indonesia that are becoming the principal areas of focus.
This is exactly how I feel. I am a hispanic American (not Mexican-American because what I know of Mexican culture I know from books and spanish language TV) but this is how I have always seen Israel. I have to ask, why should it be anything else? I simply cannot understand it. If the choice is Israel or the Arab States in terms of friendship, it's a lot more useful to be friends with the Arab States.
August 4, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
A hard-headed realist would want to be friends with nations that actually have oil. This is exactly why Asian nations, which don't have a dog in the cultural and historical issues, all cozy up with the oil-rich Arab states.
Not sure what the sentimental fixation on Israel is/was. And not sure what the US got out of it.
August 4, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It goes back to US strategic interests, when Egypt and Syria were cozy with the Soviets. Then the future of Israel became a cause of the religious right, who seem to think Jesus needs a new temple to be built in Jerusalem before he can usher in the end of days. But mostly it has to do with AIPAC and the buying of congresspersons and presidential candidates. It always comes down to money.
There hasn't been a resolution in 60 years because the moneyed interests don't want a resolution. A stable state based on law and order is not conducive to the maximization of piracy profits. You can't be a war profiteer without a war. Etc.
August 5, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
MNPundit,
Maybe that is a false choice. I like to think of President Obama's Cairo speech as something of a turning point, initiating a new paradigm whereby that false choice is rejected in favor of a US foreign policy that promotes a functional interaction through commercial and cultural integrity in a vital region that has real potential to bring wider benefits to the broader world instead of only to the international arms trade while it remains mired in conflict. National self-determination for the Palestinians and the national integration of the Jewish people in its native region is the necessary start.
August 5, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is a racist state because a Arab Israeli citizen cannot marry an Arab wife and make her a citizen, but any Israeli Jew can marry a Jew from anywhere and she/he will automatically become a Israeli citizen.
And if you don't think that is "racist," then you are a clown.
August 5, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Not sure what the sentimental fixation on Israel is/was. And not sure what the US got out of it."
the primary public justification has historically been that he US should support the only Democracy in the Middle East. But as time has passed israel's claim on Democracy has been reduced in my eyes. Any country that awards full citizenship to only one race or religion should not be called a Democracy in the 21st century.
August 4, 2009 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any country that awards full citizenship to only one race or religion should not be called a Democracy in the 21st century.
100% wrong. Maybe you should get your basic facts straight before you pontificate about what should and should not be called a democracy.
August 4, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be clear, what are you claiming he's 100% wrong about? One assumes that you're pointing out that Israel doesn't deny citizenship to non-Jews.
Or at least, they haven't - yet:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8076145.stm
One could also wonder about what effect the Law of Return has on the perception of "citizenship for everyone".
August 5, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Armchair didn't get the memo that they held elections in White-ruled Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa too. So I guess they were "democracies."
August 5, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of countries have something very similar to a Law of Return. It must rally upset you that a Jew should be able to flee racism in Russia or somewhere else and start their life anew in Israel, the one state where they can proudly live openly Jewish. (As opposed to like 80 or something Arab and/or Muslim states-no outrage about religious or ethnic singularity and preeminence there)
August 5, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just read the linked story too. I think this demonstrates the opposite of what you're arguing.
The oath of loyalty failed by 8-3 in the cabinet. Meaning that among the sorry group of rightwing Yisrael Beitenu and other losers they could only get 3 votes.
August 5, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hamas is a democracy. Lebanon is a democracy. Israel is not a true apartheid state (it discriminates obviously) but it is becoming less democratic.
August 5, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think Hamas would allow me to come over work for their morals police so I could help patrol the streets for improperly dressed women and unmarried men and women holding hands? If they gave me that important job I'd promise to vote for them.
August 5, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure noseeum's post would come as a surprise to the 13 Arab Muslim members of Israel's parliament. As opposed to the zero Jews in the parliaments of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, etc.
August 5, 2009 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's always amusing to see the Walt-Mearsheimer book on the Israeli lobby described as "controversial". Their brave exposure of this sorry, ragged old elephant in the room is as controversial as a Denny's menu. And the famous "flaws" that are never detailed. Please.
Kaplan is right about one thing: Demographics are Israel's enemy not just within its own borders and areas of influence, but here in America, as well. New populations in both places have little sympathy for Israel's founding myths of chronic historical grievance and present "peril". The foreign aid succor will dry up some day.
Israel is, right now, an historical anachronism - an ethnocentric state colonizing the wrong soil. It will change. Or it will disappear.
August 5, 2009 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Racist bullshit. Jews as a people are as indigenous to Middle Eastern "soil" as Arab peoples are, yet one non-Arab state in the midst of 22 member nations of The League of Arab States - from the Atlantic coast of Africa to the Persian Gulf - is somehow uniquely ethnocentric and historically anachronistic. Again, racist bullshit.
August 5, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jews as a people are as indigenous to Middle Eastern "soil" as Arab peoples are...
Come now, this is nonsense. My wife is a Kikuyu from Kenya, which means that her people are Bantus. The Bantus originated in modern day Cameroon and spread out through a great deal of sub-Saharan Africa. Does that mean that the Kikuyus of today are "indigenous" to Cameroon. Of course not. My own people are German-Irish. These are both Indo-European populations; the Indo-Europeans started out in modern Ukraine and southern Russia. Does that mean that I am "indigenous" to Ukraine? Once again, the idea is absurd.
I am happy to agree that many modern day Israelis are "indigenous" to the land of modern day Israel, for the simple reason that they were born and grew up there. The idea that "Jews as a people," however, can be considered "indigenous" to a land that some hypothetical ancestor left over 1000 years ago is nonsense on stilts. There are Jews who are indigenous to Ethiopia, Jews who are indigenous to Argentina, Jews who are indigenous to Canada (etc), but only a handful of Jews are indigenous to Israel. For the rest of them to claim that the indigenous status of their "people" give them a right to shove some Arabs off of their land is simply not worthy of serious credence.
August 5, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
A Missouri voter,
You are conflating individuals with entire peoples. When you do that you will find Greeks who are indigenous to Chicago, Arabs who are indigenous to Detroit, Irish who are indigenous to Boston, and Mexicans who are indigenous to Los Angeles; and then it will become necessary to delegitimize Greece, Ireland, Mexico and all 22 member nations of the League of Arab States. But that will be your load, and good luck with it.
August 5, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not know that I am conflating "entire peoples" with individuals, so much as I am expressing skepticism about the construction of "entire peoples" that you are employing. Meanwhile, I will happily agree that I can find Greeks who are indigenous to Chicago, etc. I can understand how an ethnic Greek man can claim a right to inhabit Chicago based on the fact that he was born there and grew up there and has lived there all of his life. By the same logic, I have no trouble understanding how a Jewish man can claim a right to inhabit Tel Aviv based on the fact that he was born there and grew up there and has lived there all his life.
I am harder pressed, however, to understand how a Jewish man in Russia who has never set foot in Hebron can claim that he has more of a right to live there than a Palestinian who had previously lived there all his life until that Russian Jew showed up. I become especially perplexed about this when the Russian Jew grounds his right to live there in a hypothetical ancestor that left the area centuries ago, all the while ignoring that the Palestinian man he is displacing is likely the descendant of that ancient ancestor's own sister who stayed.
In other words, I am really skeptical that "entire peoples" can be understood to have any rights to occupy any land anywhere. Individuals have rights, not "entire peoples." From where I am standing, I do not see how this viewpoint "delegitimizes" Ireland, or Greece, or Mexico, or any other nation, so I guess that I do not perceive myself to have much of a "load" to bear in this respect.
August 5, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Missouri voter,
An interesting exercise in likelihoods and hypotheticals aside, the circumstance is hardly peculiar to Jews, the Jewish people and Israel. You may even be an American of Italian descent and, having never even set foot in Europe, you most likely would still qualify for Italian citizenship. The tragedy of the Israeli-Arab conflict is precisely that there is a conflict and not, I submit, that there is an Israel.
August 5, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tragedy of the Israeli-Arab conflict is precisely that there is a conflict and not, I submit, that there is an Israel.
No argument there (or at least none from me). In case it was not clear, I am not trying to argue against the right of Israel to exist. I am simply taking issue with the rather silly "blood and soil" grounding on which you are trying to establish that right.
August 5, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
My argument is really not as poetic as "blood and soil," as you put it (that was San Fernando Curt's imagery, such as it is). My argument is about history. There simply is nowhere else that the Jewish people had ever exercised its national self-determination. And while we are clarifying, I also submit that Jewish and Arab national rights are not mutually exclusive within the former British Palestine Mandate.
August 5, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, individuals have rights. So too do nation states to control who can or can not immigrate and gain citizenship. Israel, having been conceived as a homeland for the Jewish people, grants citizenship to Jews seeking to emmigrate there. Other countries have their own immigration policies that explicitly favor various peoples based upon sometimes perplexing criteria. Many of these, including those in effect in every Arab country, are far more arbitrary (and yes racist) than those of Israel.
Your hypothetical of the Russian Jew is not really illustrative. Obviously, I would agree that this person has no right to displace a Palestinian from his or her home in Hebron. The vast majority of Jews to immigrate to Israel, however, are not displacing anyone.
Since you are talking about the rights of individuals, what of the child of parents who fled British Mandate Palestine in 1948? Perhaps they wound up in a camp in Lebanon where they have been remained in confinement for some 60 years, denied citizenship, prevented from working in certain professions while the country to which they fled has refused to recognize, and indeed remains in a state of official war against, Israel? What of the others, whose families fled to Jordan, which granted them citizenship, or the West Bank or Gaza? Are these individuals entitled to now return to their ancestral homes in the State of Israel?
August 5, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The vast majority of Jews [who] immigrate to Israel, however, are not displacing anyone.
Glad to hear it. As I mentioned above, I have no objection to the existence of Israel as a state, so I take no great exception to those who move to Israel without disrupting anyone else's life.
Since you are talking about the rights of individuals, what of the child of parents who fled British Mandate Palestine in 1948?... Are these individuals entitled to now return to their ancestral homes in the State of Israel?
Since you ask me, I have to say that I think that justice demands that these folks be allowed to return. That said, I guess that I am jaded enough to think that justice is not the only consideration at stake. I cannot imagine a workable peace settlement that allows for a Palestinian right of return, so while I think that some sort of reparation needs to be made to these people, I also think that they will have to reconcile themselves to the idea that they will not be allowed to return to their rightful homes. This is not fair, but sometimes life is not fair. Any Palestinian negotiator who has the nation's best interests at heart will realize as much and not let the demand for a right of return become the sine qua non of a peace settlement.
But if the question is merely "are they entitled?" then the answer, to my mind, is "yes." They are entitled to a right of return, even if they will never be allowed to exercise that right.
August 5, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. I might quibble a bit by saying the right (or entitlement as you put it) may have expired at some point when the refugees, their leaders and the Arab countries purporting to act on their behalf, refused to accept Israel's legitimacy and instead spent the past 60 years actively pursuing its demise. Is there a statute of limitations in these circumstances?
The history of the world contains numerous instances in which people have been displaced by migrations, conquests, population transfers, etc. sometimes permanently. The situation in Israel/Palestine is notable for having festered for so long. I would attribute this more to Arab (and more recently Palestinian) rejectionism than to the existence of settlements on Palestinian territory, however immoral they may be. But that's a debate for another time.
August 5, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I miss when your Zionista sock puppet agreed with your Bar Kafka one. Bring back Zionista.
August 5, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
A serious question for MJ:
MJ, you are part of an organization that recognizes Israel's fallibility and mistakes and tries to apply pressure to correct those errors while strongly reaffirming Israel's right to exist. It is an organization that does not shy away from recognizing two sides to the conflict.
There are many of us on these boards (myself included) who share these beliefs. We understand the folly of the settlement project; we anguished over the Gaza war; we would like nothing more than to see an end to the occupation and peaceful co-existence alongside a Palestinian state. We also recognize, however, that Israel's many problems are not all of its own making. That Arab and Palestinian rejectionism has perpetuated the conflict and remains a fundamental barrier to its resolution.
The comments sections of your posts seem to come principally from those whose goal is not to criticize specific Israeli policies, but to demonize and de-legitimize its very existence as a state. Some are well-intentioned, drawing on what I would consider a one-sided view of Israel's history and place; others less so, drawing on familiar anti-semitic tropes in their outright hostility to the very notion of a Jewish homeland.
In your own comments, you frequently mock those who support the work of the IPF and others as "ethnocentrists," "neocons," and dupes for AIPAC. (The comment above is one example- do you ddisagree with BarK that there is nothing uniquely ethnocentric and historically anachronistic about Israel?) At the same time you make common cause with those who see Israel's existence as the problem (and I include in that group the self-proclaimed "anti-Zioinists of Mondoweiss).
So, long intro to my questions: Do you believe in Israel's fundamental right to exist as a Jewish homeland? Do you believe all of Israel's problems are self-created? Do you think that if Israel suddenly did an about-face, reversed its settlement policy and withdrew from the territories it would enjoy peace with its Palestinian/Arab neighbors?
The answers to these questions should be quite obvious given your position, but your comments lead one to wonder.
August 5, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
...The comments sections of your posts seem to come principally from those whose goal is not to criticize specific Israeli policies, but to demonize and de-legitimize its very existence as a state....In your own comments, you frequently mock those who support the work of the IPF and others as "ethnocentrists," "neocons," and dupes for AIPAC....
Consider the idea, along the lines of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," that most of his activity here is about Washington DC power games related to Israel and Palestine, and not actually about Israel and Palestine. It becomes clearer that way.
See, someone who questions Rosenberg or questions someone who is a fan of Rosenberg is not on the Rosenberg team. No matter the actual position they hold on the topic, even if it basically agrees with his own, they are still are not team players and need to be personally attacked, because it is about getting a fan/power base and running with that.
But I can make it even clearer: he's basically a wanabee lobbyist, doing lobbying work here. And he has enemies in past DC lobbyist employers for whatever reason--obviously ideological, but also maybe some more personal and undisclosed. He'll go along with anything or anybody willing to be on his DC team and not on theirs.
It requires use of the enemies' tactics. Anyone who raises inconvenient questions ruins the game. Like with Rush Limbaugh, and like with AIPAC, non-dittoheads need not apply--unless a ridicule segment is required to raise team spirit. In that case, like with Rush Limbaugh, and like with AIPAC, individuals are picked out to be a straw men/women to be attacked, and that guy/gal's words and/or views are twisted to fit the strawman's clothing.
In this world, what a Robert Kaplan is saying and doing is much more important news than what actually happens in Israel and Palestine, because it relates to who wins favor and who loses in DC, who is in and who is out in DC, who eventually gets the power perks and jobs in DC and who doesn't. Israel and Palestine are quite secondary, it's all about Washington D.C.
August 5, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surgical in its precision.
August 5, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It takes so little to impress you. When you slam dunk a kiddie six-foot hoop, do you imagine yourself as Michael Jordan?
August 5, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You actually made me chuckle.
The implication is that diagnosing MJ's malady is as easy as slam dunking on a kiddie hoop.
August 5, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it isn't. Paging Aristotle, someone needs a course in logic.
August 5, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not your monkey. You got mythbuster for that.
August 5, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no. Not "monkey". Sock puppet.
August 5, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, fine, mythbuster is MJ's sock puppet.
August 5, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dual loyalty? What dual loyalty?
See http://mondoweiss.net/2009/08/kid-leaves-west-point-to-emigrate-to-israel-and-join-elite-forces-there.html
I bet his Congressman is proud.
August 5, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm totally confused. There are legitimate issues to be had with Israel's policies, but why should the fact that it's an ethnocentric state disqualify its right to exist?
Can you even name me a state that isn't ethnocentric? Do you know what that even means?
The U.S. and a few others are about the only non-ethnocentric states in the world.
Have you ever heard of the "Islamic Republic" of Iran. How do you feel about religious-centric states like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia where no other religion is even allowed.
Yes, Israel is imperfect, but in an even more imperfect world. Take your head out of the sand.
The myths of its historical grievance and peril. I agree that it is now externally more secure than it ever has been, but you shouldn't forget its history of being attacked. And are the long history of persecution and its presence in Israel going back thousands of years myths too? This doesn't mean it can do whatever it wants and there should be no debate, but at least get the facts right.
August 5, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
SF Curt: At the same time as you mock the "myths of chronic historical grievance and present 'peril,'" you (perhaps a bit hopefully) predict Israel's imminent disappearance.
Can you possibly not see the contradiction in these statements? The peril is overblown yet Israel will soon disapppear. Setting aside what I consider your profound view of Israel's history, I wonder if you can think of any other noation in the world whose very existence is threatened. Is disappearance not a peril in your view?
August 5, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I meant your profoundly misguided view of Israel's history.
August 5, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean the version that includes facts instead of slogans like "A land without a people for a people without a land"?
Similarly, did you know Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs?
August 5, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if there is any other nation in the world about whose disappearance he fantasizes? Only you, Israel.
I think the government of Iran and others are wicked and wish they'd crumble, but I can't imagine the countries themselves disappearing. And I certainly wouldn't get off on the thought.
August 5, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
An important change in thinking and not reported in any press that I've seen, other than by you. Thanks.
August 5, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Armchair Guerilla quotes somebody: "Any country that awards full citizenship to only one race or religion should not be called a Democracy in the 21st century."
100% wrong. Maybe you should get your basic facts straight before you pontificate about what should and should not be called a democracy.
Armchair is 100% wrong on two counts:
(1)Israel born Palestinians are called citizens, but they don't have anything approaching the rights and privileges of Israeli-born Jews. Or Jews born outside Israel, for that matter.
(Yes they can vote. For registered parties. Find out about Israeli restrictions on Arab party registration before you claim that Israel is anything but a herrenvolk democracy.)
(2) Everything foreign and domestic policy of the Israeli state is centered around one goal: Total territorial control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem without the granting of citizenship to the Palestinian population there.
August 5, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"(2) Everything foreign and domestic policy of the Israeli state is centered around one goal: Total territorial control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem without the granting of citizenship to the Palestinian population there."
Well at least you've updated your worn rhetoric. You guys used to say Israel wanted Gaza, Lebanon and the rest of the Middle East too.
There's discrimination against Israeli Arabs no doubt, and it's shameful, but they still have more rights than pretty much all Arabs anywhere else in the Middle East.
There are restrictions on Jewish parties too. They don't allow Hamas or its Jewish equivalent Kach. You'd be glad to know both movements are doing well in the settlements and Gaza. Maybe you should visit.
August 5, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gary Owen, who sounds a lot like the white people I grew up with in Birmingham during the 1960s, writes:
[T]ere's discrimination against Israeli Arabs no doubt
18,000 homes demolished and counting. I suppose you could call that discrimination.
There are restrictions on Jewish parties too
A Jewish party that advocates mass expulsion of Palestinians can register, but not an Arab party that advocates a secular state with no preferences whatsoever for Jew over Arab.
But here's your main problem, Mr. Owen: Israeli settlement policy has -- as designed -- made a viable Palestinian state impossible. That means it has made the two-state solution impossible. If you are under 40, someday you are going to have to to argue that:
(1)A second Palestinian expulsion was justified. Or maybe didn't happen. The radio broadcasts story just won't cut it this this time. Tweats, maybe?
(2) Or, West Bank Palestinians can't be allowed to vote in the elections that choose the Israeli government that rules them. Because, you see, when hope for their own state dwindles, this is what they will be asking for.
Mr. Owen suggests I visit. I can introduce him to some folks in Ramallah if he would like.
August 5, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Gary Owen, who sounds a lot like the white people I grew up with in Birmingham during the 1960s"
What does that mean? Your injection of racial politics into this discussion detracts from your argument. Are you suggesting I'm a racist without knowing anything about me? Are you trying to demonstrate your street cred, as if either suffering racism or knowing of people who were racists makes you an expert on the issue?
Or is it because I won't agree with your view that Israel is the most vile country in the world. I also stated that it's not some type of utopia. As usual, the truth is somewhere between the two extremes but you won't have that.
Balad, Hadash and the other party have 10 or 11 MKs. It may not be ideal, but is that not representation? Are they puppets? Are their parties not legitimate?
The two-state solution is hard, not impossible. It's also the best option, the very one that was envisioned and internationally supported in 1948. You should be realistic. Neither side is blameless in the problem. Assigning all the blame to one side is unfair and won't solve the problem.
I am disgusted by the settlers and mainstream Israel's unwillingness to rein them in. I would support U.S. sanctions if they don't cooperate with our president's peace initiative. My support of Israel is not unconditional and if these things you warn about happen I will rethink it.
August 5, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that you quote this
and this
when you have ridiculed those who have said essentially the same in the past on comments on your posts, including me. I have long thought that Israel/Palestine doesn't amount to more than a tiny hill of beans in this crazy world, and I think that those who think major world changes would come out of even the most successful peace deal are myopic and deluded. It would just delete one excuse certain people use to deflect from their own problems, and they would no doubt find a substitute to continue doing the same. Sometimes I even think the presence of Israel as a bogeyman helps keep Shiite/Sunni tensions from going full explosion.
Far too much effort is expended on fine points of the disagreements, it's like enabling a narcissist. And it looks to me like the Obama administration may be coming to the same realization:
Meanwhile, for anyone with a few spare moments of attention to give away from a few acres in the Mideast that have major religious sites on them. but nothing as valuable as oil or coltan to a vastly larger suffering civilian population:
Personally I'd rather my George Mitchell tax dollars go towards him working in that area, they have suffered far too horribly for far too long.
August 5, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where do you get off suggesting that any people has suffered as much as or more than the Palestinians?
Surely Israel and the lobby have something to do with the war and Congo? Anyone who brings up suffering in Sudan, Congo, etc. is just trying to distract us from what Israel is doing.
August 5, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've won the argument. Israel isn't as evil as Sudan.
Congratulations, oh "light unto the nations."
August 5, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote that Gary Owen sounds a lot like the white people I grew up with in Birmingham during the 1960s"
He replied: What does that mean? Your injection of racial politics into this discussion detracts from your argument. Are you suggesting I'm a racist without knowing anything about me?
You rationalize the privileged position of the favored ethnic group using exactly -- exactly -- the same arguments and omissions I heard in the herrenvolk democracy of my youth. You argue that discrimination against Palestinians is minor. You argue that Palestinians under Israeli rule are better off than Blacks in Africa -- excuse me, Arabs in Arab countries. You omit the routinely unpunished or lightly punished violence by organized civilians from the privileged ethnic group against the other ethnic group.* You argue that when Palestinians get to vote, they vote foolishly. You argue that outsiders just don't understand.
You write I won't agree with your view that Israel is the most vile country in the world.
Google "straw man"
You write Neither side is blameless in the problem. . . . I am disgusted by the settlers . . .
Birmingham had this kind of self-congratulatory moderate, too. They are as much a part of the herrenvolk system as the night riders. ML King wrote them a letter. Phil Ochs wrote them a song.
*You can't have a herrenvolk democracy without klansmen, settler militias, etc., any more than you can have one without torture. These are necessary parts of how such a system works.
August 5, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are we talking about Israeli Arabs or Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. They're not the same thing.
Where did I say anything about Palestinians voting foolishly?
Google "straw man"? Google "Farfour"
I love your logic. Basically anything I say that disagrees with you makes me a self-congratulatory moderate, or a 'white' in Birmingham during the '60s. It's kind of like 'you're either with us or you're against us.'
You mention Israeli abuses; I stated them myself. I can rattle off a list of Palestinian excesses too.
The biggest difference between you and me is that I see the imperfection in both sides. Both suffer and both are to blame, though not necessarily equally. I'd also expect both to make sacrifices for peace. And I believe both are entitled to a state.
August 5, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
artappraiser makes one salient point above:
In this world, what a Robert Kaplan is saying and doing is much more important news than what actually happens in Israel and Palestine, because it relates to who wins favor and who loses in DC, who is in and who is out in DC, who eventually gets the power perks and jobs in DC and who doesn't. Israel and Palestine are quite secondary, it's all about Washington D.C.
This was the most significent portion of the article, both for what it said and what it implies, ie that the current inhabitants of the insitutions Kaplan mentions hew to the notion that Israel isn't "just another country":
As for the matter of Israel's influence on U.S. policymaking, that will only wane as a new generation of immigrant elites - from Asia, the Muslim world, and the Indian Subcontinent - take their places inside America's civilian bureaucracy and military ranks.Israel is not central to the analytical concerns of these young, newly minted Americans. To them, it is just another country with which America must engage according to its interests..
While I may point out that there are some native-born Americans gaining traction in the halls of power who do believe that it's in America's interests to engage with Israel as if it's "just another country", they are still in the minority and on the periphery.
I was ready to dismiss Roger Kaplan as just another liberal neocon who has tactical regrets about supporting the stupid Iraq war until I read a fascinating, wide-ranging interview conducted by hardliner Michael J Totten. Kaplan is well-traveled and is one of those Zionists who is not completely crippled by a Zionist filter when trying to make sense of the worlds of conflict he encounters.
In the interview, for instance, he discusses an aspect of Iran's regional influence that has gone unnoticed by the demonizers, the attractions of it's Persian vs Arab culture:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/07/a-conversation.php
The whole interview is a great, informative read. Roger Kaplan appears to be one of those individuals who is blessed by an insatiable intellectual curiousity that can't sustain doctrinaire povs when confronted by realities that demand nuance and an open mind.
While I may disagree with some of his assumptions and conclusions, Kaplan demonstrates one of the most essential characteristics of any credible analyst/observer, flexibility.
August 5, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that flexibility comes from the curiosity you mention earlier. Robert Kaplan is not plagued by that obnoxious certainty that typifies narrower minds and has recently been so dominant on our domestic scene.
Further, for those who are interested in more domestic trouble and strife, I highly recommend Kaplan's An Empire Wilderness. It's ten years old by now, but that doesn't diminish its readability. Equally compelling for what it gets wrong as what it got right.
August 5, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you read the interview I linked to, Zionista. It's really demonstrative of ROBERT Kaplan's wide-angle, insightful views of everything from Sri Lanka to Russia to Central Asia and so on. He, like Robert ;~{) Cohen, is an evolutionary thinker/seeker who adjusts to the realities that confront him rather than trying to force those realities into a preconceived structural box.
Our foreign policy apparatus is no less afflicted by the: obnoxious certainty that typifies narrower minds and has recently been so dominant on our domestic scene. that you note.
August 5, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the way that Iran is "mucking around" in Afghanistan when we have 60,000 troops there. I guess Iran is "occupying" Iraq too.
My God, these people are delusional.
August 5, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Also note artappraiser who says that the Middle East isn't that important in this crazy world of ours, so we should just leave it alone.
Mmmm. Interesting way to support the occupation while sounding oh-so-disinterested.
August 5, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's too bad for you that artappraiser's comment is still up there for anyone to actually read, huh, MJ? How long until this one gets deleted too?
August 5, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No worries. I save all your posts in a file labeled, "Abnormal Pyschology."
August 5, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't the US have to impose peace between Fatah and Hamas first?
August 7, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you are a fashion man,you must heart the abercrombie and fitch or the vibram five fingers
August 18, 2010 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Feel good, thank you on the article。by the way,Upstairs is a suckerAbercrombie Fitch London
rosetta stone
August 19, 2010 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this topic
indir
full indir
September 4, 2010 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Türkçe yama
metin2 thanks admın
September 4, 2010 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feb 25, 2011 Find a stylish stance for any situation with men's boot brands such as: Ariat®, Asolo®, Baffin®, Carhartt®, Caterpiller®, Chippewa®, Online shopping for Men's Dress Boots from a great selection of Shoes & more at everyday low prices. men boots
March 4, 2011 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for sharing. This information is very useful.
Best regards, Katya, CEO of facebook, datacore iscsi
March 25, 2011 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting post and thanks for sharing. Some things in here I have not thought about before.Thanks for making such a cool post which is really very well written.will be referring a lot of friends about this.Keep blogging Movie Trailers
April 11, 2011 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just wanted to mention that I found a very interesting server at 69.12.181.171. I wonder what it is?
Kryssning Bahamas
April 18, 2011 8:56 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 clusters
April 27, 2011 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink