Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Rashomon at the White House: Why no one agrees on the Bibi-Barack Meeting
In general, I think the Obama/Netanyahu meetings went pretty much as I expected. I've also been struck by the Rashomon-like quality of the commentary on the event, which reminds me of the way that politicians react after campaign debates (their candidate always won). People who want the United States to be more evenhanded saw signs of discord and emphasize the clear differences between the two men on the Palestinian issue; those who favor the status quo on Israel-Palestine highlight the partial agreement on Iran (both men regard its nuclear program as a bad thing, albeit with different degrees of alarm).
The fact that different people can so easily read different meanings into this event is not surprising; both men had little incentive for an overt clash despite their obvious differences. That that's what diplomatic ambiguity is all about. As I suggested yesterday, we won't really know where U.S.-Israeli relations are headed unless and until Obama spells out own vision of a peace settlement in some detail, and until we learn whether Obama is willing to use U.S. leverage to bring it about. Stay tuned.
Amos Moshe Milner/GPO via Getty Images
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
Iran nukes
"...partial agreement on Iran (both men regard its nuclear program as a bad thing, albeit with different degrees of alarm). "
Iran is a signatory to the NPT
Iran has no nukes
Israel is not a signatory to the NPT
Israel has nukes.
Start with the problem child: Israel.
EVEN if Iran got nukes, it would not be a big deal according to the National Defense University -- it would be for deterrence:
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair69/McNairPDF.pdf
But we (Israel+USA) don't want peaceful deterrence, we demand compelence.
Cut off ALL Israeli funding and let it fight its own battles -- this way it will grow up.
Suspect
Little Satan is not the problem Clint.
Since Nazi time Deutschland and Imperial Japan screamed "God! Please! Stop!" there have been born more than 100 nation states and the movements of hundreds of borders. Border moving - seldom agreeable to everyone - yet nation states accepted them as a settled border was better than war.
Germany reconciled herself to the loss of Prussia, Russia acknowledged the secession of Kazakstan and Serbs are handling the idea of Kosovo.
Even in 3rd world states gave up treasured aspirations rather than shed blood forever - Somalia gave up Ogaden, Guatemala stopped demanding Belize and Indonesia finally gave up East Timor.
There is one glaring, bizarro conspicuous exception to this willingness to accept facts - no matter how disappointing they are.
Perhaps the greatest - and sole - obstacle to an ME peace deal is the feeling of certain elements in Arab League and the Mohammedist bloc that any turf that was once theirs can never legitimately belong to anybody else.
Ever.
OMG!
Like, OMG, how 'bout u address the fact that the National Defense University's study found that Iran may be looking for nukes for peaceful deterrence against a violent Israel, rather than for exterminating all Jews in the universe:
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair69/McNairPDF.pdf
Until you can read the above paper, please stick to your normal website: omg.yahoo.com
legitamately?
"...feeling of certain elements in Arab League and the Mohammedist bloc that any turf that was once theirs can never legitimately belong to anybody else."
That would be correct and clear thinking.
Or can I come take over your apt. at gunpoint?
Of course, Arab land cannot _legitimately_ belong to Zionists. Ever.
It can, however, be taken over militarily, as it was.
To make it legitimate the Zionists could try reparations -- but I would not hold my breath: have you tried making an Israeli part with his shekels?
The Zionists believe that Israel has "right" to exist. It does not. That it exists is a historic blunder, and the Israelis should treat it not as a right, but a privilege.
Get yourself a new argument
because your old ones are getting really boring.
Your refusal to recognize the Jewish right of self-determination makes you irrelevant to any discussion, which takes resolution 181 as a given. It also makes you the epitome of hypocrisy - the Palestinians have a right which you deny the Jews. A solution will have to accommodate both sides.
I am a Jew
Jews have a right to self-determination in their own countries.
Israel has nothing to do with Judaism and everything to with Zionism.
The Palestinians have a right to their land, as it always was. Jews should be able to live their peacefully, also, yes.
Until 1948 it was never a "Jewish" state.
Your logic doesn't exactly work in your favor
"Jews have a right to self-determination in their own countries" - like what they had in Germany and the rest of WWII Europe? Really? You've also demolished any Palestinian claim to anything resembling a right of return or compensation; they have the right to self-determination in their own countries, namely, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, etc.
"Until 1948 it was never a "Jewish" state." - There has never in the history of mankind been a Palestinian state, so that's hardly an argument in the Palestinians' favor.
diplomatic ambiguityWhat is
What is this Professor?!
Is this a new axiom on the SATFP:
nn. States fly like a butterfly and sting like a bee;->>
No! Join the Lobby to keep abreast with the IR;->>
Remember Dr Lueger saying "Wer ein Lobby ist, beschtimme Ich!";->>
Don't play pariah by staying tuned, be there! You are the Professor! You don't need invitations! (assuming that you Guys got democracy out there;->)
Grand Sen~or.
Iranian Elections
I assume we are not going to get any real movement on this issue until June 13, and that Obama is still in a homework phase right now.
"More Evenhanded?"
Isn't that a trick question? Shouldn't American Foreign Policy be radically tilted in her interests?
You appear to be the first in
You appear to be the first in this thread to say "more evenhanded" so I'm not sure where you're coming from on this.
But yes, it's entirely predictable that US foreign policy will be radically tilted toward US interests.
Evenhanded
Indeed, high time to be even handed -- like the WPost reader says: (AIPAC, and fascists everywhere, please take note)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051802816_pf.html
What About Israel's Offenses?
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
I agree with the May 7 editorial "No Questions Asked," opposing unconditional U.S. support for the repressive and autocratic regime in Egypt. But I wonder why you don't hold the same position regarding U.S. support for Egypt's neighbor Israel. The United States sends Israel more than $3 billion annually.
Israel is in contravention of many laws, both U.S. and international. For many decades now, its government has committed gross human rights violations against the Palestinians, whom it keeps under illegal occupation.
Israel has continued to expand enormous Jewish-only settlements on Palestinian land; demolish Palestinian homes at will; erect an illegal separation wall mostly inside the occupied Palestinian territories; confiscate water resources desperately needed by Palestinians; kidnap and incarcerate Palestinian men whom it calls militants or terrorists without evidence; and enforce a blockade of Gaza that is preventing Palestinians from getting life-sustaining food and other supplies. And a few months ago, it launched a devastating three-week assault on Gaza, causing massive devastation.
It's high time the United States stopped enabling Israel to abuse and persecute the Palestinians.
JOANNE HEISEL
Columbia
Heisel would do well to study
Heisel would do well to study international law before throwing around the word "illegal" A simple Google search will produce opinions by international lawyers and professors of international law that Israel's actions are perfectly legal, with citations. Heisel, in contrast, seems to want to make her own law, without legal citations.
There is no legal right to "Palestine". After rejecting a legal partition by the UN, the Arabs made war and lost. Thus occupation of territories by the victor is perfectly legal and no "right" remains for "Palestine"--the deal was rejected by force. There is no provision in international law for a "do over" in such cases. Instead, any settlement must be by negotiation between the parties, not by any right.
Of all nations, Arabs are most medieval in their continued adherence to the right of conquest when it suits them. The Islamic legal term for property rights acquired by conquest is `anwatan, (literally "by force"). [Wikipedia]
Heisel's legal qualifications
It would appear, if Google has retrieved the same Joanne Heisel, that her legal qualifications consist of being a teacher of English as a second language, and a passionate position in demonizing Israel with such phrases as "ethnic cleansing".
It's very odd, since Arabs are in the Knesset with a substantial voting bloc of many members (not just tokenism), have full legal rights as citizens, and their holy sites are protected in Israel, while Jews have no comparable rights in Palestinian territories and their holy sites are routinely desecrated. Similarly, many Arabs remain in Israel as citizens; few Jews remain in Arab countries since they were driven out en masse and their property seized. The numbers suggest that there were many more Jews driven out of Arab countries, and more Jewish property seized than the comparable figures for Arabs driven out of Israel and their property taken.
Ja Vol!
Herr Stern-Gang! Ja! Heil Lieberman! Heil NetenYAHOO!!
The result
Here's the result, as reported by Prime Minister Netanyahu at his cabinet meeting Sunday:
"Prime Minister Netanyahu summarized his visit and said that there was broad and good agreement on the Iranian issue, on bilateral strategic relations, on the issue of regional peace as well as on our desire to resume the negotiations with the Palestinians. No agreement has been reached yet on the issue of "two states for two peoples;" neither is there any agreement at the moment on the issue of halting construction in the settlements."
As an explanatory note of my own, the Israeli view appears to be that there are three categories:
1. Outposts. They are to be removed and as soon as Netanyahu returned from Washington he ordered yet another "illegal" outpost demolished. It was done.
2. Settlements. These are expected to be retained by Israel in a final status, possibly with some land swaps to the Arabs to compensate. Natural growth is permitted. Expansion is permitted (by agreements with previous U.S. Presidents) to the "second hill" from the edge of an existing settlement, to accommodate natural population growth. No incentives are to be offered to new migrants to the settlements.
3. Jerusalem. No settlements exist there from the Israeli point of view. It is the single undivided capital of Israel and any legal construction (governed by zoning and the city master plan) is permitted, including new construction.
Again, this is the Israeli position, not our (the U.S. government's position). We and the Israelis will doubtlessly come closer on these two matters as the peace process is advanced by the Palestinians keeping their commitments to stop terrorism, etc. Meanwhile, on the Palestinian issue, "Prime Minister Netanyahu made it clear to President Obama that Israel is prepared to immediately open negotiations with the Palestinians, with the understanding that these negotiations will deal with diplomatic, economic and security matters."
No "state" for the Palestinians.
No Common Ground - Jeffrey Goldberg
In March, Muhammad Dahlan, a former chief of the PA's secret police organizations and once a tacit ally of the CIA, defended Fatah from the charge, made by Hamas, that it had previously recognized Israel's right to exist. Dahlan said: "For the 1,000th time, I want to reaffirm that we are not asking Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. Rather we are asking Hamas not to do so, because Fatah never recognized Israel's right to exist." Dahlan's comment helps buttress the main argument of Benny Morris's new book, One State, Two States, which says that Arab rejectionism is so profound a force that only the terminally obtuse could believe that Palestinians will ever acquiesce to a state comprised solely of the West Bank and Gaza.
Morris sees the culprit as the implacable fanaticism of Arab Islamists, who are unwilling to accept a Jewish national presence in what is thought of as Arab land, a position that hasn't changed since 1920. Subsequent events that seemingly contradict this - most notably the PLO's ostensible recognition of Israel in 1988 - have been staged for the benefit of gullible Westerners, Morris writes. (New York Times)
See also Excerpt: One State, Two States - Benny Morris (New York Times)