Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Obama meets the Lobby
This past Monday, President Obama met with the heads of a number of prominent Jewish groups, to talk about the state of U.S.-Israeli relations and the future direction of U.S. Middle East policy. Virtually all the news reports I've seen suggest that the attendees had a cordial and candid discussion. After reading through various accounts, I have three comments.
First, although a few individuals in the Israel lobby continue to downplay its influence, the very fact that this meeting was held is additional testimony to its important role in shaping U.S. Middle East policy. Why was Barack Obama taking time from his busy schedule to meet with the heads of groups like AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, J Street, Hadassah, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (among others)? Simple: he knows that these groups have a lot of political power. He also knows that the success of his Middle East policy depends in large part on getting significant support from them. In a political system like ours, where well-organized interest groups routinely wield disproportionate influence over the issues they care about, holding a White House sit-down with these key leaders was smart politics.
Second, the meeting also makes it clear that there have been significant changes within the lobby over the past several years, and that there is an evident rift between those who think the United States should continue to the same "special relationship" with Israel, and those who believe that it would be in Israel and America’s interest if Washington adopted a more candid and nuanced policy toward the Jewish state. It is noteworthy that the invitees included representatives from both J Street and Americans for Peace Now -- groups that openly favor a two-state solution and have been backing Obama's campaign to halt all construction in the settlements. Maybe even more noteworthy, the more hard-line groups were remarkably restrained in defending the settlement enterprise.
What’s going on here? Some of these developments reflect the more open discourse that has begun to emerge on Israeli policy and the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Thankfully, it is no longer taboo to discuss these subjects, as it once was. This shift is occurring in good part because a growing number of American Jews are worried that Israel is on a path to become an apartheid state, and that the United States has been enabling that development by giving Israel generous and unconditional support.
The failed Lebanon war of 2006 and the brutal onslaught against Gaza earlier this year have also raised concerns that Israel has lost its moral and strategic compass. You know a country is in trouble when it routinely attacks respected human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, or when a group of its own soldiers releases damning personal testimony about their own misconduct in Gaza. (The courage and candor of these Israeli dissidents remains a redeeming feature of Israel’s otherwise troubled democracy). And you know the hardliners in the lobby are getting desperate when they have to hire a professional spinmeister to come up with Orwellian talking points defending the occupation, such as the bizarre claim that removing illegal settlers from the West Bank would be a form of "ethnic cleansing." (For more on the latter shenanigans, see Richard Silverstein's valuable commentary here, here, and here.)
Third, it is also clear that the hard-line leadership remains trapped in old-think on a lot of these issues. For example, ADL head Abraham Foxman complained before the meeting that "What troubles me most is a lack of consultation and the need [for the administration] to do things publicly. There's a [U.S.-Israel] relationship of 60 years and all of a sudden they’re treating Israel like everyone else. I find that disturbing." In the same vein, Malcolm Hoenlein of the President's Conference reportedly told Obama at the meeting that differences between the U.S. and Israel should be kept private, and that progress toward peace had only occurred when there was "no daylight" between American and Israeli leaders.
To his credit, Obama immediately pointed out the flaw in that line of argument, saying "For eight years, there was no light between the United States and Israel, and nothing got accomplished." He might have added that there was precious little daylight during the Clinton years either, which is one of the many reasons why the Oslo process came to naught.
What Foxman and Hoenlein still don't understand is that the special relationship is in fact harmful to the United States and Israel alike. It has allowed Israel to pursue foolish policies -- like building settlements -- and implicated the United States in them. Israel would be much better off if the United States did "treat it like everyone else," or at least like other democracies. If it did, the U.S. would back Israel when it acts in ways we deem desirable, but U.S. leaders would criticize and oppose Israel's actions when they are contrary to U.S. interests or values. In the end, a normal relationship between the two countries would be far healthier than the "special relationship" that Hoenlein and Foxman have long defended.
On this point, Obama could have quoted former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, who notes in his excellent book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace that the two presidents who made "meaningful breakthroughs on the way to an Arab-Israeli peace" (Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush) succeeded because they were "ready to confront Israel head on and overlook the sensibilities of her friends in America." Obama is actually employing a smarter approach than these two predecessors. Like Carter and Bush, he appears to be willing "to confront Israel head on," but instead of "overlooking" the sensibilities of pro-Israel groups, as they did, he is doing his best to bring them along. Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street put the point well after the White House meeting: Obama "knows how to push while he’s hugging."
Obama also made it clear that the Palestinians and the Arab states also need to do more (a point that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton underscored in a major speech yesterday), and that Washington will have to put pressure on all sides. But the United States has lots of experience putting pressure on the Palestinians and the Arabs -- in fact, one attendee at the meeting quoted Obama as saying that U.S. pressure on the Arabs is a "dog bites man" story -- so that will not be hard to do. Pressuring Israel, on the other hand, has been a much rarer occurrence, but it is now necessary if Obama hopes to move toward a two-state solution and foster lasting peace between Israel and the Arab states around it. If he sticks to the positions he's already outlined and follows through -- and if the leaders he met with on Monday have the good sense to back him -- Obama just might succeed.
BAZ RATNER/AFP/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
"What troubles me most is a
Although I am far from agreement with Foxman on many issues, he has a point with this. Is it necessary to air all our grievances in public? We don't do that with many of our other allied states.
You forgot to add that it was not particularly successful pressure in most cases - all the pressure that Clinton could lay on wasn't able to bring Arafat seriously to the table in 2000 when he thought his political survival was at stake.
We're good at getting the Arab states to overlook things, not actively getting them to do anything.
so you think we should attack iran...
okay.
how much are you willing to pay for a gallon of gas?
dont you think it will take a new "new pearl harbor" to rally american support for this project?
is that why some neocons want another 9/11?
is that why PNAC wanted "a new pearl harbor" in the first place?
how are you gonna frame iran for the new "new pearl harbor"?
can you cobble up a nuke false flag, then accuse iran of buying nukes from north korea, or maybe from some of berezovsky's chechen buddies?
what are you waiting for?
are you getting nostaligic?
remember the good old days after the original pearl harbor, with gas rationing?
what can you do to perk up the team spirit?
do we need a new "new pearl harbor"?
do you think israel's control of america has been solidified to the point that americans will hold still for rationing... rationing that's necessary in a war to defend israel?
and if that control hasnt been solidified enough, has the constitution of the US been trashed enough that dissenters can be apprehended, stuffed into rail cars, and shipped off to forced labor camps?
The Jewish lobby is the only
The Jewish lobby is the only lobby which cares about Israel, and that's why it should be consulted. The real power in Washington on the Middle East are the Saudis, and for some reason, no one gives a damn what they do to our policy. So all Obama's lack of respect for the lobby shows, is his deference to the Saudis.
If American's really cared for Israel, there would exist gentile associations trying to pull their weight on the issue. But they don't. Because if it was up to the gentiles, then Israel would be downgraded to Honduras status. And we can see how much Washington cares about Honduras.
As Iran showed us, don't count on Washington to defend people's democratic aspirations wherever they may be. Everyone needs to take care of themselves. Israel does that, and Jews in America, do nothing but demand that Israel remain democratic.
We don't want Honduran status, and we wont be marginalized in favor of Saudi Arabia - America's true Number One ally in the region.
on the other hand...
maybe these supposed zionists are making so much money from looting that preservation of israel has become nothing but a sideshow, a ploy to divert attention from the real function of the war on terror.
if america is doomed by peak oil, and israel wont survive without american protection, what would be the point of supporting israel?
the only reason to "support israel" is to cash in on israel's immunity from criticism as america is plundered.
.
but once again: different factions are struggling with each other in the cold civil war... looters vs zionists, and there even might be a few americans left.
Your anti semitism is at a level I have rarely seen.
You would have it that "zionists" are working to both undermine both Israel and the US. Where do you suppose they will live when it all goes to hell, the moon?
Is it not clear that the US and Israel are both simply making a mistake in the form of the settlements and the occupation that is born out of both fear, simple political cowardice, need for oil (fear again, mostly on our part) and a lack of new Ideas? Is it too far outside of your ability to imagine that we have been simply WRONG, as opposed to being swindled by amoral, all powerful overlord Zionists who apparently want to gather so much money that they would, in doing so, destroy all the really good places to spend it???
If you actually care about this issue, don't $h*t all over the conversation by interjecting loony, anti semitic garbage that detracts from the real focus on ending the settlements and occupation.
"the very fact that this
Obama spends his first Middle East trip in six Muslim countries, completely avoids Israel and spends most of the trip apologizing to the Muslim world and you think a few hours with "Jewish" groups shows their power? Almost everyone there praised Obama for getting tough on settlements and simply wanted equal pressure on the Palestinians to live up to their commitments to stop incitement and launching rockets in Israeli towns.
You also think two groups whose policies are diametrically opposed to each other, J Street and AIPAC, are part of the same lobby? Unvelieveable. Any group with Jews in it is part of the Israel Lobby(tm).
I also suppose that when ever Obama "takes time out of his busy schedule" to meet with ANY group you will be waxing poetic about their undue influence? Would you say the same thing about his visits with Muslim or Christian groups? Of course not, because it's pure paranoia to use your logic.
You mean the same HRW that lobbies the theocratic advisory body in Saudi Arabia for money by bragging about how tough it is on Israel and limits its criticism of its massive human rights abuses to how it treats foreign workers(but points out that they have passed a law to try and fix this problem). Nothing wrong here in Saudi Arabia now give us money so we can attack Israel. This is not to say HRW has not criticize SA, but that criticism seems dependent on whether they need money.
And why do they need money? Well Arab News.com tells us
So, HRW has no money because it spends it all investigating Israel and then goes to the Saudis, one of the worst human rights abusers in the world, asking for more money so it can attack Israel more. They are obviously completely objective and no one should ever call them inpartial so forget free speach--they are the exception.
Right, other than these anonymous men making allegations, (which you immediately accept as true without seeing any proof) there is barely a shred of democracy in Israel Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Here are a just a few topics for discussion on this issue.
How are gay men and women treated in Israel?
What are the criminal penalties for being openly gay in Arab countries?
Do women have equal rights Israel?
How are women treated in most Arab countries compared to men?
How many Muslims, Druze and Christians freely practice their religion in Israel?
What criminal penalties do you face for practicing or converting to Christianity and Judaism in Saudi Arabia?
How many Arabs are in the Israeli Knesset?
How many Jews are even allowed to enter Saudi Arabia?
This is an incredibly ahistorical account which belittles the courage and hard work of Sadat and Begin. Carter wasn't even for the final peace treaty because it didn't end the Palestinian issue. He finally had to acquiesce because the two sides wanted to make peace.
Exactly what pressure are you talking about? Have the Palestinians made any effort to stop indoctrinating their population to hate Jews? Have they stopped firing missiles into Israeli cities? If the US is putting pressure on them, it is doing a terrible job.
it always comes back to the same old thing...
israel was such a bad idea in the first place that defenders of israel have to abandon their morals to defend israel.
what's good for israel is not necessarily good for jews.
that's just how it is, and that's how it will continue to be so long as israel, after being founded in lies, terror and injustice, must continue to use lies, terror and injustice to survive.
tikkun olam, the light unto nations, and benevolent global hegemony, huh?
meanwhile, the looting continues...
...and the looting continues with such brazenness that we can come to a couple conclusions...
1. the looters have no fear of being brought to justice.
2. the looting operation is damaging america, and, at one remove, israel's chances for survival.
3. if the looters are willing to damage america and, by implication, israel's chances of survival, we have to assume that the primary objective is loot, and america and israel have been written off.
4. the zionist faction will eventually get desperate enough to attempt to get the israel/PNAC project back on track, most likely by using, once again, the "new pearl harbor" ploy.
This is an incredibly
Not to mention its appalling ignorance - Sadat and Begin had already gotten negotiations going by the time Carter stepped in, and Begin actually did want to get rid of the Sinai for a peace treaty - the big issue was over whether or not the Sinai would be de-militarized, Israel could hang on to a certain area, and the phase of the process.
J Street
is plainly part of the Israel lobby. They disagree with the approach of some of the more traditional groups, but they share a broader goal -- preserving the U.S. relationship with Israel, ensuring Israel's security, and trying to achieve peace between Israel and its neighbors and surrounding populations. Above all, they clearly seek to preserve the relationship. They simply want it to be more healthy, whereas AIPAC doesn't want it to change at al, and wants to continue to dictate the U.S.'s Israel policy to it. That is a significant difference, but Prof. Walt has always acknowledged the differences among groups in the lobby. They remain focused broadly on similar goals. Collectively, these groups do constitute a lobby in that they seek to influence policy in a particular area broadly in the same direction.
It sounds like J Street has
It sounds like J Street has the same views as Walt. Certainly Walt has expressed support for "ensuring Israel's security, and trying to achieve peace between Israel and its neighbors and surrounding populations". I'm not sure what you mean by "preserving the relationship". Both J Street and Walt, for instance, believe that the relationship should be a good one but that the US should act in its own interests and should bring pressure to bear on Israel in order to advance those interests.
And this points to a major flaw in Walt's work. If I am "the Lobby", and Walt is "the Lobby", and every group other than those working to actively harm Israel are "the Lobby", then the term really doesn't have a lot of meaning. Everything can be said about "the Lobby", and all views and tactics can be ascribed to "the Lobby".
If you want to get a more refined definition, we can start getting more specificity by looking at individual issues such as aid, support at the UN, co-development of military technology, and potential defense treaties to name a few. But, remembering that "the Lobby" is acting in what they believe are America's best interests (even Walt says so), similar to Walt and me and presumably you, then "the Lobby" really just becomes shorthand for "those groups whose policy views differ from Walt's vis-a-vis Israel".
Just like Walt, who devotes a significant amount of time and energy to the task.
Great article.
I hope the tide is turning against the settlements and blind support of other policies which are bad for both Israel and the US. We have allowed a relatively small percentage of the far Israeli right to sway US opinions on the region for far too long, and It has gotten us nowhere.
God willing, Obama will have the guts to stand up to the lobby's tired and dysfunctional thinking, and finally enact policy that will be good for BOTH the US and Israel.
The settlements MUST go. They needlessly inspire terror against both Israel and the US, and serve absolutely no strategic purpose. They necessitate the occupation, and have caused the suffering of millions over many decades.
If Israel is ever to live in peace and security, it must do so behind 67 borders and next to a functioning and vibrant Palestinian state.
the west bank is high ground- high ground may become "strategic"
.
if PNAC and israeli america do not gain control of the remaining fossil fuel, that fuel will be burned, resulting in another 100 ppm of co2 in the atmosphere.
how far down the line does "strategic purpose" have to be figured, especially given so much evidence that israel's protection ---aka the american taxpayer--- is gonna be hard pressed to afford israel because of looters and peak oil?
why do you think the neocons were in such a hurry to get the project started? ...why do you think the neocons of the AEI and their exxon buddies are the world's foremost deniers of global warming? ...what will an 80-meter sea level rise do to the strategic importance of the palestinians' high ground in the west bank?
why did israel give the low ground in gaza back to the palestinians?
do you honestly think that aumann's computers are not gaming this situation hundreds of years out into the future?
none of this stuff is happening in a vacuum...
global warming seems to be the real deal, and the physics is indisputable... co2 is a greenhouse gas, and we're putting an extra 30 gigatons of the stuff into the atmosphere every year.
global oil production probably peaked... it's been on a plateau since 2005, despite a doubling of drills (since 2002) and a seven-fold increase in price... and the only thing that brought the price back down was action of looters, who probably deliberately pumped up the housing bubble in anticipation of peak oil, knowing from experience that hard times decreases demand for oil.
peak oil has to be denied because it was the immediate motive for staging 9/11 to get the PNAC project underway.
this PNAC project is a land and oil acquisition project ---if you're a believer... if you're just a run-of-the-mill looter, like the russian oligarchs, looting is an end in itself.
but for the diehard zionist believers, peak oil was the trigger motive for 9/11, seeing as how israel must be secured from sea level rise before america collapses.
aumann and dror... the end of israeli morals and ethics
it's really cool that aumann's nobel-winning game theory is computerized... that way, we can blame the crays for the consequences, as mr dror finally owns up to the long-established fact, in the jewish forward no less, that there's no room for morals in defense of israel.
how very convenient that computers dont have morals.
so we can rely on aumann's GIGO... and his results seem to be based on three rules of behavior: might makes right, two wrongs make a right, and the end justifies the means.
Israeli initiated US sanctions costs lives in Iran
They reportedly cost more than 400.000 iraqie children their lives from 1991 to 2003 -- and lets not in this context forget the up to 1 million iraqie civilians killed in Iraq after 2003 (among them tens of thousands of children) due to a war that would not have happened without pressure form Israel and particularly the Israel lobby.
Just the other day 168 Iranians lost their lives because The Israel lobby still have sanctions in place towards Iran.
The laws of probability tells you than if you only have Russian airplanes to choose from, and are denied American and European models, you are going to suffer higher casualty-rates. This was the 12th crash in Iran since January 2, 2000 and 948 people have lost their lives in that period.
Entrepreneurial and alert Americans
And the odd thing is that the entreprenurial and alert Americans -- as we all know and love them -- would be more than happy to 'relieve' the Iranians of some of the many dollars that went their way in recent years due to the record-high oilprices, just as the Americans did in the 1970'ies with the Shah, and his record-oilrevenue following the quadroubling of prices in 1974.
If common sense had prevailed, Iran would have had spareparts available for its Boings and would have bought brand new. This is what trade does: It fulfills a demand, everybody is happy, it leads to development and it might even have made Iran more moderate, precisely what everybody in the West seems to strive at.
Enter Israel and its lobby
Enter Israel and its lobby. They are not happy, but are intend of punishing Iran, which it after the end of the cold war sees as a rival [for US interest and courtship]. After the end of the cold war, Israel realised that its strategic importance was deminishing, and needed a new glue for the alliance with the US. And the new glue was radical Islam, and The islamic republic got lumped into that equation.
Now tell me: What danger does hydraulic pipes or fuel pumps for Boing aircraft pose for the security of The United States?
Idiot
That is quite a spin: by not selling American aircraft to Iran, we are condemning them to unsafe Russian aircraft? Oh those wacky Zionists! If Israel is so powerful as to prevent the US from free trade with Iran, why can it not do so with Russia, a weaker and poorer entity? The answer is because the premise of Israeli domination is ludicrous.
The Israel Lobby (TM) decided that peace would be too peaceful and then decided to make the region less stable? Honestly? Talk to the Arab Street (TM) and feel the illogical and intense hatred, not only for Israel, but for the Jews as well. Then go to Israel and ask a soldier, who would rather be texting his girlfriend and going to college, if he wants to fight the Arabs. Yes, genius, the Israelis want a war. Idiot.
There are so many straw men here that it is laughable, but then again, such is the case for any one of these typical Jew-hating, anti-Israeli screeds. Cheers.
ZioNuts
Insane arguments, and accusations...You stole Palestinian land and their water, raped their women, killed their children, ethnically cleansed them and tormented them for 60 years, and you want them to compromise some more.
``Jewish`` voices screeched loudest for the destruction of Iraq, the names are known, and they are not from Zanzibar. Yet the mention of this get you an accusation of anti this and anti that.
As if babykillers have the moral integrity to label anyone anything.
As if babykillers have the
Cry me a fucking river. At least the Israelis' targets tend to be actual military targets, with most of the civilian deaths due to collateral damage - as opposed to the various Palestinian groups, who actively target Israeli civilians and do fun stuff like bombing discos full of Israeli teenagers.
Professor Walt, After reading
Professor Walt,
After reading the comments on this thread I take back my statement about your post being a bit paranoid about Israel as your commenters have shown what true paranoia is.
you cant defeat the logic or the facts...
of global warming and peak oil.
.
.
you cant defeat the logic of israel's seemingly insatiable appetite for the palestinian high ground in the west bank, or the logic and fact of israel's withdrawal from gaza.
you cant defeat the logic and the facts that israel and israeli americans were the prime movers behind the "war on terror", including the lies that got us into iraq, nor can you deny israel's disproportionate control of american media, politics and foreign policy.
...or are you willing to admit to the possibility that the neocons' supposed "loyalty" to israel is nothing more than exploitation of israel's immunity from criticism?
.
and are we supposed to believe that tens of thousands of palestinians killed, hundreds of thousands more terrorized from their land, is a figment of paranoid imaginations?
israel was a bad idea, and no amount of namecalling will change that fact, or rescue you from the logic and facts of peak oil and global warming, or rescue you from the fact of israel's disproportionate influence on american media, politics and foreign policy.
the fact that you have to resort to namecalling to defend israel only proves dror's thesis: zionists must abandon their morals to defend israel, mostly because israel is, and has been from the start, morally indefensible.
"you cant defeat the logic
"you cant defeat the logic and the facts that israel and israeli americans were the prime movers behind the "war on terror"
"and are we supposed to believe that tens of thousands of palestinians killed... is a figment of paranoid imaginations?
"
Thanks. Point proven.
logic and facts
this appears in an article written by a jewish american, jim lobe...
.
apparently haaretz can tell the difference between an american jew and an israeli american...
.
what moral right did europeans have to move to palestine and terrorize hundreds of thousands of people from their homes and land?
might makes right, two wrongs make a right, and the end justifies the means... and 9/11 was "creative destruction" that kicked off the project to achieve "benevolent global hegemony", the benevolence having already been demonstrated by hundred of thousands of deaths in iraq, afghanistan and new york city.
with any luck at all, this benevolence will result in neocon control of global energy supply, which will restrict chinese and indian access to fossil fuels and curb global warming.
with any luck at all, the benevolence will deny russian access to european markets, causing economic hardship in russia that will enhance the possibility of regime change in russia and restore israeli russians back to control of russian energy, israeli russians who were originally intended to guarantee oil supplies to israeli america as it continues to remodel the middle east/central asian/caspian oil patches to israeli spec...
too bad putin dumped the yukos guys, isnt it? ...but maybe now you understand why the neocons are trying to revive the cold war, and are so intent on achieving nuclear primacy which will supposedly enable a nuke first strike on russia.
that would be a pretty moral operation, wouldnt it?
.
this is the last chance to achieve tikkun olam, benevolent global hegemony, and israel's status as a "light unto nations" before oil shortages cripple israeli america.
1 state solution
There is an industry of denial called the Middle East "peace process." This industry feeds the current international consensus on the two-state solution as the only "comprehensive" settlement to the conflict. But there's a better solution, one that's slowly picking up steam among Palestinians and Israelis: a one-state model.
The two-state approach is flawed on two major counts. First, Israel's extensive colonization of the territories it seized in the 1967 war has made the creation of a Palestinian state there impossible. Israel was offering nothing more than "a mini-state of cantons," as Palestinian Authority negotiators recently complained. This leaves Israel in control of more than half of the West Bank and all of East Jerusalem. With the Israeli position largely unchallenged by the international community, the only route to a two-state settlement will be through pressure on the weaker Palestinian side.
This leads to the second flaw: The two-state solution reflects only Israeli interests. It proposes to partition historic Palestine – an area that includes present-day Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem – massively and inequitably in favor of Israel as a Jewish state. By definition, this rules out possibility of Palestinian return except to the tiny, segmented West Bank territory that Israeli colonization has created, and to an overcrowded Gaza, which cannot accommodate the returnees.
Thus the "peace process" is really about making the Palestinians concede their basic rights to accommodate Israel's demands.
It also panders to Israel's paranoia over "demography," an ambiguous term that refers to the morally repugnant wish to preserve Israel's Jewish ethnic purity.
But the two-state solution's biggest flaw is that it ignores the main cause of the conflict: the Palestinian dispossession of 1948.
Today more than 5 million dispersed refugees and exiles long to return. It is fashionable to ignore this, as if Palestinians have less right to repatriation than the displaced Kosovars so ardently championed by NATO in 1999. As recognized by the Western powers then, the right to return was fundamental to peacemaking in the Bosnian crisis. It should be no less so in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Yet the present peace process aims to preserve a colonialist Israel and make Palestinian dispossession permanent. This is not only illegal and unjust, it is also short-sighted. As the early Zionist thinker Vladimir Jabotinsky warned in 1923, native resistance to dispossession is irrepressible and Zionism would only survive with constant force to quell it.
Israel has heeded the lesson well. With an oppressive military occupation ruling over the West Bank and Gaza, it has herded Palestinians into ghettoes and prisons, aiming to paralyze any resistance. The response to this brutality is misery, expressed by some in violence against Israelis, and continuing instability in the region.
American collusion with Israel has led to growing anti-Americanism among Arabs and Muslims.
If the aim of the peace process is to resolve the conflict properly, then we must tackle the root of the problem: the creation of an exclusive state for one people in another people's territory. The strife this caused will end only when the Palestinian rights to repatriation and compensation are addressed. This cannot happen in a situation of Israeli hegemony.
A different approach that puts the principles of equity and sharing above dominance and oppression is needed: a one-state solution. In such a state, no Jewish settler would have to move and no Palestinian would be under occupation. Resources could be shared, rather than hoarded by Israel. Jerusalem could be a city for both. Above all, the dispossessed Palestinians could finally return home.
Indulging Israel is a dangerous folly that postpones solution. It harms Palestinians, the region, and long-term Western interests. It even harms Israelis, who are less secure in Israel than anywhere else. Palestinian and Arab support for the two-state proposal only reflects resignation to Israel's superior power and fear of US reprisal, not conviction. The two-state proposal is unstable and cannot replace a durable solution based on equity, justice, and dignity.
A decade ago, the unitary state idea was ridiculed. Today, as the two-state solution recedes, a one-state solution is the stuff of mainstream discussion. Now it must become mainstream policy, too.
Israel was offering nothing
That was the case with the 1994 Accords. Not so much with Barak's 2000 offer, which at least allowed for territorial integrity on the 91% of land he offered the Palestinians (even if offering 91% of land they already have to someone isn't exactly an impressive offer).
Why should the descendants of original refugees have any right of return? They've never lived on the land, and it's only because the neighboring Arab states aside from Jordan never granted them citizenship that they still exist as distinct communities elsewhere.
I don't recognize inter-generational rights of return, because it justifies not only this type of Palestinian, but the Israeli claim when you get down to it.
You mean a small amount of elderly refugees want to return, and their millions of descendants want to immigrate.
Because the Kosovars were the actual refugees in question, who had actually lived on the land and been displaced. That's not the case with most of the so-called Palestinian "refugees", most of whom never lived in Palestine.
This is ironically because of human rights concerns. If they didn't matter, the Israelis would have simply ethnically cleansed the remaining Palestinians decades ago, and then they wouldn't have the Occupation problem.
Who cares about conviction? The Egyptians don't particularly love the Israelis, but that hasn't kept their government from keeping a peace with them for nearly 30 years, to the point where the Egyptians actively helped the Israelis in containing Hamas.
Prof. Walt, Your ignorance of ME cultur is abvious.
As one who lived on both sides of the Arab (or more accurately) Islamic - Israeli (Jewish), I am at awe with your utter luck of deeper understanding the root causes of this conflict. It has much less to do with land, and more with state of mind.
The biggest flaw with your (and your colleague Mersheimer)thesis, is that both think and operate like American when it comes to the complex, and intricate subtleties of the ME politics and cultural. You two look at the trees, but fail to see the Forrest.
For example, your luck of understanding the real and underlying reasons, why Israel airs its dirty laundry in public. Every other day another leader in Israel is indicted for one, or other misconduct. Or Israeli solders "publicly admit to IDF misconduct in Gaza". The reasons are. a) Israel zeal to uproot corruption. b) More important reason is, send a very clear message, and hopefully provide impetus, through example to young Muslims throughout the Arab states to adapt the same cultural of self criticism, and demand for accountability from their leaders.
While Americans like you, would sing the Dixie song of "spreading DEMOCRACY throughout the Arab & Islamic state", Israel is trying to bring stability in the region by demonstrating - through example, how freedom of expression benefits any society, and bring about better standard of living to those countries who practice them. I guess you will have none of that mantra.
You can win the battle of political change in a given country (or region) through military force, or lead by example. we already have seen the military option in Iraq.
Finally, in regard to your accusation of Israel becoming an apartheid state. They are an apartheid against the Palestinians, just as much as we in US are apartheid state against Mexico.
To those who think of one state solution - please save yur breath. It ain't going to happen - period.
"complex and inticate subtleties"...
what's so subtle about europeans moving to israel, murdering tens of thousands, which served to terrorize hundreds of thousands more from their land?
Quote: "what's so subtle
Quote: "what's so subtle about europeans moving to israel, murdering tens of thousands, which served to terrorize hundreds of thousands more from their land?"
And what's so subtle about europeans moving to N. America (U.S. & Canada), Australia, S. America, murdering tens of thousands, which served to terrorize hundreds of thousands more from their land?
Consider this. During the past 500 years alone, more then 70% of the most fertile land mass on earth, its original inhabitance no longer own, nor control their land. So what is your point?
two wrongs...
...make a right.
if europeans are entitled to move to north america and wipe out the natives, then europeans are entitled to move to palestine and wipe out the natives.
two wrongs make a right.
"Euporean"
50% of Jews who had immigrated to Israel came from Arab & Islamic states. Forced out of their homes, and shops, with only suitcases in the hand. in 1940, there were more then 1.2M Jews living throughout the Arab & Islamic state. By 1965, only 120,000 of them left there.
Unless you include Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, and other Arab & Islamic states as "Europeans", you better read and re-read your post before you click "save"
50% of Jews who had
That's why I don't particularly care about the 1948 "Refugees"'s claims - shortly after they left, the Arab states turned around and expelled a number of Sephardic Jews nearly equal in number to those of the Palestinians expelled.
In other words, a population exchange occurred, and people need to get over it and work with the current situation rather than spending their lives fantasizing about a political situation that ended 60 years ago.
Yeah, One state solution - What a genious idea
It looks that federation with other Arab states, is far more constructive and palatable for the Palestinians to pursue,then Bi-National state between Jews and Muslim-Arabs. Here are the reason why's.
This is not a question of apartheid, rather pragmatism, to live among those whom one has more common interest then with others.
Just look at the table below which compares The final disposition of Palestinians with Egypt (Gaza), Jordan with WB. Versus Israel and Palestinians.
...SUBJECT....................EGYPT........JORDAN.....ISRAEL
- Common Language with:...Yes..........Yes............No
- Common Religion:............Yes.............Yes.........No
- Common Customs:........Yes................Yes.............No
- Common Heritage:......Yes.................Yes...........No
- Percentage of Population
identifies itself as “Palestinians”:...0%.......75%.......5%
- Its Queen is a Palestinian:.......No......Yes.........No
- The state which Palestinian
leaders vowed to destroy:......No......No.........Yes
- Pals most likely will
face LESS discrimination:.....No.....No..............Yes
- Until 1967, Pals were
part of this state:.........Yes.........Yes.............No
Now, if you would be a pragmatic and rational Palestinian. In which of one of these states would you prefer to live in peace and harmony.
and then there's gaza...
and the benefits of being bombed by white phosphorus.
and then there was Sderot, and Askelon
Here we go again.
Quote: "and the benefits of being bombed by white phosphorus".
the benefits to stop 8 years during which Hamas launched 10,000 rockets onto Israeli cities and towns.
a bad idea, going forward. what's next?
i spose you could make the following argument: if israel had not been such a bad idea in the first place, it would not have become necessary to bomb gaza, killing 1500 people, in retaliation for the handful of deaths caused by those rockets.
european jews founded israel
where did morals come from?
ah... i remember now...
god gave moses and brigham young moral commandments, commandments that were to be followed when convenient.
there's no way in hell that morals evolved over millions of years as a survival strategy.
if you gots to make a living by peddling crackpot ideas...
...well, go for it.
you chose to live that way, and you cant blame anyone but yourselves.
Israel
As an Israeli & American I am glad that poster like wasody come here and post questions to others, to which I am all happy to provide answers.
1. Arab claim of land ownership.
The fact is, as of 1920's the land to which those so-called "Palestinians" claim, it was owned by 3 different entities - none of which those living in refugee camp (I know, I know, it is hard for some to swallow it).
a) The Ottoman Empire who after WWI lost their empire.
b) Wealthy absently Arab land owners living in villas in Cairo, Damascus, Beirut and elsewhere. Called "effendi", they bough most of the land from the Ottoman during the 18th century. In return, these effendi were leasing the land to these Arab peasants at absorbent rates.
c) 7% of the land was owned by Jews who legally bought their from the Ottoman. (the Rothschild Banking family was a major backer of that purchase).
So you see, LEGALLY the Palestinians did not, nor even owned the land to which now demand the right to return.
Israel's existence:
2) in 1947, UN Resolution 181 provided a 2 state solution. One Arab one for Jews. Jews had agreed. Arabs refused. Their mantra was (and still is) "All for me, nothing for you".
3) in 1948 Arab initiated war of annihilation to throw the Jews in sea. They lost that war, and suffered the consequences.
4) Israel was founded by majority vote in the UN, much like other countries. It was founded on the same basis of religious sovereignty as Pakistan, and Bangladesh were founded. Whom Israelis choose to accept into their country, as or not, is their's, and their sole decision to make. Not yours, nor other. That right is reserved to any independent and sovereign country - not only Israel.
Finally. Pundits are quick to point out "the atrocities" committed by IDF against the defenseless pals in Gaza. Never bother to examine the reasons, for which Israel had to take drastic step to "bomb Gaza". Perhaps those pundits should as leader of hamas for an answer.
yup... there's nothing immoral about stealing land from arabs...
...so dror's saying that israelis should abandon their morals to defend israel is moot.
there's nothing immoral about stealing land from arabs because arabs are subhuman, and thus have no human rights.
simple.
and david ben gurion spelled it out: "I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it".
so you got the same old choice you've always had: you can own up to abandoning your morals, or you can own up to being racial supremacists.
or you could just possibly own up to being immoral racists.
anybody who's paid any attention to the situation knows...
...that dror's calling for all jews ---not just israelis, but all jews--- to abandon their morals is just public acknowledgement of radical jewish morality that's been present from the beginning of the israel project.
the only surprising thing about dror's screed is his going public.
so now, according to dror, all jews must adhere to the zionist philsophy, which is: might makes right, two wrongs make a right, and the end justifies the means.
so eventually jewish people with brains and conscience get around to wondering if israel is good for the jews.
but that's not what we're supposed to ask, is it? ...what we're supposed to ask is: "is it good for the jews?" and "is it good for israel?"
we're forbidden to ask "is israel good for the jews?"
The 1-state solution is the ONLY solution
There is an industry of denial called the Middle East "peace process." This industry feeds the current international consensus on the two-state solution as the only "comprehensive" settlement to the conflict. But there's a better solution, one that's slowly picking up steam among Palestinians and Israelis: a one-state model.
The two-state approach is flawed on two major counts. First, Israel's extensive colonization of the territories it seized in the 1967 war has made the creation of a Palestinian state there impossible. Israel was offering nothing more than "a mini-state of cantons," as Palestinian Authority negotiators recently complained. This leaves Israel in control of more than half of the West Bank and all of East Jerusalem. With the Israeli position largely unchallenged by the international community, the only route to a two-state settlement will be through pressure on the weaker Palestinian side.
This leads to the second flaw: The two-state solution reflects only Israeli interests. It proposes to partition historic Palestine – an area that includes present-day Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem – massively and inequitably in favor of Israel as a Jewish state. By definition, this rules out possibility of Palestinian return except to the tiny, segmented West Bank territory that Israeli colonization has created, and to an overcrowded Gaza, which cannot accommodate the returnees.
Thus the "peace process" is really about making the Palestinians concede their basic rights to accommodate Israel's demands.
It also panders to Israel's paranoia over "demography," an ambiguous term that refers to the morally repugnant wish to preserve Israel's Jewish ethnic purity.
But the two-state solution's biggest flaw is that it ignores the main cause of the conflict: the Palestinian dispossession of 1948.
Today more than 5 million dispersed refugees and exiles long to return. It is fashionable to ignore this, as if Palestinians have less right to repatriation than the displaced Kosovars so ardently championed by NATO in 1999. As recognized by the Western powers then, the right to return was fundamental to peacemaking in the Bosnian crisis. It should be no less so in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Yet the present peace process aims to preserve a colonialist Israel and make Palestinian dispossession permanent. This is not only illegal and unjust, it is also short-sighted. As the early Zionist thinker Vladimir Jabotinsky warned in 1923, native resistance to dispossession is irrepressible and Zionism would only survive with constant force to quell it.
Israel has heeded the lesson well. With an oppressive military occupation ruling over the West Bank and Gaza, it has herded Palestinians into ghettoes and prisons, aiming to paralyze any resistance. The response to this brutality is misery, expressed by some in violence against Israelis, and continuing instability in the region.
American collusion with Israel has led to growing anti-Americanism among Arabs and Muslims.
If the aim of the peace process is to resolve the conflict properly, then we must tackle the root of the problem: the creation of an exclusive state for one people in another people's territory. The strife this caused will end only when the Palestinian rights to repatriation and compensation are addressed. This cannot happen in a situation of Israeli hegemony.
A different approach that puts the principles of equity and sharing above dominance and oppression is needed: a one-state solution. In such a state, no Jewish settler would have to move and no Palestinian would be under occupation. Resources could be shared, rather than hoarded by Israel. Jerusalem could be a city for both. Above all, the dispossessed Palestinians could finally return home.
Indulging Israel is a dangerous folly that postpones solution. It harms Palestinians, the region, and long-term Western interests. It even harms Israelis, who are less secure in Israel than anywhere else. Palestinian and Arab support for the two-state proposal only reflects resignation to Israel's superior power and fear of US reprisal, not conviction. The two-state proposal is unstable and cannot replace a durable solution based on equity, justice, and dignity.
A decade ago, the unitary state idea was ridiculed. Today, as the two-state solution recedes, a one-state solution is the stuff of mainstream discussion. Now it must become mainstream policy, too.
Stolen Land diatribe
Again, how the hell, Jews could steal their own land, for which, even the Arab themselves admit, it was bought and legally owned by them.
Here is how the land throughout the ME & Gulf is allocated between Israel and the Arabs.
State........................."occupies" (Sq,km)..Percent Bahrain....................... 665................0.01%
Egypt......................... 1,001,450..........8.42%
Iran............................1,648,000.........13.85%
Iraq............................437,072............3.67%
Jordan........................ 92,300.............0.78%
Kuwait...................... 17,820.............0.15%
Lebanon..................... 10,400.............0.09%
Libya......................... 1,759,540.........14.79%
Oman......................... 212,460............1.79%
Qatar......................... 11,437.............0.10%
Turkey..........................780,580............6.56%
Saudi Arabia...................1,960,582..........16.48%
Somalia.........................637,657............5.36%
Sudan......................... 2,505,810.........21.06%
Syria.......................... 185,180............1.56%
UAE.............................83,600.............0.70%
WB & Gaza (Palestine)...........6,220..............0.05%
Yemen...........................527,970............4.44%
Subtotal:.....................11,878,078..........99.83%
Israel..........................20,770.............0.17%
Total..........................11,898,848........100.00%
The Islamists won't even share less then 0.20% of the land with the Jews. Then you are surprised why the western societies don't give a hoot to the Arab bellicose of Israel as "occupier?.
To the gentleman who repeats the same cut-n-paste essay about "one state solution". Heck, Pals don't even get alone among their own different factions and various hamullahs (Tribal groups), how do you expect Israelis being as free, Gregorius, pragmatic and highly productive people be able to live in peace as minorities in that purported one-state solution.
Sunni kill shi'te and vis-versa. Both want to kill the infedals - Jews being on top of the list.
When Pals will demonstrate that they can live as civilized societies among themselves, let alone the Israelis, then we will see about one state solution.
sooner or later, you're gonna have to admit...
...that israel was a bad idea... for a bunch of reasons, and some newly emerging reasons (peak oil and global warming) that hadnt been anticipated by the founders of israel.
apparently the founders of israel were stupid enough to buy a little land from people who didnt have a legitimate right to sell it, but the supposed land purchases ---such as they were, and there werent many--- are a red herring... the israel project leaders intended, years in advance of israel's becoming a country, to ethnic cleanse palestinians from palestine.
.
for more reading: google search: ethnic cleansing palestine
Ilan Pappe's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine"
Read Ilan Pappe's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" and report back to the class.
http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851684670
From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review.
In his latest work, renowned Israeli author and academic Pappe (A History of Modern Palestine) does not mince words, doing Jimmy Carter one better (or worse, depending on one's point of view) by accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity beginning in the 1948 war for independence, and continuing through the present.
Focusing primarily on Plan D (Dalet, in Hebrew), conceived on March 10, 1948, Pappe demonstrates how ethnic cleansing was not a circumstance of war, but rather a deliberate goal of combat for early Israeli military units led by David Ben-Gurion, whom Pappe labels the "architect of ethnic cleansing."
The forced expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians between 1948-49, Pappe argues, was part of a long-standing Zionist plan to manufacture an ethnically pure Jewish state.
Framing his argument with accepted international and UN definitions of ethnic cleansing, Pappe follows with an excruciatingly detailed account of Israeli military involvement in the demolition and depopulation of hundreds of villages, and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Arab inhabitants.
An accessible, learned resource, this volume provides important inroads into the historical antecedents of today's conflict, but its conclusions will not be easy for everyone to stomach: Pappe argues that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine continues today, and calls for the unconditional return of all Palestinian refugees and an end to the Israeli occupation.
Without question, Pappe's account will provoke ire from many readers; importantly, it will spark discussion as well.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Ilan Peppe'
He is an Israeli born historian who's work is considered controversial. His facts are questioned by other notable Israeli historians, including Benny Morris.
He is entitled to his opinion, whom no respected Israeli pays much attention to. Particularly after he was quoted for saying these -admitting with his own word to be less interested by facts, then his own biases and ideology:
There is no historian in the world who is objective. I am not as interested in what happened as in how people see what's happened. ("An Interview of Ilan Pappé," Baudouin Loos, Le Soir [Bruxelles],Nov. 29, 1999)
I admit that my ideology influences my historical writings...(Ibid)
Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons" not because we are truthseekers. (Ibid)
here's more to read, minus pappe...
Results 1 - 10 of about 322,000 for "ethnic cleansing" palestine -pappe.
but... and it's a big "but"... why should we take your word for anything since you've abandoned your morals in defense of israel?
remember good ol' doc aumann, the nobel prize winner?
one of his theories is that you can tell what people know by observing their actions...
so far, israelis and israeli americans have lied us into one war for sure... and that's probably just the tip of the iceberg.
we have the israeli american neocon followers of leo strauss, and strauss thought government should lie to the governed ---the truth being too precious to waste on the mere citizenry, even of a democracy that's supposedly elected by well-informed voters.
we got dror saying jews should abandon their morals ---presumably to include abandoning any unfortunate tendency to tell the truth about israel's founding.
so all we really got to go on is israel's actions... and it's still gnawing away at the west bank, bombing gaza with white phosphorous, and doing its damnedest to demoralize palestinians and chase them out of "eretz yisrael".
seeing as how israel's gonna need the high ground in the west bank because of sea level rise, and israel continues to gobble up land in the west bank, what the hell are we sposed to believe ---you or our own lying eyes?
"Ethnic Ceansing" or "Religious cleansing".
Suffice to examine the history of Islam,and the manner by which it has expanded to see through the anti-Israeli's fog of deception and outright intellectual dishonest to obscure, divert attention from their own 1300 years of atrocities, religious cleansing, and immoral act against anyone or anything which stood in their path.
Before one throws mud onto someone else's backyard, he / she should look carefully at its own backyard. Islamists and their sympathizers are the last one to discuss justice, or fairness to others.
Consider this. In 600 ACE (before Islam was born), there were multitudes of groups scattered throughout the ME region. As ancient they were, each had its own district cultural, religious believes, history, heritages and distinctive tradition.
In mere 50 years, all were wiped out by illiterate Bedouins who came from the desert of Arabia. People were forced to abandon their own respective religion, and accepts a new one. Heck, they even were robbed of their own identities, forced to call themselves names which they did not chose for themselves. Their languages wiped out. All forced to glorify one illiterate man.
You talk about ethnic cleansing?. Just look at what happened to the Christians in Iraq. or in Beth Lehem where their own prophet was born and preached. After they were done with the Jews, now Islamist are focusing on cleansing Christians in Iraq, Lebanon, and West Bank, force them from their homes, and land on which they have lived in 600 years before Islam was even conceived.
Go get a life mister, your diatribe, hypocritical, and selective cognitive reasoning, is typical of this type of thinking throughout the Islamist world. It is the very reason for good and honest Muslims ability to contribute anything (Except oil) to the rest of humanity.
If Palestinians wish not be treated like victims, they should not act as one. Provoking Israel with senseless homicide bombing of Israeli civilians, in buses, and other public places. After Israel takes steps to stop the carnage, Pals quickly parade the bodies of their own children on TV, for sole purpose, extort viewers. emotions.