-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Friday, January 22, 2010 - 8:30 PM
Share
If Mideast special envoy George Mitchell wants to end his career with his reputation intact, it is time for him to resign. He had a distinguished tenure in the U.S. Senate -- including a stint as majority leader -- and his post-Senate career has been equally accomplished. He was an effective mediator of the conflict in Northern Ireland, helped shepherd the Disney Corporation through a turbulent period, and led an effective investigation of the steroids scandal afflicting major league baseball. Nobody can expect to be universally admired in the United States, but Mitchell may have come as close as any politician in recent memory.
Why should Mitchell step down now? Because he is wasting his time. The administration's early commitment to an Israeli-Palestinian peace was either a naïve bit of bravado or a cynical charade, and if Mitchell continues to pile up frequent-flyer miles in a fruitless effort, he will be remembered as one of a long series of U.S. "mediators" who ended up complicit in Israel's self-destructive land grab on the West Bank. Mitchell will turn 77 in August, he has already undergone treatment for prostate cancer, and he's gotten exactly nowhere (or worse) since his mission began. However noble the goal of Israeli-Palestinian peace might be, surely he's got better things to do.
In an interview earlier this week with Time's Joe Klein, President Obama acknowledged that his early commitment to achieving "two states for two peoples" had failed. In his words, "this is as intractable a problem as you get ... Both sides-the Israelis and the Palestinians-have found that the political environments, the nature of their coalitions or the divisions within their societies, were such that it was very hard for them to start engaging in a meaningful conversation. And I think we overestimated our ability to persuade them to do so when their politics ran contrary to that" (my emphasis).
This admission raises an obvious question: who was responsible for this gross miscalculation? It's not as if the dysfunctional condition of Israeli and Palestinian internal politics was a dark mystery when Obama took office, or when Netanyahu formed the most hard-line government in Israeli history. Which advisors told Obama and Mitchell to proceed as they did, raising expectations sky-high in the Cairo speech, publicly insisting on a settlement freeze, and then engaging in a humiliating retreat? Did they ever ask themselves what they would do if Netanyahu dug in his heels, as anyone with a triple-digit IQ should have expected? And if Obama now realizes how badly they screwed up, why do the people who recommended this approach still have their jobs?
As for Mitchell himself, he should resign because it should be clear to him that he was hired under false pretenses. He undoubtedly believed Obama when the president said he was genuinely committed to achieving Israel-Palestinian peace in his first term. Obama probably promised to back him up, and his actions up to the Cairo speech made it look like he meant it. But his performance ever since has exposed him as another U.S. president who is unwilling to do what everyone knows it will take to achieve a just peace. Mitchell has been reduced to the same hapless role that Condoleezza Rice played in the latter stages of the Bush administration -- engaged in endless "talks" and inconclusive haggling over trivialities-and he ought to be furious at having been hung out to dry in this fashion.
The point is not that Obama's initial peace effort in the Middle East has failed; the real lesson is that he didn't really try. The objective was admirably clear from the start -- "two states for two peoples" -- what was missing was a clear strategy for getting there and the political will to push it through. And notwithstanding the various difficulties on the Palestinian side, the main obstacle has been the Netanyahu government's all-too obvious rejection of anything that might look like a viable Palestinian state, combined with its relentless effort to gobble up more land. Unless the U.S. president is willing and able to push Israel as hard as it is pushing the Palestinians (and probably harder), peace will simply not happen. Pressure on Israel is also the best way to defang Hamas, because genuine progress towards a Palestinian state in the one thing that could strengthen Abbas and other Palestinian moderates and force Hamas to move beyond its talk about a long-term hudna (truce) and accept the idea of permanent peace.
It's not as if Obama and Co. don't realize that this is important. National Security Advisor James Jones has made it clear that he sees the Israel-Palestinian issue as absolutely central; it's not our only problem in the Middle East, but it tends to affect most of the others and resolving it would be an enormous boon. And there's every sign that the president is aware of the need to do more than just talk.
Yet U.S. diplomacy in this area remains all talk and no action. When a great power identifies a key interest and is strongly committed to achieving it, it uses all the tools at its disposal to try to bring that outcome about. Needless to say, the use of U.S. leverage has been conspicuously absent over the past year, which means that Mitchell has been operating with both hands tied firmly behind his back. Thus far, the only instrument of influence that Obama has used has been presidential rhetoric, and even that weapon has been used rather sparingly.
And please don't blame this on Congress. Yes, Congress will pander to the lobby, oppose a tougher U.S. stance, and continue to supply Israel with generous economic and military handouts, but a determined president still has many ways of bringing pressure to bear on recalcitrant clients. The problem is that Obama refused to use any of them.
When Netanyahu dug in his heels and refused a complete settlement freeze -- itself a rather innocuous demand if Israel preferred peace to land -- did Obama describe the settlements as "illegal" and contrary to international law? Of course not. Did he fire a warning shot by instructing the Department of Justice to crack down on tax-deductible contributions to settler organizations? Nope. Did he tell Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to signal his irritation by curtailing U.S. purchases of Israeli arms, downgrading various forms of "strategic cooperation," or canceling a military exchange or two? Not a chance. When Israel continued to evict Palestinians from their homes and announced new settlement construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank in August, did Obama remind Netanyahu of his dependence on U.S. support by telling U.S. officials to say a few positive things about the Goldstone Report and to use its release as an opportunity to underscore the need for a genuine peace? Hardly; instead, the administration rewarded Netanyau's intransigence by condemning Goldstone and praising Netanyahu for "unprecedented" concessions. (The "concessions," by the way, was an announcement that Israel would freeze settlement expansion in the West Bank "temporarily" while continuing it in East Jerusalem. In other words, they'll just take the land a bit more slowly).
Like the Clinton and Bush administrations, in short, the idea that the United States ought to use its leverage and exert genuine pressure on Israel remains anathema to Obama, to Mitchell and his advisors, and to all those pundits who are trapped in the Washington consensus on this issue. The main organizations in the Israel lobby are of course dead-set against it -- and that goes for J Street as well -- even though there is no reason to expect Israel to change course in the absence of countervailing pressure.
Obama blinked -- leaving Mitchell with nothing to do-because he needed to keep sixty senators on board with his health care initiative (that worked out well, didn't it?), because he didn't want to jeopardize the campaign coffers of the Democratic Party, and because he knew he'd be excoriated by Israel's false friends in the U.S. media if he did the right thing. I suppose I ought to be grateful to have my thesis vindicated in such striking fashion, but there's too much human misery involved on both sides to take any consolation in that.
So what will happen now? Israel has made it clear that it is going to keep building settlements -- including the large blocs (like Ma'ale Adumim) that were consciously designed to carve up the West Bank and make creation of a viable Palestinian state impossible. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority, and other moderate forces will be increasingly discredited as collaborators or dupes. As Israel increasingly becomes an apartheid state, its international legitimacy will face a growing challenge. Iran's ability to exploit the Palestinian cause will be strengthened, and pro-American regimes in Egypt, Jordan, and elsewhere will be further weakened by their impotence and by their intimate association with the United States. It might even help give al Qaeda a new lease on life, at least in some places. Jews in other countries will continue to distance themselves from an Israel that they see as a poor embodiment of their own values, and one that can no longer portray itself convincingly as "a light unto the nations." And the real tragedy is that all this might have been avoided, had the leaders of the world's most powerful country been willing to use their influence on both sides more directly.
Looking ahead, one can see two radically different possibilities. The first option is that Israel retains control of the West Bank and Gaza and continues to deny the Palestinians full political rights or economic opportunities. (Netanyahu likes to talk about a long-term "economic peace," but his vision of Palestinian bantustans under complete Israeli control is both a denial of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations and a severe obstacle to their ability to fully develop their own society. Over time, there may be another intifada, which the IDF will crush as ruthlessly as it did the last one. Perhaps the millions of remaining Palestinians will gradually leave -- as hardline Israelis hope and as former House speaker Dick Armey once proposed. If so, then a country founded in the aftermath of the Holocaust -- one of history's greatest crimes-will have completed a dispossession begun in 1948 -- a great crime of its own.
Alternatively, the Palestinians may remain where they are, and begin to demand equal rights in the state under whose authority they have been forced to dwell. If Israel denies them these rights, its claim to being the "only democracy in the Middle East" will be exposed as hollow. If it grants them, it will eventually cease to be a Jewish-majority state (though its culture would undoubtedly retain a heavily Jewish/Israeli character). As a long-time supporter of Israel's existence, I would take no joy in that outcome. Moreover, transforming Israel into a post-Zionist and multinational society would be a wrenching and quite possibly violent experience for all concerned. For both reasons, I've continued to favor "two states for two peoples" instead.
But with the two-state solution looking less and less likely, these other possibilities begin to loom large. Through fear and fecklessness, the United States has been an active enabler of an emerging tragedy. Israelis have no one to blame but themselves for the occupation, but Americans -- who like to think of themselves as a country whose foreign policy reflects deep moral commitments-will be judged harshly for our own role in this endeavor.
The United States will suffer certain consequences as a result-decreased international influence, a somewhat greater risk of anti-American terrorism, tarnished moral reputation, etc.-but it will survive. But Israel may be in the process of drafting its own suicide pact, and its false friends here in the United States have been supplying the paper and ink. By offering his resignation-and insisting that Obama accept it-George Mitchell can escape the onus of complicity in this latest sad chapter of an all-too-familiar story. Small comfort, perhaps, but better than nothing.
Uriel Sinai/Getty Images
EXPLORE:OBAMA AND THE ISRAEL LOBBY, MIDDLE EAST, DIPLOMACY, DISASTERS, HUMAN RIGHTS, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
"did Obama describe the settlements as 'illegal' ..."
No he didn't. Because as hard as he's worked for it, he'd like to keep his job.
What you're proposing is political suicide.
And suggesting that a way to leverage American Power against Israel would be to penalize American Jews in their donations is quite possibly the most dangerous thing I've ever seen suggested to an American Politician.
Let's face it Professor. Our Government's unquestioned support of our Ally is a National Sin whose true reckoning is looming just around the bend.
Spectacularly destructive terrorist attacks, two wars in Muslim Countries, almost 10 years, over a trillion dollars, and 8000 American souls lost later... and we STILL don't get it.
Israel doesn't control Gaza anymore, it just controls the borders (with the exception of the border with Egypt). I don't know how the people of Gaza would fight for their rights when Israel is not around. That leaves the West Bank which Israel could presumably annex and retain (barely) its Jewish majority especially with the decline of Palestinian fertility and continued Palestinian emigration. You could end up with the Gaza strip as an impoverished city-state on perpetual life support next door to an Israel that includes the West Bank.
By the way, my two captcha words were "devoted" and "land".
can you be so blithe - "notwithstanding the various difficulties on the Palestinian side"?
Also, aside from the admittedly impressive GEN Jones, what evidence do you provide for: "it's not our only problem in the Middle East, but it tends to affect most of the others"
Bin Laden As Reorted 24 Jan. 2010
From Haaretz:
"Our attacks against you will continue as long as U.S. support for Israel continues," bin Laden said. "It is not fair that Americans should live in peace as long as our brothers in Gaza live in the worst conditions."
Bin Laden also said the same thing prior to 9/11. And he repreated it in an interview with Tayseer Al-Alouni of CNN a month after 9/11.
Unless we stop rolling our eyes in sarcasm everytime some Muslim expresses disgust over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it makes complete sense to expect more of the same... and probably worse.
Let's see it for what it is. This conflict IS the festering cancerous sore on the face of the Earth that everyone is avoiding operating on.
I don't suppose with his age and experience, Se, Mitchell will be still seeking fame and the limelight. Therefore, if he really ought to resign, then I would say for health or sheer exhaustion reasons, rather than any hint of incompetence. If anyone can be considered as incompetent, it is those parties whom are that formulators of the US foreign policy towards the Middle East, and whom have sent him on a wild gooze chase.
Irrespective of what has been said, one still believes that, President Obama, the Arab states, as well as Mr. Netanyahu have all thought that, it would be sufficient for the US President in Cairo, to condemn the Israeli settlements activities, and acknowledge the two-states solution for the Palestinian problem, so that a weak Mr. Abbas can be delivered to the table of negotiations. Well, certaily Mr. Abbas' political standing is rather weak, but he is still basking in the belief that, there is no alternative for him
I've been reading this blog since you started, and never commented but I just had to log in and say that I think this is the best post you have done thus far. It was an excellent summary using very impassioned rhetoric of your opinions on Israel. Great job and keep on posting.
Olmert warned the Israeli people that a failure to move ahead with the two-state solution would result in "one-state" - an Israel with the Palestinian residents becoming voting citizens and the inevitable demographic result that this unified state would eventually have a Palestinian majority.
Obviously, with the Israeli rush to steal more land and water, this warning was ignored. The interesting question is what are Israel's long-term plans?
Two states? Does anyone dream that Israel will give up the land it has stolen and return to the 1967 borders, particularly with respect to the land in and around Jerusalem? Acceding to some sort of right of return?
Not a chance.
Given that Israel's leaders must know that the world will not stand for an apartheid state in the long-term and the "one-state" will be forced upon it a la South Africa sooner or later, why do those leaders persist in the land and water theft?
At the risk of being branded an anti-semite, my opinion is that the lust for land is such an ingrained part of the Israeli essential nature that any reasonable consideration of the future is overridden by that lust.
Diplomacy and discussion will get nowhere - any solution will have to be forced on the Israelis.
Re: "Diplomacy and discussion will get nowhere - any solution will have to be forced on the Israelis."
This is a constant refrain from the readers which I am not sure I understand. You mean forced by military means? Remember, the whole world which wants to disarm North Korea, but there doesn't seem to be a way to "force" anything upon them. Guess what? NK has only a few nukes, while Israel has a couple of hundred, some of them on submarines. Thus forcing any kind of solution upon them does not look promising (that is, if Western capitals want to survive...)
"Thus forcing any kind of solution upon them does not look promising (that is, if Western capitals want to survive...)"
That's an angle that few actually consider. Maybe that's how they are able to influence US policy. Maybe Israel is so afraid of Iranian because they know how rogue states act once they have nuclear weapons.
Considering that angle, I would like to see a list of all the possible ways that a gentle message could be sent to Israel that Washington was now serious. Recall the newspaper reports during Israel's 2006 invasion of Lebanon about rushing U.S. jet fuel to Israel to enable/encourage its attack.
It seems highly unlikely that Israel would launch a nuclear attack on anyone just because jet fuel was withheld. OK, now what might be a next step? Walt's essay contains a whole paragraph full, and there are surely many more. What message, I wonder, might be read into a decision to deny Israelis dual citizenship with the U.S.? What might be the impact of convening at the White House a regular meeting of an Israel advisory board...consisting of some of the many Israeli thinkers who are begging the U.S. to save Israel from itself?
The array of tools available to a serious decision-maker is enormous and way below the level of nuclear policy.
Here's something Obama could do without involving Congress - as C-in-C order the military to slow down or even stop the supply of replacement parts for Israel's planes, helicopters, tanks, armoured bulldozers, etc.
It would no more than a few days before the impact of this would be felt in a major way.
Agree 100% with Prof. Walt's article.
What now then for the advancement of the "peace"? Israel seems motivated to maintaining the status quo given the achieved very low intensity warfare from the Palestinian and the (relatively) undisturbed settlements expansion. The Palestinians know that any escalation of warfare to raise awareness and advance their cause will most likely be met with a hard response. That by itself is a defeating proposition given the small benefits compared to the exponentially higher amount of pain.
Both the Palestinian and Israeli people need to take a quantum leap and change the paradigms that have shaped the interaction between their people.
A "cantonal" two-states solution seems farther and farther away and, let's admit it, impractical and ultimately not beneficial for the Palestinians as it woul certainly create more problems than benefits for them. Not to mention the political adversities in creating a homogeneous leadership representing the Palestinian population. What would happen to the newly formed nation? How would they support themselves? My guess is that (another) parassite state would be created that will derive most of his income from the US remissions to keep nice with Israel. And just like in the other cases, guess who will foot the bill?
Conversely, a one-state solution would really help and empower the Palestinian people by allowing them to join and share the fruit of what they claim their land. Join the state of Israel and become citizens to leverage the social and judicial infrastracture to thrive. That would be the ultimate victory for the Palestinians, even more meaningful and poignant than the creation of the State of Palestine. While not a perfect cohabitation, multi-religions countries do exist (India comes to mind) and thrive.
The main hurdle, in realizing the one-state solution is, my opinion, the lack of a Palestinian leadership able to sell the concept with its benefits to their people. .... How would the Israel society react to that? Would that be an appealing proposition? Would that be an acceptable compromise to achieve permanent peace? The right leadership would be required there as well. So far Israel has been settling as much of the West Bank as they can in the hope, I guess, to change the demographic balance and, ultimately, making it evident that the "facts on the ground" are such that the whole West Bank should be annnexed. Maybe this was the grand scheme originated with Sharon. Give away Gaza with its little significance and gradually expanding in the West Bank.
I firmly believe that anything short of a one-state solution will cause the Palestinian people to disappear .... slowly, painfully, and quietly. Let's face it, most arab states have shown only an opportunistic interest in their cause.
Also, it would take centuries for the state of Israel to gain global full acceptance rather than tolerance as it is today. Here too, let's face reality. Today, with very few exceptions, Israel is tolerated by most nations under the soft treat whereby open hostility toward Israel would be met with economic sanctions and inconveniences. Only few countries are willing today to openly voice their opposition to Israel's expansion. (see link).
http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1263147951827&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Yawn!
what is YOUR plan?
Well Frankier, I never ran for President claiming that I would make peace between Israelis and Palestinians so I don't feel obligated to come up with a plan.
But as long as you asked; I think the starting place is for the world to face up to a few basic realities:
1) The Palestinians and their Arab allies have been militarily defeated over and over again (1948, 1967, 1973) and have no prospect of achieving a military victory at any point in the foreseeable future.
2) There is no precedent in world history where the victorious party in a war has terms dictated to it by the defeated party.
3) If the Palestinians want a nation of their own, they have little choice but to acquiesce to the reality of their military defeat and accept whatever terms are dictated to them by the party that defeated them. The Palestinians may find this humiliating but they are in no different position than the losing parties to wars fought throughout human history. Among the nations that have had to surrender and accept terms they felt were humiliating
were the French, Germans, Turks, Spanish and Mexicans in modern times and the Jews in ancient times. One would think that a realist like Professor Walt would understand that terms are dictated by the parties that win wars not the parties that lose wars. Border disputes inevitably are settled in a manner that benefits the victor not the loser.
4) The Palestinians can govern themselves; they can even have their own nation or perhaps several nations but the borders of that nation (or nations) and many of the conditions under which that nation exists will be imposed by the country that inflicted their military defeat. That means that the Israelis will end up deciding whether the Palestinian nation can be armed and if so with what arms. Israel will undoubtedly decide that Palestinians will not be permitted to control a border with Jordan in the East. Palestinians will have little choice to accept whatever portion (if any) of Jerusalem that the Israelis chose to give them.
5) The likelihood that Gaza and the West Bank will ever be joined in a unitary state is vanishingly small. In all likelihood the Palestinians have blown their chance to get a single, contiguous state in almost all of the West Bank. They may get a smaller contiguous state in some of the West Bank or they may not get a contiguous state at all and instead be forced to settle for what Professor Walt calls Bantustans. Perhaps instead of thinking of them at Bantustans, the Palestinians might salvage some dignity from thinking of their small states as if they were like Lichtenstein, Monaco, Nauru or Vatican City.
6) Professor Walt's delusion that somehow the world is going to rescue the Palestinians from "apartheid-like" conditions is simply not going to happen. American support for Israel and American animosity for Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular won't be changing any time soon if ever. The rising world superpowers, China and India not only don't care about Palestinian aspirations, their view of the Palestinian desire for nationhood is colored by their feelings about their own restive Muslim populations. The European left, despite years of trying to rally support for the Palestinian cause is failing. In fact hostility towards Muslims is increasing throughout Europe and sympathy for the Palestinians is far more likely to diminish than increase.
7) If the Palestinians do not wish to sue for peace they do have another option. They can follow the Hamas approach and continue their resistance efforts. Of course resistance is just another term for confronting the Israelis militarily. If the Palestinians defeat the Israelis than they will get to set the terms of any peace deal. If they fail to defeat the Israelis militarily they will have only themselves to blame for the pointless death of their women and children and their continued status as a stateless people.
8) Despite his many failures, Obama is still committed to a two state solution. There may never be another president in our lifetimes as committed to getting the Palestinians a state of their own as Obama is. If the Palestinians don't get a state by the time Obama leaves office, it is quite possible that they never will. The world isn't coming to help the Palestinians; even their Arab brethren only pay them lip-service. The best thing to do for the Palestinians is help them resign themselves to their powerless position so that they can get whatever deal they can salvage. They need whatever help Obama is willing to give them. While it won't be much; it's better than nothing. Deceiving the Palestinians into thinking that the world will help them get what they couldn't get by force of arms isn't helping the Palestinians, it's heaping indignity on top of indignity.
That's what happens when two parties engage in a war and one side wins and the other side loses.
Same as it ever was.
Thanks for taking the time to write out such extensive response.
I guess cynicism is one way of framing the Israel/Palestine issue. But only if it works both ways ....
As a corollary:
1) we should not be too upset with the Nazis for the holocaust since what they did was ok because it was the result of the Nazis (temporarily) winning the war against the Jews.
2) Israel should stop milking the guilt the Western world feel. The Jews had lost a war with the Nazis, which entitled the Nazis to make whatever they wanted of the Jews.
3) Israel should stop complaining about Palestinian terroristic attacks .... it is the only way the Palestinians have to fight the war.
4) International organizations (e.g., UN) exist only to ratify the will of the war winners. Any resolutions to the contrary are just a farce and can safely be ignored.
Since your good self Mr./Ms. Wigwag is fond of arguments of victors and vanquished, and who dictates waht, I must remind your good self, the hisroty of the region did not start with the creation of the state of Israel, and any new war in the area, is likely to turn out eventually to be; "Sampson's option". Therefore, Israel either will become part of the region and a partner in its development, or will have to resort eventually to Sampson's option. Neither Arabs nor Muslims under such end of their world scenario will have anything to loose. If even by the low estimates of your good self's, the Arabs succeed against Israel under such {God forbid} circumstances, they will have life, and if they fail, in any case, martyrdom is the highest status any Arab and Muslim can achieve. An old wisdom which I think should always be a guiding light to all, "Averis leads to Nemisis".
khairi janbek.paris/france
How can you compare the Palestinians losing to Israel as the "jews losing to the Nazis?" The Jews were not their own nation nor were trying to be their own nation in Germany nor did they try to suceed from Germany. The Jews in Germany were German citizens who were slowly robbed of their rights, kicked out of their homes, and then massacred. It was the German government slowly ethnically cleansing the citizens they didnt want. And this wasnt limited to the Jews but to many others such as Gays and Jehovahs Witness. The Jews did not declare war with Germany.
On the other hand, you have the Jews who accepted the UN partition plan aggreeing to take a tiny amount of land that was chopped up anyway by the arab land, and accept to live in peace with their neighbors. The Palestinians and the Arabs said NO, and after Israel became a state, declared war on Israel. So how is this anything like the German Jewish example you gave? If Israel tomorow, went to their Arab citizens and said you are no longer citizens and we are moving you out of your cities and putting you into camps and ghettos in predetermined areas and you cant bring anything more than the clothes on your back, then you would have a case. But to say because the Nazis massacred the Jews "they won" is absurd.
There is a difference between foreign enities going to war and a state turning on its citizens.Get it right!
Would you characterize yourself more as a secular or religious Zionist? Which Zionist thinkers and authors have most influenced you?
Your smug assumption that Israel has "won" the "wars" it fought is quite false. All Israel has won was a series of battles that erupted over sixty years of generally low intensity war.
And of course, thank goodness that we won them, otherwise we would have become steak and mince meat at the hands of the Arabs.
Wars can be said to have been won only when the winning side is capable of coercing the losing side to accept the terms of surrender set by the winning side. As for example was the case of Allies contra Germany and Japan at the end of WW2.
Israel on the other hand has never ever won a military engagement with the Arabs, the end of which it was able to coerce the them to accept the terms of surrender that she would have liked to dictate to them.
The core of the Middle East problem is, as has always been, that while Israel is strong enough to defend herself, she is far from powerful enough to impose its will on the Arabs, who will always work to at least deny it legitimacy, and ultimately to wipe her off the map of the Middle East.
One might also say that Israel's perpetually besieged international diplomatic position does not have much of the smell of a "victor" about it, and neither is the fact that all Israel needs is one lost "war" or one USA administration to pull the plug, and it is well and truly end times, "kaput" for our Jewish State.
Arguments based on Israel's rights as "victor" are therefore just plain dumb and ignorant.
How can you compare the Palestinians losing to Israel as the "jews losing to the Nazis?"
I am just extending the reasoning so well laid out by WigWag.
"The Jews in Germany were German citizens who were slowly robbed of their rights, kicked out of their homes, and then massacred."
One could argue that the Nazi Germany did not regard the German Jews as citizens. Be aware that extending your reasoning, one could justify the extermination of non-German Jews. As far as "slowly robbed and kicked out of their homes" is concerned it seems that the Palestinians are just experiencing that right now.
"The Jews did not declare war with Germany." That seems to be irrelevant for WigWag's theory. Once in a war, winners takes it all!!
"On the other hand, you have the Jews who accepted the UN partition plan" It seems that Israel accepts UN rulings or resolutions very selectively. Also, with the US providing unconditional support in the security council, no "binding" resolutions will ever be issued or implemented.
"If Israel tomorow, went to their Arab citizens and said you are no longer citizens and we are moving you out of your cities and putting you into camps and ghettos in predetermined areas and you cant bring anything more than the clothes on your back, then you would have a case."
Are you sure that Arab citizens can really get access to the same land and/or houses as Jew citizens? If so, let's make all the Palestinian Israeli citizens and there will be no more a problem. Somehow, I don't think Israel will agree to that. Israel is now going through a lot of trouble to get Jews from places that marginally considered until now (Etiopia comes to mind) in the effort to tilt the ethnic balance of Israel. Why didn't they focus equally on non-Eastern Europe Jews until now?
"But to say because the Nazis massacred the Jews "they won" is absurd."
I don't say that ... it is the extension of WigWag's argument.
"There is a difference between foreign enities going to war and a state turning on its citizens.Get it right!"
.... Again, your argument justifies the Nazis going after non-German Jews. I get it right because I believe that ethnic cleansing and apathied are wrong ... regardless who is the victim.
"One could argue that the Nazi Germany did not regard the German Jews as citizens. Be aware that extending your reasoning, one could justify the extermination of non-German Jews. As far as "slowly robbed and kicked out of their homes" is concerned it seems that the Palestinians are just experiencing that right now. "
Really? explain to me where Palestinians are getting kicked out of their homes? Dont say Sheik Jarrah in Jerusalem. The building of Sheik Jarrah was bought buy an individual who asked the residents to finally pay their rent. The residents refused to pay tax, so the owner went to the police and had them evicted. Then they found people who could afford the apartments. In addition, the Arabs who did own the few apartments there refused to sell to Jews. Now if a Jew refused to sell to an Arab you would be going on about apartheid. BUt where is your outrage there? Also, everyday Arabs buy homes in West Jerusalem but you (I assume) do not shout "NO NO THAT PART OF JERUSALEM IS FOR THE JEWS". But if we buy a home in East Jerusalem it is apartheid settlement expansion.
"It seems that Israel accepts UN rulings or resolutions very selectively. Also, with the US providing unconditional support in the security council, no "binding" resolutions will ever be issued or implemented. "
When provisional Israeli government accepted the UN resolution to make it a state, it was not aware that it would be in the only country in the whole UN that couldnt participate in the Security Council. Every other country in the whole UN has the ability to be voted to the temporary UN Security Council except Israel. That means every two years a new Arab country can bring up a resolution against Israel but Israel never has the same chance to bring up a grievance against them. So while many resolutions may never get passed because of the US, none will ever even come to fruition against the Arab nations.
"Are you sure that Arab citizens can really get access to the same land and/or houses as Jew citizens? If so, let's make all the Palestinian Israeli citizens and there will be no more a problem. Somehow, I don't think Israel will agree to that. Israel is now going through a lot of trouble to get Jews from places that marginally considered until now (Etiopia comes to mind) in the effort to tilt the ethnic balance of Israel. Why didn't they focus equally on non-Eastern Europe Jews until now? "
Excuse me but you need to get your history right. I believe they got almost a million non Eastern European Jews between 1948-1950. Not to mention the Ethiopians in the 80s and 90s until now. If anything it is different. The Arabs did a good enough job that there are almost no more Jews to bring from the MIddle East because they have ethnically cleansed them all. This area went from under two million Arabs to almost 8 now when you consider the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. But whole areas six hundred times the size of Israel/Palestine have seen the whole area ethnically cleansed. Well those Jews are still around, their kids too. Where is the voice to bring them home?
"But to say because the Nazis massacred the Jews "they won" is absurd."
I don't say that ... it is the extension of WigWag's argument.
".... Again, your argument justifies the Nazis going after non-German Jews. I get it right because I believe that ethnic cleansing and apathied are wrong ... regardless who is the victim."
I believe apartheid and ethnic cleansing are wrong too. But I have yet to seen any evidence for it here. Actually I am wrong. I continuously see evidence of the Arab peoples of this area reminding us of what our fate will be.
Jews in Germany (and other Eropean countries) were good, loyal and law abiding citizens. They did not declare war on the Nazis. In fact the opposite is the truth. How the hell can you come up with such a sick and convoluted comparison?.
The Nazis were operating on the same sick blaind hatred of Jews, as the members Hamas, Hizbollah and clerics in Iran are opearting. This conflict has very little do to with land, and everything with state of mind, under which Islamist like these groups are motivated to "resist". This is not a political, nor a socieal conflict. This is a religious war going back 1400 years.
Just compare how Muslims treat refugees born by other Muslims, and those created with conflict with Jews.
to ZIONINZION
You could save time by just reading the next 2 paragraphs.
The reality is that your side keeps offering endless circular arguments and uses bizantine negotiation techniques that do not advance a resolution of the issues. But maybe that is the ultimate objective ... Do not change anything and wait them out and in the mean time grab land and dilute them demographically.
A 2-state solution will not be implemented. The limitations and conditions that Israel would like to impose even before talks are restarted are such that there would not be a sovereigh Palestinian state. Give citizenship to the Palestinians and integrate them in a real pluralistic society. It will take decades before it will be fully operational, but it is better than the alternative .... for both Israeli and Palestinians.
IF you want you may now stop. But if you must, here is the answer to your reply ...
"Really? explain to me where Palestinians are getting kicked out of their homes? Dont say Sheik Jarrah in Jerusalem."
I didn't... you did... I wasn't even thinking of Sheik Jarrah. The issue is much older and broader than that.
See http://www.un.org/depts/dpa/qpal/
search by "evictions", "house demolitions"
The whole world acknowledges the problem .... but it must be a conspiracy by the self-hating Jews.
"Also, everyday Arabs buy homes in West Jerusalem"
Do you have any statistics on that?
"But if we buy a home in East Jerusalem it is apartheid settlement expansion."
You don't buy ... you take
"When provisional Israeli government accepted the UN resolution to make it a state, it was not aware that it would be in the only country in the whole UN that couldnt participate in the Security Council."
Right ..... they were setting you up right from the start. Those self-hating jews.
"Every other country in the whole UN has the ability to be voted to the temporary UN Security Council except Israel.""
This is funny ... you do not need any presence on the UN security council. The US has unconditionally done whatever you wanted.
On why Israel does not grant citizenship to the Palestinians.
"Excuse me but you need to get your history right. I believe they got almost a million [...]"
Debating not the main issue the answer to which is inconsequential as it lay in the past. My main issue was why doesn't Israel grant Israeli citizenship to all the Palestinians.
"The Arabs did a good enough job that there are almost no more Jews to bring from the MIddle East because they have ethnically cleansed them all."
Do you have any credible source validating this claim? I am surprised we haven't heard a lot about this.
"[...] Well those Jews are still around, their kids too. Where is the voice to bring them home?"
This is a peculiar statement. Jews have the right of return but you don't allow Palestinian refugees to return.
Anyway ... see first paragraph.
"Jews in Germany (and other Eropean countries) were good, loyal and law abiding citizens. They did not declare war on the Nazis. In fact the opposite is the truth. How the hell can you come up with such a sick and convoluted comparison?. "
I didn't ... I was just trying to highlight the absurdity of wigwag's reasoning by extending it to the activities of the Nazis. Again, based on his reasoning, it doesn't matter who starts the war and how good is the other side, but once the war brakes the winners can do anything they want with the other party.
"The reality is that your side keeps offering endless circular arguments and uses bizantine negotiation techniques that do not advance a resolution of the issues. But maybe that is the ultimate objective ... Do not change anything and wait them out and in the mean time grab land and dilute them demographically. "
I have a question. What makes the land theirs? The fact they Arabs live on it? Because if thats the reason, then does the land the settlers live on make it theirs? Or is it Resolution 242 that makes it theirs? Resolution 242 says to live the territoties but we won the territories from Jordan not Palestine. Howcome there was no resolution preceeding 242 that demanded Jordan give the land to the Palestinians?
But you miss seeing the bigger picture. I can agree to 242 and the creation of a Palestinian State. I am not worried about a two state solution and in many cases I am for it. The issue is not a two state solution or the creation of the State of Palestine. The issue is the day after. Or the week after or the month after. We here in Israel are worried about our future. We have no guarantee that we will be provided with any form of security. Take the West Bank. The only reason there is no huge Hamas precense is because of the IDF and then you have the Palestinian Authority? What is the Palestinian Authority? Abbas and a few of his men who are paid by the US and protected by Israel? Because the great portions of Fatah certainly dont accept Israel. So we seceed from land and then instead of having just rockets in small towns around Gaza we now have rockets in our most densly populated area? Dont say "well then you have legitimiacy to go in". They said that about Gaza and looked what happened and in addition, how many lives on our side have to be lost before we get legitimacy to defend ourselves?
"A 2-state solution will not be implemented. The limitations and conditions that Israel would like to impose even before talks are restarted are such that there would not be a sovereigh Palestinian state. Give citizenship to the Palestinians and integrate them in a real pluralistic society. It will take decades before it will be fully operational, but it is better than the alternative .... for both Israeli and Palestinians."
Actually it is the Palestinians hurting negotiations. You know what you do in a negotiation? You negotiate! Thats the whole point. You dont give up things before the negotiations start. Lets say we negotiate on a settlement like "Emmanuel". And a red line for the Palestinians is getting rid of Emmanuel. So if Emmanuel is going to be negotiated away, what does the PA care what is built inside? If the PA get their way it will be gone anyway. You dont say, come to the negotiation table once you have given away your chips. Its the same with Assad who says "we wont negotiate with israel until they give back the Golan" - well what is there to negotiate then? Its absurb.
And we dont want to integrate them into our society and they dont want to be in ours. Why do people have to be forced to be with each other. I would bet good money you have never been here or else you would never have come to that conclusion. Even the most left winged ideologues here know better.
IF you want you may now stop. But if you must, here is the answer to your reply ...
"Really? explain to me where Palestinians are getting kicked out of their homes? Dont say Sheik Jarrah in Jerusalem."
I didn't... you did... I wasn't even thinking of Sheik Jarrah. The issue is much older and broader than that.
See http://www.un.org/depts/dpa/qpal/
search by "evictions", "house demolitions"
The whole world acknowledges the problem .... but it must be a conspiracy by the self-hating Jews.
"Also, everyday Arabs buy homes in West Jerusalem"
Do you have any statistics on that?
"But if we buy a home in East Jerusalem it is apartheid settlement expansion."
You don't buy ... you take
Really where did we take in East Jerusalem?
"Right ..... they were setting you up right from the start. Those self-hating jews."
Who said the UN is made up only of Jews or self hating Jews? You think I think every critisizm against Israel must be self hating Jews. It seems to me you have the Jewish conspiracy gene because if that many people were "self hating jews" they would be a good portion of the world.
"This is funny ... you do not need any presence on the UN security council. The US has unconditionally done whatever you wanted."
Again, isnt there a quote, called history repeats itself or only fools ignore history. So what if the US now supports us in the security council. does that mean we dont deserve the same rights as every other nation. Hey! who needs the future state of palestine to have a seat in the UN, they have 36 arab muslim nations willing to support them!
"The Arabs did a good enough job that there are almost no more Jews to bring from the MIddle East because they have ethnically cleansed them all."
Do you have any credible source validating this claim? I am surprised we haven't heard a lot about this. "
I am actually surprised you havent heard about this!
"It is estimated that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Jews were either forced from their homes or left the Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970s; 260,000 reached Israel between 1948–1951, and 600,000 by 1972.[1][2][3] The Jews of Egypt and Libya were expelled while those of Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa left as a result of physical and political insecurity. Most were forced to abandon their property.[2] By 2002, these Jews and their descendants constituted about 40% of Israel's population."
I took this quickly from wikipedia (those self hating jews) but there are a million websites that speak on this. Now if you do your math properly you will realize that there were more Jewish refugees than Palestinian. If almost 1 million refugees can settle in tiny israel, surely the ones who had to leave in 1948 could settle in arab land that is 650 times the land mass of israel.
"This is a peculiar statement. Jews have the right of return but you don't allow Palestinian refugees to return. "
I never said Jews have a right of return. You did. But it is funny that you call for palestinian refugees to be able to return but not the jewish refugees who were larger in number.
Anyway ... see first paragraph.
Hey Wigwag, citizenship and civil rights are not mutually inclusive. Here in the U.S. you have many legal residents who are not citizens. They can't vote and they can't participate in certain spheres of society (gov. jobs, subsidized loans, even are restricted in their movement in ways citizens aren't).
How is it then that it seems imperative that Israel must give citizenship to all Arabs in Israel. Israel does provide schools, roads, protection and other forms of benefits to them but in no way is it obligated to grant citizenship to all of them. However I'd be up for giving all of them citizenship if the US gives all Mexicans.
Hey, just to throw my 2cents worth. But what is the difference between Israel defeating Jordan and capturing Jerusalem back in and the US taking over what became the southwest?
Isn't perfectly normal that when one party breaks an agreement (say like Germany did when it invaded poland in WWII), and it then looses that war, the victor determines the terms? Then how So does the victor have to abide by previous boundaries, previous deeds and properties or can in taking possession of the spoils re adjudicate them at will?
You lose the argument.
Obama told everyone just what they wanted to hear, in order to get elected, and it worked, just like he knew it would. Expect more immeasurable platitudes near to election time. All things to all people, and we all drank the cool aide. The time to look to other people to solve our problems should end. Time for Americans to start looking for the answers to our problems beginning with ourselves, and expanding outward, to include our spouses, families, friends, and neighbors. The next time someone tells you how they embody all your hopes, and aspirations, tell them to get a life, and that while you haven't quite reached nirvana, you are getting a grip on things, and realize it is best to work things out for yourself. Getting into the habit of idol worshiping, and looking to others to solve your problems is the formula for slavery, and we may have narrowly averted it.
Taking the paradigm of President Obama, telling everyone what they wanted to hear in order to get elected Mr. Connolly, then I suppose, he thought it was sufficient to tell everyone what they wanted to hear in the Middle East, inorder to get back to the table of negotiations. One would guess, President obama relied and still relies more on style than substance; at least when it comes to Arab-Israeli affairs.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Dispossessions-Large and Small
*Perhaps the millions of remaining Palestinians will gradually leave -- as hardline Israelis hope and as former House speaker Dick Armey once proposed. If so, then a country founded in the aftermath of the Holocaust -- one of history's greatest crimes-will have completed a dispossession begun in 1948 -- a great crime of its own.* (Stephen Walt)
*A great crime of its own.* Really?
Winston Churchill is revered in most circles as the greatest statesmen of the 20th century. This is what he had to say about what Professor Walt calls *dispossession.*
*Expulsion is the method which, so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble. . . . A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed at the prospect of the disentanglement of population, nor am I alarmed by these large transferences.*
Churchill made this comment at the end of World War II and he cited the Treaty of Lausanne as a precedent. Of course, the treaty that ended the War between the Greeks and the Turks *dispossessed* 400 thousand Turks and 1.5 million Greeks.
I wonder whether Professor Walt considers Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill to be criminals. After all, they presided over a few *dispossessions* themselves. At their instigation, between 1945-1947 seven million Germans were *dispossessed from Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and Yugoslavia. During the same years, 1.5 million Poles living in Ukraine were *dispossessed* to Poland and 500 thousand Ukrainians living in Poland were *dispossessed to Ukraine.
Perhaps Professor Walt hasn't noticed it, but just in the past 15 years, millions of ethnic Russians have been *dispossessed* from the former Soviet Republics and moved back to Russia, a country many of them had never even visited.
Maybe Professor Walt was unaware that 500 thousand Jews were *dispossessed* from Arab nations in the 1950s or that 175 thousand pied-noirs were *dispossessed* from Algeria in the 1960s.
Professor Walt teaches at Harvard after all. Surely someone most have told him at some point that during 1947-1950 at the end of the British Raj, the creation of India resulted in 15 million people being *dispossessed* with millions of Muslims leaving their ancestral homes to move to Pakistan and millions of Hindus leaving their ancestral homes to move to what would become India. Everyone, including Mahatma Gandhi understood that the creation of India was likely to lead to *dispossessions* on this scale. Does that make the Mahatma a criminal?
Maybe Professor Walt doesn't understand that wars have consequences. If he doesn't believe it he can ask the Serbs. They thought Kosovo was part of their nation (after all Kosovo was frequently referred to as "Old Serbia." Then the Serbs tried to *dispossess the the Kosovar Albanians and Bill Clinton didn't like it. He bombed Serbia relentlessly and after the Serbians lost this little war, guess what happened? Kosovo wasn't part of Serbia anymore, No one asked the Serbians what they thought; the winning party imposed its will on the losing party; just like the Israelis are doing with the Palestinians.
But there is some good news for the Palestinians; they probably don't have to be *dispossessed* at all; that is if they come to understand that their nation is only going to end up being a fraction of the size they hoped it would be.
If they can't get used to idea, than any *dispossession* they experience will be their own fault.
Oh stop this nonsense Jewish macho "war" thing. There was no war. Israel was given to the Jews on a silver platter by the United Nations. I cannot think of any other instance where the United Nations has carved out a piece from another country and given it to a bunch of Khazars who are in thrall with their exceptionalism and whose only claim to a piece of another country has been that "god gave it to them". Nor can I think of any other country that owes its very existence on handouts. Israel has never fought a real war. The only one was the Yom Kippur one, where the Egyptians were winning until Big Brother United States came to help the whiners. Israel is an expert at shooting women and children with white phosphorous, no more.
Stop the Jewish dehumanization
My name is A for short. My mother is an American Jew whose grandparents came from Russia. My Father is a British Jew whose grandparents came from Lithuania. I took a serious DNA test and found that 95 percent of my genes are shared with the native population of the Middle East and that I carry a distinctive Jewish gene that is absent from all the non Jewish Europeans. So take your anti semetic "we arent really originally from the middle east we are really a caucasian European from a vanquished empire." We are the real descendents from the Jewish Hebrew Israelites who came from Caan, who were forced off their land, raped by your ancestors, robbed of our color and settled in Europe. Thankfully thousands of years later, science and DNA has proved our roots. I know you want to first disarm us by robbing us of our roots and then delegitimize our precense in Israel before finally resettling us. But we will not stand silent in the face of this.
95 percent of my genes are shared with the native population of the Middle East and that I carry a distinctive Jewish gene that is absent from all the non Jewish Europeans." [...]
"We are the real descendents from the Jewish Hebrew Israelites who came from Caan, who were forced off their land, raped by your ancestors, robbed of our color and settled in Europe."
We got another "pure race" advocate .... where did we see this before?
"Thankfully thousands of years later, science and DNA has proved our roots. I know you want to first disarm us by robbing us of our roots and then delegitimize our precense in Israel before finally resettling us. But we will not stand silent in the face of this."
Is this for real?
Where did I come across as a "pure race"? Maybe you should get your eyes checked. I said that my genes despite being white in appearance are from the Middle East and are shared with the Arabs. I said it because the post before said that we Jews here are actually "Khazars" a group of russian caucasians who converted to christianity. The whole point of saying it is to delegitimize the Jewish connection to this land and to suggest we are not the real jews anyway, just European imposters. So no, I am not a pure racist. I am defending my roots though. Is that okay with you? I know I am sub human to you and held to much higher standards than the rest of the world, but that is the truth.
As for the "is this forreal" snip, yes it is for real. For thousands of years, people got away with killing Jews by denying their humanity and roots. Which is exactly what is going on here. First cut our roots to Israel and prove we dont belong here. Then take us out and make us landless and defenseless. Then wait for the next despot to come around and kill us. I have a good idea for you. Instead of being obsessed with us Jews and whats going on here go bother yourself with real problems like Darfur or North Korea. Or is Palestinian blood more valuable than theirs? Because that is what it seems like. Seems like you are the pure racist.
Me-tsu-yan.
You speak on behalf of many many Israeli like me.
Kudos.
we are not going to sit idle, and be deligitimized by closet anti-semeits here or anywhere else. period.
Zioninzion:
Why do you even need to bring up your DNA? Your approach and arguments would lead everyone to the same conclusions which is that you have the right to be in land where Israel is because your ancestor where there 2000 or 3000 years ago. So what? How many Romans can trace their presence in England or France or even Palestine and yet they do not use that as ground to claim that land.
Don't use these arguments to justify your claims. Also, you really don't know me ... how can you say I am racist or anti-semite.
Peace.
The Khazars at one time had a fairly sizeable empire around what is now Ukraine. They converted to the Jewish religion. It's a fact of history. From the looks of it, the Khazars were a pretty interesting lot. It isclaimed that many European Jews do descend from the Khazars. So what? Or do you claim descent from Solomon and the Queen of Sheba?
My ancestors converted to Lutheranism. I don't feel any great need to go to Wittenberg and start throwing the Catholics there out of their homes. What is it with some Jews that drives them to deprive others of their homes, all in the name of their religion? And in the 21st Century, long after The Age of Englishtenment?
I brought up genes because Kassandra brought up genes. Her argument was not based on international law or precedent or anything. Her argument was "they arent even real jews anyway"...and i can speak for many jews by saying we are sick and tired of being told what we are and what we arent. this is just another chapter in the delegitimization of the Jew. for 3000 years were too jewish and couldnt be trusted and couldnt be given the same rights and had conspiracies to take over the world. now they are replaced with "they arent even jewish and shouldnt be there". its the same as the right wing nuts who say here "there is no such thing as a palestinian". even though i think we have claim to alot of the land in the west bank, it is enough for me that there is a group of people who dont want to be with us, dont want to live under us or as us. so we have no right to tell them who they are or how they should live. i accept that. but what kassandra is trying to do is to deny my identity. denying someones identity is the first step to denying their humanity. the forefounders of america did it in the beginning. they needed a way to justify saying all men are created equal but also have slaves. so what did they do? they said the blacks werent men.
"The Khazars at one time had a fairly sizeable empire around what is now Ukraine. They converted to the Jewish religion. It's a fact of history. From the looks of it, the Khazars were a pretty interesting lot. It isclaimed that many European Jews do descend from the Khazars. So what? Or do you claim descent from Solomon and the Queen of Sheba?
My ancestors converted to Lutheranism. I don't feel any great need to go to Wittenberg and start throwing the Catholics there out of their homes. What is it with some Jews that drives them to deprive others of their homes, all in the name of their religion? And in the 21st Century, long after The Age of Englishtenment?"
First where is it claimed many Jews in Europe descend from the Khazars? And anyway, who cares? What is your point? That we arent really the original Jews so we have no claim? So if the original Jews are discovered tomorow in Vuulu Island they can come and take it back?
Like I said to Frankier speaking about you, your aim is to deny us our identity which is the first step to denying our humanity.
And here is a free history lesson. The day before the Independence War, Israel settled the land without displacing one Arab or taking one Arab persons home. We accepted the UN resolution to split the land, we sent letters to Arabs saying we didnt want war, and at the onset of the war told the Arabs in our area not to leave their homes, be peaceful with us, and build a future with us. Sadly our calls for peace went ignored.
It is sad that your continuing in the long tradition of Jew hating and Jew dehumanizing. Maybe it runs in your family.
Zioninzion, I commend your fortitude, persistence and faith in even bothering writing in these pages.
Obama probably thought he could do more within a certain amount of time, but when things didn't go according to plan, Obama adjusted to that reality. Yet it's only been a year and already people have concluded that Obama is an abject failure. WTF?
I really believe Obama is committed to working on the cause of peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. It may look like he is not making an effort or lacks the "political will," but appearances can be deceiving. Considering the scarcity of media attention given to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during the past year and even less about what Obama is doing -- for all we know he could be working behind the scenes -- it is hardly surprising people are making assumptions not yet in fact.
While Israel is an important ally their interests are not always the same as our interests. Needless to say, establishing a fair and just peace plan is in the best interests for Israel, the US and the Middle-East -- in fact the entire world. Obama gets that.
Based on past interview transcripts and his own writings, Obama's grasp of the situation is quite remarkable. From an historical perspective, Obama correctly acknowledges that the US has not been a neutral broker in the peace process. He understands that taking a more thoughtful and balanced approach in dealing with the problems in the Middle East is essential for creating a two-state solution. But that is easier said than done.
Regrettably at every turn Obama has been met with fierce opposition, not necessarily because of his policies, but mainly just for political grandstanding. And then there are others who quietly work behind the scenes unbeknownst to the public. So the first question is not whether Obama has the political will, but whether someone is undermining his efforts; if so, who and what can be done to counter their efforts? Or is Obama getting bad advice or is some information being withheld or what, we just don't know.
In a news vacuum it is easy to speculate and assume certain things, but until the facts are known it would be presumptuous and premature to draw foregone conclusions, not to mention unfair.
Let's give Obama time to prove himself, shall we?
A very to the point article. Mitchell's interview by Charlie Rose just before he left for the ME, made it clear where his sympathies lie. It was a typically Disneyesque, Mickey Mouse interview. Not one mention of Palestinians, just the same old, same old repititions of "Israel needing security", ad infinitum. Not once was the situationin Gaza mentioned nor the fact that Palestinians are the ones that need security from their neighbors.
And didn't Netanyahu just make clear to Mitchell that even with peace, Israel needed a "presence" in the West Bank? The two-state solution is history.
Having visited Israel and especially Palestine, I wonder just how big the Jewish population there is? Observing the settlement blocks, it is obvious that many of them are sparsely inhabited. Walking around Jerusalem it is clear that many apartments are not lived in. The luxury apartments being built in Jerusalem are being aimed at rich overseas Jews. I know that many Russian Jews have returned to Russia. I doubt that even the most rabid "god-gave-me-the-land" colonists have given up their US citizenship. In a one-state Palestine the Jewish influence will be just about what it always has been there throught history.
In sum, a good portion of Jews in Israel are dual citizens. Many of them treat Israel as summer camp, they don't live there continuously. When the one-state push starts, I bet a good portion of those Jews will go back to their countries of origin.
Stop the presses Walt blames Israel for everything. How is this any different than the other 1000 times he has. Remember, the Palestinians, in Walt's world, are infants without any human agency whatsoever.
"And notwithstanding the various difficulties on the Palestinian side"
You mean like the PA and Hamas fighting a civil war and killing and torturing each other in a fight for power? Oh yea, "not withstanding that!" Maybe "Professor" Walt should resign before he goes down in history as the most uninformed, naive, and simple minded commentator (or --to give him the benefit of the doubt--the most notorious propagandist) ever to grace the pages of Foreign Policy.
"the main obstacle has been the Netanyahu government's all-too obvious rejection of anything that might look like a viable Palestinian state,"
Or maybe it is Abbas' all-too obvious refusal to negotiate at all. Guess what "Professor" Walt. , you don't give up everything before you start negotiations, but at least Israel is willing to negotiate.
"combined with its relentless effort to gobble up more land. Unless the U.S. president is willing and able to push Israel as hard as it is pushing the Palestinians (and probably harder), peace will simply not happen."
Give me a single example of how the US has "pushed the Palestinians" to do anything. The US has put absolutely no pressure on the Palestinians to do anything at all. The Palestinians have done absolutely nothing to curb incitement against Israel. In fact, just last week Abbas dedicated a square to a hijacker who participated in the worst terrorist attack in Israeli history in order to honor the 50th anniversary of her birth.
" Give me a single example of how the US has "pushed the Palestinians" to do anything. The US has put absolutely no pressure on the Palestinians to do anything at all "
Not sure how the US can pressure the Palestinians .... what should they take away from them when they have nothing to be taken away?
On the other hand, the (continued) pressure is that the US will continue to provide blind support to Israel within the international organizations and while not allowing any meaningful economic aid to the PA (that would characterize a balanced broker). Maybe taking back the threat (flashed for just a day or two) of the withdrawal of the guarantees is also a way to pressure the Palestinians....
"In fact, just last week Abbas dedicated a square to a hijacker who participated in the worst terrorist attack in Israeli history in order to honor the 50th anniversary of her birth."
How many of the proclaimed Israeli heroes carried out acts similar to the Palestinians ... it's just that the Israeli are now in charge and the Palestinians are not so the Israeli can decide who is worthy to give the name to a road, an airport, etc.
a good post for sure and everyone needs a fall guy/girl. This was going to fail from the start as you pointed out there was 0 help from the side lines. I'm not suprised.
Messianic ethnic nationalism: a fascinating paradox
The very qualities of messianic ethnic nationalism that Wigwam and Zioninzion display in their posts -- belligerent, bullying, grandiose, self-ghettoizing, swaggering, xenophobic, etc. -- guarantee the failure and self-destruction of their political movement. They can't see it -- but militant ethnic nationalists (like South African white nationalists) rarely can see the world objectively and accurately. They are drunk on primal ethnic myths.
"The very qualities of messianic ethnic nationalism that Wigwam and Zioninzion display in their posts -- belligerent, bullying, grandiose, self-ghettoizing, swaggering, xenophobic, etc. -- guarantee the failure and self-destruction of their political movement. They can't see it -- but militant ethnic nationalists (like South African white nationalists) rarely can see the world objectively and accurately. They are drunk on primal ethnic myths"
First, what is messianic from what I have said? I am not a Zionist by creed but by right. Because even though I wish to be treated equal in the world and given the same rights as everyone else in the world and considered like anyone else, I am singled out and the scapegoat for everyone. And just because some Jews in the West have had equality for the last 70 years, does not stand up to the 4000 history that has plagued us. It was your ancestors who made me who I am today. Both for good and bad. But for those who stood up for freedom and the right to self determination, I say I have that right as much as anybody else. And to prove I am right? My people who are 0.25 percent of the worlds population want 0.010 percent of land in the world to live free and preserve our history and religion, yet despite this, we still cause more anger in the world than any other group.
It is so easy to throw out insults but I dare you to back them up? messianic? when did i evoke god? xenophobic? when have i shown a fear or hate for outsiders? Israel has more than 120 nationalities here many of them not jewish and i love them all. i also love when non jews visit here, live here, and i love visiting the world. so take your insult slandering machine somewhere else. ill bet any amount of money that i have read more foreign literature than you, have friends who hold more international passports than you, and that i have traveled, indulged and fell in love with more cultures than you.
"primal ethnic myths"? no my friend, you are drunk on your own primal ethnic myth which is jew hating.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(130)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE