-
U.S. POLICY
Will China Surpass the U.S.?
-
NEOCONSERVATIVES
Why The Neocon Strategy Was A Failure
-
ISRAEL
How Powerful Is the Israel Lobby?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 11:51 AM
Share
I was out-of-town giving a guest lecture when Vice-President Biden arrived in Israel, so I didn’t have a chance to blog about the interesting reception he received. Biden is well-known as a great friend of Israel, and his objective was to smooth over the recent frictions between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government and to jump-start indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. So Biden began his visit by reaffirming America’s “absolute total unvarnished commitment to Israel’s security.”
His reward was to get blind-sided by the announcement that Israel's Interior Ministry had authorized the construction of another 1,600 homes in East Jerusalem. (Israel annexed E. Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War, but this seizure is not recognized by the international community -- including the United States). Given that the Palestinians hope to locate their capital there if a two-state solution is ever reached, this announcment was -- to put it mildly -- not a friendly gesture.
Aides to Israeli prime minister Bibi Netanyahu have claimed that this announcement was an oversight and that Bibi was not aware that his own Interior Minister was going to make it. I don’t believe that -- and neither does Biden’s staff -- but even if it's true, it's really a secondary issue. Netanyahu did not disavow the announcement or reverse the decision (which is not surprising, given that he has long supported continued Israeli expansion in E. Jerusalem). Moreover, Ha’aretz reported today that the 1,600 homes are just a drop in the bucket, and that the Israel government is planning to build 50,000 (!) homes there over the next few years. In short, the announcement was either an attempt to derail the talks before they get started or a blatant gesture of contempt for the Obama administration itself.
You can read various reactions to the brouhaha here, here, and here. I'll confine myself to three comments.
First, why should anyone be surprised by this sort of "in-your-face" reception? The Netanyahu government has been stonewalling Obama ever since the Cairo speech, and so far the only price they have paid was some tut-tutting that they were being "unhelpful." Some observers used to maintain that Israeli prime ministers got in trouble at home if they didn’t get along with the U.S. president, but Bibi's popularity seems to have been enhanced by his spats with Obama and Mitchell. If Biden was expecting a love-fest when he arrived, he just hasn’t been paying attention.
Second, this incident also tells you that even if the "proximity talks" do get underway, they aren’t going anywhere. The United States and the Palestinian Authority want to create a viable, territorially-contiguous Palestinian state on nearly all of the West Bank (which means that after a century of conflict, the Palestinians are accepting roughly 22 percent of Mandate Palestine). There would be land swaps to accommodate some Israeli settlements, and the Palestinian capital would be located in E. Jerusalem. If you read Netanyahu's speech at Bar Ilan University last June (which marked the first time he uttered the phrase "Palestinian state") it's clear that the only "two-state solution" he will accept is one where the Palestinians get a few disconnected and totally disarmed statelets, with Israel in full control of their borders, airspace, water, and electromagnetic spectrum. And remember that Netanyahu is among the more moderate people in his own coalition.
There isn’t going to be any deal if the United States and/or EU don't put a lot of pressure on Israel, and Barack Obama has already shown us that he’s not capable of doing that. There may be some more sharp words from Washington (i.e., Biden has already "condemned" Israel’s action and Bibi has expressed regret for the timing of the announcement), but don’t expect anything significant. So the proximity talks are pointless, my earlier advice to George Mitchell still stands, and people ought to start thinking about what they'll do if it ever becomes clear that "two states for two peoples" just ain’t gonna happen.
Third, I am wondering what prominent neoconservatives think of all this. They are almost always in favor of the bold and decisive use of American power, and they are quick to criticize when Democratic presidents get humiliated by some foreign leader. I therefore assume they are deeply upset by this display, and that the Weekly Standard and National Review will quickly demand that Obama stand up to this latest challenge to America prestige and global leadership.
Lastly, my FP colleague Dan Drezner asked a good question the other day: Why has Israeli diplomacy committed so many obvious gaffes recently? Part of the blame undoubtedly lies with particular individuals, but I think there are also structural (or even structural realist) factors at work. Realist theory argues that the pressures of international competition impose a certain discipline on a country’s diplomatic conduct: when actions have real consequences, you need to think things through carefully and act with prudence and restraint. But when any country is insulated from the short-term consequences of its own blunders, you can expect it to act in a less careful or disciplined way. Domestic politics will exert greater weight, ideological fantasies get pursued, and personal whims are more easily indulged.
Just as America’s dominant position allowed it to pursue a lot of ill-advised excesses over the past fifteen years (see under: Iraq), America’s “special relationship” with Israel has insulated the latter from the consequences of its own follies. We see the results in the entire settlement enterprise -- which threatens to turn Israel into an apartheid state and jeopardizes its long-term future -- and in ham-fisted diplomatic kerfluffles like the Biden visit or the deliberate humiliation of the Turkish Ambassador by Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon. The original Zionists faced a more challenging environment and usually acted with great adroitness, consistency of purpose and imagination, while their successors in recent decades have been able to misbehave in part because Uncle Sam was always there to provide support and diplomatic cover. And that’s why some of us think the “special relationship” is unintentionally harmful to both countries, and that a normal relationship would be in everyone’s interest.
DAVID FURST/AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:OBAMA AND THE ISRAEL LOBBY, MIDDLE EAST, DIPLOMACY, DISASTERS, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
There isn’t going to be any deal if the United States and/or EU don't put a lot of pressure on Israel,
Reading this, it struck me as true. What also struck me is that his is a reversal from what the situation used to be. Before this government pressure was not needed to coax an offer from the Israelis. Previously we had Israeli governments making offers to unreceptive Palestinian governments, the last quite recently, with the Palestinians never making a counter offer.
It's possible that we now have two governments who are loathe to complete an agreement (and if so, all the pressure in the world on Israel won't get a deal done).
But it is also possible that the Palestinians really want a deal this time. If so, how about they put a deal on the table and put the ball in Israel's court?
Make it as realistic as possible, write it down, and put it out publicly. Let both publics read it, along with the rest of the world. Don't include redlines (the so-called "right of return", for instance), and account for realistic territory swaps. For instance, offer to the Israelis what Olmert offered (or said he offered) to Abbas recently. That offer struck me as good for both sides. Don't make it take it or leave it, like the Arab League did with the Saudi peace plan, but leave it open to negotiation.
If it was fair, Netanyahu's government would fall if they refused and the next government would make the deal. (And isn't this what the US administration wants anyway?)
What do you think, Steve? Is it realistic? If so, why don't you use your bully pulpit to push the idea?
You are correct in assessing that the key problem has been that third parties (the Quartet) continue to 'enable' peace talks (economically mostly), without any means of insisting that they occur.
One can easily be for "forced negotiations" (or quasi-forced) without being for a forced settlement, so to speak.
Everyday that there are not negotiations is a failure for all the parties, including the US and the EU (casting aside Walt's nihilist thesis that negotiation is pointless).
Israel has as special burden to bear, because they bear the burden of power in the situation.
Yes, some expression of that could include some type of reasonable peace offer that they could leave on the table, especially to deal with these periods during which they ostensibly "use" Western money and Palestinian "intransigence" to "consolidate gains" without negotiating for them.
I think Mr. David, the crux of the matter will always be the future of Jerusalem. There is no Israeli politician whom values his/her political life, or even just life, whom can compromise on the future of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. At the same time, there is no Palestinian politician whom values his/her political life, or even just life, whom would accept that E. jerusalem; or a divided Jerusalem ar no longer part of the Palestinian thinking. All other details regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict can be negotiated with relative ease in comparison. A United Jerusalem as the capital of Israel vs. Divided Jerusalem with E. jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state. Depends to what extent these conflicting notions, are worth armageddon.
khairi janbek.paris/france
According to Olmert, this is what he offered. If the Palestinians agree with the compromise, they can put it on the table in their own offer. We really have never seen them offer anything, only demand or tell us what they would not accept. It would be a sea change if they fielded a comprehensive offer. IMO, the Israeli public would be willing to concede and awful lot of they could be convinced that real peace was in the offing.
"On the 16th of September, 2008, I presented him (Abbas) with a comprehensive plan. It was based on the following principles....
"No 2 was the issue of Jerusalem. This was a very sensitive, very painful, soul-searching process. While I firmly believed that historically, and emotionally, Jerusalem was always the capital of the Jewish people, I was ready that the city should be shared. Jewish neighbourhoods would be under Jewish sovereignty, Arab neighbourhoods would be under Palestinian sovereignty, so it could be the capital of a Palestinian state.
"Then there was the question of the holy basin within Jerusalem, the sites that are holy to Jews and Muslims, but not only to them, to Christians as well. I would never agree to an exclusive Muslim sovereignty over areas that are religiously important to Jews and Christians. So there would be an area of no sovereignty, which would be jointly administered by five nations, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Palestinian state, Israel and the United States.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/ehud-olmert-still-dreams-of-peace/story-e6frg76f-1225804745744
Jerusalem in the short-term or the long-term?
I think that, in the long term, for the prospect of peace and living side-by-side, even Jerusalem can be 'compromised'.
Let me hazard this, instead, as the "crux": for now and for a long time into the future, the crux will be a real, bona-fide, full, meaningful, transparent, and complete joint security effort.
Put another way, when there is a joint-leadership that can cooperate on joint-stability in common interest, by putting down trouble makers of all stripes, local and cross-border, in a fully transparent and harmonized way, the waters will part for certain.
(There was a short period of time under Wye in which joint security worked, so it can be done.)
Throughout his term in office, he kept offering the division of Jerusalem, while Abbas continued to demand the division of Jerusalem at the same time. Since, Israel controls Jerusalem, and seemingly, Abbas and Olmert were in agreement about the division of Jerusalem, yet, Olmert did nothing effectively to divide Jerusalem. Perhaps this why he is still alive.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Janbekster, one presumes that Olmert did nothing to divide Jerusalem because there was a key step missing in between his offering to divide Jerusalem and the putative dividing of Jerusalem. That was, namely, Abbas accepting the offer to divide Jerusalem.
One does not doubt that Abbas was and is demanding the dividing of Jerusalem, among many other things, and would almost certainly take any of them if they were handed to him with no concessions required on his part.
or building a political coalition around it?
or, the key missing step was building an Israeli political coalition around the idea.
Let's face it, such a division will be hard work in Israeli politics, which seems increasingly influenced by hard right secular and religious groups.
My point was that it may yet be possible to reach an agreement, if there were truly a sense of joint-security, of an abiding peace to be won, that is not behind walls and doesn't include the types of "defensive actions" that no one really likes, no matter how much they tell themselves they are "justified".
Thirdwatch, reality suggests that the peace, when/if it comes, will likely be behind walls. If it keeps the situation stable where it otherwise wouldn't be, it strikes me as the least bad of all the alternatives.
I don't know what you mean by that, but it does make sense to me to think about (a) a final settlement and (b) a phased implementation of that.
So far, we've only ever tried the process in the reverse, with processes that offered chances to 'build confidence', first, and a final settlement, later. As we've learned, this gives too much say-so, too much 'veto' to the trouble makers, to the spoilers, on both sides.
As far as the political will within Israel, time is important AND increasingly so. Many of the "settlers" who pour over the existing wall, even today, are the hardline religious. Accordingly, it is that much more difficult for Israel.
What I mean is that the Israelis will take the logical step of moving the security barrier to whatever final border is decided upon. It was in reponse to your statement that it may be possible to achieve an abiding peace that is not behind walls. There will certainly be walls for the forseeable future.
Whether "justified" "defensive measures", to borrow your scare quotes, are required or not will ultimately depend on whether or not the Palestinians lob explosive materials over those walls, one suspects. History has shown that when they do, "justified" "defensive measures" follow. If the Palestinians are a recognized state I suspect Israel, unlike last time, will not absorb those explosives for multiple years before engaging in "justified" "defensive measures".
Walls are useful, until they start to get in the way.
True or false: every settler 'over-the-wall' is an reliable "vote" for Netanyahu's political coalition. How many politicians ever turn down a policy of "creating" votes for themselves, or simply making it harder for their opponents to take a 'moderate' or line?
Someone did a study a while back, perhaps in the last five years, that showed how much the U.S. taxpayer was subsidizing settlement activity, let alone whether there are other day-to-day subsidies that Israel offers, still. To have subsidized a 'political blockade' to the very notion of 'peaceful settlement' is the typically blind kind of thing for the U.S. to have done.
Thirdwatch, that is a non-sequitor. You are entitled to your opinion about the security barrier now, obviously, but you had opined and I had responded to your statement about a peace without walls.
"Walls are useful, until they start to get in the way"
Like everything else, useful until they are not. Right.
no, not all things are useful.
My point would be that a physical wall is not what it ultimately important. Walls goes up, walls comes down.
That doesn't seem to contradict anything you've said.
Such nonsense from David in DC. What the Palestinians have said (repeatedly) is to start from what the UN has said was legal under international law. And the Saudi initiative, based on the same principles, has complete Arab state support. Quit the hasbara already, or take it somewhere else. It's tedious in the extreme.
The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative is the best possible chance for both parties to come away with some sort of grievance. Israel would walk away with 22 new allies from the Arab world, and the Palestinians would finally get the territory they deserve for a future state. Unfortunately, common sense and rationality seem to be overtaken by arrogance and colonial expansion.
http://www.depetris.wordpress.com
Castellio's reply is the usual response from people who can't challenge the facts of an argument. In this case he takes it a step farther - it's not apparent he even read what I wrote. This being a 'realist' blog, taking reality into account my suggestion arguably would get the Palestinians what they say they want in the shortest amount of time.
I have a new plan for Mideast peace, and it’s basically a two-step process:
Step 1: PURSUE NATION BUILDING IN THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES, NAMELY IN THE WEST BANK.
The West Bank economy has already grown by 8 percent over the past year, giving Palestinians a much needed and much deserved spout of job opportunity. The Fatah Party is demonstrating its sincerity in anti-corruption, cracking down on public officials who are both sympathetic to the rival Hamas movement and who are stealing money right under the government’s nose. The integrity and transparency that Palestinians have been praying for may be finally blossoming into something real. And with institutions adapting and maturing, the Palestinians could eventually work their way towards a state of their own, albeit unofficially. Who knows…perhaps a stable and prosperous Palestinian entity will nudge the Israelis back to the negotiating table, thus making it official.
Step 2: US SANCTIONS ON ISRAEL.
Now I know this is controversial. The powerful Israeli lobby in Washington would undoubtedly view this is action as an insult towards a trustworthy ally in an otherwise contentious and hostile region. Some lobbies, like AIPAC, could show their displeasure by withdrawing their representatives from the United States and diverting more attention to Western Europe. Israel may decide to purchase weapons elsewhere, like Russia or China, two powers that the U.S. would rather keep in check. But the benefits of sanctions would be enormous to say the least. With billions of dollars in cash and military hardware halted, and with the protective American umbrella lifted, Israel may have no choice but to actually cooperate. The reason that Israel has not taken the United States seriously over the past year is because condemnations over settlement building are rarely taken to the next level. We are too quick to give Israel the benefit of the doubt in all areas of Mideast policy.
-Daniel R. DePetris
http://www.depetris.wordpress.com
This is from last month. All of this anti-corruption and transparency you are talking about happened in the past month? Didn't you see all of these stories?
Also, FWIW, sanctions won't happen. Maybe that doesn't feel good, but it's reality. So the question is - why do you want to waste time espousing an impossible plan that, if adopted by the Palestinians, would just extend their misery to no good effect?
"According to the report on Channel 10 http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=698398 senior officials in the P.A. have pocketed huge sums of money earmarked as donations to the P.A. from European and Arab countries.
Shabaneh gave Channel 10 boxes full of official papers and tapes collected over the past six years, documenting bank withdrawals by senior Palestinians from P.A. accounts, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars.
Another system of embezzlement was to allocate more money from the P.A.’s coffers to purchase land or property than the cost of the land, thus leaving excess, which was pocketed by officials.
Shabaneh decided to take his findings to the Israeli media after he became frustrated by the lack of action taken following his attempts to present his findings to Abbas.
Shabaneh warned that if the matter is not taken up by the Palestinian judicial system within two weeks he would expose more incriminating details to the media.
“I’m addressing Abu Mazen,” Shabaneh told Channel 10. “Today I exposed just a small part of what I have found regarding people who are corrupt, both financially and morally. But in two weeks I will expose well-documented information on this channel that is more damning and more detailed, so that the corrupt people will be brought to justice.”
http://www.jewishjournal.com/israel/article/fatah_corruption_expose_shuns_palestinian_media_201002101/
1) Stop giving them military aid to the tune of 10% of GDP.
2) Impose sanctions as they did to South Africa.
3) Wait till "moderates" emerge who do see problem with depriving 5 million Arabs of self-determination.
None of this is going to happen, by the way. Israel and the Holocaust are too intertwined with American ideology. The Europeans might decide to no longer be spineless (the EU parliament recently endorsed the Goldstone Report) but it wouldn't do any good as long as America is not on board.
Gotta go with Pryce Jones:
"Indirect negotiations, proximity talks, the Road Map, the Quartet, shelf agreements, the freelancing of Senator Mitchell and Tony Blair, and the drills of General Dayton have exhausted the lexicon of diplomacy and the ingenuity of lawyers. The reason for this should be crystal clear. The Palestinians are happy with the way things are; they see no reason for change; the present situation is playing profitably into their hands.
"If they'd really wanted a state, they could have had one any time since the 1992 Oslo Accords.
"But why should they? All these well-wishers are pumping money to them, and a state would force them to spend it on administration rather than themselves. They also have the pleasure of observing everyone — and specially Washington — putting pressure on Israel and making it unpopular. Sixteen-hundred more settlements gives them grounds for 1,600 more complaints, and then sitting down and rubbing their hands in expectation of commiseration and rewards. A state would oblige them to pull their own chestnuts out of the fire.
"As long as the deadlocked status quo serves the interest of top Palestinians there is not the slightest chance of a peace process. It's inconceivable, of course, but the announcement that the United States was backing and even financing settlements would do more to make the Palestinians appreciate that their true interest is to reach a speedy compromise, rather than seeing that Joe Biden spoils his dinner.
http://pryce-jones.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODZhNjgyMDRmYjFhZjQ4ODRjMTU1ODFhYTZmYzRlZmI=
(1) and (2) will certainly hurt Israel, but it won't bring out "moderate" that will satisfy you. It may result in Israel resorting to North Korean style nuclear blackmail (a bit more effective, when you have satellite capability). It may result in an Israel-China alliance that destroys the US technological advantage in the near term. It may result in a war to protect Israeli strategic interests or another war meant to destroy Israel. Gaming out diplomatic games requires understanding that other countries have a lot of options when they respond to your actions.
"Wait till 'moderates' emerge who do see problem with depriving 5 million Arabs of self-determination."
Yeah, too bad Israel hasn't had any moderates. Except David Ben Gurion, who agreed to the UN partition plan, way back in '48, even though Jerusalem wouldn't have been under Israel's control. And Yitzhak Rabin, who signed Oslo and made peace with Jordan. And Menachem Begin, who made peace with Egypt. And Ehud Barak, who was ready for peace with both Syria and the Palestinians, and accepted Clinton's peace deal at Camp David (Arafat rejected it and never counter-offered). And Ariel Sharon, who withdrew from Gaza and got Hamas and rockets in return. And Ehud Olmert, who offered Abbas a far-reaching peace deal.
Yup, no moderates on the Israeli side, good point...
you are right on. if Palesinians were so concerned that settlements were confiscating land for a Palestinian state, logically they would be eager to enter into negotiations with Israel where border issues can be resolved as part of an overall peace plan.
Settlements are not the issue. Rather, the issue is that the Arabs have no intention to recognize Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish people and ratify a document that calls for an end to the conflict.
It is, has always been and will continue to be Arab instrasigence that stymies peace. Let's condemn that.
Walt needs to go back to graduate school & learn how to research
Walt again proves that he has no ability to check facts or simply doesn't care about them. I take it as a given that Walt has no knowledge of Israel, but at least he could check what he posts.
1. Ramat Shlomo is north of West Jerusalem. It is NOT in east Jerusalem.
This is the same exact mistake when he declared Gilo construction to be East Jerusalem when it is South West of Jerusalem
2. The apartments aren't scheduled to be built for THREE YEARS.
3. Walt continues to ignore anything that the Palestinians do to hamper peace. Walt is not interested in peace or obstacles to peace; only in demonizing Israel. He ignores that the day Biden arrived, the Palestinians decided to honor and name a Square after a woman who took part in the worst terrorist attack in Israeli history. That is certainly a positive move toward peace.
Ramat Shlomo is in East Jerusalem
Dave,
With all due respect, I think you need to check a map. If Walt's wrong on this, then so is Google Maps:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ramat%20Shlomo&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl
Not mention the New York Times, CNN, and every other writer at FP
Check again, it is directly North of West Jerusalem. It is over the armistice line, but it is not in East Jerusalem.
I think Mr. Dave, ultimately where is what, becomes rather academic when Israel intends to build 50, 000 housing units all around Jerusalem in order to isolate it from its surroundings.
khairi janbek.paris/france
"Now I know this is controversial. The powerful Israeli lobby in Washington would undoubtedly view this is action as an insult towards a trustworthy ally in an otherwise contentious and hostile region."
Them and the 70% of Americans who view Israel favorably.
{Given the recent blow up, how unintentionally humorous is it to link to Andrew Sullivan for "reaction"?
We have to laugh at ourselves a bit - it's certainly better than taking some kind of 'humiliation' to heart}
Sir, have you considered that Israeli "excessive behavior" is a direct result of the closed minds it faces around the world? Current Palestinian "negotiating positions" amount to a demand for surrender - the right of return, '67 borders unchanged, etc. What, short of accepting these terms, could Israel do that would satisfy you and others urging sanctions?
Israel understands that, given the human shields, terrain, etc., the civilian casualties in the Gaza War was impressively small (though tragic). The war was a necessary and legal act of self-defense. The same was true of the recent Lebanon War. Both were successful in reducing violence and stabilizing the diplomatic situation. Were the Palestinians interested in peace, the process could move forward right now. Yet look at the international condemnation heaped on Israel!
When limited and successful actions are treated as war crimes, why not simply cater to domestic politics?
HGB
"Israel understands" would have been better phrase as "The Israeli understanding appears to be" - the statement was meant to be descriptive, not an endorsement.
HGB
More anti-Israel articles on FP (Ho hum)
So the cover story on FP is currently a ridiculous article bashing Israel for an advert. that may or may have not originated with the Israeli govt. And now Walt chimes in with his specialty, an article singling out Israel as the Jew among the nations (that's what makes him his $ and brings him his fame, don't knock it).
If FP isn't careful, people are going to think (correctly) that it's anti-Israel.
As usual, Walt totally ignores Palestinian behavior and puts everything on Israel. If Jerusalem is such a vital issue to the Arabs, how come they didn't make Jerusalem their capital when they controlled it from 1948-1967? What? Still waiting for your answer? Oh, because Jerusalem only became valuable to them after Jews gained control of it? Oh, OK.
Israel annexed Jerusalem and it is Israel's official capital (and the holiest city to Jews). Saying Jews can't live or build in Jerusalem is RACIST. Can Blacks build in Washington DC? Can Muslims build a house in London?
Why does all Palestinian land have to be Judenrein (totally free of Jews)? Gaza became Judenrein when Israel withdrew in the name of peace, and that worked out wonderfully: in short order, the Palestinians voted en masse for Hamas and began launching a decade of terror (via rockets) against an innocent populace. There is the "peace" that Walt would promise us.
And tell me, o lovers of Palestinians and haters of Israel, why, if Jerusalem is such a HUGE deal to the Palestinians, have they repeatedly refused deals from Israel to divide Jerusalem (Barak/Clinton in 2000 and Olmert two years ago)? It's almost as if it's not the Israelis who are the problem...
Walt, keep writing these anti-Israel screeds. Your bank account depends on it.
Those of us who are careful didn't say that the Jews couldn't live in this or that place. What was said was that unilateral building on disputed land is prejudicial to an envisioned 'final settlement' and therefore inadvisable.
Barak's 2000 proposal - is that still officially on the table or was it withdrawn? Olmert - did any third party actually witness him making this offer? I don't know for certain, but it does seem that the Arab League are offering more support, today, for approaches to Jerusalem than they did in 2000, when they left Arafat twisting in the wind, so to speak, leaving his weak mind to deal with the completely new concept of 'Holy Basin', as it was introduced at that time.
As for the "value" of Jerusalem, one can talk and talk and everyone else will patiently listen. Yes, there is some 'political calculation' to a 'foothold' in the city. Yes, the Christian sites will likely end up under "Muslim control", even under Israeli proposals. Yes, the logistics of a divided city will be strange and odd and weird and "against reason" and "against God".
But, at the end of the day, we can still say that the optimal outcome is likely some sharing arrangement, however imperfect; because, face it, whoever has tried to control Jerusalem throughout history, to have it all for themselves, has courted disaster.
This site is blatantly anti-Israel and I do wonder what its covert political agenda may be.
At any rate, I love how Netanyahu cleverly handed Biden his own ass in his little exchange. Israel's general b!tch-slapping of the Obama administration is justified and entertaining to observe. Though I voted for Obama and would probably do so again, I (and every other right-thinking human being) was sickened by his Cairo speech. His willingness to abuse the women's rights movement in America in order to pander to this ass-backward, retrograde ideology turns my stomach, as I'm sure it turns Israel's.
To honest Khalild who said: "Why should Palestinians give up their right to their lands, villages and homes?...It is a military problem, and therefore the solution has to be military."
This is so true, there is no negotiating with the Islamic mind and Israel, probably more than any other nation on earth, is well aware that the only way to deal with this particular enemy is merciless brute force. So, net/net, we're on the same page on this one mate.
Jolly good show. Stick together and pluck each others' feather.
khairi janbek.paris/france
NSC and AllanGreen
If Walt and FP are anti-semite, then your comments clearly project anti-arab and, pretty much, anti-anything that dares to analyze, let alone, Israel behavior.
The consequence of the actions of past, present, and future Israeli's leadership is that Israel will adopt a "one-state" solution. The issue is how will they get there.
A) First become officially (de facto is already) and aparthied state, go through years maybe decades of social unrest and then, finally, acknowledge the status quo and become a state where Palestinians and Jews can live peacefully together as equal.
B) Start to implement a 2-state solution whereby the Palestinian state will be so crippled that there will be no sustainable. Go back to today's ways of life. then start from (A)
C) Just acknowledge the status quo and become a state where Palestinians and Jews can live peacefully together as equal.
A and/or B seem the way the Israeli people are chosing.
forgive the typos in my previous post ... tough to type on these mobile devices
Perhaps we (and by this I mean, the US, Europe, UN, etc.) can stop giving aid to both parties to help bring about a deal?
Remember what happened in the Balcans in the 90s? Only one side was allowed to have weapons (Serbs) while the other (Bosnians) was not. We all know how it ended.
I am not advocating to supply (more) weapons to the Palestinians, but certainly continuing to supply the Israeli with pretty much everything they want in terms of weapons and funds, it has been counterproductive and, consistently with Blue13326's opinion, everyone should stop aiding Israel and whatever crumbs fall to the Palestinians.
Resolving the conflict is more in our interest than Israel's.
We know what Israel really wants: "the whole mandate Palestine".
The sooner we acknowledge this reality and help implement it, the sooner we can enhance our own security. Netanyahu could not be more explicit in declaring the two state solution dead and he means it. Creeping annexation and our subtle support for it hurts our credibility. It increases hatred between the annexer and the annexed.
We should begin negotiations for a single state solution and end the misery of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Measures should be taken to bring the two people closer to one another by building grassroots initiatives.
You mean Israel want's all of Jordan? I think it's only the Palestinians who have explicity said this and use all of Israel in their official maps of "Palestine."
I cannot support the Israeli State in good conscience
As a Jew I'm at the point now where, due to a number of wide-ranging factors, I can't in good conscience support the current State of Israel at all. They would need to change not only the government but the Constitution, and there would actually have to be a real, official Palestinian State first. This last announcement is one more example of flagrant disregard for human suffering, peace and the long-term viability of Israel.
Right now I regard the State of Israel as just another country that happens to sit on sacred land. I agree that the US's unwavering support is part of the problem, as the author states so well. Israel in its current incarnation is acting like the rebellious teenager whose parents bail him out of jail all the time and pay all his drunk driving tickets. The government of Israel needs to be allowed to fail so they will be forced to stand on their own two feet and learn why they should act responsibly.
They would need to change not only the government but the Constitution
Asajew, I guess you didn't know that Israel doesn't have a constitution?
So how exactly would they have to change this non-existent document to gain, or regain, your critical support?
get real. Israel has done more to help the Palestinians than their own leadership and their own people. There are almost a million Palestinian Arabs in Israel who enjoy more civil liberties, get a better education and enjoy a better standard of living than in most any Arab country. In Lebannon, Palestinians are not allowed to own land, work in certain jobs and obtain Lebanese citizenship. In Jordan, over the past several years, Palestinians have been stripped of their Jordanian citizenship... just too many Palestinian Arabs in Jordan for their taste. And in the Palestinian Territories, despite the billions of dollars that have flowed to the Palestinians for aid over the years, they have yet to get their people out of refugee camps. For more than a generation, Palestinians have kept their people locked in the past to score political points. And if that wasn't enough, look at the rights of Palestinians in Gaza right now. There is no religious freedom, no free press. Women have been subjugated by the growing imposition of sharia law. Diagree with Hamas... bang you're dead. Restrictions of supplies entering Gaza are based on which materials Hamas uses to build rockets. If Hamas wants to improve conditions for Palestinians in Gaza its simple. Stop building and shooting rockets at Israel.
What sort of person gives a platform to Steven Walt, Anti-Semite?
And meanwhile, not a word out of the haters of racism above about the residents of that jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem singing songs of praise for Baruch Goldstein.
Oh yeah, and neither did the four (count 'em, four!) posters here who called Walt a racist/anti-semite not seem to have any problem with the singing songs of love for Baruch Goldstein by some Israelis (see http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3857671,00.html), neither do they seem to be worried about the practice of spitting on Christians in Israel either. (See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1154366.html)
Takes either a brave or a blind person to be running around essentially saying that anti-semitism is the issue of the day to be worried about.
Takes either a brave or a blind person to be running around essentially saying that anti-semitism is the issue of the day to be worried about.
More attempts to downplay the threat of anti-Semitism. This is a disturbing and disgusting trend that we see more and more.
Obviously, the existence of other forms of bigotry in no way means that anti-Semitism is something we should be downplaying. It is on the rise all over the globe.
Furthermore, the fact that people don't denounce everything you want them to doesn't means they support those actions. I imagine that you'd be screaming bloody murder if someone tried to say that individual Muslims who don't speak out against terrorism therefore support it. I've seen people make this reprehensible argument and it is no different from the argument you are trying to make.
Dave in DC wrote:
"More attempts to downplay the threat of anti-Semitism."
Nope, just my assessment of same, obviously. Might be right or might be wrong, but I at least don't know where you get your belief that it's growing. And even if it's true, (which I doubt), I at least still haven't seen anything near comparable to the open singing of songs in praise of Baruch Goldstein, the graffiti all over places like Hebron calling arabs vermin and for their death, the routine actual attacks on arabs and even on arab children by Israeli settlers and their children, an actual foreign minister like Lieberman saying arabs should just "take their bundles" and leave, or etc. and so forth.
While I understand the desire to have a monopoly on determining what's "disgusting" and not I have to say it's kinda silly: Disgusting is obviously coming in from all kinds of points on the human compass these days, and while this includes the anti-semitic, it's not only anti-semitic, and it's not the anti-semitic that is necessarily the worst right now either. Somehow you seem to feel this last at least can never be true, but, as I say, nobody's got a monopoly on this stuff.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
Jan/Feb 2012
-
Cover Story
-
Feature
-
Inbox
(67)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE