-
Passport
Syria’s Lung-Eating Rebel Explains
-
Transitions
Is Venezuela Becoming a Failed State?
-
The Cable
Issa Subpoenas Pickering on Benghazi
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Friday, August 20, 2010 - 1:36 PM
Share
If you think today's announcement that the Israelis and Palestinians are going to resume "direct talks" is a significant breakthrough, you haven't been paying attention for the past two decades (at least). I wish I could be more optimistic about this latest development, but I see little evidence that a meaningful deal is in the offing.
Why do I say this? Three reasons.
1. There is no sign that the Palestinians are willing to accept less than a viable, territorially contiguous state in the West Bank (and eventually, Gaza), including a capital in East Jerusalem and some sort of political formula (i.e., fig-leaf) on the refugee issue. By the way, this outcome supposedly what the Clinton and Bush adminstrations favored, and what Obama supposedly supports as well.
2. There is no sign that Israel's government is willing to accept anything more than a symbolic Palestinian "state" consisting of a set of disconnected Bantustans, with Israel in full control of the borders, air space, water supplies, electromagnetic spectrum. etc. Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it clear that this is what he means by a "two-state solution," and he has repeatedly declared that Israel intends to keep all of Jerusalem and maybe a long-term military presence in the Jordan River valley. There are now roughly 500,000 Israeli Jews living outside the 1967 borders, and it is hard to imagine any Israeli government evacuating a significant fraction of them. Even if Netanyahu wanted to be more forthcoming, his coalition wouldn't let him make any meaningful concessions. And while the talks drag on, the illegal settlements will continue to expand.
3. There is no sign that the U.S. government is willing to put meaningful pressure on Israel. We're clearly willing to twist Mahmoud Abbas' arm to the breaking point (which is why he's agreed to talks, even as Israel continues to nibble away at the territory of the future Palestinian state), but Obama and his Middle East team have long since abandoned any pretense of bringing even modest pressure to bear on Netanyahu. Absent that, why should anyone expect Bibi to change his position?
So don't fall for the hype that this announcement constitutes some sort of meaningful advance in the "peace process." George Mitchell and his team probably believe they are getting somewhere, but they are either deluding themselves, trying to fool us, or trying to hoodwink other Arab states into believing that Obama meant what he said in Cairo. At this point, I rather doubt that anyone is buying, and the only thing that will convince onlookers that U.S. policy has changed will be tangible results. Another round of inconclusive "talks" will just reinforce the growing perception that the United States cannot deliver.
The one item in all this that does give me pause is the accompanying statement by the Middle East Quartet (the United States, Russia, the EU and the U.N.), which appears at first glance to have some modest teeth in it. Among other things, it calls explicitly for "a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors." It also says these talks can be completed within one year. Sounds promising, but the Quartet has issued similar proclamations before (notably the 2003 "Roadmap"), and these efforts led precisely nowhere. So maybe there's a ray of hope in there somewhere, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Meanwhile, both Democrats and Republicans here in the United States will continue to make pious statements about their commitment to a two-state solution, even as it fades further and further into the realm of impossibility. Barring a miracle, we will eventually have to recognize that "two-states for two peoples" has become a pipe-dream. At that point, U.S. leaders will face a very awkward choice: they can support a democratic Israel where Jews and Arabs have equal political rights (i.e., a one-state democracy similar to the United States, where discrimination on the basis of religion or ethnicity is taboo), or they can support an apartheid state whose basic institutions are fundamentally at odds with core American values.
Equally important, an apartheid Israel will face growing international censure, and as both former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and current Defense Minister Ehud Barak have warned, such an outcome would place Israel's own long-term future in doubt. If that happens, all those staunch "friends of Israel" who have hamstrung U.S. diplomacy for decades can explain to their grandchildren how they let that happen.
As for the Obama administration itself, I have only one comment. If you think I'm being too gloomy, then do the world a favor and prove me wrong. If you do, I'll be the first to admit it.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
EXPLORE:OBAMA AND THE ISRAEL LOBBY, MIDDLE EAST, 1989, DIPLOMACY, HILLARY, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, STATE DEPARTMENT, TRADE, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
Steve lays all the blame on Israel
I'm shocked, I say!
When one realizes that this simplistic and one-sided drivel is what amounts to analysis coming from one of our supposedly best and brightest IR minds, can it really be any surprise that our foreign policy is floundering.
Who wants to bet that at some point in the future Steve will be pointing to this prediction and pontificating about his own brilliance, even though I think you'd have a better chance of being wrong predicting the sun will rise tomorrow ;o).
who would you lay the blame on?
I don't see how the Israeli gov't has given any indication that they want peace. Yes, they say they're willing to sit at the table and want to talk, but they're happy with the status quo. The separation wall seems to be preventing violence and they refused to extend their token moratorium on settlement expansion, without much pressure by the Quartet. I don't see the author laying all the blame, but I do see this as a daily blog, not an in depth published work.
Both deserve some share of the blame. Isn't that as obvious as the fact that these talks will lead nowhere?
More blame is placed on Israel, since they continue to take more land from Palestinians. They have the guns and the capitol. As critics in the west, we criticize Israel because we subsidize them. And they deserve more blame, because they are not interested in peace and will desecrate cemeteries in the name of reclaiming Israel. The Mamilla Cemetery is just one egregious example.
Skip The Lectures On Israel’s ‘Risks For Peace’ (By George Will)
The Washington Post
August 19, 2010
Skip The Lectures On Israel’s ‘Risks For Peace’
By George F. Will
JERUSALEM
In the intifada that began in 2000, Palestinian terrorism killed more than 1,000 Israelis. As a portion of U.S. population, that would be 42,000, approaching the toll of America's eight years in Vietnam. During the onslaught, which began 10 Septembers ago, Israeli parents sending two children to a school would put them on separate buses to decrease the chance that neither would return for dinner. Surely most Americans can imagine, even if their tone-deaf leaders cannot, how grating it is when those leaders lecture Israel on the need to take "risks for peace."
During Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's July visit to Washington, Barack Obama praised him as "willing to take risks for peace." There was a time when that meant swapping "land for peace" -- Israel sacrificing something tangible and irrecoverable, strategic depth, in exchange for something intangible and perishable, promises of diplomatic normality.
Strategic depth matters in a nation where almost everyone is or has been a soldier, so society cannot function for long with the nation fully mobilized. Also, before the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel within the borders established by the 1949 armistice was in one place just nine miles wide, a fact that moved George W. Bush to say: In Texas we have driveways that long. Israel exchanged a lot of land to achieve a chilly peace with Egypt, yielding the Sinai, which is almost three times larger than Israel and was 89 percent of the land captured in the process of repelling the 1967 aggression.
The intifada was launched by the late Yasser Arafat -- terrorist and Nobel Peace Prize winner -- after the July 2000 Camp David meeting, during which then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to cede control of all of Gaza and more than 90 percent of the West Bank, with small swaps of land to accommodate the growth of Jerusalem suburbs just across the 1949 armistice line.
Israelis are famously fractious, but the intifada produced among them a consensus that the most any government of theirs could offer without forfeiting domestic support is less than any Palestinian interlocutor would demand. Furthermore, the intifada was part of a pattern. As in 1936 and 1947, talk about partition prompted Arab violence.
In 1936, when the British administered Palestine, the Peel Commission concluded that there was "an irrepressible conflict" -- a phrase coined by an American historian to describe the U.S. Civil War -- "between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country." And: "Neither of the two national ideals permits" a combination "in the service of a single state." The commission recommended "a surgical operation" -- partition. What followed was the Arab Revolt of 1936 to 1939.
On Nov. 29, 1947, the United Nations recommended a partition plan. Israel accepted the recommendation. On Nov. 30, Israel was attacked.
Palestine has a seemingly limitless capacity for eliciting nonsense from afar, as it did recently when British Prime Minister David Cameron referred to Gaza as a "prison camp." In a sense it is, but not in the sense Cameron intended. His implication was that Israel is the cruel imprisoner. Gaza's actual misfortune is to be under the iron fist of Hamas, a terrorist organization.
In May, a flotilla launched from Turkey approached Gaza in order to provoke a confrontation with Israel, which, like Egypt, administers a blockade to prevent arms from reaching Hamas. The flotilla's pretense was humanitarian relief for Gaza -- where the infant mortality rate is lower and life expectancy is higher than in Turkey.
Israelis younger than 50 have no memory of their nation within the 1967 borders set by the 1949 armistice that ended the War of Independence. The rest of the world seems to have no memory at all concerning the intersecting histories of Palestine and the Jewish people.
The creation of Israel did not involve the destruction of a Palestinian state, there having been no such state since the Romans arrived. And if the Jewish percentage of the world's population were today what it was when the Romans ruled Palestine, there would be 200 million Jews. After a uniquely hazardous passage through two millennia without a homeland, there are 13 million Jews.
In the 62 years since this homeland was founded on one-sixth of 1 percent of the land of what is carelessly and inaccurately called "the Arab world," Israelis have never known an hour of real peace. Patronizing American lectures on the reality of risks and the desirableness of peace, which once were merely fatuous, are now obscene.
georgewill@washpost.com
© 1996-2010 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/18/AR2010081804691.html
Netanyahu, The Anti-Obama (By George Will, Thw Washington Post)
The Washington Post
August 12, 2010
Netanyahu, The Anti-Obama
By George F. Will
JERUSALEM
Two photographs adorn the office of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Together they illuminate a portentous fact: No two leaders of democracies are less alike -- in life experiences, temperaments and political philosophies -- than Netanyahu, the former commando and fierce nationalist, and Barack Obama, the former professor and post-nationalist.
One photograph is of Theodor Herzl, born 150 years ago. Dismayed by the eruption of anti-Semitism in France during the Dreyfus Affair at the end of the 19th century, Herzl became Zionism's founding father. Long before the Holocaust, he concluded that Jews could find safety only in a national homeland.
The other photograph is of Winston Churchill, who considered himself "one of the authors" of Britain's embrace of Zionism. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 stated: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." Beginning in 1923, Britain would govern Palestine under a League of Nations mandate.
Netanyahu, his focus firmly on Iran, honors Churchill because he did not flinch from facts about gathering storms. Obama returned to the British Embassy in Washington the bust of Churchill that was in the Oval Office when he got there.
Obama's 2009 speech in Cairo, courting the Arab world, may have had measurable benefits, although the metric proving this remains mysterious. The speech -- made during a trip when Obama visited Cairo and Riyadh but not here -- certainly subtracted from his standing in Israel. In it, he acknowledged Israel as, in part, a response to Jewish suffering in the Holocaust. Then, with what many Israelis considered a deeply offensive exercise of moral equivalence, he said: "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland."
"On the other hand"? "I," says Moshe Yaalon, "was shocked by the Cairo speech," which he thinks proved that "this White House is very different." Yaalon, former head of military intelligence and chief of the general staff, currently strategic affairs minister, tartly asks, "If Palestinians are victims, who are the victimizers?"
The Cairo speech came 10 months after Obama's Berlin speech, in which he declared himself a "citizen of the world." That was an oxymoronic boast, given that citizenship connotes allegiance to a particular polity, its laws and political processes. But the boast resonated in Europe.
The European Union was born from the flight of Europe's elites from what terrifies them -- Europeans. The first Thirty Years' War ended in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia, which ratified the system of nation-states. The second Thirty Years' War, which ended in 1945, convinced European elites that the continent's nearly fatal disease was nationalism, the cure for which must be the steady attenuation of nationalities. Hence the high value placed on "pooling" sovereignty, never mind the cost in diminished self-government.
Israel, with its deep sense of nationhood, is beyond unintelligible to such Europeans; it is a stench in their nostrils. Transnational progressivism is, as much as welfare state social democracy, an element of European politics that American progressives will emulate as much as American politics will permit. It is perverse that the European Union, a semi-fictional political entity, serves -- with the United States, the reliably anti-Israel United Nations and Russia -- as part of the "quartet" that supposedly will broker peace in our time between Israel and the Palestinians.
Arguably the most left-wing administration in American history is trying to knead and soften the most right-wing coalition in Israel's history. The former shows no understanding of the latter, which thinks it understands the former all too well.
The prime minister honors Churchill, who spoke of "the confirmed unteachability of mankind." Nevertheless, a display case in Netanyahu's office could teach the Obama administration something about this leader. It contains a small signet stone that was part of a ring found near the Western Wall. It is about 2,800 years old -- 200 years younger than Jerusalem's role as the Jewish people's capital. The ring was the seal of a Jewish official, whose name is inscribed on it: Netanyahu.
No one is less a transnational progressive, less a post-nationalist, than Binyamin Netanyahu, whose first name is that of a son of Jacob, who lived perhaps 4,000 years ago. Netanyahu, whom no one ever called cuddly, once said to a U.S. diplomat 10 words that should warn U.S. policymakers who hope to make Netanyahu malleable: "You live in Chevy Chase. Don't play with our future."
georgewill@washpost.com
© 1996-2010 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/11/AR2010081104747.html
Chu, Mamilla Cemetery was faked by Palestinians
...Last week, the Jerusalem Municipality released photographs and a clear timeline of what officials described as “one of the largest deceptions in recent years,” detailing how “Islamic officials” had used permits obtained for the purpose of cleaning and renovating tombstones at the site to instead erect hundreds of “fictitious graves” on a neighboring plot of land.
City officials categorically condemned the move, saying the officials’ only goal was to “illegally seize state lands,” and began demolishing the fake headstones and tombs that had been set up in the area.
All of that work was done in close coordination with the Antiquities Authority, which assigned experts to the site to first identify and then verify the phony headstones before they were cleared away...
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=185212
Where did you read about this? I wonder why the deception wasn't mentioned.
Try a French source, Base.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gtT5BQ6NyRWT1w36pkmHcQAEf6DQ
When you take as axiomatic that Palestinians=good and Israelis=bad, as you and Steve do, any facts that conflict with that worldview are simply dismissed. We see this unadmirable quality a lot in Steve's posts and a lot with his cheerleaders in these comments.
You should know better living in DC. This is a desecration that the Israeli government is planning. It's attempt is to eradicate the presence of Muslims in the holy city. But please explain your point of view on how this is not a desecration.
Geo. Will so White, so old, so wrong
I'll gladly skewer Geo. Will if anyone wishes, but I worry that I've said quite enough. If you ask, I'll do it. I heard this excerpted on Morning Joe and fired off a comment that never got repeated.
Basically, the Palestinians are seeking human, civil and property rights. No country that denies these to it's subjects is legitimate, that is if you believe in the construction of the Dec. of Independence and it's formula that those living under tyranny have a right and a duty to alter or abolish that tyranny. Geo. Will is so very much an insular White Male and totally deaf to the needs, concerns and humanity of the Palestinian people. He is delusional about the inherent goodness of America and Israel. I dare say Jesus and orthodox Judaism would warn us not to worship idols, nor anything of this Earth--this is the very thrust of the First commandment in fact. But, we should judge by the Golden Rule--a universal ethic. Jesus presents a clever challenge that rings through the ages to this very day. When asked, who is my brother, he points not to a righteous Jew, but to the enemy of the Jews, to the good Samaritan, a man who had the decency to help a fellow man in need, that none of the Jews that passed him could even bare to pass on the road.
blaming Israel for not wanting peace
As usual Walt puts forward his hate for Israel and his advice on how to make sure to weaken it to the point it will be destroyed, nothing new there.
On the substantive issue now: why should any country pursue peace for the sake of peace or pleasing anybody else?
No country does!
Peace is a strategic choice if it brings about what is really crucial for any country: security,protection, development.
When and if there are other strategic opportunities, better or surer or more secure, given the environment, then they provide the basis for the needed security.
As the USA has proven several times in the past century this may even include WAR!
The M.E. is a very dangerous region because many Muslim countries do not yet accept the legitimacy of their neighbors and try to destroy or conquer them. Thus this is a region where the pursuit of "peace" is not a realistic choice for the time being as it was not in the Western world for many centuries since the end of Pax Romana!!!
The distinguished Henri Kissinger (a better professor of IntRel at Harvard than Walt) has written brilliantly several books and articles on this subject
Steve lays all the blame on israel
You are shocked that the author of The Protocols of Zion -- I mean, The Israel Lobby--lays the blame on Israel for the failure of talks that have not yet begun, and doesn't even mention Hamas?
You are going to base your ideas not on facts but on a Bible passage. Got it.
I think Israel is the only one of the two which has made any overtures of peace.Since 1967 Israel has made concession after concession,offer after offer but the Palestinians can only answer with violence.I think that the peace process should be thrown aside and Israel throw the Palestinians out by military force.Why bother to enrage your enemies with the palm branch and get your own people killed.
The Palestinians only want terrorism anyway.If anyone else beside Jews occupied that land then they wouldn't care about it.However,because theese people are Jewish the "Palestinians" who don't belong there in the first place want toexact anti-semitic violence toward them.Let the Israeli's kill as many as they want.
Umm, in 1967 Israel attacked her neighbors unprovoked. They also attacked our ship the USS Liberty. They claim the Liberty attack was a case of mistaken identity. The sailors on the ship flew two American flags, the second after the first was shot to ribbons. What's worse is the shot at the life rafts, a war crime no matter who they thought they were attacking.
But, in case you doubt my claim regarding the 67 War, confer with our State Dept. files. Every member of Johnson's cabinet believed Israeli initiated the attack. What is even more telling is the timing of the attack. The assault happened on the very morning Nasser's #2 was due to meet with Johnson's cabinet. The Israeli's attacked the Egyptian Air Force, catching their every plane while on the ground. How, could Egypt have initiated hostilities with their Air Force on the ground?
This substantially undermines your whole point.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/
"It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one. Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record."
"Nasser added that “your own State Department called in my Ambassador to the U.S. in April or May and warned him that there were rumors that there might be a conflict between Israel and the UAR.”
U.S. intelligence had indeed foreseen the coming war. “The CIA was right about the timing, duration, and outcome of the war”, notes David S. Robarge in an article available on the CIA’s website.
On May 23, Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms presented Johnson with the CIA’s assessment that Israel could “defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts … or hold on any three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth.”
israel does not want peace, it wants the West Bank
It is so obvious that Stephen is right. On all accounts.
Isreal does not want peace, if that entails doing what is right, which is to return to its pre-1967 borders. International law and commonsense demand it, but Israel cares for neither.
Israel will continue to expand its settlements, will continue squeezing Palestinians and Israeli of Arab descent.
Why? Because it has a big brother, a bit dimwitted and easily manipulated, but big and powerful, across the ocean.
Those who say Israel wants peace, or who try to revive the old horse of Camp David 2000 (where Barak made to Arafat the offer he couldn't refuse, but did, so Israeli firsters argue), when a lame duck President tried to achieve in six months what he had not even tried to achieve in 8 years have not read the reports on Camp David done by the few of those who participated in it that were not biased towards Israel, Malley among them.
What about the increasing of military aid from US to Israel?
I am kind of surprise you not commented the article that appeared a few days ago on the WSJ, that said "While the U.S. and Israeli diplomatic relations weather their choppiest phase in years, behind the scenes, military commanders from the two countries have dramatically stepped up cooperation." (U.S., Israel Build Military Cooperation).
That is another example on the lack of credibility of the Obama administration regarding its Israel-Palestina policy.
That is another example
Walt is absolutely right about this
These 'talks' are only meant to delay the process, dubbed the strategy of "pause and delay." The longer a deal is delayed, the longer Israel can expand and settlements grow. Israel knows as the settlements naturally expand, it will become harder to forcibly remove the settlers, which will become a non-negotiating point for them.
First off the settlements have never, ever been the main issue. Israel removed them in Egypt, it did it again in Gaza, and there is enough evidence they are willing to do it again.
Secondly any settlements that would be kept are not growing in size physically, I would love someone to show me proof that the major settlement blocks have significantly expanded their territory in the last 10 years. The settlement expansion all but stopped with Oslo.
The issue has always been about Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, and security. The Settlements have always been negotiable and a distraction for those who want them to be.
the settlements in Gaza and the Sinai never meant as much to Israelis and the Jewish heritage as those in Judea and Samaria.
Hey Steven, would you sponsor me for a scholarship to Harvard's Masters program. I am interested in International relations and economics--I can't justify paying for any more college, but I don't find many who are better informed on these issues. I'm serious.
A Harvard professor will never be the first to admit he's been wrong about anything.
Last year, President Obama took the substantively correct position on the settlement issue without preparing the ground or having a response prepared in case the Israeli government rejected to confront the settler lobby. Direct talks have no value as an end in themselves. They have potential value as a component in a large American strategy for our role in the Middle East; they might, indeed, even if they did not lead to a satisfactory agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Whether that value is realized will depend on whether Obama and his team have learned from their 2009 experience: don't raise hopes everyone will blame you for not being realized.
If the Israeli government continues to rob the Palestinians of their land, it will reshape the argument that Israel always has and continues to terrorize the native people. They force them to dwell within smaller bantustans or concentrated camps (in the original sense of the word). This argument is becoming more realized, because of access to information. Israel can't escape this dark past, no matter how blind Jewish people continue to ignore the reality, in Israel and throughout the diaspora.
There is dwindling sympathy and interest for Jewish people and their state. That passed with older generations. All that many of us see is a vicious state, armed to the teeth with weapons, having disdain for any nation or anyone that borders their concrete-walled kingdom.
They can spend all the money in the world with propaganda, but in the end, it's still apartheid and human rights abuse by a nation that claims to be a progressive member of the western alliance.
People like Chu don't understand these comment sections are supposed to be a constructive intelligent discussion on issues. They have no real solution to the conflict other than "blame Israel" and their "vicious" nation.
If these kinds of people knew anything about the conflict and actually wanted to do something constructive about it, they wouldn't be talk this way.
Poor Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Woe is them who have to share a border with Israel for these nations have never violated the human rights of the Palestinians or anyone for that matter.
If Italians were forming a new state in southwest Ireland, I would be just as critical of their actions. Can you understand that Israel has a problem that is not going away?
Are u now Chu or is it against Israel only
I dont hear you condeming Turkey for having taken over large parts of greek Cypress and settling 200,000 of its citizens there.
I don't hear any complaint's about turkey taking over parts of Syria which are much larger than the parts Israel has taken over during war.
I don't hear you complaining about the Island's in Baharain that the IRanians took over and we have many more examples in the world.
I wonder what makes Israel so special to you, it isn't really because we are the worst violater of whatever it is you claim and you dont argue so passionately against anyother country which does the same and worse that makes you seem unobjective and it shows you have other motives for your points agaisnt Israel like hate and bias maybe
Scott in dallas are u arab? Your comment shows the worlds
Hypocracy, How can you say that whatever is going on in Israel is the number one issue in human rights or freedom in the world.
If you were a true human rights activist or you were one who truely cares for freedom you would definitly not have Israel at the top of your list.
How many people die in Africa everyday how about sudan, how about Chechnia where the Russians just erase villages, how about in Burma, Nigeria, sudan, how about the palestinians in Lebanon that is the closest thing I seen to aparatheid, how many died in Sri lanka during their war. How many people get thrown in to Deep dark holes in arab countries every day and no one would ever see them again. Turkey has not been treating the kurds too nicely.
There is proportion to the amount of bad publicity and Media that the Israeli Palestinian conflict gets compare to other conflicts in the world this is a small conflict if you look at the global picture.
And poeple like you( and the rest of the "enlightened" weterners who wrongfully claim it is the number one issue) are doing injustice to Israel and to the rest of the world, you are misleading the world and it also makes me wonder why would you do it? out of pure hate , are u palestinian, arab , or just anti semitic?
I dont see the connection between Israel being the number one recipient of aid which is well worth it for the U.S. and between your strong feelings to the conflict, you sound ridiculous when if you think anyone will believe you that the only reason you are against Israel is because the aid it gets and doest act "morally" for your standards.
I'm an American, as such I have a duty to first accept responsibility for what's done in my name. I guess you don't understand this principle. Are you Jewish, Israeli? Why do you defect blame for what your side is culpable for? That is the first thing you should own.
How many people die in Africa everyday how about sudan, how about Chechnia where the Russians just erase villages, how about in Burma, Nigeria, sudan, how about the palestinians in Lebanon that is the closest thing I seen to aparatheid, how many died in Sri lanka during their war. How many people get thrown in to Deep dark holes in arab countries every day and no one would ever see them again. Turkey has not been treating the kurds too nicely.
The US funds, provides political cover, and abets none or little of the above. So, why would I complain about something I have little or no influence over? Just to deflect attention from my own sins perhaps?
Scott in Dallas ya didn't convince me that is why you care.
I hear all the anti Israel poeple singing the same song that they care about America's morality and that is why they are aginst Israel.
I am jew and Israeli so I know the situation first hand unlike you.
You must have not read my comment before, there is no way you care about this issue and not about others because it just makes no sense.
THe U.S has influence over everything in the world almost it is the strongest country thank god.
Taxi you are just an idiot so there is nothing to gain from discussing anything with you.
Adammo did Israel make the Hamas strap sucide bombs on themselves, did it make them start an intifada and go on holy war, did it make the hamas and fatach kill each other in gaza. DId it make the hamas fire rockets at civilians, I like the fact that you are appologizing for terrorists and excusing their behavior by laying all the blame on Israel. Israel sure has some blame yet the arab world and leadership are the ones who made this conflict come to what it is. You seem to never miss an oppertunity to not not make peace. So please read some stuff and see who Bill clinton blames and stop appologizing for terrorists sick murderars who target civilians.
many people hold the belief that there would have been peace long ago, had it been for more righteous and effective Palestinian leadership.
I know about Jim Crow, I know about scapegoating poor powerless brown people for the sins of the regional hegemon. You know about blaming others and never looking yourself in the mirror. Again, you should show how the US is involved in those other issues. Further, you are an ungrateful supplicant. I tell you what, let's cut off all American funding and diplomatic cover for Israel and I will show you the indifference you wish.
Of course Israel would dry up and blow away like a schmuck. You're failure to see how I seek to take responsibility for what is done in my name shows you're not much of a Jew either. Do you recall the first commandment? You're not to worship anything of this Earth, but your unwillingness to criticize Israel makes a golden calf out of that land.
This isn't anti-Israeli bias, I've been clear and consistent to criticize my nations faults and shortcomings. It's really impossible to have a sensible conversation with someone as self righteous as yourself.
I hope the Palestinians refuse to settle
This represents a change for me. But, as a supporter of the Palestinian side, I think they see the light at the end of the tunnel. The demographic bomb is ticking.
For those who want fairness from Walt, what can the Palestinians give on? Israel has never, ever considered vacating it's occupation of the Jordan River valley. For those geographically challenged, this would be like Mexico occupying Washington State, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota and Wisconsin. Israel has never offered to surrender Jew only roads dissecting the Palestinian territory like a plaid-work. Israel has never offered real off-setting swaps along the Green line. And Israel has never offered to extend the same secure connection between the West Bank and Gaza.
The two state solution is no solution, but may be something Israel is keenly interested in achieving as they too hear the ticking of the demographic bomb. This is the first time that the demo-bomb is clearly in the minds of both/all sides.
But, the Palestinians must be skeptical about the chimerical nature of a state of their own. I don't think they are too eager to jump at a "provisional" state. Even if they do resolve to accept the two state solution, it won't satisfy. The practice of Ramadan has taught the Palestinians to bide their time, to cinch their belts till the bomb undermines the legitimacy of their neighbors.
I wouldn't presume to tell the Pals to defer their dream, but I think they know the difference between poop and polish. I don't think the Israelis are really ready to settle. I think they aren't willing to make the hard sacrifices needed to broker a deal. I could be wrong about this, but the Israelis must compromise, and they haven't come to terms with this.
This is born out by the inane appeals for the Palestinians to compromise. This shows, to my mind the vast ignorance of Israeli supporters. Listing the parameters of a two state solution reveals where the compromise must occur.
Two states drawn along the Green Line--this means only Israel must give as they've totally crossed the Green Line where the Pals have nothing across the Green line.
Two states--means that Palestinians must be given autonomy over trade, force and movement, the Palestinians have no restrains on Israeli autonomy
Jerusalem is more like Berlin for Palestinians in that while a token Arab population exists, Jewish settlements have cut this population off form the rest of the West Bank. This means on Jerusalem again, Israel has to again back off.
Right of Return--since Israel attacked and occupied the Palestinians in 67 and dispossessed the Palestinians in 47-48 this represents again a compromise for Israel. Whether this means financial transfers, or some token return of Arabs into Israel both are Israeli concessions.
The only concession the Palestinians have to offer is to lay down their grievances. I don't know that any one agreement will satisfy all the Palestinians. Particularly considering the demographic bomb.
I don't know that the solution, which is known to all but Israelis who are in denial, can be sold to the Israelis. So, any settlement will be Pyrrhic, and that will be too hard to sell.
Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick...
Meanwhile Haaretz has a story showing American support for Israel is dwindling to below 50%. So, Israel's one patron, broke and tired is losing interest. The Palestinians can hear the Rolling Stones playing in the background (the Israelis can't get musicians to play Tel Aviv anymore)
"Ti-iiiime IS on MY side
yes it is..."
This is the most sensible contribution I have read on the subject. There is no reason why Palestinians should agree to Netanyahu’s idea of a two state solution. Why has the issue suddenly become so urgent? Precisely because prospects for a two state solution are vanishing like morning mist and the eventual sharing of the land between the two peoples increasingly appears the only viable solution. This prospect must be unsatisfactory for the US since whatever relationship develops with such a future state it is not likely to be what it is with Israel now. As you rightly point out, time and global opinion are on the side of the Palestinians. Romantic quasi-historical contributions and arguments about who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’ have neither effect not relevance; it may well be a bumpy ride and it may take a good few years, but a shared land is the way it is going. The scenarios for getting from the present situation to what it will become should be our greatest concern because most of them look fairly bloody.
The only home for a solution is that the Israelis realize this too. Bibi can sell this better than a liberal gov't can, but I think he is too juvenile to realize his mortality.
"You're searchin for good times,
But just wait and see
You'll be running back
Go ahead and light up the town
And baby, do everything your heart desires
Remember, I'll always be around...
Time is on my side."
The Israeli project will be abandoned by the Zionists. The Israel that comes after this Israel will be the one of prophecy, the one that remains based on the Righteousness of it's people. The venal squatters that are seeking a subsidized existence at the sufferance of the Goy Arabs will flee. The next Israel will be pluralistic state. And that is something many of the most racist Israelis won't abide. They can come to New York, and stew in their racism, they'll be in good company here.
is a sham and has been for years. With the tacit permission/encouragement of the United States, the Israelis have been creating "facts on the ground" which amount to theft and major violations of international law for many years. They have killed, wounded, and imprisoned a large number of Palestinians who have had the moral right to resist illegal occupation. The Israelis do not want a real Palestinian state, but what instead amounts to a dependent, proto-state with no military arm which is a source of cheap labor. They also want to continue annexing territory and resources that patently belong to others. There is no one on the horizon in the American government who is willing to state these truths openly for fear of political retaliation. Dr. Walt and a number of others will be remembered by future generations as true patriots who courageously told the truth about the very destructive relationship between the United States and Israel at a time when the MSM deliberately misled the American people with false claims of how reasonable Israeli peace initiatives are and have been. Some of the posters to this board don't appear to like Dr. Walt's truth-telling very much, but the truth is out there and it will be told, by both Dr. Walt and a rapidly increasing number of others (many of whom are respected Jews--including Zionists).
Believe it our not, the following article was posted on the CNN website in March. H/t to them!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/17/abunimah.settlements.israel/index.html?iref=allsearch
Netanyahu is between a rock and a hard place
If the Quartet communique is any indication, all of the main players in the international community (the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia) all recognize the value of getting both sides to the negotiating table. The only way to chip away towards Mideast peace talks is by getting the Israelis and Palestinians into face-to-face talks, so step one is finally achieved in that respect.
But just because the international community wants a stable, peaceful, and secure Palestinian state doesn't mean that Israeli P.M. Netanyahu wants to concede to those demands. In fact, even if Netanyahu wanted to make some headway with Abbas- like..say stop Israeli settlement building in the West Bank, cede East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, or remove Israeli soldiers from Palestinian territory- he still wouldn't be able to act due to his political coalition. Netanyahu can make all the statements he wants about finding a comprehensive solution to the conflict, but without an inclusive Israeli Government, taking positive steps would be political suicide.
Netanyahu has two choices here: He can work with moderate Palestinian leaders and act constructively in the process, which would destroy his career. Or he could hold firm and try to obstruct peace efforts, which would further alienate Israel in the Middle East and distance Israel from its most important ally.
How does Netanyahu win in either scenario?
http://www.atlanticsentinel.com
Tony, your ignorance is glowing
The Quran is the far more closely recorded and preserved of the three traditions. It was recorded, not hundreds of years after the death of the prophet but a few dozen years. The Quran has been literally memorized by millions of Muslim children, every last Iayat, every last alif.
The Quran contains NO charge or claim to take the world by force. To the contrary the Quran says, "I made you from different tribes and peoples so that you might know each other." "Let there be no compulsion in religion." "You may not fight those who aren't fighting you." "You may not harm women, children or even fell a tree." In fact, you'd be hard pressed to come up with a single example of breaches of this code for the first millennia of Islam's history.
I've recounted arguably the most difficult tale in the Quran where Mohammad is tasked with executing 300 "Jews" who committed treason after the Hijra--the journey to Mecca. They were invited to come to Mecca from Medina. The condemned "Jews" were found guilty of deception, and treason. According to Jewish law, their punishment was death. Mohammad sought to avoid this judgment, to simply banish these traitors. Yet, a Rabbi insisted that as their leader, it was Mohammad's duty to put them to death.
"Those who believe (in the Quran), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), And the Sabians and the Christians--any who believe in God and the Last Day, And work righteousness--On them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." 5:69
Compare that with the stories of Joshua's genocidal acts. There's not an inkling of reticence in Joshua, not when he deceives his dinner guests, not when they slaughter every man, woman and child. Let me remind you of the warning Jesus extends, beware of condemning the splinter in your neighbor's eye when you have a log in your own. You are ignorant of not only the Quran, but also of the Biblical tradition.
I'm not saying the Quran doesn't have problematic passages that can be taken out of context--hell the Quran says there's no god. It says there's no god, but god, but if you wish to follow sophists you can draw this conclusion.
Or, let's take another you've surely heard, you know the "go and kill them where you find them." Get a Quran, look up the passages the sophists you follow cite. But, read the verse before and after. Each of those is so qualified it's on par with saying the Quran says there's no god. Each time it encourages peaceful negotiations, only when deception, treason and violence are employed is the license to fight extended. However, as soon as this license is extended, it is qualified with, if they seek peace, or a treaty, "you have no cause whereby to fight them."
Again, the Old Testament IS not so qualified. There are no "chosen people" in the Quran, save the faithful among the nations. The Quran allows that Christians and Jews will be in heaven, the Judeo-Christian traditions does not.
Tony, your ignorance is showing. You need to seek other sources of information, or perhaps you're a sophist yourself. I don't know. I encourage you to do your own research. How lazy and stupid do those that take the Quran out of context think you are? Now, confer that with the Bible.
http://www.evilbible.com/
I failed to make the simplest point. The Palestinians are a pluralistic society, with Christians, Muslims and others living in peace amongst themselves. Jews lived peacefully with these groups as well for centuries with Muslim majorities. Lebanon is another example of this pluralism. It was political Zionism that upset this and remains the sand in the Vaseline.
In Baghdad in the 1970s they had an elected Jewish mayor. Again, you are making sophistic arguments, I don't know if they are yours, or if you are just a fool for listening to sophists. Do your own research, check and confirm the facts I've posted. I know I'm making some pretty astounding claims, but if there is any truth to them, the utter devastate your arguments.
If the power were on the other side, if things were different, I'd be arguing to correct the balance the other way. I wanted to finally add that I am not convinced that the Quran is without error, though it is a remarkably well crafted book that is far less equivocal than the Old Testament.
3 reasons that the peace process is not working
1. As long as Hamas is in power and believes in the same Radical Ideology we have nothing to talk about a state in gaza. The palestinians are not united, they have not signed the unity agreement sponsored by Egypt for the past 3 years, why are they so cruel to each other . They cannot even make peace with each other. I got news for all of you there it is going to be a 3 state solution because gaza is not the same as the west bank . Every one seems to ignore the fact that they are not going to make up in the near future so why are we negotiating for all the palestinian people, because of arab pride they know that if the world says that gaza and the west bank are not in the same status in the agreement for now than it pretty much ruins the claims of the palestinians for their united future state.
2. As long as the palestinians continue to spread hate and lies(antisemitic) about Israel and Jews there is no prospect for peace.
There is major incitment going on in the palestinian authority against jews with all kinds of blood liables and if you are teaching kids that Israel are all kinds of things that are absolutely not true you are ruining the possibility for peace.
Kids are growing up to hate , the palestinian authority glorifies martyrdom and Jihad, if kids role models are suicide bombers it will take generations to change, as long as you have incitment you will not get true peace as you wish for.
3. Palestinians have to realize that there will never be a right of return, like there will be no right of return to jews in Europe and arab countries, greeks in Crpress, Indians and pakistani poeple in Kashmir and many more, Israel has resettled its refugees and If arabs were truely united and cared for each other they would work for a solution for the refugees and not treat them worse than low class citizens. Arafat didn't agree, abbas didn't agree, no one has the balls to be the one to say it.
and why should they not be granted a right of return?
Jews were given a right of return to a land that already
had Palestinians living upon the land for centuries.
To dispossess them of this land is morally incorrect.
To share this land is a different scenario.
Politics of power support this aggression.
I don't agree that Hamas is "radical" but that's too unwieldy to get into. But, consider Egypt. Egypt is not a democracy, but is a client state of the US. The PA is also on the take from the US. After Hamas won the election the US, perhaps through Egyptian proxies funneled arms, money and intel into the PA in Gaza. Hamas routed them almost immediately. We then accused Hamas of rising to power (after winning their election) through a coup. So, again Egypt and the US are not honest brokers, and cannot be considered credible witnesses of what transpired.
I agree that the PA doesn't have the authority to negotiate on behalf of all Palestinians. Indeed, Hamas needs to be brought to the table. Here in the US we like to declare Hamas has it in it's charter that they'll never accept Israel. This is disingenuous. Hamas has repeatedly stated that they refuse to recognize Israel till Israel recognizes the rights, the very existence of the Palestinian people. If you think about it, they can demand nothing else. How can Israel negotiate in good faith with a people they don't consider worthy of human, civil, and property rights? These ARE the very terms to be negotiated.
Palestinians spreading lies is essentially irrelevant too. They have no power or authority. But, what about the lies Israelis tell of Palestinians? Where is Palestine on Israeli maps? I challenge you to read this article about Israeli dehumanization of Palestinians written by an Israeli http://ygurvitz.net/?p=31 Again, what difference does it make if blacks here tell lies about the White devil? It doesn't affect anything, but to the contrary, if White majorities believe Blacks are inferior, it affects policy and procedures. Is this so hard to understand?
As to the right of return, you may be right. I don't think this is the issue it's been made into. The right of return could be exchanged for compensation, (likely paid for by US tax dollars) But, Palestinian refugees themselves don't want to live in other lands, but wish to return home. I can't, no negotiator can negotiate away the entitlement any individual Palestinian refugee feels. Perhaps they have their price, perhaps they'll never relent. All that matters is that a critical mass are sated. Perhaps it the Palestinians had a viable state, they'd be happy to return with compensation to that nascent land.
What preconditions? The settlement freeze is not a ‘precondition’ as Israel is now stating but an obligation Israel undertook when it signed on to the 2003 international roadmap for peace plan.
Bibi's explicit denial of 1967 borders are an unacceptable precondition from Israel.
Israel offers for peace amount to nothing for the Palestiniain hence their rejection as anyone would reject them.
It's not the Palestinians but the Israeli's that are the problem but then all we need to do is look at Bibi's video to know that.
Historically here is how the Israeli's should be dealt with:
George H.W. Bush forced a showdown with Yitzhak Shamir over Israel’s West Bank settlements by threatening to link $10 billion in loan guarantees to Israel’s compliance with a settlement freeze.
How about Jimmy Carter, who threatened a cutoff of American aid to pressure Menachem Begin into returning all of Sinai to Egypt, which made possible the 1979 Camp David agreement.
Or George Bush 1 at the 1991 Madrid Conference. When the Israelis refused to participate, Secretary of State James Baker withheld loan guarantees and said that Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir should call him when he got interested in peace.
At one point, Baker actually banned Benjamin Netanyahu, who was representing Shamir in Washington, from the State Department Building. Madrid led to a peace treaty with Jordan, the recognition of Israel by many other countries, and the first real face-to-face negotiations with Palestinians.
Withhold all Israeli aid for peace and let's see how long they take to settle for peace.
In the meant time, why don’t we put it to vote and see how many Americans and world citizens want to continue supporting the world’s biggest welfare client, Israel ?
Divest, sanction, and boycott Israel. Stop all aid to Israel.
1. Not only will Netanyahoo refuse to budge from his preconditions, he will permit new settlement building when the freeze expires in mid-September.
2. Pres. Obama will not be able to apply any pressure on Netanyahoo to prevent the re-commencement of settlement building because of the fear of losing Jewish support in the upcoming Nov. elections.
3. In order to demonstrate that he is not a complete and absolute quisling, Abbas will be forced to walk away from the peace talks in protest of the new settlement building.
While it has been frustrating to watch the Israelis derail all efforts for a peace plan for these past many years, I now welcome Israeli intransigence as I believe that the "one-state solution" is inevitable. By virtue of their racism wherein the Palestinians are considered to be "untermenschen", the Israelis are not capable of avoiding an apartheid state that will attract the revulsion of the world and force a solution as was done in South Africa. Perhaps this will take decades, but it will come.
Middle East's Western Media Hypocrisy, Double Standards Out
Middle East's Western Media
Hypocrisy, Double Standards Out of Control
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Western correspondents and newspapers continue to apply double standards when it comes to covering the Israeli-Arab conflict.
It is much easier for a Western journalist to sit in Israel and write about Israel without having to worry about his or her safety. Why bother travel to an Arab country and risk being arrested or deported for writing a story that reflects negatively on the dictatorship there?
Besides, who said it's that easy to enter an Arab or Islamic country? The foreign reporters need an entry visa to most of these countries - a process that could last for weeks, months and years.
And when the foreign reporters arrives in an Arab capital, he or she are often escorted by "minders" of the Ministry of Information of that country. Then there are the mukhabarat [intelligence] agents who start following the reporters from the minute they arrive and until they leave.
Those who are found "guilty" of writing a story that angers the Arab dictator or any of his confidants should forget about applying for another visa.
Otherwise, how does one explain the fact that the mainstream media in the US, Canada and Europe are turning a blind eye to recent developments in Jordan, where the government has introduced a law that restricts media freedom?
The arrest last week of seven Palestinian university lecturers at the hands of Palestinian Authority security services in the West Bank is yet another example of how the international media functions in this part of the world.
Some Palestinian stringers and reporters offered the story about the arrest of the academics to at least a dozen foreign correspondents and newspaper editors in North America and Europe.
Only one foreign journalist agreed to write about the story. His colleagues gave different excuses for turning their backs on the story.
Some said they were concerned about their personal safety should they report a news item that was likely to anger the Western-funded PA security forces in the West Bank.
Others simply blamed their editors in New York, Paris, London and Toronto for turning down the story as "insignificant."
Earlier this week, a disenchanted Ramallah-based Palestinian journalist decided to put her Western colleagues to the test. She contacted the same group of newsmen and editors who had been offered the story on the academics' arrest with a "new idea" for a news item.
The Palestinian journalist proposed that the foreign press write about a Palestinian university professor who complained that Israeli authorities had turned down his request to visit Israel together with his wife and three children.
The response from the international journalists came almost instantly. All but two said it was a "great story" and expressed readiness to start working on it immediately.
It is worth noting that the Palestinian Authority's General Intelligence Service had warned Palestinian journalists and university staff members not to report about the detention of the academics. Of course the Palestinian media in the West Bank, which is controlled by the Palestinian Authority, complied.
The Palestinian authorities even threatened the president of the university not to complain about the arrest of his lecturers. He too complied, and even went as far as to switch off his mobile phone to avoid questions from journalists.
One can only imagine the reaction of the international media had the Palestinian academics been arrested by Israel.
The double-standards approach of the international media is not a new phenomenon. Back in the mid-1990's, many Western correspondents based in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv refused to publish stories about bad government, abuse of human rights and rampant financial corruption under Yasser Arafat's administration.
This hypocritical approach on the part of the media does not only apply to the Palestinians, but to most of the Arab world.
Of course there is no shortage of "great stories" in the Arab world. But for those Western journalists who justify their actions -- or, rather, inaction -- by citing security concerns, the answer is should be: If you are scared, why don't you stop writing about the conflict and start reporting about the weather or environment?
The Middle East is not the right place for journalists who care more about their well-being than the facts and the truth.
Arabs and Muslims Run to Israel / by Khaled Abu Toameh
Many Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have a dream: to work or live in Israel. Some even say they are prepared to pay large sums of money to obtain Israeli citizenship.
Others pay a lot of money to Palestinian and Jewish traffickers who help them bypass checkpoints to enter Israel in search of work and good life.
These are not self-hating Palestinians. Nor are they "pro-Israel traitors" who support the Zionist movement.
Many Palestinians feel that neither Fatah nor Hamas has done enough to alleviate their suffering. Many Fatah leaders who stole billions of dollars of international donations earmarked for the Palestinians have invested their fortunes in hotels, tourist resorts and real estate firms in the West. Hamas, on the other hand, prefers to spend millions of dollars on purchasing [and smuggling] large amounts of weapons, including rockets and ammunition.
It is a disgrace for Arab and Muslim dictators, particularly those who make billions of dollars from selling oil, that their constituents have to seek work and refuge in Israel and the West. It is also a disgrace for Fatah and Hamas that thousands of Palestinians cannot find jobs or a good life in the two Palestinian states in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Arab and Islamic regimes are spending billions of dollars on building new mosques and madrasas while nearly half of their people are illiterate and live under the poverty line. University graduates in these countries are forced to search for work in the West because of poor working conditions and lack of opportunities.
The absence of good government, transparency, accountability and democracy in these countries is driving Arabs and Muslims to seek work and a better life not only in North America and Europe, but even in places like Israel.
A wealthy Arab prefers to spend millions of dollars on a private zoo than building a hospital or a university. Why should he when he and his family members could travel anytime they wish to receive medical treatment at Mayo Clinic or study at Harvard University?
In many ways, these Palestinians are not different from the African immigrants who try to infiltrate Israel every day through Egypt. The immigrants come from Sudan, Ethiopia, Eretria, Nigeria and other African countries.
Like the Palestinians, the Africans are prepared to pay a lot of money to get into Israel. Egyptian traffickers charge up to $1,000 for each immigrant.
But for the African immigrants, the journey is also a very dangerous one. In the past three years, Egyptian border guards have shot and killed dozens of African men and women who tried to cross the border into Israel.
Last week a 23-year-old Sudanese man was fatally shot by Egyptian troops as he tried to enter Israel. Another four asylum-seekers were taken into custody.
While the Egyptians are killing the African immigrants, Israel is providing the lucky ones who manage to cross the border with jobs, as well as medical and social services.
True, Israel is not 100% perfect. But an African Muslim or Christian still prefers Israel to countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. As a "refugee" from Darfour, Sudan, who now lives in Tel Aviv, explained: "I feel more secure in the Jewish state than in Sudan or any Arab or Islamic country."
For many Palestinians, it is easier to find a job in Israel and Canada than in any Arab or Islamic country, most of which impose strict travel and work restrictions on them. Palestinians cannot enter most Arab and Islamic countries without a visa.
One can understand why a Palestinian needs a visa to enter the US or any European country. But why does a Palestinian need a visa to visit his relatives in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt?
Many Palestinians from the West Bank who visit Arab countries often find themselves thrown into detention centers for weeks, months and years without trial. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Palestinians are believed to be languishing in prisons throughout the Arab world, especially in Syria and Egypt.
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1433/arabs-and-muslims-run-to-israel
This is a non sequitur. Illiteracy in the Muslim world is not a high as you claim, but there's more to it than that. I am not celebrating the Arab leaders, but you fail to accept accountability for our colonial hand. The US supports Arab dictators who will support our foreign policy and our policy of natural resource extraction. We provide them intel to suppress their own people, subvert democracy in this area and arm them to the teeth. This all dates back the the Treaty of Paris of 1918 when Britain and France carved up the former Ottoman Empire often putting minority leaders over disenfranchised majorities. Even irascible Syria who we could never work with has a vast program of cooperation whereby we send renditioned captives there to be tortured at our behest? How can that be squared with the simple narrative you and the US gov't offer? It can't.
You write about Palestinian visas, passports and we should include trade. Yet, Palestinians have no control over these issues. Instead, they are an occupied people. Why don't you write about the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto fleeing to Russia, or the Jews in Vichy France fleeing to Morocco and Algeria? The article you post is insulting to facts and reality, is part and parcel of the propaganda campaign to dehumanize Palestinians in American eyes.
This campaign is tried in England, Canada and elsewhere but gains no traction. In fact, it is only in the US and Israel that this racist propaganda gains any real traction. Explain to me why Canada, Australia, England, Japan, China, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, verily every other nation on Earth consistently votes against Israel? Jew hate? Is that your answer, that nations that have essentially no exposure to either Arabs or Jews see this so clearly? In fact, these shibboleths don't go uncontested in Israel itself. (I know, I know, self hating Jews) Only in the US is this campaign so ubiquitous, so pernicious, and so vehement. Why, cause we are the sole supporter of Israeli belligerence.
I've spoken with many Arab Muslims who said they wish Israel lived up to the ideals that it's supporters imagine it upholds. They wish Israel stood as a beacon of democracy, economic vitality and human & civil rights for all. They wish Israel stood tall and shamed their own flawed governments.
But alas, Israel doesn't believe in these things any more than the US. Our greatest strength was our soft power, and it is Israel's best arrow in their quiver. Sadly, these have been passed over for literal slings and arrows of belligerence hostility and colonialism.
The Palestinians’ Dirty War , by Khaled Abu Toameh
Were it not for Israel’s presence between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Fatah and Hamas would most likely be dispatching suicide bombers and rockets at each other.
And they would perhaps still be throwing each other’s supporters from the fifteenth and sixteenth floors of tall buildings had not Israel, in the summer of 2007, helped Fatah members and their families run away from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.
This is not a conflict over which side will bring democracy and good government to the Palestinians so much as it is a power struggle over money and power.
The fight between Hamas and Fatah is not a power struggle between good guys and bad guys: it is a rivalry between bad guys and bad guys.
Fatah leaders hate Hamas to a point where they are even prepared to ally themselves with the “Israeli enemy” to achieve their goal of overthrowing the Hamas government. During Israel’s last massive military operation in the Gaza Strip over a year ago, Fatah officials provided Israel with valuable intelligence that resulted in the killing of many Hamas operatives.
A state is not something that Palestinians should expect Binyamin Netanyahu or Ehud Olmert or Shimon Peres to give them on a silver platter. A state is something that the people earn by standing united and establishing good government and proper institutions and infrastructure, as well as democracy and a strong economy.
The only way to make progress towards peace is by insisting that the Palestinians first get their act together.
What is the point in signing any agreement with Mahmoud Abbas or Salam Fayyad when we all know that the two men have no control over the Gaza Strip?
And who said that Abbas or Fayyad, who are regarded by a large number of Palestinians as “puppets” in the hands of the Israelis and Americans, would ever be able to sell a peace deal with Israel to a majority of Arabs and Muslims?
While Fatah has been seeking the help of the Israelis, Americans and Europeans to get rid of Hamas, the Islamic movement continues to rely on Iran, Syria and Qatar to undermine and discredit its rivals in the West Bank.
The power struggle began almost immediately after Hamas came to power in January 2006. Backed by the US and some European countries, Fatah, which never came to terms with its humiliating defeat in the election, set as its main goal the task of overthrowing Hamas.
Instead of drawing the conclusions from its defeat and putting its house in order, Fatah chose to do its utmost to return to power by any means. Attempts at that time to topple the Hamas regime backfired and triggered a mini civil war that resulted in the entire collapse of the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority in the Gaza Strip.
When the war ended without the removal of Hamas from power, a number of senior Fatah officials expressed disappointment that Israel had not “finished the job.”
The biggest mistake the Americans and Europeans made back then was to allow Hamas to participate in the election unconditionally. Hamas should have been told that if it wished to contest the vote, it must accept three conditions: renounce violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist and honor all previous agreements signed between the Palestinians and Israel.
The international community finally did wake up and present Hamas with these three conditions. But then it was too late because the Islamic movement had already won in a free and democratic election that was even supervised by former US President Jimmy Carter.
Now, the two rival Palestinian parties, which have been at war with one another since the former US Administration and many European governments drove the Palestinians into a parliamentary election in 2006, seem determined to pursue the fight to the last Palestinian.
This dirty civil war has thus far claimed the lives of nearly 2,000 Palestinians, most of them innocent civilians, while thousands of others have been injured.
In the Gaza Strip, Hamas is reported to have killed or imprisoned many Fatah loyalists over the past three years. Human rights organizations recently expressed concern over the Hamas government’s intention to start executing “collaborators” - many of whom are believed to be Fatah men.
In the West Bank, hundreds of Hamas members and supporters are being held in Fatah-run prisons without trial. Dozens of Hamas-affiliated charities and educational institutions have been closed. Thousands of civil servants suspected of being Hamas supporters have been fired by the Palestinian Authority government.
In this war, Hamas and Fatah have been using various “weapons.” This war is taking place not only on the ground, but also in the media. The two sides have established countless Web sites that are almost entirely dedicated to attacking one another.
It is hard to see how the “peace process” could ever move forward when the Palestinians are too busy fighting each other. The gap between the two Palestinian entities is so wide that they could not even reach agreement on weekend holidays. And last week hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip were left in the dark for a few days because the government in the West Bank did not pay the bill for fuel that keeps the local electricity company operating..
The festering wound that Israel represents in the Arab world allows Arab leaders to point to the Palestinians' suffering and injustice and to pass the buck. It allows irresponsible leaders a great red herring justifying their own tyranny.
Of course there is more to it than that. The US sponsors these dictators that pay lip service to the plight of the Palestinians while doing little to nothing to move against Israel This is costly to the US and results in blowback. If we weren't sponsoring Israel we'd really have little interest in the region, and could address our own fiscal issues here at home. Just as with Arab tyrants our own leaders point to terrorism to distract us from their malfeasance and mismanagement of our gov't.
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.
(110)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE