-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Wednesday, May 11, 2011 - 1:05 PM
Share
I've been buried with end-of-term obligations and some other administrivia, so I haven't posted anything since last week. Fortunately, you've all got the whole web to feast upon, so I doubt that anyone's been suffering from withdrawal.
Given all the other things that have been happening lately -- hey, did you hear we got bin Laden? -- I also haven't written anything about the unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas that was announced more than a week ago. Several correspondents weighed in by email and asked me what I thought of it, so here goes.
The first and most obvious point to remember is that the agreement is very fragile. There's a lot of bad blood between the two main Palestinian factions, stemming both from doctrinal and strategic differences but also from a lot of prior violence between the two. Fatah conducted a harsh crackdown on Hamas during the 1990s-in an attempt to prove to the U.S. and Israel that it was serious about controlling terror -- and the two groups fought a short civil war in Gaza in 2007. Incompetent U.S. "leadership" helped cause that war: not only did the US refuse to accept the results of the 2006 Palestinian elections because we were miffed that Hamas had won, but then we tried to arm Fatah and encouraged it to attack Hamas, which led the latter to preempt and drive the less effective Fatah cadres out. In other words, the United States helped foment a little civil war, and then the side we were backing lost. Well done!
Of course, those who oppose the creation of Palestinian state promptly denounced the recent unity agreement, declaring that of course one could never negotiate with a "terrorist organization." I've never understood this position, given that many current governments had their origins in groups that used terrorist methods as part of struggle to gain national independence, and several terrorist leaders (including some former IRA members, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Shamir, and Menachem Begin) have all been welcomed at the White House. The U.S. government has backed its own "terrorist" groups on occasions, and some U.S. leaders are now openly hoping that bin Laden's death will encourage the Taliban -- which also relies on terrorism -- to come to the table and get serious about talks to end the war in Afghanistan. The obvious point is that sometimes states negotiate with groups using terrorist methods, if they are seriously interested in ending a conflict and they have sufficient reason to believe that the "terrorist" group is too. It didn't make sense to negotiate with bin Laden or al Qaeda, obviously, but it might with Hamas.
Israel and the United States now say that they won't negotiate with Hamas because it refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and because its charter contains some hateful and frankly bizarre clauses, including an endorsement of that old Tsarist fraud, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Here I find it hard to understand Hamas's reluctance to jettison rhetorical positions that serve no positive purpose and merely make it easy for their opponents to portray them as unreasonable. I can see why they might hold back on formal recognition-it's one of the last cards they have to play, and Fatah's decision to recognize Israel back in the late 1980s hasn't stopped the continued expansion of Israeli settlements or led to a Palestinian state. But Hamas could advance its own cause mightily if they made it clearer that they would be willing to recognize Israel provided that it withdrew to the 1967 borders and allowed for the creation of a Palestinian state. Some Hamas leaders have hinted about movement along these lines, but being less coy about it would place the Netanyahu government in a very difficult political position, especially now.
Despite these reservations, however, I think the unity agreement is in fact in everyone's interest. It is certainly in the Palestinians' interest, as they are already weak and vulnerable and internal divisions just make that situation worse. And given the current balance of power and the broader international situation, violence is not the Palestinians' best tactic: civil resistance, international publicity, and diplomatic engagement is. And I've always believed that the best way to either marginalize Hamas or force it to moderate its own positions was to make genuine progress toward ending the occupation and creating an independent state, which will make calls for continued resistance fall on deaf ears.
Palestinian reconciliation and unity is ultimately good for Israel too, assuming that Israel wants peace more than land. Divisions among the Palestinians were very useful for Israel during Zionism's expansionist phase, because it made establishment and consolidation of the state possible. But if Israel wants peace, then it needs a Palestinian neighbor that is not wracked by internal divisions: who wants to live next door to a failed state? At this point in Israel's history, in fact, its security would be enhanced by a stable, secure, and legitimate Palestinian government that could keep order in its territory, foster economic development, and when necessary, deal with any die-hard rejectionists that might still exist. (The same goes for Israel too: If a peace deal is ever reached, it will need to be able to control its own right-wing extremists, and that won't be a picnic either.) Ironically, Israel needs an effective Palestinian government as much as the Palestinians do, and that was always going to be hard to achieve so long as the Fatah-Hamas split endures.
Finally, the unity agreement is a potential opportunity for the United States as well, if it helps break the current deadlock and gets movement towards a final status agreement rolling again. As everyone knows (but some don't want to admit), the persistence of the I-P conflict is a major distraction for the United States and a major contributor to anti-Americanism, at a moment when the United States needs to be shifting its sights toward Asia and improving its relations with the Arab and Islamic world. So the idealist in me would love to believe that this agreement will hold, and that it can be used to jump-start a new diplomatic process (which will probably also involve moving beyond the current U.S. monopoly on this issue).
Alas, the realist in me suspects it won't. So far, nobody ever lost money assuming that things could go badly in that part of the world, or that new opportunities will be squandered.
MARCO LONGARI/AFP/Getty Images
Professor Walt:
I'm commenting first in the hopes that you'll read this. I often find some of the comments on your blog objectionable. That's the price of reading a blog on controversial topics, perhaps. But two comments with regard to your last post struck me as especially objectionable. One comment concerned Jewish war profiteers. The other labeled Jews as a "fifth element [Fifth Column]." I hope you take umbrage at those comments. And while I realize you have not the time to clean up your blog, and some subjective calls would have to be made, nonetheless other entities and blogs (Abu Muqawama at CNAS, for example) claim they will not post comments that touch upon any number of topics. Moreover, while you may not have the time, perhaps an FP staffer or intern could be assigned to watch the blog a bit more carefully? Maybe you don't have the time or ability, but I certainly hope you have the inclination to object to descriptions of Jews as war profiteers (there was also an anti-African American reference as well) and Jews as a Fifth Column.
Where Fun Comes to Die.
A summary of marine's comments: false info and attacks on Walt regardless of topic.
". I.e. Israel does not want to be surrounded by a Palestinian entity allied with Iran and Syria. Especially when it has largely calm in the West Bank and Gaza contained (for the most part)."
Actually the Syrian border with Israel has been the quietest since 1967, and Hamas which rules Gaza Strip is committed to a ceasefire and is clearly in control of the situation.
"With Hamas being able to openly operate and lead the Palestinians (and it is poised to defeat Fatah if elections are held - which is why Abbas does not hold them) Israel would be surrounded on all sides by enemies - Hamas in the South and East, and Syria and Lebanon in the North."
Hamas is not less worse than Lieberman the transferist or Netanyahu who brags about manipulating the Americans. Hamas's clerics never called for God to strike the Palestinians as Ovadia Yusuf did, and doesn't have an army of settler thugs who are rampaging through the West Bank every day. If you're looking for radicals, look at your backyard, Israeli marine.
Regarding elections, the unity agreement will organize elections within one year, of course unless Israel blocks it. Besides, since 2007, not a single public opinion poll showed that Hamas would win elections. Nor Fatah, in fact a consistent +40% of Palestinians supported neither group.
"Also, the difference with Begin and Shamir was that their organizations were sublimated into Israeli government"
Begin, Sharon, Shamir, Rabin, Peres all served in the Zionist gangs pre-1948, killed civilians, bombed hotels and places of worship, destroyed villages and displaced populations. Netanyahu even marked the 60th anniversary of a terrorist attack on King David's hotel in Jerusalem
in 2006. Talk about Hamas for terrorists leading governments.
If you bother to read the news, you'll see that the new government will not be led by either Hamas or Fatah - rather a technocrats' cabinet that has got to do nothing with politics.
[Re: Disgusting Comments] Slanting Nakba (Contentions Weblog)
From Commentary Magazine's "Contentions" Weblog
May 15, 2011
Slanting Nakba
By David Hazony
Question: What do the following headlines have in common?
1. “Israeli Troops Fire on Palestinian Protesters in Deadly Clashes”—Huffington Post
2. “Israeli Police Fire on Protesters”—Daily Beast
3. “9 Killed as Israel Clashes with Palestinians”—New York Times
Answer: All of these headlines appear today on the sites’ home pages, covering the incident on the border between Israel and Syria on the Golan Heights. None of these headlines tells you that the protestors in question were crossing a hostile border between Syria and Israel, en masse, in a violent protest at least permitted (if not organized) by the Syrian government. You see, the term “Palestinians,” when combined with “clashes” and “IDF,” almost always refers to Palestinians in the Palestinian territories, maybe in East Jerusalem. They don’t live on or near the Golan Heights. They have no way of getting to that border. In the interest of being informative about the actual news item, shouldn’t the protestors have been called “Syrians,” even if they were waving Palestinian flags?
Even worse, the first headlines two give you the distinct impression of a moral equivalence with what’s happening elsewhere in the Middle East: that just as Syria and Libya attack peaceful protesters, so does Israel—which, incidentally, is exactly the impression Bashar Assad was hoping you’d get. You’d never guess that hundreds of Syrians stormed the border with Israel, tearing down fences, and hurling rocks.
At moments like these, can supporters of Israel be blamed for accusing these news outlets of bias?
For a totally different report on what happened, here is YNet’s piece. There you’ll discover something that the main news outlets apparently missed: that some of the people who crossed the border into Israel weren’t really protesting at all.
They were defecting.
-- Posted By David Hazony 05.15.2011 - 1:52 PM
Copyright Commentary Magazine 1997-2011 All Rights Reserved
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/15/slanting-nakba/
The breeding groudn from right wing Zionist extremists like Jennifer Rubin?
Please tell us your joking. You might as well have quoted David Horowitz or Pam Gellar.
Amazing how stating the obvious is a disgusting comment in the mind of Zionists. Anon doesn' actually bother to offer any kind of argument or rebuttal, just copious amounts of volume of phlegm and saliva.
USMARINE101 proves he's no US Marine
but rather an opportunistic Israel hasbarat.
A realist would understand that country does not want to be surrounded by an ally of its enemies would be well served to make peace with those countries, rather that reject a peace offer that has been on the table since 2003.
Again, jis US Marine was a realist, he should understand this.
Yes you are ignorant USMARINE101
>> The quietest since 1967? Is that why in 1973 there was a major war on the syrian border?
Yes, one started by Israel. That's why in 1973 there were tank battles between Israel and Syria. Is that also why both countries have brigades permanently stationed on the borders?
>> Hamas is committed to a cease-fire? Since the supposed cease-fire Hamas has fired over 372 rockets and 333 mortar shells into Israel. yeah, real committed to a ceasefire!
That's because Israel broke the ceasefire repeatedly, just they did in 2008.
>> Hamas is not bad? What a joke you are. They are a terrorist organization, and listed as such by the United States and the European Union. The leader of hamas in Gaza openly condemned the US killing of Osama bin Laden and called Bin Laden a "Holy Warrior."
And Ronald Regan referred to Bin laden and his gang as freedom fighters who represented the values of America's founding fathers.
>> 40% don't support either group? According to what BS polls? Voter turn out in the Palestinian elections was over 77%. The majority voted for Fatah and Hamas.
Are you mathematically challenged as well as ignorant? A majority (ie. 80%) of the 77% can vote for Fatah and Hamas and still yield 40% who don't support either group.
>> Pure emotional drivel. No response to the fact that Israeli extreme groups were submlimted into the government and held little power for decades.
Oh please, the IDF has a service ribbon for the Irgun and Lehi. The remains of the assassins of Lord Moyne were brought back to Israel and reburied on Mount Herzl with full military honors. Menachim Begin was elected to a seat in the very first session of the Knesset and both he and Shamir served as Prime Minister. A simple review of the governments own reports shows that Israel has never been able to stop the terrorist activities of its own settlers or misconduct by the IDF. The PA is no better or no worse. It has nothing to do with statehood anyway, so give it a rest.
Only last week, the Menachem Behin Heritgae Centre (dedicated to a terrorist) honored the Irgun ( a terrorist group) on it's 80th anniversary.
Stephen, we're dealing with an irrational actor in Zionist Israel. Nothing as rational and sensible as your piece has any hope at all of making an impression -- as the comment by Anon_Anon makes abundantly clear.
Sadly, I am realistic about this too, and I think most people would rather be stuck in their mindsets.
As president Obama said earlier this year, he doesn't know whether or not it is possible to have peace in the middle east ever. This was a very brave thing to say as it is not what people want to hear. The complex nature of the middle east is incredibly difficult to effect change in and there are no easy solutions.
The solutions are quite simple. Everyone knows what the solution is, but the Israelis aren't ready nor willing to take that step. They don't know when to settle, and their greed is gonna cost them everything.
[Re: Too Rational] "The Palestinians want to have it both ways"
From Commentary Magazine's "Contentions" Weblog
May 15, 2011
More Proof That a Palestinian State Would Already Be a Failed State
By Omri Ceren
Rick Richman has been closely following the international effort to create another failed Arab state in the Middle East, a process that will culminate in September when the Palestinians unilaterally declare independence and the General Assembly signals its approval of same. The process has an Alice-in-Wonderland quality. Everyone pretends that everyone else is being sincere in vetting Palestinian readiness. The Palestinians don’t have a constitution, they don’t have an independent judiciary, and they don’t have a free press; they can’t hold elections and their President is seven years into his four-year term; their educational system is a cesspool of primitive and savage anti-Jewish bigotry.
But according to Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store—speaking on behalf of donors and echoing the World Bank, the IMF, and the UN—they’re “above the threshold of a functioning state.” Nobody really believes that’s true in any theoretical or empirical sense. But part of the beauty of anti-Israel diplomacy is that you just kind of get to make things up and—if your inventions aren’t too absurd on that particular day—people pretend to believe you. Fantastical assertions and predictions are used to change facts on the ground before reality has a chance to catch up.
So while a Palestinian state as currently projected will certainly fail, the international community will pretend otherwise just long enough to get past September. The “promising” Fatah-Hamas unity deal is part and parcel of this nudge-nudge-wink-wink game, a temporary fiction established lest the Palestinian Authority declare sovereignty over Gaza without actually controlling Gaza. The unity government will quickly collapse, along with the rest of the Palestinian state. At that point some foreign policy analysts and diplomats will simply move on—there’s never been any consequence to getting things wrong about the Middle East, provided one was toeing the proper ideological line—while others will invent new ways to blame Palestinian failures on Israel. It’s not like intellectual honesty is going to come to the debate over Middle East pathologies any time soon.
That said, the “Palestine-is-above-the-threshold” crowd should really be held to some sort of minimum argumentative consistency, and today’s Nakba demonstrations are another example of just how difficult that can be for them. Palestinians across the West Bank and the Gaza Strip rioted extensively in a series of violent, coordinated actions. Not to get pedantic but either those riots were coordinated by Fatah-Hamas or they were coordinated by what would—in the aftermath of a Palestinian statehood declaration—be subnational groups. If it’s the former then the international community is giving birth to a state that uses civilians to conduct warfare by proxy. If it’s the latter then the Palestinian Authority doesn’t have control over the territories in which it intends to declare itself sovereign.
It’s not just the Nakba rioting. The Palestinians want to have it both ways for all violence coming out of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. They and their apologists are quite literally incoherent on this point. For the purposes of statehood, they insist that the Palestinian Authority has full control over future Palestinian territories. For the purposes of rocket launches and terrorist attacks, they insist that Hamas and Fatah have no control over splinter terrorist groups operating from within future Palestinian territories.
They can’t admit that subnational militias are operating out of territories they want for a state, since that’s the textbook definition of a failed state. But they also can’t admit that their own soldiers are attacking Israelis, since that would detonate the narrative of a peaceful Palestinian state. So they’re saying both at the same time. There are days where they can’t even keep track of which terrorist groups they’ve pretended to disband.
And they’re being allowed to get away with it, because choosing one or the other would be uncomfortable for their international apologists.
Meanwhile Palestinians are rioting across the West Bank and Gaza, either with Palestinian Authority connivance or in the face of Palestinian Authority impotence. Somewhere out there, a Reuters or Associated Press journalist is very much not writing an article about how “this is a window into the fundamental tension underlying the Palestinian narrative as Mr. Abbas and Mr. Fayyad move towards a September statehood declaration.” But they could be.
--Posted By By Omri Ceren 05.15.2011 - 2:08 PM
Copyright Commentary Magazine 1997-2011 All Rights Reserved
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/15/more-proof-that-a-palestinian-state-would-already-be-a-failed-state/
Let's hope that Pres. Obama will take the opportunity to endorse the Fatah- Hamas unity agreement and encourage the Hamas leadership to renounce its radical tenets in his upcoming speech.
Here I find it hard to understand Hamas's reluctance to jettison rhetorical positions that serve no positive purpose and merely make it easy for their opponents to portray them as unreasonable.
Occam's Razor suggests that the reason is quite simply because they are< unreasonable (and that is putting it quite mildly).
You suffer no such difficultly understanding when Israeli factions adopt unreasonable stances, you assume the worst and trumpet it.
Simple explanation cutrs both ways David
Netenyahu supposedly suports a 2 state solution, yet teh Likud Charter statement that Likud opposes a 2 state solution remains unchanged.
It seems you also suffer the same congnitive dissonance.
Professor Walt's latest article
Thanks! As so many times before, I cannot express anything else than admiration for Professor Walt's voice in the Blogosphere, which is clever, moderate and to the point.
As everyone know, the Zionist terrorists in the end were accepted in the world community. So will the Hamas people be, as well.
But not in Israel, of course. PM Netanyahu's view (expressed to Fatah): You must choose between peace with Hamas, or with Israel; you cannot have both".
Netanyahu's Israel is built on war with his immediate neighbours. Eternal war.
Natanyahu and like-minded people in the current Israeli government. They are definitely hawks, looking to keep the Israeli populace's eyes focused outwards towards the "obvious" enemies at Israel's doorstep. As long as he is in power, the Mid East peace process will defintely go no where. The PA and Hamas obviously are as much to blame, but I put the burden on Israel, because the proclaim to be the "good guys", yet do nothing. If the Palestinian unity gov't was able to come out and suggest a talkable peace treaty, I totally agree with Walt in that this would back Netanyahu into a very tight corner, both nationally and worldwide.
It all comes down to saving face. Who is going to be the first one to backpedal and say, "ok, we will accept peace based on 1967(or somewhere around then) borders/recognition of Israel's right to exist as a nation." Neither government wants to make the first move, because why? They feel their popularity will drop... I would hope that Israel would be the first ones to make the move. They are the liberal, modern democracy vs. the hardline, significantly less democratic Palestinian Authority. Or, at least, that's what Israel would have us believe, yet they do nothing to forward a peaceful solution. Where does that leave the Israeli and Palestinian populations? In the middle between two intransigent governments, neither willing to do what is right for their people, and so both become silent advocates for furthering distrust and discord and fighting, because they feel that's the way they maintain power.
Who makes the first move, Ian?
Let's see, in 2000, PM Ehud Barak pushes for a complete peace treaty and offers up substantial concessions. Yasser Arafat walks away. Same thing several months later at Taba.
In 2005, PM Ariel Sharon uproots every last Jew from Gaza. Civilian and soldier, living and dead, all taken out.
In 2008, Prime Minister Olmert offers Mahmoud Abbas another complete peace agreement. Abu Mazen walks.
In 2010, Israel stops building in its settlements for 10 months after the demand by US President Obama. 9 and a half months go by, while Abu Mazen again refuses to come to the negotiating table. After getting dragged there for two weeks, he walks again, never to return.
Israel has not only made the 'first move' Ian, but the second, third, and all subsequent moves as well. But apparently that's not enough for some.
"Let's see, in 2000, PM Ehud Barak pushes for a complete peace treaty and offers up substantial concessions. Yasser Arafat walks away. Same thing several months later at Taba."
There's a mountain of writings, evidence - including by "Israel's lawyer" Dennis Ross - on why this offer failed (just Google it folks). Summary is that the so-called "generous" offer was way below what is stated in UN resolutions 242 and 338, which formed the basis of these talks, and therefore it's natural for the Palestinians to reject it.
"In 2005, PM Ariel Sharon uproots every last Jew from Gaza. Civilian and soldier, living and dead, all taken out."
Sharon withdrew to stall further peace efforts, on hiw way out, he kept the air, land and sea blockade on Gaza, and failed to honour an agreement signed with the Americans on the transport between Gaza and the West Bank. If Sharon did it for his own purposes, then good for him, but don't hold the Palestinians any way responsible for the failure of his "unilateral" disengagement.
"In 2008, Prime Minister Olmert offers Mahmoud Abbas another complete peace agreement. Abu Mazen walks."
Previous articles by Palestinian representatives on FP showed that this is false; the offer was incomplete and was given away by a lame duck PM who was indicted in a corruption investigation.
If Israel was really serious, then Olmert's predecessor (your Bibi Netanyahu) should've built on it and continued to negotiate, but of course he didn't. That's the problem with the governments of Israel - every new PM thinks he can change the world only because he is what he is.
"In 2010, Israel stops building in its settlements for 10 months after the demand by US President Obama. 9 and a half months go by, while Abu Mazen again refuses to come to the negotiating table. After getting dragged there for two weeks, he walks again, never to return."
The Palestinians were not waiting for tokens from a PM who bragged about how he manipulated the Americans and destroyed the Oslo process (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeT_KLuCdug). The Palestinians wanted a freeze on settlements, including natural growth, in the WEST BANK AND EAST JERUSALEM, as stated in the ROADMAP to Peace which has been ratified by the Israeli government itself. But hey, who said that Israeli PMs ever respect previous government's agreements and positions, when, at the same time, the whole Hasbara world is asking Hamas to do just that.
"Israel has not only made the 'first move' Ian, but the second, third, and all subsequent moves as well. But apparently that's not enough for some."
Again, if you make a first move, then you may get somewhere, but you won't get where you want. Abbas, on the other hand, offered Israel a peace with 57 Arab and Muslim countries (of the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference) under the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which was turnred down by your peace-loving government.
JACOB recycling old and debunked Hasbara
>> Let's see, in 2000, PM Ehud Barak pushes for a complete peace treaty and offers up substantial concessions. Yasser Arafat walks away. Same thing several months later at Taba.
As Shmolo Ben Ami, Israel's foreign minster at the time admitted, he would have also rejected the offer if he were a Palestinian.
In 2000, a second round of negotiations were held up at Taba (after Camp David) and ended prematurely by Barak AFTER both leaders stated they were on the verge of a political settlement.
And FYI JACOB, Barak wrote in an op-ed that he gave NOTHING to Arafat.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1525/jps.2003.33.1.84
>> In 2005, PM Ariel Sharon uproots every last Jew from Gaza. Civilian and soldier, living and dead, all taken out.
And then, as Israel withdraws, he fires 7,700 shells into Gaza as a parting gift and as Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar documented:
“the ruined territory was not released for even a single day from Israel's military grip, or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day. Israel left behind scotched earth, devastated services, and people with nearly a present or a future”
>> In 2008, Prime Minister Olmert offers Mahmoud Abbas another complete peace agreement. Abu Mazen walks.
False again. Tzipi Livni debunked that BS NYT report.
“Contrary to the claim made by a New York Times commentator that Abbas rejected Ehud Olmert's generous proposal, the woman (Livni) who was the foreign minister in his government has said on a number of occasions that the Palestinians did not reject this proposal and that it is sitting on the shelf waiting for an Israeli partner. “
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/netanyahu-has-rejected-one-too-many-u-s-packages-1.330491
Abbas himself said that “he hopes that Olmert’s proposal will form the foundation of peace talks with his successor…”
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=17285
Needless to say, Netenyahu rejected Olmert's plan
http://www.haaretz.com/news/elections/netanyahu-i-m-not-bound-by-olmert-pledges-won-t-evacuate-settlements-1.266999
Even Livni said she opposed Olmert's offer
http://www.haaretz.com/news/livni-tells-france-s-kouchner-i-oppose-olmert-s-peace-plan-1.285402
>> In 2010, Israel stops building in its settlements for 10 months after the demand by US President Obama. 9 and a half months go by, while Abu Mazen again refuses to come to the negotiating table. After getting dragged there for two weeks, he walks again, never to return.
Israel signed and ratified the Road Map in 2002, agreeing to stop building settlements under Phase 1 of the treaty. Negotiations were to be part of Phase II (ie. once Phase 1 obligations had been met)
F
or Israel to merely offer a freeze in 2010 is not only a violation of the terms of the agreement, but fby agreeing to negotiate, the PA would have been accepting the right of Israel to violate the agreement.
So Israel has made the 'first move' Jacob, it has made the first breach of the agreement, as well as a a second, third, and all subsequent time.
What is the point therefore, of negotiating with a party that cannot stick to any agreement?
"that the best way to either marginalize Hamas or force it to moderate its own positions was to make genuine progress toward ending the occupation and creating an independent state, which will make calls for continued resistance fall on deaf ears."
OK, moving from ivory tower fantasy to the real world shows that Israel actually did just that in 2005, when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon moved every last Jew, both living and dead, out of the Gaza Strip (So much for Walt's claim that Israel still needs to take on its own right wing). Not three weeks later, did HAMAS decide to start launching more rockets at Israel. Indeed, its immediate claim back then was when one of its victory parades got blown up because one of their trucks were loaded with real weapons that went off. Of course HAMAS admitted the 'work accident' after the damage was already done, but obviously the organization spent the next five years launching daily rocket attacks at Israeli civilians through this day.
Indeed, HAMAS rhetoric remains just as strident, noting that it will 'never' recognize Israel, and that at some point, the organization will attempt to conquer not just the 'occupied territories' of 1967, but continue to push for the total destruction of Israel of the original 1948 lines.
Indeed, Walt is not the first person to cling to the idea that HAMAS will 'moderate'. Six years ago, that very question was raised in the journal Foreign Affairs, with its own follow up article in 2010.
Unfortunately, both then and now, there were no solutions beyond appeasement offered and even then, the best outcome remains a hope that HAMAS will change its ways.
The fact is, HAMAS positions are as extreme as al-Queda's, and we see not only what the professor has to say about that, but the course of the Obama administration who's ideal was not to 'talk to' nor 'understand' al-Queda's longings, hopes and dreams, but to put a bullet in Osama bin-Laden's head, and cart Khali Sheik Mohammed of to prison while floating Predator drones above Pakistan to obliterate any member of the organization the US government could find.
Walt claims that "The obvious point is that sometimes states negotiate with groups using terrorist methods, if they are seriously interested in ending a conflict and they have sufficient reason to believe that the "terrorist" group is too." The reality is, there has been no sufficient reason to believe that HAMAS is ready to end the conflict. In fact, while Professor Walt claims that Fatah recognised Israel back in the 1980's, we find repeated evidence from Yasser Arafat that this was little more than a rouse, and that in Arabic, he denied taking such a shift. This double-speak continues through today, when the PA President Mahmoud Abbas, repeated the idea that the Palestinians would never accept the idea of Israel as an independent Jewish state.
So much for 'realism' when dealing with HAMAS.
Sharon had an opportunity to negotiate a deal over the Gaza withdrawal but explicitly refused to do so. His reason was quite simple, as his aid Dov Weissglass said the purpose was to put the peace process in formaldehyde so to entrench Israeli control over the WB. Negotiation would have enhanced the credibility of the PA and that was the last thing Sharon wanted.
At the time many Israeli observers decried this approach and predicted that it would not end the violence. Besides that, the manner by which Israel withdrew from Gaza intensified the PA - Hamas split. Just the thing to keep the level of violence up.
Israel pulled out of Gaza because it was becoming way too expensive. Those idiot settlers there were costing way too much given their military or economic value. The other reason was the propaganda value. As was well known at the time, the violence would continue then Israel could, as we see here with Jacob blue, continue the line "there is no one to talk with". This is what Dov meant about putting the peace process in formaldehyde.
So in summary, the withdrawal was a tactical ploy to gain time to complete the seizure of the WB. In that it was successful, it looks like they bought about 7 years. But now with this unity deal and the up coming recognition of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, we will see if there was any long term gain for the Zionist agenda.
USMARINE101 and the old lie about the Greenhouses
>> What negotiation? He left Gaza Judenrein for the Palestinians.
No, he left Gaza because he and most of Israeli right wing leaders agreed that the resources being use defend the illegal settlements in Gaza would be better spent defending more illegal settlements in the West Bank.
>> The Palestinians came out with a territory void of Jews and with a bonus of $9 billion ($3 billion a year for three years) raised by Wolfensohn, along with the greenhouses that were the backhone of the Gaza economy handed to them on a silver platter (which they destroyed in an orgy of looting and violence).
False. In spite of being generously compensated to leave the greehouses intact, the settlers destroyed them as they left:
In July 2005, prior to the disengagement: Israeli Settlers Demolish Greenhouses and Gaza Jobs
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/international/middleeast/15mideast.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
In September 2005, immediately after the disengagement: Looters strip Gaza Greenhouses
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9331863/
[Note: This is the AP story that Cox claims said,”“more then 3,000 greenhouses costing the World Bank and private donors approximately $14 million were completely stripped and totally destroyed.” However it says no such thing. Cox lied.]
In October 2005, one month later: Greenhouse project endangered in Gaza
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/10/31/greenhouse_project_endangered_in_gaza/?page=2
And another month later, in November 2005: Gaza greenhouses bear fruit once again
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/28/world/africa/28iht-gaza.html
So, to wrap up the truth behind some of Cox’s most egregious lies, the settlers houses were destroyed by Israeli soldiers as part of Israel’s disengagement, not by the Palestinians. Some settlers dismantled some of the greenhouses and equipment prior to the disengagement. And, according to news reports, about ten percent of formerly Israeli greenhouses were destroyed by Palestinian looters immediately after the disengagement, mostly stealing plastic irrigation pipe, plastic sheeting, and water pumps . That destruction was repaired within a month or so by the Palestinians and the greenhouses were up and running within 2 months. I could go into several other lies that Cox uttered, but what’s the point. Its already been shown that he is a liar and a bigot.
>> Let the arabs take responsibility for their own actions and their own voting. The west bank voted for Fatah the Gazans for Hamas. They made a choice and began killing each other. No one forced them to do that. They are adults.
False. They made a choice and then the US and Israel ordered Abbas to overthrow Hamas in a coup that failed:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804
>> More expensive than the billions of dollars spent on the Iron Dome for missile defense?
Iron Dome has not cost billions. The US is funding it anyway.
>> As it turns out, they were the buffer keeping the animals out of the rest of Israel.
I see you're not even trying to cover your vulgar racism anymore, but wearing it proudly n your sleeve.
Shalit was captured the day after the IDF kidnapped 2 Palestinians from Gaza city. There would have been no missile barrages on Sderot had Israel stuck to the 2008 ceasefire rather than violaitng it. As a Wikileaks document reveals, Cast Lead was not about stopping rocket attacks (seeing as there weren't any until Israel violated the ceasefire) , but about cuttign Hamas off at the knees, because the ceasefire (which was going very well) was giving Hamas too much political credibility.
As Walt concludes: not likely to happen
"Palestinian reconciliation and unity is ultimately good for Israel too, assuming that Israel wants peace more than land."
Huge assumption. And:
"So the idealist in me would love to believe that this agreement will hold, and that it can be used to jump-start a new diplomatic process (which will probably also involve moving beyond the current U.S. monopoly on this issue). "
It absolutely has to move beyond the US monopoly -- the US is not and can not, be an neutral mediator on this issue. We all know why. Finding mediators is the problem. Perhaps with Egypt and Turkey backin Palestinians as a counterbalance to US backing of Israel, the EU and Russia could play the neutral role.
Like that bridge this may be "an assumption too far"
"Palestinian reconciliation and unity is ultimately good for Israel too, assuming that Israel wants peace more than land." As long as they [Israeli Zionists] can get the dopey U.S. taxpayers to pay the cost of "non-peace" for it they'll take the land. The day after the U.S. quits funding their defense the Israeli Zionists will opt for peace. Follow the money is an old saw but a sharp one. Might call it "Occam's" saw.
What does an ignorant marine do? Improvise, and make up nonsense. You need to read the state dept notes on the lead up to 67. Richard Helms was our CIA chief at the time. Israel was well armed, came to LBJ to ask for more arms, LBJ knew that Israel was understating their forces. LBJ dismissed Israel's foreign minister saying if Nasser attacks you (Israel) you will "whip their ass." Richard Helms predicted the war would take 7-9 days, he was pretty close.
Put Israeli commando, but you are NOT an AMerican. Israel told our State Dept one figure, Richard Helms knew they had far more reserves than that. If Israel was so reluctant, why did they start the war? Why did they preclud peace? The war started on the morning that Nasser's #2 was due to meet LBJ, which would've prevented the War. The Israelis made sure that never happened. There is no one in LBJ's cabinet that believes the Arabs started that war.
"https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/arab_israeli_war_1.html"
USMARINE101 making it up as he goes along
>> Israel well armed? Lets look at the balance of forces:
In an interview published in Le Monde on 28 February 1968, Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin said: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”
>> Second, the CIA assessment contradicted the Israeli military intelligence assessment along with that of the USSR.
False again.
On June 3, 2 days before the war, the head of Israeli intelligence, Meir Amit, came to Washington and met with the Johnsopn Administration. Johnson told Amit that according to US intelligence, Nasser was not going to attack and vene if he did, that Israel wuold easily defeat Egypt.
Amit's reposnse was that " We do not dispute any of your findings, any of your projections".
Walt's latest revelation:
"The obvious point is that sometimes states negotiate with groups using terrorist methods, if they are seriously interested in ending a conflict and they have sufficient reason to believe that the "terrorist" group is too."
This is really great! We all recognize Walt as a formidable scientific genius who boasts possession of enormous size Aryan Brain and who devotes all his life to expose ongoing Jewish conspiracy and plots to conquer and control this little world. US has been already taken over by Zionists, see seminal paper by Walt et al: "Zionist Lobby to appoint Ahmadinejad as the next US President".
I am happy to report to our indomitable warrior that current Zionist US regime has already conducted successful negotiations with the best of the best among so called "terrorists". The Terrorist in Chief agreed to be peacefully placed to the bottom of some undisclosed Ocean and spend the rest of eternity in jovial conversations with various species of fish, mollusks, while having literally wet dreams about daily fun with 72 virgins.
I have a bad premonition that Dark Zionist Forces will soon conduct similar negotiations with Hamas, Hezbollah or whatever other glorious so called "terrorists" with similar results.
Always yours academically,
--- Pupil
It is utterly meaningless to state that the Protocols are a forgery. OK, so they weren't found in some Jew's pocket, or whatever. But, they've been around for a century. They precede radio, television, the great global investment system.
One could argue that Jews, and others for that matter have used the Protocols, or if not those words contained in that dubious text but the very means, and processes described in the protocols to wage propaganda wars.
Does it matter whether Machiavelli was actually a prince, or writing for a prince? If Machiavelli was just a novelist, wouldn't we still describe his Hegelian dialectic into oppressive rule "Machiavellian?"
Does it matter if Jesus was/is real? Wouldn't Christians still be followers of Jesus regardless of whether he be fable or flesh?
I don't put much stock in the protocols, have never read them, bought them or done much more than wiki them. The way people fall all over themselves to denounce them as false is peculiar. Again, we don't really do this for Keynes, Tiger Motherhood, or any other pattern, theory, ethos that we might discuss. There is too much there, for how to wage a propaganda war to dismiss. Again, whether this is a uniquely "Jewish" tactic is fair to question (as is any) and it can be easily shown that others use these tactics as well.
The way the "Protocols" are discussed is similar to religious taboos and other cultural biases that we refuse to discuss. We refuse to really call some Biblical precepts too sharply to account, we refuse to get into many of these nasty parts of our history. Many Christians believe that they are part of the elect, chosen of God. That many are just damned to never know, have or be redeemable. The Old Testament has chapters and books that are far more racist, violent and anachronistic than anything in the Quran. Many claim to believe every racist, elitist word of the Bible, but we never really discuss the nasty bits.
I think our insistence that the Protocols is a forgery, is a way to prevent us from considering how it might be a blueprint for propaganda campaigns. I don't doubt that some cleaver Russian came up with it; but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it's content. It doesn't mean it's irrational to see how some have seemingly embraced the course of action it advises.
You have to love the mind-set of Jew haters
Scott in Dallas stated "It is utterly meaningless to state that the Protocols are a forgery. OK, so they weren't found in some Jew's pocket, or whatever. But, they've been around for a century. They precede radio, television, the great global investment system."
Apparently because a lie has been around for a long time means that it shouldn't be taken for a lie. How enlightening.
Of course what it illuminates is the realization that bigotry takes a lot more effort to root out than simply wishing for it.
Take note Professor, the comment above was written by an American, not someone in the cadre's of HAMAS, who were raised on such benevelent programming as Farfur the suicide-bomb loving Mouse.
So it goes with Egyptian's desire to believe in the idea of Mossad trained sharks, and Sauid professors writing how Jews use the blood of non-Jews to bake Hamantashen (yeah, I know the usual libel is that we use it to bake Matzah, I guess the Saudi prof was being inventive).
This is where ignorance and hatred lead... to a desire to believe in conspiracy theories.
Of course what is truly interesting is that the same arguments have been made about 'The Israel Lobby', and the similarities between the two works seem to be more than just chance.
I didn't say that Jews in particular were using the framework detailed in the Protocols for propaganda, I think we can see some remarkable foreshadowing of what would come. We don't ask if Orwell meant 1984 as an exact prophecy or template, but perhaps he illuminated some ideas in mass media propaganda for those with ulterior motives. I also stated that I don't think much of the Protocols, don't advocate for it, but it's interesting how people are so quick to state, "it's a forgery" and then never address the very real methods of control it describes. Jim Crow supporters could be said to have used the Protocol's framework. I'm detaching the "blame" for the book from my mind. Do you doubt information ministers have gotten a few ideas from that book? See, when your whole world is Jew/Goy, perhaps you see everything as a personal affront. Good grief, do you hate Volkswagens too?
The protocols were written before radio and television yet that work foresaw the importance of media in shaping a message. The protocols were prescient in how groups/gov'ts would seek to influence the people. Just as Orwell, Faust, Huxley would presage other forms of control/influence. I'm not worried about the Oceanians, the Alphas, or what have you. But, the pattern that is described by the Protocols seems to have inspired many in the means of propaganda.
Thanks for the comment Mr Walt
But I beg to differ. The road to reconciliation is not short, and that's why the process has just begun, and will take at least a year to end.
On the other hand, Hamas is now wary of changes surrounding it (Egypt and Tunisia), where its mother group - the Muslim Brotherhood - is actually making easy gains without resort to violence. In Egypt, the MB will run for half of the parliament's seats, and Ennahda in Tunisia is now legal and practicing politics in the light of the day.
Hamas is left with Syria, where actually it has a funny relationship. Even though Hamas is an MB offshoot, Syria's own MB is banned and affiliation with it is punishable by death (law 49 in 1981).
The protests that shook Syria showed Hamas that relying on Al-Assad is not worthwhile, and in a way pits Hamas against its other branches of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Therefore, I must say that a sense of realpolitik is finally getting into Hamas and it seems that it agreed to play the game.
It could be good, if:
Hamas moderates and comes to accept Israel (not just Palestine in 67 borders).
If it does, then the ball is in Israel's court. If it doesn't, then the game is the same as its been.
Whether Hamas "accepts" Israel is as relevant as if they "accept" Gravity. They are there, exist to confront Israel. Truly, the question is whether Israel will accept Hamas, the democratically elected leaders of the Gazans, if not all the Palestinians. Generally, one doesn't get to pick the leaders of their opponents, but it's funny how Israel expects to do so.
Hamas has repeatedly stated that they are willing to accept an Israel that stays within it's borders. Israel refuses to limit herself to mere borders--even building a wall that lies entirely on Palestinian land!
thats not true. Hamas has been using wordplay. They have stated that they are willing to have a Palestinian state within the 1967 armistice line (it was/is not a border. its a ceasefire line) but that they wouldn't recognize Israel, especially not an Israeli state.
Hamas is more legitimate than Israel. Israel controls many people yet they have no vote. Hamas was democratically elected and chosen, Israel can't quite claim the same thing. All governments get their authority from the consent of the governed. At least, that is what our founding document states. It is the principle upon which the Constitution was drafted. It is something that you seem wholly ignorant of "USMarine" I find that doubly offensive--more fitting would be USMoron.
Asking a political group to recognize a state is quite preposterous.
Which Israeli party recognize the Palestinians or even recognize their right to statehood? NONE.
One party, whose leader is the Israeli FM, calls for transfer of Israeli Arabs to Palestinian areas and recently said no to settlement freeze for "even 3 hours".
Another - Shas, whose leader is the Israeli interior minister - believes in Greater Israel, and its spiritual leader, Israel's Grand Rabbi Ovadia Yusuf wished that Palestinians "should perish from this world".
Or how about the party of Israel's PM, Bibi Xanas? Netanyahu is credited with restating the Likud pary's opposition to Palestinian statehood following the failure of Oslo (which he bragged about destroying in a YouTube video!!).
Changing Hamas charter might make sense, but by no way it is a way forward. the PLO changed its charter in 1996, with the attendance of Clinton - did this prevent the situation from further deteriorating?
What the USA must seek is that the Palestinian governments DO declare their commitment to past agreements, including those that recognize Israel's right to exist.
Give the Palestinians their rights, then ask them to change charters.
Peace is constructed of mutual acceptance.
It is troubling to see the rise of sentiment that does not even leave breathing room for Palestine, in the statements of some Israelis.
It is equally troubling to me, more troubling personally, to see the rise of sentiment that asserts that the Jewish majority in Israel does not have the right to self-govern, stated during advocacy for single state (and often included in comments supporting BDS).
I hear the Hamas logic, that they are attempting to advocate for their diaspora, but their application, prohibits reconciliation. I see it as an internal political posturing, an attempt to dis Fatah as quisling, for only developing rule of law, infrastructure, international investment in local economy, freedom of peaceable expression, auditable govenmental institutions, prospect of peace with its neighbors, and willingly subject to international law.
The formation of a unity government helps in relation to Israel, in that there is now no longer triangulation. A single government will be empowered to negotiate, true to its commitments, conveying the consent of the governed.
But, it only helps if that the unity government doesn't pursue provocation that would lead to war.
The moral advantage currently is overwhelmingly on the Fatah side, relative to Israel and relative to Hamas. They created the history (present) that Hamas had no choice but to join or else be left on the side.
If they win the elections this coming year, then Israel will again have the rational diplomatic choice as to what form of international relations to conduct. They could then legally firmly close borders if they choose. They could respond militarily to infiltration.
The change in status from occupied to state is both a promising and a dangerous setting, especially with hotheads in Palestinian and Israeli leadership.
Moderation and sobriety would serve all communities much better.
Hamas has repeated said they will accept the negotiated terms between the PA and ISrael. The Arab League supports reconciliation. The whole goal of Israel is to continue the occupation and "dominate, humiliate, starve and oppress and entire people" till they leave the land these radical religious fanatics so lust for. Give the Palestinians human, civil and property rights and I think you'll see an end to fighting. Israel has NEVER tried that. One state solution would soothe hostilities and most likely, those Zionists that feel so driven to buy land in the new single state would be allowed to. Why can't you see that ironic and simple fact. You have to let go a little bit to get sometimes. Try offering them rights, they're people, and when you insist on controlling them, you owe them that.
Throughout the 1990s - the Palestinians got nothing
And Israel punished Rabin by assassinatiung him,.
>> They are freer in the West Bank than in most Arab countries (need we look at Syria or Yemen or Egypt?)
I seem to recall that defenders of apartheid South Africa made the same arguments about the freedom accorded to Black Africans in apartheid south Africa at the time.
>> They even turn to violence against their own people ala hamas v fatah wars
Correction: Fatah was ordered to conduct a coup to overthrow Hamas by Tel Aviv and Washington, and they failed.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804
>> Second, speaking of land....why do the palestinians get two countries - jordan and the future "palestine."
Jordan is not Palestine and visa versa.
If they win the elections this coming year, then Israel will again have the rational diplomatic choice as to what form of international relations to conduct.
By "they", I am referring to Hamas.
The irony you speak of is well-known in Israel and elsewhere. Most of the settlers that I've communicated with ever (very few), have ALL stated that they would LOVE to have equal rights in the West Bank, to purchase land without inhibition or prohibitions (as exist currently, on ethnic basis, not national or ideological - "Jews" are prohibited from buying land in the West Bank).
On the Palestinian side, there are many (I don't think a majority) that would prefer a non-nationalist single state. There are however also many that desire a single state from a nationalist perspective, desiring a pendulum swing, that Israelis bear some disadvantage, and become a disenfranchised minority.
The insistence on a single state with that mix, is a war mix.
There is little difference whether they should have to live in the same state or as neighbors. They will still have to get along. The fairest and easiest battle would be for a one state solution. A two state solution allows the status quo to continue. Consider the US/Mexico border, (don't know how familiar you are with it) that river divides much more than political boundaries. Another stupid claim is that Mexican immigrants want this country to turn into Mexico, no, they don't. They left Mexico. They might like to go back, but they wish Mexico were run like the US. Arabs feel this same way toward Israel.
I've heard time and again from Arabs that they wish Israel were all that it claims. They wish Israel stood as a land were justice prevails, civil rights are protected with a strong advanced economy. But, alas, this is more bluster than reality.
>> But Hamas could advance its own cause mightily if they made it clearer that they would be willing to recognize Israel provided that it withdrew to the 1967 borders and allowed for the creation of a Palestinian state.
That's debatable Mr Walt, though it depends on who's eyes you are referring to.
As Kalid Meshal mentioned in a NYT interview, Arafat recognized Israel in and where did that get him? While it could be argued that doing so would put Netanyahu under pressure, there's nothing to stop Netanyahu from uinsisting that the new demand is to be recognized as a Jewish state, and as well all know, Congress will line up behind him to up the ante and demand that the recognition is meaningless without abandoning right of return.
Strategically, such recognitions legitimizes Israel's 63 years of ethnic cleansing and takes the issue off the table.
>> Palestinian reconciliation and unity is ultimately good for Israel too, assuming that Israel wants peace more than land.
You've hit the nail on the head. The reason that unity strikes such fear into the Israeli leadership, is that it removes the veil of pretence that they do want peace more than land. Indeed, the division among the Palestinians has been an Israeli stratergy since shortly after the 1967 war, which is why Israel threw it's support behind Hamas, in an effort to offset the political influence of the PLO.
>> The same goes for Israel too: If a peace deal is ever reached, it will need to be able to control its own right-wing extremists, and that won't be a picnic either.)
Another very critical point. Netenyahu has hinted that his government was too fragile to take on the settler movement when he declared that even an extension to the farcical building moratorium would tear his government apart. I beg to differ about Israel needing an effective Palestinian government as much as the Palestinians do. An effective Palestinian government is what Israel has been working to thwart for 4 decades.
I think we can see some remarkable foreshadowing of what would come. We don't ask if Orwell meant 1984 as an exact prophecy or template, but perhaps he illuminated some ideas in mass media propaganda for those with ulterior motives. I sazkove kancelare also stated that I don't think much of the Protocols, don't advocate for it, but it's interesting how people are so quick to state, "it's a forgery" and then never address the very real methods of control it describes. Jim Crow supporters could be said to have used the Protocol's framework. I'm detaching the "blame" for the book from my mind. Do you doubt information ministers have gotten a few ideas from that book?
I think we can see some remarkable foreshadowing of what would come. We don't ask if Orwell meant 1984 as an exact prophecy or template, but perhaps he illuminated some ideas in mass media propaganda for those with ulterior motives. I also sázkové kancelá?e stated that I don't think much of the Protocols, don't advocate for it, but it's interesting how people are so quick to state, "it's a forgery" and then never address the very real methods of control it describes. Jim Crow supporters could be said to have used the Protocol's framework. I'm detaching the "blame" for the book from my mind.The moral advantage currently is overwhelmingly on the Fatah side, relative sázkové kancelá?e to Israel and relative to Hamas. They created the history (present) that Hamas had no choice but to join or else be left on the side.If they win the elections this coming year, then Israel will again have the rational diplomatic choice as to what form of international relations to conduct. They could then legally firmly close borders if they choose. They could respond militarily to infiltration.
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.
(47)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE