Bill Clinton as quoted by Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"I still think there is some chance the Israelis and the Hamas government and the Palestinian government could make a deal. Because I think that the long-term trend lines are bad for both sides that have the capacity to make a deal. Right now, Hamas is kind of discredited after the Gaza operation, and yet [the Palestinian Authority] is clearly increasing [its] capacity. They are in good shape right now, but if they are not able to deliver sustained economic and political advances, that's not good for them. The long-term trends for the Israelis are even more stark, because they will soon enough not be a majority. Then they will have to decide at that point whether they will continue to be a democracy and no longer be a Jewish state, or continue to be a Jewish state and no longer be a democracy. That's the great spur.
The other thing that has not been sufficiently appreciated is the inevitable arc of technological capacity that applies to military weaponry, like it does to PCs and video games and everything else. I know that these rockets drove the Israelis nuts, and I didn't blame them for being angry and frustrated -- it was maddening. But let's be candid: They were not very accurate. So it's only a question of time until they are de facto outfitted with GPS positioning systems. And when that happens and the casualty rates start to really mount, will that make it more difficult for the Palestinians to make peace instead of less? Because they will be even more pressed by the radical groups saying, "No, no, look, look, we are making eight out of 10 hits. Let's stay at this." I think one of the surprising things that might happen this year [2010] is you might get a substantial agreement. Nobody believes this will happen, and it probably won't, because of the political complexity of the Israeli government. But all I can tell you is, I spent a lot of time when I was president trying to make a distinction between the headlines and the trend lines. If there was ever a place where studying the trend lines would lead you to conclude that sooner is better than later for deal-making, it would be there."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/clinton_how_better_weapons_cou.html
TW: Clinton makes good points (as he usually does, honest I am keeping my eyes out for similar insight from W. Bush...). Trend lines in the Israeli-Palestinian realm are troubling mostly for the Israelis although every day that goes by with the Palestinian mired in their poverty and partial anarchy is a day lost for them as well.
The weapons technology is also very interesting, one would think more accurate missiles would create a greater threat for Israel which it certainly does at a certain level. But the current inaccuracy provides a certain level of cover for the missile firers. Should they hit something it would be due to "bad luck" and the inaccuracy allows the perpetrators to maintain a certain level of terror without actually setting off the direct retribution should mass casualties occur.
Should they have missiles capable of actual accuracy then they would have to assume direct responsibility for their actions. Should mass casualties occur "chance" would no longer be part of the equation. The blame would be direct, retribution therefore more likely and most importantly more widely supported by outsiders such as Europe etc. As asymmetry between Israel and Hamas is reduced, the ability of Hamas to play the victim diminishes even as their ability to inflict damage potentially increases. As the conflict becomes more conventional the Israelis would retain their head to head superiority arguably making increased accuracy undesirable for Hamas/Hezbollah et al. There is a reason one frequently hears Hamas et al. boasting of rockets with increased range but not necessarily increased accuracy.
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Drang nach Osten
From Wikipedia:
"Drang nach Osten (German for "yearning for the East",[1] "thrust toward the East",[2] "push eastward",[3] "drive toward the East"[4] or "desire to push East"[5]) was a term coined in the 19th century to designate German expansion into Slavic lands.[4] The term became a motto of the German nationalist movement in the late nineteenth century.[6] In some historical discourses, "Drang nach Osten" combines historical German settlement in Eastern Europe, medieval military expeditions like the ones of the Teutonic Knights, and Germanisation policies and warfare of Modern Age German states like the Nazi lebensraum concept..."
From Palin interview with Barbara Walters:
"PALIN: I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.
WALTERS: Even if it’s [in] Palestinian areas?
PALIN: I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expand."
TW: I am not equating Drang nach Osten with Israeli policy. I am equating their policy with colonialism which in this day and age should raise serious red flags. In fairness to the Germans relative to Drang nach Osten, numerous Western powers created bullshit arguments for their own colonial ambitions.
The Palin quote though shows what happens when immature, ill-informed folks attempt to articulate policy without having the basis to do so. Consistently when faced with the most rudimentary policy questions, Palin issues incoherent or worse dangerous rhetoric. This particular stance on settlements is the proto neo-con position supported by many fundamentalist Christians as well. Usually more artfully stated (in a way I suppose) by relying upon biblical texts etc. rather than the bald-faced population expansion angle. Being a "real" person means many things to many people, but it should not mean placing a Palin type person on a stage in which she could do great harm to our national interests.
"Drang nach Osten (German for "yearning for the East",[1] "thrust toward the East",[2] "push eastward",[3] "drive toward the East"[4] or "desire to push East"[5]) was a term coined in the 19th century to designate German expansion into Slavic lands.[4] The term became a motto of the German nationalist movement in the late nineteenth century.[6] In some historical discourses, "Drang nach Osten" combines historical German settlement in Eastern Europe, medieval military expeditions like the ones of the Teutonic Knights, and Germanisation policies and warfare of Modern Age German states like the Nazi lebensraum concept..."
From Palin interview with Barbara Walters:
"PALIN: I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.
WALTERS: Even if it’s [in] Palestinian areas?
PALIN: I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expand."
TW: I am not equating Drang nach Osten with Israeli policy. I am equating their policy with colonialism which in this day and age should raise serious red flags. In fairness to the Germans relative to Drang nach Osten, numerous Western powers created bullshit arguments for their own colonial ambitions.
The Palin quote though shows what happens when immature, ill-informed folks attempt to articulate policy without having the basis to do so. Consistently when faced with the most rudimentary policy questions, Palin issues incoherent or worse dangerous rhetoric. This particular stance on settlements is the proto neo-con position supported by many fundamentalist Christians as well. Usually more artfully stated (in a way I suppose) by relying upon biblical texts etc. rather than the bald-faced population expansion angle. Being a "real" person means many things to many people, but it should not mean placing a Palin type person on a stage in which she could do great harm to our national interests.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
We Know What To Do Just Not How To Do It
From Newsweek's review of Taylor Branch's new book on his Bill Clinton tapes taken during Clinton's presidency:
"...Clinton tells Branch that the embargo on Cuba is a 'foolish, pandering failure' but seems unable to do anything to lift it, while the ruling Assad dynasty in Damascus apparently has access to the State Department and the White House at all times. There is daily concern about the volatility of Israeli politics and the spread of irritating yet apparently somehow unstoppable Jewish "settlements..."
From Karen Tumulty at Time interviewing former Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist (TN):
"...Were he still in the Senate, "I would end up voting for it[health care reform]," he said. "As leader, I would take heat for it. ... That's what leadership is all about...
Frist also faults some in his own party for injecting alarmism into the debate. "Clearly, the death panels and public plan arguments have been overblown," he says. Frist noted that Republicans themselves voted for a Medicare prescription drug bill that would have established a version of a public plan--with the government negotiating directly with drug companies--if private-sector competition had failed to materialize. That is similar to the approach that Republican Senator Olympia Snowe is taking with her amendment to establish a public option with a "trigger."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216052
While Frist believes that the bill will pass, he worries that the Obama Administration and Congress have not given enough attention to what happens next: the implementation. The first few years are likely to be rough, he predicts. States will be struggling to set up new marketplaces for insurance coverage, their medicaid rolls will grow, taxes will go up, and consumers will not yet see the benefits. "The Republicans will go wild," using the start-up difficulties as a tool for fundraising and for making their case in the next election... "
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/02/bill-frist-on-health-bill-id-vote-for-it/
TW: It is all very easy when out-of-power. Clinton states the obvious (and recall these were comments when he was still in office) on things like Cuba and Israel but could do little to shift policy. Frist sounds imminently reasonable on health care but I strongly doubt he would have stated the above had he still been in office. The solutions are not always the difficult part (AfPak is a likely exception). Getting democratic institutions to implement them is a different story. Why is that? Competing parochial interests (wanna lose several Florida house seats, open up Cuba), dysfunctional institutions (perpetual campaigning, what about actually governing for a bit) and a hundred other reasons.
"...Clinton tells Branch that the embargo on Cuba is a 'foolish, pandering failure' but seems unable to do anything to lift it, while the ruling Assad dynasty in Damascus apparently has access to the State Department and the White House at all times. There is daily concern about the volatility of Israeli politics and the spread of irritating yet apparently somehow unstoppable Jewish "settlements..."
From Karen Tumulty at Time interviewing former Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist (TN):
"...Were he still in the Senate, "I would end up voting for it[health care reform]," he said. "As leader, I would take heat for it. ... That's what leadership is all about...
Frist also faults some in his own party for injecting alarmism into the debate. "Clearly, the death panels and public plan arguments have been overblown," he says. Frist noted that Republicans themselves voted for a Medicare prescription drug bill that would have established a version of a public plan--with the government negotiating directly with drug companies--if private-sector competition had failed to materialize. That is similar to the approach that Republican Senator Olympia Snowe is taking with her amendment to establish a public option with a "trigger."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216052
While Frist believes that the bill will pass, he worries that the Obama Administration and Congress have not given enough attention to what happens next: the implementation. The first few years are likely to be rough, he predicts. States will be struggling to set up new marketplaces for insurance coverage, their medicaid rolls will grow, taxes will go up, and consumers will not yet see the benefits. "The Republicans will go wild," using the start-up difficulties as a tool for fundraising and for making their case in the next election... "
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/02/bill-frist-on-health-bill-id-vote-for-it/
TW: It is all very easy when out-of-power. Clinton states the obvious (and recall these were comments when he was still in office) on things like Cuba and Israel but could do little to shift policy. Frist sounds imminently reasonable on health care but I strongly doubt he would have stated the above had he still been in office. The solutions are not always the difficult part (AfPak is a likely exception). Getting democratic institutions to implement them is a different story. Why is that? Competing parochial interests (wanna lose several Florida house seats, open up Cuba), dysfunctional institutions (perpetual campaigning, what about actually governing for a bit) and a hundred other reasons.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Curb Those Settlements
TW: Friedman was in Israel and Palestine recently, he came back with some optimism. This piece speaks to the need for Israel to back off settlements, something about which I obviously feel strongly.
From Tom Friedman at NYT:
"Israel and America are having one of those periodic marital spats..I’d like to offer some free marriage counseling.
Here’s what Israelis need to understand: President Obama is not some outlier when it comes to Israel. His call for a settlements freeze reflects attitudes that have been building in America for a long time. For the last 40 years, a succession of Israeli governments has misled, manipulated or persuaded naïve U.S. presidents that since Israel was negotiating to give up significant territory, there was no need to fight over “insignificant” settlements on some territory. Behind this charade, Israeli settlers bit off more and more of the West Bank, creating a huge moral, security and economic burden for Israel and its friends.
As Bradley Burston, a columnist for Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, put it last week: “The settlement movement has cost Israel some $100 billion. ... The double standard which for decades has favored settlers with inexpensive housing, heavily subsidized social services, and blind-eye building permits has long been accompanied by a kid-gloves approach regarding settler violence against Palestinians and their property. ... Settlers and settlement planners have covertly bent and distorted zoning procedures, military directives, and government decrees in order to boost settlement, block Palestinian construction, agriculture, and access to employment, and effectively neutralize measures intended to foster Israeli-Palestinian peace progress.”
For years, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the pro-Israel lobby, rather than urging Israel to halt this corrosive process, used their influence to mindlessly protect Israel from U.S. pressure on this issue and to dissuade American officials and diplomats from speaking out against settlements. Everyone in Washington knows this, and a lot of people — people who care about Israel — are sick of it.
...So if Mr. Obama has bluntly pressed for a settlements freeze, he is, in fact, reflecting a broad sentiment in Congress, the Pentagon and among many Americans, Jews included...
...there are a few style points Mr. Obama should keep in mind.
One is: Don’t get into the business of apportioning historical blame for this conflict, which his Cairo speech veered into. Palestinians don’t believe they are to blame for this problem; neither do Israelis. A religious Israeli professor friend of mine said it well: “People will give a lot if they think they are not guilty. My mother says to me: ‘Look, I am ready to give them Jerusalem, but don’t tell me that I started it...’ ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/opinion/02friedman.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=thomas%20friedman&st=cse
From Tom Friedman at NYT:
"Israel and America are having one of those periodic marital spats..I’d like to offer some free marriage counseling.
Here’s what Israelis need to understand: President Obama is not some outlier when it comes to Israel. His call for a settlements freeze reflects attitudes that have been building in America for a long time. For the last 40 years, a succession of Israeli governments has misled, manipulated or persuaded naïve U.S. presidents that since Israel was negotiating to give up significant territory, there was no need to fight over “insignificant” settlements on some territory. Behind this charade, Israeli settlers bit off more and more of the West Bank, creating a huge moral, security and economic burden for Israel and its friends.
As Bradley Burston, a columnist for Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, put it last week: “The settlement movement has cost Israel some $100 billion. ... The double standard which for decades has favored settlers with inexpensive housing, heavily subsidized social services, and blind-eye building permits has long been accompanied by a kid-gloves approach regarding settler violence against Palestinians and their property. ... Settlers and settlement planners have covertly bent and distorted zoning procedures, military directives, and government decrees in order to boost settlement, block Palestinian construction, agriculture, and access to employment, and effectively neutralize measures intended to foster Israeli-Palestinian peace progress.”
For years, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the pro-Israel lobby, rather than urging Israel to halt this corrosive process, used their influence to mindlessly protect Israel from U.S. pressure on this issue and to dissuade American officials and diplomats from speaking out against settlements. Everyone in Washington knows this, and a lot of people — people who care about Israel — are sick of it.
...So if Mr. Obama has bluntly pressed for a settlements freeze, he is, in fact, reflecting a broad sentiment in Congress, the Pentagon and among many Americans, Jews included...
...there are a few style points Mr. Obama should keep in mind.
One is: Don’t get into the business of apportioning historical blame for this conflict, which his Cairo speech veered into. Palestinians don’t believe they are to blame for this problem; neither do Israelis. A religious Israeli professor friend of mine said it well: “People will give a lot if they think they are not guilty. My mother says to me: ‘Look, I am ready to give them Jerusalem, but don’t tell me that I started it...’ ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/opinion/02friedman.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=thomas%20friedman&st=cse
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Latest Battlefield Weaponary
TW: The latest in battlefield innovations, the recon-snake created by the Israelis. Could be a fun toy to have around to freak some folks out as well.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Obama In Cairo
James Baker (fmr. Sec. of State and WH Chief of Staff for Reagan) before Obama's Cairo speech on how one pushes the ball up the hill in the Middle East:
"Well, you get there by doing what the president is doing. Show these people that we value the relationship that has existed formany years between their countries and our country. Pay them attention,which he is certainly doing. Meet with them, listen to their concerns. And explain to them the importance of U.S. policy goals. That's a way you get there. And I think it's very healthy that he is doing this."
From Craig Crawford after the speech:
"...It was a moment that made good on the promise of this man to begin the process of transforming relations and undermining terrorists.
"You have the ability to reimagine the world," Obama to young Muslims at Cairo University.
For the first time since Jimmy Carter's Camp David accords we have a president with the skills, understanding and commitment to make peace in a region that has bedeviled the world for generations. Carter's 1978 brokering of a deal between Egypt and Israel to recognize each other and pursue peace still stands as the only lasting agreement of its kind since those days.
Obama's phenomenal speech gracefully shifted from historical tensions to current conflicts between Muslim nations and the western world. Without taking sides he was not shy about noting the wrongdoing of extremists on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for instance.
Perhaps his most controversial words at home will turn out to be calling Afghanistan a war of necessity, while labeling Iraq a "war of choice." Although Obama has said such things before, his political foes will probably seize upon his decision to say it on foreign soil.
But acknowledging that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake -- or at least seeming to say so -- will probably do more to impress the Muslim world than just about anything else in this great speech."
From Economist:
"...Mr Obama didn't shy away from the hard questions; indeed he said early and clearly that one speech wasn't going to change much, and that the problems are severe. More than anything, he was frank. Whether talking about a need for an Israeli settlement freeze, reminding the audience that America overthrew Iran's government in 1953, or taking on the Arab conspiracy theories about 9/11, he didn't shy away from the hard topics. The question isn't whether we heard anything new—nobody expected that. The speech was, in my view, honest. That, in itself, is significant for a Muslim audience too used to hearing one thing and seeing another.
...Mr Obama's speech in Cairo closed with a standing ovation, a stunning sight in itself. The knee-jerk reaction of too many Americans is to recoil at the notion of foreigners cheering an American president, as if unpopularity abroad was a sign of virile vigor. This is a new and ugly strain in conservatism. The first sentence of the first official document of the United States paid tribute to "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind". Mr Obama took that seriously today."
"Well, you get there by doing what the president is doing. Show these people that we value the relationship that has existed formany years between their countries and our country. Pay them attention,which he is certainly doing. Meet with them, listen to their concerns. And explain to them the importance of U.S. policy goals. That's a way you get there. And I think it's very healthy that he is doing this."
From Craig Crawford after the speech:
"...It was a moment that made good on the promise of this man to begin the process of transforming relations and undermining terrorists.
"You have the ability to reimagine the world," Obama to young Muslims at Cairo University.
For the first time since Jimmy Carter's Camp David accords we have a president with the skills, understanding and commitment to make peace in a region that has bedeviled the world for generations. Carter's 1978 brokering of a deal between Egypt and Israel to recognize each other and pursue peace still stands as the only lasting agreement of its kind since those days.
Obama's phenomenal speech gracefully shifted from historical tensions to current conflicts between Muslim nations and the western world. Without taking sides he was not shy about noting the wrongdoing of extremists on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for instance.
Perhaps his most controversial words at home will turn out to be calling Afghanistan a war of necessity, while labeling Iraq a "war of choice." Although Obama has said such things before, his political foes will probably seize upon his decision to say it on foreign soil.
But acknowledging that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake -- or at least seeming to say so -- will probably do more to impress the Muslim world than just about anything else in this great speech."
From Economist:
"...Mr Obama didn't shy away from the hard questions; indeed he said early and clearly that one speech wasn't going to change much, and that the problems are severe. More than anything, he was frank. Whether talking about a need for an Israeli settlement freeze, reminding the audience that America overthrew Iran's government in 1953, or taking on the Arab conspiracy theories about 9/11, he didn't shy away from the hard topics. The question isn't whether we heard anything new—nobody expected that. The speech was, in my view, honest. That, in itself, is significant for a Muslim audience too used to hearing one thing and seeing another.
...Mr Obama's speech in Cairo closed with a standing ovation, a stunning sight in itself. The knee-jerk reaction of too many Americans is to recoil at the notion of foreigners cheering an American president, as if unpopularity abroad was a sign of virile vigor. This is a new and ugly strain in conservatism. The first sentence of the first official document of the United States paid tribute to "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind". Mr Obama took that seriously today."
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Stop the Settlements!
TW: This is the happy horse dung that I just do not understand from the Israelis. I understand they live in a rough neighborhood and need extraordinary security arrangements and guarantees, and the right of return for the Palestinians is a no-go for instance. But colonizing the West Bank makes no sense to me. It serves no purpose other than appeasement of the rabid right-wing settler community but undercuts their moral standing as a nation. The day an American POTUS says no mas to the settlements will be a good day.
The spokesman's rationales make no sense. To continue "natural growth" assumes they have a right to be there in the first place and/or that they will stay forever. That they are needed for security implies also that they will stay forever. If they are staying forever then they are true colonies and will require another series of wars to figure out if the Arabs are comfortable with an enlarged Israel.
From Haartez:
"Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon spoke on Saturday about the meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, held earlier this week, saying that Israel's government will not allow the U.S. to dictate its policy, and that "settlement construction will not be halted."
"Settlements are not the reason that the peace process is failing, they were never an obstacle, not at any stage," Ya'alon told Channel 2 News. "Even when Israel pulled out of [Palestinian] territory, the terror continued. Even when we uprooted [Jewish] communities, we got 'Hamastan.' That is why I propose that we think about it - not in slogans and not with decrees." According to Ayalon, "we will not halt the construction in the settlements within the framework of natural growth. There are people here who are living their lives, raising children. Housing is required ? it wasn't housing that has prevented peace."
... We won't let them threaten us," Ya'alon added. "From the banks of the Potomac in Washington it is not always clear what the real situation here is," Ya'alon concluded. "This is where Israel must step in and help her ally understand the situation."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087541.html
The spokesman's rationales make no sense. To continue "natural growth" assumes they have a right to be there in the first place and/or that they will stay forever. That they are needed for security implies also that they will stay forever. If they are staying forever then they are true colonies and will require another series of wars to figure out if the Arabs are comfortable with an enlarged Israel.
From Haartez:
"Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon spoke on Saturday about the meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, held earlier this week, saying that Israel's government will not allow the U.S. to dictate its policy, and that "settlement construction will not be halted."
"Settlements are not the reason that the peace process is failing, they were never an obstacle, not at any stage," Ya'alon told Channel 2 News. "Even when Israel pulled out of [Palestinian] territory, the terror continued. Even when we uprooted [Jewish] communities, we got 'Hamastan.' That is why I propose that we think about it - not in slogans and not with decrees." According to Ayalon, "we will not halt the construction in the settlements within the framework of natural growth. There are people here who are living their lives, raising children. Housing is required ? it wasn't housing that has prevented peace."
... We won't let them threaten us," Ya'alon added. "From the banks of the Potomac in Washington it is not always clear what the real situation here is," Ya'alon concluded. "This is where Israel must step in and help her ally understand the situation."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087541.html
Friday, May 1, 2009
If Iran Gets the Bomb the Whole World Falls Apart
TW: The premise of the piece rests on what would happen in the world should the naive Obama Administration not join with the Israelis to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The attitude embodied from this Israeli newspaper displays what one gets when you combine myopia, patronizing context and paranoia.
The piece weaves a convoluted domino scenario whereby Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons leads to:
1) alliance between Iran/Iraq and many of the Gulf states
2) fall of pro-Western Arab regimes
3) European-Chinese alliance at expense of U.S.
4) another world-wide Great Recession
5) etc., etc.
It is such apocalyptic nonsense that makes generating viable and sensible policy so challenging. The right-wing in the U.S. is building a similiar case against Obama. As in "if Obama does not condone torture, expand the defense budget even faster and aggressively push American/Israeli agendas down the throats of potential adversaries, then Obama is opening the U.S./Israel to terrorism and would arguably at that point be criminally negligent".
Such unabashed peace through strength is simplistic, risky and ultimately dangerous. The piece invokes the FDR name. But FDR was the polar opposite of a fool like W. Bush. FDR was subtle, adroit in embracing international allies, politically accommodative when needed. He was not a single note player with an end in mind who sought to bash his head and his country's resources (blood and treasure) mindlessly about in an effort to mitigate any risk and pursue ideological agendas.
We will be attacked again some day and Obama and us Dems will take major fire from the right. But the paranoid, purely nationalistic, rights ignoring is not the answer. A later post will examine what a nuclearized Iran might actually look like.
From Haaretz:
"Even now, in November 2012, it is hard not to think back with elation on Barack Obama's first year as president of the United States. In his first 100 days in the White House, the energetic president took a series of daring steps that extricated the American economy from its worst crisis since the 1930s. Immediately after that he put an end to torture, indicted Dick Cheney, convened a Middle East peace conference and made historic reconciliation visits to Havana, Damascus and Tehran. Obama's economic and foreign policies were both based on a moral worldview that inspired Americans and non-Americans alike. After years of despair and cynicism, the 44th president proposed a new national and international agenda based on dialogue, demilitarization, justice and peace.
The first signs that something was wrong had already appeared at the end of that first year of grace. Nevertheless, Washington was astounded when, in the summer of 2010, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that he was expelling international inspectors and galloping full-tilt toward the production of nuclear weapons. The shock turned to horror on the eve of Christmas 2010, when Iran's spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, stated that his country had its first three nuclear warheads - aimed at Riyadh, Cairo and Tel Aviv.
Spring 2011 was dramatic. First a mutual defense treaty and an agreement to collaborate on oil exports were signed between Tehran and the fragile Baghdad government. Then Kuwait, Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai bowed their heads and signed treaties that made them protectorates of the rising Shi'ite state. Saudi Arabia took the opposite approach: In May 2011, it announced that it had purchased nuclear weapons from Pakistan both for itself and for its ally Egypt. But Egypt's sudden nuclearization failed to appease the Muslim Brotherhood. Mass demonstrations forced President Hosni Mubarak to resign shortly after he suspended the peace agreement with Israel.
By Thanksgiving 2011, the situation was clear. Jordan's King Abdullah left for exile in London. Hezbollah took control of Beirut and a bloody war of attrition erupted between Israel and the Palestinians. The unrest in western Asia had repercussions on the rest of the international arena: Afghanistan went up in flames, Pakistan collapsed and Russia raised its head. In view of Washington's helplessness, some European states began to lean increasingly toward China. When the price of oil rose above $200 a barrel, the American economy plunged into another deep recession.
Obama had no chance in the snows of Iowa in 2012. So with Oprah Winfrey wiping a tear at his side, the most promising president ever announced he would not run for a second term. What went wrong? Where did Obama go astray? In retrospect, the answer is clear and simple. In the summer of 2009, the president had to make the most courageous decision of his life: to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Granted, opting for confrontation would have been incompatible with the DNA of the liberal Democrat from Chicago. Ironically, however, only such a decision could have saved his legacy and advanced the noble values he believed in. Only that decision could have led to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
If Obama had decided three years ago to impose a political-economic siege on Tehran, he would have changed the course of history. The Roosevelt of the 21st century would have prevented regional chaos, a worldwide nuclear arms race and an American decline. Yesterday, immediately after television networks announced the sweeping Republican victory of November 2012, close friends gathered around the outgoing president. They found him sad but sober. Obama had no doubts: Had he known at the beginning of his term what he knows now, he would have made a different strategic decision about Iran's nuclear program. If only it were possible to go back, the pensive president told his humbled chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. If only he could have made a different decision in the summer of 2009"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081979.html
The piece weaves a convoluted domino scenario whereby Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons leads to:
1) alliance between Iran/Iraq and many of the Gulf states
2) fall of pro-Western Arab regimes
3) European-Chinese alliance at expense of U.S.
4) another world-wide Great Recession
5) etc., etc.
It is such apocalyptic nonsense that makes generating viable and sensible policy so challenging. The right-wing in the U.S. is building a similiar case against Obama. As in "if Obama does not condone torture, expand the defense budget even faster and aggressively push American/Israeli agendas down the throats of potential adversaries, then Obama is opening the U.S./Israel to terrorism and would arguably at that point be criminally negligent".
Such unabashed peace through strength is simplistic, risky and ultimately dangerous. The piece invokes the FDR name. But FDR was the polar opposite of a fool like W. Bush. FDR was subtle, adroit in embracing international allies, politically accommodative when needed. He was not a single note player with an end in mind who sought to bash his head and his country's resources (blood and treasure) mindlessly about in an effort to mitigate any risk and pursue ideological agendas.
We will be attacked again some day and Obama and us Dems will take major fire from the right. But the paranoid, purely nationalistic, rights ignoring is not the answer. A later post will examine what a nuclearized Iran might actually look like.
From Haaretz:
"Even now, in November 2012, it is hard not to think back with elation on Barack Obama's first year as president of the United States. In his first 100 days in the White House, the energetic president took a series of daring steps that extricated the American economy from its worst crisis since the 1930s. Immediately after that he put an end to torture, indicted Dick Cheney, convened a Middle East peace conference and made historic reconciliation visits to Havana, Damascus and Tehran. Obama's economic and foreign policies were both based on a moral worldview that inspired Americans and non-Americans alike. After years of despair and cynicism, the 44th president proposed a new national and international agenda based on dialogue, demilitarization, justice and peace.
The first signs that something was wrong had already appeared at the end of that first year of grace. Nevertheless, Washington was astounded when, in the summer of 2010, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that he was expelling international inspectors and galloping full-tilt toward the production of nuclear weapons. The shock turned to horror on the eve of Christmas 2010, when Iran's spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, stated that his country had its first three nuclear warheads - aimed at Riyadh, Cairo and Tel Aviv.
Spring 2011 was dramatic. First a mutual defense treaty and an agreement to collaborate on oil exports were signed between Tehran and the fragile Baghdad government. Then Kuwait, Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai bowed their heads and signed treaties that made them protectorates of the rising Shi'ite state. Saudi Arabia took the opposite approach: In May 2011, it announced that it had purchased nuclear weapons from Pakistan both for itself and for its ally Egypt. But Egypt's sudden nuclearization failed to appease the Muslim Brotherhood. Mass demonstrations forced President Hosni Mubarak to resign shortly after he suspended the peace agreement with Israel.
By Thanksgiving 2011, the situation was clear. Jordan's King Abdullah left for exile in London. Hezbollah took control of Beirut and a bloody war of attrition erupted between Israel and the Palestinians. The unrest in western Asia had repercussions on the rest of the international arena: Afghanistan went up in flames, Pakistan collapsed and Russia raised its head. In view of Washington's helplessness, some European states began to lean increasingly toward China. When the price of oil rose above $200 a barrel, the American economy plunged into another deep recession.
Obama had no chance in the snows of Iowa in 2012. So with Oprah Winfrey wiping a tear at his side, the most promising president ever announced he would not run for a second term. What went wrong? Where did Obama go astray? In retrospect, the answer is clear and simple. In the summer of 2009, the president had to make the most courageous decision of his life: to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Granted, opting for confrontation would have been incompatible with the DNA of the liberal Democrat from Chicago. Ironically, however, only such a decision could have saved his legacy and advanced the noble values he believed in. Only that decision could have led to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
If Obama had decided three years ago to impose a political-economic siege on Tehran, he would have changed the course of history. The Roosevelt of the 21st century would have prevented regional chaos, a worldwide nuclear arms race and an American decline. Yesterday, immediately after television networks announced the sweeping Republican victory of November 2012, close friends gathered around the outgoing president. They found him sad but sober. Obama had no doubts: Had he known at the beginning of his term what he knows now, he would have made a different strategic decision about Iran's nuclear program. If only it were possible to go back, the pensive president told his humbled chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. If only he could have made a different decision in the summer of 2009"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081979.html
Monday, April 27, 2009
A Multi-Tiered Quandry
TW: This piece was written by a Palestinian Israeli member of the Knesset. He frames the challenges Israel faces as a nation when it is trying to retain its Jewish identity without destroying its democratic and pluralistic character. It is unclear to me how they will do so. The demographics are challenging. But I am damn sure expanding their settlements into the West Bank is not the way to go.
From NYT:
"...We face discrimination in all fields of life. Arab citizens are 20 percent of the population, but only 6 percent of the employees in the public sector. Not one Arab employee is working in the central bank of Israel. Imagine if there was not one African-American citizen employed in the central bank of the United States.
Israel is simultaneously running three systems of government. The first is full democracy toward its Jewish citizens — ethnocracy. The second is racial discrimination toward the Palestinian minority — creeping Jim Crowism. And the third is occupation of the Palestinian territories with one set of laws for Palestinians and another for Jewish settlers — apartheid.
A few weeks ago, Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu Party led the charge in the Israeli Knesset to ban my party — the Arab Movement for Renewal — from participating in the elections. Netanyahu’s Likud also supported the action. The Supreme Court overturned the maneuvers of the politicians. But their attempt to ban our participation should expose Israel’s democracy to the world as fraudulent."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07iht-edtibi.html?_r=1&sq=ahmad%20tibi&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1240762118-1r1e9kMLTLrtjf9tShO4lQ
From NYT:
"...We face discrimination in all fields of life. Arab citizens are 20 percent of the population, but only 6 percent of the employees in the public sector. Not one Arab employee is working in the central bank of Israel. Imagine if there was not one African-American citizen employed in the central bank of the United States.
Israel is simultaneously running three systems of government. The first is full democracy toward its Jewish citizens — ethnocracy. The second is racial discrimination toward the Palestinian minority — creeping Jim Crowism. And the third is occupation of the Palestinian territories with one set of laws for Palestinians and another for Jewish settlers — apartheid.
A few weeks ago, Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu Party led the charge in the Israeli Knesset to ban my party — the Arab Movement for Renewal — from participating in the elections. Netanyahu’s Likud also supported the action. The Supreme Court overturned the maneuvers of the politicians. But their attempt to ban our participation should expose Israel’s democracy to the world as fraudulent."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07iht-edtibi.html?_r=1&sq=ahmad%20tibi&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1240762118-1r1e9kMLTLrtjf9tShO4lQ
Monday, March 16, 2009
When the Radicals Take Power
TW: The Israelis are still tyring to form a government out of last month's election. It appears that the right wing Likud has reached agreement with the far right wing Yisreal Beytenu party to form a government although together they do not have sufficient votes to form a majority government. They will need additional allies. Part of the problem in forming a government is that 11 of the 120 Knesset seats are held by Arab Israeli parties, but Arab Israelis are by tradition unable to participate in the governing coalitions. Hence the Jewish Israelis are left to form a 60 seat super-majority from only 109 seats.
The ascent of the far right Yisreal Beytenu led by Avi Lieberman has tremendous implications. Lieberman while fiercely secular, unlike some of the other smaller right wing religious parties, is very open with its disdain for the Arab Israeli portion of Israel's population.
How Israel either integrates or as Lieberman proposes expels its Arab-Israeli population (20% of the total population and growing) will be a huge test for Israeli democracy and the region. Lieberman is tentatively slated to assume the foreign minister role within a Likud government. That would be interesting.
From Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek:
"...Israel's latest election was historic. It marked the collapse of Labor, the party that can plausibly claim to have founded Israel and produced its most celebrated prime ministers, from David Ben-Gurion (as head of Labor's predecessor, Mapai), through Golda Meir to Yitzhak Rabin. The last vestige of old Labor is Shimon Peres, who—with fitting irony—is the country's president only because he quit the party. Israel's political spectrum is now dominated by three right-wing groups: Likud, Kadima (the Likud offshoot founded by Ariel Sharon) and Yisrael Beytenu, a party of Russian immigrants... an existential question is growing within the heart of Israel.
It's a question posed by the election's biggest winner: Avigdor Lieberman. His Yisrael Beytenu party won 15 seats, placing third but gaining enormous swing power in the Israeli system...As fiercely as he denounces the Palestinian militants of Hamas and Hizbullah, his No. 1 target is Israel's Arab minority, which he has called a worse threat than Hamas. He has proposed the effective expulsion of several hundred thousand Arab citizens by unilaterally redesignating some northern Israeli towns as parts of the Palestinian West Bank. Another group of several hundred thousand could expect to be stripped of citizenship for failing to meet requirements such as loyalty oaths or mandatory military service (from which Israel's Arabs are currently exempt). The New Republic's Martin Peretz, a passionate Zionist and critic of the peace movement, calls Lieberman a "neo-fascist … a certified gangster … the Israeli equivalent of [Austria's] Jörg Haider." No liberal democracy I know of since World War II has disenfranchised or expelled its own citizens.
Today's Arab Israelis are descendants of roughly 160,000 Arabs who stayed in the lands that became Israel in 1948. Their number now stands at 1.3 million, 20 percent of Israel's total population, and demographers predict that by 2025 they'll be a quarter of the country's people. Aside from their military exemption, they have the same legal rights and obligations as all other Israeli citizens. But they face discrimination in many aspects of life, including immigration, land ownership, education and employment. "This inequality has been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, has been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions, and has also found expression in reports by the state comptroller and in other official documents," retired High Court justice Theodor Or concluded in an official investigation of the second intifada. "Although the Jewish majority's awareness of this discrimination is often quite low, it plays a central role in the sensibilities and attitudes of Arab citizens. This discrimination is widely accepted … as a chief cause of agitation."
The antipathy is mutual. "The people who stayed here did not immigrate here, this is our country," declared Azmi Bishara, a former Arab member of the Knesset, after being charged with sedition for his expressions of support for Hizbullah. "That is why you cannot deal with us on issues of loyalty. This state came here and was enforced on the ruins of my nation. I accepted citizenship to be able to live here, and I will not do anything, security-wise, against the state. I am not going to conspire against the state, but you cannot ask me every day if I am loyal to the state. Citizenship demands from me to be loyal to the law, but not to the values or ideologies of the state. It is enough to be loyal to the law." For decades Israel's Arabs remained loyal to the law—and loyal to the country during its many wars with its neighbors. Now that loyalty is waning. Israeli Arabs—even those who are Christian, rather than Muslim—no longer vote for Israel's mainstream parties. Despite low turnout, the Arab parties fared well in this election, winning some 11 seats in the Knesset. The Arab parties have never been invited into the government, which limits the influence of the Arab population in Israeli politics.
...Lieberman's call to disown them seems to have resonated with many of his fellow Israelis. Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that Israel's Arabs constitute a demographic time bomb. He calls it unacceptable. Benny Morris, the once dovish historian who chronicled the forced expulsion of most Palestinians from the Jewish state in 1948, has turned to arguing that Israel needs to protect itself from the Arabs now living within its borders. "They are a potential fifth column," he warned five years ago in an interview with Haaretz. "In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state ... If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified." It's a dangerous spiral: the worse the distrust gets, the less loyalty Israel's Arabs feel toward their country—and vice versa. Last week's election has brought the issue into the open. Its resolution will define the future of Israel as a country, as a Jewish state, and as a democracy."
The ascent of the far right Yisreal Beytenu led by Avi Lieberman has tremendous implications. Lieberman while fiercely secular, unlike some of the other smaller right wing religious parties, is very open with its disdain for the Arab Israeli portion of Israel's population.
How Israel either integrates or as Lieberman proposes expels its Arab-Israeli population (20% of the total population and growing) will be a huge test for Israeli democracy and the region. Lieberman is tentatively slated to assume the foreign minister role within a Likud government. That would be interesting.
From Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek:
"...Israel's latest election was historic. It marked the collapse of Labor, the party that can plausibly claim to have founded Israel and produced its most celebrated prime ministers, from David Ben-Gurion (as head of Labor's predecessor, Mapai), through Golda Meir to Yitzhak Rabin. The last vestige of old Labor is Shimon Peres, who—with fitting irony—is the country's president only because he quit the party. Israel's political spectrum is now dominated by three right-wing groups: Likud, Kadima (the Likud offshoot founded by Ariel Sharon) and Yisrael Beytenu, a party of Russian immigrants... an existential question is growing within the heart of Israel.
It's a question posed by the election's biggest winner: Avigdor Lieberman. His Yisrael Beytenu party won 15 seats, placing third but gaining enormous swing power in the Israeli system...As fiercely as he denounces the Palestinian militants of Hamas and Hizbullah, his No. 1 target is Israel's Arab minority, which he has called a worse threat than Hamas. He has proposed the effective expulsion of several hundred thousand Arab citizens by unilaterally redesignating some northern Israeli towns as parts of the Palestinian West Bank. Another group of several hundred thousand could expect to be stripped of citizenship for failing to meet requirements such as loyalty oaths or mandatory military service (from which Israel's Arabs are currently exempt). The New Republic's Martin Peretz, a passionate Zionist and critic of the peace movement, calls Lieberman a "neo-fascist … a certified gangster … the Israeli equivalent of [Austria's] Jörg Haider." No liberal democracy I know of since World War II has disenfranchised or expelled its own citizens.
Today's Arab Israelis are descendants of roughly 160,000 Arabs who stayed in the lands that became Israel in 1948. Their number now stands at 1.3 million, 20 percent of Israel's total population, and demographers predict that by 2025 they'll be a quarter of the country's people. Aside from their military exemption, they have the same legal rights and obligations as all other Israeli citizens. But they face discrimination in many aspects of life, including immigration, land ownership, education and employment. "This inequality has been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, has been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions, and has also found expression in reports by the state comptroller and in other official documents," retired High Court justice Theodor Or concluded in an official investigation of the second intifada. "Although the Jewish majority's awareness of this discrimination is often quite low, it plays a central role in the sensibilities and attitudes of Arab citizens. This discrimination is widely accepted … as a chief cause of agitation."
The antipathy is mutual. "The people who stayed here did not immigrate here, this is our country," declared Azmi Bishara, a former Arab member of the Knesset, after being charged with sedition for his expressions of support for Hizbullah. "That is why you cannot deal with us on issues of loyalty. This state came here and was enforced on the ruins of my nation. I accepted citizenship to be able to live here, and I will not do anything, security-wise, against the state. I am not going to conspire against the state, but you cannot ask me every day if I am loyal to the state. Citizenship demands from me to be loyal to the law, but not to the values or ideologies of the state. It is enough to be loyal to the law." For decades Israel's Arabs remained loyal to the law—and loyal to the country during its many wars with its neighbors. Now that loyalty is waning. Israeli Arabs—even those who are Christian, rather than Muslim—no longer vote for Israel's mainstream parties. Despite low turnout, the Arab parties fared well in this election, winning some 11 seats in the Knesset. The Arab parties have never been invited into the government, which limits the influence of the Arab population in Israeli politics.
...Lieberman's call to disown them seems to have resonated with many of his fellow Israelis. Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that Israel's Arabs constitute a demographic time bomb. He calls it unacceptable. Benny Morris, the once dovish historian who chronicled the forced expulsion of most Palestinians from the Jewish state in 1948, has turned to arguing that Israel needs to protect itself from the Arabs now living within its borders. "They are a potential fifth column," he warned five years ago in an interview with Haaretz. "In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state ... If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified." It's a dangerous spiral: the worse the distrust gets, the less loyalty Israel's Arabs feel toward their country—and vice versa. Last week's election has brought the issue into the open. Its resolution will define the future of Israel as a country, as a Jewish state, and as a democracy."
Sunday, March 15, 2009
A Beacon Of Hope In the West Bank
TW: Certainly signs of hope are too few in the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, but they exist. This one is particularly relevant as it relates to the oft discussed, little followed and depressingly challenging task of nation building. The U.S. has been funding the development of an indigenous West Bank Palestinian security force in cooperation with the Israelis, Jordanians and other outside representatives. It appears to be bearing fruit.
From the Int'l Herald Tribune:
"..."These guys [the Palestinian security force] now feel like they're on a winning team, that they are building a Palestinian state," said Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, the American who has been overseeing the training of Palestinian forces, as he watched exercises on Thursday. "And I wouldn't stay if I didn't think they were going to do it. I have complete confidence in the Palestinian leadership, and I'm convinced the new administration is serious about this."
...But for much of the past year, the Palestinian security forces have trained and increased their role as if all remained on track. Some 1,600 have been through American-financed courses in Jordan. In coordination with Israeli defense officials, Palestinian troops and police officers have taken over much of the patrolling in the West Bank cities of Jenin, Nablus, Bethlehem and parts of Hebron.
Last month, as Israel carried out a war in Hamas-ruled Gaza, some in the Muslim world called on the West Bank to stage a violent uprising in protest. But while there were demonstrations, no such uprising occurred, partly because the Palestinian Authority troops maintained tight order.
...Dayton was due to end his three-year assignment, but Mitchell asked him to stay on for two more years and he has agreed. His decision has been greeted with something approaching jubilation in these camps, where the commanders have come to trust him and to view Washington, through him, as a true ally.
...Dayton is one of the few military men who ply a path between the Palestinian and Israeli officers on a daily basis. He is diplomatic when asked about the tensions.
But his commitment to helping the Palestinians build a responsible and serious security force is enormous. He hopes to have a well-trained battalion based in each of eight West Bank cities when he is through...."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/27/africa/27palestinians.php
From the Int'l Herald Tribune:
"..."These guys [the Palestinian security force] now feel like they're on a winning team, that they are building a Palestinian state," said Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, the American who has been overseeing the training of Palestinian forces, as he watched exercises on Thursday. "And I wouldn't stay if I didn't think they were going to do it. I have complete confidence in the Palestinian leadership, and I'm convinced the new administration is serious about this."
...But for much of the past year, the Palestinian security forces have trained and increased their role as if all remained on track. Some 1,600 have been through American-financed courses in Jordan. In coordination with Israeli defense officials, Palestinian troops and police officers have taken over much of the patrolling in the West Bank cities of Jenin, Nablus, Bethlehem and parts of Hebron.
Last month, as Israel carried out a war in Hamas-ruled Gaza, some in the Muslim world called on the West Bank to stage a violent uprising in protest. But while there were demonstrations, no such uprising occurred, partly because the Palestinian Authority troops maintained tight order.
...Dayton was due to end his three-year assignment, but Mitchell asked him to stay on for two more years and he has agreed. His decision has been greeted with something approaching jubilation in these camps, where the commanders have come to trust him and to view Washington, through him, as a true ally.
...Dayton is one of the few military men who ply a path between the Palestinian and Israeli officers on a daily basis. He is diplomatic when asked about the tensions.
But his commitment to helping the Palestinians build a responsible and serious security force is enormous. He hopes to have a well-trained battalion based in each of eight West Bank cities when he is through...."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/27/africa/27palestinians.php
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
This One Has Me Pissed
TW: And in a bi-partisan way, while the Republicans certainly did not help the Dems were right there skunking it. Perhaps you had seen something (probably not) on Obama's nominee to head up the obscure National Intelligence Council, Chas Freeman. Freeman's sin, he is not an unabashed proponent of the U.S. Israeli lobby (he also made comments about Tiannamen Square but that was mere fluff to legitimize the "pro-Arab" charges). For the sake of argument lets assume he was biased in favor of "Arabs" that would make the score one for them and one hundred on the biased pro-Israeli side. This stuff is un-American to me.
If we cannot accept non-lockstep pro-Israelis in our government then much of the criticism of the U.S. as an unreliable broker in the Middle East gains credence. We have accused spies for Israel participating in the debate in the U.S. for chrissakes, they are a foreign nation. No other country (not the UK, not France, not Mexico) could get away with these kind of acts.
We are not talking about a person who was going to be the boss and decision-maker, he was merely going to be a voice at the table. We cannot apparently even have that amidst our monolithic intelligence staff. Disgraceful.
From Economist:
"...The swift fall of Mr Freeman was proof, if more was needed, of the power that stateside allies of Israel still wield. The drumbeat began, at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, with a blog post written by Steve Rosen—a former staffer for the American-Israeli Political Action Committee who is accused of espionage...To some, Mr Freeman was seen as a poor candidate for the job. But it seems that everyone who knew him, as opposed to those who simply claimed to know his views (and biases), regarded him as an astute individual with a sharp, analytical mind. One former profiler described him as a "one-man destroyer of groupthink". What more could you want out of an intelligence official? Ah, right, that question has been answered: a "conventional" (read pro-Israel) view of the Arab-Israeli conflict."
From Andrew Sullivan:
"What Real Power In Washington Means:
You get to dictate to a president who he can and cannot appoint to his own intelligence staff. This was not a Senate-confirmation issue. And it was not because of some financial or tax issue. It was because of what he believed. And a president is simply not allowed to have that kind of diversity of view in his administration. And he knows this is a battle he shouldn't fight."
And:
"...Obama may bring change in many areas, but there is no possibility of change on the Israel-Palestine question. Having the kind of debate in America that they have in Israel, let alone Europe, on the way ahead in the Middle East is simply forbidden. Even if a president wants to have differing sources of advice on many questions, the Congress will prevent any actual, genuinely open debate on Israel. More to the point: the Obama peeps never defended Freeman. They were too scared. The fact that Obama blinked means no one else in Washington will ever dare to go through the hazing that Freeman endured. And so the chilling effect is as real as it is deliberate.
When Obama told us that the resistance to change would not end at the election but continue every day after, he was right. But he never fought this one. He's shrewder than I am."
If we cannot accept non-lockstep pro-Israelis in our government then much of the criticism of the U.S. as an unreliable broker in the Middle East gains credence. We have accused spies for Israel participating in the debate in the U.S. for chrissakes, they are a foreign nation. No other country (not the UK, not France, not Mexico) could get away with these kind of acts.
We are not talking about a person who was going to be the boss and decision-maker, he was merely going to be a voice at the table. We cannot apparently even have that amidst our monolithic intelligence staff. Disgraceful.
From Economist:
"...The swift fall of Mr Freeman was proof, if more was needed, of the power that stateside allies of Israel still wield. The drumbeat began, at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, with a blog post written by Steve Rosen—a former staffer for the American-Israeli Political Action Committee who is accused of espionage...To some, Mr Freeman was seen as a poor candidate for the job. But it seems that everyone who knew him, as opposed to those who simply claimed to know his views (and biases), regarded him as an astute individual with a sharp, analytical mind. One former profiler described him as a "one-man destroyer of groupthink". What more could you want out of an intelligence official? Ah, right, that question has been answered: a "conventional" (read pro-Israel) view of the Arab-Israeli conflict."
From Andrew Sullivan:
"What Real Power In Washington Means:
You get to dictate to a president who he can and cannot appoint to his own intelligence staff. This was not a Senate-confirmation issue. And it was not because of some financial or tax issue. It was because of what he believed. And a president is simply not allowed to have that kind of diversity of view in his administration. And he knows this is a battle he shouldn't fight."
And:
"...Obama may bring change in many areas, but there is no possibility of change on the Israel-Palestine question. Having the kind of debate in America that they have in Israel, let alone Europe, on the way ahead in the Middle East is simply forbidden. Even if a president wants to have differing sources of advice on many questions, the Congress will prevent any actual, genuinely open debate on Israel. More to the point: the Obama peeps never defended Freeman. They were too scared. The fact that Obama blinked means no one else in Washington will ever dare to go through the hazing that Freeman endured. And so the chilling effect is as real as it is deliberate.
When Obama told us that the resistance to change would not end at the election but continue every day after, he was right. But he never fought this one. He's shrewder than I am."
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Why Do They Keep Expanding the Settlements
TW: Israel lives in a very tough neighborhood. Israel is a great nation. Israel uses heavy force to protect its nation, a difficult but usually necessary effort.
But there is one thing they do that makes no sense to me, expanding their colonization of the West Bank. To me it undercuts their moral authority and until and unless they cease the expansion and take steps to reduce their footprint, then any peace talks are merely cynical delay tactics to appease the U.S. and Europeans. American Presidents have been utterly ineffective in stopping the colonization, I wish it were not so.
From WaPo:
"Israel has taken control of a large chunk of land near a prominent West Bank settlement, paving the way for the possible construction of 2,500 settlement homes, officials said Monday, in a new challenge to Mideast peacemaking.
Successive Israeli governments have broken promises to the United States to halt settlement expansion, defined by Washington as an obstacle to peace. Ongoing expansion is likely to create friction not only with the Palestinians, but with President Barack Obama, whose Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, has long pushed for a settlement freeze.
...Nearly 290,000 Israelis live in West Bank settlements today, or 95,000 more than in May 2001 when Mitchell first called for a settlement freeze...."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/16/AR2009021600624.html?wprss=rss_world%2Fwires
But there is one thing they do that makes no sense to me, expanding their colonization of the West Bank. To me it undercuts their moral authority and until and unless they cease the expansion and take steps to reduce their footprint, then any peace talks are merely cynical delay tactics to appease the U.S. and Europeans. American Presidents have been utterly ineffective in stopping the colonization, I wish it were not so.
From WaPo:
"Israel has taken control of a large chunk of land near a prominent West Bank settlement, paving the way for the possible construction of 2,500 settlement homes, officials said Monday, in a new challenge to Mideast peacemaking.
Successive Israeli governments have broken promises to the United States to halt settlement expansion, defined by Washington as an obstacle to peace. Ongoing expansion is likely to create friction not only with the Palestinians, but with President Barack Obama, whose Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, has long pushed for a settlement freeze.
...Nearly 290,000 Israelis live in West Bank settlements today, or 95,000 more than in May 2001 when Mitchell first called for a settlement freeze...."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/16/AR2009021600624.html?wprss=rss_world%2Fwires
Monday, February 16, 2009
Framing the Issue To Solve the Problem
TW: This piece focuses on how to achieve settlements for intractable problems by re-framing the negotiation parameters to focus less on tangible trade-offs and more on extracting intangible apologies from both sides. They use the big kahuna of intractability, Israel-Palestine. It is somewhat subtle but if one ponders for a moment it brings you back to kindergarten level dispute resolution and as I always say, we progress little after kindergarten only with more money and bigger means to create havoc.
From Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...Across the world, people believe that devotion to sacred or core values that incorporate moral beliefs - like the welfare of family and country, or commitment to religion and honor - are, or ought to be, absolute and inviolable. Our studies...suggest that people will reject material compensation for dropping their commitment to sacred values and will defend those values regardless of the costs.
...All those surveyed responded to the same set of deals. First they would be given a straight-up offer in which each side would make difficult concessions in exchange for peace, next they were given a scenario in which their side was granted an additional material incentive, and last came a proposal in which the other side agreed to a symbolic sacrifice of one of its sacred values.
For example, a typical set of trade-offs offered to a Palestinian might begin with this premise: Suppose the UN organized a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians under which Palestinians would be required to give up their right to return to their homes in Israel and there would be two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Second, we would sweeten the pot: In return, Western nations would give the Palestinian state $10 billion a year for 100 years. Then the symbolic concession: For its part, Israel would officially apologize for the displacement of civilians in the 1948 war.
Almost everyone we surveyed rejected the initial solutions we offered - ideas that are accepted as common sense among most Westerners, like simply trading land for peace or accepting shared sovereignty over Jerusalem. Why the opposition?
Many of the respondents insisted that the values involved were sacred to them. For example, nearly half the Israeli settlers we surveyed said they would not consider trading any land in the West Bank - territory they believe was granted them by God - in exchange for peace. More than half the Palestinians considered full sovereignty over Jerusalem in the same light, and more than four-fifths felt that the "right of return" was a sacred value, too.
In general the greater the monetary incentive involved in the deal, the greater the disgust from respondents. This strongly implies that using the standard approaches of "businesslike negotiations" favored by Western diplomats will only backfire.
Many Westerners seem to ignore these clearly expressed "irrational" preferences, because in a sensible world they ought not to exist. Diplomats hope that peace and progress on material and quality-of-life matters will eventually make people forget the more heartfelt issues. But this is only a recipe for another Hundred Years' War - progress on everyday material matters will simply heighten attention on value-laden issues of "who we are and want to be."
...Absolutists who violently rejected offers of money or peace for sacred land were considerably more inclined to accept deals that involved their enemies making symbolic but difficult gestures. For example, Palestinian hard-liners were more willing to consider recognizing the right of Israel to exist if the Israelis simply offered an official apology for Palestinian suffering in the 1948 war.
Similarly, Israeli respondents said they could live with a partition of Jerusalem and borders very close to those that existed before the 1967 war if Hamas and the other major Palestinian groups explicitly recognized Israel's right to exist.
...Making these sorts of wholly intangible "symbolic" concessions, like an apology or recognition of a right to exist, simply doesn't compute on any utilitarian calculus. And yet the science says they may be the best way to start cutting the knot."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/26/opinion/edatran.php
From Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...Across the world, people believe that devotion to sacred or core values that incorporate moral beliefs - like the welfare of family and country, or commitment to religion and honor - are, or ought to be, absolute and inviolable. Our studies...suggest that people will reject material compensation for dropping their commitment to sacred values and will defend those values regardless of the costs.
...All those surveyed responded to the same set of deals. First they would be given a straight-up offer in which each side would make difficult concessions in exchange for peace, next they were given a scenario in which their side was granted an additional material incentive, and last came a proposal in which the other side agreed to a symbolic sacrifice of one of its sacred values.
For example, a typical set of trade-offs offered to a Palestinian might begin with this premise: Suppose the UN organized a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians under which Palestinians would be required to give up their right to return to their homes in Israel and there would be two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Second, we would sweeten the pot: In return, Western nations would give the Palestinian state $10 billion a year for 100 years. Then the symbolic concession: For its part, Israel would officially apologize for the displacement of civilians in the 1948 war.
Almost everyone we surveyed rejected the initial solutions we offered - ideas that are accepted as common sense among most Westerners, like simply trading land for peace or accepting shared sovereignty over Jerusalem. Why the opposition?
Many of the respondents insisted that the values involved were sacred to them. For example, nearly half the Israeli settlers we surveyed said they would not consider trading any land in the West Bank - territory they believe was granted them by God - in exchange for peace. More than half the Palestinians considered full sovereignty over Jerusalem in the same light, and more than four-fifths felt that the "right of return" was a sacred value, too.
In general the greater the monetary incentive involved in the deal, the greater the disgust from respondents. This strongly implies that using the standard approaches of "businesslike negotiations" favored by Western diplomats will only backfire.
Many Westerners seem to ignore these clearly expressed "irrational" preferences, because in a sensible world they ought not to exist. Diplomats hope that peace and progress on material and quality-of-life matters will eventually make people forget the more heartfelt issues. But this is only a recipe for another Hundred Years' War - progress on everyday material matters will simply heighten attention on value-laden issues of "who we are and want to be."
...Absolutists who violently rejected offers of money or peace for sacred land were considerably more inclined to accept deals that involved their enemies making symbolic but difficult gestures. For example, Palestinian hard-liners were more willing to consider recognizing the right of Israel to exist if the Israelis simply offered an official apology for Palestinian suffering in the 1948 war.
Similarly, Israeli respondents said they could live with a partition of Jerusalem and borders very close to those that existed before the 1967 war if Hamas and the other major Palestinian groups explicitly recognized Israel's right to exist.
...Making these sorts of wholly intangible "symbolic" concessions, like an apology or recognition of a right to exist, simply doesn't compute on any utilitarian calculus. And yet the science says they may be the best way to start cutting the knot."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/26/opinion/edatran.php
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Israeli Election: Astride the Precipice
TW: As we collectively stare at our own navels with the stimulus kerfuffle and on-going economic crisis, the rest of the world also lives. Next Tuesday Israel holds its national election. The right-wing Likud led by Netanyahu is currently favored but even if he wins a plurality he will need coalition partners. One of his potential partners is even further right-wing. Here is to hoping Kadima and Labor fare better than forecast or at least Netanyahu does not head down the path of joining up with Yisreal Beitanu.
Note the reference to our treatment of the Japanese during WWII, we are frequently the moral standard, a lesson we should always keep in mind.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...The New Republic warn[s] about the apparent strength of Avi Lieberman's demi-racist anti-Arab Yisrael Beitanu ("Israel is our Home") party in the coming elections:
Lieberman has focused much of his campaign inciting public anger against Israel's Arab minority. He accuses Israeli-Arab lawmakers of harboring Hamas sympathies, and has called for the parties to be banned from running in the election. His campaign ads show Israeli-Arab students demonstrating against the Gaza war as a narrator ominously intones, "We won't forget that, during the Gaza conflict, there were those among us who stood with Hamas." As for the Gaza operation itself, Lieberman has denounced the cease-fire as a sell-out of the military. His preferred strategy is total war against the Gazan population: "We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II."
If, as seems likely, Binyamin Netanyahu and the Likud Party wins the election next Tuesday, this will be a real test. Netanyahu will have to build a coalition to govern--does he include Yisrael Beitanu? Or does he take a more centrist, and traditional path, by including Kadima (Ariel Sharon's old party, led by Tzipi Livni) and Labor (led by Ehud Barak, who should remain as Defense Minister). If Netanyahu goes the radical route, it has to be seen as an extremely provocative, xenophobic (and perhaps racist) move. The U.S. should express deep concern and disapproval. In fact, the U.S. should be sending a clear message that no matter the makeup of the new government, the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has to end immediately. With no exceptions."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/05/an-israeli-electoral-embarrassment/
Note the reference to our treatment of the Japanese during WWII, we are frequently the moral standard, a lesson we should always keep in mind.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...The New Republic warn[s] about the apparent strength of Avi Lieberman's demi-racist anti-Arab Yisrael Beitanu ("Israel is our Home") party in the coming elections:
Lieberman has focused much of his campaign inciting public anger against Israel's Arab minority. He accuses Israeli-Arab lawmakers of harboring Hamas sympathies, and has called for the parties to be banned from running in the election. His campaign ads show Israeli-Arab students demonstrating against the Gaza war as a narrator ominously intones, "We won't forget that, during the Gaza conflict, there were those among us who stood with Hamas." As for the Gaza operation itself, Lieberman has denounced the cease-fire as a sell-out of the military. His preferred strategy is total war against the Gazan population: "We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II."
If, as seems likely, Binyamin Netanyahu and the Likud Party wins the election next Tuesday, this will be a real test. Netanyahu will have to build a coalition to govern--does he include Yisrael Beitanu? Or does he take a more centrist, and traditional path, by including Kadima (Ariel Sharon's old party, led by Tzipi Livni) and Labor (led by Ehud Barak, who should remain as Defense Minister). If Netanyahu goes the radical route, it has to be seen as an extremely provocative, xenophobic (and perhaps racist) move. The U.S. should express deep concern and disapproval. In fact, the U.S. should be sending a clear message that no matter the makeup of the new government, the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has to end immediately. With no exceptions."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/05/an-israeli-electoral-embarrassment/
Sunday, February 1, 2009
What Happens When Likud Assumes Power In Israel?
TW: The Israelis hold their national election on Feb 10. Ben Netanyahu is the favorite to win, increasingly so since the Gaza War. Netanyahu and the right wing Likud promise "tough" measures with Iran, are very cool to actually setting up an independent Palestinian state but warm to expanding Israeli settlements on the West Bank. As I have posted previously this continues the collision course into which Israel and by association the U.S. are being driven. Netanyahu btw might be the moderate in the coalition, his potential partner Avi Lieberman is even more strident, bellicose and adamant about never leaving the West Bank.
From Chicago Tribune:
"..."I'm [Netanyahu] sorry to say we haven't gotten the job done," the former prime minister, known for his hawkish views on peace talks, said in a radio interview Thursday. "It is clear that Hamas is rearming, clearly it is hitting us, clearly it is testing us. The next government will have no choice but to finish the job and uproot ... the Iranian terror base."
...The war appears to have most benefited rightist politicians who had no part in the military campaign, while the candidates who took a leading role in guiding it, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, lag behind. The two have supported continued peace negotiations.In the wake of the fighting, security is dominating the national conversation and has redefined the election race, where Netanyahu's Likud has maintained its edge and the far-right Yisrael Beitenu party, led by legislator Avigdor Lieberman, is surging in popularity, according to the latest opinion polls.
...Lieberman advocates a tough line toward Israel's Arab citizens and has been outspoken about the threat from Iran. A resident of a settlement in the West Bank, he pulled his party out of the governing coalition a year ago when Israel restarted negotiations with the Palestinians.
...A sign of the potential for friction was a statement this week by Netanyahu that as prime minister he would allow Israeli settlements in the West Bank to grow as their population expands."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-israel-netanyahu_bdfeb01,0,7400262.story
From Chicago Tribune:
"..."I'm [Netanyahu] sorry to say we haven't gotten the job done," the former prime minister, known for his hawkish views on peace talks, said in a radio interview Thursday. "It is clear that Hamas is rearming, clearly it is hitting us, clearly it is testing us. The next government will have no choice but to finish the job and uproot ... the Iranian terror base."
...The war appears to have most benefited rightist politicians who had no part in the military campaign, while the candidates who took a leading role in guiding it, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, lag behind. The two have supported continued peace negotiations.In the wake of the fighting, security is dominating the national conversation and has redefined the election race, where Netanyahu's Likud has maintained its edge and the far-right Yisrael Beitenu party, led by legislator Avigdor Lieberman, is surging in popularity, according to the latest opinion polls.
...Lieberman advocates a tough line toward Israel's Arab citizens and has been outspoken about the threat from Iran. A resident of a settlement in the West Bank, he pulled his party out of the governing coalition a year ago when Israel restarted negotiations with the Palestinians.
...A sign of the potential for friction was a statement this week by Netanyahu that as prime minister he would allow Israeli settlements in the West Bank to grow as their population expands."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-israel-netanyahu_bdfeb01,0,7400262.story
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Spiraling Away From a Two State Solution
TW: Friedman nicely frames the emerging train wreck in Israel/Palestine. Palestinians are developing the capability through longer and longer range rockets to truly harm Israel. If the Palestinians continue to grow this capability then Israel will inevitably and understandably respond with strong force. Meanwhile Jewish settlements inside the West Bank continue to grow and develop tentacles which will become increasingly difficult to reverse. Palestinians lobbing deadly and highly disruptive rockets into Israel and Israelis growing their footprint inside Palestine are two cars headed towards a very bad collision
From Friedman at NYT:
"...We’re getting perilously close to closing the window on a two-state solution, because the two chief window-closers — Hamas in Gaza and the fanatical Jewish settlers in the West Bank — have been in the driver’s seats. Hamas is busy making a two-state solution inconceivable, while the settlers have steadily worked to make it impossible.
If Hamas continues to obtain and use longer- and longer-range rockets, there is no way any Israeli government can or will tolerate independent Palestinian control of the West Bank, because a rocket from there can easily close the Tel Aviv airport and shut down Israel’s economy.
And if the Jewish settlers continue with their “natural growth” to devour the West Bank, it will also be effectively off the table. No Israeli government has mustered the will to take down even the “illegal,” unauthorized settlements, despite promises to the U.S. to do so, so it’s getting hard to see how the “legal” settlements will ever be removed. What is needed from Israel’s Feb. 10 elections is a centrist, national unity government that can resist the blackmail of the settlers, and the rightist parties that protect them, to still implement a two-state solution.
...What makes it so challenging for the new Obama team is that Mideast diplomacy has been transformed as a result of the regional disintegration since Oslo — in three key ways.
First, in the old days, Henry Kissinger could fly to three capitals, meet three kings, presidents or prime ministers and strike a deal that could hold. No more. Today a peacemaker has to be both a nation-builder and a negotiator.
The Palestinians are so fragmented politically and geographically that half of U.S. diplomacy is going to be about how to make peace between Palestinians, and build their institutions, so there is a coherent, legitimate decision-making body there — before we can make peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Second, Hamas now has a veto over any Palestinian peace deal. It’s true that Hamas just provoked a reckless war that has devastated the people of Gaza. But Hamas is not going away. It is well armed and, despite its suicidal behavior of late, deeply rooted.
The Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank will not make any compromise deal with Israel as long as it fears that Hamas, from outside the tent, would denounce it as traitorous. Therefore, Job 2 for the U.S., Israel and the Arab states is to find a way to bring Hamas into a Palestinian national unity government.
As the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen says, “It is not enough for Israel that the world recognize that Hamas criminally mismanaged its responsibility to its people. Israel’s longer-term interest is to be sure that it has a Palestinian partner for negotiations, which will have sufficient legitimacy among its own people to be able to sign agreements and fulfill them. Without Hamas as part of a Palestinian decision, any Israeli-Palestinian peace will be meaningless.”
But bringing Hamas into a Palestinian unity government, without undermining the West Bank moderates now leading the Palestinian Authority, will be tricky. We’ll need Saudi Arabia and Egypt to buy, cajole and pressure Hamas into keeping the cease-fire, supporting peace talks and to give up rockets — while Iran and Syria will be tugging Hamas the other way.
And that leads to the third new factor — Iran as a key player in Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy. The Clinton team tried to woo Syria while isolating Iran. President Bush tried to isolate both Iran and Syria. The Obama team, as Martin Indyk argues in “Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East,” “needs to try both to bring in Syria, which would weaken Hamas and Hezbollah, while also engaging Iran.”
So, just to recap: It’s five to midnight and before the clock strikes 12 all we need to do is rebuild Fatah, merge it with Hamas, elect an Israeli government that can freeze settlements, court Syria and engage Iran — while preventing it from going nuclear — just so we can get the parties to start talking. Whoever lines up all the pieces of this diplomatic Rubik’s Cube deserves two Nobel Prizes. "
http://tinyurl.com/am4s5j
From Friedman at NYT:
"...We’re getting perilously close to closing the window on a two-state solution, because the two chief window-closers — Hamas in Gaza and the fanatical Jewish settlers in the West Bank — have been in the driver’s seats. Hamas is busy making a two-state solution inconceivable, while the settlers have steadily worked to make it impossible.
If Hamas continues to obtain and use longer- and longer-range rockets, there is no way any Israeli government can or will tolerate independent Palestinian control of the West Bank, because a rocket from there can easily close the Tel Aviv airport and shut down Israel’s economy.
And if the Jewish settlers continue with their “natural growth” to devour the West Bank, it will also be effectively off the table. No Israeli government has mustered the will to take down even the “illegal,” unauthorized settlements, despite promises to the U.S. to do so, so it’s getting hard to see how the “legal” settlements will ever be removed. What is needed from Israel’s Feb. 10 elections is a centrist, national unity government that can resist the blackmail of the settlers, and the rightist parties that protect them, to still implement a two-state solution.
...What makes it so challenging for the new Obama team is that Mideast diplomacy has been transformed as a result of the regional disintegration since Oslo — in three key ways.
First, in the old days, Henry Kissinger could fly to three capitals, meet three kings, presidents or prime ministers and strike a deal that could hold. No more. Today a peacemaker has to be both a nation-builder and a negotiator.
The Palestinians are so fragmented politically and geographically that half of U.S. diplomacy is going to be about how to make peace between Palestinians, and build their institutions, so there is a coherent, legitimate decision-making body there — before we can make peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Second, Hamas now has a veto over any Palestinian peace deal. It’s true that Hamas just provoked a reckless war that has devastated the people of Gaza. But Hamas is not going away. It is well armed and, despite its suicidal behavior of late, deeply rooted.
The Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank will not make any compromise deal with Israel as long as it fears that Hamas, from outside the tent, would denounce it as traitorous. Therefore, Job 2 for the U.S., Israel and the Arab states is to find a way to bring Hamas into a Palestinian national unity government.
As the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen says, “It is not enough for Israel that the world recognize that Hamas criminally mismanaged its responsibility to its people. Israel’s longer-term interest is to be sure that it has a Palestinian partner for negotiations, which will have sufficient legitimacy among its own people to be able to sign agreements and fulfill them. Without Hamas as part of a Palestinian decision, any Israeli-Palestinian peace will be meaningless.”
But bringing Hamas into a Palestinian unity government, without undermining the West Bank moderates now leading the Palestinian Authority, will be tricky. We’ll need Saudi Arabia and Egypt to buy, cajole and pressure Hamas into keeping the cease-fire, supporting peace talks and to give up rockets — while Iran and Syria will be tugging Hamas the other way.
And that leads to the third new factor — Iran as a key player in Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy. The Clinton team tried to woo Syria while isolating Iran. President Bush tried to isolate both Iran and Syria. The Obama team, as Martin Indyk argues in “Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East,” “needs to try both to bring in Syria, which would weaken Hamas and Hezbollah, while also engaging Iran.”
So, just to recap: It’s five to midnight and before the clock strikes 12 all we need to do is rebuild Fatah, merge it with Hamas, elect an Israeli government that can freeze settlements, court Syria and engage Iran — while preventing it from going nuclear — just so we can get the parties to start talking. Whoever lines up all the pieces of this diplomatic Rubik’s Cube deserves two Nobel Prizes. "
http://tinyurl.com/am4s5j
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Israel Faces a Fork In the Road
Watch CBS Videos Online
TW: This 60 Minutes focuses on the West Bank settlements. These settlers are generally a very religious and strident demographic with little intention of ever leaving. If the settlers leave achieving a sustainable peace framework will be highly challenging. But unless they leave, forget about peace ever coming to Israel and Palestine.
The settlements are a cancer to the peace process which undercut the moral stature of the Israeli state. While the settlements are not the only core topic necessary for a peace settlement (right of return and Jerusalem being amongst the others), it is the least defensible attribute,, in fact largely indefensible.
The day I hear the Israelis at a minimum stopping the growth of the settlements will be the day I assume the Israelis are serious about peace until then they are hypocrites putting a huge part of our entire foreign policy at risk. When that day comes the Arabs will have had the rug pulled out from under their "woe is me" posture.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Things I Would Like To See Happen In 2009: A Balanced Approach to Israel and the Arab World
TW: Roger Cohen asks a simple question. Why is our Mideast diplomatic corps essentially void of Arab-Americans. Jewish-Americans hold prominent positions, why not Arab-Americans?
From Roger Cohen at Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...I have nothing against smart, driven, liberal, Jewish (or half-Jewish) males; I’ve looked in the mirror. I know or have talked to all these guys, except Shapiro. They’re knowledgeable, broad-minded and determined. Still, on the diversity front they fall short. On the change-you-can-believe-in front, they also leave something to be desired.
...“Do people in the region take note when Arab-Americans are not represented? Sure they do,” said Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute in Washington. “A message gets sent.”
...Change is needed, and not just in the intensity of U.S. diplomatic involvement with Israel-Palestine. Some fundamental questions must be asked.
Does regarding the Middle East almost exclusively through the prism of the war on terror make sense? Does turning a blind eye to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank that frustrate a two-state solution, and the Israeli blockade of Gaza that radicalizes its population, not undermine U.S. interest in bolstering moderate Palestinian sentiment?
Should policy not be directed toward reconciling a Palestinian movement now split between Fatah and Hamas, without which no final-status peace will be possible? Beyond their terrorist wings, in their broad grass-roots political movements, what elements of Hamas and Hezbollah can be coaxed toward the mainstream?
Do we understand the increasingly sophisticated Middle East of Al Jazeera where, as Telhami, a professor at the University of Maryland, put it to me, “People are not dumb and our credibility is at a historic near-zero?”
Asking these questions does not alter America’s commitment to Israel’s security within its pre-1967 borders, which is and should be unwavering. It does not change the unacceptability of Hamas rockets or the fact the Hamas Charter is vile. But it would signal that the damaging Bush-era consensus that Israel can do no wrong is to be challenged.
...Obama should take note, name an Arab-American and an Iranian-American to prominent roles, and beware of a team that takes him — and the region — back to the future."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/opinion/12cohen.html?_r=1&hp
From Roger Cohen at Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...I have nothing against smart, driven, liberal, Jewish (or half-Jewish) males; I’ve looked in the mirror. I know or have talked to all these guys, except Shapiro. They’re knowledgeable, broad-minded and determined. Still, on the diversity front they fall short. On the change-you-can-believe-in front, they also leave something to be desired.
...“Do people in the region take note when Arab-Americans are not represented? Sure they do,” said Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute in Washington. “A message gets sent.”
...Change is needed, and not just in the intensity of U.S. diplomatic involvement with Israel-Palestine. Some fundamental questions must be asked.
Does regarding the Middle East almost exclusively through the prism of the war on terror make sense? Does turning a blind eye to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank that frustrate a two-state solution, and the Israeli blockade of Gaza that radicalizes its population, not undermine U.S. interest in bolstering moderate Palestinian sentiment?
Should policy not be directed toward reconciling a Palestinian movement now split between Fatah and Hamas, without which no final-status peace will be possible? Beyond their terrorist wings, in their broad grass-roots political movements, what elements of Hamas and Hezbollah can be coaxed toward the mainstream?
Do we understand the increasingly sophisticated Middle East of Al Jazeera where, as Telhami, a professor at the University of Maryland, put it to me, “People are not dumb and our credibility is at a historic near-zero?”
Asking these questions does not alter America’s commitment to Israel’s security within its pre-1967 borders, which is and should be unwavering. It does not change the unacceptability of Hamas rockets or the fact the Hamas Charter is vile. But it would signal that the damaging Bush-era consensus that Israel can do no wrong is to be challenged.
...Obama should take note, name an Arab-American and an Iranian-American to prominent roles, and beware of a team that takes him — and the region — back to the future."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/opinion/12cohen.html?_r=1&hp
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Gaza Blogging
TW: I empathize in a way with McArdle's post regarding blogging on Gaza. It is a very sensitive topic which makes one pause when contemplating baring one's thoughts on the topic. This blog being more or less a friends and family audience does not really have to worry about crazy commenters but still...
From Megan McArdle from Atlantic:
"Everyone engaged in it is interested in proving that one side is righter than the other. Since no action in the region has occurred without plausible provocation for 4,000 years or so, this requires constantly shifting the metrics by which you measure whichever side you happen to favor.
Point out that Israel is killing a lot of civilians and you are told that they had to do something in response to the Hamas rockets. Point out that practically, the response they chose has absolutely no strategic or tactical benefit, and a huge potential downside, and you are castigated for your lack of moral outrage about Hamas's attacks on civilians.
Either Israel is doing this because it hopes to gain something, in which case the whole thing is hopelessly ass-backwards--they are strengthening Hamas and worsening their international political position--or it thinks that it's okay to kill boatloads of civilians purely for revenge against Hamas; revenge for attacks that have so far killed and injured almost no one. This rather undercuts the argument of moral superiority, because guess what? That's what Hamas thinks it's doing.
On the other side, there's a tendency to forget, or forget to mention, that whatever the provocation, a plurality-to-majority of Palestinians constantly and actively wish to kill large numbers of Israelis purely for revenge. Gaza wants to be at war with Israel, and then hide behind the protections of not-quite-war, because they haven't the foggiest hope of winning anything like a real war.
I'm of Northern Irish descent, and I grew up in New York City in a mostly Jewish high school, and so as you can imagine, I've heard all the arguments about who's really to blame about a zillion times. And all I get out of it in the end is that the whole thing makes me sick and sad. I don't see any untainted victims. I see a bunch of people who have been stomped on by history beating up each other in revenge for past wrongs that can't be righted, lashing out whenever they think they can get away with it without losing the foreign funding that allows them to continue the fun. And I don't ever blog about it because one is not allowed to have an opinion on the matter--no matter what I say, I'll be excusing terrorism or, irrelevantly, the holocaust, or shilling for western imperialism. The saddest, truest thing that I've ever heard about the conflict is a friend who said that it seems to him like a stable equilibrium..."
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/the_problem_with_israelpalesti.php
From Megan McArdle from Atlantic:
"Everyone engaged in it is interested in proving that one side is righter than the other. Since no action in the region has occurred without plausible provocation for 4,000 years or so, this requires constantly shifting the metrics by which you measure whichever side you happen to favor.
Point out that Israel is killing a lot of civilians and you are told that they had to do something in response to the Hamas rockets. Point out that practically, the response they chose has absolutely no strategic or tactical benefit, and a huge potential downside, and you are castigated for your lack of moral outrage about Hamas's attacks on civilians.
Either Israel is doing this because it hopes to gain something, in which case the whole thing is hopelessly ass-backwards--they are strengthening Hamas and worsening their international political position--or it thinks that it's okay to kill boatloads of civilians purely for revenge against Hamas; revenge for attacks that have so far killed and injured almost no one. This rather undercuts the argument of moral superiority, because guess what? That's what Hamas thinks it's doing.
On the other side, there's a tendency to forget, or forget to mention, that whatever the provocation, a plurality-to-majority of Palestinians constantly and actively wish to kill large numbers of Israelis purely for revenge. Gaza wants to be at war with Israel, and then hide behind the protections of not-quite-war, because they haven't the foggiest hope of winning anything like a real war.
I'm of Northern Irish descent, and I grew up in New York City in a mostly Jewish high school, and so as you can imagine, I've heard all the arguments about who's really to blame about a zillion times. And all I get out of it in the end is that the whole thing makes me sick and sad. I don't see any untainted victims. I see a bunch of people who have been stomped on by history beating up each other in revenge for past wrongs that can't be righted, lashing out whenever they think they can get away with it without losing the foreign funding that allows them to continue the fun. And I don't ever blog about it because one is not allowed to have an opinion on the matter--no matter what I say, I'll be excusing terrorism or, irrelevantly, the holocaust, or shilling for western imperialism. The saddest, truest thing that I've ever heard about the conflict is a friend who said that it seems to him like a stable equilibrium..."
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/the_problem_with_israelpalesti.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)