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 Palestine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Some West Bank Optimism
TW: We and others have invested heavily in building up the Fatah government in the West Bank. The West Bank Palestinians are now taking responsibility for some of their security. Partially as a result the West Bank economy is booming despite the worldwide contraction.
A big piece has been a well-trained para-military Palestinian force, trained by the U.S. These programs take time but now appear to be paying dividends.
From Tom Friedman at NYT:
"For Palestinians, long trapped between burgeoning Israeli settlements and an Israeli occupation army, subject to lawlessness in their own cities and the fecklessness of their own political leadership, life has clearly started to improve a bit, thanks to a new virtuous cycle: improved Palestinian policing that has led to more Palestinian investment and trade that has led to the Israeli Army dismantling more checkpoints in the West Bank that has led to more Palestinian travel and commerce.
...Make no mistake: Palestinians still want the Israeli occupation to end, and their own state to emerge, tomorrow. That is not going to happen. But for the first time since Oslo, there is an economic-security dynamic emerging on the ground in the West Bank that has the potential — the potential — to give the post-Yasir Arafat Palestinians another chance to build the sort of self-governing authority, army and economy that are prerequisites for securing their own independent state. A Palestinian peace partner for Israel may be taking shape again.
The key to this rebirth was the recruitment, training and deployment of four battalions of new Palestinian National Security Forces — a move spearheaded by President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad of the Palestinian Authority. Trained in Jordan in a program paid for by the U.S., three of these battalions have fanned out since May 2008 and brought order to the major Palestinian towns: Nablus, Jericho, Hebron, Ramallah, Jenin and Bethlehem.
These N.S.F. troops, who replaced either Israeli soldiers or Palestinian gangs, have been warmly received by the locals. Recently, N.S.F. forces wiped out a Hamas cell in Qalqilya, and took losses themselves. The death of the Hamas fighters drew nary a peep, but a memorial service for the N.S.F. soldiers killed drew thousands of people. For the first time, I’ve heard top Israeli military officers say these new Palestinian troops are professional and for real.
...“Our people need to see we are governing ourselves and are not simply subcontractors for Israeli security,” Prime Minister Fayyad told me.
...America must nurture this virtuous cycle: more money to train credible Palestinian troops, more encouragement for Israel’s risk-taking in eliminating checkpoints, more Palestinian economic growth and quicker negotiations on the contours of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. Hamas and Gaza can join later. Don’t wait for them. If we build it, they will come."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1251396184-T5Pb8q+HzcTniv7/M8FSbw
A big piece has been a well-trained para-military Palestinian force, trained by the U.S. These programs take time but now appear to be paying dividends.
From Tom Friedman at NYT:
"For Palestinians, long trapped between burgeoning Israeli settlements and an Israeli occupation army, subject to lawlessness in their own cities and the fecklessness of their own political leadership, life has clearly started to improve a bit, thanks to a new virtuous cycle: improved Palestinian policing that has led to more Palestinian investment and trade that has led to the Israeli Army dismantling more checkpoints in the West Bank that has led to more Palestinian travel and commerce.
...Make no mistake: Palestinians still want the Israeli occupation to end, and their own state to emerge, tomorrow. That is not going to happen. But for the first time since Oslo, there is an economic-security dynamic emerging on the ground in the West Bank that has the potential — the potential — to give the post-Yasir Arafat Palestinians another chance to build the sort of self-governing authority, army and economy that are prerequisites for securing their own independent state. A Palestinian peace partner for Israel may be taking shape again.
The key to this rebirth was the recruitment, training and deployment of four battalions of new Palestinian National Security Forces — a move spearheaded by President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad of the Palestinian Authority. Trained in Jordan in a program paid for by the U.S., three of these battalions have fanned out since May 2008 and brought order to the major Palestinian towns: Nablus, Jericho, Hebron, Ramallah, Jenin and Bethlehem.
These N.S.F. troops, who replaced either Israeli soldiers or Palestinian gangs, have been warmly received by the locals. Recently, N.S.F. forces wiped out a Hamas cell in Qalqilya, and took losses themselves. The death of the Hamas fighters drew nary a peep, but a memorial service for the N.S.F. soldiers killed drew thousands of people. For the first time, I’ve heard top Israeli military officers say these new Palestinian troops are professional and for real.
...“Our people need to see we are governing ourselves and are not simply subcontractors for Israeli security,” Prime Minister Fayyad told me.
...America must nurture this virtuous cycle: more money to train credible Palestinian troops, more encouragement for Israel’s risk-taking in eliminating checkpoints, more Palestinian economic growth and quicker negotiations on the contours of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. Hamas and Gaza can join later. Don’t wait for them. If we build it, they will come."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1251396184-T5Pb8q+HzcTniv7/M8FSbw
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
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
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
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, January 25, 2009
Reading List
1) Malcolm Gladwell (author of Blink etc.) on why talent assessment is so difficult. He compares assessing quarterbacks to teachers to investment advisors
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/15/081215fa_fact_gladwell
2) From Newsweek a brief chronology of attempts to mediate between Israel and Palestine- so close but yet so far and so messed up.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177713
3) For those wanting a little shot of schadenfreude relative to those Wall Street mucketymucks whose fortunes have declined big-time recently read this Vanity Fair piece on struggling folks in Greenwich and the Hamptons.
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/wall_street200901
4) You think immigration is a tough issue in the U.S., try Japan. Their population is in a serious spiral downward, there is really only one way to stop the slide- immigration- but they will likely choose to shrink precipitously instead
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12867328
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/15/081215fa_fact_gladwell
2) From Newsweek a brief chronology of attempts to mediate between Israel and Palestine- so close but yet so far and so messed up.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177713
3) For those wanting a little shot of schadenfreude relative to those Wall Street mucketymucks whose fortunes have declined big-time recently read this Vanity Fair piece on struggling folks in Greenwich and the Hamptons.
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/wall_street200901
4) You think immigration is a tough issue in the U.S., try Japan. Their population is in a serious spiral downward, there is really only one way to stop the slide- immigration- but they will likely choose to shrink precipitously instead
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12867328
Friday, December 26, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
What Should Obama Do With Israel and Palestine
TW: Every POTUS confronts the Israeli-Palestinian divide at some level. The divide is so clearly a source of tension, both directly between those entities and indirectly throughout the region, that the tendency is to want to jump into the fray in an effort to resolve once and for all the divide. Economist does a nice job of framing some of Obama's options. Either jumping in aggressively or staying more distant tamp it down approach. W. Bush in 2001 chose the path of remaining distant but while siding almost exclusively with the hard-core Israeli positions. Economist suggests a third path, remaining distant but with a more balanced position.
I concur with the Economist. Israel will hold new elections the month after Obama is inaugurated. The right-wing Likud with Netanyahu are favored to win. The US should not become the mouth piece for Ben Netanyahu.
From Economist:
"...As for Israel, Ehud Olmert was a cooing dove compared to Binyamin Netanyahu, who looks like winning the election in February. He plays annoyingly well on the Hill and pushes the line that Abbas can’t deliver and that Hamas is a terror front for Iran (which, by the way, he wants us to bomb).
Even if you decide against going the whole hog, you’ll lose nothing by saying forcefully before Israel votes that we want a two-state solution with a shared Jerusalem and little modification of the pre-1967 line. Spell out the percentages. Netanyahu might as well know he won’t get another free pass to jerk us around on settlements. Then, honour satisfied, you could decide to put the full package to one side and try something more modest, like peeling Syria from Iran by dangling the Golan Heights. Israel’s own security people want a Syria deal.
If you want to get a settlement with the Palestinians too, we must start early and allow time. If Hillary is too grand to shuttle, appoint an envoy reporting to you to (1) make our Arab friends wangle Hamas back into a Palestinian unity government; and (2) get international buy-in to an “Obama plan”. This will in fact consist of the “parameters” Bill Clinton drew up in 2000 and are the nearest you’ll get to a sellable compromise. Hillary must help you sell this in New York as well as Riyadh. Only then should you step in to close the deal—after figuring out what mix of heat and reassurance to apply to the Israelis. They’re the ones who have to give up something real."
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12725132
I concur with the Economist. Israel will hold new elections the month after Obama is inaugurated. The right-wing Likud with Netanyahu are favored to win. The US should not become the mouth piece for Ben Netanyahu.
From Economist:
"...As for Israel, Ehud Olmert was a cooing dove compared to Binyamin Netanyahu, who looks like winning the election in February. He plays annoyingly well on the Hill and pushes the line that Abbas can’t deliver and that Hamas is a terror front for Iran (which, by the way, he wants us to bomb).
Even if you decide against going the whole hog, you’ll lose nothing by saying forcefully before Israel votes that we want a two-state solution with a shared Jerusalem and little modification of the pre-1967 line. Spell out the percentages. Netanyahu might as well know he won’t get another free pass to jerk us around on settlements. Then, honour satisfied, you could decide to put the full package to one side and try something more modest, like peeling Syria from Iran by dangling the Golan Heights. Israel’s own security people want a Syria deal.
If you want to get a settlement with the Palestinians too, we must start early and allow time. If Hillary is too grand to shuttle, appoint an envoy reporting to you to (1) make our Arab friends wangle Hamas back into a Palestinian unity government; and (2) get international buy-in to an “Obama plan”. This will in fact consist of the “parameters” Bill Clinton drew up in 2000 and are the nearest you’ll get to a sellable compromise. Hillary must help you sell this in New York as well as Riyadh. Only then should you step in to close the deal—after figuring out what mix of heat and reassurance to apply to the Israelis. They’re the ones who have to give up something real."
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12725132
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)