A New Israeli - Palestinian Mandate?
Click to Listen to the Show (24 MB MP3)
When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert visits Washington next week, he’ll find a radically different political climate: There’s a new Democratic majority in Congress. President Bush is thinking about his legacy and last two years in office. Members of Bush 41’s administration like James Baker and Brent Scowcroft are back in positions of influence if not outright power. It seems the realists have edged out the neo-cons. And Washington is talking about a kind of “course correction” in Iraq.
Given all of these factors, is there or could there be new political will to broker a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Is there a new mandate to solve this set of complex problems? Has something, anything, changed since this summer?
Other questions to jump-start a conversation about the domestic political side of things: Can Secretary Rice go back to the Middle East and broker a deal, or is a new face required for the job? If so, who might that be? Will Washington be willing to talk to key players like Syria, Iran and Hezbollah, whom they’ve avoided in the past?
Steve Clemons
-
Director of the American Strategy Program, New America Foundation
Blogger, The Washington Note
Daniel Levy
-
Senior Fellow, New America Foundation
Policy and International Director, The Geneva Initiative
Member of the official Israel negotiating team at the Oslo B and Taba talks
Steve Van Evera
-
Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Author, Causes of War
Shlomo Ben-Ami
-
Former Israeli Foreign Minister, 2000-2001, and member of the Knesset 1996-2002
Author, Scars of War, Wounds of Peace
- Extra Credit Reading
-
Allison Kaplan Sommer, Bits and Pieces, An Unsealed Room, November 10, 2006: “How about them elections? My inner liberal American is happy and cheering about the change regarding domestic issues and my inner Israeli/resident of the Middle East who would like to stay alive is quite worried.”
Via Potter: Haaretz Editorial, A change of direction on Assad, Haaretz, November 12, 2006: “Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and U.S. President George W. Bush will meet at the White House in Washington on Monday. Their meeting will be a good opportunity for Olmert to announce that he is calling on Syrian President Bashar Assad to begin immediate negotiations for peace with Israel.”
David Makovsky, When Bush Meets Olmert: New Political Contexts in Washington and Jerusalem, PolicyWatch/PeaceWatch, November 9, 2006: “When Bush is in political trouble, he heads to the center. When Olmert is in political trouble, he has tended to lean more toward the right.”
Daniel Levy, Send the Baker Commission to Gaza, Washington Monthly, December 2006: “Democrats will need to be convinced that expanding the Baker-Hamilton Commission mandate to include Israel-Palestine would not only serve America’s national-security interests and benefit our ally, Israel, but also that such a move wouldn’t be a political exercise in self-flagellation.”
Daniel Levy, Steve Clemons, and Yossi Beilin, Why There’s No Chance an Israeli-Arab Peace is Now Possible — and Why That View is Wrong, New America Foundation, November 9, 2006. [Links to audio and video recordings of a panel discussion]
Via pryoung: Steven Erlanger, In New Middle East, Tests for an Old Friendship, The New York Times, November 13, 2006: “Even before the American elections, a certain wariness had crept into the intimate friendship between Israel and the United States.”
Brent Scowcroft, Beyond Lebanon: This Is the Time for a U.S.-Led Comprehensive Settlement, The Washington Post, July 30, 2006: “Now, perhaps more than ever, we have an opportunity to harness that concern and energy to achieve a comprehensive resolution of the entire 58-year-old tragedy.”
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby, London Review of Books, March 10, 2006: “One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides. Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’.”
Also listen to our Israel Lobby show
November 10th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
“Given all of these factors, is there or could there be new political will to broker a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Is there a new mandate to solve this set of complex problems? Has something, anything, changed since this summer?”
Nothing has changed viz a viz Israel.
Your wish of an American anti-Israel stance is father to the thought of a “course correction.”
I also find your use of the word “mandate” a bit curious. Do you know anything about the history of Israel?
November 10th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
A lot has changed since the Lebanon war this summer. Hezbollah has shown that they are willing to help/use the Palestinian cause, despite sectarian differences, to weaken Israel by opening up a second front, threatening Israel from the North. The northern border to be secure now has a big price. The key to controlling Hezbollah is now recognized as Syria. Assad wants to talk from a position of strength thanks not only to the Iraq war but now since the Lebanon War this summer. (It was not clear who won –both lost).
In Gaza, regardless of the internal chaos, arms flood in through the southern border and militant rocket fire continues into Israel as Israeli incursions/attacks continue. Israel looks bad when, yet again, innocents ( especially children) are killed in these futile operations. The death and destruction on the Palestinian side is far worse than the damage on the Israeli side. Who is feeling sorry for Israel?. To all the world Gaza still appears to be a cage that Israel occupies regardless of having unilaterally removed settlements over a year ago.
Everyone is desperate, whether they admit it or not in this tragic nightmare. The Bush Administration might even admit their own desperation after this election.
It’s a good time to try again, but please no Condi Rice.
The New York Times published an opinion piece by Ahmed Yousef ( here at IHT) Pause for Peace explaining exactly what their offer of hudna means. Why not take Hamas and Abbas up on their offers? Make it contingent upon gaining control of the militants. Leave mutual recognition for a later… must lives be spent on this?
See the Haaretz editorial A Change of Direction on Assad. Why not talk to him?
Here’s a wish for Yossi Beilin for this show. See his piece this weekend in Ha’aretz the Clash of Civilizations-Differing Interests.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Sorry. I did not mean to link my comment on the Yousef piece as well.
Here is the correct link to the Haaretz Editorial:
A Change of Direction on Assad.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Thank you, Potter.
Here’s three more online articles, relevant to this thread’s topic, originally from Ha’aretz, but available also from the progressive Arab website, Middle East Transparent
1. What happens when U.S. Jews forward the peace process? By Shmuel Rosner
first paragraph :
WASHINGTON - When Ron Kampeas, the Jewish Telegraph Agency’s Washington bureau chief, wrote the story, he knew he had dynamite in his hands, and was not surprised by the force of the response. Yesterday morning, he had to make some changes to the story he published a day earlier; but on the whole, what he wrote was very interesting: A group of Jewish Americans, some well known, are seeking ways to express the support of the majority of the Jewish community for the peace process. Moreover, this group is seeking ways to press the Bush administration and U.S. Congress into becoming more actively involved in the search for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The group is also looking for funding - because without funds, nothing will budge.
2. No more apologies By Yossi Sarid
Opening paragraphs:
It’s morning in Beit Hanun. A family gets up, and after week of killing and destruction, decides it may at last send the children to kindergarten and school.
Suddenly the shell lands on the house. The children, still in their pajamas, go back to sleep. The “open areas†(where the IDF says it targeted its shells), again fill with bodies and blood, because in the most crowded, cursed place on earth there is no such thing as an open or safe area.
Please, I beg you, do not tell us you feel sorrow, and do not apologize. On no account apologize again, after who-knows-how-many times - all of them wasted apologies. “The IDF regrets†sounds exactly like “the IDF is investigating. †Try living with this death and you’ll probably succeed. You’ve tried before and survived.
3. IDF preparing for another conflict by next summer By Amir Oren
First paragraph:
Syria and Hezbollah are likely to start a war against Israel next summer, according to General Staff assessments that have been gathered during a series of meetings in recent weeks. While there is no specific estimate concerning the timing of a potential attack, all preparations are being made to ensure maximum preparedness in advance of summer, 2007.
November 11th, 2006 at 12:36 am
[This comment has been deleted because it failed to follow our commenting guidelines. - Brendan]
November 11th, 2006 at 12:38 am
Would ROS dare to invite either Professor Berman or Dershowitz to a show about the Arab Israeli conflict? I doubt it, but hope springs eternal.
November 11th, 2006 at 3:38 am
More from Middle East Transparent:
Sacred values: If the Middle East peace process is to be salvaged, Israelis and Palestinians must make symbolic concessions. But time is running out By Scott Atran
First paragraph (from July, 2006):
Hamas leader and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya seems to understand that to stop his people’s suffering, his government must forsake his party’s all-or-nothing call for Israel’s destruction. “We have no problem with a sovereign Palestinian state over all our lands within the ’67 borders, living in calm,†Haniya told me in his Gaza City office in late June, shortly before it was destroyed in an Israeli missile attack, “but we need the West as a partner to help us through.†Haniya’s government recently agreed to a historic compromise with rival Fatah leader, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, to form a national coalition that implicitly allows for the coexistence of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, following the 1967 borders. But news of this breakthrough was quickly superseded by Israel’s offensive in the Gaza Strip in retaliation for the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier by Palestinian militants, including members of Hamas’s military wing.
And, as a reminder that others—big, religiously ideological others—would like to claim a stake—or poke a hole—in any Israel/Palestine resolution:
(Originally fromHa’aretz; Opening paragraphs):
Iran has recently achieved significant advances in surface-to-surface missile technologies. In addition to the Shehab-type missiles, which use liquid fuels, Tehran is rapidly developing a new solid-state fuel, ballistic missile with a range of approximately 2,000 kilometers.
The Revolutionary Guard has recently wrapped up a large-scale military exercise. The guard is the organization responsible for Iran’s missile arsenal, and is made up of three brigade-sized units.
The nuclear program is the responsibility of the Revolutionary Guard – not the military.
During the weekend, the Iranians broadcast videotaped segments in which officers of the guard participated in the launching of a salvo of missiles.
Close analysis of the video, also shown on Israeli television, suggests that most of the launches involve relatively short-range rockets - Shehab-1 and Shehab-2. The launching of a Shehab-3 ballistic missile is also evident in the film.
Here’s the full piece: Iran and missiles / Bigger and farther By Ze’ev Schiff
November 11th, 2006 at 8:15 am
Re: Scott Atran’s article, I wonder if Condi has the subtlety of thought to distinguish between Haniya and Meshaal in Syria or is even properly briefed.
But someone should inform her that America’s primary role in the Middle East is to bolster the moderates while sidelining the extremists. It is only from this empowered moderate base that any lasting peace can be acheived.
November 11th, 2006 at 9:01 am
There are two reactions of those who are sincerely concerned about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict today: one is critical and the other defensive.
Criticizing Israel is not anti-Zionism. It’s no more anti-Israel than criticizing American policy is anti-American. In fact it’s healthy. Using “anti-Zionist” (or “anti- Semite”, or even “anti-Israel”) to label, namecall, insult, and put down (outright or by innuendo) those who one disagrees with is a conscious bullying tactic, intolerant, and against the guidelines here. What’s so hard about this?
Thank you Old Nick for the article by Sari Nusseibeh (from two years ago but it’s still valid ) Unfortunately his voice has been buried. Quoting him:
“In this context, it is important to point out that time does not stand still, waiting for the people to return to their senses.â€
Focus on the Golan. This territory has been peaceful and idyllic refuge for a small increasing number of Israeli settlers for the most part of almost 40 years. For some it’s been refuge from the violence of the other territories. Far from the madding crowd, and admirably, farmers grow crops, raise livestock, produce great wine, live in small fenced peaceful pioneering communities. It’s green and lush with babbling brooks, and land bordering for a stretch on the vital waters of the Kinneret ( Sea of Galilee) There is a large army base. Until this summer people when a few rockets hit, it is safe to say people felt secure. Who would not want to keep it forever? But all of a sudden the price, since this summer’s war, is getting higher. Syria wants it back, is in a strong position to talk now but is indicating also that it would use force. What happens if Syria starts stationing her formidable troops at the border threatening a third front?
As the above link from Nick points out Israel is already preparing and one can guess, so are the others in the area. This summer was everyone’s down payment.
By the way- Ephraim Sneh (Knesset member) just threatened Iran, implicitly threatening everyone else with further arms build-up and an ignition of the Middle East if the Iranian nuclear threat is not contained. I don’t know how many he represents but some in Israel see the Iranian bomb as an existential threat even if not used ( or an excuse for war war and more war). There is an opportunity to address nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and talks, transparency and action all around the table internationally, no one excluded.
Which way?
Iran files complaint to UN for Sneh’s comments to ‘Post’
November 11th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Here is the Palestinian peacemaker Sari Nussesibeh’s article from Old Nick’s link elsewhere: http://www.metransparent.com/texts/sari_nusseibeh_what_next_in_the_palestinian_israeli_conflict.htm
November 11th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Dershowitz:
“They devote less proportional attention to real genocides such as those in Darfur and other parts of Africa than to the imperfections of Israel. The victims of this obsessive and disproportional focus on Israel are African and other real victims of genocide. This must change, and I would devote my money to trying to change it.”
That’s a lot of bad faith, even for the king of Chutzpah. “Imperfections of Israel” are lawyerly weasel words appropriate for a self-appointed defense attorney for Israel, but not to anyone who wishes to taken seriously as a credible authority on Mideast affairs. And Dershowitz’ concern for the genocide in Darfur has not been sufficient to move him to any written commentary on it, at least so far as I can tell (I’m happy to be corrected on this).
Part of the reason the debate on Israel-Palestine in this country never seems to move forward is that bad faith commentators like Dershowitz play too prominent a role in it.
November 11th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
As James Baker famously said “fuck the Jews.”
The last time a Bush President listened to Baker on the Mid East the Republicans lost the White House. I doubt they will want to repeat that experience.
If this radio program keeps pushing their pro-Arab agenda it too will lose even more listener support from the Jewish community they already have.
November 11th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
What’s going to change? Absolutely nothing. Why? Because U.S. support for Israel has never changed. Because the Israeli lobby—which includes some of the most powerful Republicans and Democrats in Washington, as well as AIPAC, the Christian evangelicals, and newspaper editors—is, in a word, omnipotent. Because Israel controls the Palestinian-Israeli narrative; and it knows how to how to use political language, which, as George Orwell reminds us, “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.â€
Do you think that the U.S. government would ever stop giving Israel 3+ billion dollars in aid every year? Do you think that the U.S. would ever stop supplying F-16 warplanes, Apache attack helicopters, M-60 tanks, and AGMs for Israel to respond to homemade Qassam rockets and teenage rock throwers? Do you think that the U.S. would ever condemn Israel for its “errant†artillery fire that massacres innocent civilians—even in bed, like the recent victims of Beit Hanoun?
Did George Bush, Condoleeza Rice, or John Bolton censure Israel’s bombing campaign that killed hundreds of women and children in Lebanon last summer and destroyed that nation’s highways, bridges, fuel depots, airports and seaports—to the tune of more than 2 billion dollars in damage? Have they made any comments about Israel’s relentless assault on the Gaza Strip, where as many as 96 Palestinian children have been killed during 2006? Would they ever dream of pointing out to the Israelis that it is illegal to confiscate land to build a wall on Palestinian territory?
Of course not. Why? Because Israel has the right to defend itself. It has the right to blockade the Palestinian territories and impose collectively punishing curfews for days, for weeks, for months, routinely denying people the basic necessities of life—food, water, medicine, electricity, freedom of movement, their very livelihoods. It has the right to hold 10,000 Palestinians in its jails, to arrest or kidnap anyone suspected of knowing a terrorist, to assassinate anyone it wishes to target for assassination, and to imprison civilians—men, women, children—whose crime is to say “No!†to a brutal Occupation. It has the right to lay waste to anything in its path, to obliterate basic infrastructure, to bulldoze houses, to destroy personal property, to uproot ancient olive groves, to vandalize radio and TV stations, to demolish NGO offices and cultural centers, to shell hospitals, mosques, and schools. In sum, it has the right to behave any way it wants to, as if it really were not answerable to anyone.
Besides, who would dare tell it to do otherwise? Who would dare tell Israel that its past four decades of human rights violations fly in the face of an illustrious Jewish history of justice, compassion, and high moral ethics? No one.
November 11th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Tom Segev, Israeli historian, wrote in an article “Between Two Friends” (August 3rd 2006 Haaretz)
“For some years now, more Middle East-related wisdom emanates from Europe than from the United States. It wasn’t Europe but the United States that invented the diplomatic fable called the road map; it wasn’t Europe but the United States that encouraged unilateral disengagement and is allowing Israel to continue oppressing the population in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The United States is not engaged with Syria; Europe is. Syria is relevant not only for settling the situation in Lebanon, but also in managing relations with the Palestinians. This is the real problem. Because, even if the United States conquers Tehran, we will still have to live with the Palestinians. In Europe, they already understand this.”
November 11th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
The idea that the new Democratic majority might help bring a new approach to the Palestinian question seems absurd on its face. Firstly, they are in no position to play anything other than an oversight role, given the respective roles of the executive and legislative branches of our government. And of course we know which way that “balance” has been shifting in recent years.
And secondly, can anyone name a Democratic politician of national prominence who has articulated an approach to the Palestinian issue that is significantly at variance from the Bush approach? When Howard Dean—whose campaign co-chair, Steve Grossman, was a former head of AIPAC—had the temerity to suggest the need for greater “even-handedness” in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the Bush Administration had been employing, he was effectively shouted down by other Democrats. Kerry, Lieberman, Pelosi, Schumer, etc. etc. demanded that he retract and apologize at once.
Was the Israeli-Palestinian question even ever brought up significantly in a single 2006 electoral contest that anyone can think of?
The sad reality, I fear, is that it will be “facts on the ground” that will be driving whatever momentum for settlement comes about, at least until the American administration changes. And that is a recipe for continued bloodshed.
November 11th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
The Sari Nussesibeh article from M E Transparent is brief enough, but a tough slog because it suffers a lack of paragraphing. Thus I offer its conclusion (with paragraphs where I think they belong):
(quote)
…one can identify three fundamental obstacles to a solution. These obstacles, whether directly or indirectly, will also continue to prevent one. Therefore, if peace is to be attained, both peoples must confront these obstacles and take them into account. These obstacles can be described as fixed political positions or deeply-rooted psychological states of mind. The first is Palestinian; the second is Israeli; and the third is common to both.
The first obstacle, from the Palestinian perspective, is the emotionally-fixed delineation by the Palestinian people of the areas occupied in 1967 as the geographic/political space for the establishment of a Palestinian state. As a result, attempts by Israel to reduce this space in one way or another (through procrastination, the confiscation of land, settlement activities, and the like) will surely lead the negotiations to failure.
The second obstacle, from the Israeli perspective, is the adamant rejection by Israel of the “principle of the right of returnâ€, or its refusal to accept waves of refugees to its land. Once again the clear conclusion is that the Palestinians’ insistence that Israel allow these refugees to return to their original homes and lands will also lead to failure.
The third obstacle, which is common to both peoples, is Jerusalem. Neither side is ready to give up the city. This means that a solution, if one exists at all, must be designed in a manner in which both parties come to share the city through joint sovereignty. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton’s suggestions in this regard, during the final days of his presidency, can serve as a basis for such a design.
If the first step in a peace process does not involve a concerted effort by both sides to face these issues head on, there will not be a final step in the process. Transitional political solutions (the policy of stages, plans such as the Mitchell Report, the Tenet recommendations, and so on) will not lead to the sought-after peace.
In my view, the issues I have just pointed out are matters that all rational people among us realize deep down in themselves. They are neither strange nor new, but rather things that everyone already knows. Can, therefore, the voice of reason, on both sides, be raised to deliver us from this tragic situation? Or will we leave our shared destiny to opportunists – those bent on wanton destruction – and others?
(unquote)
Now, as if the Sari Nussesibeh analysis isn’t grim enough, we mustn’t forget the stupefying effect on the prospects for peace of the American fundamentalist-Christian madhouse. For a grotesque and shameless illustration, please click the link Potter offered us originally – Iran complains against Israel at UN – and then have a gander at the advertisement above the article’s headline:
“The Christian Zionist Mission, March 5th – 13th, 2007! –
“Witness the Fulfillment of Biblical Prophecies!
“Tour The Holy Land with Israeli Generals!
“Briefings by Mossad Officials!â€
I am not making this up. (The ads may change from time to time, but that ad was there this morning.)
November 11th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Well, the J-Post ads do change regularly (now it’s for a dating service)—in fact, they seem to change every time you link to the site.
November 11th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
David Weinstein Says: “Re: Scott Atran’s article, I wonder if Condi has the subtlety of thought to distinguish between Haniya and Meshaal in Syria or is even properly briefed.”
David, sublety isn’t Hamas strong point.
Do you really think you know more than Condi about foreign policy?
Re: Hamas it’s objective is plain. They want to create and Islamic State from the sea to the Jordan river and beyond. Tacts may vary but as an offshoot of the Muslim brotherhood they are not interested in compromise. At one point they even claimed a desire to liberate Spain from non Muslim rule.
Let’s get real here.
November 11th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Porfiry Petrovitch is the name of a Dostoyevski character.
Dostoyevski was of course a notorious Russian antisemite who also believed in a grand Jewish conspiracy.
November 11th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
The same people are posting the same old antisemitic nonsense they posted before. I am not interested n addressing these benighted souls directly.
It should also be noted that not all crititicisms of Israeli policy be it antisemitic or not, no matter hwo articulates is valid.
Still while not all criticism of Israeli policy is antisemitic, all antisemites do criticize Israel.
Recent sociological studies have shown that a strong anti-Jewish bias correlates with anti-Zionist rhetoric and that countries like Spain which have registered the strongest antiJewish bias in Europe tends to also harbor the greatest hatred for the Jewish State in Europe.
On the other hand, intellectuals are more able to hide their antisemitism than ordinary folk. In England, though, its come to the surface in many instances. England, by the way, has the highest rate, in Europe, of anti-Jewsh attacks.
November 11th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Jdyer, it seems to me you’re painting with an awfully broad brush. I, for one, am not a fan of the guilt by association approach. I’m a proud Jew. I am also a former student of Alan Dershowitz’s. I have very high regard for Berman’s book “Terorr and Liberalism.” But I also think the Israeli government bears a significant portion of the blame for the sorry state of the Middle East. Anti-semitism and anti-zionism are two different things. And while most anti-semites are likely anti-Zionists, the reverse is not necessarily true.
For what it’s worth, I also love Dostoevski. I suppose that makes me a self-hating Jew…
November 11th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Oops — that’s “Terror” not “Terorr” of course.
November 11th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Some dogs just don’t hunt anymore.
Spain Dig’s for its’ once hidden Jewish heritage”By Renwick McLean
The New York Times
(Begins thusly: )
“Spain has sometimes been slow to recognize its own treasures. Miguel de Cervantes was slipping into obscurity after his death until he was rescued by foreign literary experts. El Greco’s paintings were pulled from oblivion by the French. The Muslim palace of Alhambra had fallen into neglect before the American author Washington Irving and others wrote about it in the 1800s.
Now, more than 500 years after expelling its Jews and moving to hide if not eradicate all traces of their existence, Spain has begun rediscovering the Jewish culture that thrived here for centuries and that scholars say functioned as a second Jerusalem during the Middle Ages.
“We’ve gone from a period of pillaging the Jews and then suppressing and ignoring their patrimony to a period of rising curiosity and fascination,” said Ana MarÃa López, the director of the Sephardic Museum in Toledo, a hub of Jewish life before the Jews were expelled or forced to convert to Christianity in 1492 during the Inquisition.
Cities and towns across Spain are searching for the remains of their medieval synagogues, excavating old Jewish neighborhoods and trying to identify Jewish cemeteries. Scholars say they are overwhelmed with requests from local governments to study archaeological findings and ancient documents that may validate a region’s Jewish heritage.
Other people are joining in, delving into family histories to hunt for signs of Jewish ancestry.
“I don’t go a week without someone calling and asking me if their last name has Jewish roots,” said Javier Castaño, an expert in Spain’s Jewish history at the Higher Council for Scientific Research in Madrid.”
November 11th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Yes, Dostoevsky, who is one of my favorite writers, too, says nasty things about Jews and even nastier things about Roman Catholics and the Vatican, Germans and Poles, the West, socialism, materialism, atheism, etc., etc. But that’s not the reason we read him, is it?
More to the point, what does this have to do with Porfiry’s thought-provoking comment? Could it be that anyone who criticizes the Israeli government is automatically considered anti-Semitic? Could this possibly deter others from engaging in open dialogue on the subject?
November 11th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Who wins elections in America does not change the basic facts that Israel is surrounded by heavily-armed forces whose whole raison d’etre is Israel’s destruction.
This is the basic, essential problem that the various peace initiatives and “mandates” and talking points have no way to address. You can negotiate and sign deals and engage in “symbolic gestures” until you’re blue in the face but while you have organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas on Israel’s borders, documents and words mean nothing.
For all of the complaints about civilian casualties caused by Israeli military actions, the fact remains that in every one of those cases Israel was responding to attacks by those or similar Islamic terrorist organizations. People get hurt and killed in wars. It’s an unfortunate fact but unlike Hamas and Hezbollah, there is no basis to think that anyone in the IDF gets up in the morning and says “my goal for today is to kill some civilians”.
November 11th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Mr. V, so called:
“More to the point, what does this have to do with Porfiry’s thought-provoking comment? Could it be that anyone who criticizes the Israeli government is automatically considered anti-Semitic? Could this possibly deter others from engaging in open dialogue on the subject?”
Whoever Porfiry be, his comments are neither provocative nor true.
The fact that many people in the US support Israel is not the result of any conspiracy as he says.
Besides, his nasty and mendacious attacks against Israel are not supported by any specific evidence. Like most anti-Zionists he is long on passionate vitriol and short on specifics.
About Dostoeyvski: he may have said nasty things about Roman Catholics, but they were not the subject of Russian pogroms at the time he said them.
Again you minimize the effects of antisemitism which makes your own views more than suspect.
November 11th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
[This comment has been deleted because it failed to follow our commenting guidelines. - Brendan]
November 11th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
About antisemitism in Spain it is there and some silly sentimental link to a few people looking for their “Jewish” ancestry can’t hide that fact.
This reminds me of the story I was told in Madrid about a young guy who claimed that he was a descended of Maranos but who was also a member of a neo Nazi group there.
People should go live in Spain if they want to know what all too many Spaniards think about Jews.
I did live there and the first thing I noticed is that the term Judio is still used as an expletive denoting something foul.
I therefore wasn’t surprise to read in a study that Spain is the most antisemitic country in Europe.
November 11th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
I don’t believe in links because people who don’t accept a certain point of view will never accept the link’s views. Yes the link comes from Israel which to some will make it automatically suspect.
However, for those who are interested here is a link about Spanish antisemitism:
http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2001-2/spain.htm
“spain
Islamic groups in the North African autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla manifested extreme antisemitic behavior during the year 2001, especially after the September 11 events, including attacks on Jewish targets. Some neo-fascist groups in Spain celebrated the September 11 attacks and joined Islamic and pro-Palestinian groups in demonstrations against the US and Israel.”
and later:
“Extra-parliamentary Groups
The neo-fascist Alternativa Europea, Resistencia and Red Vértice constitute the Movimiento Social Republicano (Social Republican Movement – MSR), founded in mid- 2000. Led by Juan Antonio Llopart and Juan Antonio Aguilar, the MSR has been actively pro-Palestinian, participating in demonstrations together with non-governmental organizations and Islamic groups after the September 11 attacks and the military operation in Afghanistan. At these events, supporters bore placards saying, “Palestine will overcome†and “Against the [US] Terrorist War: Neither war nor NATO. No to intervention.â€
In addition, the MSR joined the xenophobic protests of residents of Almeria against the establishment of a Moroccan consulate there and attended rallies organized by racist groups such as Blood & Honour. Within the MSR, Resistencia is the most outspokenly pro-Palestinian group and it clearly demonstrated support for the September 11 attacks.
Rex is a cultural association created to rehabilitate the Belgian Waffen-SS general Leon Degrelle, the spiritual mentor of the Spanish neo-Nazi movement who died in Spain in 1994. The association publishes a magazine edited by the lawyer and academic José Luis Jerez Riesco, who was a close collaborator of Degrelle.”
Now, would fascist groups be so interested in the “Palestinian” cause? Is it because they love Palestinian or because they hate Jews?
November 12th, 2006 at 1:08 am
Jdyer,
You have every right to post whatever you like, within the rules here. But I have to say that when I read your comments, I am inlined to believe the opposite of whatever you are saying. Your comment that “antizionism” (which you apparently define to mean criticism of Israeli policy) equals antisemitism reflects ignorance, as does your suggestion that we should disregard the comments of a poster using a handle from Dostoevski and your repeated suggestions that people who read (or propose reading) certain books are necessarily anti-semites. I see that others have chosen simply to ignore your remarks; that will be my strategy going forward.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:44 am
“But I also think the Israeli government bears a significant portion of the blame for the sorry state of the Middle East.”
On what basis?
How is Israel responsible for the fact that Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other neighbors are run by repressive antidemocratic regimes? Israel is a multiparty democracy with a free press and freedom of religion. If its neighbors followed those same principles the mideast would already be a better place.
Israel is a tiny Jewish state surrounded by fanatics so it doesn’t even have much CAPACITY to meddle in its neighbors business. But Iran and Syria’s exporting of weapons and other technology, and training of terrorists is well documented. Do you deny that? And Saudi Arabia’s funding of the teaching of extremist versions of Islam is also well documented. So whatever trouble Israel is even capable of causing in the mideast doesn’t come CLOSE to what its neighbors do!
And then there’s Iraq. Over 2/3’s of the US public supported that idiotic invasion, so you can’t blame Israel for that. Furthermore the main problem in Iraq right now is the result of what the Iraqi’s are doing to each other. So you can’t blame Israel for that.
The only way Israel is “causing” the problems in the mideast right now is because of the inconvenient fact that it exists and that insists on continuing to exist. How rude and inconsiderate of Israel.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Nevermind that Spain (and all of Europe) has a very large Muslim and Arab population with problems of persecution, acceptance and integration. Spain, in particular, has a much steeper hill to climb from the past than say the USA (with it’s own skinheads, campus and synagogue incidents). No question Europe has deep anti-Semitic roots to draw on and who knows what is in the hearts of ordinary people today but on the surface at least this is not acceptable in the civilized world.
The cup is either partly full or mostly empty, regarding improvements in attitudes and dealing with true anti-Semitism, depending on how one prefers to see things.
Regarding Spanish anti-Semitism and racism I agree, let’s use the academic source quoted above: The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism- Tel Aviv University and read it fairly:
http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2003-4/spain.htm
If one were to judge a country by it’s skinheads neo-nazi’s and radical groups read the same source for it’s larger entry on the situation in the United States:
http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2005/usa.htm
I do agree that no link or set of links is going to change a mind that is not open.
Anti-Semitism is a crossing of a line ( which should be bright) from being, for instance, against Israel’s occupation and the way it deals with and treats Palestinians, over to simply hating Jews for being Jews regardless. Anti-Zionism IS NOT necessarily anti-Semitism either ( though MartinLutherKIng is supposed to have said so in a debunked letter that I too bought into once). Many would like it to be so and this is for me a tolerable though arguable point of view in the light of history and holocaust ( ie Jews had legitimate reason and right after centuries of persecution to return to their ancient home- not Uganda).
Many see the issue of rectifying the Israeli injustice of displacement ( from 48 and 67 and onwards) and treatment of the remaining Palestinians as primary and key to it’s acceptance-existence-survival. I agree.
Together with the Jewish diaspora, there is now a Palestinian diaspora.
Insofar as Israel is being stubborn about talking and concessions, insofar as there is an insistance on conditions that cannot be met realistically before one talks, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is now more than ever, part of a larger problem that, if solved, would be key to quieting the Middle East and the threat terrorism abroad. This is not to blame Israel alone… but the Israeli administration of Sharon/Olmert has been hiding behind the US “war on terrorism’ for the last several years as things have gotten worse all around them.
November 12th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Plnelson,
I think this exchange highlights a key problem in discussions about Israel and the Middle East. I said that Israel bears “a significant portion” of the blame, and you took me to mean that it bears all the blame. In turn, I think you suggested (implicitly) that the other “side” bears all of the blame. But the “blame game” here is not winner-take all, and the tendency to treat it as such often undermines efforts to solve the Middle East’s problems. Of course Israel is surrounded by autocratic regimes that wish it harm. And those regimes bear much — likely most — of the blame for the region’s problems. But Israel is not blame-free. It has conducted a needlessly brutal occupation that has gone on for far too long. It has pursued an aggressive settlement policy even while all observers agree that some sort of two-state solution will ultimaely be necessary. It has been too willing to let Palestinian terrorists undermine successive cease-fires. And it has only intermittently pursued peace in a serious way. (Same is true of the PA, which, I suspect we agree, blew its best chance for peace at Camp David in 2000/2001.)
It’s dangerous to presume that these things don’t affect the state of politics in the Middle East at large. Repressive regimes there use Israeli overreaching as a pretext for political suppression — and the rise of Al Jazeera and other outlets has made that easier. In areas with some modicum of representative government — e.g., Iran and the Palestinian Authority — the policies of Israel (and to some extent the U.S.) have propelled the rise of demagogues like Ahmadinejad and the Hamas crowd.
Thus, it’s a mistake to act as though all the blame is on one side here. That thinking leads to the “Why should we give concessions, when it’s all their fault?” approach that has doomed peace up til now and will continue to do. We need more nuanced thinking, and a more concliliatory approach.
November 12th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
In brief response to jdyer’s decrying my lack of sources, I list here some of the people I have read and/or listened to very carefully during the past three years in an attempt to understand the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
In no particular order: Gideon Levy, Amira Haas, Gila Svirsky, Guy Grossman, Michael Lerner, Cornel West, Charles Sennott, James Carroll, Rami Khouri, Yitzhak Frankenthal, Sara Roy, Barbara Lubin, Eyad el-Sarraj, Phyllis Bennis, Desmond Tutu, Tom Segev, Robert Fisk, Yossi Beilin, Jeff Halper, Ilan Pappe, Ariel Sharon, Uri Avnery, Raja Shehadeh, Steven Erlanger, Jonathan Cook, Paul Craig Roberts, Mazin Qumsiyeh, Noam Chomsky, Karen El-Kawa, Thomas Friedman, Tanya Reinhardt, Malcolm Smart, Michael Dahan, Frida Berrigan, William Hartung, Edmund Hanauer, Shamai Leibowitz, Danielle Luttenberg, Shukri Khuri, Chaim Yavin, Simone Bitton, Michael Ignatieff, Alan Dershowitz, Norman Finkelstein, Martin Federman, Marda Dunsky, Nancy Murray, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Mitch Potter.
November 12th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
If the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world were to unilaterally disarm and accept peace there would be no violence in the Gaza, or other Palestinian territories.
If Isreal were to agree to unilaterally disarm themselves and liguidate their weapons and army. Isreal would not exist by next week.
This is the big difference between the 2 groups.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
BTW, folks here might be interested in http://www.bitterlemons.org, an attempt to present Israeli and Palestinian view side by side and foster increased dialogue.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:54 am
“It has conducted a needlessly brutal occupation that has gone on for far too long.”
I used to be a vocal opponent of the occupation, too, but then look what happened:
Israel withdrew from South Lebanon and they were attacked with thousands of rockets from Hezbollah operating there. They withdrew from Gaza and they were attacked with rockets from Hamas there! These are not exactly advertisements for the merits of withdrawal.
“It has been too willing to let Palestinian terrorists undermine successive cease-fires.”
What does this mean- they “LET” Palestinians undermine cease fires? They have no control over what the Palestinians do. If a cease-fire is in effect and the Palestinains violate it with rocket attacks or suicide bombings Israel has a right to defend itself. What are they supposed to do - just sit there and let rockets rain down on them?
November 13th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Occasionally, yes, if the end result will be a longer-lasting peace and fewer Israeli deaths in the long term. We’ve been dealing with this for far too long not to know that the scum — yes, scum — who perpetrate these attacks want exactly what Israel has given them in response time after time: The end of the particular cease-fire. So, for its own self-interested purposes, Israel should practice more restraint. Not to coddle the terrorists, but to frustrate their intentions. By reacting exactly as the terrorists hope, Israel has too often “let Palestinian terrorists undermine successive cease-fires.â€
November 13th, 2006 at 9:53 am
RC21- Yours is a dangerous argument designed to prove that Israel has no choice but war until that elusive total defeat of “the enemy”.
Unilaterally disarming to “accept peace” by one side only without mutual compromise and agreement creates an unstable situation.
Of course Israel would be destroyed without arms. This is the ongoing tragedy that Israel itself helps to create.
If Palestinians and surrounding countries disarmed, Israel, under no pressure, would continue to occupy the lands and the people on it. Settlement expansion would continue as well. All this would be without any price to pay as Palestinians would supposedly realize that they lost their decades long struggle and be content with their situation.
Such instability on either side, in either supposed case, would be the same: hate,anger and resentment for the injustice. That would surface as renewed violence and military build-up.
The claim that the violence on one side is all about the violence on the other obscures the real reasons: a battle over rights to the same piece of land, justice and mutual respect.
A more stable situation would be created by agreement for a fair resolution that would be supported internationally. This goal is what was abandoned in 2000. The opportunities after Arafat have yet to be explored, including the Saudi offer and now Assad’s offer.
All this violence and death is (immoral imo) jockeying for a little more than the compromises that have already been worked out, postponing the day of reckoning for each side under the illusion that it has the upper hand or is about to have it.
It’s misguided in my opinion, to try to change “land for peace” into “peace for peace”. It’s not working, it won’t work.
Plnelson: ( regarding look what happens when Israel withdraws). The problem again is the unilateral aspect of these actions, the partial nature of them, and the lack of ongoing negotiations (the further weakening of Abbas, refusal to talk without preconditions being met). This increases the pressure towards military solutions from Sharon in 2001 through to Hezbollah in 2006, both sides. Hezbollah hid behind the Palestinian cause for support for build-up and the actions that brought destruction to south Lebanon. Hezbollah and Israel surprised themselves with their results.
Regarding letting terrorists undermine peace talks and cease-fires, this has been ongoing through the years, in effect giving the most extreme elements veto over negotiations. When the sides allow this, it is evidence on lack of leadership, will and insincerity… looking for excuses. This does not mean that there should be no response, but that paths towards agreement should not have been abandoned so easily and for so long.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:09 am
To potter I’m not trying to prove anything. I’m showing you the differences in the 2 sides. One side would prosecute a war of genocide against the other. While the other side would leave the other alone.
I prefer the side that would end the violence. As plnelson has already pointed out. When Isreal has taken steps to withdraw they are met with attacks.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:44 am
Steven Erlanger has a long-ish piece in today’s New York Times about the ostensible topic of this forum. The thrust of it is that any new diplomatic initiative to address the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will most likely have to engage the issue of Iran’s growing influence in the region as well. The need to bring Europe, Russia and China into a common front against Iranian nuclear ambitions may, in Erlander’s speculation, result in new pressure/incentive toward taking up the peace process anew.
I don’t know whether I buy that, though it does raise questions for me. Would it be possible through creative and aggressive diplomacy to separate the nationalist and Islamist aspirations of the Iranians and Palestinians, and to engage the one in order to contain the other? America’s great error in Cold War conflicts like Cuba, Vietnam, etc. was to commonly mistake nationalist aspirations for communist ideological convictions, and so to miss real opportunities for longer-term influence. I simply don’t know whether this is any longer possible in the Mideast, especially after the military embarassments in Iraq and Lebanon and the ever-growing fortunes of political Islam.
Would a more “realist” engagement of Iran as a state actor with regional interests make it possible to draw a firmer line on other matters, and to exploit the very real fissures within radical Islam? I don’t know, but it’s clear that events “on the ground” are not working to the advantage of long-term US or Israeli interests, and that both need to recover the diplomatic intitiative.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
The United States still solidly supports Isreal to the detriment of finding peaceful solutions. Instead, our unquestioning support of Isreal continues to aggrivate the situation. The US just vetoed the UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s attack on Beit Hanoun in Gaza that killed 19 Palestinian civilians and left many wounded. It is not helpful to display such blatent prejudice.
The hopful thing on the horizon may be the new pressure on the Bush administration to at least talk to Iran and Syria instead of playing the silent bully. My question is… who will do the talking. Codelezza Rice is too deeply connected to Bush.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
While googling yesterday I found an opinion piece that seems to cogently sum up much if not most of the Israeli predicament. I’ve posted (with appropriate credits) the entire piece here, but will tease you with this excerpt:
“…within a few years, Jews will become a minority within the areas under the control of Israel. As the demographic balance shifts, painfully hard choices need to be made. However, these decisions have been avoided for over three decades.
Israel faces a portfolio of alternative strategic choices. It can ultimately hold on to only two of Zionism’s basic three stories: democracy, territory or Jewish exceptionalism. It needs to decide which stories to embrace for the future or forgo.
One option is that Israel chooses to maintain its control over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In this scenario, as Jews become a minority, Israel would either be able to preserve its Jewish identity by compromising its humanistic and democratic values, or hold on to its democratic values while compromising the polity’s Jewish identity.
A second alternative is that Israel holds on to its Jewish identity. In this scenario, Israel would have to compromise territory in order to maintain its Jewish exceptionalism or compromise its democratic values, while preserving immunities and privileges of a Jewish minority over a Palestinian majority through the use of force.
A third scenario is that Israel chooses to uphold its democratic values. In this situation, Israel can either compromise its territorial scope and maintain its Jewish identity, or, alternatively, preserve its territorial scope and compromise its Jewish character.
Israel does not have the luxury of postponing these tough choices. If it does not engage in far-reaching efforts to shape its future and geopolitical reality, time will instead determine its fate. As the demographic clock ticks, real facts are established that are nearly impossible to reverse.â€
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=9213
November 13th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
“What are they supposed to do - just sit there and let rockets rain down on them?
Sutter Says:
Occasionally, yes, if the end result will be a longer-lasting peace and fewer Israeli deaths in the long term.”
That’s not logical. It’s pure speculation that such a tactic would, in fact, result in a longer lasting peace and fewer Israeli deaths in the long run.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
PLNelson,
Obviously we don’t know for sure “that such a tactic would work.” But we do know for sure that the response you support — tit for tat attacks — has failed time and time again to bring peace, and has led to more and more death on both sides. In essence, then, you are arguing that Israel should proceed with a policy that we _know_ does not “result in a longer lasting peace and fewer Israeli deaths in the long run” just because the alternative _might_ not lead to that result.
To me, with due respect, _that_ is the illogical position.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
The Erlanger article in today’s NYtimes says that Israeli’s took comfort in US muscular foreign policy. At same time, earlier in the article, it says that US policy has in fact hurt Israel.
According to the article, the big fear apparently is that the US would need to actually talk to Iran and Syria in it’s own interest ( as if that were not in Israel’s interest as well) and that as a consequence Israel would be pressured to make concessions to solve the conflict with the Palestinians. These are fears when in fact no extraordinary or harmful concessions need be made beyond those already worked out for both sides. it’s in Israel’s strategic interest to settle the conflict already. Time is no friend to Israel in this mode. The movement could be slow but steady with guarantees and support of the international community including moderate Arab countries.
Regarding Iran and the nuclear issue, how about the deterrent of a well publicized US treaty with Israel that states that any nuclear attack on Israel would be considered an attack on the US? Then swivel the missiles around to point in that direction. ( ie MAD) Then get to work on nuclear disarmament starting in the Middle East which would be the first nuke free zone. Or is this too sane?
November 13th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Sutter, I enjoy your reading your thoughtful posts. I hope will continue to post on future threads.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
The biggest brakes on the prospects for a settlement in Israel and Palestine are the conjoined influences of zealots. This, I think, is obvious; and yet simply knowing it does nothing to ameliorate it.
What informs the extremism? It’s not merely deep, militant resentment of the existential threat each side seems to pose to the other. Nor is it merely religion, as I naively reckoned some ten months ago (although religion, in part, informs the actual source). Instead, both the Israeli right and the Palestinian ‘martyr’-machine are informed by a sort of ideology too. But not open, commonly understood ideologies. Zealots of both sides are informed by the fuzzy ideology of exceptionalism.
Ever since ROS began discussing the Middle East, I’ve longed for a perspective both wider in scope and yet better focused: like a view of Jupiter from Hubble, that shows in detail the atmospheric patterns you couldn’t even hope to perceive if you were flying through that planet’s tempestuous clouds. I think, in the concept of exceptionalism, I’ve found at last that Hubble-like lens.
Before explaining, here’s an offsite summarization the standard Israel/Palestine debating points—two customer reviews of the same book sold here:
http://www.amazon.com/Opposing-Viewpoints-Israel-paperback/dp/0737725907
(I tend to agree with Jill Malter, the second reviewer, but not wholesale or uncritically.)
Meanwhile, judging by the weight of opinion in this thread, many contributors might appreciate the sentiments expressed here:
http://www.jewishsolidarity.info/?showcomments=selected — although I for one think the sentiments expressed on that page more emotionally reactive than objectively realistic.
To me, such sentiments suffer from subjectivity – ‘flying through the very clouds we actually want to study from afar’.
So, the ‘Hubble’ I’ve recently found is the coupling of the term ‘exceptionalism’ with an adjective other than the famously neocon, ‘American’. (See Wikipedia’s article on American exceptionalism, and its smaller entry on exceptionalism.)
According to the site ‘dictionary.LaborLawTalk.com’:
“Exceptionalism is a claim, a pattern of claiming, or an assertion that the subject under discussion is claiming, special exemption to commonly-held relationships or principles. It is used most frequently in historical surveys and in association with an assertion of destiny, i.e. that the supposedly exceptional character draws from or is intended or useful for a larger, perhaps ideological, purpose.â€
http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Exceptionalism
Opponents of Zionism sometimes use the phrase ‘Jewish exceptionalism’. Yet Zionists use it too.
What does it mean?
The briefest definition I found is this: “Jewish exceptionalism… (a) perspective (that) their long history of suffering should free Jews from whatever constraints are applied to others. Another is that their persecutions make Jews more sympathetic to others’ suffering.â€
Source: http://www.thesocialcontract.com/cgi-bin/showarticle.pl?articleID=439&terms – it’s in the second paragraph of the section titled, “Four Cornerstones - Cornerstone One: Individualityâ€. This jibes seamlessly with the definition given in the Labor Law Dictionary.
Anti-Zionists indict Jewish exceptionalism as the source for what they deem the ‘racism’ of the Jewish state (an argument I don’t much buy: I question the premise that Israel is ‘racist’). Meanwhile, writers like Gideon Grinstein, in the piece I link to and quote in this thread @ 2:07 PM, Nov. 12th, use it in sentences like these: “(Israel) can ultimately hold on to only two of Zionism’s basic three stories: democracy, territory or Jewish exceptionalism.†And, “…Israel would have to compromise territory in order to maintain its Jewish exceptionalism or compromise its democratic values, while preserving immunities and privileges of a Jewish minority over a Palestinian majority through the use of force.â€
The contention that Jewish Israel views itself as specially exempted by the constraints expected of others is perhaps problematic (my own opinion on that question is not yet firm, although it does have a Tower-of-Pisa-like tilt); but Israel’s opponents cite it constantly to justify their anti-Zionism.
However, Israel is not alone in having zealots or extremists informed by exceptionalism. American exceptionalism, which claims a right to ‘preemptively’ invade another country—for example while relying on little more than Iraqi ex-patriot rumor of WMD—is the form of exceptionalism best known in the world today. But are Israel and the US alone in this?
No way.
Irshad Manji’s eye-opening and controversial The Trouble With Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith makes it quite plain that other forms of exceptionalism are hard at work in the Middle East, and in Islam generally. The Islamic version might be characterized somewhat like this: “because they alone follow the instructions of God given to His last Prophet, Muslims are exempt from whatever constraints are applied to others.â€
See Manji’s pages 61-67 for but one example of this form of exceptionalism, which pejoratively divides the three Peoples of the Book (Muslims, Christians, and Jews) into the Faithful (Muslims) and the dhimma (Christians and Jews). See also this site for many more excerpts from Manji that extensively detail what I’m naming Muslim exceptionalism—especially as it pertains to Israel.
I won’t claim that Muslim exceptionalism is the original source of the Palestinian terrorist tactics which refuse to differentiate between innocent civilians and occupation-enforcing soldiers. The PLO, after all, was a secular organization, and I sure don’t recall any invocations of Allah, or the terming of slaughter as ‘sacred explosions’, or the naming of the perpetrators as ‘martyrs’, until the 1990’s brought Hamas to eminence in the Occupied Territories.
But I will venture this: Israeli exceptionalism, born from Jewish exceptionalism, has bred a mirror image: Palestinian exceptionalism—a perception that, “their five decades’ history of dispossession and suffering without a state or recourse to justice should free Palestinians from whatever constraints are applied to others.â€
That, I think, is the real ‘justification’ for Palestinian terror-tactics.
Worse, the power of this exceptionalism has been doubled by the addition of the exceptionalism of the Islamists (Hamas and Hezbollah, to name but two) toward the dhimma, and, of course, because the Middle East is rife with nonsensical conspiracy theories starring “the Bloodthirsty Jewsâ€, maddening nonsense that has all together too much currency.
I suppose exceptionalism is a conceit of not only every people, but perhaps even of every family. Somehow or other, we all want to believe we’re different from everyone else in a special – an exceptional – kind of way.
However, when peace is so desperately needed—and even demanded by the many sensible moderates—and yet consistently obstructed by hatemongering zealots, perhaps it’s time for the moderates to admit the existence of the vying exceptionalisms informing their peoples’ historical narratives.
And then to disavow them.
Because your enemy isn’t likely to accept your exceptionalist claims. He is, instead, likely to imitate them.
Isn’t this the real engine of the endless cycle of violence and hatred in the Middle East?
November 13th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
There is tremendous mistrust on the Israeli side for U.S. policy both regarding the Palestinians AND Iran. Israel is fully prepared for a military solution to both conflicts. Esp. regarding Iran, Israel doesn’t understand the reluctance among many Americans (though not necessarily among many Bushites) to “take out” Iran’s nuclear facilities. Steven Erlanger’s NYT article on this subject today is deeply alarming on that score. Here’s a post a wrote about it that contains a link to the original.
Ephraim Sneh’s Jerusalem Post interview last Friday came close to calling for military force as a first, rather than last option (my post with a link to the original). And Sneh is deputy defense minister so his statement was clearly a trial balloon to test the international waters.
I highly doubt that in today’s mtg. bet. Olmert & Bush that the latter did anything at all to dampen Israeli thirst for confrontation w. Iran.
I believe that on way or another it is highly likely either the U.S. or Israel will attack militarily. This in turn will lead to a tremendous escalation of hatred and violence in reply coming fr. the Arab world. It might conceivably end up in a full theater war involving Iran, Syria, Lebanon, & Israel individually or in tandem. This should scare the hell out of us.
As for the Israeli Palestinian conflict, this is all very murky until we can determine whether James Baker will have any real influence in changing out laissez faire approach. Only hands on energetic engagement in which we play an honest broker, rather than Israeli cheerleader role, will move things forward.
The Palestinians are moving in the right direction in appointing a national unity government run by a political independent. But Israel has no interest whatsoever in compromising with them no matter who’s in the government. I am hoping that with this new government, the EU at least will break the strangulation of Palestine and resume funding PA salaries so the avg. Palestinian can feed his family.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
“Radically different political climate aside,†it’s now clear, at the end of the day, that nothing is going to change vis-à -vis the one-sided U.S. position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. President Bush seems preoccupied with other matters. No surprise here.
If Prime Minister Olmert came to Washington to be reassured that there will be no “new political will†to deal with this conflict in any fresh, imaginative, fair way, then surely he will dine and sleep comfortably tonight.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Obviously we don’t know for sure “that such a tactic would work.†But we do know for sure that the response you support — tit for tat attacks — has failed time and time again to bring peace, and has led to more and more death on both sides.
“more and more” than what? We don’t know what the alternative would have resulted in. Israel is still a sovereign nation; they still exist; that’s the bottom line.
Also note that as bloody awful as the recent Lebanon conflict was, it at least resulted in an international force being sent it and the place quieting down. You present no evidence that your alternative would have had that effect.
So I would say their policy is successful. Your argument is a bit like saying that someone who has AIDS or cancer should stop taking the drugs that are used to treat them because those drugs might not work indefinitely and they have nasty side -effects, and in any case they don’t actually “cure” the disease they only buy time.
Consider lebanon.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
“( regarding look what happens when Israel withdraws). The problem again is the unilateral aspect of these actions,”
This has been mentioned on ROS several times, but would someone please explain what’s wrong with a unilateral withdrawal? The whole world had been demanding Israel withdraw for decades so they do, and now people are going ” . . . we didn’t say ‘Simon Says’ “?
Under what rules of engagement does Israel need to negotiate permission to withdraw? And who should they negotiate with? We already established that Lebanon was either unwilling or unable to control its own territory so who should Israel have negotiated with there? And the Palestinian “Authority” was informed WELL in advance of Israel’s plans to leave Gaza - what should Israel have done differently there?
As far as withdrawing from the other territories, in the absence of a security guarantee it would be national suicide for Israel to relinquish the entire West Bank or Golan, and there’s no such guarantee on offer from anyplace.
This is a lot like the Darfur situation where western intellectuals sitting in their conmfortable ivory towers and suburban houses and dorm rooms keep saying that someone should do this or should do that, but with no practical, concrete concept of how any of this might possibly be made to work on the ground.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
PlNelson: “So I would say their policy is successful.”
I think this pretty much says it all about the difference we have here; I could not disagree more. We’ll have to agree to disagree. But this has been fun. Thanks for engaging.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
The reference in Chris’s intro to the Bush Administration being “Israel’s most biddable” is classic and demonstrates once again why he is America’s most beloved fringe talk show host.
November 14th, 2006 at 12:32 am
Israel, with approximately 75 nuclear weapons mounted and ready to go and another 75 or so in reserve is not threatened with annihilation… But one will never hear these words on American TV or radio. One will hear how Israel is in mortal danger if Iran gets nukes. (What about Iran being in mortal danger?) But none of this matters…. Perceptions are the game, and both Israeli and American government officials find it useful to play the ‘annihilation’ song over and over. And people believe it. I suspect the grandchildren of today’s Israeli four-year-olds will be stuck singing the same rhetoric a hundred years from now… and And it seems the grandchildren of today’s American politicians will continue to sing from the same ‘Israel is our ally’ songbook. In the Middle East nothing ever changes (except to go from bad to worse). And none of it has anything to do with American national interests. But that doesn’t really matter either… What’s fascinating is that all the issues that Americans are prohibited from discussing in America are freely discussed in the Israeli press. (Except that mention of Israel’s nuclear might is verboten!) Go figure!
November 14th, 2006 at 4:18 am
[...] Macduff. And on a related subject, I highly recommend tonight’s Radio Open Source program, A New Israeli - Palestinian Mandate? featuring Steve Clemons, Daniel Levy (who [...]
November 14th, 2006 at 5:35 am
more feel good nonsense. they want to just magically introduce peace between the israelis and palestinians when they have been saying democracy cannot be imposed in iraq. it must rise from within they say. well then peace must rise from within the palestinians and israelis. especially the palestinians which hold positions which are totally incompatible with peace. it won’t do any good to stop occupation of palestinian areas only to have the palestinian extremist groups continue their attacks. then what? its war again.
and as for the guy that just talks about removing the palestinian/israeli conflict to solve the problems in the arab world. well that assumes they would accept a rational resolution to the conflict when most simply dont. when your children are indoctinrated with hate from day one, “low hanging fruit” is so irrelevant its laughable.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Plnelson- no question Israel did not have to ask permission to withdraw but if anyone tuned in at the time would have noted the slogan “Gaza first, Gaza lastâ€: deep suspicion as to Israel’s motives. There was no agreement between the sides as to how to go forward vis a vis the West Bank (not to mention other important issues) or IF there would be any further withdrawals or how much if so. The feeling was that something far less than just, would be imposed on the Palestinians.
They need a viable state and until that is agreed upon their struggle is seen as just and the conflict goes on. And Israel is not going the get the recognition or peace ( end of conflict agreement) it needs until then.
Israel simply abandoning it’s responsibility as occupier ( to the charity of the international community) to get of Palestinians for demographic reasons does not cut it. Leaving Gaza meant for Israel ridding itself of a small piece of land and responsibilities it could not handle for a huge population. The violence towards settlers, soldiers deaths, Israeli’s increasingly did not want to support.
After the election of Hamas (some say to punish Fatah corruption) things got even worse in Gaza with the boycott and near civil war.
Where was the incentive to stop rocket fire? Where was the hope?
Withdrawals are all well and good but they are not substitutes for negotiations and agreements or true sovereignty. They are desperate measures taken because in this case it suited Israel. This is true for the Barak’s Lebanon withdrawal as well as Sharon’s Gaza withdrawal which left both Hezbollah and Hamaz claiming victory when, if there were mutual agreements, they could not have.
I thought this was a very good show–good guests. Thanks!
November 14th, 2006 at 10:38 am
plnelson PS- If I did not imply it well enough , let me say that Israel bypassed an opportunity to strengthen Abbas, a moderate, in it’s unilateral move from Gaza.
As well, Nazrallah in Lebanon has been strengthened in the summer war and it remains to be seen what an international force will be able to do. Hezbollah is demanding more power in the Lebanese government now. See Nicholas Blanford’s article in yesterday’s Christian Science Monitor Lebanon Crisis Ignites Wider Cold War
There is a real question as to whether it would be “national suicide” for Israel to give up occupied lands. It’s already been said in Israel ( Chief of Staff Gen. Moshe Yaalon) that the Golan is no longer necessary for defense given modern technology. It is probably more about water. The question is whether national suicide is going to be brought about by present policies of holding onto land and occassional unilateral moves brought about by pressure from militants and when it suits. The price for keeping these lands keeps getting higher.
November 14th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Israel, with approximately 75 nuclear weapons mounted and ready to go and another 75 or so in reserve is not threatened with annihilation… But one will never hear these words on American TV or radio.
That’s because it’s speculation. And even if tbey did have them, we have no idea what circumstances they might use them in. When their major cities were getting hit by missiles a few months ago and their whole northern economy was shut down, and their conventional army was bogged down, they didn’t use them.
If the northern United States were under such severe military attack that the economy in the northern states was shut down, and our conventional forces were unable to stop the attacks, do you think we would use nukes? I bet we would. If the same thing happened to Russia I bet they would, too.
So I think any discussion about Israel’s nuclear capability or doctrine is PURE speculation and has no useful role in this discussion.
November 14th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
They need a viable state and until that is agreed upon their struggle is seen as just and the conflict goes on
. . .
Israel simply abandoning it’s responsibility as occupier ( to the charity of the international community) to get of Palestinians for demographic reasons does not cut it
. . .
Where was the incentive to stop rocket fire? Where was the hope?
etc But this response is exactly what I and several others here are complaining is emblematic of the peace community’s approach to this. Yes, it’s all true that there is a lack of hope and a lack of final resolution WRT the West Bank, and a corrupt Fatah, etc. But just how much of that does Israel have the power to fix?
The peace community whines and moans about this, just like they do about Darfur and several other trouble spots. But they are very short on concrete specifics. While complaining about the lack of a comprehensive solution they are very uncomprehensive in their suggestions. Instead they are piecemeal - ‘if Israel makes this or that sacrifice MAYBE it will lower tensions and allow negotiations to more foreward.’ If you really want a COMPREHENSIVE solution then propose one.
All Israel wants is to live in peace and security. Come up with a plan that will guarantee that, or at least have a demonstrably high probability of achieving it.
November 14th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
But just how much of that does Israel have the power to fix?
Israel can’t fix internal problems, but it can fix it’s own relationships.
There will be no risk-free solutions or absolute guarantees. This is unrealisitc. The complaint is really another excuse for maintaining a policy that not only just does not work, but makes things worse. It’s a continuation of Sharon’s basically- force, force and more futile force. Address that point. There is no status quo.
The Grinstein article linked by Nick spells out the choices.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=9213
What has not been tried is keeping to a steady path, already begun, but uninterrupted by extremists, to a solution that is practically all worked out on paper. It only wants for leadership, not only on both sides, but support of western and Arab countries to give it more energy and even to sweeten it.
Saying that all Israel wants is to live in peace is meaningless in the light of the facts on the ground that keep growing in harmful directions. More settlements, more terrorists, more sophisticated arms, more poverty, more death, more despair anger and insecurity, more money wasted, Arab population growing, the best and brightest on both sides leaving etc etc. Where is the homeland that Jews are supposed to feel safe in?
In addition extremists elsewhere are not only using this conflict, now aiding the supply line of weapons aimed at Israel.
A “comprehensive” solution has to be mutual and agreed upon by the parties. That comes after relationships are established or re-established through talks and good faith, trust and some hope arises again. And it will because people who are normal, or who want to be normal are tired of this.
It’s a process first, not a plan in a box.
The minute talks start about giving up land- let’s see who is out in the streets protesting and who does not want peace. Let’s see who is blowing themselves up or refraining when there is hope.
It’s amazing that strong Israel, with it’s army, conventional weapons and nukes would be afraid to take risks for peace- (it’s irrrational. )
There are offers to talk now- the Saudi’s ( who are threatening to put an expiration date on their offer in order I assume to prod Israel), the Syrians, the Iranians, and now hopefully a united government in Gaza with Abbas. They think the time is right. Is Israel afraid?
November 14th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
To trubucia; If Isreal has 75 nukes and they haven’t attacked Iran I would say that is clear evidence that Isreal has no intentions of harming anyone,and simply wants to be left alone.
The annihilation song as you call it would not exist if Iran and other Arab countries had not threatened Isreal with annihilation. These are not perceptions in peoples minds but reality. Have you ever listened to the words of the Iranian president, Hammas, or other Arab factions?
November 14th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
I often find myself amazed that anyone talks about a “peacefull solution” in the Middle East any more. Aside from the tired arguments of the mistreatment of the Palestinians, Western Imperialism, or the timeless Zionism excuse, the only reason that Israel is despised, and will continue to be until it is destroyed, is because it is not a Muslim state. In Israel’s 50 year history they have grown into the predominant military and economic power in the Middle East, sure they had plenty of help from the West, but the aid pales in comparison to the trillions of dollars of oil pumped out of the gulf. Israel’s neighbors will never be satisfied until the Jews are driven from the heart of the Muslim world. Either demographics or Iran’s nukes will finish it off, and all Israel can do is to arm itself and ensure their neighbors that any such outcome will result in the destruction of the entire Middle East. Every olive branch the Israeli’s have offered, from giving the Sinai back to Camp David to the withdrawal from Gaza has done nothing to advance their security. I say arm them to the teeth, and provide them with enough firepower to turn an Arab coup de gras into their own death warrant.
Its a shitty scenario to be sure, but its a bit foolish to think that any congressional election is going to alter this fundamental scenario.
November 15th, 2006 at 8:29 am
Yes isn’t it amazing that the will to live in peace, the belief that it is possible and achievable survives.
Arab/Muslim posturing has not destroyed Israel despite the $trillions.
Israel, already armed to the teeth, has made no progress in solving it’s security problems through force alone- building walls,fences and checkpoints-over the last 6 years since the peace process ceased.
1st/14th-Your rant sounds like something I would hear at a bar after midnight.
PS-The withdrawal from Gaza was not an olive branch.
Ari Shavit offers an interesting interview with MK Pines-Paz ( Labor) who recently quit the government.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=Pines-Paz&itemNo=786096
November 15th, 2006 at 9:22 am
“A ‘comprehensive’ solution has to be mutual and agreed upon by the parties. That comes after relationships are established or re-established through talks and good faith, trust and some hope arises again. And it will because people who are normal, or who want to be normal are tired of this.”
But these are just vague platitudes. Vague platitudes are why nothing ever moves forward in Darfur, in Kashmir, in several conflicts in Africa, etc. LOTS of places have solutions “practically all worked out on paper”. On paper the Iraq Invasion looked good as long as you overlooked certain messy implementation details.
Professionally I’m an engineer; I believe in hard facts, actual tests, and Murphy’s Law. The facts are that Israel has given up land and got burned as a result. They’ve ceased-fire and whenever they did it was the Palestinians who resumed fire. They’ve supported democratic change in nearby countries and those places promptly democratically elected terrorists.
I’ve talked to people who’ve just returned from Israel and things are OK there - it’s not at all clear that the current situation is not sustainable for some time. The intransigent ones in the conflict are the Palestinians - they are the ones advocating violence and terrorism, trying to erase Israel, and shooting at each other when they are not shooting at Israel. But Israel is the one that always gets the bulk of criticism in these discussions.
November 15th, 2006 at 10:19 am
No this is better, David Grossman’s speech at the Rabin memorial. He lost his son Uri in the summer war in Lebanon. He says his grieving has made him sober and lucid.
(David Grossman wrote “Death as a Way of Life”- a book tin which almost every line I highlighted, every page I dog-eared)
(excerpt from the speech)
“Behold land, for we hath squandered,” wrote the poet Saul Tchernikovsky in Tel Aviv in 1938. He lamented the burial of our young again and again in the soil of the Land of Israel. The death of young people is a horrible, ghastly waste.
But no less dreadful is the sense that for many years, the State of Israel has been squandering, not only the lives of its sons, but also its miracle; that grand and rare opportunity that history bestowed upon it, the opportunity to establish here a state that is efficient, democratic, which abides by Jewish and universal values; a state that would be a national home and haven, but not only a haven, also a place that would offer a new meaning to Jewish existence; a state that holds as an integral and essential part of its Jewish identity and its Jewish ethos, the observance of full equality and respect for its non-Jewish citizens.
Look at what befell us. Look what befell the young, bold, passionate country we had here, and how, as if it had undergone