A pretty fascinating piece in Foreign Policy by Laura Rozen about the current administration’s message to Netanyahu and the rationale behind it:
Last night, shortly after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told journalists that the Obama administration “wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called a confidante. Referring to Clinton’s call for a settlement freeze, Netanyahu groused, “What the hell do they want from me?” according to his associate, who added, “I gathered that he heard some bad vibes in his meetings with [U.S.] congressional delegations this week.”
In the 10 days since Netanyahu and President Barack Obama held a meeting at the White House, the Obama administration has made clear in public and private meetings with Israeli officials that it intends to hold a firm line on Obama’s call to stop Israeli settlements. According to many observers in Washington and Israel, the Israeli prime minister, looking for loopholes and hidden agreements that have often existed in the past with Washington, has been flummoxed by an unusually united line that has come not just from Obama White House and the secretary of state, but also from pro-Israel congressmen and women who have come through Israel for meetings with him over Memorial Day recess. To Netanyahu’s dismay, Obama doesn’t appear to have a hidden policy. It is what he said it was.
***“We’ve been watching the move in Congress, especially among certain high profile Jewish American members — people like Representative Gary Ackerman, Representative Robert Wexler, and Representative Howard Berman,” Ibish said. “What has occurred — and this has been greatly intensified by the election of Obama: There has been a growing sense of members of Congress who are well-informed on foreign policy … that peace is essential to the American national interest and the Israeli national interest. And there’s been a growing sense that the possibility of a two-state agreement is time-limited and that things like the settlements are incompatible with the goal of creating two states.”
You need to read the entire thing, but what is striking to me is that there seems to be a unified policy coming from the United States in regards to Israel. The Washington Post has more:
The road-map plan commits Israel to dismantling settler outposts and freezing “all settlement activity,” including building to accommodate what is known as “natural growth.” But the near-daily barrage of U.S. demands that Israel halt settlement growth has surprised Israeli officials, who argue that they greatly restrained growth under an unwritten 2005 agreement with the Bush administration. Under that deal, Israel was to stop providing incentives for settlers to move to the West Bank and was to build only in areas it expected to keep in future peace agreements.
But the continued growth even in those settlements — and an unwillingness by various Israeli governments to dismantle outposts — has left the Arab world doubtful that Israel would agree to a peace deal. The Obama administration appears to have calculated that pressing Israel on settlements will help demonstrate to the Arab nations that the United States is serious about pursuing peace, even at the risk of appearing to undermine Netanyahu’s nascent government.
If any of you have links to more about this, I would love to see them.
Napoleon
Of all the stupid foreign policy positions the US has the number one dumbest has always been not to do everything in its power to stop and roll back the settlements. There will never be peace in the middle east with them, and IMO that is in part why supporters of settlement support them. They don’t want any peace that doesn’t involve pushing the Arabs into the sea.
PS – Kudos to Obama, Clinton and those in Congress addressing this in an aggressive manner.
SGEW
Sounds familiar, eh?
El Cid
Expect some serious right wing and liberal hawk freak-outery: Secret Indoneso-Kenyo-Hawaiin Shari’a law surrenderer Barack Hussein Arafat Khaddafi Obama X has met in the White House with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas:
United States President Barack Obama met Thursday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the White House, and said that both Israel and the Palestinians must work to get the peace process “back on track.”
“I am confident that we can move this process forward,” Obama said after meeting with Abbas. The president said that means both sides must meet the obligations that they have already committed to – an element of the peace effort that has proved elusive for years.
“We can’t continue with the drift, with the increased fear and resentment on both sides, the sense of hopelessness around the situation that we’ve seen for many years now,” Obama told reporters with Abbas seated at his side. “We need to get this thing back on track.”…
…The president commended Abbas for working toward a unity government, but remained insistent that the new government adhere to the principles laid out by the Quartet of Mideast peacemakers the U.S., Russia, United Nations and the European Union. He declined to specificy a time frame for a Palestinian state, saying he didn’t want to set an “artificial time table,” but added that he shares Abbas’ feelings that “time is of the essence.” His Mideast envoy George Mitchell is working to “jump start” the process, he said.
Abbas is working to repackage the 2002 Saudi Arabian plan that calls for Israel to give up land seized in the 1967 Six-Day War in exchange for normalized relations with the Arab world. Abbas gave Obama a document that would keep intact that requirement and also offer a way to monitor a required Israeli freeze on all settlement activity, a timetable for Israeli withdrawal and a realization of a two-state solution.
“The main purpose of presenting this document to President Obama is to help him in finding a mechanism to implement the Arab peace initiative,” Abbas told the Associated Press.
Asked about his impression of the meeting with Obama, Abbas said: “It was a serious and open meeting and President Obama seems determined on what he has said to us and to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu about the necessity of implementing the road map, and we have agreed to continue our communications.”
“I believe that if the Israelis would withdraw from all occupied Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese land, the Arab world will be ready to have normal relationships with the state of Israel,” said Abbas.
When asked how the U.S. would intervene in the peace process, if Israel keeps declining to accept the two-state solution and to freeze the settlements, Obama answered: “If Israel keeps declining to accept the two-state solution and to freeze the settlements… Well, I think it’s important not to assume the worst, but to assume the best.”
Obama said he told Abbas the Palestinians must find a way to halt the incitement of anti-Israeli sentiments that are sometimes expressed in schools, mosques and public arenas. “All those things are impediments to peace,” Obama said.
Clearly this means that Obama promised to allow Hamas’ Qassam rockets to be launched from U.S. soil at any potential Christmas display. No doubt too that Obama took the meeting as an opportunity to increase the dangerous Dijon & arugula reserves of the Palestinian territories.
kid bitzer
this *is* really interesting, but it makes me wonder what the obama people are doing that no one previous has been able to pull off.
traditionally, the pro-settlement lobby has been able to bring a lot of leverage to bear on administrations and congresspeople who bucked them.
do they have less leverage now? is obama more willing to stand up to it? has sentiment shifted in congress?
what has changed?
without a good answer to that, i won’t be too surprised if the status quo reasserts itself, and israel is given a free hand to do whatever the hell it feels like.
dmsilev
@SGEW:
Sure does. A startlingly large fraction of the anti-Obama howling boils down to “How dare he try to implement the policies that he campaigned on!”.
-dms
Joey Maloney
Linky to the Rosen piece.
Original Lee
The pro-settlement lobby is heavily populated by Quiverfull families (pun intended). Yesterday on (I think) ABC radio, an interview with several inhabitants of new settlements included this statement: “Who is Hillary Clinton to tell us how many children to have?” This seems to be a new wrinkle to me, but maybe it has always been a part of the caveats, that the settlements were OK as long as lots of Jewish babies were being born.
someguy
There won’t be a lasting peace until we force a return to the 1947 borders.
El Cid
By the way, John Cole, you may appreciate the perspective of Israeli left writer for the daily liberal Ha’aretz on how the party of NO works there:
How to talk to a right winger
by Gideon Levy | Haaretz
MK Tzipi Hotovely is a rising star in the Likud party. Well spoken, young and passionate, she decided to hold a diplomatic conference this week.
The subject: Alternatives to the two-state concept.
On the eve of the conference, Hotovely appeared on the nightly current events program “London and Kirschenbaum” on Channel 10.
For seven minutes the pair tried to get one answer out of their guest: What is your alternative?
The question was repeated no fewer than 10 times, in various versions, but they didn’t get an answer.
Instead they heard replies that seemed better suited to an amusing skit: “I’m very happy that you’re asking that question”; “What’s important is not the alternative”; “Palestinian society is not ripe for a solution”; “Jews will not be evicted from their homes again.”
Hotovely knows what she doesn’t want, but she hasn’t the faintest idea what she does want.
Let’s not blame Hotovely, she’s not alone. From the prime minister down to the last of the right wingers, none of them has an answer to the simplest, most natural and most obvious question of all: What, in heaven’s name, do you suggest? How will the country look according to your vision, and only according to your vision, 15 to 20 years from now?
dadanarchist
Unrelated to this post, but as I know John collects these things:
Off-Duty Officer Is Fatally Shot by Police in Harlem
Napoleon
.
It seems to me that what it is is a traditional right wing attempt to smear something the right doesn’t like. The guy can’t say “f— the Arabs, God gave us this land” and instead reframes it as “look we need the room to expand because of our growing families and if the US forces us to quit expanding its not because it is blatantly against international law but because Obama and Clinton hate Jewish babies.”
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
Peggy Noonan has a good article about how the Republicans need to ‘play grownup’ like the Democrats and the Obama administration are. Sane Republicans are discovering that feeding the base is not a winning strategy. Obama and his people are seriously working on solving our problems while the Repubs are running themselves into the ground.
I am glad to hear Obama is taking a firmer line with Israel, it’s about time they start to face reality. My Mom always said that two wrongs don’t make a right but for some reason Israel thinks they can make it work for them. I used to be an unquestioning Israel supporter but that went out the window once I really started looking at the mess over there. It takes two to tango and Israel has been dancing around the facts for too long.
Emma Anne
I think we’ve got to give props to HRC on this one. Obviously it’s Obama’s policy, but someone did the hard work to get everyone on board so Bibi would hear the same story everywhere he turned. I’m guessing Hillary is the hard working persuader.
Napoleon
@El Cid:
They can’t answer the question because the honest answer is the far right in Israel plans to push the Arabs into the sea. Their solution is ethnic annihilation.
PeakVT
A growing sense?!? Seriously?!?
Why are these f*cktards running my country?
dadanarchist
I have to say that this statement absolutely flabbergasts me. There is a “growing sense” that the settlements are incompatible with a two-state solution? It doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out. Confining an entire people to a tiny strip of land, and then building giant, fenced-off housing developments in which they are not allowed to live, the services for which cut their land into swiss cheese, and yet they are somehow expected to build a state upon this crumbly edifice? Gee, settlements are a problem? Ya think?
In fact, I was under the impression that all this had already been figured out in 1993 during Oslo. That there is a “growing sense” among members of Congress that this is so only shows how far the US has buckled on the Israeli-Palestine since (god help me for saying this) Bush I and James Baker browbeat Shamir into negotiations in 1991.
Mnemosyne
@Emma Anne:
I agree. I’ll admit I was a little concerned about her administrative abilities after last year’s campaign meltdown, but it looks like she can more than hold her own when she’s not weighed down by the likes of Mark Penn and made to constantly second-guess herself.
rick
Unfortunately, its nearly impossible for Israel to dismantle all the settlements in the West Bank. There are too many of them–they are now the ‘facts on the ground’. Plus, Benyamin Netanyahu is too stupid and crazy to do anything about it.
SGEW
Publius over at ObWi covers this today:
Betsy
@Emma Anne:
@Mnemosyne:
Agreed, entirely. I think it’s likely she will be an entirely more effective SoS than she would have been President, though of course there’s no way to know.
SGEW
More on the I/P conflict, from that most valuable of internets sources:
What would we do without Wonkette, I ask you?
Graeme
This is refreshing, indeed.
I don’t understand why we bend over backwards to apply exceptions to every rule for an ‘ally’ that regularly gets caught spying on us.
Persia
@Napoleon: Agreed a thousand times over.
John Cole
I’ve seen rhetoric like that popping up, as well. The Free Tibet lobby at TNR featured this from Peretz today:
I expect that will be the new hardline rallying call.
cleek
we should know better than to invest any hope in any process that involves Israel and the Palestinians.
the people who are comfortable with the status quo have all the guns and know how to use them to sabotage anything that looks like movement away from that state.
Persia
@John Cole:
How do these people even get out of bed in the morning and face themselves in the mirror? Jesus.
(Also, note the essential American-ness that assumes having to live in a — dear FSM! apartment or share room with their families is a fate worse than death.)
Adrienne
@Mnemosyne:
Me thinks you are confusing administrative capabilities with management capabilities – they ain’t the same. I always knew she was perfectly capable of carrying out other people’s (in this case, Obama) directives. She’s also a hard ass, tough, whip smart policy wonk which is a great fit to be Obama’s SecState. However, her managerial skills suck more the larger the organization. While she is SecState, she doesn’t manage the day to day running of the State Dept. THAT, would probably be a disaster. Some people are much better suited to administrative tasks and will always be secretaries who carry out other people’s larger vision vs. people who have awesome managerial skills but can’t get to the knitty gritty in detail. Obama is great because he has BOTH sets of skills. Hillary is stronger at the former.
Brachiator
Here is a link to the audio of the May 25 KPCC public radio program Air Talk, a mock debate between Palestinian and Israeli officials in which the issue of settlements was discussed.
The debate is very illuminating, but sadly, not very hopeful.
RolloTomasi
The negligence of the Bush administration cost the peace process/2 state solution valuable time. During 2001-2008 the number of settlements grew exponentially. Is it irreconcilable? – who knows. But before starting any new Oslo/Camp David talks , the Israelis must resolve the settlement issue for themselves and that is a monumental task. Check out this 60 minutes segment from Jan. It seems like a civil war is more likely than dismantling of settlements.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/23/60minutes/main4749723.shtml
PS: I am new to this site – love both content and comments.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
HRC’s got a lot of capital there, and it shows.
Of course real peace won’t come until both sides get tired of killing each other. How long did that take in Northern Ireland? There’s your road map.
Dennis-SGMM
@John Cole:
Only if you’re gay.
blogenfreude
Israel will make some concessions, shut down a settlement or two, then continue doing what it’s been doing. Nothing will change.
Punchy
Here’s Obama’s likely policy — posture, posit, posture some more, then placate, apologize, and pulverize Palestinian peacemakers into a pulp.
Not a single politician ANYWHERE in DC willing to stand up to AIPAC. You just watch.
Zifnab
@cleek:
But the state is unnatural and perilous. It takes a lot of time and money and energy and pain and political capital to keep the Israel-Palestine conflict going. A lot of those settlements aren’t exactly operating at a profit, and terrorists don’t just blow themselves up for free. You’ve got tons of capital pouring into the region on all sides, fueling this thing.
If Obama steps up and puts the kabosh on the endless military and monetary aid we feed Israel every year – or at least makes Israeli leadership start thinking twice about losing it’s seat on Uncle Sam’s Gravy Train – the guys with the guns benefiting from all the free money and unrestricted power will, hopefully, check themselves.
Between the Mid-East Palestine supporters and the Western Semite supporters, the big political players in the region have been getting a blank check to muck around for over a generation. That, in many ways, has contributed to the conflict.
MikeJ
Here’s a wacky idea for the settlers: if you have more kids and don’t have room for them in your current house, why not move? Perhaps to somewhere inside of Israel?
Andy
The alternative should be spelt out to Israel as follows:
If a two state solution is no longer viable, then Israel takes ownership of all the Palestinian territories and makes all Palestinians living in these territories full Israeli citizens and gives them the vote.
Israel is supposed to be a democracy so it should live by democratic principles.
The settlements will be dismantled in weeks.
David Hunt
Bush I had a lot of negative qualities as president. However, one of his strengths was the ability to use diplomacy. He built a huge coalition of countries for the war with Iraq, including the vital Arab countries whose membership transformed the war from imperialistic expansion into a war of liberation…at least for a while. He was pretty much crap when it came to actually governing at home, but he knew how to be a diplomat when it suited his purposes.
Death By Mosquito Truck
Obligatory Terry Pratchett mention.
Zifnab
Negotiations can’t begin until the Israelis stop punching Palestinians in the face and taking their milk money. However, if we agree to stop said punching and milk money taking, the Israelis demand something in return. Traditionally, the Israelis demanded milk money, but the Palestinians have been increasingly reluctant to accept this deal. That’s really their problem, though.
Crashman06
@Zifnab: I feel a little over my head commenting on this, but here goes… I’ve read a couple of articles (there was one by Jeff Goldberg in the Atlantic a while ago) about some of the settlers and it seems like a fair portion of them are pretty fanatical and fully believe that they and their progeny are entitled to the whole of the Promised Land given to Abraham in Genesis. They’re not interested in any kind of settlement. So while Israel’s leadership might be interested in making concessions, they may not be able to do so domestically, even if we cut some of their aid. As Rollo says at #29 above, they’d have a civil war on their hands.
Everything about that conflict is so screwed up, on both sides, it makes my head spin just thinking about it.
David Hunt
Simplest thing in the world. Either
(a) You have personal servants to take care to shaving and other personal grooming tasks and avoid having to look in a mirror. Or
(b) You don’t worry about as people with no souls cast no reflections in mirrors.
SATSQ
Tattoosydney
@Death By Mosquito Truck:
Who’s Terry Pratchett?
Ned R.
@Tattoosydney:
The One. (Whenever you read RedStaters invoking that term, they are in fact complaining about Pratchett’s success with that rarest of concepts for them, ‘humor.’)
Mnemosyne
@Punchy:
The only reason I’m kinda-sorta-halfway hoping we can finally get some progress is, ironically, the Bush wiretapping. Considering what we’ve already got from Jane Harman’s recorded conversations with AIPAC, I’m guessing the administration now has access to some pretty prime blackmail material.
Yes, normally I’d be against something as Bush-like as blackmail, but I’m willing to take the moral hit if it means we can actually have some fucking motion on Israel. It’s not like they haven’t been blackmailing and spying on us for years.
(Note: No, I don’t hate Israel. I hate their policies. There’s a difference, dumbass.)
AhabTRuler
@Tattoosydney: When humour [pronounced: you-murr] goes wrong!
Joe Max
I can tell you what they think, it’s been articulated to me by an acquaintance of mine, the son of a rabbi, a nice fellow unless the subject of Palestine comes up.
To wit: the “Palestinians” already have a state: it’s called Jordan. That was what the area called the West Bank was part of until the 1967 war. Jordan and the other Arab states were the aggressors in that war; Jordan lost that part of their country as a result, so their so-called “Palestinian” citizens should be absorbed into the remaining borders of Jordan. That’s what the Syrians did with their citizens who lived in the Golan Heights. If Jordan has a problem with that, they should petition other Arab states to take a share of those refugees – refugees that the Arab states created by their own actions. Spoils of war and all that. Americans who think this is unfair should be asked if they would approve ceding the central western US territories to the Lakota Indians.
Personally I find this repulsive, but that’s what I think they think, and why they can’t answer questions like that directly and honestly.
Shibby
I consider myself very liberal, however the Israel-Palestine conflict is one area where I disagree with the left. In the interest of disclosure etc. I am Jewish. I am going to try to approach this issue in good faith and I hope any responses will try to do the same.
Essentially, the status quo is the best possible scenario for Israel. In what manner does Israel benefit by giving up the West Bank? The idea that if/when the Israelis withdraw peace will suddenly descend on the region is ludicrous. It is far more likely in my opinion, that the new Palestinian state will only make it easier for unfriendly elements to import weapons and attack Israel without fear of retribution. Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t believe the majority of Palestinians are interested in attacking Israel and I think the situation they are in is awful. However, the idea that the road to peace lies with one-sided conciliation from Israel is extremely suspect. There are elements of their population that are not interested in coexistence. The Palestinian people and leadership have demonstrated very little support for reigning in these elements. Additionally, look at the warring between Hamas and Fatah factions. Does this look like a government that is anywhere near ready or capable of running a country independently?
Finally, if you are truly interested in this region I recommend that you actually visit Israel. I think it grants a new perspective that is difficult to otherwise.
Punchy
@El Cid: That is some SERIOUS blockquote FAIL there…..
Tattoosydney
@Ned R.:
An obvious pinko communist like Pratchett could never achieve the heights of real humour, surely?
@johncole
@Anne Laurie
We can haz book open thread this weekend? I promise not to talk about Pratchett all the time. I’d just like to hear what my distinguished fellow minions at BJ are enjoying reading.
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal):
That’s a phrase you don’t read very often.
AhabTRuler
Let me know when you are done working over that strawman.
Tattoosydney
@AhabTRuler:
In Aussie land, we say HEW-mur.
El Cid
@Punchy: I can’t do blockquotes with paragraphing and without bolding. It was intentional, using blockquotes to set off the intro and ending. I’ve tried of the few FAQ’s and either I do it rong or it’s different for Firefox.
AhabTRuler
@Tattoosydney: Hey, I’ll spot you the supernumerary ‘u,’ but the ‘fucking aytch’ is bleedin’ silent.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
@comrade scott’s agenda of rage:
Great idea for a controlled experiment. Give the Palestinians 3/4 of their country back. Then, if they’re still murdering women and children 75 years later, supposedly fighting a war they already won like the IRA, then that’ll be plenty of time to call them uniquely unreasonable, and start leaning towards the Israelis.
(Actually, not uniquely unreasonable. The Serbs are still committing genocide to recover their imagined losses from 1389.)
Shibby
@AhabTRuler:
You are right, I could be clearer. In a sense what I am trying to say is that the calls for Israel to withdraw are asking it to make its position more tenuous with a vague idea that relations will improve sometime the future. That’s a lot to ask to take on faith.
rick
“It is far more likely in my opinion, that the new Palestinian state will only make it easier for unfriendly elements to import weapons and attack Israel without fear of retribution.”
@ Shibby,
So, the solution to this hypothetical is to continue the punishment of the Palestinian people? News flash: Palestinains are unfriendly to Israel because of what Israel does to the Palestinians. You do remember that they kicked them out of their homes, and won’t let them back in?
Tattoosydney
@AhabTRuler:
Hogwash.
AhabTRuler
@Tattoosydney: What is an ‘ogwash’?
El Cid
@Shibby: The opinion piece from which I quoted was from a liberal Israeli Jew writing in an Israeli newspapers for Israeli readers, who very clearly dissents from the status quo, which he, and many others, and I, view as setting Israel up for yet another near perpetual calamity.
Now, I don’t prioritize some particular person or political group’s view of the best interests of “Israel”, just like I don’t accept it when people over here justify what I think are wrong and harmful policies because they (whether a minority or a majority) think it’s best for U.S. “national interests”.
First and foremost, interests are themselves to be defined and justified. Typically what is defined as the interests of “Israel” turn out to be the interests of hawkish policy makers and particular communities, i.e., the “settlers”, rather than any sort of really strongly justifiable interests applicable to Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, and Palestinians simultaneously.
Secondly, Israeli Jews are obviously only one population in the region and this conflict is an issue that affects other people and the entire region. Unfortunately, this isn’t just a parochial matter — though lots of matters can have regional impact, such as the tensions between Egyptian semi-dictatorship and the rise (and perhaps decline) of radical Islamic fundamentalist yet somewhat populist dissident groups such as the Muslim brotherhood.
Punchy
@rick: Brown people have homes? Shenanigans.
Shibby
@rick:
I’m not sure I’m suggesting that maintaining the status quo is a “solution”. However, it is the best case scenario for Israel at this point in time. An internal failure of the Palestinian leadership is also to blame for their predicament so I don’t think it’s fair to take the position Israel is “punishing” the Palestinians. Furthermore, I loathe to get involved in the history of the region because it is the very epitome of the Gordian knot. However, if you want my personal opinion on the matter, I agree with Joe Max’s friend (#46). To be clear though I don’t believe that this is currently a workable solution, its simply what “should” have occurred.
(I hate it when I overuse quotation marks…)
srv
@Shibby:
Funny, I think a better perspective would be visiting Palistinian camps.
SGEW
@Tattoosydney: O praise th’ One, and thanks for th’ link! I’d never read that one.
I loves me some Cohen.
Awesom0
Urghh. So you’re giving something back you’ve illegally taken is ceding something? Perhaps Israel wouldn’t be in such a demographic disadvantage if it hadn’t decided to take over huge swaths of Palestinian land. The settlers have been pilfering Palestinian land and fomenting hate and now that they’re finally being told “no”, they’re throwing a hissy fit.
I think I finally understand why the wingnut parties in both countries love each other so much. Birds of a feather…
TenguPhule
So is this situation Jingo or Thud?
And do we need Captain Carrot with a football or Commander Vimes with a battleaxe?
AhabTRuler
And I agree with Joe Max in that it is repulsive. The current term for such a situation is ‘ethnic cleansing’ and I would have thought that such a solution would be abhorrent to you as well.
It also seriously undercuts your self-identification as ‘liberal’.
TenguPhule
Perhaps the Palestinians shouldn’t have tried to exterminate them initially and thus given them a reason to seize the land in the name of security, backed up by the majority of the Israelis at the time it was seized.
After the stupid shit Americans accepted in the name of security, we don’t get to throw stones.
Zifnab
@Crashman06:
They already have a civil war. Walking into what is supposed to be a foreign country, bulldozing a would-be neighbor’s house, and fencing off the land while Israeli military backs you up or just shoots you out of spite… that’s war.
Israel receives our support, in part, because we view it as a functioning liberal democracy. If there was a military coup or a civil war inside Israel itself, the US Government would be forced to take sides. Under Obama, I don’t see it taking sides with the radicals. The far right can only operate effectively under cover of moderate protection. We provide the shield the radicalized settlers can run and hide behind when they make too much use of the sword.
Part of what emboldens the settlers is the knowledge that there will always be a massive military force at their backs. Will they all just pick up and leave if that support is withdrawn? Probably not. But you’ll certainly see a decline in the appeal of settlement expansion without the protective arm of the Israel / US military out in front.
Tattoosydney
@AhabTRuler:
Hush. We’re trampling all over John’s interesting and worthwhile Israel thread.
SGEW
@TenguPhule:
Thud!, alas. In a world where Vimes was killed by a sniper in the ’67 war, Carrot was run over by a bulldozer, and Mr. Shine was assassinated by a fundamentalist.
And the Cow can never be found.
AhabTRuler
@Tattoosydney: It’s not that interesting or worthwhile. SBDD. Not sure why I even bothered commenting (and who started it darling? Hmmm?), but I think I will step over to the couch and read about Hegel.
Besides, the idiocy and rancor of an I/P thread can cut through any static.
Awesom0
@TenguPhule:
For argument’s sake, let’s assume your statement is 100%. If Israel is ONLY trying to build a legitimate security buffer between them and the Palestinians (the group that wants to “exterminate” them); don’t you think it’s kind of a bad idea to send out huge numbers of people to live dead in the center of this incredibly dangerous territory?
Israel has some very legitimate security concerns, but I know a land grab when I see one.
As to the rest of your post: Two wrongs don’t make a right. Perhaps the US should never speak out about modern slavery given our past.
Shibby
@El Cid:
I absolutely agree that there is a spectrum of Israeli opinion. Clearly the more hawkish elements and settlers would fall into my camp. However, my goals are not the same as theirs but we’ve reached a similar conclusion. I don’t think I have to be defined by the company I keep.
I also agree with this. But I believe that the mere existence of Israel is sufficient to stir the more fundamentalist groups into action. The Palestinian situation obviously contributes, however I think calls for the removal/destruction of Israel have become far to ingrained in their psyche to be altered by changes in policy towards the Palestinians.
Winston
It would obviously be ludicrous for Israel just to pick up and leave the way it did in Gaza. That WOULD indeed leave Israel (and probably moderate Palestinians as well) open to increased rocket and other terror attacks, now from its eastern border. But the current situation isn’t tenable either – the settlements are not only a moral abomination, but they also keep the entire middle east pot dangerous boiling, and actually harm Israel’s security, not least because troops have to be diverted from defense to protect every single outpost. The solution is for Israel to completely withdraw its CIVILIAN population – i.e., to eliminate the settlements – while still leaving some military in place for some period in strategic locations until the next phase of negotiations have been completed. That would signal Israel’s seriousness about achieving peace while still protecting against rocket attacks. And that would begin the serious give and take a final agreement would require. In other words, those who argue against removing the settlements because doing so would endanger Israel (“See? Look what happened in Gaza when we pulled out!”) are really being disingenuous. It’s possible to do both – remove the settlements AND protect the country while exploring whether a final settlement is possible. Maintaining the status quo isn’t an option anymore.
TenguPhule
In Balloon Juice, both statements can’t be true at the same time.
Tattoosydney
@SGEW:
Or it has been killed and cut in half by the King of Israel to settle which woman owns it.
Winston
w
NobodySpecial
Nice to know Israel has a blanket excuse for every single land grab since the dawn of the state. If they stretch this one back a few centuries, they’ve also got a heckuva case for occupying Rome, too. In the name of security, of course.
Tattoosydney
@AhabTRuler:
Death By Mosquito Truck did.
Heavens. What’s an ‘eggel?
TenguPhule
It started out as security and morphed over the decades into a land grab. No dispute there.
And at this point, I honestly have no idea how the fuck it’s going to be resolved without major bloodshed by one or more parties.
Whatever serious momentum to peace between the two there died after the early 2000 suicide bomber blitz. All of the talks since then have been weak tea.
We lost whatever moral authority we had in the region thanks to Bush. We can’t lecture any of the sides because they’re real quick to point out that we’re flaming fucking hypocrites.
TenguPhule
The ones in Jordon or the ones in Syria?
TenguPhule
Learn 2 read.
At the time the lands in question were initially seized, Israel could throw security out there as a reason for justification backed up by majority approval of its citizens who were being attacked.
This has morphed over the years into a pretzel of strained logic where lands were seized for pre-emptive security barriers and held by Israeli fundies.
Now the question is, how do the settlements stop?
Well the quick and dirty solution would be to make the settlers Palestinian citizens, make it Palestinian land and dump the whole fucking mess as the Palestinian government’s problem.
I admit, the irony of Palestinians learning to peacefully accept a Jewish minority in their own state makes me chuckle.
rick
“But I believe that the mere existence of Israel is sufficient to stir the more fundamentalist groups into action.”
You’re implying that the very existense of Jewish state, qua a Jewish state, is what pissess off the Palestinians. In the real world, the Zionist programme of murdering Palestinians in order to clear land is the primary cause of the Palestinians’ discontent.
stickler
Simple questions, actually:
That’s Israel’s problem. Make US aid dependent on Israel finding a solution to the settlements. Either all illegal settlements are cleared by X date (say, 18 months), or US aid is progressively phased out. No excuses. Either Israelis are all back behind the Green Line, or those who won’t leave are reconciled to living under Palestinian jurisdiction. (Maybe the PA will put up its own security barriers, private highways for Palestinians only, and multiple checkpoints so the Israeli settlers get to experience what it’s like living under occupation!)
Francis
yah. I’m pretty much at the point where I’d tell both sides that the State of Israel is the Green Line to the Med, plus Gaza, less half of Jerusalem, and the State of Palestine is all the rest to the Jordan River. Whoever lives there now are your citizens.
Wapiti
So when it comes time to actually deal, and the Israeli government and Palestinian authorities trade a little piece of land here for a little piece of land there, is all land equal? Is a hectare in the Jerusalem suburbs the same as a hectare in the Negev Desert? Would an acre in Manhattan be traded for an acre in the Mojave? Do they just use area or do they consider the value of the property?
Jessi
@kid bitzer: That is my opinion. How has this not happened before the Obama administration? I just hope all parties begin to cooperate so that peace can be a closer goal.
Some scrutiny that the settlements should take backseat to other global issues though:
TenguPhule
And when Israeli settlers naturally react to these pre-emptive unjustified measures with violence, I’m sure you will be right there defending them from Palestinian brutality.
TenguPhule
And naturally all aid to Palestinians will be linked to an end to violence by X date, otherwise all aid will be phased out. No excuses. As for how they do it, that’s the Palestinians problem.
Mary
As reported in the NY Times(!), Martin Indyk, ex-US Ambassador to Israel, has this message for the Israelis:
He also said this about the hoary security argument:
As for Marty Peretz’ loser of an argument:
Here is video of Israeli soldiers knocking down a house on private Palestinian land in the Occupied Territories in order to enlarge the settlement next door on the pretext of an improper building permit, thereby rendering a family with 9 children homeless. I wish Marty Peretz would explain why the “smothering of ordinary life” only matters in the Occupied Territories when Jews are involved.
Finally, here is a picture of what Israel’s settlement policy has done to the Occupied Territories over the years. It illustrates rather nicely how Israel has pushed the Palestinians into giant ghettoes while maximizing its land grab.
AhabTRuler
@Tattoosydney: I would have accepted ‘Not Me’ or ‘Ida Know’, but if you want to go with the truth…
A powerful sleep aid.
Eye's Wide Open
This conflict is much more than land for peace. Intelligent people know peace in this instance, is only a Trojan horse.
Blue Raven
@The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge:
Y’know, I keep trying to see the English as being the original residents of Ireland, but it just doesn’t quite jibe with something. Like reality. Nor does it match the origins of the respective disputes except for the part that’s labeled, “If the British hadn’t decided they were the sole possessors of civilized thought and behavioral patterns, the mess the world is in would look a fair bit different.”
iluvsummr
Anyone seen the Lemon Tree? Movie based on a true story – a Palestinian widow has the lemon grove she inherited (and which is her sole source of livelihood) marked for destruction because the Israeli defense minister moves next door, and takes her case all the way to the Israeli Supreme Court. The casual disregard for the humanity of others portrayed was quite an eye-opener for me. You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that the status quo can’t go on for much longer before something gives. For the extremists on either side, the “solution” leads down the dangerous path to ethnic cleansing. Fortunately, the rest of the world will not sit back and watch that happen. I sincerely hope that 100 years from now people aren’t still talking about the I/P conflict.
Eye's Wide Open
Peace can never be lasting – if it is forced.
Mjaum
@Eye’s Wide Open
Yes, because the US, Soviet Russia and the British Empire are all still at war with Germany, neh?
El Cid
The Israeli settler community has fans here?
Dennis-SGMM
@Mjaum:
You’ve obviously overlooked the recent artillery duels between France and Germany. Moreover the Chinese have renewed their shelling of Quemoy and Matsu.
Eye's Wide Open
Not everybody is wanting Germany to be blown off the face of the earth, nor are they admonished to by a higher authority. Why is that majum?
Mjaum
@Eye’s Wide Open
My apologies, I assumed I was responding to someone capable of holding at least a *reasonably* linear conversation. Your last statement seems to have been pulled out of a hat somewhere. Would you like to try again, or alternatively explain how said statement fits into anything whatsoever?
Eye's Wide Open
Majaum, your response is typical of someone who is limited in scope and empathy. Studying your history is advisable and I’ll leave it at that.
TenguPhule
I suppose if the Irish drove the English out of London, when the English came back they would be pretty pissed at the Irish saying they were there first by right of getting rid of all rivals.
Jrod
@TenguPhule:
What the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to claim that it was the Palestinians who drove the Jews out of Judea? I do believe that was Rome, and it was, oh, 2000 fucking years ago.
This is hilarious. Jews have a right to Israel because they conquered it 3000 years ago, but the fact Palestinians were living there 70 years ago means nothing. You are a joke.
grumpy realist
Me, I’ve gotten to the point where I want to a) get an asteroid on the right trajectory, b) give warning to everyone to Get Out Now, and c) send the whole friggin’ chunk of land underwater. Anyone who cares to can fight over the seabed. (And knowing religious nuts, they probably will.)
One of my friends, who was originally from that area, explained it very succinctly: “Everyone in the Mideast is nuts.”
Eye's Wide Open
Just a another hilarious note, in pointing out that God had foreordained the land that the Jews now occupy. Now this will really tip the balance point (rational temple) God gave them that land. You know, it’s Holy Land. You can’t tell a devout Jew he needs to give up that land, you see. It’s not for sale at any price because it’s not theirs to give away because it all belongs to God anyway. They are his chosen people. The elect.
Jrod
@grumpy realist: Here here!
If those settlers need more space, we have lots of it in Wyoming. It, too, is holy land! To the Lakota, sure, but no need to be picky.
Eye's Wide Open
Sounds like you need to talk to god about your problem.