In the previous comment’s thread, Anya asked if I’d provide some analysis once the speech was over. I’m going to provide a response and here’s a link to the transcript of his remarks at CSPAN for those at work who couldn’t watch the video.
What Secretary Kerry spoke about today is basically a reiteration of long standing US policy in regard to the Israelis and the Palestinians going back almost fifty years. In doing so it was also a defense of both these longstanding US positions and policies and a defense of the US’s abstention last week at the UN Security Council (UNSC). It is for this reason that Secretary Kerry recounted the almost identical actions taken on a very similarly worded UNSC resolution that the Reagan Administration took in December 1987. In a lot of ways what Secretary Kerry did today was an attempt to set the record straight on how the US has always approached the issue of Israeli settlements. My take is he felt he could wait no longer to do so in light of the official Israeli reaction and response since the US abstention at the UNSC last week.
The Israeli response is, itself, not surprising. And while some of this lack of surprise comes from who Prime Minister Netanyahu is, more of the lack of surprise is that this is how Prime Ministers from the Likud Party have always treated the US, its actions, and US Presidents – regardless of their party. Both Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir made similar types of responses when they were unhappy with Presidents Reagan and Bush (41). In both cases they went around sitting US Presidents and attempted to directly work Congress, the news media, and Jewish American organizations.
Here’s President Reagan’s account of Prime Minister Begin’s actions.
Although I felt that our relationship had gotten off to a good start and that I had Begin’s confidence that we would do whatever it took to ensure the safety of Israel, I learned that almost immediately after he left the White House, Begin went to Capitol Hill and began lobbying very hard against me, the administration, and the AWACS sale – after he had told me he wouldn’t do that.
I didn’t like having representatives of a foreign country – any foreign country – trying to interfere in what I regarded as our domestic political process and the setting of our foreign policy. I told the State Department to let Begin know I didn’t like it and that he was jeopardizing the close relationship or our countries unless he backed off. Privately, I felt he’d broken his word and I was angry about it. Late the following month, we won the AWACS battle when the Senate narrowly defeated a measure that would have blocked the sale, and we achieved our goal of sending a signal to moderate Arabs that we could be evenhanded – even though Israel, in a message apparently dictated by Begin, denounced the administration for anti-Semitism and betrayal.
And here’s Prime Minister Begin’s accusations of anti-Semitism by the Reagan Administration:
91. Statement by Prime Minister Begin on U.S. Measures Against Israel, 20 December 1981.
In an unprecedented move, Mr. Begin summoned the United States ambassador to Israel, and read to him the following statement. It was later read to the cabinet and issued to the public. Mr. Begin complained that the U.S. had punished Israel three times in the past six months. Israel was no. “vassal state” or a “banana republic.” He also hinted of anti-Semitic overtones in some of the punitive measures taken by the United States. Text:
Three times during the past six months, the U.S. Government has “punished” Israel.
On June 7 we destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor “Osirak” near Baghdad. I don’t want to mention to you today from whom we received the final information that this reactor was going to produce atomic bombs. We had no doubt about that: therefore our action was an act of salvation, an act of national self-defense in the most lofty sense of the concept. We saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including tens of thousands of children.
Nonetheless, you announced that you were punishing us – and you left unfilled a signed and sealed contract that included specific dates for the supply of (war) planes.
Not long after, in a defensive act – after a slaughter was committed against our people leaving three dead (including an Auschwitz survivor) and 29 were injured we bombed the PLO headquarters in Beirut.
You have no moral right to preach to us about civilian casualties. We have read the history of World War Two and we know what happened to civilians when you took action against an enemy. We have also read the history of the Vietnam war and your phrase “body-count”. We always make efforts to avoid hitting civilian populations, but sometimes it is unavoidable – as was the case in our bombing of the PLO headquarters.
We sometimes risk the lives of our soldiers to avoid civilian casualties.
Nonetheless, you punished us: you suspended delivery of F-15 planes.
A week ago, at the instance of the Government, the Knesset passed on all three readings by an overwhelming majority of two-thirds, the “Golan Heights Law.”
Now you once again declare that you are punishing Israel.
What kind of expression is this – “punishing Israel”? Are we a vassal state of yours? Are we a banana republic? Are we youths of fourteen who, if they don’t behave properly, are slapped across the fingers?
Let me tell you who this government is composed of. It is composed of people whose lives were spent in resistance, in fighting and in suffering. You will not frighten us with “punishments”. He who threatens us will find us deaf to his threats. We are only prepared to listen to rational arguments.
You have no right to “punish” Israel – and I protest at the very use of this term.
You have announced that you are suspending consultations on the implementation of the memorandum of understanding on strategic cooperation, and that your return to these consultations in the future will depend on progress achieved in the autonomy talks and on the situation in Lebanon.
You want to make Israel a hostage of the memorandum of understanding.
I regard your announcement suspending the consultations on the memorandum of as the abrogation (by you) of the memorandum. No “sword of Damocles” is going to hang over our head. So we duly take note of the fact that you have abrogated the memorandum of understanding.
The people of Israel has lived 3,700 years without a memorandum of understanding with America – and it will continue to live for another 3,700. In our eyes it (i.e., the U.S. suspension) is an abrogation of the memorandum.
We will not agree that you should demand of us to allow the Arabs of East Jerusalem to take part in the autonomy elections – and threaten us that if we don’t consent you will suspend the memorandum.
You have imposed upon us financial punishments – and have (thereby) violated the word of the President. When Secretary Haig was here he read from a written document the words of President Reagan that you would purchase 200 million dollars worth of Israel arms and other equipment. Now you say it will not be so.
This is therefore a violation of the President’s word. Is it customary? Is it proper?
You cancelled an additional 100 million dollars. What did you want to do – to “hit us in our pocket”?
In 1946 there lived in this house a British general by the name of Barker. Today I live here. When we fought him, you called us “terrorists” – and we carried on fighting. After we attacked his headquarters in the requisitioned building of the King David Hotel, Barker said: “This race will only be influenced by being hit in the pocket” – and he ordered his soldiers to stop patronizing Jewish cafes.
To hit us in the pocket – this is the philosophy of Barker. Now I understand why the whole great effort in the Senate to obtain a majority for the arms deal with Saudi Arabia was accompanied by an ugly campaign of anti-Semitism.
There’s much more at the link. Prime Minister Begin let the US Ambassador at the time have it with both barrels, then went for a rhetorical reload, then called in a rhetorical air strike, then rhetorically burned the village to save it…
When President George H. W. Bush clashed with Prime Minister Shamir over the settlements and Israeli settlement policy he was also publicly attacked with charges of anti-Semitism:
Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were often frustrated by Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. Perhaps the most public crisis in the relationship came in 1991 when Bush and Shamir clashed over the one topic that has divided almost every president from almost every prime minister—Israel’s construction of settlements in occupied Palestinian territories.
Unhappy over the impact the settlements were having on the peace process, Bush held up $10 billion in loan guarantees for Israel. Bush was blasted by one Israeli Cabinet minister as a “liar” and an “anti-Semite.”
It is very important to state that when the US or American officials in their official capacity or even Americans disagree with Israel in regards to Israeli actions and publicly air those criticisms and disagreements that this is not anti-Semitism. Here are links to how the US, Great Britain, and the EU officially define anti-Semitism. All three are in agreement. Here’s the US definition from the Special Envoy to Monitor anti-Semitism and Extremism:
“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
And here’s how the US defines anti-Semitism in regards to Israel:
What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel?
EXAMPLES of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel, taking into account the overall context could include:
DEMONIZE ISRAEL:
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
- Blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions
DOUBLE STANDARD FOR ISRAEL:
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
- Multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations
DELEGITIMIZE ISRAEL:
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.
Nothing in last week’s UN Security Council Resolution fall within this definition. And certainly nothing the US has done under President Reagan, President George H. W. Bush, or President Obama does either.
What Secretary Kerry was responding to in his remarks today is, unfortunately, nothing new. Likud Party Prime Ministers have been treating American Presidents and American Ambassadors this way for over 30 years. Including accusing them of anti-Semitism. A great deal of what Secretary Kerry said today was an attempt to make sure that Americans remember their own history. Most Americans couldn’t even paraphrase the US policy towards Israel and the Palestinians, let alone have a good historical understanding of how it was developed, what was adjusted under which President, just how tough on the Israelis Presidents Reagan and Bush (41) were, and that the responses of Prime Minister Netanyahu to President Obama is not new, but quite in line with how Prime Ministers Begin and Shamir treated Presidents Reagan and Bush (41). This includes the professional Jewish Americans that are on network and cable news, have columns in major newspapers, and run major Jewish American organizations. Secretary Kerry’s remarks today boil down to: if you don’t remember where you’ve been, you’re not going to be be able to figure out how to get where you want to go.
To finish up, as a national security professional who has worked on these issues* I think that what Secretary Kerry reiterated today as the principles for an Israeli-Palestinian peace make a lot of sense. Unfortunately they are dead on arrival. And this has less to do with any potential change in policy from the incoming Trump Administration. Rather, they are dead on arrival because over the past five years more and more members of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s coalition, or significantly notable members of the parties within the coalition, have repudiated the concept of a two state solution. Instead a one state solution has been put forward with different dynamics and permutations based on who is articulating the potential policy. Some of these call for some form of legal rights and citizenship for the Palestinians within this unitary state while others call for the removal of the Palestinians from the proposed unitary state. Even Prime Minister Netanyahu called for a one state solution during his most recent reelection campaign, though he quickly repudiated this upon winning. Unfortunately the one state position is now the default position of the majority of the current Israeli governing coalition. And this, itself, has ramifications among the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority has been seeking more and more often, through international organizations, recognition of it as the de facto government of a de facto Palestinian State. And this is all aside from the increasing cycles of violence between Israelis and Palestinians that further poisons any attempt at trust building. All of these actions, from the governing Israeli coalition’s abandonment of the two state concept as a solution, to the Palestinian Authority’s attempt to gain de facto recognition as the government of a de facto Palestine, to the cycle of violence, are all negatively contributing to the inability of anyone to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
Until or unless the Israelis and the Palestinians are able to break the cycle there is very little that the US can do to resolve the crisis and facilitate a peace agreement. During the GOP primaries the President-elect indicated that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute was really a real estate problem and that he knows how to solve those. Leaving the second half of the statement aside, he is absolutely correct in regard to this being a difficult real estate transaction. One that requires trading land, which is tangible, for security if not peace, which are intangible and hard to measure. What makes the Israeli-Palestinian dispute a wicked problem is not that we don’t know how to engineer the solution. We do know how to do that. What makes it a wicked problem is no one has cracked the code on how to successfully market that solution to the Israelis and the Palestinians, as well as marketing it domestically within the US to Americans too.
* Full disclosure. I was one of the people that worked on the Department of Defense’s portion of the 2014 Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative. Originally I was brought to US Army Europe (USAREUR), which was in charge of actually overseeing and carrying out the security assessments for the DOD that Secretary Kerry mentioned. I was under temporary assigned control (TACON) as the Cultural Advisor to the Commander of US Army Europe and worked both on site at USAREUR headquarters on temporary duty (TDY) and from my own office at Carlisle Barracks in Pennsylvania from December 2013 through June 2014, with most of the time being spent at my own office, not on TDY. In this assignment I was tasked with providing input (several in depth reports as well as shorter written inputs and onsite direct inputs) to the Commander, Deputy Commander, Chief of Plans, Chief of Assessments, and their teams on the socio-cultural dynamics of the Israelis, Palestinians, and the history of the conflict between them, as well as assisting both the Chief of Plans and Chief of Assessments and their teams with consolidating the various portions of the assessments into the final report and I was tasked with writing the historical section for the report.
From June through August 2014 my civilian mobilization term assignment under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act was shifted from US Army War College to the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Security Dialogue (OSD-SD) as they picked up my funding and I was assigned under Operational Control (OPCON) to US Army Europe. This two month assignment was to serve as the executive editor and oversee quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) in the production and completion of the final DOD report that would go from the Commander of US Army Europe to the Commander of US European Command to GEN Allen, the Special Envoy at OSD-SD, to the Secretaries of Defense and State. When this assignment was completed I demobilized from my four year term appointment at USAWC.
Baud
So you just whipped this up, did you?
Freaking overachievers.
Adam L Silverman
@Baud: There is no pleasing some people…
dmsilev
I think this is the key point. If, as seems to be the case, the current Israeli government is comfortable with and even welcomes a single-state ‘solution’, there’s the potential for things to go really wrong really badly. And, of course, career foreign policy expert John Kerry is about to be replaced by the head of an oil company.
Mnemosyne
Too bad Comrade Trump doesn’t even have as much loyalty to this country as Ronald fucking Reagan did.
Steeplejack (tablet)
@Adam:
Suggest putting the bulk of your post “below the fold” on the main page.
SenyorDave
@Mnemosyne: Too bad Comrade Trump doesn’t even have as much loyalty to this country as Ronald fucking Reagan did.
I don’t know how many times I said this to people who were for Trump. Trump is loyal to one entity in this world, and that is Donald J Fucking Trump. And we have a lifetime of public behavior that attests to that fact. He would betray anyone or anything, including his country, to advance his interests. That is why, despite Pence being a dimwitted RWNJ, I think we would be better off if Trump died or was out of the picture somehow.
Even Nixon was loyal to this country.
Adam L Silverman
@Steeplejack (tablet): done, that turned out to eat far more real estate than I intended
Thornton Hall
Eventually, Likud will rule an apartheid state. It’s history will parallel South Africa’s, with the end result being Palestinian rule. That’s basically the inevitable one state solution. Unfortunately it will take the end of fossil fuels plus 50 years to happen.
Yarrow
@Mnemosyne: Seems rather quaint, doesn’t it?
dmsilev
@Mnemosyne: Reagan wasn’t above benefitting from that sort of thing either (the timing of the release of the Iranian hostages). Nor was Richard ‘sabotage Vietnamese peace talks’ Nixon, for that matter.
Mnemosyne
@dmsilev:
Oh, I know that. But Trump is the first president that I know of who decided to outsource our foreign policy to a hostile government. We’re going to be doing Russia’s bidding for the next four years at a minimum.
Chris
This is honestly one of the biggest problems I see with our policy – best summarized by Jon Stewart when he said “we cannot be Israel’s rehab sponsor and its drug dealer.”
There’ve been other conflicts like this where the U.S. could be counted on as an honest-ish broker. In Northern Ireland, in South Africa, you had a case where the U.S. had longstanding ties with the government of the relevant nation, but also a large American diaspora that was sympathetic to the insurgent movement, and these people voted and had supporters in Congress as well as civil society that could and did put pressure on the government. In both cases, the U.S. had an interest in making sure that the conflict was actually resolved amicably.
I don’t see that in Israel/Palestine. The U.S. population doesn’t really have an interest in peace in the region, it’s pretty much completely bought into the notion that Israel’s always right and must be supported no matter what it does. U.S. policy officially is to be evenhanded, but in practice it’s toothless – no real attempts to pressure Israel are conceivable. And in the meantime, the only domestic pressure on Washington is by those trying to encourage Israel to adopt a more and more hard-line position.
Whatever our stated policy, our main de facto impact on the conflict is to be Israel’s assurance that no matter what it does and no matter how far it goes, we’ll always have its back and we’ll never hold it accountable with more than a slap on the wrist. In other words, we hurt more than we help.
Mike in DC
Hamas also welcomes a single state solution.
Honestly the only way I could see being able to market this is through a massive de facto bribe of both parties to the dispute. Not just to the top people but everyone.
Patricia Kayden
Great analysis. I had no idea that Israel had insinuated that Reagan and Bush were antisemitic because of policy differences. It’s a shame when that word is thrown around based on legitimate differences rather than real discrimination.
Nice to see the level of expertise BJ writers have to share with its readers.
Roger Moore
The way I see it, there are really only a few possible long-term outcomes to the Israel/Palestine question:
1) Two states
2) One state, democratic but not Jewish because of demographics
3) One apartheid state
4) One democratic, Jewish state guilty of crimes against humanity from however they got rid of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
I would be OK with either 1) or 2), but either 3) or 4) would be monstrous.
Adam L Silverman
@Patricia Kayden: Be nicer if someone paid this writer for his expertise…
Cacti
@SenyorDave:
His scuttling of the Paris peace talks and dragging Vietnam on for four more destructive years begs to differ with this assessment.
Patricia Kayden
@Chris: Is it strange that only the U.S. treats Israel so deferentially? European countries, even those who bear the guilt of historically participating in the Holocaust, seem to treat Israel more objectively and are therefore more sympathetic to Palestinian concerns. American Middle East policy is pro-Israel to a fault regardless of the political party in charge.
Patricia Kayden
@Adam L Silverman: Cole … paging Cole.
kindness
I believe Adam is correct on several points. One of the more important ones is Israel’s desire for a one-state solution. While Adam mentioned the exile component of the Palestinians from the land they live on to somewhere outside Israel, I would think this is the 800 pound gorilla that can’t be ignored even though our MSM has done a FABULOUS job of ignoring it altogether. Strangely our MSM has not seemed to ignored ‘certain parties’ calling President Obama and his entire Administration anti-semitic. Curious how that works, eh?
Adam L Silverman
@Patricia Kayden: I didn’t mean for writing here. The verdammt sequester is killing me.
dmsilev
@Roger Moore: Pretty much this. If there’s going to be just one state in that chunk of real estate, either it’s not going to be majority-Jewish or something awful will have had to have happened. Two-state seems to be the best chance of threading the nothing-very-awful needle, but for it to have a chance at working, both sides have to actually want it to work, and that’s kind of a concern right now.
SenyorDave
I@Roger Moore: I agree with your four possibilities. I would say that right now Israel is moving towards #3, and I expect the pace too pick up once Trump is in office. I don’t think #4 has much of a chance, because they will lose all support from most everyone except Orthodox Jews. Even a Trump administration would have a hard time with publicly supporting #4. What concerns me is that #3 doesn’t seem to get much push back among Americans. I do think Europe will push back hard eventually, especially with economic sanctions.
Chris
@Roger Moore:
Sadly, at this point I think the endgame is going to be a West Bank completely annexed to Israel with a few Palestinian Bantustans left (basically like us with Indian reservations). There might be a two-state solutions in the sense of Gaza continuing to exist as a nominally independent state, but the West Bank is gone.
Brachiator
@Adam L Silverman: Thanks for this, especially the Reagan historical background.
Pogonip
@Baud: He whipped it up while cleaning the house, making a torte, doing a thousand pushups, and helping the lady next door translate a manuscript in Hittite.
He’s becoming a real slacker lately.
Yarrow
@Adam L Silverman: John’s pet pics aren’t payment enough?
Pogonip
@Adam L Silverman: I thought the sequester was being politely ignored for DOD? (If not, it will be as of 20 January.)
Roger Moore
@Mnemosyne:
Reagan cared about his own power going forward, so he didn’t want outsiders interfering. Trump is primarily interested in enriching himself, and letting outsiders interfere is the price of doing so.
ETA: Not that “protecting his own power” is meant as a knock on Reagan. The Framers expected each branch of government to try to protect its own prerogatives and used that as the basis of checks and balances.
Pogonip
@Yarrow: I thought he autographed the Walter-poop picture for Adam?
Yarrow
@Adam L Silverman: Do you see it improving under Trump and the Republicans?
dmsilev
@Patricia Kayden: See also decades worth of US policy towards Cuba. A small group of people that cares very deeply about an issue can dominate in our politics over a majority that disagrees but isn’t too fervent about it.
(Many similar examples in domestic policy as well, guns being the most notable.)
hovercraft
@Mike in DC:
Sadly for Netanyahu and the rest of his hard line coalition, they will end up in the same position as Apartheid government did, far outnumbered by a hostile majority, and the only way for them to maintain power then will be to fully adopt their methods. The pariah status they are slowly descending into will only get worse as they use more and more extreme methods to maintain control. The US and UK tried to prop up White South African rule while the rest of the world recoiled in disgust, no matter who succeeds the PEOTUS, America will not be able to shield Israel from the rest of the world’s BDS movement. The world is too interconnected to hide what is happening inside Gaza especially, but also in the West Bank. Netanyahu has compiled one hell of a legacy, I hope he’s proud of it, history will not be kind to him.
hovercraft
@SenyorDave:
Define loyalty? Vietnam war memorial would beg to differ.
Yarrow
@Pogonip: Oh, gosh. I didn’t realize. Well, Adam does deserve the best.
Aleta
I briefly looked in population statistics for the I. settlements for this answer. But I’m limiting some (computer) searching motions lately (pain) so here’s my question. What portion of settlers in the newer settlements are immigrants? What portion from the US? What portion of the newer US settlers are tied to political groups that are supporting Trump?
Cacti
@Chris:
The Camp David offer that Arafat walked away from, and Israelis imagine as being “generous” was basically what you describe above. Palestinians stuck into four cantons in the West Bank, to be surrounded by territory annexed by Israel, with no sovereign rights over water, airspace, or self-defense.
Major Major Major Major
Thanks Adam.
...now I try to be amused
@Roger Moore:
I’ve seen it phrased like this: Israeli can’t be a state that is
(1) Jewish,
(2) democratic, and
(3) including the Palestinian territories.
It can only be two of the three.
Chris
@dmsilev:
“Something awful” is probably going to be mostly just the same as what’s been going on, trail-of-tear’ing the Palestinians through a slow drip-drip-drip process rather than big and photogenic events.
Build a “security wall” that just happens to cut through large swaths of Palestinian territory and make the checkpoints incredibly difficult to cross, thus “encouraging” all Palestinians on the Israeli side of the wall to relocate.
Keep bulldozing Palestinian neighborhoods or villages and building new colonies for settlers on their ruins, bit by bit, drip-drip-drip rather than one big “okay, all Palestinians out by this date!” moment.
“Accidentally” destroy even more of these villages and neighborhoods during every military operation in the West Bank, or claim that they have to be evacuated and taken over by the military for unspecified “security” reasons. And then just don’t ever get around to giving them back.
Keep control of the water supply to Palestinian regions and restrict it in such a way that it strongly “encourages” Palestinians to relocate rather than continue to live on land they can no longer afford to maintain.
And, every now and then, have a major military operation like they did in 2014 or 2008 where a bunch of Palestinians get killed, just to remind them that there are worse things than being forced off your land and into a refugee camp.
The current situation is plenty awful enough, and over the long term, probably all it takes for them to achieve the complete takeover.
Roger Moore
@SenyorDave:
Considering that there is one whole political party that’s trying to return Jim Crow to the US, this shouldn’t be much of a surprise.
Mike in DC
@Roger Moore:
I think the non-Jewish Israelis would be deeply unhappy with option 3, and option 4 would result in civil war. The US is not going to sign off on ethnic cleansing, and a wider Arab Israeli war would be virtually guaranteed in option 4.
Adam L Silverman
@Brachiator: You’re welcome. Begin wasn’t very nice to Carter either. Overall, my impression, is that Being just wasn’t very nice.
Cacti
@Mike in DC:
I believe the incoming Republican government would happily sign off on ethnic cleansing.
Brachiator
@Roger Moore:
I doubt that one state, but not Jewish, would be democratic.
Roger Moore
@…now I try to be amused:
I disagree. Israel can be all three; it just has to commit crimes against humanity to get there. I obviously don’t think that’s a price worth paying, but there are unfortunately others who are considering going there.
Adam L Silverman
@Pogonip: Its not. Its crushed both discretionary funding, as well as contracts. So positions that are marked expert, which would have paid six figures and required the credentials to go with that five years ago, now pay mid five figures and require entry level credentials because that’s all the pay will support. So pickings are slim for folks like me these days.
Adam L Silverman
@Pogonip: Actually leaving for the gym in ten minutes or so.
Chris
@SenyorDave:
I don’t believe that. I’d have believed it of the previous Republican administrations and probably even McCain and Romney. But Trump? He’ll be live-tweeting the whole thing while stuffing his face with popcorn. And so will most of his groupies.
Depends who’s running Europe. The fascists are pushing for control there, too, and their chief prejudice at the moment is still Islamophobia, not antisemitism.
Adam L Silverman
@Yarrow: I have no idea. I honestly don’t.
Yarrow
Really? Why not? Doesn’t the new administration wants to lock up Muslims in our own country? And we have a not very nice history with our Native American population. I doubt the US would sign off on full scale open “round ’em up and send them to the gas chambers” ethnic cleansing, but something a little quieter? A little less obvious? You have confidence we wouldn’t turn a blind eye?
trollhattan
@Cacti:
Yup. File under “feature, not bug.” Part of Trump’s deep commitment to “Figuring this whole thing out” WRT Muslims.
Roger Moore
@Mike in DC:
As a practical matter, we have 3 already. The only difference is that Israel is still pretending to want option 1 to try to keep the heat off while they continue to tighten their grip. The question is whether they move on to trying to achieve 4 piecemeal.
Yarrow
@Adam L Silverman: I guess no one really does. I hope it gets better for you.
zhena gogolia
@Baud:
Yeah, I mean this looks more interesting than most of what’s in the newspapers I subscribe to.
Roger Moore
@Brachiator:
I guess that we could consider additional options- one state, not democratic or Jewish or crimes against humanity carried out against the Jewish population- but they obviously aren’t what Israel is considering.
...now I try to be amused
@Roger Moore:
I see your point now. My (3) above should be, “including the Palestinian people.”
Mike in DC
@Cacti:
Well, it depends. Mass deportation with a body count in the low 4 digits might get a pass. All out bloodletting with deaths in the tens of thousands is not something that is easily spun.
Betty Cracker
Depending on how disastrous the impending Trump debacle is and how precipitously US international prestige drops as a result, we may not have to worry our pretty little heads over vexing questions such as how to sort out the Israel-Palestine mess much longer. I mean, Trump seems to honestly believe he can dispatch Mr. Ivanka over there to bang out a peace accord! What could possibly go wrong?
liberal
I don’t get all this focus on Likud. Yeah, sure, the Israeli right is much worse, but Labor was in favor of settlements, too.
Cacti
@Mike in DC:
I can see Paul Ryan making his best “earnest face” and making a bold statement of how ethnic cleansing doesn’t represent the true values of the GOP, moments before his “aye” vote for ethnic cleansing.
Bobby D
@Adam L Silverman: Us too, sequester has been a fkin joke, saved little to no money. It just deferred work we should have been doing, and we couldn’t fill many open positions. Now we’re in a big hole, retirement wave is growing, and the last 5 years of boomers hanging on way past when they should have retired along with no hiring/development of the younger generations, the next 5 years looks beyond grim in my little corner of DoD. If it weren’t for the incoming nuts, I’d be looking to get out of DoD and go back to EPA or DOI.
Roger Moore
@Mike in DC:
That doesn’t strike me as a plausible outcome. Any attempt at mass deportation is going to trigger vicious, though probably doomed, Palestinian resistance, which more or less guarantees much higher casualties.
Adam L Silverman
@liberal: You are correct, that under Labour governments settlements expanded as well as they have under Likud/Likud coalition governments. The difference is that the Labour Party is dead in Israel and the several parties that continually try to replace it have little ability to do so. Israel looks, barring something major happening, as if it will be run by right of center coalitions for the foreseeable future.
trollhattan
@liberal:
Oooh an expert. Tell us, please, how many settlements there would have been under Rabin.
Gator90
“I don’t think the Bible says anything about democracy.”
–Sheldon Adelson on the “Jewish vs. democratic” dilemma
Adam L Silverman
@Bobby D: Exactly. And do you know what happens when you’ve spent four years on a term appointment in every increasing levels of seniority, including supervisory assignments, at the GS 15 level sandwiched in between stints as a contractor pay graded as a GS 15 including one in a supervisory position when you apply for GS 13 jobs? You do not get through the OPM/CPAC scoring. And if you do you don’t get through to the interview because no one wants to hire a GS 15 level staffer for a GS 13 position no matter how many times you indicated you understand no one brings in a GS 15 and that given the budget realities you just want to get back in the door and do good work, no one believes you.
hovercraft
@Chris:
He will not get any pushback from this supine congress.
Inside the coming war between the United States and the United Nations
Congress is planning to escalate the clash over the U.N. Security Council’s anti-Israel resolution into a full-on conflict between the United States and the United Nations.
By Josh Rogin
Obama administration is close to announcing measures to punish Russia for election interference
A package that would include sanctions and covert action is being finalized.
By Ellen Nakashima
How soon before Congress undoes whatever he does? No matter what Lindsey has to say, Russia did not have anything to do with the greatest landslide victory in the history of America.
The Pale Scot
@Roger Moore:
I believe the saying goes “Israel can have two of the following three, security, democracy and being a Jewish state. Pick any two.
Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class
@Chris:
Meanwhile, the West Bank was the more moderate to secular business-friendly population. Those guys love money, alcohol and a good time, and Bibi is tossing them aside.
Ultimately, Pakistani or Iranian nuclear warheads will crater several different sites sites within Israel proper, and such members of the Cabinet that survive will find themselves either beheaded or swinging from ropes as refugee boats try and use what is left of the port in Haifa to evacuate sick survivors.
liberal
@Cacti:
Agreed. Though it’s hardly just Israelis who think it was generous; lots of people here think it was, too.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
I don’t think Likud ever wanted anything but an ethenicly cleansed Isreal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
liberal
@…now I try to be amused: Israel’s not really a democracy, even inside its own boundaries. Arab Israelis are second class citizens.
Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class
@Roger Moore:
Here’s the thing about asymmetric warfare – at some point in time, occupying forces tire of having to watch their backs for attacks from local “allies”.
And you can whine a lot about “dishonorable”, but when your security forces operate with impunity and behind impenetrable defenses, the asymmetric warrior has to choose softer targets.
liberal
@Chris:
This is exactly what the Israeli game appears to be. Slow-motion ethnic cleansing.
liberal
This is from the Wikipedia article on Mapai:
The notion that the Israeli Right was the only political home for ethnic oppression is wildly ahistorical.
Chris
@Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class:
Not a surprise. People like Bibi tend to hate the “moderates” among their enemy’s population worse than they do the “radicals.” After all, every “moderate” that exists is a blow to your portrayal of the lot of them as bloodthirsty savages.
liberal
@trollhattan: Fuck off, idiot. You know absolutely nothing about settlements and the Israeli center-left.
As for Rabin, we’ll never know. But the history leading up to Oslo makes any assertion that the bulk of the Israeli center and left welcomed a fully democratic multiethnic state laughable.
Another Scott
@Chris: You’re right that at the moment (and for the last 50 years or so) it was Israel right or wrong as far as the US public was concerned.
But things can change quickly.
The idea of us giving up the Panama Canal was fantastical when I was a kid, but Jimmy did it.
The idea of the US president going to Havana to meet a Castro and working to end the embargo was fantastical until a few months ago, but Obama did it.
Leaders can make things happen pretty quickly, and often with less blowback from the public than conventional wisdom would indicate.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this kerfuffle with Bibi blows over before Friday evening as far as the US public is concerned. Whether the region blows up is going to be on Bibi’s head, not on Kerry’s (or Obama’s).
Remember when
EbolaZikathe NSADaeshGuicfer 2.0 was going to kill us all in our beds? Serious issues that are blown up into a panic don’t have staying power in the US press, and that gives a sensible President a chance to work for long-term solutions without having to play continuous defense at home.Of course, we don’t have a sensible President entering office in January, so who knows… :-(
Cheers,
Scott.
liberal
@Adam L Silverman: agreed. AFAICT there’s not really much left-of-center in Israel these days.
liberal
@Chris:
AFAICT, among American Jews (the Fundie nutjobs are an entirely different matter), the populace is much more “liberal” on this issue than Jewish leaders and “major donors”. And that discrepancy is only increasing.
Another Scott
@Mike in DC: A majority of both sides still support a 2-state solution:
The details matter, but most people on both sides support a sensible deal.
The problem, as with the US and much of Europe these days, is that a too-powerful noisy right-wing minority on each side is making achievement of a deal extremely difficult.
Cheers,
Scott.
West of the Rockies (been a while)
@Adam L Silverman:
Good to get the clarification; I thought maybe there were resentments afoot.
Your analysis is always erudite, thoughtful, engaging. I hope you and the other front pagers feel appreciated (and realize some sort of financial benefit in some arcane internet fashion).
liberal
@Chris: AFAICT primarily focusing the oppression against more moderate Palestinian elements is hardly merely a creature of the Israeli Right. Seems like it was that way for a long period of time.
Moreover, as a general tactic (i.e. one used by any party in a given historical context, not just Jewish forces in Israel), I think it’s much deeper than just how you portray the opposition. I assume there’s some kind of reckoning that moderate opposition is more threatening overall, politically at least. (Maybe some calculation that extremists can’t last as long, create stable, deep political structures, etc.)
I assume there are lots of historical examples of this but I’ve never tried to look into it.
liberal
@Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class:
Uh, except for the fact that Israel has nuclear warheads, too—Iran currently has none, and I can’t believe Pakistan as nearly as many as Israel.
Not sure about Israeli delivery systems.
kindness
Sure seems as if all the sites I like are being over-run by purity trolls. I can’t even read the comments over at Kevin Drums place any longer. Here too but to a slightly lesser degree. One of the things that I have enjoyed is how several (other sites, not here) trolls have started out pushing BernieBro talk only to devolve into Putin fanbois. Noise I don’t have time for.
donnah
Our long haired cat Fiona is an absolute sweetheart, but we had to take her to a groomer when she had fleas in the fall. They had to shave her to get rid of matted clumps and to make sure the fleas were gone.
It was getting chilly and she was pretty much naked, so we got her a sweater. I thought she looked adorable. Her fur has grown back to a nice length and she’s sweater-free again, but we may have to do it again next year.
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d27/Rughooker/IMG_4828.jpg
trollhattan
@liberal:
No, fuck your ownself, fraud.
Chris
@Another Scott:
Yes, but the question then is what is meant by two-state solution. As near as I can tell, majorities on both sides might support a theoretical two-state solution, but that doesn’t mean they won’t recoil from every actual version of a two-state solution that’s proposed once enough of the usual assholes have gone on TV to denounce it as a bad solution that sells us all out to the filthy Jew/Arab enemy.
@liberal:
Or, the more depressingly simple interpretation: it’s easier to go after “moderates” than the radicalized assholes, because the moderates are less likely to want to fight in the first place.
trollhattan
Meanwhile in Montana.
Cacti
@liberal:
One of the great propaganda victories of the Israel lobby.
TTT
@Enhanced Voting Techniques: And the Palestinian leadership never wanted anything but a bigger Holocaust.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini
The blank-slate attitude in these comments is troubling. In 1967, after Egypt and Syria had already attacked, Israel TWICE begged Jordan not to join them. It did, and lost. We never forget about the racism of the Jim Crow days, of slavery, of how problematic Christopher Columbus was. Ywt to far too many on the left, nothing in the Middle East mattered until the Jews started to stand up for themselves.
“Proper” Israel is about 80% Jewish; some amount of the larger WB settlements will be annexed, eventually the rest left behind. And more settlements will go up in the Golan, now safely out of the anarchy that used to be a country called “Syria.”
Pogonip
@Adam L Silverman: And on the other end of the pay scale, they can’t fill positions either because they insist on College Graduates, and who with a 6-figure college debt is going to take a job as a GS-5, especially when civil service rights are being eroded daily?
James Powell
@Mnemosyne:
It isn’t just Trump, it’s the entire Republican Party leadership and nearly everyone in the press/media.
Another Scott
@TTT: “Eventually” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. And is ahistorical. Baltimore Sun:
Bibi and his minions are fully on-board with that, as they’ve shown through their actions for decades.
Cheers,
Scott.
PhoenixRising
@efgoldman: this pull quote is the most important thing in this essay, due respect to Adam’s expertise.
Israel was, in the time of today’s Israeli and US policy makers, a revolution that became a nation-state due to a historical fluke. Neither Begin nor Alex Haig were ready to have a more truthful conversation 35 years ago, about whose rights had to be trampled for Israel to exist, and that phrasing from Begin makes it clear why.
The assumption that Likud has inherited the moral standing of the rebel Jews who fought the last of the British Empire for a country to save the Jewish nation…poisons every aspect of the negotiating.
James Powell
@Roger Moore:
I’ve never been there, but from the descriptions I’ve read and the stories told by people I know who have been there, it’s pretty much 3) right now.
I’m concerned that RW Israelis may view “early in the Trump administration” as an opportune moment to move toward 4).
James Powell
@Another Scott:
And despite what I’ve read about public opinion in Israel, if we go by how the whole nation votes, then the whole nation is fully on-board with that as well.
There will be no peace because nobody over there really wants peace. They want victory and, even more, they want their enemies to be defeated.
Botsplainer
@TTT:
Dear apartheid-excusing asshole:
When you graft in a racially exclusionary state on top on top of indigenous people who can count their ancestry as actually having lived there continuously for centuries (and don’t claim an inheritance to do a book of mythical bullshit), the indigenous and neighbors are going to rise up and object. Citing the Holocaust doesn’t wave that away.
I’ve seen many maps of settlement patterns and land claims from the 20s through the 40s, and Israel apologists for the current occupation and exclusion are completely full of shit about those residents.
The attitudes you find here are a reaction to what that shonda fur die Goyim Bibi and Likud have accomplished.
West of the Rockies (been a while)
@Adam L Silverman:
Well, those abs aren’t gonna washboard themselves!
Botsplainer
@TTT:
PS – If American liberals are generally sick of Israel’s shit and the American right is about half full of people who hate Israel because of anti-semitic bias, how is that going to work out?
Israel is the psycho stalky abusive significant other that constantly demands unquestioning support in order to prove that you love it…
BBA
@TTT: I used to be like you. Now I know better.
The occupation began in 1917. Once you recognize this, everything becomes much clearer.
Pogonip
Let us assume that a nuclear war occurs. The only things to survive are one cockroach on the Palestinian side of the line and one cockroach on the Israeli side. They will immediately begin fighting.
Neither John Kerry nor anyone else can bring peace to the Middle East. The most the rest of us can hope to do is contain the mayhem.
Adam, can I get GS-13 pay for this analysis?
Adam L Silverman
@Pogonip: I know of a very senior, retired military Intel guy who was offered a GS 10 by the DIA. That’s just insulting to someone with a masters degree and 20 plus years of experience.
Adam L Silverman
@West of the Rockies (been a while): I did a core only TRX set on Monday and then cardio. I was very sore yesterday.
Adam L Silverman
@Pogonip: no becUae the sequeater
Pogonip
@Adam L Silverman: Curses! Foiled again!
debbie
Philip Roth wrote “Operation Shylock” in 1993. It centered on the Israeli-Palestinian disputes. I didn’t read it until 2010, and it seemed to me that not a single thing had changed in 17 years. Now it’s 24 years on and it’s still the same freakin’ situation. My ancestors will slaughter me when we are next together, but I think it’s past time to wash our hands of this matter.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@TTT: Don’t know why I bring this up, but my mother’s family is Catholic Croats who talk to the Virgin Mary. As a side line they blew up the bridge in Mostar after an orgy of rape and murder on their Muslim neighbors. They go on about stuff the Ottomans did to our ancestors back in the day as to why they did it. They’re scum.
Clearly there are no parallels between Croatia and Israel. Now as you were talking about the justifications for raping and murdering your neighbor for insurmountable crime of praying to the incorrect version of the Great Invisible Sky Wizard.
Anya
Thanks, Adam. I did not know the Israel dispute with the Reagan and Bush admins were similar to the Obama admin’s dispute with the current Israeli government. Netanyahu seemed actively disrespectful when dealing with Obama. But this actually makes me reevaluate how I view the whole thing.
As I said earlier, I always learn something new from your posts.
TTT
@Botsplainer:
Dear Alt-Right sockpuppet: why don’t you just put the (((echo marks))) around Bibi? As soon as your issue with Israel plummets to “Da Jooz aren’t really indigenous” when the majority of Israelis are ethnic Middle Eastern Mizrahi Jews who have been in that region since before Islam was invented, you’ve pretty much hit rock bottom but you could probably go further.
Seriously, you’re a lazy racist and you don’t know anything about this issue so should probably go back to Infowars.
TTT
@Patricia Kayden: perhaps because America still has some Jews left alive to vote?
The power dynamics regarding Israel completely invert at the border. About 45% of all the Jews in the world live there, and about another 46% live in America. Then there are 500k in France, about 200k each in UK and Germany, and after those you end up with 5-10k in several countries. It IS germane to conversations about “why can’t America be like the rest of the UN?” when the rest of the UN has by and large exterminated or expelled all their Jews within living memory.
Folks who can’t see that are really little different from Fox Newswers talking about “black on black crime,” which they will be happy to explain exists in a complete vacuum and is totally unrelated to any broader landscape of issues of white supremacism and racism.
TTT
@BBA: “This occupation began in 1917” – really?
Because in 1917, the Ottomans depopulated Tel Aviv to a ghost town and killed more than 1,500 Jews in a death march. Arabs mass-murdered Jews of Jerusalem in pogroms in 1895 and 1870. The Jewish communities of Safed and Tiberias were exterminated in 1660, and then again in 1834. The blood libel of Damascus was in 1840.
You know what creationists sound like when they say taking prayer out of schools allowed mass tragedies to happen, which hadn’t happened before? It sounds just like what you just said.
Adam L Silverman
@Anya: You’re quite welcome.
BBA
@TTT: Save it. I grew up singing all those Zionist songs in shul. Thing is, no atrocity committed against us will ever be any justification for us to commit atrocities of our own.
I admit 1917 – the invasion of Ottoman Palestine by the British – is an odd date to choose. But without the British there’s no Balfour Declaration and therefore no Nakba. Palestine has never had self-rule, but the late Ottoman Empire was as close as it ever got, much closer than the British or Jordanian or Israeli occupations.
Miss Bianca
@Adam L Silverman: Pardon my ignorance, but the sequester is still in effect?! How can this be?
Seth Owen
@liberal: Israel has much more robust delivery systems than Pakistan, for what it’s worth. I find it hard to imagine circumstances where Pakistan would lid expend one of its limited nuclear arsenal on Israel. Those nukes are for India.
PIGL
@TTT: Lo! An innocent has stumbled in, apparently from some Zionist
bubble. Buddy, you’ll find limited market for your bullshit here.
Adam L Silverman
@Miss Bianca: The sequester, formally known as the Budget Control Act, has not been repealed. The Continuing Resolution agreement negotiated by President Obama with Speaker Boehner in late 2015, and which Speaker Boehner had to resign to get passed, waived the caps for the 2016 and 2017 Fiscal Years. Unfortunately two things have happened. 1) The GOP controlled House was unable, even with this deal worked out, to actually produce a budget for FY 2017, let alone appropriations bills, so we’re still working under multi-month Continuing Resolutions. I think the current one expires in April, but don’t quote me on that. 2) Almost every government department and agency that I know of is still functioning as if the sequester caps had not been waived under the 2015 agreement. Everyone is afraid to spend money, especially as continuing resolutions can expire without a new one. And there’s a dirty little secret of contracts that most people don’t realize. Because of the way Federal law is written in regards to Federal contracting, if there is a government shutdown, contractors still get paid. Now some, if they’re listed as emergency essential personnel in their letters of authorization/statements of work, would have to work just like emergency essential civil servants. But the vast majority wouldn’t because they’re not. But those contracts still have to be paid. So unless the continuing resolution is longer than a couple of months, even when a contract has been awarded, contractors are not brought on to do the work. Because if the continuing resolution lapses without a new one, then the government is on the hook to paying for contractors that aren’t working. I actually lost a job opportunity because of this in September 2015. My company pushed me forward for a position, but the position was never filled because the government refused to allow any contractors to on board a month before the end of the Fiscal Year without any indication that there would be a new continuing resolution or that the government wouldn’t shut down.
Another Scott
@Miss Bianca: The Sequester is still out there, but until some sort of actual budget is passed, it’s all a mess of patches and exceptions.
E.g. Federal News Radio from August:
That was August. They passed a short-term Continuing Resolution which runs out on April 28. It’s highly unlikely that any major changes would be in a “budget” passed then (6 months into the fiscal year), so they’ll likely tinker some more and kick the can again to finish out FY17.
The Debt Ceiling takes effect again on March 16, 2017, so there will be grandstanding noise about not paying off Social Security Treasury bonds, also too.
Since 2017 isn’t an election year, don’t be surprised if there’s grandstanding noise about a shutdown from the Freedom Caucus, also too too.
The budget is likely to be a mess for a long time, so Adam (and many others) can’t expect relief anytime soon. But given how chaotic DC is likely to be, nobody really knows right now.
FWIW.
:-(
Cheers,
Scott.
Adam L Silverman
@Another Scott: The larger issue is every session of Congress we get more and more members of Congress, especially in the House, that only learn how to do crisis budgeting. We are beginning to approach a significant plurality, if not a simple majority, of members of the House who have never actually done a real budget and appropriations process and only done continuing resolutions under crisis conditions as the government has approached shut down or, actually, shut down. This does not bode well for the future of the Republic.
Miss Bianca
@Adam L Silverman: *head desk*
I knew it was bad, but in the depths of my ignorance I had no idea just *how* bad.
And your point about the state of permanent “crisis budgeting” is very chilling.
Adam L Silverman
@Miss Bianca: Start reading Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann’s stuff. And for disclosure, I know Norm.
Another Scott
@Miss Bianca: And that’s just the “on budget” stuff. Not everything the government does is actually part of the budget. There are things like Navy Working Capital Fund activities that aren’t on the budget, but raise their budget from their “customers”. It’s the kind of work that needs stable funding, yet many/most/all of their “customers” are part of the official budget. So, if a WCF “customer” doesn’t have a budget, then it affects the WCF activities.
Labor, Justice, Defense, Interior, and probably other Departments have WCFs.
As Adam says, not having a Budget isn’t just a bit of drama that happens for a few days every year. It has real consequences and real costs.
Cheers,
Scott.
Dmbeaster
@efgoldman:
This view is not historically accurate. Israel was founded pursuant to an intentional policy by its founders of ethnic cleansing. The 1948 war was driven by a policy to greatly expand Israel beyond that established by the UN, and to drive 500,000 Arabs from those lands to insure Israeli control. Israeli historians openly say as much, and defend the ethnic cleansing as essential to the creation of Israel. And they are probably right, but there was nothing nobel about Israel was founded. Israel’s participation in the 1956 war was a land grab opportunity. Israel has always sought to expand its borders into adjoining Arab lands. They have been annexing the West Bank for 50 years by slow creep. The settlor movement represents the founding spirit of Israel, and is not an aberration.
The behavior of the founders was masked for years by implaccable Arab resistance to the mere existence of Israel. But as Arabs have moderated, the Israelis have not.
The fact that ethnic cleansing remains an acceptable viewpoint in Israel says it all about how misguided Israel is. But it is not a recent aberration. It was how the country was created.
Omnes Omnibus
@Dmbeaster: It is different from our founding legend in what way?
Omnes Omnibus
@Dmbeaster: @Omnes Omnibus: You don’t bother with a response? Okay.
Dmbeaster
@Omnes Omnibus: just saw your post. The reference is to the Israeli founding fathers such as Ben-Gurion, not ours (US I assume is your meaning). So I dont understand your point, but would rezpond if clarified.