My Brush With the Israel Lobby

From today's letters column in the British Independent
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article3063836.ece
The last paragraph is pertinent in this context:
'Sir: The letters of Lyn Julius and Janet Green (19 and 20 September) concerning the non-return of and non-compensation of refugees from Israel and the likening of events of 1960-1962 to some kind of board game are perhaps nearer the truth than either realises. I was a member of the Technical Office of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP), which was set up to calculate and administer a compensation scheme for refugees who did "not wish to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours" in Israel.
'One big hurdle had to be overcome. The wording of the resolution appeared to presuppose that each refugee would be asked, "Do you wish to return to your home and live at peace with your neighbours, or would you rather receive compensation for the 45 dunums of olive grove that we believe you owned at . . . and which we believe was probably worth . . . ?" Not surprisingly, this question raised enormous problems. The Israeli government saw it as a way of importing trouble, while the Arab states thought it was "buying off" the refugees and burying the problem under large quantities of cash.
'Accordingly, a series of steps were worked out that, it was hoped, would save all parties' political faces. In essence, the solution involved omitting the "choice question" and simply offering the refugees compensation, without making reference to their returning or not to their abandoned properties. …
'In early November 1962, though, Israel opposed this proposed partial solution. The Israeli Prime Minister, Golda Meir, advised the White House, making it clear that she would use her influence with the US Jewish electorate to the disadvantage of President Kennedy, who was then facing a potentially difficult mid-term congressional election, if he did not immediately withdraw US support for the scheme. He did so and the UNCCP immediately ceased all work on the project. …'
Tim Davey Minehead, Somerset

Will another bloody war be fought so that prospective immigrants to Israel will not be discouraged?

This kind of thing is like manna from heaven for REAL anti-semites

Sneh: Iran could destroy Zionist dream
By: SHEERA CLAIRE FRENKEL on: 16.10.2007

Sneh: Iran could destroy Zionist dream
By SHEERA CLAIRE FRENKEL

A nuclear Iran could destroy the Zionist dream by deterring immigration to Israel, Labor MK Ephraim Sneh said Sunday.

Labor MK Ephraim Sneh.
Photo: Ariel Jerozolimski
Telling supporters at Labor headquarters in Tel Aviv of a recent meeting he held with members of American Jewish organizations, Sneh said aliya would slow down and eventually stop if Iran succeeded in developing nuclear weapons.

"I asked the Americans 'Would people from the States come if Iran had nuclear abilities?' They answered me with a resounding no," he said. "It is not necessary for Iran to actually destroy Israel with weapons, they can destroy it with the threat…. Iran could destroy the Zionist dream."

Speaking afterward in English, Sneh told The Jerusalem Post that Israel must also prepare an "indigenous" option for dealing with Iran, but he declined to elaborate. He said only that such an option should be employed as a last resort, saying Israel needed to have alternatives "on the table and ready to go."

"All I will say is that we need to create indigenous options," Sneh, a former deputy defense minister, said. "We need a strong shield on our periphery and an ability to act beyond the horizon."

In the speech, entitled "2008 – the year of decisions," Sneh laid out three issues – Iran, the Palestinians, and center-left Israeli politics – on which he felt strong decisions must be made in the year 2008.

"This is the year where issues will come to a head and we will be forced to make serious decisions," he said.

Sneh said Israel must learn to be self-reliant in dealing with Iran from a military perspective, and that although America would soon be led by a new president, Israel could rely on any American administration to support a military maneuver against Iran.

"Just as Iran is creating a new Persian Empire – stretching from Afghanistan to the south of Iraq, to Syria, and the Hizbullah network in Lebanon – we must create our own network," he said. "And we can't create our own network unless the Palestinian issue is seriously moving towards resolution."

Sneh, who met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas Saturday, said both the Palestinian leadership and population were seriously interested in negotiating a final peace agreement with Israel.

"We need to be prepared to divide Israel, with 78 percent becoming a Jewish state and 22% going to the Palestinians," he said.

Most of the Knesset and the Israeli public currently back peace negotiations, Sneh said, adding that it was up to the leadership to step up and make "serious decisions."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380555108&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I think Richard Witty is right. I mean, how do we KNOW that the Jewish billionaires bankrolling the Lobby's activities aren't closeted supporters of Palestinian sovereignty? Maybe they ask about Israeli settlements because they're truly open-minded on the subject and looking for intelligent views.

Maybe in Bizarro-Zionist land the Palestinians are actually in favor of the Jewish settlements on their land. I know that I for one find pre-fab subdivisions a beautiful addition to any landscape. And I just love racist neighbors.

Maybe, according to Bizarro-Zionist theory, all this going on in Israel is just an elborate ruse so that Philip Weiss and his campaign-minded friends can drive a wedge between American Jews of different stripes.

"I think that the reason that AIPAC is conservative. . . is that the WORK of creating a moderate PAC has just not been done."

I suspect one of the reasons it is harder to fund a more moderate PAC is because it requires a more nuanced argument. And which of several hundred more nuanced arguments is that moderate PAC going to represent.

I suspect it's far easier to get real estate moguls and the heirs of department store fortunes to contribute to an organization seen as steadfast in support of Israel no matter what than one that argues that Israel must immediately change its settlements policy, for example. To some extent, it's just human nature to just support the cause rather than doing a complicated weighing of what part cause one does support and what one doesn't.

And with the Israel issue, there is also an additional appeal to guilt. For example, "You know your father always regretted that with his fortune he didn't do more to prevent the Holocaust. Now it is your time to step-up and save Israel from its horrific and murderous enemies."

I thought the recent confession of the sometimes radical and iconoclastic professor, Stanley Fish, that he still fears for the fate of Jews in America despite all the success, was extremely revealing about a generational mindset that exercises a very significant influence in the community.

Ben,
Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

I'm sure it is true that a nuanced approach takes more skill and integrity to realize.

I don't think its rocket science.

In response to Phil's poster question, "what are your positions on the settlements"? I expect that intelligent potential contributors would PREFER some subtlety and judgement.

Repeating that there are forces keeping people powerless, is NOT the same as becoming powerful, liberated, liberal.

Dissenters do win elections. My congressman is a consistent opponent to the Iraq War. He gets local Jewish money. He doesn't need a lot of it, as he is so highly regarded that he never has serious competition.

Ben,
I have two criticisms of your last post. First, that AIPAC even is monolithic (certainly the "Israel lobby" isn't).

A few months ago, there was a convention in which Dick Cheney spoke and got a standing ovation, as well as jeers (from the crowd that was there, not necessarily even representative of AIPAC donors). In the preceding days, Barak Obama was also there, and got a standing ovation (as well as criticism). Hillary Clinton was there at a different time and got a standing ovation.

There is a range of opinions that AIPAC hears, and expresses.

The common thread is support for Israel's existence, as Israel.

There is not unanimity as to support of the settlements (in spite of Phil's "representative" query).

There is already the requirement of AIPAC that it be nuanced.

And, I definitely hear and have personal conflict with the dollar vote system that is more prevalent in the US now, than the 1-person 1-vote system.

In the marketplace itself, I can reluctantly stomach that. In the political world, where elections are won on a person-vote basis, money still pays for communications, and ends up as or more important than convincing 100 million on the basis of argument.

The disempowerment occurs when people stop trying. "I can't possibly clarify my position suitable to attract financial support", is NOT a progressive statement.

Its a statement of "mourn, don't organize".

I see the same with the global warming debate. Rather than organize projects, funding, businesses, cooperatives, go door to door, most complain about the powers that be.

In that sense they change the meaning of the word power from ability to power over.

Ability is a better term. More practical, more real.

The wind takes a windy path, because of the obstacles that it encounters, but still gets there.

We, I, you can too.

If its important enough to give days to researching sufficiently to write a cogent article, it should be worth days to someone to fundraise for an alternative perspective to the appearance of AIPAC.

It is important to actually find out the range of AIPAC activities, and not just the "nefarious" ones, so as not to duplicate an existing structure, unless you have something to add.

Yes yes, nuance.

Can we have a more "nuanced" democracy perhaps, Mr. Witty, where money doesn't run everything (instead of the current Corporatism), and therefore a candidate to political office can express EVEN an anti-Zionist opinion, if she or he so chooses, without getting slimed and kicked to the curb and told "sorry, you can't run for office without a million bucks, chump"?

Can we have a more "nuanced" debate about Israel, as in, should colonialism founded in 19th century concepts of racial/religious superiority and pseudo-scientific be permitted anywhere else in the world today? Only in Israel? How much longer? Do the Palestinians have the right to reproduce and grow in population like the rest of humanity while it continues? Is Israel going to continue limiting food and energy to the Palestinian population in an attempt to limit its growth? Are Russian and other geographically distant immigrants to current Israel really more deserving of its precious resources than the indigenous Palestinians still remaining in the area? Are the Arab countries around Palestine really responsible for the people Israel dislocated, and if so what kind of compensation will Israel and its biggest benefactors in the United States offer in reparations for the Palestinians' dispossession and the necessary development to accomodate the refugees in other countries? Are Russian and other geographically distant immigrants to current Israel really more deserving of its precious resources than the indigenous Palestinians still remaining?

This is the nuanced discussion we might have, Mr. Witty, if our media didn't insist on the most infantile, reductionist portrayal of political issues in general, and a complete black-out of any real discussion of Zionism, specifically.

(Please note: even W&M are not questioning Zionism, as Bloomberg's Michael Schneider triumphantly produced testament in his inquisitionview. W&M support Israel existing as a racial supremecist state!)

"Meanwhile in the super Warsaw ghetto that is Gaza …"
**************
EJ,
Have you forgotten that it is totally forbidden (absolut verboten) to compare the Israelis to the Nazis.

C'mon man, clean up your act.

And while they fought amongst themselves…

The Russia Problem
By Peter Zeihan

For the past several days, high-level Russian and American policymakers, including U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Russian President Vladimir Putin's right-hand man, Sergei Ivanov, have been meeting in Moscow to discuss the grand scope of U.S.-Russian relations. These talks would be of critical importance to both countries under any circumstances, as they center on the network of treaties that have governed Europe since the closing days of the Cold War.

Against the backdrop of the Iraq war, however, they have taken on far greater significance. Both Russia and the United States are attempting to rewire the security paradigms of key regions, with Washington taking aim at the Middle East and Russia more concerned about its former imperial territory. The two countries' visions are mutually incompatible, and American preoccupation with Iraq is allowing Moscow to overturn the geopolitics of its backyard.

The Iraqi Preoccupation

After years of organizational chaos, the United States has simplified its plan for Iraq: Prevent Iran from becoming a regional hegemon. Once-lofty thoughts of forging a democracy in general or supporting a particular government were abandoned in Washington well before the congressional testimony of Gen. David Petraeus. Reconstruction is on the back burner and even oil is now an afterthought at best. The entirety of American policy has been stripped down to a single thought: Iran.

That thought is now broadly held throughout not only the Bush administration but also the American intelligence and defense communities. It is not an unreasonable position. An American exodus from Iraq would allow Iran to leverage its allies in Iraq's Shiite South to eventually gain control of most of Iraq. Iran's influence also extends to significant Shiite communities on the Persian Gulf's western oil-rich shore. Without U.S. forces blocking the Iranians, the military incompetence of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar could be perceived by the Iranians as an invitation to conquer that shore. That would land roughly 20 million barrels per day of global oil output — about one-quarter of the global total — under Tehran's control. Rhetoric aside, an outcome such as this would push any U.S. president into a broad regional war to prevent a hostile power from shutting off the global economic pulse.

So the United States, for better or worse, is in Iraq for the long haul. This requires some strategy for dealing with the other power with the most influence in the country, Iran. This, in turn, leaves the United States with two options: It can simply attempt to run Iraq as a protectorate forever, a singularly unappealing option, or it can attempt to strike a deal with Iran on the issue of Iraq — and find some way to share influence.

Since the release of the Petraeus report in September, seeking terms with Iran has become the Bush administration's unofficial goal, but the White House does not want substantive negotiations until the stage is appropriately set. This requires that Washington build a diplomatic cordon around Iran — intensifying Tehran's sense of isolation — and steadily ratchet up the financial pressure. Increasing bellicose rhetoric from European capitals and the lengthening list of major banks that are refusing to deal with Iran are the nuts and bolts of this strategy.

Not surprisingly, Iran views all this from a starkly different angle. Persia has historically been faced with a threat of invasion from its western border — with the most recent threat manifesting in a devastating 1980-1988 war that resulted in a million deaths. The primary goal of Persia's foreign policy stretching back a millennium has been far simpler than anything the United States has cooked up: Destroy Mesopotamia. In 2003, the United States was courteous enough to handle that for Iran.

Now, Iran's goals have expanded and it seeks to leverage the destruction of its only meaningful regional foe to become a regional hegemon. This requires leveraging its Iraqi assets to bleed the Americans to the point that they leave. But Iran is not immune to pressure. Tehran realizes that it might have overplayed its hand internationally, and it certainly recognizes that U.S. efforts to put it in a noose are bearing some fruit. What Iran needs is its own sponsor — and that brings to the Middle East a power that has not been present there for quite some time: Russia.

Option One: Parity

The Russian geography is problematic. It lacks oceans to give Russia strategic distance from its foes and it boasts no geographic barriers separating it from Europe, the Middle East or East Asia. Russian history is a chronicle of Russia's steps to establish buffers — and of those buffers being overwhelmed. The end of the Cold War marked the transition from Russia's largest-ever buffer to its smallest in centuries. Put simply, Russia is terrified of being overwhelmed — militarily, economically, politically and culturally — and its policies are geared toward re-establishing as large a buffer as possible.

As such, Russia needs to do one of two things. The first is to re-establish parity. As long as the United States thinks of Russia as an inferior power, American power will continue to erode Russian security. Maintain parity and that erosion will at least be reduced. Putin does not see this parity coming from a conflict, however. While Russia is far stronger now — and still rising — than it was following the 1998 ruble crash, Putin knows full well that the Soviet Union fell in part to an arms race. Attaining parity via the resources of a much weaker Russia simply is not an option.

So parity would need to come via the pen, not the sword. A series of three treaties ended the Cold War and created a status of legal parity between the United States and Russia. The first, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), restricts how much conventional defense equipment each state in NATO and the former Warsaw Pact, and their successors, can deploy. The second, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), places a ceiling on the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles that the United States and Russia can possess. The third, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), eliminates entirely land-based short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles with ranges of 300 to 3,400 miles, as well as all ground-launched cruise missiles from NATO and Russian arsenals.

The constellation of forces these treaties allow do not provide what Russia now perceives its security needs to be. The CFE was all fine and dandy in the world in which it was first negotiated, but since then every Warsaw Pact state — once on the Russian side of the balance sheet — has joined NATO. The "parity" that was hardwired into the European system in 1990 is now lopsided against the Russians.

START I is by far the Russians' favorite treaty, since it clearly treats the Americans and Russians as bona fide equals. But in the Russian mind, it has a fateful flaw: It expires in 2009, and there is about zero support in the United States for renewing it. The thinking in Washington is that treaties were a conflict management tool of the 20th century, and as American power — constrained by Iraq as it is — continues to expand globally, there is no reason to enter into a treaty that limits American options. This philosophical change is reflected on both sides of the American political aisle: Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations have negotiated a new full disarmament treaty.

Finally, the INF is the worst of all worlds for Russia. Intermediate-range missiles are far cheaper than intercontinental ones. If it does come down to an arms race, Russia will be forced to turn to such systems if it is not to be left far behind an American buildup.

Russia needs all three treaties to be revamped. It wants the CFE altered to reflect an expanded NATO. It wants START I extended (and preferably deepened) to limit long-term American options. It wants the INF explicitly linked to the other two treaties so that Russian options can expand in a pinch — or simply discarded in favor of a more robust START I.

The problem with the first option is that it assumes the Americans are somewhat sympathetic to Russian concerns. They are not.

Recall that the dominant concern in the post-Cold War Kremlin is that the United States will nibble along the Russian periphery until Moscow itself falls. The fear is as deeply held as it is accurate. Only three states have ever threatened the United States: The first, the United Kingdom, was lashed into U.S. global defense policy; the second, Mexico, was conquered outright; and the third was defeated in the Cold War. The addition of the Warsaw Pact and the Baltic states to NATO, the basing of operations in Central Asia and, most important, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine have made it clear to Moscow that the United States plays for keeps.

The Americans see it as in their best interest to slowly grind Russia into dust. Those among our readers who can identify with "duck and cover" can probably relate to the logic of that stance. So, for option one to work, Russia needs to have leverage elsewhere. That elsewhere is in Iran.

Via the U.N. Security Council, Russian cooperation can ensure Iran's diplomatic isolation. Russia's past cooperation on Iran's Bushehr nuclear power facility holds the possibility of a Kremlin condemnation of Iran's nuclear ambitions. A denial of Russian weapons transfers to Iran would hugely empower ongoing U.S. efforts to militarily curtail Iranian ambitions. Put simply, Russia has the ability to throw Iran under the American bus — but it will not do it for free. In exchange, it wants those treaties amended in its favor, and it wants American deference on security questions in the former Soviet Union.

The Moscow talks of the past week were about addressing all of Russian concerns about the European security structure, both within and beyond the context of the treaties, with the offer of cooperation on Iran as the trade-off. After days of talks, the Americans refused to budge on any meaningful point.

Option Two: Imposition

Russia has no horse in the Iraq war. Moscow had feared that its inability to leverage France and Germany to block the war in the first place would allow the United States to springboard to other geopolitical victories. Instead, the Russians are quite pleased to see the American nose bloodied. They also are happy to see Iran engrossed in events to its west. When Iran and Russia strengthen — as both are currently — they inevitably begin to clash as their growing spheres of influence overlap in the Caucasus and Central Asia. In many ways, Russia is now enjoying the best of all worlds: Its Cold War archrival is deeply occupied in a conflict with one of Moscow's own regional competitors.

In the long run, however, the Russians have little doubt that the Americans will eventually prevail. Iran lacks the ability to project meaningful power beyond the Persian Gulf, while the Russians know from personal experience how good the Americans are at using political, economic, military and alliance policy to grind down opponents. The only question in the Russian mind pertains to time frame.

If the United States is not willing to rejigger the European-Russian security framework, then Moscow intends to take advantage of a distracted United States to impose a new reality upon NATO. The United States has dedicated all of its military ground strength to Iraq, leaving no wiggle room should a crisis erupt anywhere else in the world. Should Russia create a crisis, there is nothing the United States can do to stop it.

So crisis-making is about to become Russia's newest growth industry. The Kremlin has a very long list of possibilities, which includes:

Destabilizing the government of Ukraine: The Sept. 30 elections threaten to result in the re-creation of the Orange Revolution that so terrifies Moscow. With the United States largely out of the picture, the Russians will spare no effort to ensure that Ukraine remains as dysfunctional as possible.

Azerbaijan is emerging as a critical energy transit state for Central Asian petroleum, as well as an energy producer in its own right. But those exports are wholly dependent upon Moscow's willingness not to cause problems for Baku.

The extremely anti-Russian policies of the former Soviet state of Georgia continue to be a thorn in Russia's side. Russia has the ability to force a territorial breakup or to outright overturn the Georgian government using anything from a hit squad to an armored division.

EU states obviously have mixed feelings about Russia's newfound aggression and confidence, but the three Baltic states in league with Poland have successfully hijacked EU foreign policy with regard to Russia, effectively turning a broadly cooperative relationship hostile. A small military crisis with the Balts would not only do much to consolidate popular support for the Kremlin but also would demonstrate U.S. impotence in riding to the aid of American allies.

Such actions not only would push Russian influence back to the former borders of the Soviet Union but also could overturn the belief within the U.S. alliance structure that the Americans are reliable — that they will rush to their allies' aid at any time and any place. That belief ultimately was the heart of the U.S. containment strategy during the Cold War. Damage that belief and the global security picture changes dramatically. Barring a Russian-American deal on treaties, inflicting that damage is once again a full-fledged goal of the Kremlin. The only question is whether the American preoccupation in Iraq will last long enough for the Russians to do what they think they need to do.

Luckily for the Russians, they can impact the time frame of American preoccupation with Iraq. Just as the Russians have the ability to throw the Iranians under the bus, they also have the ability to empower the Iranians to stand firm.

On Oct. 16, Putin became the first Russian leader since Leonid Brezhnev to visit Iran, and in negotiations with the Iranian leadership he laid out just how his country could help. Formally, the summit was a meeting of the five leaders of the Caspian Sea states, but in reality the meeting was a Russian-Iranian effort to demonstrate to the Americans that Iran does not stand alone.

A good part of the summit involved clearly identifying differences with American policy. The right of states to nuclear energy was affirmed, the existence of energy infrastructure that undermines U.S. geopolitical goals was supported and a joint statement pledged the five states to refuse to allow "third parties" from using their territory to attack "the Caspian Five." The last is a clear bullying of Azerbaijan to maintain distance from American security plans.

But the real meat is in bilateral talks between Putin and his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the two sides are sussing out how Russia's ample military experience can be applied to Iran's U.S. problem. Some of the many, many possibilities include:

Kilo-class submarines: The Iranians already have two and the acoustics in the Persian Gulf are notoriously bad for tracking submarines. Any U.S. military effort against Iran would necessitate carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf.

Russia fields the Bal-E, a ground-launched Russian version of the Harpoon anti-ship missile. Such batteries could threaten any U.S. surface ship in the Gulf. A cheaper option could simply involve the installation of Russian coastal artillery systems.

Russia and India have developed the BrahMos anti-ship cruise missile, which has the uniquely deadly feature of being able to be launched from land, ship, submarine or air. While primarily designed to target surface vessels, it also can act as a more traditional — and versatile — cruise missile and target land targets.

Flanker fighters are a Russian design (Su-27/Su-30) that compares very favorably to frontline U.S. fighter jets. Much to the U.S. Defense Department's chagrin, Indian pilots in Flankers have knocked down some U.S. pilots in training scenarios.

The S-300 anti-aircraft system is still among the best in the world, and despite eviscerated budgets, the Russians have managed to operationalize several upgrades since the end of the Cold War. It boasts both a far longer range and far more accuracy than the Tor-M1 and Pantsyr systems on which Iran currently depends.

Such options only scratch the surface of what the Russians have on order, and the above only discusses items of use in a direct Iranian-U.S. military conflict. Russia also could provide Iran with an endless supply of less flashy equipment to contribute to intensifying Iranian efforts to destabilize Iraq itself.

For now, the specifics of Russian transfers to Iran are tightly held, but they will not be for long. Russia has as much of an interest in getting free advertising for its weapons systems as Iran has in demonstrating just how high a price it will charge the United States for any attack.

But there is one additional reason this will not be a stealth relationship.

The Kremlin wants Washington to be fully aware of every detail of how Russian sales are making the U.S. Army's job harder, so that the Americans have all the information they need to make appropriate decisions as regards Russia's role. Moscow is not doing this because it is vindictive; this is simply how the Russians do business, and they are open to a new deal.

Russia has neither love for the Iranians nor a preference as to whether Moscow reforges its empire or has that empire handed back. So should the United States change its mind and seek an accommodation, Putin stands perfect ready to betray the Iranians' confidence.

For a price.

Eric Wedge,
Don't put too much faith in George Friedman's analysis. Doctor Friedman is a mental onanist of the first order who has been wrong at every stage of the Iraq war.

"Illegal" is an odd way of convincing.

It convinces those from outside to impose, but does not yet convince those inside to change.

I'd rather see Israel change.

So, my emphasis is on ethics and practicality.

Another issue regarding law is that its authority is derived from the consent of those subject to the law. If the law is applied opportunistically or selectively, then it ceases to be "legal", and certainly ceases to acquire the degree of consent needed to be "law".

Legality is not a weapon, that the left (or whatever you ascribe to) may selectively invoke.

I'm not a great example. I'm very law-abiding now, but I must confess that for a long period of time in my youth, I inhaled. And, I didn't consent to the law in general on the basis of selective application of the drug laws.

What's the point Arie?

There are MANY states, and non-states, that skirt or directly disobey international law.

Some that you turn a blind eye to. Some that you focus attention on.

The point about law is that it is constructed of an environment of consent.

Israel has a motivation to consent to international law in general IF Israel has input to the formation of international law, and the principles of international law are consistently applied.

Israel's contention is that international law is not applied consistently when Israel's interests are concerned, often, and therefore its consent is conditional rather than unconditional.

Specifically, the UN mandated disarmament of Hezbollah has not occurred, nor the condition per the roadmap and Oslo of Palestine holding militias accountable for their breaking international law in violating Israeli borders.

Of course, its a tail chase, but ALL parties have to take the cue and abide by international law for it not to be a tail chase.

Are you personally an advocate for international law, or only conditionally or selectively?

My "brush with the Lobby" is of a more nebulous form. I have been harassed and threatened because I've offered my opinions on US foreign policy with regards to Israel. It's as if there's an army of freelance sayanim lying in wait to pounce on anyone (especially goy) who dares to refute the official narrative.

After 9/11 and in my capacity as the (one time) staff advisor to a campus student atheist group, I would venture into forums for different religious groups and try to further my understanding of their beliefs. Though in the ummah.com forum I had posters telling me my disbelief would put me in bad stead with Allah, no one ever threatened me personally or tried to harass me via the internet.

That changed when I commented at the LA Jewish Journal Forum. In addition to the harassment from a person who was later banned for making death threats against the forum moderator (DaveK – an ex-IDF US resident – who was then allowed back on with a new nick – mdanin), I was later banned for the somewhat innocuous statement that Israel has lied and murdered (as evidenced by the attack on the USS Liberty) and by my claim that it appeared that Israel had used radiological weapons in their previous attack on Lebanon. Though the last point might be debatable, the moderator declared that no anti-Zionist voices would be allowed (though the forum said it was for readers of the LA Jewish Journal, which I was – they later added to their guidelines that no one would be allowed to argue that Zionism = racism).

Much as baseball is a game of percentages, I think this illustrates how the discussion is shaped in a myriad of ways where the pressures against stepping out of line are sometimes subtle but ever-present. I am grateful to voices such as Phil's and the other posters here that further the discussion in commendable ways and often invite my tormentors to try to make their case in a venue where their disinformation is not taken as gospel.

No, ej, there does not.

And by the same token, the Palestinians, who have not even been recognized AS A PEOPLE by some Israeli leaders, and never as a nation-state, must unconditionally recognize Israel as a nation-state. That is, they must formally recognize their permanent dispossession.

Only on this condition will the Zionist apologists here be willing to consider their plight. That is, once they're permanently fucked, with the highest population density in the world, infinitesimal natural resources, no recent history fo government oversight or regulation, and a pathetic GDP.

Then I suppose Israel might even throw them some crackers, maintenance their second-class roads, and leave the electricity on in winter.

"My "brush with the Lobby" is of a more nebulous form. I have been harassed and threatened because I've offered my opinions on US foreign policy with regards to Israel. "

I have a similar experience with the modern "left". Harrassment.

MM,
And you have the audacity to complain about AIPAC threats.

Hezbollah is a conveniently extra-legal entity. It is ambiguously subject to international law, and abuses that ambiguity grossly.

If you think that shelling civilian cities is bows and arrows, then you live a pretty enormous fantasy world.

The treaties (bi-lateral international law) and multi-lateral legal associations that Israel consents to, it has rigorously complied with.

It provides a basis of a great deal of trust. Its should not engender the trust of a back-covering friend. It should engender the trust of a contract with a lot of fine print, that must be negotiated clearly and carefully.

No wishful thinking. But also, no cheap opportunistic demonization.

Why would I encumber Philip with forwarding you something that you have spent hours and hours opinionating upon, without even the slightest apparent urge to actually read? Witty you are a better comic than I.

And I was, for the record, attempting another in my series of comedic taunts of Wittyist Bizarro-Zionism.

I really didn't see what I wrote as even remotely threatening, Richard, but I apologize nonetheless.

And I thank you, too, for this wonderful drama you've composed in real time here before us in Mondoweiss comments, "Witty slays the Strawmen".

And lastly for the fit of laughter your comparing me to AIPAC just now induced.

All aspects of land expropriation by intentional settlement strategy, I oppose.

Do you think that Israel has violated its treaty with Jordan? Or with Egypt?

Resolution 242 has multiple conditions, which include cessation of attacks on Israeli civilians. Read the whole thing.

Demonization (out of context) is not in the Palestinians' interest. Assertive support of their rights is, but to the extent that their supporters' assertions are understood (rationally) as some aggression, an unintended consequence will occur.

White man speaks with forked tongue.

Soon, (never prior), there will be the prospect for conditions that would enable resolution 242 to be applied.

And that is the reality of a Palestinian state assuming the rights AND responsibilities of a sovereign state.

Until the present, there has only been factions, militias.

Still, in Gaza, there is no consent to be part of a state, nor in Southern Lebanon.

And, certainly there was an active and accepted and sanctioned settlement movement, with the intent of annexation.

And in the present, the setting is that the settlements are large towns (some larger than the one I live in) with overwhelming Jewish majority.

My preference has consistently been for the green line as border, with the option for the individual settlers to live in sovereign Palestine, that choose to live on the Palestinian side of the border.

I can't conceive of a forced removal of a few hundred thousand to be a just or practical solution.

The expectation of the results of the negotiations (if they bear fruit), is that the result will more likely be a redrawing of boundaries recognizing the current pluralities in most areas, a simulation of what would be imagined to be a current plebiscite.

Is that just to anybody? Does that resemble the 1947 partition, approved by the general assembly of the UN as well as security council (not just one or the other)? Or 1949 armistice lines (the last cease-fire consented by states).

And, what conditions would be necessary in BOTH Israel and in Palestine for the green line (or moderate consented alterations) to be applied?

A state of law AND order, in which minority rights could be confidently and permanently accepted as peer.

To speak of borders, without that firming of sovereignty, is really an opportunism.

I question whether many activists really want a sovereign sincerely self-governing Palestine.

International law exists to provide clear distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable behavior in war, in civil issues between states and states, and individuals and states.

The goal of international is the reconciliation, not the law itself. Taken in CONTEXT, the purpose of the law is what needs to be served. The letter of the law is a means to that.

So, what is the goal? Self-governance. Government with the consent of the governed. (There is no perfection. There are some in the US that regard the US government as illegitimate, and that will always be the case.) The goal of a partition for example is to optimize the degree of self-governance.

In that sense, a single-state solution in the current context, results in less than optimal governance. It results in the Bush-like version of consent of 51% (or less), whereas a partitioned two-state solution results in the consent of 85% in each.

The presence of militias that are significant enough to be states, but refuse to consent to the responsibilities of a state, is a very distorting reality.

Its why the remaining areas of contention are Lebanon (Hezbollah as semi-government, militia) and Gaza (Hamas as semi-government).

And, NOT Egypt, Jordan, even Syria, or even West Bank Palestine, which are states or soon to be and also will be successfully treatied with soon.

The neo-conservative and US government objective currently is for a free-trade zone in the Middle East, including Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, Arabian peninsula states.

Its close, and desirable in ways for most of the states. With Israel currently controlling a large portion of Mediterranean access, it is critical. The other prospective independant access points to the Mediterranean are Lebanon (in deferred civil war) and Turkey (a bit remote on trade routes).

The big players know that that norm of free-trade zone is coming, and are fighting for geo-political turf. Big fish are the US, European Union, China, Russia. Other slightly smaller fish seeking a place at the table are Iran and India (both big fish in their own rights).

Turkey is poised to be very important as prospective member of both the European Union and a middle east free trade arrangement.

The question then can shift for activists to what I consider a much more relevant question about what constructs healthy societies, the relation between free trade, regulation, and sovereignty.

Zionism dissolves in a free trade zone. For all the ranting about neo-conservative dual-loyalty for Israel, the neo-conservative movement faces its biggest challenge in the dissolution of defined Jewish society into commercial society.

You mean that I don't end up concluding the same as you.

We were talking about the degree of importance and conditions of applicability of international law.

60 years later, is resolution 242 applicable?

If the two parties agree to different borders and conditions than resolution 242 states, how is resolution 242 of more importance than the bi-lateral agreements.

The stubbornness with which you keep repeating the hoary apologetic myths of the Zionists is pathetic.

That 'there is no one to talk to'lie has been refuted over and over.

One example: directly after the Six Day War Dayan used to say for a Western public "I am waiting for the telephone to ring" while he, at the same time, was claiming in cabinet discussions that there was no point in talking to the other side and proposing a plan for settlements.(See Oren and Shlaim)

If your strategy is to wear everybody out with your totally chaotic style of "discussing" things, in which points from the other side are never recognised and buried under heaps of irrelevant twaddle, if this is your strategy you seem to be succeeding.

But by way of what might be a parting shot: Gabriel Ash had this to say about this 'there is no one to talk to bit'

"Israel’s apologists have a simple narrative about the history of the relations between Jews and Palestinians. In that narrative, Jews came to Palestine with open palms, and have tried ever since to achieve peaceful co-existence with Palestinians, only to be repeatedly rebuffed by hostile and belligerent Palestinians. Base on that narrative, Israel’s apologists demand more “dialogue,” and excuse all Israel’s actions as self-defense.

Unfortunately for them, nobody else accepts that fairy tale today. Actual history is very different. Since the very beginning, the Zionist leadership was clear about its intention to displace and dispossess Palestinians to make way for a Jewish state. That goal had been largely accomplished in 1948. Thereafter, Israel found the status quo comfortable, and saw no urgency in resolving its conflict with the Palestinians. At every occasion, Israeli leaders expressed disinterest in peace. Ben Gurion said the solution for the Palestinian problem would be that Palestinians would become “human dust.” Moshe Dayan told them after the 1967 occupation, “we have no solution, you will continue to live like dogs.” Golda Meir said there was no need for dialogue because “there is no Palestinian people.” Begin and Shamir refused to negotiate on Palestinian rights in the face of serious U.S. pressure. Begin even invaded Lebanon to avoid having to talk with Arafat (who had already agreed to a “two state solution” in 1974.) After Oslo, despite their lip service to advancing a “two state solution,” Rabin, Netanyahu and Barak have all refused to evacuate a single settlement. All three built new settlements, Barak being the most industrious. At no point has any Israeli leader agreed to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza in full, not to mention to recognize the rights of Palestinian refugees.

The evacuation of Gaza, contrary to the fairy tale, is not a withdrawal at all. Israel is still the occupying force in Gaza. The situation of Gaza today is in fact the closest Israel comes to the full South African Apartheid model; Gaza is an effective separate Bantustan under full Israeli military control. Finally, Olmert’s latest plans for “unilateral separation” in the West Bank point in the same intensified Apartheid direction.

Those who might fear that this historical excursus is threading stale water should consider how Sharon’s advisor Dov Weissglass recently described the purpose of evacuating the settlements from Gaza:

“…we succeeded in removing the issue of the political process from the agenda. And we educated the world to understand that there is no one to talk to.…As long as there is no one to talk to, the geographic status quo remains intact….. [until] Palestine becomes Finland.”

There you have it succinctly. Israel’s consistent policy is to avoid dialogue in order to maintain its domination. Based on this analysis, peace can only be advanced by putting pressure on Israel. This is exactly the purpose of the divestment, boycott and sanctions campaign."

Read that interview with Dov Weisglass by Ari Shavit. The man was obviously so pleased with his own cleverness that he couldn't help himself and gave the game away. The whole idea of withdrawing from Gaza was to be able to avoid any further negotiations. Literally:

“The significance of our disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. It supplies the formaldehyde necessary so there is no political process with the Palestinians.” Interview with Shavit. Ha’aretz, Oct. 6, 2004.

I am making these points knowing that they will not make the slightest bit of difference to you. But then, they are not meant for you.