Israeli Dep’y Defense Minister to American Jews: Help U.S. Make Peace Now or We Face 100-Years War
by Philip Weiss on December 8, 2007 · 50 comments
The other night I went to the Israel Policy Forum’s annual
leadership event at the Grand Hyatt in New
York, and I’m going to blog about a number of things
that happened there, including my own conversion to
a two-state solution. “Two States: A Global Imperative,” the event was titled.
But let’s not bury the lead. The most important statements at the conference
were from two Israeli politicians and one Palestinian on the tremendous
importance of American Jews coming out in favor of a two-state solution now.
These three men all acknowledged the crucial role that is played by the
Israel lobby. American Jews believe that they by maintaining unwavering American support for Israel they are safeguarding Israel against existential threat. The three statesmen all said that the greater threat is
allowing the Annapolis opportunity to pass. So former Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh said that if a just solution is not
reached within a year, Hamas will be sure to take over the West
Bank, making “a military confrontation inevitable.” He went on,
“No one will see the end of it. It means another century of war.” Wow.
The
keynote speaker Haim Ramon, the vice prime minister of Israel, made much the same point when he said
that Israel had reached an existential moment brought on by its own actions. “The Occupation is a threat to the existence
of the state of Israel
as a Jewish and democratic state.” On the other side, Afif Safieh, the head of the PLO Mission to the United States, said that the people in the room
had the ability to make history. Arabs were pragmatic. For 25 years, since the
Yom Kippur war, the Arab world has been
wiling to make an accommodation with Israel. They had learned from ‘73 that if you want to meet Mike Tyson, don’t do it in the boxing ring, he quipped. But the treatment of the
Palestinians is the absolute key to Israel’s acceptance in the region,
and security and peace would only come from regional acceptance not “territorial
aggrandizement” and the “hell on earth” Israeli governance has ensured Palestinians. “We Palestinians are the key for acceptance
from Oman to Morocco. We are ready for a historic compromise.” For 25 years Israel backed by the
religious left here has delayed the inevitable. Now is the time.
A few comments. There was throughout the evening the strong
feeling, and what a testament to the IPF this is, that Yes there is an Israel lobby,
and it is many of the people in this room, and the time has come to take your
foot off the breathing tube of the Palestinians. It was a wonderful evening
because here was a strongly Jewish and Zionist audience but it was willing to
hear from Arabs and Arabists. There was no noxious whiff of stinking neoconservatism the whole
night. God bless. There was also the strong sense that without the American
Jewish community allowing Washington to become more independent, this moment will be lost. Israelis and the
Palestinians cannot do this on their own, they require muscling intervention. One-time negotiator Robert
Malley pointed out that the Israelis are so hunkered down and fragile that an explicit
statement of principles could not be released in Israel before Annapolis, out of
fear that the word Jerusalem would create political uproar. When anyone with
the least bit of judgment knows
that Jerusalem’s
latest religious conqueror must be pushed to an understanding of the importance of keeping that place
open to the followers of three great religions.
The message of the night was an awareness that so long as the American Jewish community reflexively lines up
on Israel’s side and does
not question the policies of occupation and oppression, the American role as mediator will be
nullified, as it was at Camp David when Clinton allowed a bad offer to be called equitable. Now of course I am talking about
the Israel
lobby. The only one who addressed this directly was Safieh. He said “Our battle
for freedom and statehood will be won in Washington.”
And in Washington, he said, there has been an intellectual battle. Between those who
support the Oslo
process and those who completely erase the humanity of the Palestinians by
insisting that there is no one to negotiate with. Those of course are the
neocons and their wide circle. But here IPF and Safieh offered light at the end
of the tunnel. “Everyone speaks of the lobby,” Safieh said. “I have always
believed in the theory of the lobby. Bu I think the American Jewish
community–like Hamas—is diverse. The Jewish community here is mature and enlightened."
And it must provide leadership. I have been to many Jewish leadership events where I am
angered and saddened. At this one I was in tears. What a glory to my community
that it is capable of such recognitions. There was an atmosphere of worldliness
and real leadership at the event, and a feeling that Jews know that they are
powerful in American society, and that brings responsibility, not
self-regard. The neocons are yesterday’s papers. Note MJ Rosenberg’s latest column, saying that a "seismic shift" is occuring even in the opinion of conservative Jewish organizations. Hallelujah.
I say I was converted to the two state solution, with an asterisk.
I never imbibed the Zionist dream; and the dream that Sneh and Ramon spoke of, maintaining a
Jewish state in part of Eretz Israel,
is not something I really care about, or that I think most Americans ought to care
about. As Ali Abunimah, author of One Country, has argued, the great goal that
is proffered in these visions, of partition on a religious basis, isn’t that different from
the South African dream, of an Afrikaans state and a black state. And yet the real dream that realistic Americans must seize now is an end to the cycle of violence, a dream of regional cooperation and interdependence, and this was the imperative of the
IPF event. Two states are a necessary step. Once the
states are up and running, and the Palestinian doctors are working in
Israeli hospitals and trucks of oranges are crossing the borders, and a road runs from Damascus to Jerusalem that all can drive on, idealists like myself will talk about a
federated solution, but the IPF event was about leadership and opportunity, and let us celebrate the initiative.
(P.S. Thanks to a commenter, I have corrected my bad i.d. of Sneh as having been a Defense Minister…)
Related posts:
- Israeli Defense Minister Calls Gaza Truce ‘a Success’
- Mearsheimer: only an alliance of American Muslims and Jews can bring about 2-state-solution
- Barring 2-State Solution, Israel Becomes South Africa–Without South Africa’s ‘Solution’, Israeli Minister Warns
- Coming Face To Face With Israeli Racism
- Lament: Young American Jews No Longer ‘Blindly Follow Israeli Leadership’
{ 50 comments }
Thanks for reporting on this Philip. It too made me feel good about the Jewish community, which I know is as diverse as any other community. Jewish power due to the professional success of jews is a fact. In the same way that Indian-American (East) power is a fact now and a bigger one in the coming years, and WASP power will always be a fact. That Jewish power should be focused on the right positions is really what is important here, and I am very pleased to see more and more American Jews on the right side of the issues. I personally have no problem if the Afrikaners declare their own state, so long as it is OK with their neighbors. Same with the Jews and the Palestinians. Let those people make those decisions. What I do have a problem with is with one group usurping the land of the other and our country supporting it. Thankfully that seems to be coming to an end, and not surprisingly American Jews will play a big part in that.
The key to the recent negotiations and where they are running aground is the effort to get the Palestinians to recognize Israel not just as a state, but as a specifically "Jewish State" and therefore define the Palestinian Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, as officially second class citizens. Why?
Because Israel *is* in deadly danger, not so much from its hostile neighbors, but from its own inner conflicts. The Israeli-Arab birthrate is such that withing a generation they will probably have the largest parliamentary group in the Knesset. And the fastest growing Jewish group are the Haredim, who don't do well in school and don't serve in the armed forces.. It is interesting to see how the performance of Israeli school children has declined since 2003 in the latest PISA report.
Much of Israel's behavior is easier to understand when approached using information like this, instead of the zionut rhetoric.
Sneh nor Ramon hold the view that it is necessary for Palestine to recognize Israel as a permanent Jewish state, meaning superiority.
The tragedy of the moment and of the design, is that the reigns are in the hands of a fumbling, incompetent and during an election time. Even though he and Cheney aren't running, their "allies" are, and many of their allies are committed to the greater Israel strategy, rather than the enough Israel strategy.
In Israel, only a couple parties support the expansionistic vision, though they include political spoilers and the "hilltop youth".
I'm glad that Phil came around to the hopefulness of the two-state solution.
While on paper a civil one-state Palestine/Israel appeals to liberal democratic sensibilities, in practise it becomes LESS democratic as the much of the population defines themselves in oil-water associations, which then requires that a large minority gets subordinated harshly in a single-state.
It IS the time. And it IS the time to bring the weight even of voters (individual and organized) to the Geneva and Saudi proposals.
For Israel they are even desirable, as the settlement maze is indefensible and is structured to compel occupation if not annexation, and should be abandoned.
In a sense both sides are playing for time, the Israelis in the hopes that they can someday ethnically cleanse the whole of "Greater Israel" and the Palestinians in the hope that they can so out breed the Israelis in a hostile Middle East, with a weakened USA unable to guarantee Israel, hoping that Israel finally collapses in its own contradictions.
In the end none of them want to negotiate peace, they both want victory.
Frankly, I think the Israelis have painted themselves into a corner. Their best hope was the Madrid conference with the lone superpower USA guaranteeing UN-242 after the First Gulf War. I believe that that was their last chance and they missed it. That train wont pass again anytime soon.
I am happy about what Phil is describing in the above. It is gratifying that people are finally coming to their senses about this horrible conflict.
I would like to draw reader's attention to another matter. I live in Highland Park, NJ, where there is a high concentration of Orthodox Jews as well as a very diverse community of other ethnicities. People live mostly very respectfully together here.
One matter, however, illustrates some of the conflicts that are occurring around the IP conflict in this country. Recently, a "Ten Thousand Villages" Fair Trade Store opened in Highland Park. The chain of stores is owned by the Mennonite Central Committee, and it sells products from developing countries in order to help artisans from the third world.
Recently, there have been a spate of articles in Jewish newspapers both locally and nationally calling for a boycott of these stores for two reasons: 1) they sell nothing that is made in Israel while they do sell products from the West Bank and Gaza (it is worth noting that they don't sell any products from developed countries, including Europe, North America, and China) and 2) the Mennonite Church, one of the four peace churches, is very pro-Palestinian and attempts to draw attention to the suffering of Palestinians in the WB and Gaza as well as the refugees. So the end result of this is that Israeli supporters in the area are trying to organize a boycott of the store, and to this effect, a big sign was recently affixed to the store window which said "BOYCOTT."
In any case, you can read about how "The Jewish State" newspaper reported about this at the following link: http://thejewishstate.net/nov910kv.html
I thought Phil might be interested in the issue because he writes sensitively about such issues.
As a Quaker and also a descendent of Mennonites, I find such calls reprehensible, and Ill just say that I am quite angered by this. The Mennonites have been among the most committed pacifists in the world– they have always had a commitment to social justice and played a significant role in the abolition movement, to name one of many issues where they were on the "right" side of history. It is patently ridiculous to accuse them of Antisemitism, as the writer of the above article does.
From Realistic Dove (http://www.realisticdove.org/archives/179):
"Guess what, Phil. I also think that, eventually, a federated solution would make perfect sense. It used to be a respectable idea among the Zionists in Palestine. In the unlikely event that we ever arrive at the juncture you describe, I’ll join you on the idealists’ barricades. In the meantime, welcome home, my brother!"
Phil,
I'm really surprised that you, of all people, would take the words of Ramon and Sneh at face value, and proceed extoll their virtues and tell us of the beauty of doing such an event and how all of this is going to make the world a better place and solve everything.
These people ARE the establishment that is oppressing Palestinians. While not perfectting the plans of the next blockade and checkpoint, they have another job: to go to the outside world, cry crocodile tears about how much they want peace, and still manage to convince people like you that this is in Israel's interest and it's an existential crisis. When these people start actually doing something against the occupation, we'll talk; until then, they're no different from any other criminal in the Israeli government.
This facade of 'Israelis want peace' is such a flimsy load of nonsense that could only be believed in a place like America, the same place that believes in "Barak's Generous Offer", "the Palestinians just left on their own in 1948", "terrorism causes settlements" and other such mythical tales.
It is absolutely vital for the status quo to be consolidated forever for Israelis to continue to claim that they want peace, while doing absolutely nothing whatsoever to achieve it. It's really reassuring for them that even you are now buying into this cr@p.
My wife used to live in Highland Park before I took her to Boston.
When I was taking Jewish studies classes at Harvard, and we students were realizing how little the facts corresponded to common (Eastern European) Jewish beliefs about Jews, one of my fellow students quipped, "Many the lie that Jews live by."
Later, when Benny Morris published "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem," I realized how right he was.
If one tries to address the crimes of the organized Jewish community and the Israel Lobby, one must get use to almost inconceivable levels of abuse and vituperation, and these two groups will invariably be convinced of their absolute righteousness because they are simply dealing with the eternal hatred of Jews by non-Jews.
My wife Karin addressed the issue in an essay that Juan Cole featured on his blog.
Take a look at http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/04/zioshmooze-vs-plain-english.html .
Zioschmooze may not win many Palestinian hearts and minds but it seems to have finally worked its charm on Phil.
'Two state solution' is code for 'no right to return', in other words, a validation of genocide. Its silver lining is a state without natural resources, a tiny GDP, and the highest population density in the world, a collection of refugee camps just over the hills from those who dispossessed them.
That's where the 'reasonable' Zionism of the type Phil is returning inevitably ends up.
Bloody Pigeon wrote: "I also THINK that, EVENTUALLY, a federated solution would make perfect sense. In the UNLIKELY EVENT that we EVER ARRIVE at the juncture you describe, I’ll join you on the idealists’ barricades."
Well, that certainly is reassuring. (By the way, I believe you said you were in the public relations business, or am I thinking of someone else?)
Saif,
You disappoint me.
I would have thought that when prominent Israeli officials use the term "occupation" and "apartheid" (as Olmert did a week ago) in their description of the relationship between Palestine and Israel, that those comments are a sea change, an opening of Pandora's box that can never again be permanently closeted.
The Likud hope of annexation is dying. It never was possible, but now it is being seen that it was impossible.
The fanatic aspiration is getting sober.
Time for all to.
Richard Witty,
No. None of these things are happening. Those criminals are just paying lip service to these ideas. And in return for lip service, they get what they would (in a sane world) get for actually doing the actions they talk about.
Words are very cheap; and people who believe cheap words need to think really hard of the effect that their gullibility has on the lives of millions.
I agree that if the words don't result in actions, that they are vain.
But, words are also actions in themselves.
When you assert hopelessness rather than conditional hopefulness, that is also an action in the words.
Jere Haber has had two good recent pieces on the subject of what a true two-state solution would actually mean.
"Shalom u-le-hitraot to 'Harry's Place'"
http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2007/10/shalom-u-le-hitraot-to-harrys-place.html
"A Note On 'Viability'"
http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2007/11/note-on-viability.html
He asks us to think of viablity as more than a matter of avoiding starvation, but of also avoiding perpetual domination by one's neighbor.
"I know very few Israelis, and almost no diaspora Jews, who favor a true two-state solution in which one state neither dominates, nor is dominated by, the other, a solution in which there is real parity between the states.
"Most Israelis I know who say they support two-states, basically support one state — Israel — and one 'state' — a weakened Palestine in a neo-colonial relationship with Israel, what Bibi calls "medinat-minus" a "lesser state.""
"There was also the strong sense that without the American Jewish community allowing Washington to become more independent, this moment will be lost."
______________________________________________
What nonsense. Is the idea that Washington is under the thumb of my community? It is not so, nor should it be so. We are a small minority in this Country.
nrglaw
I am a sideline observer at this website but…
MondoWeiss writes at another thread in response to Adalah’s protest at Leviev’s diamond store: “Wonderful, makes me love being a Jew again”.
Sid writes after listening to Seth Waxman’s argument before the US Supreme Court: “Wonderful, makes me love being an American again.”
Seth Waxman — Jewish and American — represents Gitmo detainees and was arguing about the unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus.
I merely suggest that the MondoWeiss-Sid response represents a juxtaposition of some interest. Is it possible that the Jewish voice reaches fulfillment in the land of E Pluribus Unum more than anywhere else?
Weiss is a convert to the two state solution. Great. I too have held onto a two state solution for awhile, at least one that represents a return to the 67 borders.
But…alas…I must confess that I don’t think such is possible now, and I place fault with the IDF. They ignored Martin Van Creveld's prescient voice and instead embraced the view of Natan Sharansky. They did so for reasons that may reflect a national character that most definitely is not the one of E Pluribus Unum.
If the IDF in 1967 had followed the winning ways of the USM, at least as expressed in chapter 15 of Bernard Fall’s book Street without Joy, then they would have built schools and hospitals for the Palestinians in the West Bank. If the IDF had done that for 40 years, odds increase that we would have seen peace in this world and not an neoconservative ideology of perpetual war.
Fall…who, I believe, was Jewish…relied on the work of Gen. Lansdale, among others (including the French), and wrote the guiding rule for victory in chapter 15, which is titled, “The Future of Revolutionary Warfare”. And the guiding rule is this: to win, the military and the people must emerge on the same side of the struggle. Such is the American way. I see no evidence it is the way of the IDF. To win, the IDF should have out Hamas, Hamas.
In other words, no evidence exists that the IDF followed Fall’s dictum. All evidence is to the contrary. The IDF instead chose to enable and promote the settler movement, which is just a disaster for the nation of Israel and makes me wonder if Rabbi Teitelbaum was a prophet after all and assumed the office of Jeremiah.
Sidebar comment: I really appreciate Richard Witty’s comments and I hope he will continue to post here because, number one, he is an American, and number two, he makes me think things through. However…that doesn’t mean I agree with him. Yes, I grew up reading Uris but now am reading Eldar, among others. Final destination unknown.
As for Martillo…well…he reminds me a bit of my response to certain examples of modern art. There is something there…no doubt about it. Like Pollack, Martillo is blazing a trail…but to where I don’t have a clue.
Final comment: I hope that Rep. Waxman will take on Bolton re: the most recent NIE. Waxman looks like an All American to me, so I hope he will pull out the constitutional knife.
May “Hashem” bless America!
It sickens me to find myself in agreement with saifedean’s pessimism; I much prefer Philip’s optimism that some Israeli’s are at least verbalizing what we all seemingly know. But if American Jews are truly pro-“Israel,” the Israel lobby as powerful as we believe it to be, and a sea change is upon us, why doesn’t AIPAC and others in the Israel lobby pressure the Administration and Congress to not only broker a two-state solution but to make certain that the solution is a peaceful one? If AIPAC or the Conference of Presidents does not, then American Jews really must question the motives (and what’s behind those motives) of those groups who claim to represent their views. Is there another elephant in the room?
While I'm a strong supporter of IPF, the speakers they choose for these dinners never cease to amaze me. Ephraim Sneh is the same jerk who only a few months ago insisted that Israel would have to "prepare the IDF for the next round against Iran."
Ramon is the same jerk who couldn't keep his private member in his pants & was convicted of kissing an IDF soldier in the Prime Minister's office before a meeting which marked the beginning of the Lebanon war. I guess the whiff of gunpowder in the air was too sexually intoxicating for him.
I guess we should take our allies where we can find them but…let's not be confused into thinking that these are good guys. They're not. They're SOBs. And I wish IPF wouldn't be so star struck that it felt it had to feature them.
Richard,
There are no existing "good" messengers.
The best that we can do is to SUCCESSFULLY communicate the importance of the commitment upon Israeli leaders and voters and American leaders and voters to a peer and healthy Palestine.
There are many bi-lateral actions between Israel and Palestine that they both desire, and have now loudly signalled that they want the US to take an involved, even committed, approach to make things happen.
These two officials are in some regard begging the US to put its weight into the peace effort. They are begging for the US to tell them "No, you can't take the car tonight", so that they can form a confident majority voice in Israel for acceptance of the Palestinian state.
And, then there are many multi-lateral actions that include the Arab League primarily, that can make the second leg of the chair.
The third leg of the chair (the leg that lends stability) is reigning in the unconditional haters and expanders. That requires supported governments to happen.
I oppose militancy because it is oriented to destabalizing what requires stabilization and confidence to actually BE a state.
These two came to the IPF, already a two-state proponent, in order to beg them "please, don't let us kill again"? It just doesn't make sense. I suspect this is part of a considerably more sophisticated PR campaign, one that includes Olmert's recent comments that sensitive American Jews just won't stand for a "South-African style" occupation. (Although for forty years it hasn't caused any great problems.)
It's interesting that there's been a noticeably escalation in the rate of killings of Palestinians in the past few weeks. Perhaps we're being set up for another major military incursion?
And by the way, they're speaking to American Jewry, not "the US". If they wanted to speak to the US, they'd use the media.
Dealing with the IP conflict is certainly frustrating. Finding a path of least resistance so one can take a deep breath sounds like a good choice, but only for a moment. Two states is the path of least resistance. It's been on the table for 60 years and look where we are today- not only an ongoing IP conflict but intra-I and intra-P fragmentation.
Phil, you should stick with one state. Two states will only inflame the large extremist elements to a greater degree and prove the notion that "United we stand and divided we fall." Those that won't live peaceably with their neighbors because their covetousness and self-interest are too great will show their colors as enemies of society. I don't care if they're Jewish or Arab or whatever. If they act as enemies of society, let society treat with them as they deserve- as criminals.
Much depends on the state of American power. At this moment it looks like that in 20 years time that power will be much diminished.
That would mean that the longer Israel waits to "final status", the less favorable their situation will be. Conversely, for the Palestinians that would mean that after suffering so much for so many decades with little hope of victory, they would only have to suffer a couple of decades more with the reasonable hope of finally winning back their homeland. So logically the Israelis should be in a great hurry and the Palestinians in absolutely no hurry at all.
Note: I take for granted that most of the Israeli Jewish people (certainly those with high qualifications) would quickly leave Israel if they had to share it on any kind of an equal footing with Arabs. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it very much.
So finally this is a story of fading American power… And I see no sign of the birth of a Chinese version of AIPAC.
To David Seaton…..I broadly agree with you…in addition other factors are likely to make the 98% non Jewish US population sit up and take notice of what we are supporting:
1. the likely collapse of the dollar
2. political defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a huge blow to US prestige and will cause many to wonder why we expended so much blood and treasure on a quixotic nation-building campaign. It will draw more attention to the Jewish neo Cons.
3.the bankruptcy of social security and Medicare programs. It will be much harder for AIPAC to send our billions to Israel when so many more at home are in need.
4. China will likely seize Taiwan by a mil action. The US may try to stop it but will lose. Such a defeat will cause much soul searching and questioning of all our foreign entaglements. What may make the US defeat by China so galling is Israel's relationship with the Chinese military….y'know Israel transferred Lavi jet technology to China over US objections…
What do you think, David?
Mike,
The collapse of the dollar would have a huge effect on American power, but I don't think the Chinese are going to attack Taiwan unless it declares independence, the trade relations are too strong between them.
It is also difficult to see the USA cutting aid to Israel with present campaign financing laws in place.
If the US stopped supporting them unquestioningly, the Israelis might make a deal with the Chinese. Read Caroline Glick in the Jpost (RCP reprint) to get an idea of how much they trust the USA: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/the_abandonment_of_the_jews.html
However the real danger to Israel are their internal contradictions. A general world economic downturn would only aggravate them.
Actually Jimmy Carter and W&M make me proud to be Gentile and American.
Tutu just makes me a proud human.
They made the " brave breakthru", not the Jewish groups.
Credit where credit is due.
Pride cometh before a fall.
Pride cometh before a fall.
Posted by: David Seaton | December 09, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Indeed it does…so glad you are catching on.
The "chickens coming home to roost"?
All: Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, paganists, fascists ERR when they presume that their wishing is the same as reality.
The only grouping that doesn't err are those that are motivated by compassion for the other and seek the path to achieve peace, MUTUAL good.
What can one say morally about a spectator that hopes for the pain of a third party? Someone that actually invests in that, that urges that?
Ben White is a freelance journalist specialising in Palestine/ Israel. His website is at http://www.benwhite.org.uk and he can be contacted directly at ben@benwhite.org.uk .
His article "SHOOT AND CRY" discusses the dilemma of the liberal Zionist. It can be found at http://notinhisname.blogdrive.com/archive/540.html .
WW2 was the straw that changed the Jewish attitude from passivity to assertion.
Is that bad?
No. It is progress for the world that one by one, people's acquire the right to self-assert and self-govern.
May the Palestinians acquire similar.
Its time for the powers that be to create the conditions by which Israel and Palestine can live as mutually respecting good neighbors.
There are lots of individuals and groups with opportunistic agendas all around seeking to make that not happen.
To: Joachim
Hi….how do you see the Jewish establishment coping with the relative and even absolute decline of US power….to me it is inevitable that we examine the blind support for Israel….do you think that it will happen over the next 5 years?
It is interesting how nervous Ron Paul is making the Zionists…yet he has carefully never mentioned Israel. I am sure that they wish that he would stop pointing out how the federal reserve works and who benefits from its printing of paper money.
You blabbering morons:
Defense Min.: Israel now world's fourth largest weapons exporter
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/932656.html
The US better keep kissing Israel's ass or you'll all be sitting in the dark…
We are going down the path of Oslo again, and I just don't understand the optimists here.
It's nice to hear left-leaning labor Zionists like Ramon and Sneh talk after hearing the neocons, I grant you that. I have heard them for twenty years. But the problem was never the good intentions of Labor and the PLO, or their recognition of their common interest. The problem was narrowing the gap between two widely-different narratives and perceptions of what is a reasonable compromise and what is not. And where has the movement been?
People talk about going back to Clinton, or even to Geneva? Who says that this is good for the parties?
Rabbi Yitz Greenberg once characterized Jewish-Christian dialogue as liberal Jews talking with liberal Christians, and finding that they had so much in common with each other. Isn't this what Phil heard the other night?
I hope that people like Rob Malley — whose voice is very important — are trying to convince the relevant Democratic presidential candidates that it is not enough to get good people on both sides together; that has not worked in the past, and I see no reason why it will work in the future.
Do I have an alternative besides education and argument? No. Am I completely pessimistic. Also, no. I am heartened, obviously, by the prospects of a "regime-change" in the US. Liberal Jews can be convinced that their starting point is skewered in favor of Israel, and that peace without considerations of justice is a non-starter.
I am a two-stater because I feel that it is what most people in the region want. I would prefer a federation (Magnes pushed for a United States of Palestine after binationalism was rendered moot) I have no probem on principle, with a One State solution.
But whatever the solution, unless the absolute minimum requirements for a just peace are met — complete withdrawal to 67 borders, the ability of Palestinian refugees to become naturalized Israeli citizens, should they desire, and the creation of a Palestinian state that provides a sense of security, dignity, and possibility for flourishing to its citizens, then I see no point for the peace process. Better no settlement than a woefully inadequate one, which will be blown to smithereens by the first suicide bomber or targeted assassination.
That is why the discourse of dignity, freedom, security, and inalienable rights, has to take precedence over the discourse of peace. I know that I am preaching to the choir, but I still have to preach.
I am sorry, but do not get your hopes up. Violence and hatred breeds more violence and hatred, and a poisonous atmosphere from that can overpower the most intelligent, pragmatic and hopeful individuals.
It only takes a few firebrands on both sides to drag both Israel and Palestine back into the same old thing.
As a goy, the actual POWER of the Israeli Lobby in the USA makes me extremely uncomfortable. No matter to what ends this power is used (and perhaps it will turn now to the two state solution and Palestinians will actually be considered as [GASP!] human beings), it is deeply wrong that an organization whose only purpose is to promote another country's goals and policies.
I would be just as uncomfortable if the Lobby in question was French, Dutch or Angolan. Not to sound like an American Firster, but perhaps United States policies should not be held hostage by a group who represent another country's interests.
http://americangoy.myblogsite.com/
Jerry – If my social conversations with other jews is any indicator, things may actually be different this time around, I'm noticing a significant shift in the level of tolerance for chauvinism amongst us. I've always been troubled and upset by the chauvinism of some of my fellow jews, and felt ashamed and embarassed by it. A friend of mine works at an orthodox jewish institution. He is quite secular himself. He commented to me that after working at this institution he know understands how moderate Muslims feel about all their extremist fundamentalists, and how middle-class African-Americans feel about Al Sharpton: Desparate to be disassociated from these folks, and concerned about that others will group them in with these folks.
I've heard more and more of my jewish friends agreeing that Israel is going to need to come to the table with something aproximating actual justice for the Palestinians otherwise their support of Israel will cease.
I think that these growing impulses in the American jewish community will grow if there is a simultaneous effort to address the other destuctive forces in the region emanating from Iran and Al Qaeda. If the pendulum swings too far to the other side, I think you'll see a self-censorship and circling of the wagons, but if the efforts on all parties continue to be constructive rather than destructive I think we are entering a new era with better chances for justice and a lasting peace.
Jerry – Thanks for being such a wonderful proponent of what is good and just.
'the settlement maze is indefensible and is structured to compel occupation if not annexation, and should be abandoned.'
Well said Richard.
'WW2 was the straw that changed the Jewish attitude from passivity to assertion. Is that bad? No.'
Hmmm. You could say that WW1 was the straw that changed the German attitude from passivity to assertion… well allright, from assertion to megalomania, but in each case, maturing males in particular grew up with an image of paternal weakness which shamed and angered them enough to turn them into vengeful zealots.
The national humiliation of Versailles (and the economic shattering that followed) provided the seed bed for Hitler to tap into minds like his own all over Germany. Minds that bristled with outrage at the what they saw as the defeat and betrayal of their superior race, their dominant culture. The Allies weren't enough to feed this beast, a real scapegoat was required and the Jews fit the bill.
So while the violent expressions of these national psychoses were visited upon the Jews, their oppressors amused themselves with fairy stories about their imperial past (the Teutonic knights) and premature celebrations of their glorious future. They grabbed themselves some extra 'lebensraum' while they were at it, so the master race could stretch it's legs – it was OK though, because captive historians dutifully explained that, because the areas had once been part of the marches of some Otto or other and several native speakers still remained, the Germans really owned them.
Sound familiar?
'May the Palestinians acquire similar.'
I for one hope not. Sure I want them to have their own nation, but I hope they can avoid carrying on the awful tradition that sees the oppressed become oppressors. We are already paying too high a price to those who imagine themselves righting this particular wrong.
'I'm noticing a significant shift in the level of tolerance for chauvinism amongst us. I've always been troubled and upset by the chauvinism of some of my fellow jews, and felt ashamed and embarassed by it.. I've heard more and more of my jewish friends agreeing that Israel is going to need to come to the table with something aproximating actual justice for the Palestinians otherwise their support of Israel will cease.'
Very encouraging words.
Glenn,
You confuse history with inevitability.
Bad choices were made by expansionists. There was no inevitability in it. Bad CHOICES.
On the other hand, the choice of Jews following WW2, to survive and self-govern was progressive and also a choice.
If other choices were possible by world powers absorbing European Jewish refugees maybe Israel would not have come to be. (I think that would be a tragedy. Israel's existence improves the world.)
Certainly, if the Arab world had accepted the small Israel in the pre-UN and early UN discussions, that the Zionists accepted, the world might be a different place. (They still most likely would have conducted their own land grab from what could have been sovereign Palestine.)
The nazi "parallel" is not one. Likud accepts the rule of law, including the orderly succession of opposing parties when elected, and even equal due process under the law. In contrast, Hitler from his 1933 coalition, assassinated members of the coalition, and then physically and politically destroyed the legislature, using terror as the means.
Philip – Have you looked into how these issues of Jewish Power play out in other countries. Here is an interesting piece from Denis McShane.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300719_pf.html
Hatred of Jews has reached new heights in Europe and many points south and east of the old continent. Last year I chaired a blue-ribbon committee of British parliamentarians, including former ministers and a party leader, that examined the problem of anti-Semitism in Britain. None of us are Jewish or active in the unending debates on the Israeli-Palestinian question.
Our report showed a pattern of fear among a small number of British citizens — there are around 300,000 Jews in Britain, of whom about a third are observant — that is not acceptable in a modern democracy. Synagogues attacked. Jewish schoolboys jostled on public transportation. Rabbis punched and knifed. British Jews feeling compelled to raise millions to provide private security for their weddings and community events. On campuses, militant anti-Jewish students fueled by Islamist or far-left hate seeking to prevent Jewish students from expressing their opinions.
More worrisome was what we described as anti-Jewish discourse, a mood and tone whenever Jews are discussed, whether in the media, at universities, among the liberal media elite or at dinner parties of modish London. To express any support for Israel or any feeling for the right of a Jewish state to exist produces denunciation, even contempt.
Our report sent a shock wave through the British government. Tony Blair called us in and told his staff to fan out throughout government departments and produce answers to the problems we outlined. To Britain's credit, the Blair administration produced a formal government response setting out tough new guidelines for the police to investigate anti-Semitic attacks and for universities to stop anti-Jewish ideology from taking root on campuses. Britain's Foreign Office has been told to protest to Arab states that allow anti-Jewish broadcasts.
We made clear that criticism of actions of Israeli politicians was not off-limits. On the contrary, we noted that some of the strongest criticisms of Israeli policy come from Israeli campuses, journalists and political activists, and from the Jewish intellectual elite of many countries. American universities have provided a base for Noam Chomsky and the late Edward Said, among others, to launch campaigns of criticism against Israel, and the bulk of the West's university intelligentsia remains hostile to the Jewish state.
Tony Blair's successor as British prime minister, Gordon Brown, recently said in London that he stood with Israel "in bad times as well as good times," and one of the remarkable turnarounds of the new Labor leadership that governs Britain is a strong support for Israel and its commitment to combating anti-Semitism. The problem is worse in other European countries. The Polish politician, Maciej Marian Giertych, recently published a pamphlet under the auspices of the European Parliament that attacked Jews. No action has been taken against him. France and Germany have seen anti-Jewish attacks. Some references to Jews in the Lithuanian press do not bear translating.
Europe is reawakening its old demons, but today there is a difference. The old anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism have morphed into something more dangerous. Anti-Semitism today is officially sanctioned state ideology and is being turned into a mobilizing and organizing force to recruit thousands in a new crusade — the word is chosen deliberately — to eradicate Jewishness from the region whence it came and to weaken and undermine all the humanist values of rule of law, tolerance and respect for core rights such as free expression that Jews have fought for over time.
The president of Iran is the most odious example of this new state-sanctioned anti-Semitism. But from the Egyptian Writers Union to the notorious anti-Jewish articles in the charters of Hamas and Hezbollah, hatred of Jews is an integral element of a new ideology rising to prominence in many regions of the world.
Democracies always take their time, often too much time, to recognize and face a totalitarian threat when it is posed in ideological terms. In prewar Europe, conservatives were soft on right-wing ideologies because they were seen as being anti-communist and anti-labor. In postwar Europe, socialists were soft on the Soviet Union because the communists appeared to challenge capitalism and imperialism. Today there is still denial about the universal ideology of the new anti-Semitism. It has power and reach, and it enters into the soft underbelly of the Western mind-set that does not like Jews or what Israel does to defend its right to exist.
A counterattack is being organized. My own House of Commons has led the way with its report. The 47-nation Council of Europe, on which I sit as a British representative, has launched a lengthy inquiry into combating anti-Semitism in Europe. The European Union has produced a directive outlawing Internet hate speech originating within its jurisdiction.
We are at the beginning of a long intellectual and ideological struggle. It is not about Jews or Israel. It is about everything democrats have long fought for: the truth without fear, no matter one's religion or political beliefs. The new anti-Semitism threatens all of humanity. The Jew-haters must not pass.
The writer is a Labor member of the British House of Commons and has served as Britain's Europe minister
Jerry: The diff. this time around bet. Oslo & the current situation is that last time ARafat was in the saddle and this time Abbas is (well, whether he's "in the saddle or not" is another story). At least you have a Palestinian leader who truly wants to make a deal.
That's why I'm a bit more hopeful this time around. There are of course many pitfalls as there were around Oslo. Now, Hamas is excluded which is possibly fatal. Bush is weak while Clinton was a tremendous cheerleader for the cause of peace even if he couldn't ultimately deliver. I have even less faith in Olmert as Israeli leader than I had in Barak in 2000 or certainly Rabin at the time of Oslo.
But things are more desperate this time around & all sides are perhaps more eager for a settlement. At least I hope so.
Did you see that Alan Dershowitz was shopping at Leviev's in New York?
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2007/12/dershys-dirty-diamond-dance.html
But that is just a CHOICE that he makes to shop for diamonds to the benefit of the settlements.
Nothing is inevitable: perhaps–we do not know the future–those settlers will make a CHOICE to pack up and get off Palestinian land.
CHOICES are what we need to make.
I am going to make a specific CHOICE to argue endlessly and pitifully with anyone making direct accusations of war-crimes and genocide because history is a series of CHOICES and I'm making one too, for my team.
The other team's electricity and gas supplies disappear, their leaders are imprisoned, tortured, or killed for belonging to political organizations, and I claim to support them, but my CHOICE is for empty platitudes and Zioschmooze.
The Likud have abandoned their lust for Palestinian land and water. I have a good feeling about this, but no evidence yet.
Swimming pools ARE however going out of fashion in the Settlements. People are making the progressive choice–opting for lovely cactus gardens instead.
The IDF is going to decide to voluntarily decrease its budget in 2008, and the Israeli arms industry is going to halt its sale of weapons to guerrillas and terrorist states. These are common sense progressive CHOICES I would make and I'm sure these groups will, too.
Developers are tired of those enormous, blood-stained profits they win erecting subdivisions on occupied Palestinian land like they are in East Jerusalem this very minute. Their hearts are changing, and my gut feeling is: they are going to go back to repairing shoes and plumbing for a living. Because they want to make right with the people whose livelihoods they destroyed.
Diamond merchants are leaving their bloody obligations in Africa and Palestine, and re-opening their former hot dog stands. Hey-Only in New York! Don't you love it!
The people who produced the Nuclear Iran spotlight on CNN that had to be cancelled have changed their minds, and are going to make a special on nuclear Israel instead, because they are starting to think Americans should be informed about their unconditionally supported ally and its own nuclear arsenal.
Jerry Haber, as usual, nails it:
"I am a two-stater because I feel that it is what most people in the region want. I would prefer a federation (Magnes pushed for a United States of Palestine after binationalism was rendered moot) I have no probem on principle, with a One State solution."
It is very easy to call for a one-state solution while living in Boston or New York or Paris or Teheran. It has no traction among Palestinians and while there is a bit more support than there used to be in both Palestine and Israel, most of the people calling for it do not have to confront the daily reality of checkpoints or targeted assasinations or the economic boycott of Gaza. That situation must end ASAP. The one-state concept is an aspiration, an abstract ideal that has absolutely no chance of getting acceptance by EITHER party any time in the near future. And those who espouse it have no practical suggestions for how to achieve it in the real world that all of us have inherited. The perfect, diplomats in the real world say, is the enemy of the good.
What interests me in this thread is that everyone has ignored the most important point of Phil's post: the fact that, left to their own devices, Palestinians and Israelis cannot negotiate an end to this nightmare and that is why "muscular interventionism" is required from the U.S. That is what Afif Safieh wants. The people at IPF do not want the interventionism to be as muscular as he does, or I do, or you do, and they are still terrified to use the P-word –"pressure"–aloud, and that is a big problem. But the fact is that pressure is what they want. For American Jewish groups to endorse that is quite new; maybe it's too little, too late, but it is a practical development to build upon.
Of course it would be unconscionable to force Palestinians to accept a timid client state with bantustans and no concrete solutions for refugees and no economic independence and no dignity. I understand why many people who once favored a 2-state solution have simply given up, mainly because the Israelis have shown no willingness to take the steps necessary for the creation of a viable Palestinian state. They may well be right. Maybe there's no hope. But if there is to be any hope, it must be derived from the concrete possibility, albeit slim, that muscular interventionism by the U.S. and the international community can prod the Israelis to do what they have not done and return to the '67 borders and achieve the other goals Jerry Haber articulates.
But I believe that if people keep spouting the one-state goal, they will just perpetuate Palestinian suffering because they will encourage a belief in a delusion. What I espouse is one or two steps closer to reality than delusion. Not a vast distance, but better than no distance at all.
Appropriate piece from Michael Lerner at Tikkun.
The miracle of Chanukah is that so many people were able to resist the overwhelming "reality" imposed by the imperialists and to stay loyal to a vision of a world based on generosity, love of stranger, and loyalty to an invisible God who promised that life could be based on justice and peace. It was these "little guys," the powerless, who managed to sustain a vision of hope that inspired them to fight against overwhelming odds, against the power of technology and science organized in the service of domination, and despite the fact that they were dismissed as terrorists and fundamentalist crazies. When this kind of energy, what religious people call "the Spirit of God," becomes ingredient in the consciousness of ordinary people, miracles ensue.
It is this same radical hope, whether rooted in religion or secularist belief systems, that remains the foundation for all who continue to struggle for a world of peace and social justice at a time when the champions of war and injustice dominate the political and economic institutions of our own society, often with the assistance of their contemporary cheerleading religious leaders. It is that radical hope that is celebrated this Chanukah by those Jews who have not yet joined the contemporary Hellenists.
Because antispam countermeasures I will divide my comment…
BEGIN this way: "British Jews feeling compelled to raise millions to provide private security for their weddings and community events."
END this way: http://www.jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?071005+security
"Rabbis punched and knifed."
BEGAN this way (WorldNetDaily description):
"Ten days ago, just before Sabbath service, an anonymous note was delivered to the headquarters of the French Liberal Jewish Movement: 'We want the skin of Rabbi Gabriel Farhi and will avenge the blood of our Palestinian brothers,' it said." ["Cannot remember sending such note.", said Anonymous.]
"Later that day, the synagogue doorbell rang. Farhi, 34, opened the door. An attacker in a motorcycle helmet shouted "Allah is great!" in Arabic, plunged a knife into his stomach and fled." ["I'm not english proficient, but the word 'plunge' sounds like the rabbi has a deep chasm for stomach", said Anonymous.]
"Farhi was released from the hospital the same day. But then, last Monday, his car was torched in his apartment parking lot." ["I guess the deep chasm was in his pockets", said Anonymous again.]
ENDED this way:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=255529&contrassID=2&subContrassID=15&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
"On campuses, militant anti-Jewish students fueled by Islamist or far-left hate seeking to prevent Jewish students from expressing their opinions."
Take a look at this comment from a british student on a jewish blog:
[quote]
I'm interested in the debate of Jewish identity in this thread. I am not Jewish myself, and so you might argue that I cannot possibly comment, but I'm going to anyway. So shoot me. (Or don't shoot me, depending on whether you think I have the right to air my views or not, whatever they may be.)
I'm a student and our union is more or less RULED by the Jsoc and the Isoc (Islamic society). The Jsoc win a motion, the Isoc demand a re-vote, and vice versa. Both are as bad as each other, and it has crippled the Union in terms of constructive debate and elections. Last year, for example, one of the societies disagreed with the first motion and, seeing that it was going to be passed, walked out of the general meeting taking all their members with them. There were not enough attending the meeting, therefore, to pass any of the motions. Very clever, but what a complete waste of everyone else's time.
I am not saying here that either the Jewish student community or the Islamic student community is to blame for screwing up our union, just that some societies are too powerful for their own good. The union steps of an election day are packed full of the members of both societies, harassing you as you wander down the street and slagging you off if you don't stop and listen. It puts everyone else off Union politics, which isn't good really, is it? All we ever hear about is middle-eastern problems. It's been a long time since the Union took an interest in issues that directly relate to our actual university, or at least the country we live in.
[unquote]
So, who is being prevented from expressing opinions here?
"Tony Blair called us in and told his staff to fan out throughout government departments and produce answers to the problems we outlined."
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_02/BlairLevyDM2004_468×590.jpg
"Tony Blair's successor as British prime minister, Gordon Brown, recently said in London that he stood with Israel 'in bad times as well as good times,'"
http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11&SecId=11&AId=56890&ATypeId=1
"More worrisome was what we described as anti-Jewish discourse, a mood and tone whenever Jews are discussed, whether in the media, at universities, among the liberal media elite or at dinner parties of modish London."
There's the jewish answer:
"I'm noticing a significant shift in the level of tolerance for chauvinism amongst us. I've always been troubled and upset by the chauvinism of some of my fellow jews, and felt ashamed and embarassed by it."
And the decent man answer (courtesy from the british popinjay himself):
"It is about everything democrats have long fought for: the truth without fear, no matter one's religion or political beliefs."
Comments on this entry are closed.