Nearly two months ago, Saif Ammous attacked the peace process as a delusion here. Part of his analysis:
Israel has absolutely no intention of giving away anything meaningful in the West Bank—certainly nothing on which anyone could establish a viable state. It is also painfully clear to anyone who cares to reason that the American government has no intention whatsoever of pressuring the Israelis into any form of concession. Seeing as these issues are the main issues standing between us and a peaceful solution, one can be sure that there will be no way for a peaceful solution to be achieved.
I disagree with Ammous but I have to admit his argument is looking better, 3 months after Annapolis, than mine. He and I have had a spirited argument about these questions by email; later today I will be posting that dialogue. Just a headsup...
The reason for the lack of progress is Bush.
He is uninterested, and incompetent.
Also,
Ron Paul would be even less interested, given his reluctance to get involved in foreign "intrigues".
The two-state solution is the only way to go currently.
And, that requires peace process in earnest.
I pray that it doesn't require the Finkelstein prescription, a stunning military defeat, by Hezbollah.
The peace process has always been a delusion, for the simple reason that David Ben-Gurion noted many years ago: "Everyone can see the weight of the problems in the relations between Arabs and Jews. But no one sees that there is no solution to these problems. There is no solution! Here is an abyss, and nothing can link its two sides… We as a people want this land to be ours; the Arabs as a people want this land to be theirs."
You may think that dividing the land between them is a solution, but who gets Jerusalem when neither side will accept a divided or shared Jerusalem? And while Israel, quite understandably, does not want to go back to the 1967 borders that would allow an Arab force to mass in the West Bank and drive only ten miles to the sea to cut Israel in half, not to return to those borders means that Israel is occupying an immense amount of Palestinian land. There is no solution to this short of either Israel's utter destruction or the permanent expulsion of the Palestinians from all Israeli-held territory. I'm not arguing for either of these solutions, mind you, but I don't think anything less than that will do.
Ah, yes, those "defensible borders" again. Total BS in this day of overwhelming Israeli military superiority and air power. Can anyone seriously imagine hostile tank armies massing in the West Bank while Israel does nothing. After Kuwait and Iraq everyone understands those developments as a turkey shoot in the making.
Not only that, but far right-wing Zionists are proposing the transfer of heavily Arab populated parts of Israel (the "Little Triangle")to the supposed Palestinian state. Guess where they are? In the narrow "waist" of Israel — what are called the "Auschwitz Borders" by Zio-fanatics like Dershowitz when there is a different point to make.
I, as an "orthodox/religious right-wing Israeli who support Jewish historical rights regarding settlement in Judea/Samaria" certainly hope that Saif is correct, and that Olmert won't want or be able to give anything away. That is why I currently support his staying in power even though I despise his gang that is ruling Israel. Only the supposedly "right-wing" Likud can really destroy Israel, as Sharon did with Gush Katif.
In reality, although the quote Craig brought above from Ben-Gurion is partly true, I do believe a modus vivendi CAN be reached, but it will take time, and it will require the replacement of the current post-Zionist ruling clique of Israel (who controls the policy of the gov't regardless of which party happens to have the Prime Minister's seat) with people who have a true Jewish connection with the people and land. Ben-Gurion was an atheist who rejected Jewish tradition, and so was also alien to the ways of the Arabs/Muslims. On the other hand, the Judea/Samaria "settlers" have the strongest connection and so they can sit down face to face with the Arabs and reach some sort of at least informal modus vivendi because they, deep down, have a common language. Religious Jews and Muslims have much more in common than with the post-Zionist, post-Modern ruling clique in Israel. Alienated secular post-Zionist Jews like Olmert, Barak, Ramon, Netanyahu (YES, Netanyahu) have no common language with the Arabs and no understanding of their concerns. The secular "Tel Aviv" culture is viewed as a threat to Arab/Muslim culture and lifestyles and is a major cause of the restentment of the Arabs to Israel. If the common ground can be brought out (and, again, the current ruling clique in Israel is totally incapable of doing this….for example, read Shimon Peres' hallucinary book "The New Middle East" in which he says the Arabs will make peace once they get addicted to the Internet and start listening to rock videos and looking at girlie pictures), and this new gov't be FIRM in standing for Jewish rights to the Jew's historic homeland in Judea/Samaria, then there is hope for everyone. As long as this post-Zionist clique in Israel remains in power, they will push peace further and further away by convincing the Arabs with their insane concessions that Israel is ready to go under (recall that it was Olmert himself that said "Israel is 'finished' if the Arabs don't accept a Palestinian state now". Of course, getting rid of Israel is what they want, so I don't see how Olmert can think that they are going to rush to help him and Israel out.
"[if] this new gov't be FIRM in standing for Jewish rights to the Jew's historic homeland in Judea/Samaria, then there is hope for everyone."
There are NO SUCH RIGHTS. Jews no more own that land than I own the man in the moon. Zionism is a demented, dangerous secular heresy.
Show me the deed!
"Religious Jews and Muslims have much more in common than with the post-Zionist, post-Modern ruling clique in Israel."
I probably shouldn't mention it, but a couple of year ago I discovered to my utter amazement that the German extreme right apparently has started to distinguish between "good Jews" religious ones and "bad Jews" secular ones. Somehow bar_koschba's comment above reminded me of it.
You don't need a deed when God and American weight is on your side.
Richard, you really think that the mess in Palestine is Bush's fault?
No wonder we are collectively pigeonholed by rightwing idiots as 'Bush-haters'… To single out Bush scapegoating–you are against that I thought. And more than a bit unfair as the guy is a career yes-man, and dammit he's good at saying yes, quite competent in fact. Oh yeah and has 'the most powerful vice president in history' "underneath" him.
Cheney and Rumsfeld and the Pentagon have a somewhat intractable dependence on Zionism as justification and cover for American militarism not only in the Middle East but throughout the world, including my new home, Monkeyland (yes there are Arabofascists lurking in the jungles now too, did you know that?), and, most importantly, your old home, the U.S. of A.
Since Richard thinks a book about Lindbergh with a swastika on the cover is somehow really germane to all of this (maybe it is, maybe there's an enormous isolationist conspiracy to flood the Pentagon with money every year until ordinary America is starving and launches a revolution! With dragons!), may I indulge in a little hookah theory?
What about those dancing Israelis? Do you have any comment on them, Richard?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html
Or, since you a fan of the alternate history genre, perhaps you'd like the New York Times' coverage (which only omits the explosives, the Mossad connections, the comments about Palestinians, any of the implications or a followup):
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E5DF103CF93BA35753C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
Do you really wonder why some Americans might be enraged?
Even Phil, who has so much more courage than you do, and so much more insight, and foresight, than you do, doesn't seem to want to talk about the dancing Israelis, that is to say, the strong possibility the 9/11 Commission was obstructed, and that not any Mossad's connections to the events that day collected by American law enforcement have seen the light of day.
If any of that hypothesis is wrong, well, that is fine–I am interested in the truth. I am not interested in Zio-schmooze and misdirection. Do you think that the crime of 9/11 was prosecuted/solved?
Why doesn't the FBI include 9/11 in Bin Laden's most wanted file, Richard? Don't you find that a little odd?
Considering what 9/11 enabled, politically, and considering Benjamin Netanyahu's famous quote after the attacks, "good", it's a little bit transparent now to be blaming the career yes-man George W. Bush for the American and Zionist fires in the Middle East. No one trusts him with matches.
The neoconservative/Likudist hope for another Pearl Harbor is known. Netanyahu's response to 9/11 is known. The Cheney Administration's braintrust is known. The Clinton administration's braintrust is known. Who do you think you're kidding?
"The two-state solution is the only way to go currently." – R. Witty
The esteemed Mr. Witty is nothing if not a weathervane of conventional wisdom. Have you ever studied a map of the West Bank, chopped up by settlements, Israeli roads, checkpoints, the Wall, the militarized Jordan Valley, etc., etc.? I didn't think so.
But let's put it in terms that any American can understand. Beachfront property is valuable. The Israelis want all the Mediterranean beachfront.
Imagine partitioning California — the Israelis will take San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Malibu, Los Angeles, San Diego … while generously offering the Palestinians Riverside County, Fresno, Bakersfield, and Tracy. Oh, and the Israelis will retain ownership of the interstate highways, the Sierra Nevada, Yosemite, Sequoia, Big Bear Lake, and the water resources. Such a deal, such a deal!
Of course, I realize as a fellow New Yorker, you may not even do California. One is reminded of the decisively placebound Philip Roth, confessing that he doesn't know all of Newark; finds Ironbound terra incognita; in fact, doesn't even venture beyond Weequahic Park. Sorry, Richard — I don't do Westchester!
Richard gives too much credit to Bush on this matter. Sure, it's easy to scapegoat the guy who's already a noted disasterpiece in history. Not only that, it also deflects attention from what really stifles debate on the Israel-Palestine issue, and why no candidate or congressman is willing to step out of the norm of "pro-Israel" outlooks that has us seeing recycling the same garbage of "peace processes" and "dialogue".
While Bush does bear some percentage for the paralysis of progress, he is by far just another cog in the machine that keeps Israel bulldozing more Palestinian land. He won't take on the Lobby; he holds the lesson of his father close to him. And future candidates also are not blind to these facts.
Until we have someone with the temerity to break the taboo, we're on the same cycle that started with Oslo over a decade ago.
Richard gives too much credit to Bush on this matter. Sure, it's easy to scapegoat the guy who's already a noted disasterpiece in history. Not only that, it also deflects attention from what really stifles debate on the Israel-Palestine issue, and why no candidate or congressman is willing to step out of the norm of "pro-Israel" outlooks that has us seeing recycling the same garbage of "peace processes" and "dialogue".
While Bush does bear some percentage for the paralysis of progress, he is by far just another cog in the machine that keeps Israel bulldozing more Palestinian land. He won't take on the Lobby; he holds the lesson of his father close to him. And future candidates also are not blind to these facts.
Until we have someone with the temerity to break the taboo, we're on the same cycle that started with Oslo over a decade ago.
Richard gives too much credit to Bush on this matter. Sure, it's easy to scapegoat the guy who's already a noted disasterpiece in history. Not only that, it also deflects attention from what really stifles debate on the Israel-Palestine issue, and why no candidate or congressman is willing to step out of the norm of "pro-Israel" outlooks that has us seeing recycling the same garbage of "peace processes" and "dialogue".
While Bush does bear some percentage for the paralysis of progress, he is by far just another cog in the machine that keeps Israel bulldozing more Palestinian land. He won't take on the Lobby; he holds the lesson of his father close to him. And future candidates also are not blind to these facts.
Until we have someone with the temerity to break the taboo, we're on the same cycle that started with Oslo over a decade ago.
"Richard, you really think that the mess in Palestine is Bush's fault?"
The failure to make peace happen when Israel, the Arab League, and Fatah asserted that they sincerely accepted the other's existence and sought to manifest that in reality. (Even if reluctant and conditional.)
Bush FAILED to assist in the change, even though asked very directly, in a new environment.
Anyway, the question was about American foreign policy.
Its not the "Israel Lobby" that forms and decides on American foreign policy. Its the president and Congress.
They are responsible, and should be.
Yes, on paper. In reality they just rubber-stamp what's needed
to keep or get themselves in office. AIPAC–instigated money talks, and they do the AIPAC walk. The map in the sky over Normandy did not show the hedgerows our soldiers met on the ground.