Today I took part in a conference call with an Israeli lion, David Kimche, the former Mossad boss and Defence Ministry official. The call was organized by the Israel Policy Forum, which is pushing for a 2-state solution now. Kimche is a smart guy with a British accent. He's a realist by temperament. Here were the highlights:
--Israel's attacks on Hamas in Gaza are only strengthening Hamas's "standing among certain people in the Arab world," because Hamas has demonstrated its ability to withstand the Israeli attacks.
--Hamas is "desperate" for a ceasefire. There is "no normal life" in Gaza. People don't have food. And Hamas if therefore failing to provide the basic things a government must.
--"There is not a chance in heaven" of reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians if you leave Hamas out. "You cannot clap with one hand... We have to reach some sort of deal with Gaza."
--Hamas is better at keeping its agreements than Israel is. Asked whether Hamas would observe a ceasefire, Kimche said "Hamas is a very disciplined organization. Its track record is very good." Then he said he didn't want to admit it, but that Hamas keeps agreements "almost more than we do." Huh.
--Israel has traditionally been against having an international force on its borders to enforce a ceasefire, but that feeling is changing. "For many years the idea... was absolutely anathema... It was considered impossible from our point of view." In the Likud government, it was "treason" even to think of such a thing because it would keep Israel from being able to attack the Palestinians. "But we have moved." If such a force could neutralize the violence, Israelis will come to accept it. And Kimche's recent conversation with a Rumanian official suggests to him that NATO might play a role.
--The Olmert government is under tremendous pressure from the right to invade Gaza because of all the Palestinian rocket attacks. But a "military offensive would probably mean the end of the Annapolis talks..."
--Kimche rejected the idea of U.S. "pressure" on Israel. Asked about Condi Rice's visit, he said, "She can of course if she wants to, I won't use the word pressure because that's a word that's not accepted. But put a strong influence on the Israeli government and the Palestinians... to move forward."
The sum feeling I had after the press conference was: Smart guy, but who is he to tell my country not to apply pressure?? On the one hand he wants the U.S. to dangle "tasty carrots" to the Syrians to get them to break with the Iranians and Hezbollah. But we are not to apply pressure on the Israelis? Just "influence." Sorry, but I want my countrymen engaged on this issue and using its full force to bring the violence to an end. This means, as Kimche wisely observes, an international force. And pressure pressure pressure. Oh the word "pressure" is not acceptable in Israel? Who cares.
I always have the same irritation when people start talking about the domestic pressure inside Israel to do x or y-- in this case to invade Gaza. Why should we be worrying first about their polity? What about ours? We are Americans with a disastrous image overseas. We should be thinking about the American interest. And the American interest is to Preserve the Annapolis initiative.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12452
"Everyone knows which government asked Washington for the warships: the same one that is now slaughtering children in Gaza and has threatened the besieged city with an Arab holocaust, the government whose deputy defense minister recently warned that the response to continued rocket attacks would be a Palestinian "shoah." The Palestinians, he brayed on state radio, are "bringing upon themselves a greater shoah because we will use all our strength in every way we deem appropriate, whether in air strikes or on the ground."
speaking of jewish influence…
link to antiwar.com
"Such an interpretation can only succeed, however, if we wear the special blinders that the Lobby would have us don, which blank out the context in which this rhetoric is being uttered. The use of the word "shoah" against the backdrop of a major military operation in Gaza – one that seems to be escalating in ferocity – amounts to the very real threat of genocide. Any alternative explanation seems on the same factual and moral plane as garden-variety Holocaust denial. If, God forbid, the Israelis ever carry out their deputy defense minister's threat, these folks will morph into little David Irvings, busily spinning out heavily footnoted disquisitions on why it never happened."
Philip, I completely agree that we need to worry about our image, so to hell with Israel saying we can't pressure them. OF COURSE we can pressure them, and we should!
What wasn't mentioned was the reverse – AIPAC. Why is AIPAC okay? I wish you would comment on the current AIPAC trial, which is about to start. Did you know the prosecutor just left for a cushy job, on the eve of the trial starting? Americans need to know about AIPAC, so all of us can call our congresspeople and demand they no longer listen to what they say.
The reality of of the "resistance" of Hamas and its mentor, Hezbollah is of the irritant.
"We will irritate you until you leave. You thought the swamps of Galilee were filled with irritating mosquitoes, and most of you left. Wait till you see what we can do."
"We won't "attack" you, because we will lose. But, we won't let you sleep, won't let you get comfortable."
"We will encourage the left/right 'solidarity' in Europe and the US to conduct similar efforts. Never letting you get too comfortable."
"We're like the world itself, in that respect. We will irritate until you die young. You are NEVER our friend, in any way."
I don't know. Maybe its just my irritated projection.
Do you really think that "pressure" is your right, Phil?
What happened to live and let live?
What happened to the distinction between criticism and coercion, respecting free minds to discern their own conclusions?
Re: "What happened to live and let live?"
That's Ron Paul's foreign policy. Most Americans vote against their ideals, assuming they even recognize them.
Immediately after Annapolis, the Israel government moved to expand settlements in the east Jerusalem area.
Haaretz reported that the Israeli Defense Ministry is seeking to block publication of an official report showing that the extent of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is greater than Israel has previously admitted.
According to Peace Now, since 2003, when Israel made a commitment not to build new settlements and to dismantle unauthorized settlement "outposts" under the "road map" agreement, 122 government-authorized settlements were built in the West Bank, and another 100 outposts were built with tacit government support. Bush allowed this to happen, as did Congress.
A few days after end-term Bush's visit to Jersalem, Agence France Press reported that Israel has begun constructing 66 new homes in an east Jerusalem settlement.
Bush essentially said the way to go was a secure home for a fully recognized righteous Jewish state and a separate home for a Palestinian state–he spoke of establishment of "Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people." Well, not quite; most if any Palestinians would get no right of return, but compensation. No doubt both sides to get piles of American cash to make it all happen.
Currently in Bush's Jewish state, Arabs make up 20 percent of Israel's population.
Since 2000 both sides have been enduring violence, terrorism, and hopelessness. As for the United States, continuation of the conflict has done terrible injury to all of our interests in the region. Even some Israeli hardliners are saying it–but not the
US presidential candidates on prime time TV.
.
"For many years the idea [of an international force] … was absolutely anathema … It was considered impossible from our point of view." In the Likud government, it was "treason" even to think of such a thing because it would keep Israel from being able to attack the Palestinians. "But we have moved." – David Kimche
————
Presumably an international force was objectionable because it would restrict Israel's discretion to enlarge settlements and expand its border outward. Maybe the zionists have finally concluded that they've grabbed all the land they can; the Palestinians are getting too uppity, and publicizing their plight on the internet. This is not "good for the Jews." So we've moved …
UN forces have served in southern Lebanon. Extending that concept to the Israel/West Bank border is very problematic, because it would tend to legitimize Israel's illegal wall, along the illegally-expanded border.
Using NATO troops is an even worse idea. NATO was supposed to be a defensive alliance. It first broke its restraints under Bill Clinton's bombing of Serbia, as Kosovo remains an ongoing disaster. NATO's lost war in Afghanistan is a second disaster. NATO as global enforcer is a horrible idea, particularly for the flawed concept of a "two-state solution" (TSS).
Bottom line, the TSS is nothing but a diabolical plan to consolidate Israeli territorial gains. The Palestinian people are under NO obligation to honor an agreement made under the duress of occupation, and probably won't. TSS is just another cynical stalling tactic, inherently malevolent in intent, and serving the interests of the Israeli state.
Meanwhile, Witty is back with his "Palestinians as mosquitos" riff, which mirrors Hitler's "Jews as microbes" metaphor. Who will inherit the earth, the mosquitos or the microbes? Or will they mutually annihilate each other? Zionism was a catastrophic mistake … there's a train wreck coming; Lordy, you can see it from ten thousand miles away!
"Meanwhile, Witty is back with his "Palestinians as mosquitos" riff, which mirrors Hitler's "Jews as microbes" metaphor. "
Actually, the riff is MILITANT Hamas and Hezbollah adopt a mosquito strategy, to get the Israelis to leave ("voluntarily").
Do you think they have that strategy, or a different one?
How would you characterize it?
The problem with pressure, whether from the IDF or from Hamas and Hezbollah, is that if the container really is sealed, then adding pressure just adds to a pressure cooker.
The art is to reduce the pressure, so that each have room to breathe.
ANY ideology that is exclusivist will add pressure.
By my math a two-state solution is the means to reduce that pressure, to reduce the likelihood of conflict.
So, on the Israeli side that DOES entail having the discipline to act in a way that enhances acceptance: not expanding within or the dimensions of settlements, reducing the number and intensity of checkpoints.
I genuinely don't know what to do about Hamas though. Shelling of civilians is ongoing terror, even if at a lower level than the concentrated military power of the IDF.
Halevy (former Mossad director) realizes there is no way to stop the Qassam attacks nor to free Gilad Shalit without co-opting Hamas into a political process.
Hamas won the general elections, broke out of a virtual siege that Israel imposed upon them, and no counter strategy by US-Israel has proved effective…
So Israel has been inflicting serious harm collectively in the disputed areas. Now Hamas is trying to get a cease fire. Will Hamas be cowed into accepting the dictate: Israel's right to exist, honor previous promises of the PLO/Fatah, stop all attacks on Israelis? Halevy says the last two conditions are essential, but the first demands an a priori renunciation of ideology before contact is made. Such a demand has never been made before either to an Arab state or to the Palestinian Liberation Organization/Fatah. Tough guy Halevy adds there is logic in the Hamas' position that ideological "conversion" is the endgame and not the first move in a negotiation.
Should US-Israel policy remain trying to engineer internal Palestinian politics–now at the barrel of IDF guns, while our
presidential candidates look away? Shouldn't Palestinians decide who their leadership should be? Isn't that democracy?
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/02/22/ephraim-halevy-former-shin-bet-director-favors-talks-with-hamas/
"I genuinely don't know what to do about Hamas though." – R. Witty
Take a lesson from the Northern Ireland and Basque separatist conflicts. In both cases, governments concluded that they had to offer a political channel for negotiation, as an alternative to violence as the only form of communication.
Stupidly, the U.S. and Israel have chosen to do the opposite. They nullified Hamas's election victory; archly denouncing it as a terrorist group, despite the Israeli state having been founded with acts or terror. No one has clean hands in this region.
Give Hamas the political recognition it earned, and the rockets likely will stop. Continue the current stalemate, which is designed to facilitate Israel's land grab via an unfair two-state solution with the collaborationist Fatah party, and Hamas will have every incentive to keep fighting.
I agree with Halevy.
If Hamas renounces terror as a means and agrees to abide by agreements made by prior administrations of the Palestinian Authority, then it should be accepted as having won their elections.
They will have to consent though to democratic and peaceful succession of governance, and return constitutional policing authority to Abbas.
When they do what elected governments do, then they will be accepted as an elected government.
Shelling civilians for years, is NOT it though.
One danger of becoming a real state, is that it is held accountable to the standards of a state.
If it allows shelling of Israel, then it will be in a state of overt war, without even the stupid pretense of calling itself a "resistance" movement.
.
"One danger of becoming a real state, is that it is held accountable to the standards of a state. If it allows shelling of Israel, then it will be in a state of overt war, without even the stupid pretense of calling itself a 'resistance' movement." – R. Witty
A worthy proposition, and one which has some merit. At the same time, it's essential to stipulate that Israel has NOT been held accountable to the standards expected of a state. As John Dugard's report to the UN Human Rights Commission details, Israel has repeatedly violated its obligations as an occupying power.
The sole reason why Israel has not been sanctioned by the UN Security Council for its repeated, gross violations of its obligations is that the US vetos every attempt to do so. This is the ultimate reason why the Lobby, despite having influential tentacles in Australia, Canada and Europe, must maintain its chokehold on the US at all costs. Without the US veto in the Security Council, Israel's standing in the international community would lower than Iran's: that of a rogue state. Uncle Sam's veto is the figleaf of respectability which Israel shamefully hides behind, to the shame of Americans who reject Israel's values.
Israel was never held accountable for violating the unilateral
Balfour declaration's provisions protecting the non-Jewish people existing in the mandate at the time. Further, Israel was never held accountable for the preconditions protecting the non-Jewish people in the UN resolution recognizing Israel. Yes, one danger of becoming a real state is that state might eventually be
held accountable to the standards of a state. It looks like the prerequisite for such accountability is total defeat in war, e.g., Germany–not so much Japan, which remains a racist state with comparatively little real accountability when contrasted with post-1945 Germany's affirmative actions.
RE: "…the stupid pretense of calling itself a "resistance" movement."
This is stupid? You mean like "the Israel Defense Force?" Like
the Irgun, the Stern Gang? Bushco's defensive war against Iraq?
Preemption? Choice is interesting. Who doesn't say they act in behalf the right to Life? Pretense is at least as often a matter of guile as of stupidity. Marketing depends on stupidity–and willful ignorance.
Total defeat in war, is your goal?
If Israel is willing to talk to Hamas, the rockets can stop. If Israel won't talk to Hamas, then the rockets won't stop. It's that simple.
If Israel is willing to talk to Hamas, the rockets can stop. If Israel won't talk to Hamas, then the rockets won't stop. It's that simple.
Jim, are you aware of the central Nazi source in this respect? It is not microbes but parasites, the most vivid memory for me still is the visual rat simile that opens the "documentary":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Ewige_Jude
Would Witty be so kind to give us the source?
Animal imagery seems to the the one main standard in humiliating the Other. Maybe the mosquito imagine indeed has a very special annoying quality, more poisonous than a fly.
And, the great thing: mosquitos are blood suckers.