A forceful piece in today's Washington Post by the realists:
We believe that the Arab-Israeli peace process is one issue that requires priority attention. In perhaps no other region was the election of Obama more favorably received than the Middle East.
Their diplomatic/political analysis is also helpful, interesting. My emphasis:
To date, the weakness of the negotiating parties has limited their ability to come to an agreement by themselves. The elections in Israel scheduled for February are certainly a complicating factor, as is the deep split among Palestinians between Fatah and Hamas. But if the peace process begins to gain momentum, it is difficult to imagine that Hamas will want to be left out, and that same momentum would provide the Israeli people a unique chance to register their views on the future of their country.
I.e., apply pressure now, and make the Israelis vote for Livni:
I'm thinking of blogging every day this other great thing that Scowcroft said recently:
[with the election of Obama] we have finally come to grips with a problem which has plagued us since the founding of the republic, [treatment of blacks] and now, we have dealt with it. And people will feel good about the United States.
[T]he Palestinian issue, while it's not important to many states in the region, it's nonetheless -- it gives the members of the region a deep sense of injustice. And we have removed in this country, with this election, a lot of that sense of injustice in this country. We ought to try to do it in the Middle East.
You know Phil, I have enormous respect for you and Scowcroft and Brezinski. But you read Haaretz, so you've seen the efforts to evict that one single household of settlers that the Israeli S. Ct. has apparently ordered evicted: Appears to have the potential to cause a nation-wide national trauma over there. And yet … there are some 400,000 or so other settlers sitting in their other settlement houses, a large number of which (if not almost all) would have to leave under any conceivable peace agreement under the sun, and this isn't even mentioning the issues of J'salem and the right of return or etc., etc.
So not to ask what *comprehensive* breakthrough is possible, nor even what *big* breakthrough is, but just what "fairly significant even" breakthrough do you, Scowcroft and Zbig think is attainable?
Israel is just about up against the wall now with nowhere to go but civil war. And reason says that the Israeli's themselves will probably go to any lengths to avoid that, meaning that in the end there's going to be damn few Israelis who are going to be willing to fight and kill other Israelis for the sake of giving back arab land. And insofar as it ever looked like such a civil war was ever developing, think about the tremendous pressure that would be put on any U.S. President not to push Israel into same.
So, again, what in the world do you and Scowcroft and Zbig think is attainable except to start our new President out with a big failure of an initiative?
How is that in Obama's interest? How is that in the U.S.'s interest?
To once again highlight to the world that while we say we think Israel's settlements are illegal/an obstacle to peace that we won't curtail our subsidies of those settlements to achieve it? To play into bin Laden's hands by reinforcing the idea that it is thus more the U.S. that's the big obstacle to a just settlement than it is Israel even? After all, everyone understands that if someone is subsidized in their intransigence it only makes sense to continue to be intransigent. So why blame Israel even anymore?
Hardly seems to me to be in the U.S.'s interest to once again be left looking like the it's all our fault. Especially since it seems to me that everyone knows that if we withdrew ourselves entirely from the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians and withdrew all subsidies to everyone there almost no matter what happened it wouldn't really significantly matter to us in our national interest.
It would also offer hope to the Arab Street in that, if the P-I issue
was settled fairly and peacefully, the Arab elite would actually have
to start listening to their own downtrodden masses. And Persia would have to listen more to their more secular intelligentsia, a considerable block. The win-wins are vast, without even mentioning
the USA would suddenly be even more back in a moral leadership position.
Less war. More domestic good things.
Exactly the reverse of where we have gone for eight years, and more if you really want to look at it.
Otherwise, Uncle Sam will be dragged into the dustbin of history by fanatic Zionist settlers/the last colonial imperialists waging the
banner they did during the invasion of Caanae
I think the key is to stop defending and enabling the settlers in their aggression. Removing 400,000 may not be achievable, but let's stop giving moral credence to these people.
Phil,
How about an update on your wife. We miss the good old observer days.
Sin Nombre hits the problem squarely in the middle. It is one of those obvious points that no one addresses. Who in Israel, besides the settlers, are willing to fight a civil war to end the occupation? What can any one in the US do to force them to do so? And finally, if Israel will not end the occupation, then what political force in the US can stop the subsidy that enables the West Bank annexation movememnt? The answers are too few, no one and no one respectively.
For those of us here, there is a limited political path. We must work to ensure we do not fight any more ME wars for Israel's benefit. We also should work to reduce military support and the financial subsidy. This can only be done slowly. The fight with the lobby will be intense. And Israel? They will have to slowly come to grips with the one state solution they are creating.
This will not be easy. Obama is probably in no position to lead on these problems. It will be up to us to force the issue of unilateral support for Israel one little step after the next.
I would rather have an update on the lady dog. It's been four months since the surgery.
syvanen wrote:
"And Israel? They will have to slowly come to grips with the one state solution they are creating."
Except that I don't know that that's where the logic of things leads, syvanen.
Of course that's somewhat of the conventional thinking now that Olmert has raised it, but I wonder. Remember the mechanism that he thought would bring that one state into existence? A refusal by the U.S. to countenance what would be the almost admitted apartheid state if indeed the Palestinians stopped asking for a second state and started demanding equal rights, right?
But I don't think it's that clear that the U.S. actually would refuse to countenance that for a good long time at least. After all that's not only what the U.S. has been doing for a long time now, but indeed has been subsidizing too. So why would some mere rhetorical change on the part of the Palestinians make that big of a difference in the short run of, say 10 years or so?
And even then and after that I sense we ought to accord Mr. Witty and indeed Mr. Olmert too a sound knowledge of the situation when he says that a one-state solution is indeed simply unacceptable to the Israelis: Look at the sense of near revulsion that Olmert himself seemed to have at the idea, which of course he thought was shared by other Israelis given that he obviously raised it as a huge boogy-man.
Thus the logic of the situation seems to me to indicate that the eventual denoument of all this will be the expulsion of the Palestinians from the occupied territories. It won't be soon, and it won't happen out of the blue, but before long I suspect the Palestinians will be demanding one state, and then the talk of expulsion—already heard from the lips of people like Avigdor Lieberman and etc.—will become more and more common, and then more mainstream, and then ultimately more palatable too if not indeed welcomed by the world as a perceived … total solution to this terrible problem.
Not optimistic, but that's what seems the logic of the situation to me.
Sin Nombre,
I believe that this is exactly the plan for Gaza. There is a point that starving column of people will file out of the tunnels and slowly march towards the Cairo to the thunderous applause from Jerusalem and Tev Aviv.
People are hungry in Gaza.
Los Angeles Times actually noticed it yesterday, and used the words: "Justified or not…."
Civil war? That's just one big pathetic excuse, and I will tell you from now, this will be the excuse that will be thrown by Israel in everyone's face for the next decade, to justify the continuing occupation and annexation of the WB & the mass-starvation of Gaza (which does amount to genocide).
It's really very simple. The civil war argument makes no sense. Just withdraw the IDF forces completely, and let the settlers defend themselves. Don't interfere when they get killed. It only makes sense, since the settlers only want the state and its protection only insofar as it suits their interests. If they will get slaughtered, it's their own fault, they got more than enough chances to leave.
Of course, this will never happen, and I must say I'm glad that it won't, because it will put the final nail in the coffin of the Palestinian refugees' right of return, and condemn the Palestinians of the WB and Gaza to eternal servitude (as per the so-called Arab "peace plan" of 2002, which I would call the Arab Capitulation Plan). In that sense, zionist greed cancels out the capitulationist offers of Arab regimes. The only just, and lasting, solution is the one-state solution, and all other solutions are now practically dead. It is impossible to revive the dead, but there is still the chance to work to prevent the death of a one-state solution that will preserve Jewish presence in Palestine (1948+1967 lands).
Also, please keep in mind that the Arab peace proposal at Beirut in 2002 was not the first Arab offer for capitulation to Israeli theft of the 1948 territories. There was King Fahd's plan in 1981, which offered full peace and normalization to Israel in return for the 1967 territories. And there was the Fez Initiative of 1982, which offered the same. Neither plan mentioned the return of the refugees. But while Arab leaders were preparing their offers for capitulation, the Israelis had already invaded Lebanon, reached Beirut, and were engaged in the massacre of innocents, Palestinians and Lebanese alike. There is no reason to think that it will be any different this time around. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Look at the justification for Israel's rejection of a perfectly reasonable (reasonable from the Israeli perspective, not an Arab/Palestinian perspective!!) offer — from the zionist hasbara site, Palestine"facts":
"Israel rejected the Fez Initiative because it made all the usual demands of Israel but did not have anything new to provide for Israel's security."
Usual demands?
Wait. I thought Arabs had been demanding that Jews would pack up and leave, or that they were planning to throw Jews into the sea.
Anything new to provide for Israel's security?
So, peace is not good enough for Israel's "security" needs, which are , oddly enough, never really defined, and change on a daily basis depending on the proposals for peace that are floating around ?
A blogger from Lebanon wrote:
"It's really very simple. The civil war argument makes no sense. Just withdraw the IDF forces completely, and let the settlers defend themselves."
I think you are missing my point. Of course theoretically Israel could do as you say if it ever came to a sufficient consensus that it wanted to give back the settlements. But my argument is that there is no such sufficient consensus and likely never will be, and certainly never a sufficient consensus around the idea that the way to do so is to leave the settlers to the tender mercies of the Palestinians.
In short I'm trying to think through the mechanics of this. Eventually I think the "withdrawal" crowd in Israel will get somewhat stronger, if only because without doing so it will mean continued endless war. And the election of Rabin showed that there already is a large latent faction in Israel that would be amenable to withdrawal.
But what happens if and when that faction takes power? It's one thing to come to power with a plurality or even a majority of people behind you favoring withdrawal. It's yet another to get a sufficient consensus behind you favoring the abandonment of the settlers to the Palestinians. The only way forward from there then would be civil war, which I don't think would ever really get going. And thus I don't think that your suggested move could ever really be effectuated, and the withdrawal folks would be stymied yet again just as in the past. The problem will thus continue to fester and ultimately even though I suspect the great majority of people in Israel today hate the idea and can't even dream of endorsing it, when eventually their only other option is to cast their fellow countrymen and women and co-religionists into the fire the only solution that will seem possible is the expulsion of the arabs from the occupied territories, period.
Almost makes you wonder about the idea of trying to avoid all the chaos and bloodshed and etc. on the way to that and figure out how to effectuate it now peacefully, with the absolute full assent of the Palestinians. Since it would so help stabilize the region for the entire globe maybe the world would be better off just buying them out, so to speak. Offer 'em tons of money individually to resettle and each country offer to take however many in as necessary too. Also give additional monetary support to the other arab countries who would naturally be the favored destination for many of the Palestinians to help them accomodate their immigration.
Anyone know how many Palestinians there are out there? Might be cheaper than having more endless wars and blood and grief. I understand the unfairness, and the attachment to land, but if say each Palestinian were offered $250,000 USA apiece and the right to choose their destination…?
There might just be so few remaining Israel wouldn't mind letting same return. And given the industriousness and tenacity and etc. of the Palestinians, the great contribution that those who went elsewhere would make to their new homelands might even make the Israelis regret not getting more. As an American I'd have no problem whatsoever accepting however many Palestinians who would want to come here under such circumstances. Probably the best fellow citizens one could imagine.
Just thinking out loud, but….
I would rather have an update on the lady dog. It's been four months since the surgery.
Hey, you are turning into one of my favorites, it has been passing my mind in certain hiking contexts.
Great, another bailout by the hard-pressed Americans. Think
China and India will let us borrow more for your solution or do you expect that out-of-work former auto worker in Detroit to pay the bill?
Also, one of the reasons for Hitler was the plight of the ethnic Germans in the German diaspora. It took a world war. Then they
were transferred back to Germany. It wasn't pretty.
Is this a model for the Israeli settlers?
observer wrote:
"Great, another bailout by the hard-pressed Americans…."
A.) I clearly indicated it was just a matter of thinking out loud about its theoretical feasibility.
B.) I clearly indicated that it would have to be global.
C.) Life is often a matter of choosing between ugly and uglier options.
D.) I would have no problem paying for it not only via the savings we would realize on the dough we otherwise send to Israel and would keep (and the saved costs of the wars we would not have to fight, and the lessened oil prices and etc.), but also then a tariff on Israeli goods at whatever a level and no matter how long that took and no matter how painful that was to Israel.
E.) And I would have no problem with the world recognizing that it was only the rawest and ugliest greed for land on Israel's part and refusal of its peoples to deign to mix with other religions/races/tribes or etc. that necessitated such a solution and thereby let Israel live forever in such historical ignominy.
Thanks for clarifying Sin Nombre.
"But my argument is that there is no such sufficient consensus and likely never will be, and certainly never a sufficient consensus around the idea that the way to do so is to leave the settlers to the tender mercies of the Palestinians."
I wasn't disagreeing. On the contrary. I am of the same opinion, and this is why I said zionist greed cancels out Arab capitulationists. But keep in mind that public opinion is not always what matters. Elected officials have in the past done things contrary to public opinion, and the public had no choice but to go along. Again, just because there may be free (though not fair) elections in Israel, does not mean that the masses dictate every single move by the politicians they've elected. Politicians get elected based on platforms, but the platforms do change, as has happened a lot of the time. This is why I said that the civil war argument is really of little consequence, because even if most will be against any withdrawal, it is unlikely that just as many would be willing to use violence (leading to civil war) to halt it. Not saying there aren't some, or many, who would be willing to do that, and I realize we're just poking in the dark here as we don't know exactly how many would resort to violent means to stop any withdrawal, but we should also not blow things out of proportion. Regardless of how many will resort to force, I think the point still remains that it's not any solid facts or even estimates that motivate the Israeli government to bring up the civil war argument, but rather, the need/desire to justify the continuation of the occupation and theft of land and ethnic cleansing of the WB. So far, all we've heard are warnings, no real evidence that the violence-prone factions have the means to embark on an effective campaign of violence that can escalate into civil war. As such, so far, I can see how it is an act of fear-mongering rather than an honest "assessment" of the facts on the ground.
BTW, I agree with your assessment that Israelis are heading towards the expulsion of Palestinians from the WB & Gaza. And then, who knows, maybe from Jordan too: the "push the Palestinians as far away from Palestine as possible" project, which gained momumentum during the invasion of Lebanon in 1982. After all, just look at all the zionist maps, if they don't cover the whole area between the Nile & Euphrates, at the very least they cover Palestine and Jordan. And, I was looking at pictures from Hebron yesterday, and noticed a curious settler graffiti, which showed a settler-visionary's map of Israel, filled in with the Israeli flag. It comprised Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, and parts of Saudi Arabia. I mean, these guys are cukoo, and we all know what these type of people are capable of doing when they come to power, which will most probably happen, sooner or later.
"Anyone know how many Palestinians there are out there? Might be cheaper than having more endless wars and blood and grief. I understand the unfairness, and the attachment to land, but if say each Palestinian were offered $250,000 USA apiece and the right to choose their destination…? "
That's a ridiculous attitude right there. If anyone should be moving, it would have to be the colonialist zionists. Why would anyone even think that the Palestinians would accept such a thing, no matter how high the compensation money was ?
"And I would have no problem with the world recognizing that it was only the rawest and ugliest greed for land on Israel's part and refusal of its peoples to deign to mix with other religions/races/tribes or etc. that necessitated such a solution and thereby let Israel live forever in such historical ignominy. "
Such a thing does not necessitate the mass-removal of the Palestinians. It already is applicable, and we already had a suggestion to that effect from Mairead Maguire (suspending/revoking Israel's UN membership, which, if I have this right, was not done even in the case of South Africa). I think the future that awaits Israel will be in no way comparable to what was done to apartheid S.A.
You sure are right about the elected government ignoring the mass of people it supposedly represents. The American democrats were
favored and got many more into congress to get us out of Iraq. Nothing happened. Now most Americans do not favor war with Iran, but it's still being pushed, set up.
Most Americans favor a more even-handed approach to the I-P situation; it's being ignored.
Worse, the data to obtain an informed citizenship is not being given
to the masses.
Most Americans have no clue about all our votes in the UN stopping
Israel from its apartheid and expanding settlements; they don't
even know where is Israel is on the map, though they have been
saturated with a one-sided view of the world over there–every
american knows about The holocaust, few, the Nakba.
The USA is willing to push every economic hammer against Iran,
but not even a casual comment against Israel. Most Americans have no history about Iran at all. The privileged press isn't there.
The main problem is that most organized American Jews have a single focus, and Palestinian/Arabs do not comprise 13% of the USA's population (gone apartheid S Africa). The other component is the wealth of Zionist Jews America, given the manner of American campaign finance.
And, of course, the nature of the ownership and control of the American MSM and academic world.
A blogger from Lebanon wrote:
"That's a ridiculous attitude right there. If anyone should be moving, it would have to be the colonialist zionists."
It wasn't an attitude it was a (mere) hypothetical question, obviously.
"Why would anyone even think that the Palestinians would accept such a thing, no matter how high the compensation money was ?"
So as to avoid seeing themselves and their families spending the next 10 or 20 years in hell too and then face expulsion anyways, perhaps with a less-than-willing or able world being able to help them then than now? As I said, life is often a matter of choosing between bad and worse things.
I don't know if they'd accept anything. And if they did not I think it would be all the more admirable of them. But they are just human beings and maybe they are just tired of fighting and under the right circumstances would agree to ending it without winning.
I think that's understandable and regards them as true human beings instead of as pawns by those who don't mind seeing them suffer so long as their suffering continues to put Israel in a bad light which you could be accused of if I was as polemical as you.
Look, again, it was just a random thought. If we treat every idea as merely ammunition or a target in the polemical wars we aren't likely to make much progress are we?
"I think that's understandable and regards them as true human beings instead of as pawns by those who don't mind seeing them suffer so long as their suffering continues to put Israel in a bad light which you could be accused of if I was as polemical as you."
Oh, those thoughts sound pretty random and hypothetical, yeah! I am sure I can be equally non-offensive by suggesting that Americans turn over the whole country to zionists, and leave to whichever country is willing to take them in, in return for a decent amount of "compensation". I am sure the majority of Americans would appreciate this "hypothetical" suggestion and think highly of me if I were to make it!
That said, if you have something to say and believe in something, why hide behind the so-called "hypothetical"/"random"/"rhetorical" question/thought claim? The claim that anyone who is opposed to such a "solution" as you so-hypothetically proposed wants the Palestinians to suffer for his/her own personal ends, is ingenious. Perhaps your country has been subject to zionist domination for so long, that you can no longer understand what a "CAUSE" is, and what a strong belief in the JUSTICE of a CAUSE means. I don't blame you, Americans must really grow some collective spine, only then will you understand dedication to a cause as something other than wishing to use the Palestinians as a pawn just to make Israel look bad.
Just a "random" thought!
Reality check.
Israel is NEVER going to accept a peace.
They will go on grabbing Palestine land and US billions until they finally get blown up.
Some day some enterprising terrier will get a particularly dirty bomb or bio warfare germ into Israel and that will be that….there is no such thing as total security.
A blogger from Lebanon wrote:
"Perhaps your country has been subject to zionist domination for so long, that you can no longer understand what a "CAUSE" is, and what a strong belief in the JUSTICE of a CAUSE means."
But Dude, doesn't it seem with so many things and especially with the whole Israel/Palestinian thing that the problem is too *many* people having *too* strong a belief in the "justice" of their own very different causes? You really can't deny the strength of the belief in Zionism for instance, can you? Or even the strength of belief that Israel owns the West Bank.
So do you really wish to make the intensity of passion the arbiter of which cause wins?
I understand and even admire your passion for the justice of your cause. But don't forget that those on the other side of things from you are there because of their passions for their cause.