Tonight I had another of the endless exchanges I've had with friends about Who is Rahm Emanuel? And what does it mean for Obama and the Middle East? Of course we can't answer that, which makes it so exciting, it's a mystery. And though I see the religious zealot in Emanuel, I would argue that Obama fully understands the Meaning of the Israel/Palestine issue for America's image and for the stability of the Middle East, and that Emanuel is no dummy either, and this is the stuff of history. And as David Axelrod said on "60 Minutes," it wasn't personal ambition to become president that kept Barack Obama on the trail day after day, it was the real desire to Do things in office. And this is what has to be done. Everyone knows it.
Here is Fareed Zakaria talking to former NSC director Brent Scowcroft on his CNN show, GPS, today about the Obama election. Scowcroft begins by speaking of race:
problem which has plagued us since the founding of the republic, and
now, we have dealt with it. And people will feel good about the United
States.
Not bad for an old, white Republican. And here's the end of the interview:
incoming president-elect in terms of formulating a grand strategy, what
would it be?
SCOWCROFT: Right now, I believe that the most
troublesome area in the world is the Middle East, from the Balkans on
through Central Asia. And I think that is what has to be tackled first.
And I would start that process with the Palestinian peace process as a
way to psychologically change the mood of the region, and get the
region to start working together rather than at cross purposes, because
the 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.
Thanks to Jeet Heer, who spotted this and posts on same, From Selma to Ramallah…
Obama:
Please, please appoint Scowcroft to Secretary of State or National Security Advisor. If you do that, I will donate everything I can to your re-election– I donated to your stupid primary run, only to understand quite quickly which way you were tacking during the general election, after which I sent you several angry abusive emails and ended up voting for Nader.
Please give State to Scowcroft. We need a non-ideological true pragmatist / realist at that post, and he understands the issues better than anyone. I know he's ancient, but just give him 2 years, and I know he'll get her done.
Who can tell the Israelis they have to do something – Brent Scowcroft or Rahm Emanuel? Obama should get Alan Dershowitz to come down and get some Presidential advisory status, and listen and listen, and then enlist him, too, in telling the Likud it's over. They'll never accept it from the Jimmy Carter bunch. Wishful thinking, but . . . .
"They'll never accept it from the Jimmy Carter bunch."
On the contrary, they only ever did accept it from Jimmy Carter's bunch, hating it all the way.
The web offers this as a possible Snowcroft
plan..(courtesy of Deans World)
"A Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with minor rectifications agreed upon between Palestine and Israel.
· Palestinians giving up the right of return and Israel reciprocating by removing its settlements in the West Bank, again with rectifications as mutually agreed. Those displaced on both sides would receive compensation from the international community.
· King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia unambiguously reconfirming his 2002 pledge that the Arab world is prepared to enter into full normal relations with Israel upon its withdrawal from the lands occupied in 1967.
· Egypt and Saudi Arabia working with the Palestinian Authority to put together a government along the lines of the 18-point agreement reached between Hamas and Fatah prisoners in Israeli jails in June. This government would negotiate for the Authority.
· Deployment, as part of a cease-fire, of a robust international force in southern Lebanon.
· Deployment of another international force to facilitate and supervise traffic to and from Gaza and the West Bank.
· Designation of Jerusalem as the shared capital of Israel and Palestine, with appropriate international guarantees of freedom of movement and civic life in the city."
Does anybody think the Palestinians will give up the right of return?
And why would Hezbollah agree to presence of an International force?
but maybe this plan could be modified…
anything to stop a one state solution,eh?
"Palestinians giving up the right of return and Israel reciprocating by removing its settlements in the West Bank, again with rectifications as mutually agreed. Those displaced on both sides would receive compensation from the international community."
Huh? This makes no sense. It's actually a reward for Israel's colonization, and a pat on Israel's back for having managed to "cancel out" the Palestinian refugees' claims. The only formula that can be remotely acceptable is that some of the settlements will remain in their place and incorporated into Israel in return for the return of at least a million Palestinian refugees to Israel-proper. Also, why should the int'l community foot the whole bill? Yes, the int'l community must make significant contribution, because it significantly contributed to the plight of the Palestinian people over the past 6 decades by turning a blind eye to Israel's genocidal actions, but Israel must pay most of it, because it chose to carry out ethnic cleansing, chose to put billions of dollars in settlements ,and billions more in getting weapons to kill Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. Unless the side that declared a war of annihilation is forced to pay the price of its attempt at a "final solution" against the Palestinian people, there will be no reconciliation.
As for deployment of forces, if Israel is worried about what its peace partners will be doing in the future, and wants foreign forces to fight its wars, then IT should host the international forces, rather than demanding that other countries do so. Or, separation forces could be stationed on both sides. It's time for the Israelis to stop thinking that just because they have the upper hand in the WB today, their bargaining position is much better than that of Palestinians, or of the Lebanese. Quite the contrary. Israel being bogged down in the quagmire that the West Bank is, greatly boosts the Palestinians' bargaining position.
Anyway, even with the modifications I suggested, I would not find a two-state solution acceptable. The only real solution, is a one-state solution , and the return of the refugees, along with compensation for past suffering and loss of property, and affirmative action opportunities for the most vulnerable of the returning refugees.
The only just solution happens to be the only feasible one. The only missing component is the international community's desire to force Israel into accepting that which the international community was forced to force apartheid South Africa into accepting.
Lebanon blogger,
Your hope will not occur during your or your grandchildren's lifetime, and will CREATE animosity that will multiply hatred during that time.
It does not represent justice, but vengeance.
There is NO starting point, except by opportunism. There is NO point that "the Palestinians were always there", because the region has experienced waves on waves of military intrusion historically, and EVERY people and descendants are victims to it, and EVERY people and descendants are beneficiaries of the oppression of others there.
The single state idea applied among those that regard themselves as two peoples, is MORE oppressive than the utopian single-state idea.
If the peoples loved each other and regarded themselves as one, then the two-state would be an intrusion. But, that is NOT the case.
Witty, I hope you know the difference between wishful thinking/illusions, and reality. You seem to be in fantasy-land as far as Israel's current predicament and future are concerned. The outcome will be the same, whether it's one generation down the line or 10 generations down the line, so for your people's sake, for everyone's sake, for the sake of world peace, and your very presence as a large community in the Middle East, you should take up what is STILL on the table: a one-state solution with equal rights for all. Because when that offer is withdrawn the same way the 2-state one has expired, you will be left with nothing, not even equal rights in a "normal", democratic state.
"The single state idea applied among those that regard themselves as two peoples, is MORE oppressive than the utopian single-state idea."
Are you saying that American Jews are being oppressed because they live in a single state along with people of other ethnicities and religions? Ah, of course, we are asked to accept that what is good for America is good for America, not good for Israel. At the same time, we are told America's and Israel's interests are the same. If what is good for America is not good for Israel — and vice versa — then how can the interests coincide? Clearly, Israel and America would be on opposite sides of the spectrum. And if American Jews believe in Israel as a "Jewish state", then what right would they have to criticize the putting-up of a Christmas tree in American schools ? Again, what's good for America is not applicable to Israel, right? Even as American Jews not only enjoy equal treatment, but demand special attention to their sensitivities. What if Americans started talking about Jewish political leverage, in the sense that Jews are a "demographic threat" because they change the outcome of elections by virtue of their concentration in key states / counties? (this is just an example). Would you be crying out anti_Semitism at the top of your lungs, or not? Again, apparently, what is bad for America is not bad for Israel. Hypocrisy at its best.
Let's stop mincing words and ignoring the 800-pound guerilla in the room.
"The single state idea applied among those that regard themselves as two peoples, is MORE oppressive than the utopian single-state idea."
With this in mind, Witty, how do you justify not taking wing forever to Israel?
Lebanon blogger,
You are wrong about the determination of Israelis and Jews to live as Jews.
You can site 200 years, which may bear out.
If you have no personal life that you care about within that time frame, then that would describe you as a ruthless ideolog.
If you do actually care about your and others' communities, you will seek resolution that results in peace.
There is no political theory by which the Israel/Palestine will rationally be a single state, or under your idiotic "gracious" offer of single state.
The selection of jurisdiction is a choice, a negotiation.
Jews will NOT submit to secondary status in an Islamic state, nor secondary status in a neo-Marxist state.
Your failure to recognize that Israelis/Jews are a people, is a political and moral failing.
Acceptance is a more just and progressive stand, that doesn't require aggressive propaganda to retain.
Israel is not there yet. But, if your posts are an indication of political consciousness in the Arab world, the Arab world is not there yet either.
I would hate to conclude that the Likud thesis has any moral merit. But, you suggest it to me.
Jewish Americans are Americans.
Jewish Israelis are Israelis. Don't equate or confuse the two.
Yeah, don't confuse us by stating the fact a bunch of Jews born in America but living in Israel voted in the USA general election–mostly for McCain.
And, Re: "There is no political theory by which the Israel/Palestine will rationally be a single state, or under your idiotic "gracious" offer of single state." Yeah, don't confuse Israel with the USA. Israel just wants to be another state like all the Arab states, with the discriminations within reversed.
Good for all of them. The questions for Americans is, what's in our best long term interest, including our moral place in the world?
I love it when WItty shows his true, fanatical colours.
"Jews will NOT submit to secondary status in an Islamic state, nor secondary status in a neo-Marxist state.
Your failure to recognize that Israelis/Jews are a people, is a political and moral failing.
Acceptance is a more just and progressive stand, that doesn't require aggressive propaganda to retain.
Israel is not there yet. But, if your posts are an indication of political consciousness in the Arab world, the Arab world is not there yet either.
I would hate to conclude that the Likud thesis has any moral merit. But, you suggest it to me."
Witty thinks that everybody should just forget what Israel has done since it's inception – the crimes past and current.
Just accept that jews have stolen land illegally, committed genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Fuck you Witty.
You are a sick puppy man….