Wow. Someone in the MSM finally takes my line on Obama's Middle East team. It shouldn't be all Jewish. Nice column about diversity by Roger Cohen, making fun of the fact that the main three are all Jewish. Includes this smart crack at Dennis Ross:
In an adulatory piece in Newsweek, Michael Hirsh wrote: "Ross's previous experience as the indefatigable point man during the failed Oslo process, as well as the main negotiator with Syria, make him uniquely suited for a major renewal of U.S. policy on nearly every front."
Really? I wonder about the capacity for "major renewal" of someone who has failed for so long.
Bottom line on Ross: 17 years ago he was working to disqualify the PLO from representing the Palestinians in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Because Israel wouldn't recognize the terrorist organization. Israel being led by former terrorists itself. Ross was basically letting Israel vet the Palestinian representatives. And allowing the settlements to go forward.
And this is the guy we want to bring a new approach to dealing with Hamas??
The PLO changed.
When Hamas indicates that it has changed (by submitting to prior PA agreements, and to being PART of the PA, rather than controlling the PA as in an elected coup), then they will likely be regarded as peers and valid.
There have been many elected coups in history. Of the most prominent in recent history are the nazi election of 1933, followed quickly by the burning of the reichstag and purge, permanent suspension of the reichstag.
Hamas was democratically elected, and it was Fatah that tried to stage a coup, backed of course by the White House and Israel. David Rose documents this at length in his Vanity Fair article, "The Gaza Bombshell" (link to vanityfair.com). Does Witty think that Fatah, the loser in the election, should have been allowed to forcibly depose the elected Hamas representatives? Fatah was rejected because the Palestinian electorate saw it as corrupt, discredited,thuggish, and collaborationist, and Abbas' behavior during this current attack on Gaza really shows him up as a weak, uninspiring, and unprincipled leader.
The Hamas election issue is, for me, one of the clearest examples of mass media attempt to control the message. Public knows that Hamas was elected legally and democratically. Public knows that they were refused the handover of the power from Fatah and becoming aware of the imminent "putch" being prepared against them, Hamas took controls in Gaza, but didn't manage it in West Bank. In West Bank, most of the legislators democratically elected on the Hamas ticket ended up scooped into Israeli jails.
And yet you could swear that Fatah has a right to represent Palestinian people, if you read hundreds and hundreds of articles and news on the subject. Nobody bothers to correct it.
The PLO changed.
When Hamas indicates that it has changed (by submitting to prior PA agreements, and to being PART of the PA, rather than controlling the PA as in an elected coup), then they will likely be regarded as peers and valid.
And what exactly did they get for it? May I be suspicious once? Was the main secret requisite to make them surrender to the first slow than ever more speedy confiscation of land?
I would urge you to read Norman Finkelstein's the whole postscript to the German edition of his personal Palestine experience, his lived, maybe more suffered experience and the mental crisis he experiences. It's surely more easy to easy to censor him than look at he says closely. He doesn't arrive at his conclusions easily:
… I've no sympathy for the settlers; indeed, I consider them legitimate targets of armed resistance (apart, of course, from the children). If, backed by armed might, they choose to steal the ground (and water) from under the feet of Palestinians, then let them reap what they have sown. However, I still struggle for the "correct" attitude toward Israeli soldiers. Leaving Gaza I see three Israeli young people stationed at the checkpoint: a shapely woman straight from the set of a James Bond film wearing close-fitting green fatigues and leather stiletto-heeled shoes, a young fellow sitting on a stoop singing and strumming on his guitar a haunting Hebrew melody, and a second youth wearing horn-rimmed glasses with very thick lenses. Each incongruously brandishes an assault weapon half his or her size. For God's sake, what are they doing here? But wait: Gaza is the "largest concentration camp ever to exist." Why am I pitying these concentration camp guards? Although unable to condone Palestinian suicide bombers I can nevertheless understand them. Were members of my family imprisoned, beaten, tortured, killed, our home demolished, our land stolen, our lives destroyed, marking time until death, half wishing it would come sooner rather than later – I would certainly hope I would retain my humanity but in all honesty cannot predict how I would react. Unlike myself, many Palestinians who once dissented on principle from targeting Israeli civilians no longer do. In fact, of my many friends there, only Moussa and Afaf, and Samira and Stephan are still categorically opposed. Some believe this is the only tactic that will make Israel budge, while others just want revenge – for a change let them suffer. However, every Palestinian I meet draws the line at the Hamas bombing of Hebrew University. Moussa asks his 6-year-old son what he thinks: "It's wrong. They were just studying." When I meet Dr. Rantisi, political spokesman for Hamas, I argue with him about the Hebrew University attack. I repeat to him what Moussa's son said. Visibly frustrated with my interrogation, he struggles with all manner of justification: they might be studying now but later they will serve the occupation. I point out that the Nazis similarly argued that it was right to kill Jewish children because one day they will seek revenge for their parents' murder. With evident satisfaction Rantisi reports that the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed at the outset of the new intifada was 10-1 but now it's only 3-1. I would be lying if I denied that this argument resonates. Palestinian life won't be taken on the cheap: if you kill one of ours you must pay a price. It's brutal, it's primitive, but still I can relate to this arithmetic. In fact, I too secretly calculate the ratio. If Israeli death squads execute a Palestinian, part of me cries out for revenge. If Palestinians don't react, I'm disappointed. Where is the dignity, the self-respect? In the face of Israel's merciless brutality, like many Palestinians I too have grown hard-hearted. But comprehensible as his satisfaction may be, I keep repeating to Rantisi, it's plainly immoral. Now I begin to feel uncomfortable. My responsibility isn't to lecture Rantisi but to oppose the occupation. Aren't I being arrogant? He was in an Israeli prison for 10 years; now he's an inmate in an Israeli concentration camp. Who am I to instruct him on the finer points of morality from the comfort and safety of my tourist visa? He's probably thinking that all Jews are alike. So arrogant, so self-righteous. On taking leave I can't decide whether to shake his hand. I certainly wouldn't shake Sharon's. In the end I do. When I later ask Moussa his opinion, he strongly disagrees. By applauding the Hebrew University attack on television, Moussa angrily recalls, Rantisi turned world opinion against Palestinians. Now I begin to doubt the wisdom of my decision. But isn't this arrogance again: why do I fixate on my handshake? It's the prerogative of Palestinians to show magnanimity, not American Jews.
The Jewishness of Obama's economic team is even more scary. See Why Is Rubin Advising Obama?.