Everyone talks about putting pressure on Israel. What does that mean? Here's a sage post by Steve Walt on what Obama should do in the face of Israeli intransigence re the two-state solution. Besides ending tax-deductible contributions to the settler movement, as we have argued here, and possibly cutting the aid package, Walt recommends:
The Obama administration could begin by using different language to describe certain Israeli policies. While reaffirming America’s commitment to Israel’s existence as a Jewish-majority state, it could stop referring to settlement construction as “unhelpful,” a word that makes U.S. diplomats sound timid and mealy-mouthed. Instead, we could start describing the settlements as “illegal” or as “violations of international law.” The UN Charter forbids acquisition of territory by force and the Fourth Geneva Convention bars states from transfering their populations (even if voluntarily) to areas under belligerent occupation. This is why earlier U.S. administrations described the settlements as illegal, and why the rest of the world has long regarded them in the same way. U.S. officials could even describe Israel’s occupation as “contrary to democracy,” “unwise,” “cruel,” or “unjust.” Altering the rhetoric would send a clear signal to the Israeli government and its citizens that their government’s opposition to a two-state solution was jeopardizing the special relationship.
Notice how pro-Israel Walt is: a commitment to a Jewish-majority state. Even tolerance of the "special relationship." Michael Walzer had better find Steve Walt if he is sincere about his own assertion that the U.S. must bring heavy pressure on Israel to defeat the settler movement.
I am saying, Mr. Walzer-- which is how we learned to address our professors back when I was his student--that Some New Political Combination is all that is going to bring about a change in policy and possibly save the Jewish state from apartheid struggle. That political combination means prog-Zionists and American realists. The only ones standing in the way of this combination are the Zionists, out of mistrust of the gentile realists gaining power against the Jewish lobby. Walzer must choose: Which do you believe in more, the endurance of anti-Semitism in the west or the endurance of the Jewish state? If you choose a, you may lose b.
RE: "Which do you believe in more, the endurance of anti-Semitism in the west or the endurance of the Jewish state? If you choose a, you may lose b."
MY COMMENT: A "Sophie's Choice"?
Phil wrote that (Steve) Walt "recommends … Change the rhetoric."
Oh, one supposes that would be refreshing, but the rhetoric that exists now is so revealing, isn't it?
For instance, what better reveals how clearly the British government for instance regards the whole "peace process" than this little bit of rhetoric coming from its Foreign Minister Miliband? Speaking at a joint press conference after meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah, Milliband was asked not about the settlements in general or the occupation in general or in the abstract, but the announced, imminent destruction of the homes of some 1500 Palestinians in East Jerusalem, not only putting those poor people out on the street but of course advancing the impossibility of ever having a deal about Jerusalem.
So what did Miliband say about this not-at-all abstract or distantly-important question but this in-your-face-right-freaking-now-thievery-and-sabotaging-of-any-real-peace-agreement?
Ah, said Miliband, not quite resembling the lion on Britain's coat of arms, Britain views it "with real concern."
Better than the Blair representing the Euro's though or the U.S. government I suppose, which so far as I've seen haven't even said they view it with fake concern.
Farce farce farce farce farce. You can change the rhetoric all you want but if the will isn't there where's the way?
Walt's advice is, of course, sane, rational, and Realist. But the step he's working on is the easy one. I wonder how he would advise at Step Two, i.e., civil war between the settlers and the administration which, up to the present, are in lockstep despite the rhetoric meant to mislead us on this.
He might say, how long could the settlers react aggressively if all tax-deductible contributions to the settler movement and the US aid package were made conditional on rooting out the settlements? The Israel regime could play good cop to Uncle Sam bad cop in negotiations with the settler reps, arguing you stiff necked people are violating international law, and you are economically jeopardizing the continued existence and security of our state itself.
I suggest that calling them settlers and settlements is inaccurate, and tends to obfuscate what they really are. I suggest the terms colony and colonists is more accurate as to their true nature. I also suggest that the word illegal should always be placed in front of the terms. They are illegal colonies and their inhabitants are illegal colonists.
@shirin I suggest the terms colony and colonists is more accurate
The Palestinians might think the terms invasion and invaders are more accurate.
Yes, as in Crusader-style invasions, setting up more and more outposts. Well, S Africa fell, Rhodesia fell, French Algeria fell–it's Israel's turn unless they decide to actually recognize
the Palestinians as fully human? So far, looks like the white goy disapora group has more morality in the end than the jewish version.