Scott McConnell reports from Washington:
It's belatedly dawning on me that next week's Obama-Netanyahu meeting will be the kick-off for a Super Bowl of Super Bowls of diplomatic maneuvering, as two nominal allies seek to mobilize elements in the other's society in order to support their preferred version of the future. Seldom are things so much in flux-and I was struck, attending this morning's very smart panel at the New America Foundation (Rob Malley, Shibley Telhami, Daniel Levy and Amjad Attalah) how uncertain even the best informed people are about what is going to happen going forward.
There was a lot said, and you can see it on NAF's website, but I was especially struck by two things. One when Attalah said that early in the Bush administration, General Zinni was appointed to deal with I-P, and was sitting in a room with Palestinian Authority negotiators (this before the PA-Hamas split) and the PA guys all had their talking points laid out, for checkpoints to be removed, and the need for their police forces to have more authority, and economic this and that-and then Zinni, with all his guys lined up behind him said, the President sent me here to stay until there is a Palestinian state, and everyone just froze in stunned amazement, and finally the main Palestinian negotiatior said simply, “Tell us what we need to do.” Of course two weeks later, Zinni's mission was undercut by a Vice President Cheney speech, asserting that a Palestinian state wouldn't really be a state, and it more or less collapsed. But perhaps this incident, new to me anyway, is part of the back story of Zinni's on-and-then-off appointment to be ambassador to Iraq under Obama.
Then there was Levy's take on how to deal with Netanyahu. He claims that most Israelis value the strategic relationship with America over anything else -even, or perhaps especially, over the occupied territories-- and that Netanyahu knows from prior experience that crossing a popular administration is a way to destroy his own coalition in Israel (as happened the last time he was prime minister.) Second that he thinks Netanyahu might very reluctantly eventually accept a two-state-solution--though he will first try to change the subject to checkpoints, settlement freezes, economic infrastructure, yada yada yada. Speed is of the essence--Netanyahu must not be allowed to sequence the process, make some little bit of progress contingent on some other little bit of progress--so that everything takes years to negotiate and eventually Obama has a less solid political majority behind him. (I'm reminded suddenly of the Yiddish joke about the farmer and the landlord and the talking horse-perhaps Phil can tell it.)
A couple of thoughts: I'm not sure Obama has the political strength to tell Netanyahu what the United States needs (a two-state solution) and give him the chill if Israel isn't forthcoming. I'm not really sure that Levy is so sure either. Secondly, there are various paradoxes at work: the main pressure on Netanyahu and Israel that Obama can exert is the Israeli public's attachment to a deep strategic relationship with America. But to be honest, many supporters of a two-state solution don't “feel” such a strong sense of ideological/moral kinship with Israel. They want two states because it is practical for America, and the fairest thing under the circumstances for both peoples, and are happy for the existence of an Israel that doesn't behave thuggishly. And that represents a desire for a normal state-to-state relationship, not one with “our closest ally in the Mid East.” For me, I can see America having a close relationship with a democratic Iran sometime in the future-something both Arabs and Israelis fear.
Finally, there is considerably diminished support for a two-state solution among Palestinians, support which peaked sometime in the nineties. At any conference of Westernized Palestinians, the talk is one democratic state for two peoples, increasingly so. Which is not say that two states wouldn't work, and wouldn't be a vast improvement.
testing
Would we find it satisfactory if the Nazis, after having dehumanized and slaughtered the Jews finally said 'all right–we''ll agree to make peace with the Jews. We'll stop brutalizing and killing them. " ? NO! The Israelis should NOT be permitted to live in peace and security after what they have done. They are NOT entitled to a state. They are NOT entitled to a normal life following their abominable crimes. The Israelis need to be called to account for what they have done. They have NO right to live in peace alongside their Palestinian victims. To hell with them. They ought to be gassed. I don't give a damn how Un-politically correct that is. The Israelis should be gassed for what they have done.
more testing
Tried to post but did not take. How about more testing.
This is nuts. My testing comes through but not my post.
More testing. Deleted the beginings and end of my attempted post (part of the Hess thread below) What wasn't mentioned at the time was that they were taking out too much water with this wonderful western technology. Today the coastal aquifers are experiencing salination problems. (this is a simple issue of water flow, if the fresh water from the land is extracted, it stops flowing towards the sea, and the sea begins to flow towards the land, all at the ground water level so what is observed is increased salination of the coastal aquifer. This is not unique to Israel, it is happening in areas of California as well
down right weird. My post will not, well, post. But these comments do.
There is an intersting filter working here. Rykart and his insane ravings go through fine, but that is it.
The question for me is what does Obama really want, or maybe what does he want bad enough to actually push for? That is, we know what Netanyahu wants: The U.S. going after Iran (although he'd surely recognize that first there'd be some economic sanctions imposed for awhile), and then the U.S. standing by and letting him dawdle coming up with his "plan" for economic development of the West Bank first and then some time in the dreamy future maybe a deal for a Palestinian statelet archipelago, without any real attributes of a state. But what does Obama really want? He's given off some very intriguing hints of being tough with the Israelis, but those have been just easy to utter words whereas the real question is whether he is genuinely willing to go to the mat on what seems his differences with Netanyahu. I suspect Netanyahu will try blunting a big part of any position Obama might seek to drive by ritualistically coming out and saying that oh of course he supports a two-state solution and maybe non-conditional resumption of talks with the Palestinians and etc. And Netanyahu will make a big point of having done so as if it's a huge concession. Beyond that though it seems to me to be unclear. Is Obama going to fold and take the easy path and essentially say that's enough/okay? In essence just continue the sham the U.S. has participated in for so long now of talk talk talk while the settlements and occupation grow ever bigger and more solid? Or, amidst all the other big issues facing him is he going to take this on for real and demand a real halt to the settlements and real progress in the talks and tell Israel no it can't insist on being recognized as "a jewish state"? Again some of the signs he's given point in that direction, and I have no doubt he'll talk to some degree in that direction at least, but will he really do anything to effectuate same? On Iran I think he'll just kick the can down the road a bit saying that yes, we're starting to engage Iran in talks and let's see how those go and etc. and so forth. And sure he'll tell Netanyahu that progress on talks with the Palestinians will help us succeed there, although Netanyahu is smart enough to know that this is just a talking point really. On the other hand there's not much he can do beyond that so he's going to have to just sit and stew over that issue I suspect. Whatever happens it's likely that we won't be able to tell very much by whatever each sides openly says afterwards. As usual it will be so coated in diplomatic pablum-speak it will sound as if it was a love-in. Afterwards then maybe the first things to watch will be whether there truly seems to be a halt in settlement activity and how fast talks with the Palestinians resume. If Obama is going to man-up, you'd think that these would be among the first items he'd be absolutely insisting on without game playing. And to the degree we don't see that I suspect that it will be an indication of just how feckless he's going to be on the issue throughout the rest of his Presidency. Any bets on which way Obama is going to go? While I hope otherwise I suspect he'll kind of fold really, even though he'll still make the occasional noise to the contrary. The problem that I see is that about the only thing he can do to really get tough is a huge big move to get Congress to cut funding to Israel and I doubt he wants to try to pull that big trigger at all much less right now. So all he'll be able to do is maybe talk tough a bit here and there when possible, but otherwise just settle for the same old sham all his predecessors clung to as well which gives him the fig leaf of doing something.
Has monoweis been hacked?
syvanen, are you all right? You seem to be having a "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" moment.
Maybe I am, but what is that? Perhaps this is my problem, but I would like to know what it is.
I don't know. Perhaps a little too much acid?
It's your problem, I think. All your tests came through, including your musings about your tests. All eight of them. Sometimes the site says you can't post and I think that's a function of time spent in the comment window. So copy your comment, refresh, then paste your comment back in and post. It works.
Sir Nombre, What Obama really wants is to be re-elected again. Any policy changes or shifts will bear that in mind.
RE: "…the Yiddish joke about the farmer and the landlord and the talking horse…" MY COMMENT: This sounds interesting! Phil?
RE: "The Israelis should be gassed for what they have done." MY COMMENT: I find this highly offensive!
Thanks for the suggestion. I tried rebooting twice and cutting and pasting but that didn't work. Must be some kind of incompatibilty with my OS. This is one fairly old computer I am using.
RE: " Any bets on which way Obama is going to go?" FROM WorldTribune.com: " U.S. blocking Israeli access to U.S. fighter-jets" – Monday, May 11, 2009 (EXCERPT) Administration sources said the White House has drafted measures that could prevent Israel and other non-NATO allies from procuring U.S. fighter-jets, including the F-35. They said the administration would require that Israel obtain special permission from the Defense Department and State Department to acquire the Joint Strike Fighter. The administration has also been resisting Israeli requests for technical data on the new F-15SE fighter-jet…. ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/20...
Rykart. Talking about people being gassed is way more than being politically incorrect. It is incitement to violence. What are you saying? Eye for an Eye? Very Old Testament. Just stop saying these things.
For me, I can see America having a close relationship with a democratic Iran sometime in the future-something both Arabs and Israelis fear. From an Israeli point of view, I don't think that this is really much of a fear, if Iran were to be truly democratic.
Obama recently congratulated the sadists and perverts of the CIA for a job well done, following their torture and murder of hundreds, more likely, thousands of people, assuring our criminals that they'd face no day of reckoning in our "courts" for the horrors they gleefully carried out. He dozed off while israel massacred the people of Gaza and has since offered not the slightest rebuke. Instead, he prattles on about the sanctity of the Israeli state and our marvelous "special relationship" with these segmented worms from hell. In his free time, he emulates Israel by massacring civilians in Afghanistan. This is our savior.
Well thank you Dickerson, interesting. Still, I doubt that's the kind of measure that Obama feels would put real heat on Netanyahu, do you?
Off topic but worth a smile: Haaretz is reporting a little kerfluffle about Israeli President Peres flying on some American billionaire's plane while attending the AIPAC convention. And here's the words of Odit Sirkis, legal counsel to the Israel Presidency (pretty authoritative, no?) describing AIPAC's relationship to Israel: "Sirkis justified her approval of the use of the private plane by saying that 'since AIPAC is a known organization, which works in the U.S. for Israel, I thought there was no legal obstacle….'" Anti-semite! After all who but an anti-semite would charge that AIPAC actually "works [] for" a foreign state? (As opposed to being comprised of Americans who are just pursuing *their* ideas about what's good for America and Israel and not being controlled by any foreign entity?) After all and among other things that would mean … that AIPAC ought to register as a foreign agent, right? And that Rosen and Weissman weren't really operating as Americans when they were dealing with Franklin, but indeed as as employees of a foreign government and therefore as foreign agents themselves! Slander! Canard! Blood libel! How'd this self-hating lawyer work her way up into being the Israeli President's legal counsel? It's a shonda!
As America's military position in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, the logic of events will dictate that it has to come to a rapprochement with Iran.
As a former constitutional law teacher, there is no doubt in my mind that Obama is keenly aware of rykart's two objective points regarding torture and Gaza. And Saleema point about Obama's first priority being re-election is core. He has not pushed for a special prosecutor regarding torture policy, but he did make some torture memos public. He ignored the Gaza massacre during initial transition, accepted the convenient Israel cease-fire attendant his actual stepping into the Oval Office, ID his own children as sympathy for Israeli children undergoing rocket attacks; yet I am sure he has not forgotten his old public thought that it is the Palestinians who have suffered the most… perhaps it is as simple as he first feels the need to make a big dent in the bad economy, and to transfer wealth more to the relative have-not to reverse 8 years of Bush Jr? Once the economy trends up, when he feels his mandate will continue moving toward re-election, he will make a big step on the I-P-Iran scenario–maybe a year down the road if he feels his trust in the very bankers who caused the economic collapse is warranted & his Bush-like treatment of Afghanistan has fended off notions he is a weakling on defense, with troops in Iraq sent to Afghanistan. I don't see him making any core reform of anything yet in terms of new rules and regulations–except in terms of digging into the tax code to make the very wealthy and big corporations pay for new benefits to his most core constituency, black Americans and the poor, single mothers, etc. He is attacking the unfairness of the credit company system relative to card holders. His staff probably informs him each morning of the latest polls on support of his still currently high political capital. Netanyahu will be kept informed of the same. If in a year's time he has lost considerably in public opinion, I can't see him doing anything major, e.g., a sequence with Israel's settlements rooted up as a first condition of progress–
Taking the facts out of context shows the poster to be ill informed. Going down the slope of racist hate-mongering?
My comment did not show up after it was displayed as posted.
What possible fact did I take out of context? Name one. Just one. Indeed I not only linked to the full story but I myself faithfully reported *exactly* the context in which the statement was made, which in this case isn't even conceivably relevant anyway. (Other than showing that it's only when the speaker Haaretz and I quoted thinks nobody is paying attention to the issue that she can state what she feels is the truth.) "Hate-mongerer" my arse: *I* didn't make the statement, the bloody legal counsel to the Israeli President did. When bereft of argument call names, huh?
rykart, you have really got to find another way to express yourself. Are the Israelis, at this time, shelling or shooting at you? If not, your calls for death to all Israelis are on exactly the same level as the Zionist who is so free with calls for atrocities to be committed on the Arabs. Vicarious brutalisation is one of the most unattractive qualities you can possess. Leave it to the Zionists, where it belongs. If it means anything to you, I have come to the conclusion that most of the people in Israel are victims of Zionism, along with the Palestinians. Not in the same way or certainly to the same degree. Settler-colonisation and expansionist strategies require plenty of victims of all kinds, more than can be supplied by the Palestinians alone.
No need to argue with a hate mobger. You have been called out and you failed to answer.
your hate pours through- do you feel such hate for your murdering Palestinian friends who attack civilians?
Apparently you don't just call names when you're bereft of argument, calling names is your *only* technique. Yeesh.
There is no arguing with hate mongers and bigots like you. You have proved my point. Thank you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM6wm5K5WS0&eu...
I've been known to 'grasp at straws'!