When it comes to the Middle East, the hot topic these days is unequivocally a nuclear Iran. When anyone brings up Israel, the Palestinians or hummus (ok, maybe not that), the conversation will quickly turn to the Islamic Republic, either as a funder of Hezbollah and Hamas, or as the denier of the Holocaust and self-proclaimed future destroyer of Israel, or perhaps even as an existential motivation for Israel to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians. This last qualification is one that Obama officials have been making recently and which had the blogosphere buzzing as the recent meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama approached.
President Obama meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington on May 18
Most recently, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel linked Iran and Israel at the AIPAC conference in Washington. In a closed-door meeting with 300 major AIPAC donors, Emanuel made it clear that a successful confrontation with Iran depends on progress with the peace process initiated by the Israelis. The Iran-Israel connection again became the most analyzed piece of media fodder after the first official meeting between Netanyahu and Obama. When a reporter asked Obama about Netanyahu’s position that a nuclear Iran had to be dealt with before a peace deal could be negotiated, Obama echoed his chief of staff:
“If there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians – between the Palestinians and the Israelis – then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat.”
The Obama administration holds the view that if Israel were to make headway on the Palestinian front, Iran would slow or cease its nuclear program and become a better negotiating partner for the United States. Shmuel Rosner of the Jerusalem Post argues that this position makes Israel a hostage to the peace process, putting the Palestinians in a leveraged position in which they may likely be less willing to compromise or move toward establishing peace.
Dennis Ross, the U.S. secretary of state’s special adviser on Iran, expresses a similar view in his new book, “Myths, Illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East,” writing in bold contradiction to Obama’s policy:
“Of all the policy myths that have kept us from making real progress in the Middle East, one stands out for its impact and longevity: the idea that if only the Palestinian conflict were solved, all other Middle East conflicts would melt away. This is the argument of ‘linkage.’”
The Israeli government too has stated that only with the resolving of the Iranian crisis and reductions in Iran-backed terrorism will the peace process be able to proceed.
While this chicken and egg (which comes first–Iran or the Palestinians?) debate is at the heart of the rift between the new American and Israeli governments, the practical implications are unclear. Some observers, such as Sammy Benoit of American Thinker, believe this issue and other points of division are simply overhyped parts of an ongoing political dance with few meaningful implications. Benoit describes Obama and Netanyahu as “frenemies.”
Others, such as Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post and Frank James of NPR believe this debate indicates real differences that can seriously affect the future of Israel and its policies.
Whether or not the Iran-Israel link represents a severe policy split or simply political semantics, the main question is what will happen as Iran creeps ever closer to having nuclear capabilities. Although the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not likely be resolved by the time this occurs unless there is an enormous policy change on the part of Israel or the Palestinian Authority, the reality of a nuclear Iran will be at the forefront of Middle East worries. Netanyahu has made it clear that he will not compromise on Israel’s security when it comes to Iran. Although he supports negotiations with Iran, he thinks it is imperative that the military option not be taken off the table should they fail. Although he has agreed to refrain from attacking Iran without consulting the U.S., Israel will ultimately do what it views to be necessary for its security.
At this point, the success of negotiations is at best uncertain and much may depend on the Iranian elections this June. It is also unclear how long it will be before Iran “goes nuclear.” Some predict it could be as soon as 2010; others say not until 2015. For the immediate future, then, the possibility that the chicken and egg debate on the Iranian and Palestinian issue could materially impact American-Israeli relations remains theoretical. Upcoming events – elections in Iran, elections in Lebanon (which may put Iran-backed Hezbollah into power) and the speed with which Iran achieves or is perceived to be achieving its nuclear ambitions – will determine whether this theoretical possibility becomes reality.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Would you like to join in the discussion? Comments
Another facet of the Israeli stalling tactic that's been going on since Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine in 1967. “Only when the Iranian question has been decided, only then can the Palestinian problem be resolved.”
And when that is achieved. “Only when the Indo-Pak problem with Kashmir is dealt with satisfactorily can the Palestinian problem be resolved.
And when that is achieved: “Only when the Chinese and Taiwanese governments bury the hatchet can . . . “
On and on. Israel has absolutely no intention of ever settling WITH Palestine, only continuing to settle in.
May 29, 2009 at 6:55 amSherman asserts that Israel is using the existential threat from Iran as an excuse not to negotiate with the Palestinians. This is both objectively untrue and, in any case, not what the Obama administration is contending. Although many question Israel's sanity for so doing, it has continued to negotiate with – and make concessions to – the Palestinians even as the Iranian nuclear program and the Iranian funding of Hamas and Hezbollah has accelerated. What the Administration contends is that Israel would find it easier to include the Arab countries in an openly-united front against Iran if Israel were able to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, and it is therefore pressuring Israel to make even more concessions to the Palestinians in an unseemly and counterproductive effort to hasten such an agreement.
In the view of many, including the Administration's point person on Iran as quoted in the article above, such a linkage makes no sense. Furthermore, many also believe that if there is a linkage, it goes in the other direction: that it will be easier to make peace with a Palestinian people and authority that is not fractured by Iranian support of terror groups.
May 31, 2009 at 9:45 amTypically, “just the facts” dodges the central point of Sherman's comment and leads us off into the underbrush. He, like almost all apologist for Israeli hardliners, would have us ignore the FACT that Israel has been in illegal occupation of the West Bank for over 40 years, during which time is has regularly enlarged its illegal settlements on Palestinian land, and made the Palestinian a second-class citizen in his own ancestral lands.
It can well be argued that a land grab was Israeli's principal motivation for kicking off the June 1967 war, using the saber-rattling of radical Arab regime as a pretext.
June 2, 2009 at 11:53 amAgain, let's focus on the facts. In 1948, Jordan and Egypt both seized for themselves territory that was slated for a Palestinian state – Jordan seized the West Bank and Egypt seized Gaza. Virtually no country recognized the legality of those seizures. In 1967, Egypt – in violation of their agreement with the UN and of international law – expelled the UN from Sinai and closed off the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships. This was accompanied by (i) explicit and repeated threats to annihilate Israel and (ii) massive troop movements into Sinai by Egypt, the West Bank by Jordan (in violation of Jordan's commitments to the United States) and the Golan Heights by Syria. Israel, after pleading fruitlessly with the international community for weeks to take action, did what any country has a right to do: it defended itself and took over the territory that was being used to stage the attack against her.
The West Bank (where most of the “settlements” are located) (i) was not recognized (other than by Jordan itself) as belonging to any country before 1967 and (ii) is the heart of the Jewish presence in the area, with continuous Jewish settlement stretching back over 3,000 years (with the exception of 1948 to 1967, when Jews were not permitted to live there).
Israel is being asked – and the previous government largely consented – to do what no country in history has been asked to do: give over territory to which it has long historical roots, which it obtained in a purely defensive war and which was not previously a legitimate part of any country. All Israel asked in return is (i) recognition of its legitimacy, (ii) recognition of its right to live in peace, (iii) recognition of its character as a Jewish state and (iv) minor border adjustments (for which it would fully compensate the Palestinians in the form of additional territory). The current government’s position is not radically different from that of the previous government, except that it recognizes that a peace agreement is not possible with a partner that has no functioning administration and that persists in virulent incitement that permeates its press and popular culture.
You may have noticed that I’ve said nothing until now about settlement expansion. That’s a reflection of the lack of importance of that issue to the ability to reach a peace agreement. In other words, attention to growth of settlements only makes sense if that growth lessens the likelihood that Israel will turn over territory to the Palestinians and lessens the chance for peace. Recent experience demonstrates that neither of those assumptions is true: Israel uprooted settlements in Gaza and turned over territory to the Palestinians but that uprooting and that turnover did not bring peace – quite the contrary, it fuelled more violence both by Palestinians against Israelis and by Palestinians against other Palestinians.
June 3, 2009 at 7:07 amIndeed, “just the facts” has, as he states, “said nothing”. Nothing that is anywhere near the truth.
For anyone interested in the situation at the time of the June 1967 war, log on to http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/060109a.html.
Note particularly these paragraphs:
“Also worth noting is the conventional wisdom prevalent in our Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) that Egypt forced Israel into war in June 1967. An excellent, authoritative source has debunked that — none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin! In an unguarded moment in 1982, when he was prime minister, he admitted publicly:
'In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that [Egyptian President] Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.'
“Thus, the Israeli attack admittedly amounted to starting a war of aggression, and the occupied West Bank territories and the Golan Heights – gained by the Israelis in the 1967 war – remain occupied to this day.”
Beware the last-ditch Zionists who will fight their wars, whether against Palestine, or Iraq, or in the future against Iran to the last drop of AMERICAN blood. But don't expect to see Wolfewitz, Perle, or “just the facts” bleeding on a battlefield. Their mission is stay behind and foment further wars for the US to fight on Israel's behalf.
June 3, 2009 at 7:39 amAnyone who is interested in the full story of how the 1967 war started should read Michael Oren's hour-by-hour analysis of the months and weeks leading up to June 1967 in “Six Days of War.” All readers of that account will conclude – and the vast majority of mainstream historians have concluded – that Israel did not want that war.
Anyone is entitled to their opinion, just as anyone is entitled to think that 9/11 was carried out by the Mossad. But there's a difference between an opinion and what an analysis of the facts will show.
June 3, 2009 at 10:01 amMichael Oren is the Israel ambassador to the US. He is an unapologetic propagandist for the hawkish elements of Israel's body politic. His military service in the Israeli “Defense” Forces included invasions of Lebanon and most recently Gaza, where he “briefed” foreign correspondents–correspondents not allowed into Gaza to see 'just the facts' for themselves.
“All readers of [Oren's] account will conclude . . . .” Wrong they will be DELUDED, which is the purpose of Israeli propaganda.
June 3, 2009 at 12:03 pm“Michael Oren is . . . an unapologetic propagandist.” If you can't argue with the messenger’s facts, shoot the messenger.
June 3, 2009 at 1:28 pmWhy did “just the facts” leave out the part about Oren being the Israeli ambassador to the US? That's a very important consideration.
When I was teaching logic, one of the first things we did with so-called facts was to test for bias. Does the reporter/author/narrator have a stake in the matter? Does he have a reason to report from a given perspective? Is his reporting in anyway influenced by financial advantage? By his affiliations? By his core experiences? By his culture? What does he stand to gain by this report?
Testing for bias is NOT shooting the messenger.
Killing Christ. Now that was shooting the messenger.
June 3, 2009 at 2:01 pmMichael Oren was not ambassador to Washington when he wrote his exhaustively documented book. If you would like to take issue with him or with the great majority of historians who agree with him, please do so based on the facts.
Please do not pull this discussion into the gutter with anti-Semitic canards.
June 3, 2009 at 2:42 pmAh, anti-Semitic.
Anytime an Israeli propagandist gets backed into a corner he plays the old “anti-Semitic canard” card.
The Palestinian population of Gaza is of Semitic origins. Killing 1300 of them, mostly women, children and old men with the very latest in weapons (at least one category of which is illegal) was about as anti-Semitic as one can get.
June 3, 2009 at 2:59 pmDisregarding derformeter's completely out of context reference to an Israeli military operation incited by years of rocket fire directed at Israeli civilians (while the operation was directed at militants), I believe just the facts was referring to the very blatant anti -semitic remark about “killing christ.” This comment had nothing to do with deformeter's argument and was very clearly aimed at being offensive to all those who identify as Jews, pro-Israel or not.
June 4, 2009 at 4:24 amAlso, just the facts' rebuttal only tangentially included the reference–before expressing regret at deformeter's clearly incendiary remark he directed deformeter, once again, to look at the facts rather than continue to spout that they all must be skewed and “Israeli propoganda.” This repeated assertion of deformeter's seems to be much more indicative of being “backed into a corner.”
Speaking of facts, I would direct deformeter to the following for a precise, oft-cited and sourced report (fact-checking the Palestinian's own reports–straight from Gaza, which I hope is satifactory) on the calculations of casualties of Operation Cast Lead: http://www.ict.org.il/Portals/0/Articles/ICT_Ca...
And I would direct FYI to a much more reliable and less biased report on the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza — the UN's report, which accuses the IDF of “targeted and indiscriminate” attacks on hospitals and clinics, water and sewage treatment facilities, government buildings, utilities and farming and said the offensive “intensified the already catastrophic humanitarian situation of the Palestinian people.” See http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/03/23/israe...
A separate report from Physicians for Human Rights said the Gaza incursion violated IDF's own code of ethics.
But FYI would have us accept the “findings” of a self-styled “international” group based in a Tel Aviv suburb. This is exactly what Deformeter was speaking about in his comments on testing for bias, a message entirely lost on both FYI and just the facts.
Although possibly lacking in sensitivity to Jewish sensibilities, Deformeter was correct in saying that the killing of Christ was a much better example of shooting the messenger than just the fact's careless bandying about of that term.
Despite just the facts attempts to draw the discussion away from it, the centerpiece of this still remains: Israel is and has been in illegal occupation of Palestinian lands for over 40 years. All problems in that immediate area, as well as many in adjacent regions, flow from that occupation.
June 4, 2009 at 6:30 amMuch gnashing of teeth and frothing at the mouth because I used the killing of Christ as a prime example of shooting the messenger.
Let me first state why I chose that example. I spoke of classes in logic. Find for me if you can a better example of the folly of trying to eradicate an idea, a message, a philosophy or a belief than this one. Today a third of the world's population is Christian of one denomination or another. Over 2 billion people. Clearly, killing Christ was not very effective in disposing of his message. It might well be argued that it had a very opposite and salutary effect, despite what the then power structure had hoped — a largely Roman power structure, let it be said.
So this is a very good, no, the very best historical example we can find of ideas surviving the killing of the messenger. Then why was my reference to it condemned as “an anti-Semitic canard”? Does “just the facts” believe that Christians today hold the view that Jewish leaders two thousand years ago were complicit in the Romans’ crucifixion of Christ, and even if so, that they hold Jews born 2000 years later responsible for the crimes of their ancestors?
If he does, then let me ask him this: Is that why we have Holocaust museums? To forever embarrass, malign, impugn, and disparage Germans? Today over 80 percent of Germany's population was born since WW II, some two, three or even four generations removed from those terrible times and inhuman crimes of Nazi Germany. Is a reference to the Holocaust implicitly anti-Teutonic? Is that the intent of memorials to Holocaust victims, to chastise Germans today? To make them for all eternity bear the guilt of their forefathers?
Come on, “just the facts”, climb down and join the real world. Stop citing “facts” cooked by Israeli authorities. Stop castigating anyone who sees through Israeli posturing, through Israeli temporizing. Stop pretending that the Israeli occupation of Palestine is unrelated to the region's strife. Stop with the 3000-year-old fable that Palestinian lands rightly belong to Jews.
June 4, 2009 at 8:19 am“Deformeter” seems aware of the term “Christ killer” yet seems unaware that it has been used continuously through history, and into modern times, to justify murder of Jews and that it is the classic anti-Semitic slur. S/he also professes the novel theory that the purpose of Holocaust museums is to help Jews perpetuate a guilty conscience among Germans rather than to perpetuate the memory of the millions who were murdered and to ensure that such a horrible event never happens again – not to Jews or to any other group.
In light of these points, perhaps we can conclude this discussion with the following observation, which I suspect we can all agree on: “deformeters” grasp on Jewish history and history of the Holocaust is as firm as her/his knowledge of the modern history of the Middle East.
June 4, 2009 at 1:16 pmAgain, let's stick to the facts. “Realist” states that “(a) Israel is and has been in illegal occupation of Palestinian lands for over 40 years. (b) All problems in that immediate area, as well as many in adjacent regions, flow from that occupation.” Putting aside the observation that the first part of the statement is untrue as a legal matter, the second part of the statement can be easily proven to be untrue as a factual matter.
If all the problems in the Middle East stem from the “occupation,” how come many of those same problems existed before June 1967? The lack of democracy in Arab countries, the oppression of women, illiteracy, civil strife between many Muslim and Arab groups, the low standard of living, etc. all existed before the settlements and before Egypt, Jordan and Syria failed to annihilate Israel in 1967 (and, for that matter, before the establishment of Israel in 1948).
On a very basic level, if the preoccupation (pun intended) with Israel is truly about trying to get a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, why did the very Arab countries who are now agitating for such a state prevent that from happening in 1948 when they seized those very areas for themselves? Why did they do nothing from 1948 to 1967 when they could have given the Palestinians a state in those areas? Why did they issue the (in)famous three “no”s in Khartoum – no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no peace with Israel – after the 1967 war when Israel wanted to negotiate a return of the great majority of the territory that came within its control as a result of the war?
The most obvious answer to the questions above is that the real issue is not whether the border with the Jewish state should be drawn a few meters to the east or to the west, but whether there should be a Jewish state at all – whether Jews have a right to live in a country of their own of any size. If this were not the real issue, there would never have been a 1948 war, a 1956 war, a 1967 war, or any of the other Arab-Israeli wars, and peace in the Middle East would have broken out a long time ago. As the saying goes, “if Israel lays down its weapons, it ceases to exist; if the Arabs lay down their weapons, there will be peace.”
June 4, 2009 at 2:12 pmI did not say “all the problems in the Middle East stem from the [Israeli occupation of the West Bank]“. I said “in the immediate area”, meaning Palestinian lands, as is obvious from the preceding sentence. I also said “many [of the problems] in adjacent regions flow from that occupation.” Many does not mean all. That other problems with other causes exist does not refute my comment. It only shows that just the facts has no intention of discussing the matter in a forthright and logical fashion. His only purpose is to distract attention from the main FACT — that continue Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands is the central obstacle to any kind of peace in the region.
He calls attention to the repression of women in Arab countries. I'm quite certain that an 80-year-old Palestinian grandmother, strip-searched at a checkpoint by IDF soldiers, would not rate Israel very high on her list of nations respectful of women's rights.
June 4, 2009 at 2:49 pmOne would be tempted to believe that “just the facts” is mentally deficient, for him to so grossly distort my questions about the Holocaust and my observations about the most historically significant example of killing the messenger. However, I don't think that is the case. He understood the parallelism of my remarks, found them unassailable and resorted to what he accused “Been There” of doing — shooting the messenger.
Alas, for “just the facts”, his marksmanship is even poorer than his logic, and his ad hominem volley missed me by a mile.
A pity that the marksmanship of Israeli soldiers bent on murdering Palestinian children is not equally poor.
June 4, 2009 at 4:28 pmBlaming the Israeli “occupation” for the perpetuation of the Arab-Israeli dispute is like blaming rain on umbrellas: it confuses cause and effect. The reason Israel “occupies” the West Bank is because it was used as a staging area by the Arabs in their century-long effort to prevent the existence of a Jewish state, and because – with the notable exception of the return of Sinai to Egypt – all efforts by Israel to negotiate turning over to its neighbors land obtained in June '67 in exchange for peace have been met with a combination of outright refusal (or its substantive equivalent in the form of demanding the so-called “right of return”), rockets, homicide bombers and virulent and pervasive anti-Semitism.
In other words, the fundamental problem is that Israel insists that it has a right to exist and the Palestinians insist – either explicitly (Hamas) or implicitly (demands for the right of return, etc.) – that it does not.
June 5, 2009 at 11:02 amSo when all Palestinians (as well as all other Muslims from as far away as Indonesia) unanimously agree to Israel's unilateral terms, then Israel will magnanimously retire behind the green line — of course after removing all the illegal settlements, tearing down that monstrous wall, and restoring the Palestinian orchards and vineyards that the IDF bulldozed over the past 42 years.
You have in effect confirmed what Sherman said last week: Israel is stalling — it never has had any intention of giving up the West Bank territory acquired by conquest in the 1967 war, a war that was nothing more than a thinly disguised land grab.
Speaking of bulldozed, you wouldn't by any chance be a pitchman for real estate in the Everglades, would you, “just the facts”?
June 5, 2009 at 4:11 pmrealist–if you actually believe that the un gives unbiased reports then i'm afraid you're steeped in delusion. while in Israel (and specifically the disgraceful tel aviv of which you speak, though the school is actually located in herzaliya, though my guess with your knowledge of Israel is that Tel Aviv is the only place you've ever heard of) opinions very much including a left and far-left contingency of voices who would like to end the “occupation” of which you speak exist, in the arab countries which hold a huge sway in the un only one opinion is and has been expressed: Israel should not exist. while i could direct you to many sources for this easily, you need look no further than the recent keynote speaker of the UN's anti-racism conference. if you actually bothered to read the report and follow its sources you would have come to the conclusion that despite what you view to be it's terrifically biased background (while clearly ignorant college students are most certainly unbiased, Israeli students and academics are by definition right wing crazies bent on the killing of Palestinians) the numbers you hear reported straight from Palestinian sources may be very misleading.
June 6, 2009 at 4:23 pmDeformeter–for about the fifteenth time–Israel wanted to give the majority of the land back right away in peace agreements–this is a well known historical fact and your hate-filled and oft-repeated statements to the contrary are simply false. in addition, let me pose to you this scenario: in the state in which you live, terrorism has been gradually and steadily increasing, the perpetrators filtering in from and being supported by your surrounding states. these states also have been making continuous calls for the impending destruction of your state, cut of trade routes for your state, and then gather their troops along your borders, poised to strike.
I'm assuming you would want your government to just sit back and see what happens right? Any action your state took would simply be “a thinly disguised land grab.”
honestly d, r–it's sad how just the facts keeps throwing facts at you and you keep insisting he's skirting the issues. though it may be hard to swallow that he's directly refuting your claims, saying he's not doing so won't convince any objective reader.
You are correct – Israel has no intention of giving up the West Bank if it means committing national suicide in the process.
June 6, 2009 at 8:48 pmDeformeter,
Well done! I have never before been made so sick and so disgusted by one's comments. Perhaps you should lift your liberal, and likely self-proclaimed brilliant, derrière out of your seat – in which you likely spend the vast majority of your days – and go check out the Middle East first hand. Granted you are staunchly, and idiotically opinionated, but perhaps you may notice how Israelis were dealt identical cards to the Palestinians today. They found themselves on nothing more than desert but had substantial foreign monies on which to rely. You may then notice that the Israelis did something with their land – go to Ramat Gan and note how eerily similar it is to a “western” city – and have built their land up from nothing but sand. In the process, they fought off several Arab nation armies as a fledgling state not long into their existence. And after embarrasing each and every one of these nations, Israel suddenly became the bully in the middle east. For standing up for themselves and doing so so uncontestedly they were now the ones viewed in negative light. Is that just? I don't think so, and if you weren't brainwashed by Bill Maher every night, I'm confident you might agree. Naturally, considering Israel's will to exist and success and prosperity in continuing to do so, they are labeled the bad guys in the middle east. Now, do you actually believe that they seek death and destruction of others? Why don't you focus some of your BS quotations and allusions on islamofascist leaders who flaunt the fact that “They [Israelis and Americans] love life. We hate death.” This may provide a clue into who the instigators, and true bad guys, may in fact be.
And if the Palestinians desire land so badly and the surrounding Arab states want this as well, perhaps they should team up and provide little slivers of land for the Palestinians. The truth is, these nations don't give a shit. Nations like Saudi Arabia are so economically minded that deep down, there is no doubt they desire the existence of Israel over a Palestinian nation in its place.
And how dare you say that proponents of Israel must stop alluding to the fact that 3,000 years ago Jerusalem was in fact the Jews'. Some strongly believe in their religion and its teachings – teachings which are not for you to contest and simply cast aside. We are supposed to feel so enlightened when you employ the use of certain dates and historical references but if someone expresses the history in which they believe it is just intolerable? You're pathetic and no one cares about the logic course you sat through. We're happy you seemed to have gotten something out of it, but spare us the bullshit, professor.
Love,
June 8, 2009 at 8:41 pmActual Logic
For the continued health and safety of anyone within snapping range of Mind Boggling, I fervently hope that he has had all his shots.
June 9, 2009 at 10:29 amNational suicide?
Are there no other options? Just (1) Israel committing national suicide, or (2) the genocide Jewish-style Israel inflicts on Palestinians
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Well, then . . .
Calling Dr. Kevorkian.
June 10, 2009 at 9:34 amFirst, Cassandra’s characterization of Israel's treatment of Palestinians – while perhaps an appropriate description of Syria's murder of 20,000 citizens of Hama, the murder and rape of hundreds of thousands by Arab militia in Darfur, Iraq’s gassing of the Kurds, Egypt’s gassing of Yemenites in the 1960s, Saddam Hussein’s massacre of 300,000 marsh Arabs, the expulsion of 800,000 Jews from Arab countries in the years after 1948 and the oppression of Christian minorities throughout the Arab world (to cite only a few widely-ignored atrocities) – bears no relationship to reality.
Second, there are options to the current situation. The hundreds of peace proposals that have been floated over the years demonstrates that people know what those options are. The fact that none of those options have yet been translated into reality tells us that the real problem lies not in the lack of options but in something more fundamental.
What that more fundamental thing is can be easily discerned with a perusal of the Arab media and educational material: a portrayal of Jews and of Israel using the vilest anti-Semitic imagery borrowed, in many cases, directly from Joseph Goebbels and a related refusal to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the Middle East, no matter what that state’s borders. And lest there be any confusion on cause and effect, that portrayal and the refusal predates the “occupation” in 1967 and the creation of Israel in 1948.
June 11, 2009 at 7:54 amA week ago I remarked that Israel has absolutely no intention of settling WITH Palestine, only continuing to settle IN.
Immediately Just the Facts jumped on his warhorse and rode off in all directions. The only consistent message that can be distilled from his many comments is this: Israel has absolutely no intention of settling WITH Palestine, only settling IN.
Which was my point and still is.
Just the Facts tries to brush aside a fundamental truth — that these settlements constitute a critical if not the most critical impediment to peace. He even tried to suggest that the Obama Administration was similarly dismissive. However, in his Cairo address, President Obama said:
” The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
“Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.”
For the many fair minded readers of Scoop44 (and Just the Facts, too, if he will listen for once) there is a very well reasoned article on why it is in Israel's interest to withdraw from the West Bank. See Josh Marshall's article at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/...
June 11, 2009 at 9:34 amSherman states that “the settlements constitute a critical if not the most critical impediment to peace.” As should be hopefully clear by now, that statement cannot be reconciled with some obvious truths:
• with the truth that before 1948, there were no “settlements” and there was no peace.
• with the truth that between 1948 and 1967, there were no settlements and there was certainly no peace.
• with the truth that for several years after 1967 there were no settlements of any size yet there was continued refusal by Israel’s neighbors to talk to it, let alone make peace with it.
• with the truth that Israel demolished the “settlements” in Gaza and was rewarded with 12,000 rockets, many fired from the very area previously occupied by the demolished settlements.
The reason that there was no peace before there were settlements, that there was no peace after there were settlements and that there was still no peace after Israel uprooted settlements is that this dispute is not about the “settlements” of Maaleh Adumim and Tekoah, but about the “settlements” of Tel Aviv and Haifa.
June 11, 2009 at 10:45 amSo President Obama is wrong. Josh Marshall is wrong. Everyone is wrong who does not accept just the fact's spin.
Why does won't he let any blame attach to those settlements? Because, as Sherman has twice pointed out, Israel has no intention of ever withdrawing from Palestinian lands. A point that even just the facts was forced to admit a few days ago.
June 11, 2009 at 12:02 pmI would be grateful if “realist” would help me understand which of the inconvenient truths cited fall into the category of “spin.”
Again, don’t be fooled into thinking that umbrellas cause rain – don’t confuse effect and cause: the “cause” is the adamant refusal of the Arab states to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the Middle East, accompanied by virulent anti-Semitism. The “effect” was (i) the continuation of the state of war despite the absence of settlements for the first two decades plus after 1948 and despite the removal of settlements in 2005 and (ii) from 1970 or so until today, Israelis living in the disputed areas.
Remove the cause – recognize the legitimacy of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and end the incitement – and the effect goes away through a combination of removal of settlements (as Israel demonstrated repeatedly it can do, first by demolishing settlements in Sinai and then by demolishing settlements in Gaza) and minor border adjustments and land swaps.
June 11, 2009 at 1:43 pmAs an aside, “realist” should note that if his/her strongest defense is an assertion of Obama’s infallibility (“so [you are saying] President Obama is wrong[?]”), the writer may wish to reexamine the strength of the position being defended (unless, of course, the writer is Catholic and President Obama has been elevated to the papacy).
June 11, 2009 at 5:34 pmHave something to add?