-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Laura Rozen
Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 11:17 PM
Share
Last night, shortly after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told journalists that the Obama administration "wants to see a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called a confidant. Referring to Clinton's call for a settlement freeze, Netanyahu groused, "What the hell do they want from me?" according to his associate, who added, "I gathered that he heard some bad vibes in his meetings with [U.S.] congressional delegations this week."
In the 10 days since Netanyahu and President Barack Obama held a meeting at the White House, the Obama administration has made clear in public and private meetings with Israeli officials that it intends to hold a firm line on Obama's call to stop Israeli settlements. According to many observers in Washington and Israel, the Israeli prime minister, looking for loopholes and hidden agreements that have often existed in the past with Washington, has been flummoxed by an unusually united line that has come not just from the Obama White House and the secretary of state, but also from pro-Israel congressmen and women who have come through Israel for meetings with him over Memorial Day recess. To Netanyahu's dismay, Obama doesn't appear to have a hidden policy. It is what he said it was.
"This is a sea change for Netanyahu," a former senior Clinton administration official who worked on Middle East issues said. The official said that the basis of the Obama White House's resolve is the conviction that it is in the United States' as well as Israel's interest to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "We have significant, existential threats that Israel faces from Iran and that the U.S. faces from this region. It is in our mutual interest to end this conflict, and to begin to build new regional alliances."
Netanyahu needed to engage Obama directly, the former official said. "Now that he has done so, and also sent a team of advisors to meet [special envoy to the Middle East George] Mitchell, he has very clearly received a message: ‘I meant what I said on settlements. No natural growth. No elasticity. There will be a clear settlement freeze.'" (Netanyahu sent a team of advisors including minister for intelligence Dan Meridor for meetings with Mitchell in London Monday.)
"Over the past 15 years, settlements have gone from being seen in Washington as an irritant, to the dominant issue," says Georgetown University Middle East expert Daniel Byman. He pointed out that key figures in the Obama administration -- Mitchell, who headed the Mitchell Commission, which recommended a halt to settlements; national security advisor Gen. Jim Jones -- see the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, home to some 290,000 people, as a key obstacle to getting a peace settlement. "I don't think the logic is hidden," Byman said.
It's not just the administration that's delivering Netanyahu that message, however. Whereas in the past Israeli leaders have sometimes eased pressure from Washington on the settlements issue by going to members of Congress, this time, observers in Washington and Israel say, key pro-Israel allies in Congress have been largely reinforcing the Obama team's message to Netanyahu. What changed? "Members of Congress have more willing to follow the leadership of the administration ... because [they] believe it is in our national security interest to move toward ending the conflict and that it is not a zero sum for Israel," the former senior Clinton administration official said.
"Netanyahu and [Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor] Lieberman are probing, looking for areas they can get space gratis from the United States," says Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force for Palestine. "And they are not finding it."
"We've been watching the move in Congress, especially among certain high profile Jewish American members -- people like Representative Gary Ackerman, Representative Robert Wexler, and Representative Howard Berman," Ibish said. "What has occurred -- and this has been greatly intensified by the election of Obama: There has been a growing sense of members of Congress who are well-informed on foreign policy ... that peace is essential to the American national interest and the Israeli national interest. And there's been a growing sense that the possibility of a two-state agreement is time-limited and that things like the settlements are incompatible with the goal of creating two states."
The changed dynamic in Washington has impressed Palestinian audiences. At a breakfast yesterday morning with Palestinian American policy hands near Pentagon City, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that he was extremely impressed with the Obama administration's resolve on policies that it sees as crucial for getting out of the current status quo -- after years of drift that have seen Jewish settlements expand to almost 300,000 people on land the Palestinians envision as part of a future Palestinian state.
Abbas had a private meeting with Obama at the White House this afternoon, followed by an expanded meeting in the Oval Office with Obama, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Clinton, and other U.S. officials. "We are a stalwart ally of Israel and it is in our interests to assure that Israel is safe and secure," Obama said in a joint press conference with Abbas after the meeting. "It is our belief that the best way to achieve that is to create the conditions on the ground and set the stage for a Palestinian state as well.
"And so what I told Prime Minister Netanyahu was that each party has obligations under the road map," Obama continued. "On the Israeli side those obligations include stopping settlements. They include making sure that there is a viable potential Palestinian state. On the Palestinian side it's going to be important and necessary to continue to take the security steps on the West Bank that President Abbas has already begun to take, working with General Dayton. We've seen great progress in terms of security in the West Bank. Those security steps need to continue because Israel has to have some confidence that security in the West Bank is in place in order for us to advance this process."
Even one veteran Washington peacemaker who had grown skeptical that Washington can overcome obstacles to get substantive progress on Middle East peace admitted to being impressed by the Obama team's resolve. "What I'm beginning to see is that the Obama administration may be less concerned with actually getting to negotiations and an agreement and more interested in setting new rules and rearranging the furniture," said Aaron David Miller of the Woodrow Wilson Institute. "They may have concluded that they can't get to a real two state solution with this prime minister [Netanyahu]. Maybe they want a new one? And the best way to raise the odds of that is to demonstrate that he can't manage Israel's most important relationship: with the U.S."
Echoing language from the Bush administration's debate about policy to Iran, behavior change vs. regime change, Miller said the Obama administration's stance demanded "behavior change for sure" on the settlements issue. "If they keep pushing as the Secretary [Clinton] was last night, who knows about the other," he said. "The danger of course is that they raise the level on the settlements issue and then back off, leaving the emperor(ess) with no clothes. And this would make America look really bad."
Wow. That's a fascinating dissection of what is going on behind the scenes. After the Obama-Netanyahu meetings in Washington, I felt that Obama didn't walk away with anything of substance and I sensed that me might not be strong enough to get *both sides* to bargain in good faith. But it seems I was wrong and hopefully Israel will ultimately cease expanding settlements.
Former Ambassador to Israel (x2) Martin Indyk gave a pretty incredible and direct interview to an Israeli journal and the Israel Policy Forum has it translated from Hebrew, here. What is surprising about the article is how frank and direct Indyk is and is quite critical of Israel's efforts over the past decade or so. He also gives his view, which I happen to share, that the Likud government is essentially trying to sabotage any real chance of US-Iranian diplomacy.
******************
It looks as though the Obama Administration is serious about making progress towards a resolution of this seemingly intractable dispute.
I too was discouraged after the Obama/Netanyahu meeting, but am encouraged by the follow-up. I am upset by Obama's continuation of the drone bombings in Pakistan, and his reversals on DADT and abuse photos, but his ability to challenge the status quo in the Middle East, and to bring members of congress along, gives me hope. Thank you, Ms Rosen for this welcome information.
The article says what has changed is the Congressional attitude:
"What has occurred -- and this has been greatly intensified by the election of Obama: There has been a growing sense of members of Congress who are well-informed on foreign policy ... that peace is essential to the American national interest and the Israeli national interest. And there's been a growing sense that the possibility of a two-state agreement is time-limited and that things like the settlements are incompatible with the goal of creating two states."
So in other words, Obama is not saying anything different than Bush said, it is just Congress is now going along with it because there is a Democrat in the White House. This even lowers my respect for Congress more.
So in other words, Obama is not saying anything different than Bush said, it is just Congress is now going along with it because there is a Democrat in the White House.
No. In fact, the traditionally conservative-leaning powerhouse lobby AIPAC has been steadily losing ground to liberal Jewish and pro-Israel organizations. Our Congressional representatives are finally hearing what most of us have known for a very long time.
I think it's too soon to herald the diminished grasp of AIPAC. Correct me if I am wrong, but since the assault on Gaza ended, hasn't Congress passed a couple of largely symbolic "we support Israel" declarations? I find such politically self-serving nonsense to be condescending, as though one can't support Israel's right to exist AND expect Israel to live up to it's legal obligations also.
That said, I am hoping groups like the liberal 'Israel Policy Forum' start having more clout in DC as a counter-balance to AIPAC.
It's going to be incredibly important moving forward that Obama and Clinton not blink with respect to their strong statements on stopping settlement expansion under any and all circumstances.
************
AIPAC certainly will not go away overnight. But in the meantime, they can have their symbolic non-binding resolutions. Our legislators are hearing stronger arguments from more and increasingly better organized liberal Jewish and pro-Israel organizations like the forementioned Israel Policy Forum, as well as J Street, Ameinu, Americans for Peace Now and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom as well.
American Jews have never been single-issue voters that establishment Jewish leadership likes to project. More recently, however, American Jews have begun to effectively organize according to a peace-oriented agenda regarding Israel. Until recently, AIPAC in particular and established Jewish communal leadership in general has simply not had to deal with this kind of political competition.
Maybe only American Jews can defeat AIPAC.
You will not resolve this conflict by diplomacy, or by stopping settlements, or by any of the short-sighted measures this administration is pursuing. The hatred between Jews and any Muslim population is the heart and foundation of these difficulties as any true historian knows. The Palestinians have been treated worse by their fellow Muslims than by the Israelis and are being used as tools to further the conflict. The Jewish state could give everything away and it's remnant would still be hounded to destruction. Wake up. Grow up.
The conflict is much more complex than what you want it to sound like. You are dangerously misinformed. Please, go deep to the root of the problem and try to understand all its elements before simplifying this issue. It's simply wrong !
Israel must acquiesce to the formation of a Palestinian state soon and make it happen. Instead Israel continues to render a Palestinian state untenable by settling more of the West Bank.
A one-state solution (which Israel is currently headed for) means a minority Jewish state.
Immigration to a minority Jewish state with a disenfranchised Arab population will dry up.
An Israel with minority Jewish-rule will become simply untenable, and a lot more difficult for the US to defend, morally and politically.
The people who continue to fight a two-state solution are the delusional ones.
This is encouraging... after Obama learns how to show resolve and stand strong with a relatively soft target (a bunch of Jews who simply want to be left alone to live peacefully in their ancestral homeland), he can take off the training wheels and apply the lessons learned to harder targets, like Putin, Kim Jong-Il and Ahmadinejad!
this is discouraging as oracle says
Bibi....talk the talk...then
do what you need to do
what will the USA do? what can they do?
Israel has always worked and sacrificed for Peace.
Israel has always worked and sacrificed for peace. The 'settlement issue' is a phony issue. It describes largely a bunch of Jerusalem suburbs.
The Palestinian Arabs have seized on it because it has resonance for Western audiences. It is something that Israel can be critisized for and, if considered objectively, it is a minor issue at best.
Why is it such a huge problem that a couple of hundred thousand Jews should live in a new Palestinian Arab country when more than 1 million Muslim Arabs now live in Israel? Why does the West Bank have to be 100% Jew-Free for peace to happen?
Would it not be evidence of a real peace if Jews were able to live safely in a Muslim Arab country? I think it is real evidence that peace is not at hand and the power to make peace is not in the hands of the Israelis that no Israeli can walk outside Israel in the Middle East without protection. It is still a religious duty for a Muslim to "kill his Jew".
Yes, Jews should also be able to live in Palestine
I agree with you that the Jews who live in the West Bank should not have to leave. They would, however, have to comply with Palestinian law, rely upon the Palestinian police, and lodge their claims in Palestinian courts, just as Israeli Arabs must do regarding Israeli law, police, and courts.
Palestinian law, however, probably would not allow its residents to carry automatic weapons around with them, as Israeli settlers do now. Palestinian law would also accommodate some challenges to the property claims of Israeli settlers from the Palestinians they displaced.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/the_two_state_solution_is_87_y.html
Read this and understand what Obama stands for. Those who forget History, will repeat it. Some want you to forget history.
For all of Obama's rhetoric, I never imagined that he would actually stand up to Israel, or more accurately the Israeli lobby. The US needs to re-establish its credibility as a relatively impartial broker. The wide and accurate perception is that US Middle East policy is more about the tail wagging the dog than US security. There is enough blame to go around on both sides, but until the Israelis stop the settlements peace is unattainable. Kudos to the president for pushing it in the face of possible domestic political retribution.
I believed in him from the beginning on this issue.
I had heard it reported that Obama once said that the Palestinians were the most oppressed people on Earth.
I'll grant that during his campaign for the Presidency he didn't sound any similar notes.
Yet it isn't the kind of thing a person can just forget knowing about.
Oslo never called for stop on natural growth
Obama et al have taken up a ludicrous stance on settlements, calling for an end to "natural growth" of settlements. THis was a call made by George Mitchell (look who's back), NOT mandated in the Oslo Agreement. There's a complete lack of understanding about settlements and the media and politicians play this up. The first issue, is that settlements are called the problem. They're not. There were not settlements in 1947/48, and there were no settlements in 1967. Besides that, as Ariel Sharon, the mastermind of the Gaza Disengagement stated to COlin Powell back in 2001, what should a pregnant woman do, have an abortion? Settlements can build UP not just Out. FInally, it IS ethnic cleansing. Having Jews leave the settlements is as bad, if not worse, than the Palestinian refugee problem. It's worse because plenty of Arabs stayed in what became Israel in 1948 and now constitute 1M of Israel's citizenry. Therefore, it the world is holding Israel (Suprise!) with the settlement canart to yet another double standard: it must accept refugees, maintain citizenship of existing non-Jews (which as a democracy it does anyway), AND evacuate the West Bank. As a prelude to that final step, first Israel must freeze Settlements. In that regard, it's the world promoting the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel by requiring the right of return and thereby eliminating the Jewish majority from its homeland, AND forfeiting land it won in a war of self-defense. Great job, team Obama. Can't wait to vote you out.
So removing people who have no legitimate right to the land in the first place is somehow ethnic cleansing? You do realize that the Arabs that live in the non-occupied territories face vast inequalities and discrimination? This is recorded and come right from the mouth of Israeli leaders. Israel must allow the Palestinians the right to their own land free from repression and control and stopping settlements would be possibly the smallest step in that direction that Israel could do. Israel won its war with vast amount of outside help and it took control of the region through terrorist actions. It is not their homeland, a generation ago they were all Europeans not Israelis. Now magically because you say so this is their legitimate homeland that it makes it true? I suppose you support kidnapping, torture, complicity of massacres of women and children, repression of a whole society, breaking international borders, and creating an apartheid?
Oslo never called for stop on natural growth
Obama et al have taken up a ludicrous stance on settlements, calling for an end to "natural growth" of settlements. THis was a call made by George Mitchell (look who's back), NOT mandated in the Oslo Agreement. There's a complete lack of understanding about settlements and the media and politicians play this up. The first issue, is that settlements are called the problem. They're not. There were no settlements in 1947/48, and there were no settlements in 1967. Yet, the arab countries still launched wars against Israel. (recall, the PLO was founded in 1964--which land was it going to "liberate" then? Certainyl not the West Bank, under Jordanian rule). Besides that, as Ariel Sharon, the mastermind of the Gaza Disengagement stated to COlin Powell back in 2001, what should a pregnant woman do, have an abortion? Settlements can build UP not just Out. FInally, it IS ethnic cleansing. Having Jews leave the settlements is as bad, if not worse, than the Palestinian refugee problem. It's worse because plenty of Arabs stayed in what became Israel in 1948 and now constitute 1M of Israel's citizenry. Therefore, it the world is holding Israel (Suprise!) with the settlement canart to yet another double standard: it must accept refugees, maintain citizenship of existing non-Jews (which as a democracy it does anyway), AND evacuate the West Bank. As a prelude to that final step, first Israel must freeze Settlements. In that regard, it's the world promoting the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel by requiring the right of return and thereby eliminating the Jewish majority from its homeland, AND forfeiting land it won in a war of self-defense. Great job, team Obama. Can't wait to vote you out.
Are you kidding me!?
First off, you are talking about people whom, in 47/48 were forcibly removed from their land. These are the same people. Those 'right to return' people that won't be allowed back in because it would make for a Jewish minority. A democracy but only for a select few.
Second, the settlements are deliberately dividing the land further, making a future state impossible.
The pregnant woman example... what level of naivety to you think you are addressing here? Do you think I can annex from my neighbour's house because I have two more kids and a bigger sofa? And it's not 'natural' growth... shipping planeloads of Russian Jews into the country is not natural growth.
It's a blatant and outright occupation. Comparing the settlements to Arabs living in Israel is ridiculous. As someone here pointed out already, the settlers bring their own laws, and machine guns, and are currently (according to a report released in the last day or so) using 4/5s of the West Bank water supply. You talk of Ethnic cleansing. It's going on all right!
Hey, those Californians are "settlers!"
Look, if you want to talk about expulsion, please do not ignore the 800,000 or so Jews expelled from the Arab states during the 1948 war. Jews/Zionists purchased land from absentee Turkish landowners. AFterwards, yes, in their settlement of the Holy Land, the owners of the newly purchased land removed the Arabs. And guess what? Jews were "Palestinians" too. Not just Muslims.
Right, so Israel is calling up Russia and asking to ship them their Jewish Population? Israel is the only country in the world where a Jew is guaranteed citizenship because they are Jewish. Therefore, Jews choose of their own accord to move there. And many do not.
The quote is from Ariel Sharon, and if you cannot figure out he was being a bit facetious, that's on you. No one is taking over homes. What Obama is saying is that even within existing boundaries of settlements, the settlements are not allowed to construct new homes. THis has NOTHING to do with taking over someone's existing home.
As for Settlements, please get your facts and history straight. Israel LEFT Gaza. Israel abandoned the settlements there. If you recall, in response, Palestinians began launching rockets into Israel despite there not being a single Jew in the area! Amazing! THousands of rockets were launched starting in September of 2005, which Israel finally responded to last December. Not a single settlement in sight. Please, settlements are an excuse.
It would be wise to visit Israel for yourself, if you've never been. Some residents of Judea/Sameria (hey, let's call Californians "Settlers!") carry weapons to protect themselves, not to intentionally shoot someone because they are an arab. And when you walk around Jerusalem or Tel Aviv and any city outside the WB and see people with weapons, then maybe you'll get a clue. Inside the green line, every day, customers enter malls, stores and restaurants after going through a security check. Who, exactly, is the victim here? Finally, The water supply: there is a joint water agreement between JOrdan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This was written out in Oslo and is executed by the representative water authorities. Whatever 4/5 thing you're talking about is a bold faced lie.
Look, if you want to talk about expulsion, please do not ignore the 800,000 or so Jews expelled from the Arab states during the 1948 war.
>> That is expulsion. We know what it was in reaction to but it's still completely unfair. that is one government treating people terribly. But what we're talking about here is another government and another people.
Jews/Zionists purchased land from absentee Turkish landowners. AFterwards, yes, in their settlement of the Holy Land, the owners of the newly purchased land removed the Arabs. And guess what? Jews were "Palestinians" too. Not just Muslims.
>> So one occupying force purchases land from another. That doesn't exactly put the shine in any halo. Also, they did forcibly remove people from the land. period. And yes Jews were there too... but it was DIFFERENT people who came in and took the land away from the people who were living on it. The fact that they were Jewish and that other Jewish people lived there does not excuse that.
Right, so Israel is calling up Russia and asking to ship them their Jewish Population? Israel is the only country in the world where a Jew is guaranteed citizenship because they are Jewish. Therefore, Jews choose of their own accord to move there. And many do not.
>> But that's not 'natural expansion' now is it? An open door policy on land that was taken from the people that 'natural expansion' just happens to be happening on top of?
The quote is from Ariel Sharon, and if you cannot figure out he was being a bit facetious, that's on you. No one is taking over homes. What Obama is saying is that even within existing boundaries of settlements, the settlements are not allowed to construct new homes. THis has NOTHING to do with taking over someone's existing home.
>> They have everything to do with dividing the land into a bunch of small discontinuous South African style 'Bantustans' that make it increasingly difficult to form into an independent state. Ultimately the goal is to get rid of them completely... I don't see the Israeli government denyingthat recently.
As for Settlements, please get your facts and history straight. Israel LEFT Gaza.
>> By international law controlling the borders and what goes in and out of a territory is OCCUPYING... not leaving.
Israel abandoned the settlements there. If you recall, in response, Palestinians began launching rockets into Israel despite there not being a single Jew in the area! Amazing!
Launching rockets at the civilian population of the occupying force, yes. I don't think that's right either for the record.
THousands of rockets were launched starting in September of 2005, which Israel finally responded to last December. Not a single settlement in sight. Please, settlements are an excuse.
>> No now you're talking about an occupation. More than one bad thing can go on at a time, you know... and let's look at the death toll on both sides and see who's harming who, shall we? You can impose all the apologetics you want but the numbers just don't support it.
It would be wise to visit Israel for yourself, if you've never been. Some residents of Judea/Sameria (hey, let's call Californians "Settlers!") carry weapons to protect themselves, not to intentionally shoot someone because they are an arab.
>> By who's authority? their own. And we've all heard about the sorts of things that happen... maybe they're true and maybe they're not but it's not like anyone can investigate... pretty difficult to be a reporter these days in Gaza, or a UN worker, or a civilian.
And when you walk around Jerusalem or Tel Aviv and any city outside the WB and see people with weapons, then maybe you'll get a clue. Inside the green line, every day, customers enter malls, stores and restaurants after going through a security check. Who, exactly, is the victim here?
>> The dead people. They are the victims. You know where more casualties reside.
Finally, The water supply: there is a joint water agreement between JOrdan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This was written out in Oslo and is executed by the representative water authorities. Whatever 4/5 thing you're talking about is a bold faced lie.
>> Oh yes... the world bank is out to make propaganda against Israel... so is the UN and everyone else. Are you seriously in the dark or are you cherry picking what you choose to write about? You seem to be playing on an assumed ignorance of the reader; or it's your own.
OH yes... that "bold faced lie"
OH yes... that "bold faced lie"
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/28/headlines
Report: Israel Taking Vast Majority of West Bank Water
A new World Bank study says Israel is now drawing four times as much water as Palestinians from a critical shared aquifer in the Occupied West Bank. Palestinians are taking just one-fifth of the water supply amidst a fifth consecutive drought this year.
and
http://www.theage.com.au/world/palestinians-hardest-hit-as-drought-worsens-20090528-boyd.html
There's many more... this took all of two seconds to come up with.
casinroyale stated: 'As for Settlements, please get your facts and history straight. Israel LEFT Gaza. Israel abandoned the settlements there. If you recall, in response, Palestinians began launching rockets into Israel despite there not being a single Jew in the area!
Hello casino,
I have a question for you. Imagine if someone (Jews)came in the night and forced you and your family (Palestinians)to leave, and then moved into your house (creation of Israel in 1948). You left and found another neighborhood (West Bank, Gaza)to live in, and started over again. A few decades later, the same people (Jews)followed you to your new house, and forced you and your family to live in the basement while they took over the main floors(West Bank settlers).
Now imagine that after living in this horrible arrangement for decades, the people occupying your house (Jews) announced with great fanfare that they were now generously leaving one of the main floor rooms. Your family could now live there if they wanted, though they would not be allowed to come and go as the pleased (Gaza).
My question to you is "Would you be prepared to make peace with these people in your house, and be happy to live with this arrangement? Of course you would not. So why are you surprised at the goodbye kisses thrown after the Israeli evacuation of Gaza? Maybe when the Jews are ready to get the hell out of the rest of the house (West Bank)serious talking can begin.
a) many of the people "forcibly removed" in 47/48 where first or second generation arab immigrants into Palestine
b) after WW1 there was a population exchange between Greeks and Turks - tens of thousands of Greeks livign in villages in what is now Turkey since the days of the Greek Empire where uprooted and sent to Greece
c) in 1948 7 million muslims and hindus were exchanged between India and Pakistan
d) after WW2 a chunk of Eastern Germany was annexed and given to Poland with after being ethnically cleansed of Germans, and a northern enclave in Germany was given to Russia
e) After WW2 Russia annexed a number of islands from Japan
f) Kosovo has been ethnically cleansed of Serbs
Population exchanges are in fact a normal part of history during a creation of geopolitical fault lines.. The only sustainable peace solution is for Jordan and Israel to divide up West Bank and for Egypt to rule over Gaza
a) many of the people "forcibly removed" in 47/48 where first or second generation arab immigrants into Palestine
>>> and the people who took the land in their place were there how long before exactly? Also, why is forcibly removed in quotations? Are you going as far as to say they left willingly, or is it a matter of stonewalling, admitting nothing?
Population exchanges are in fact a normal part of history during a creation of geopolitical fault lines.
>>> war, death, atrocity, oppression are all normal parts of history too. And what kind of narrow minded euphemism is "population exchange" for occupation?
Sorry I have to come back to this again... are you suggesting that what happened in Kosovo somehow justifies what's happening in Israel and the occupied territories, or are you telling the world to "Suck it up: it happens"? I really deeply do hope you come back and clarify what you mean here.
what I meant is that in situations of bloody ethnic conflict in areas of mixed ethnic populations the only way to defuse it has been to separate the populations.. Once again, this happened with population exchanges between Greeks and Turks in 1918, Indians and Pakistanis in 1948, Kosovars and Serbs in 2000, Bosnians and Serbs in 1995.. Plenty of other examples going back centuries.. Arab states expelled 800,000 jews that have been living in their lands for longer than arabs themselves.. And the world doesnt seem to be crying or caring over them.. For some reason Israel is singled out for more sacrifice than any self-sustaining nation ever has.. just like jews have been abused for many centuries anywhere they tried to call home until they finally got a country of their own..
Additionally, every single war where aggressor has lost resulted in him losing territory as well.. Prime recent examples are Ottomans in 1918, Germans and Japanese in 1945.. For some reason Israel has to be judged by other standards in 1967..
what I meant is that in situations of bloody ethnic conflict in areas of mixed ethnic populations the only way to defuse it has been to separate the populations.. Once again, this happened with population exchanges between Greeks and Turks in 1918, Indians and Pakistanis in 1948, Kosovars and Serbs in 2000, Bosnians and Serbs in 1995.. Plenty of other examples going back centuries.. Arab states expelled 800,000 jews that have been living in their lands for longer than arabs themselves.. And the world doesnt seem to be crying or caring over them..
>> I agree that the expulsion of 800,000 Jews that you speak of here is terrible. And if you were to ask me who I thought was worse government wise between Saudi Arabia and Israel I would certainly pick S.A.; same goes with the Emirates... but that is not what we're talking about here. I don't understand why it's difficult to see that the terrible actions of others won't diffuse this, what we're talking about here. Also, look at the sorts of comparisons you have to use here. Is this what you'd want to be on par with?
>> Also, if it were not for examples like what you cite here, and if it were not for the long standing abuse of Jews in Europe I think Israel would be judged much more harshly than it is now.
For some reason Israel is singled out for more sacrifice than any self-sustaining nation ever has.. just like jews have been abused for many centuries anywhere they tried to call home until they finally got a country of their own..
>> Israel was built and maintained on a lot of foreign money. I'm not sure I would call it self sustaining, though I don't really see that as an argument either way here.
Additionally, every single war where aggressor has lost resulted in him losing territory as well.. Prime recent examples are Ottomans in 1918, Germans and Japanese in 1945.. For some reason Israel has to be judged by other standards in 1967..
>> Yes... but I'm sure you're familiar with the UN. We're not supposed to be in a world that allows that anymore. It's a complete joke to say this when a superpower can occupy a country at will and claim it a humanitarian cause or an existential threat but we are supposed to be in a different world after 1945. Please consider that when you look at the years you have cited atop here. When doing so, consider that these people who fought Israel in '67 were the people there first (and sympathizers.. you can question their motives but this was the cause). You can throw as many things as you want at that but you can't shake that one simple truth. Israel is the occupying force, the aggressors. they moved people off their land and claimed it for themselves. Since then they have continually blamed those displaced people for the problem.
No Islamic reformation - No Change
Talking about solutions to the Palestinian problem without addressing Islamic doctrine which calls for the killing of Jews (and other non-Muslims) is a waste of time.
Without Islamic reformation - literally all of the issues the world faces with Islam - will only get worse.
best blog on the net, hands down. does anybody know where i can get a laura rozen poster (autographed perhaps?)
BobSmith311
Are YOU going to "reform" Islam? What gives you the right or the ability? Are you Muslim?
By the way, will you go on and "reform" Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, ultra-traditionalist polygamist Mormonism, snake-handling charismatic Christians in northern Florida?
You are going to be a very busy Bob.
Meanwhile, of course, waiting for all the crazies of any given religion to be "reformed" (by you, apparently) before we deal with the mainstream adherents of the same religions is the lazy man's excuse for shutting his eyes to compromise that must happen. Wake up!
This is my first post on this site. I read many of your postings and it's greatly relieving to me to see so much support for Israel.I've been debating with a few others on a different site who cannot be deterred from comparing Israelis to Nazis. Even those on this board who are against Israel did not resort to that. I think I've been putting up a valiant fight, but their heads are so full of propaganda and hate.
Thanks again! Now I can go out and enjoy my Friday night without worrying about mass disdain for Israel so much. I feel better already.
No Islamic reformation, no change
Your comments are pure and utter non-sense. Where in the Islamic philosophy or doctrine do they call for killing of the Jews ? That is complete B.S. Please point me to the part of the book which spells that out. That is simply a big lie. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a political conflict that has to do with land. Plain and simple. Jews and Muslims lived together for thousands of years and in fact fought together against the crusaders. They will live together in peace again someday.
Here's your chance, scholars of the koran..........
THe Koran calls for death to Infidels, IRAN Hamas, call for deat
Arafat also called for the death of the JEws. The head of Saudi Arabia ah=has said death to the Jews. In fact there is hardly a day that goes by that some Arab doesn't say Death to the Jews. This has been going on since the Jews had the gall to ask for a little land in their ancestral homeland. Arabs don't like Jews living near them and they will kill to stop it. They'll even reinvent history. Many of you folks assume that anything that makes Israel looks good is propaganda, but a totalitarian regime of thugs who cut off girls clitoris, forces them to wear bee keeper outfits in 120 degree weather, and enslave their own people are real trustworthy. GO Islam
Imagine Mexico helped people move into Texas, onto land owned by Texans. The Mexicans were there first, we pushed them out, they feel they have a right to the land. They are settlers. The Mexican government then decides it has to protect the settlers from the angry Texans, so Mexico builds roads, barbed wire fences around the settlements. The settlements are on the best land - on hills overlooking valleys, and they are expanding, so the fences move further into the Texan's crop fields. Because Texans are becoming more and more angry - and violent - Mexico builds checkpoints, and massively restricts travel among Texans. Texans become more angry, and the rest of the country turns its back on Texas, closing the borders with the violent Texans.
Yeah.
Settlements are key.
It is easier for Israel to stop settlers than it is for a completely crippled Palestinian 'government' (being charitable) to stop violence against what most Palestinian citizens see as their persecutors, jailers and tormentors.
Someone has to make the first step. Israel has the easy option. Lets pray Obama stands firm. For our, and for Israel's sake.
c.
Texas is a part of a sovereign state that has been in existence for 225 years.. There has never been a sovereign state of Palestine nor Jordan.. They are modern day creations that dont have historical protagonists nor historical and cultural attachments by ethnic groups other than jews
Which makes it just dandy to build a bunch of houses on the land that is held by Palestinians, then build roadblocks all over the place to protect those houses -
Because the Palestinians never had an official "state" in your world view.
Heck.
Why call them people if that's the case?
Palestinian as a national identity has been coined in 1964.. Otherwise, culturally they are no different than Jordanians or Syrians.. The land in question has been "held" by the Ottoman empire until its breakup in 1918.. There has been a massive immigration of arabs from all over middle east after British took over the administration of the territory post-WW1 and they plus rich european zionists started pouring money into the region foreconomic development..
read your history.. The difference between jordanians and palestinians is as great as between vermontians and new hampshirians
So the peasant class Palestinians never had internationally recognized sovereignty over the land because the Ottoman and British nobilities never game them that priveledge. So now the new Nobility (i.e. Jewish immigrants from far and wide) have the right to displace them and confiscate their lands. So legally the Palestinians have nothing to complain about.
You're trying to give legal justification to a situation where the laws of the jungle are all that apply. The side that has the guns makes the rules. It has nothing to do with legality. The settlements are illegal anyway and would be there regardless of whether the Palestinians had sovereignty in 1948 or not.
Palestinians as a national identity didnt exist until 1964.. so your point regarding them under Ottomans and the British is moot.. read your history of Ottoman empire..
Palestinians as a national identity didnt exist until 1964.. so your point regarding them under Ottomans and the British is moot.. read your history of Ottoman empire..
If the problem begain in 1967, it is older than I am, and for the first time, I sense that the most immediate source of the irritation is going to be stopped.
Stopping the settlements won't create Middle East peace, but it can't help but help.
I know a constant critic of Israel who thinks Obama was wrong, because he didn't threaten to withdraw our annual 3 billion in aid to Israel.
I'll grant all my optimism will turn to dust if Israel sanctions more settlements and America simply looks the other way.
How about hundreds of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians and thousands of rockets in Israeli towns for an irritation?
You're going to say "the suicide bombings are the obstacle to peace"
I'll reply "they are definitely a huge problem however there have not been any suicide attacks in years. also the numbers of deaths from Israeli military actions are more than 10 times higher than casualties from suicide attacks"
then you'll say "what about the rockets"
and I'll reply: "Yes they are also a problem, however the rocket attacks stopped when Israel and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire last year in exchange for the border opening. The attacks only started again because Hamas didn't want to renew the ceasefire since Israel never kept their side of the bargain and the borders remained close. So basically the rockets were a response to the seige of Gaza"
Then you'll say: "It doesn't matter, there is no excuse for terrorism no matter what".
Then I'll say: "There's definitely no excuse, but it doesn't come out of thin air. There are always reasons why people behave a certain way. And in the case of the Palestinians the reasons are pretty clear. They are not bloodthirsty savages who emerge from the womb with bloodshot eyes looking to murder Israelis, they have legimate grievances that have not been addressed politically and thus they focus their energy on violence. As long as they feel injustice, the a danger of more violence will remain. And right now there is a lot of injustice."
I notice a general trend of apologists shying away as soon as they're confronted with some facts like these. Several times in this one thread in fact.
"There are always reasons why people behave a certain way."
Human history is full of people doing evil things to others out of hate, spite and bloodthirst.. look at the 2 world wars, hundreds of smaller wars, balkan wars, inquisition, crusades, etc.. do you excuse Hitler and the Nazis for their atrocities? do they have good reasons in your view? how about Armenian genocide by the Ottomans?
"They are not bloodthirsty savages who emerge from the womb with bloodshot eyes looking to murder Israelis"
No they are not but they go through a solid indoctrination process when they are in elementary schools where they are taught to hate Israelis, where suicide-bombers are glorified and when 9-year olds are sent to martyr summer camps...
John Hudson reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(82)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE