Taking more
Settlements and walls are acts of war. I do not know how Israel can be spun as desirous of peace when it does this.The MO is simple: build on land you've annexed, so that if the Palestinians refuse your "peace plan" because you haven't left them enough land to build a state on, you can claim they never wanted peace in the first place. Israel has focused a great deal of its resources on building up East Jerusalem, piece by piece making a Palestinian state a little less tenable.
I do not know how we can pretend any more that Israel wants peace. There has to be a point at which we say, you say you are negotiating but you only make demands; you say you want peace but you are making war; you say you want justice but you offer none.
I support a Jewish homeland. I think it's a terrible, racist idea, but I do not see any other resolution to the desire of Jews to have a place of their own that works. A single state would be consonant with my views on nationhood but nationalism is a powerful force that is not always amenable to reason. This goes both ways. It is not Jewish racism that leads me to support a Jewish state, but the Arab version. I fear that Jews would not survive a unified state. They cannot trust that we have the will to rescue them. We did not care to last time.
But I do not support a greater Israel. And it's time for our leaders to stop pretending that that is not what the Israeli right is creating.
I note this:
Mark Regev, a spokesman for the Israeli foreign ministry, said the government made no distinction between East Jerusalem and the rest of Israel. "There is a difference between Jerusalem, where we have sovereignty, and the West Bank where we do not and whose future will be the subject of future negotiations."
By simply defining chunks of the West Bank as "Jerusalem", Israel can chisel away at the Palestinians' territory.
The only way this stops is we force them to stop. We force them to make peace. The US doesn't want to: it cannot face down its Jewish voters, who can make or break governments. But Europe doesn't have a Jewish lobby, nor do European Jews on the whole have the same relationship to Israel as Americans do (for reasons that should be quite obvious). The EU should take the lead. But it won't. The crisis in Palestine will still be playing out when we are all dead.
posted by Dr Zen @ 2:10 pm
21 Comments:
Part of the problem is that right now America is so concentrated on Iraq that cannot effectively put pressure on any country in the Middle East. The army is spread too thin as it is, and besides, however little clout America enjoyed in the region for a brief period of time after the fall of the Taliban, is now completely shattered. The continued political support (or at least, a blind eye) to Israeli actions make America seem more and more hypocritical, and both America and Israel are sinking deeper and deeper into the bog of hatred they won't easily climb out of. Great reading on the subject: Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower". In his account of the foreign policies of three US presidents since the end of the Cold War, the author doesn't necessarily reveal unknown facts, but the way he summarizes events and puts them in a global context is a very good lesson on the geopolitical shortcomings of each leader respectively, as well as the necessity for strategies and policies based on historical reality as well as a clear vision. I only hope that the next guy (or gal) that we elect reads this book and learns something from his predecessors' mistakes.
I do not know how we can pretend any more that Israel wants peace.
At last the penny drops, and its taken a long time for such an intelligent person as you!
Part of the problem is that right now America is so concentrated on Iraq that cannot effectively put pressure on any country in the Middle East.
It is in the interests of the US to maintain the unrest in the region, that is until the oil runs out.
The US have tolerated Israel deliberately killing its servicemen in the past do you think anything will make them pressure Isreal in to a just peace?
I've never thought they did. I am saying now they can't even pretend.
You've been an Israeli defender/apologist for years.
The problem with the EU taking a lead against Israel is that Israel will only listen to the USA.
As the US is the states biggest funder, Israel can afford to ignore any initiatives us Europeans come up with so hate to dump it in your laps, but until the US toughens up on them, Israel will continue chipping away at Palestinian land as you correctly point out.
You need to remember why the wall is being built. You need to ask yourself why is it ok for Arab nations to be carved out of nothing, ie Jordan.
You need to rid yourself of the idea that an all powerful Jewish lobby runs the US. It is incorrect. There are many other lobbys within the US that are bigger and far more powerful.
We have no reason to trust Europe. European colonialism is part of what created the mess in the ME.
Europe was a hotbed of antisemitism and the place where two world wars broke out. Europe still doesn't recognize its culpability in promoting and propagating hate.
Thanks for your comment, JacksShack. Even the horribly misinformed are welcome here.
I know why the wall is being built: it's a means to steal Palestinian land and an enduring signal to the Arabs that the Jews consider them vermin to be fenced out.
I do not have any notion that it was okay to carve the Middle East up arbitrarily, nor have I ever expressed that. I think it was on the whole a bad idea, as was Israel, but the British excel at bad ideas that seem workable but fall apart horribly. See our parliamentary system for another shocker.
I have never suggested that the Jewish lobby runs the US. It is influential though, particularly in ME policy. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous. What Israel wants is clearly a major factor in any policy decision to do with the Middle East, and not just because Israeli and American or British interests happen to coincide.
I did not suggest you should trust Europe. I don't care who America trusts. It's a pariah state, which would be treated as such if it were not so economically powerful. It tends to trust and support horrible rightist hardmen. I'm fully aware what created the mess in the ME. It's the main reason I believe we should help fix it instead of just leaving it to burn itself to the ground. What's done is done though. Just as I accept Israel as a fait accompli, so do I accept that the ME is what it is, and we must make the best of it.
I'm very well read in European history, dude, and don't need telling that we have a shameful past. You are wrong about Europe's recognition of its culpability for hate. We created institutions whose main aim was to create a framework in which war in western Europe would not be possible again, and we have been very successful. Most Europeans opposed the Gulf war, and are very slow to warmonger. You'll note that I'm not suggesting we invade Israel and sort them out.
I know why the wall is being built: it's a means to steal Palestinian land and an enduring signal to the Arabs that the Jews consider them vermin to be fenced out.
I know that reads well, sounds well and makes some people feel good, but it is bullshit.
When people engage in random and wanton murder without regard for anyone they establish a situation in which a response must be given.
Since you claim to be so very well educated answer this. From 1948-67 Jordan controlled the West Bank and East Jerusalem, while Egypt was in control of Gaza. Why didn't they offer the land to the Palestinians?
There never has been a Palestinian state. Historical Palestine was Jewish and run by Jews.
I don't care who America trusts. It's a pariah state, which would be treated as such if it were not so economically powerful. It tends to trust and support horrible rightist hardmen.
A pariah state that is one of your countries strongest allies. It is more than economic power that keeps us in the forefront of the world.
Contributions to science, medicine, technology are all part of it as well.
Are you as concerned about Africa as you are about other parts of the world.
You'll look long and hard through this blog to find any suggestion that I consider Jordan a model state. But you'll not have to look far to find my suggesting that two wrongs do not make a right. What others do is not an excuse for our own immorality. So I do not see that Jordan's not instituting a Palestinian state excuses Israel's colonising the West Bank.
You will also find that I'm sympathetic to Israel's security concerns, but I do believe that the Israeli (and American) right uses those legitimate concerns as an excuse for actions that otherwise seem inexcusable. Even if one allowed that Israel requires a security barrier, it should surely be building it on its own territory.
You are right that there has never been a Palestinian state, but I fail to see why that should mean that there shouldn't be one now. There's never been a Kurdish state either. There was no Czech state until recently; no Indonesia; no Malay state; no Australia; etc etc. There was no Jewish state for a very long time either. Can you give a good reason for choosing 1000BC as our reference point, and not any other point? And if we are referring to ancient history... well, you must surely know what is coming. I am British. There was no British state until the seventeenth century. You are American. There was no American state until the eighteenth century. If you are going to appeal to tenure of the land, you ought to hand over your own land to its most longstanding possessors. Also, you need to get clearer on your ancient history. Historical Palestine was sometimes Jewish, but not always. And I think we should be quite clear that we do not actually support the notion that there having once been a state in a place should in itself be taken to justify its current existence. That's just too ridiculous even to discuss. One can't imagine Turkey, Hungary or Finland, for instance, agreeing that we should wind the clock back to the first states to exist in their lands.
"one of your countries [sic] strongest allies"
America is no ally of mine. I despise America. It is not doing good in this world. We'd genuinely be better off without you. It is not more than economic power that keeps you in the forefront. You're dreaming if you think it is.
When you talk about your contributions to science and technology, you must do so with an awareness that had you focused on peaceful uses of technology, and not on militarism, your contributions could have been much greater. America is a wasted opportunity, blessed with enormous resources and constituted by men with foresight and ability, left as a legacy to vicious, greedy thugs. It's a pity.
I'm not sure what your point is about Africa. If you are going to do a boring Likudnik "you don't care about Darfur and it's worse than the West Bank", don't bother. I'm for peace, justice and prosperity wherever, not just for those whose ethnicity I approve of.
Zen, if you're gonna despise anything or anyone, despise Bush and the boys, NOT America.
the former has nothing to do with the latter -- other than shameless subversion.
if you're gonna despise anything or anyone, despise Bush and the boys, NOT America.
Did America's misconduct begin with Bush and the boys? And who voted them in if not America? While there are voices against our country's misdeeds, many of us are:
1. not strong enough as one voice for change
2. ignorant
3. apathetic
4. uncaring of anything that doesn't impact our immediate well-being
America's misconduct?
all of the misconduct has always been brought about by various individuals, not by America.
as far as voting Bush in?
wow.
there's just too much to laugh about in that regard -- some of which is expressed in each point in your list.
but the beauty of the structure of America is that positive change is at least theoretically possible.
America just needs much better leaders -- same as everywhere else.
as far as voting Bush in?
Say what you will about a stolen election, it wouldn't have been possible had so many people not voted for him in the first place. And yeah, due to the points in my list, it passed unchecked.
Our leaders may be fucked, but WE still have the responsibility to boot them, and if we don't, we are as culpable as they for the crimes committed in the name of America simply because this is a country that retains some possibility for positive change.
You and I appear to be coming at this from different points on the idealism scale, you believing there's hope because the fault lies in the leaders not in her people, but if we don't get some good leaders, we're screwed; me believing there's hope because I still believe in "of the people, by the people and for the people," but if the people don't get their act together, we're screwed.
Because of course America was a model of fucking charity before Bush, doing absolutely no wrong anywhere in the world.
And Arleen is right. Many, many people have been complicit in creating today's America, and they're not all neocons.
overall, America has done no wrong -- it's a small minority of Americans who have[*] -- the vast majority of whom (at least in the past) are not government officials but rather overly-greedy rogue businessmen and/or other such fanatics.
[*] of course, the same can be said about any other nation -- but the principles which make America America are far less indictable than other nations which "do" major harm in their people's names.
ironically, the majority of "free" Americans are so skillfully made ignorant that they normally have no idea whatsoever about the extent of how stupidly ignorant they've been rendered.
sadly, the theoretical beauty that is American constitutional democracy has somehow produced the most gullible people on the planet.
how that ignorance factory dynamic applies to the people of other nations, i cannot reliably verify.
Overall, you have done no wrong? That sentiment can only be driven by a narrow nationalism because it's plain nonsense. You've fucked the place. Not on your own, for sure, but you had a big part to play. And you're not stopping.
It isn't of much account what principles led you to do the fucking.
percentagewise, how much responsibility do you place on the people of a nation compared to those who supposedly represent them?
and before you answer, percentagewise, how well do your own "leaders" (those in control of your national resources) represent *you*?
Jews make up a grand total of 2.2% of the American population, Zen -- hardly an electoral threat even if they didn't almost always vote Democratic, an affiliation they have maintained despite the fact that the Republicans have become unquestioning supporters of Israel. And you really don't know this country if you think that American support for Israel is merely the result of lobbying.
You imply that the Israeli desire for a state is in part a "racist" one. That's a questionable term, given that Jews and Arabs are the same race and that people everywhere form states on the basis of cultural criteria. But even if we ignore that quibble, it seems clear that the reluctance of the Isrealis to live under Palestinian rule has far more to do with their fairly ghastly experience in the region than racial or ethnic.
Similarly, you ignore the fact that the wall was erected primarily to control suicide attacks, and has in fact been extremely successful in doing so.
That's not to say that I don't agree with the essentials of your position on the settlements, or agree that the right wing attempt to create a "Greater Israel" is abhorrent. But a fair assessment of the situation doesn't ignore the fact that the Arabs have been making war on the Jews for over 50 years now, or that the Palestinians have so far rejected a reasonable settlement, one based on two states, a return to 1967 borders with reasonable land swaps, compensation for refugees, and security guarantees, or that some among them have adopted tactics that can only be described as abhorrent.
How wonderfully naive, Josh, to believe that voting is how influence is expressed. It's dangerous ground though to discuss how it *is* expressed. Of course, I do not believe Jews are massively powerful in the States. Indeed I didn't say so. It's disproportionately influential, largely because, as you suggest, its ends match those of other interest groups. Organisations like AIPAC are very good at finding and emphasising that common ground. Undoubtedly too, there's a great deal of sympathy for Israel, even on the left and even in Europe, because of its success as a state like ours.
Your quibble about "racism" is poorly aimed, because racism does not only concern itself with races, but with any and all differences of type. And as I noted, I believe the desire not to live in an Arab-dominated state is understandable, and I don't support, or really understand, those who suggest that a unified state would be a reasonable solution.
I think the wall had several purposes. There have been fewer suicide bombings, Josh, because Hamas renounced them (temporarily). Maybe you didn't notice that. Your grasp of who has pursued peace and who hasn't seems a bit weak. The Palestinians were not actually offered what you suggest (it's basically the Saudi plan, which the Israelis completely refuse to discuss). If they were, I think they would take it. The rest of the Arab world supports it. But "reasonable land swaps" does not mean "we keep the whole Jerusalem metropolitan area" or "we get to slice the West Bank into a thousand Bantustans". It's "we leave the West Bank and dismantle our settlements, but maybe we take ten square miles here and give you ten there". Take a look at a settlement map some time, and you will see that some are large towns: Maale Adummim for instance has a population of 30,000 plus. It is planned to be 35km2. To allow the Israelis to keep Maale Adummim is a real problem. It's not connected with Israel and linking it up would more or less cut Palestine in half. Similar problems exist with other settlements.
A plan exists to link Maale Adummim with Jerusalem, and Sharon allowed expansion, even though the roadmap he was pretending to be committed to called for a freeze on settlements. The truth is that Israel does not intend, and has never intended to do justice in the West Bank. It has encouraged settlements, and promoted their increase into quite large towns. It has not offered, and does not intend to offer or honour, any settlement that would see it surrender most of the areas of the West Bank that it has colonised. Of course, there are political difficulties for it in doing so, but it's a problem it cannot blame others for.
The abhorrence of some Palestinians' tactics is besides the point in this context, although, as you might have noted, I do not support the murder of civilians by anyone, regardless of the justice or otherwise of their cause.
I referred to the Jewish vote because you said "The US doesn't want to: it cannot face down its Jewish voters, who can make or break governments," Zen. Perhaps you meant "Jewish lobby" or "Jewish money" or "Jewish media"? But those statements would be equally wrong: American Jews, a tiny minority, can't make or break governments, or anything like.
I think you'll understand my sensitivity to that kind of hyperbole given the prominent role of "Jews control everything" claims in anti-semitic propaganda.
The Israeli security wall has as I understand it been extremely successful at its primary purpose, excluding suicide bombers. Sharon did use the wall, or rather its placement, for political reasons; in that, we're agreed. Sharon (or a subordinate) said at one point that the Palestinian's would receive a better deal if they negotiated a settlement rather than leaving Israel to withdraw unilaterally. I suspect that Sharon saw the wall as establishing the /de facto/ border of a unilateral withdrawal, and a bargaining chip in negotiations.
I neither said nor intended to imply that Israel had offered the settlement I outlined, which, as you point out, is similar to what we know of the Saudi peace plan. But Hamas doesn't even recognize the right of Israel to exist. Israel's proposal in the Clinton rounds was fairly close to the Saudi proposal, but, as we know, Arafat refused to negotiate. And Sharon didn't consider himself bound by it. About the best that can be said now is that neither the current Israeli nor the current Palestinian governments have accepted it.
Post a Comment
<< Home