Should auld aquaintance be forgot…
A year from now, the Bush Administration will be emptying its desks into cardboard boxes and preparing to hand over to its successor. And, it’s a relatively safe bet that the menu of foreign policy crises and challenges it will leave in the in-trays of its successors will be largely unchanged from that facing the Bush Administration today. A combination of the traditional lame-duck effect of the final year of a presidency, and the decline in relative U.S. influence on the global stage — a product both of the calamitous strategic and tactical mistakes by the Bush Administration and of structural shifts in the global political economy that will limit the options available to his successor — suggest that even as he goes scurrying about the Middle East in search of a “legacy,” very little is going to change in the coming year. Indeed, the recurring theme in many of the crises Washington professes to be managing is the extent to which it is being ignored by both friend and foe.
While the Administration insists that the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program changes nothing, plainly it represents a neutering of the hawks by the military establishment, which as we’ve suggested all along, was going to be a lot more active this time around in preventing another episode of disastrous adventurism for which men and women in uniform would pay the price (on the American side). The fallacy of the neocon and Israeli hysteria about Bush having 12 months to stop a new holocaust, which we’ve long challenged on these pages, has been laid bare by the U.S. intelligence community. Absent some insanely provocative action by the Iranians, there is unlikely to be any military action against Iran in the coming year.
Moreover, the finding also makes an escalation of sanctions an even more remote possibility — and there’s little reason to believe that Iran would be likely to reverse course in the coming year as a result of any sanctions the U.S. could impose alone, or via the United Nations. What the NIE makes clear is that the Iran’s nuclear program would give it the potential to build nuclear weapons — as would any full-cycle civilian nuclear energy program — but at the same time, concludes that Iran is not currently pursuing that option. (Bush has essentially been arguing all along that Iran can’t be allowed to master the technology of uranium enrichment because that would give it the means to build a bomb should it choose to do so. But the Iranians appear to have mastered that technology already.) The NIE also makes clear that Iran will make its decisions over whether or not to pursue the strategic nuclear option based on a rational calculation of its national interests.
In fact, the U.S. intelligence community has essentially laid down a roadmap for the U.S. dealing directly with Iran, which essentially requires that the regime’s own security interests and regional aspirations be addressed and accommodated. In other words, a grand bargain with Iran, in which the U.S. relinquishes the goal of destroying the Islamic Republic’s regime in exchange for Iran satisfying U.S. and allied security concerns on issues ranging from nuclear power to terrorism and regional peace.
But the Bush Administration, whose own Iran policy has always fallen between the stools of regime-change and diplomatic engagement, is unlikely to be in a position to grasp the opportunity. Much of its support base and its presidential candidates will demand sticking to the hawkish line, even as international support for meaningful action against Tehran all but evaporates. Even the advisability of a U.S. administration enfeebled by its travails in the Middle East and the by the short duration of its tenure trying to strike a grand bargain with an emboldened and confident Iran is open to question. And, of course, Iran could see a change in its presidency, too, as a result of elections to be held in the summer of 2009. Even now, signs are that the Iranians are being careful to avoid escalating any confrontation with the U.S. and have, according to the U.S. military, been more cooperative in Iraq.
What the NIE report has done is removed the urgency from the equation, taking the wind out of the sails of those who had insisted that if he failed to act decisively, even militarily, before the end of his tenure, President Bush would leave his successor facing a nuclear-armed Iran. Instead, he’s more likely to leave his successor facing a version of the current dilemma — Iran enriching uranium in experimental quantities despite U.N. attempts to restrain it — but with a fresh set of policy options that the Bush Administration won’t allow itself: Principally, to negotiate directly with Iran on all issues of conflict.
The Bush Administration’s troop surge has run its course, largely because the U.S. simply lacks the troop strength to maintain the current levels of commitment to a garrison mission in Iraq. The surge has brought a substantial reduction in sectarian violence in the capital and elsewhere, thus accompanying its primary tactical goal. But the strategic purpose of the surge was to create a security shield behind which Iraq’s political leaders could conclude the pact of national reconciliation that would set the country on a path to political stability.
Iraq’s political leaders remain as deadlocked as ever, with the result that the security gains achieved by the surge could just as easily prove to be a time-out as a turnabout.
President Bush has, of course, left no doubt that Iraq will be handed over to his successor, pretty much as is — rather than healed, the patient remains on life-support, in a situation that may be described, in medical parlance, as critical but stable.
The fact that the U.S. has been unable to create the conditions for long-term stability in Iraq through the deployment of its own resources and those of its immediate allies (Britain is all but gone) means that Iraq’s future may well depend on the state of the U.S. relationship with each of its neighbors — Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — and the relationship between them. Managing that relationship may no longer be the exclusive responsibility of the U.S., either: Saudi Arabia is clearly making a concerted effort to repair its own relations with Iran, as are other Arab countries. The regional dynamic may be the most important front in setting the outcome in Iran over the next year. Don’t expect President Bush to be offering milestones and promising victory. Iraq in 2008 will be not unlike Iraq in 2007 — hanging in the balance.
Despite the optimistic fanfare that surrounded the Annapolis peace conference, it would require an extraordinary leap of faith to believe that, as promised at that gathering, 2008 will be a breakthrough year towards Israeli-Palestinian peace. The more optimistic explanations for why this might be the case tended to focus on the apparent uptick in effort by the Bush Administration, and the idea that the domestic political weakness of the Israeli and Palestinian leaders who went to Annpolis makes them more reliant on a deal.
But there has been no indication that the Bush Administration plans to change anything about its policy on the conflict other than the frequency with which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice travels to the region. The Israelis have always left little doubt that they do not believe Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is capable of delivering a credible peace precisely because of his domestic political weakness; they have agreed to indulge Washington by going through the motions with him, knowing that they can live with the status quo. The Israelis also made clear they prefer an open-ended process with no timetable. They know that in a year’s time, they’ll still be there, but President Bush will be turning off the lights on his Administration. What’s the rush? Instead, the Israelis are likely to ignore Bush when his positions don’t suit them, be it on the question of expanding settlements in East Jerusalem or on negotiating a cease-fire with Hamas.
On the Palestinian side, Abbas has thrown all his eggs into the basket of U.S. mediation, and has no option besides going along with whatever Washington is willing to do. But he knows, as do many U.S. allies in the Arab world, that the idea of a peace process constructed as if Hamas — the majority party in the democratically elected Palestinian legislature — did not exist, is simply fanciful. Yet, the current peace effort attempts to do just that. Even then, there is no sign that the Israelis are likely to give Abbas anything even close to what he needs — on issues ranging from prisoner releases and freedom of movement to settlements — in order to win the Palestinian political debate with Hamas. Nor is there much prospect of Abbas reasserting control over Gaza and halting the barrage of rockets that rain down from there into southern Israel. That’s up to Hamas, and the fact that Israeli leaders are starting to talk about talking to Hamas reflects their recognition of Abbas’s feebleness.
And the Arab regimes are pressing Abbas to restore a unity government with Hamas, despite the fact that the Israelis deem this a deal-breaker — cynically, perhaps, given that they’re talking themselves about dealing with Hamas, but the Israelis have never been short of cynicism.
Absent a U.S. Administration willing to change its own course in respect of talking to Hamas and willing, ultimately, to prescribe the terms of a fair solution to both sides, 2008 is likely to be simply a holding pattern until the next occupants of the White House have settled in.
Much is revealed about the state of U.S. influence in the Middle East by the fact that the Bush Administration felt compelled to invite Syria to its Annapolis peace conference despite the fact that Damascus remains allied with Iran, plays host to the headquarters of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, continues to exert considerable influence in neighboring Lebanon despite the best efforts of the U.S. to end that influence, and even [EM] according to Washington’s own claims [EM] appears to be dabbling in nukes. The regime of President Bashar Assad has, quite simply, weathered the storm of the Bush Administration’s drive to remake the Middle East, and its centrality to the prospects for stabilizing both Iraq and Lebanon [EM] and the desire of pro-Western Arab regimes to detach it from Iran [EM] have forced Washington to abandon its efforts to isolate Syria.
Syria’s demand that Israel return of the Golan Heights, which it captured in 1967, is now an integral part of the dialogue between Israel and its Arab neighbors. And, despite Washington’s best efforts to defeat the pro-Syria opposition alliance of Hizballah and the Christian followers of General Michel Aoun in Lebanon, the U.S.-backed government (and its supporters elsewhere in the Arab world) appear to have accepted the need for a compromise. Essentially, on the regional power-play scoreboard, Washington and its allies fought Iran, Syria and their allies to a tie in Lebanon.
The Bush Administration is unlikely to engage with Syria directly, preferring to leave that to its Arab allies and, possibly, also Israel. But absent any U.S.-brokered deal on the Golan, movement on all these fronts is likely to be slow. Again, 2008 will, in the best case scenario, simply retain the holding pattern of the current stalemate, pending a new grand bargain made possible by political changes elsewhere (most notably in the U.S. and Iran).
Not part of the Middle East, of course, but nonetheless germane to its prospects. And six years after the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban, Afghanistan is a bust for the U.S. and its allies. Indeed, today it looks not unlike Soviet-era Afghanistan in the early ’80s, with the Taliban operating freely in around 60% of the country. Pakistan’s military regime continues to pursue policies at odds with U.S. desires (in Afghanistan and at home) while remaining the acknowledged “lesser evil” in Washington’s eyes. So what Bush says and what Musharraf does are quite different, but Bush has no good alternative to Musharraf. Anyone who was paying close attention after 9/11 will remember that the Pakistani leader’s position was to try and get the Taliban to cough up Osama bin Laden, in order to remain in power — which is where you usually want your proxy to be in a country you deem your strategic back yard. And there’s a growing belief even in NATO ranks that stability in Afghanistan may require a negotiated settlement with the Taliban. Musharraf may, improbable as it may seem, actually get a version of what he wanted.
So, Bush has accelerated the decline of U.S. influence in the region through a series of disastrous blunders, and that decline is unlikely to be significantly reversed by any successor Administration in Washington — the decline of U.S. global influence is related not only to tactical errors by Bush; it is also a symptom of structural shifts in the global political economy. In the U.S., then, the question is whether it can elect a government that can adopt policies appropriate for a declining superpower (as opposed to Bush’s giddy adventurism which is based on a fantasy about U.S. capabilities — he still says things like “I’ve run out of patience with the Assad regime…” Oh really? And what does that mean? That like Kim Jong-il who Bush famously said he “loathed,” Assad will sooner or later also get a polite letter pleading for cooperation. What’s that? Oh, right, he already has; it was an invitation to Bush’s Annapolis conference…)
But a second set of challenges arises in every part of the Middle East where those in power have premised their strategies and positions on the assumption of U.S. primacy — if Pax Americana in the Middle East is indeed on the wane, what does that mean for the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Egyptians, Jordanians and Saudis, the Syrians and Iran and the Gulf States?
Stay tuned.
Good end-of-the-year essay Tony. Er.. Karon, I mean. But what in 2008 are we going to do with the “other” Tony? I can’t get a straight answer out of Congress of what we USA taxpayers are paying YO’ for doing nothing. And no other country is willing to contribute. His replaceement PM Brown is no prize; more of the same. In fact, some commentators think he’s far worse.
Which leads me to my 2008 prediction: in 2003 Britain marched off with Bush to Iraq as a 2nd rate nation, believing they could rob their way back to 1st rate. As the financial scandal of sub-prime continues to unfold, Basra’s British soldiers could well be returning to a 3rd rate nation.
The situation may be a little worse than Tony describes, as the US has no alternative leadership that is notably better. I cannot see how a President Gore or Kerry would have handled the Middle East much better than Bush. We can grant that they would have made different mistakes but it doesn’t seem likely that the overall outcome would be much better. Remember, for example, the troubles of the Clinton administration.
Tony seems to be saying that the next several years will look something like the last several years. This is about right. There are only a few things that could change the course:
1. New energy sources or new energy policies might deprive the Islamic world of it’s cash, and therefore, it’s power. Both sides of the conflict are funded by the Western economies, and this is inherently an unstable configuration.
2. A major war among the Middle East nations. It doesn’t have to be nuclear, but it could be.
3. The death of Mamoud Abbas would tip the balance of power among the Palestinians.
4. Decisive military action might knock Hamas out of the picture.
5. However unlikely, a solid peace treaty could end the Arab-Israeli conflict once and for all. This won’t do much about Iraq, Iran or al-Queda but it will change the environment.
6. Iran could set off a nuclear test blast in the Iranian desert. If they did it very soon they would greatly enjoy embarrassing the US intelligence community. I strongly suspect that the response to such a blast would be an air attack by the US and/or Israel. I’m not assigning any probabilities here, just saying that if it happened, it would be a change.
7. A bigger earthquake in Waziristan might crush Osama bin-Laden in his cave. I pray for this daily. This won’t solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it would be a real change in the political landscape of the Middle East.
“Decisive military action may knock Hamas out of the picture” — Fred, it’s frightening to hear that the Zionist right (i.e. you) still harbor these fantasies.
As for Iran setting of a nuclear test “very soon,” did nobody in the Hasbara office tell you that the whole “1938” thing was a myth? How can Iran test a weapon that it doesn’t have nor is currently building?
And to whom are you praying for an earthquake? Last time I checked, the Jewish God didn’t operate that way…
Yes, very good analysis.
I would add a word about India. It’s been a bad year for India in the geopolitical arena.
2008 might be the year New Delhi realizes what a big price it is paying for carrying water for the US and that, in particular, its relationships with Russia and Iran are not “optional.”
Tony, why are you frightened that Hamas might go away or be crushed (however unlikely)? Do you think you’ll be injured?
I’ve never heard of a Hasbara office and don’t know what the ‘1938’ thing is. Please tell us. Or do you mean ‘Munich’ and the treaty that brought ‘Peace in our time’? We don’t even have a new peace treaty with Iran, so the Munich mistake doesn’t apply. I suppose south Lebanon could stand in for the Sudetenland, but it’s not as if the Lebanese government is asking for military help to evict Hezbollah.
The latest NIE might be right or not. Either the new one or the old one is wrong. Choosing one over the other is just a sort of Rorschach test. We didn’t think N Korea would try to set off a nuke, either. They at least tried.
Or are you saying you believe everything the US Intelligence community says? If so, why aren’t the Iranians building nuclear power plants to make that electricity?
Same old God. I can pray for an earthquake in Waziristan even if I don’t get one. Perhaps if we both prayed for the same earthquake?
Interesting commentary. Another development that has recently occurred is what appears to be a true rapproachment between Iran and Saudi Arabia along with the Arab Gulf States and even Egypt, Jordan etc. This despite the efforts of the out of touch Bushites to convince the Arabs that Iran posed a threat to them. The neo-cons even had dreams of some sort of Israel/Arab alliance against Iran. Much water yet to flow under the bridge along with death and destruction, but Washington’s 60 years of ill-conceived and disastrous ME policy is unravelling. Slowly, but surely, the region is coming under the control of its native peoples. Although still far on the horizon, America will inevitably act in its own best interests and set expansionist racist Israel adrift. Incidentally, I see that Jewish immigration to Israel is at a 20 year low and over one million Israeli Jews have emigrated. Zionism’s only redeeming feature is that it contains the seeds of its own destruction.
Tony,
You make allusions to “structural shifts in the geopolicial economy”, but the lingering question is: What are they? Otherwise, we could just say that recent U.S. foreign policy has been bad, and will improve if the proper candidate can right the ship.
Or do you think no such candidate exists? I really think the problem is the War on Terror. If we get rid of that, and have a President such as Obama/Richardson(/Edwards?) who would:
1) Stop trying to *seem* like he’s fighting terrorists, and really do it.
2) Realize that fighting terror is not achieved by starting civil wars in the Muslim world, but in realizing that “their future is our future, and our time is now” (as Obama says). So if we don’t say (like Hillary does) that we should sacrifice other people’s freedom for our own safety, then we’re moving in the right direction.
Also, I just read Gary’s post, which is beyond ridiculous. A vast majority of Arabs (” native people”) have next to no control over their political destiny, because they are being subjugated by disgusting regimes like the Assads and the Sauds. That does not change regardless of what political alignments these thugs make.
Oh wait, sorry. I’m supposed to believe that anything bad for Israel must inevitably be good for the Mideast’s “native peoples”. Whoops! Scratch that.
One more thing. You could work for King Leopold, with all your nonsense about “native peoples” versus foreign peoples–as if the Israeli child whose father and grandfather grew up in Israel is not a “native person.” It must be fun to watch the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a safe distance, and make such nonproductive remarks. I wouldn’t know.
Sorry to disappoint you Gary, but Israel is doing fine and pulling further and further ahead of its opponents. Aliyah (immigration) has always had its ups and downs, (I myself came in 1986 which was the year of lowest aliyah of all-time-it is still higher than that now). The reason it is down is because the masses of Russian Jews (over a million since the break-up of the USSR) have alread come. Now, the big potential is from North America and France, and indeed, the numbers are increasing from those countries, slowly, but steadily.
Economically, Israel is booming and is among the leading countries in the world in developing new technologies, while Israel’s Arab neighbors are stagnating. Time is working to Israel’s advantage. I know it is not politically-correct to say that in “progressive” circles, but a look at the last 60 years shows it is true. Israel’s Jewish population is almost 10 times what it was at its birth in 1948, and the Jewish birthrate has been INCREASING in recent years, which surprised everyone, assuming that it would in the direction of Europe which has birthrates well below replacement levels.
Israel has thrived in spite of the absense of peace with its neighbors and will continue to . You, Gary, obviously have no knowledge of the Jewish character and I should point out that the “progressive Jews” you encounter at this blog site and others are not typical of the Jewish (and particularly Israeli Jewish ) community at large.
A formal “peace agreement” between Israel and the Arab world is simply not in the cards but that does not mean that there is no chance for peace. This chance will only come once the Leftist political clique that has been ruling Israel more or less for the last 60 years is replaced . They have been saying for 30 years now that they believe in the “2-state solution” and “land for peace” but it is now increasingly apparent to everyone that these are simply unviable. Eventually, people will realize that only “Peace for Peace” can work within and ONLY within that framework, when the time comes, and the Arabs realize that Israel is here to stay and that it has leaders deeply rooted in their Jewish/Zionist character (which I again emphasize are present within the majority of the population if not within the leadership) that TRUE peace can be made. Obviously this is not going to happend today or tomorrow, but I am confident that once the Arabs realize that they are on a dead-end path, they will wake up and conclude that true peace with a strong Israel is in their interest.
As much as I hate to say it, I think Y. Ben David has a point. As Tony said a few weeks ago, Israel can live very comfortably with the status quo. Of course, the idea of “peace for peace” – that the Arab countries will make peace with Israel while it maintains its colonial rule over the Occupied Palestinian Teritories – is a fantasy, but Israel doesn’t need peace.
In regards to Fred’s point about Hamas, Hamas’ popularity is a function of the brutality of Israel’s occupation. Even if it were possible to eliminate or weaken Hamas, then some other more radical, violent, uncontrollable group will supplant it.
Ben David
You inhabit a fantasy world, one that many describe as an artificial state, an undemocratic, racist, apartheid ethnocracy.
I lived in the Middle East for over five years. I know the region very well. Judging by your comments, you have never lived in an Arab country. For whatever reason, you are unable to comprehend that a new and vitally necessary direction is being established in world geopolitics. US policy in the ME has failed and expansionist, racist Israel will be an inevitable casualty.
BTW, if Israel is such an economic miracle, why is it still sucking somewhere between 15 and 20 million dollars each and every day from US taxpayers and why have at least one million Jewish Israelis emigrated? Survey after survey in the US, Canada and other countries confirm that Jews (especially the young) are becoming increasingly alienated from and hostile towards Israel and zionism, a nineteenth century colonialist ideology and a curse for the world, including, indeed, especially Jews.
By 2020 there will be 2.25 billion Muslims worldwide, 650-700 million Arabs, including at least 12 million Palestinians between the Jordan and the Med. (According to the US State Dept., Palestinians are already the majority in what was mandated Palestine.) These are the real “facts on the ground” that will determine US foreign policy. We’re talking about huge markets, precious resources, as well as political and military power. The US will not continue to finance and support Israel, its number one geopolitical liability. AIPAC’s hammerlock on Washington is under attack and will collapse. Sooner or later, like all great nations, the US will act in its own best interests and those best interests do not include its “passionate attachment” to or “special relationship” with the zionist venture in Palestine. Israel is an historical anachronism, a “blight unto nations,” a new Jewish ghetto (albeit with an ever increasing non-Jewish minority, which including Russian Christian immigrants who posed as Jews, is now over 25% of the total population. (Much more if you include Jewish emigration.)
You can rant on all you like about so-called “Jewish/Zionist character.” It is now over 60 years and the zionists are still trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. Jewish emigration from Israel will only increase and immigration will virtually cease while Palestinians will continue to multiply. As De Gaulle stated just after Israel launched its third expansionist war in 1967, “Israel will drown in a sea of Arabs.”
While it may be preceded by two states, the unavoidable outcome is one state between the Jordan and Med. A state populated by native Palestinian/Canaanites and foreign Jews together with their descendants born in historic Palestine/Filastin.
BTW, Regarding immigration to Israel:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071224/wl_mideast_afp/israelimmigration;_ylt=AlaFpS34FCiOTTYACR3b_e4UewgF
JERUSALEM (AFP) – December 24/07
“Jewish immigration to Israel continued to slide in 2007 with the number of newcomers at just 19,700, the lowest level in 20 years, according to figures published on Monday.
“Immigration was down six percent from 2006, the
immigrant absorption ministry said.
“The number of immigrants from former Soviet countries,
which made up 30 percent of all newcomers, dropped 15
percent from 2006.
“Zeev Bielsky, the head of the Jewish Agency in charge
of bringing in immigrants to the Jewish state,
expressed concern over the falling numbers.
” Diaspora Jews today ‘have fewer reasons to leave their
countries of origin as Israel has become less
attractive as a land of immigration,’ he told army
radio.
” ‘Numbers from former Soviet countries have declined
because the economic situation in Russia has improved
and Jewish communities there are flourishing, ‘ he
added.
“Immigration from France has also fallen following the
election as president of Nicolas Sarkozy, whose
‘popularity in the Jewish community gives it a better
sense of security.’ One of Sarkozy’s grandparents was
Jewish.”
Israel’s Law of Return allows anyone who is Jewish or
has a Jewish spouse, a Jewish parent or a Jewish
grandparent, to obtain Israeli citizenship.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue this discussion with you. Wait ten years and see who is right.
In the meantime, prepare yourself for events that you least expect. A new world is dawning.
You are right, Gary, regarding Israel, at least. Here, by expelling the British imperialists in 1948, the Jews were getting control of at least part of the Middle East back into the hands of the natives of the region.
While we are talking about Imperialism, I am glad to see that people are beginning to think about one of the biggest examples of imperialist aggression in all of world history….the conquest of North Africa and the Middle East by the Islamic Arab invaders in the 7th and 8th centuries. Interestingly enough, it was the Crusaders who were the first to attempt to roll back Muslim imperialist aggression in the 11th century. The Holy Land, before the Arab/Muslim invasion in the 7th century was populated by Jews and Christians. After the invasion and the implementation of the restrictive dhimmi laws which discriminated against the non-Muslim population including imposition of onerous taxation on the dhimmis, most Jews and many Christians were forced to leave the country, with many Christians also converting, basically out of compulsion, to Islam. Unfortunately, the Crusaders bloody massacres turned many people against them. The next to expel Muslim imperialistic invaders were the Spanish in the Reconquista which culminated in 1492. The natives expelled the imperialists. Later we see in the Balkans, the native Christian population expel the Turkish Muslim invaders in the 19th century. Also, the United States, in its first foreign war around the year 1800 fought back against the Muslim Barbary Pirates who were terrorising the Mediterranean and grabbing innocent hostages and forcing them to pay ransom or convert to Islam (“to the Shoes of Tripoli” as the US Marines Hymn goes). Although these successes in repelling Arab/Muslim agression and imperialism are encouraging, we do see attempts by the Muslim agressors to push outwards again. In our very own Tony’s very own TIME MAGAZINE, this year, in an issue marking the 60th anniversary of the partition of the Indian Subcontinent, the article quotes a “moderate” Islamic scholar in Pakistan (BTW-an exclusivist ethno-religious Muslim state created by ethnically cleansing out the native Hindu and Sikh populations by massacre or expulsion and then expropriating their property) says that the Muslims have the inherent RIGHT to rule the ENTIRE Subcontinent, even though the Muslims are only a minority because of the Muslim Moghul Empire that existed before the British arrived. I guess in Muslim eyes, might makes right, but as Gary says, natives are insisting on their rights.
Sorry, typo….I meant to write “to the SHORES of Tripoli” from the US Marines Hymn.
Your assessment of conditions in Iraq does not address the most important question. After all is said and done, has the Bush administration left the US in a position to achieve three of its main policy goals — (1) long-term American bases in Iraq with substantial troops remaining under a new status of forces agreement, (2) U.S./western control of Iraqi oil development through long-term commercial agreements, and (3) a defeat of nationalist political movements in Iraq and the emplacement of a lasting pro-American regime with international legitimacy? If the answer is yes, then you must admit that Bush has won the war.
“Absent ….” : AAAARGGHHH!!!
I do see you’re under real or self-imposed pressure to adapt to local (i.e,, American) linguistic custom, but why on earth do you stoop to using this subliterate usage when what you really mean to say is “short of ” ?
Otherwise I find your column to be exceptionally articulate.
Shalom Ben David,
You are living in a fantasy world. We still have the same existential problem today that we had back in 1967: is Israel a majority-Arab democracy or a Jewish apartheid state?
If we want to maintain the Jewish character of the state (which we should), then we need a two-state solution. Unless we plan on “thinning” the Palestinian population, the number of Arabs in Israel will soon dwarf the number of Jews because Palestinian population growth is MUCH higher. Keeping the West Bank requires Israel to choose between genocide and apartheid.
Genocide should be morally untenable, even for you. And apartheid just won’t work. As globalization races forward and the amount one person can do with technology increases, the suicide bombings and rocket attacks will become ever more difficult to stop. Even though Israel might have a larger technological gap, that’s not the issue. The issue is that eventually, Gaza (yes, even Gaza) will reach a technological threshold that will enable it to bomb Tel Aviv the way they are bombing Sderot now. The people firing the rockets will not care for “peace for peace”; it should be clear by now that they will happily keep attacking Jews, regardless of the repercussions for their neighbors. Our technological advantage will allow us to make blood run through the streets of Gaza, but will not stop the rocket barrage coming toward us. Short of genocide.
Regarding my “minority status”, Galileo also was a minority. The majority consensus is often entirely unrelated to what is most truthful or best for society. This is one such case. No matter how many people try to convince themselves that they can hide forever behind guns and walls, it has never worked and never will–not for Hadrian, not for Stalin, not for Likud. We can not hide from our existential issues. So we should face them now, on our own terms.
Ben-David : I am amazed at how confident you are of Israel’s longevity in spite of a lack of peace. Yes, Israel is strong today but the history of our people should not inspire your level of confidence. We have been tossed out on our ear many times over the last few thousand years. Perhaps you are too old to really care what happens to Israel in the Ben-Davidless future.
There will be no such thing as “peace for peace” without a VIABLE Palestinian state. We will not be able to hold millions of people stateless and under occupation for the next 1000 years. The modern world will refuse to accept that outcome. .
Your confident arrogance about everything going great in Israel, economically and militarily is true for now. However, you paint a far too optomistic picture of the demographic situation. While the Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox have a high birthrate, the seculars do not. The overall Israeli population’s birthrate still does not come close to the arabs.
I’m sure you are aware that Israel is not really trying to forge a peace agreement with the Palestinians. The settlement game is still being played. I have 3 dozen relatives living in various west bank settlements. Some of them are being recruited to seed a new settlement in Atarot, for a 11,000 person city on the doorstep of Ramallah. Others are being recruited to seed Giv’at Yael, a 20,000 person settlement near Bethlehem. Plans have been developed to build another new settlement, Shimo’n Hatsedeeq , near Abu Dis.
Eventually the world will catch on to Israel’s word games. The Jerusalem city boundries were tripled in size after 1967, a dimension that never matched historical boundries. The same is true of Ma’ale Adumim, whose municipal boundries extend all the way to Jericho, empty land that can accomodate hundreds of thousands of Israelis. Ariel city boundries are proposed to expand to encompass all the small surrounding settlements that will make Ariel geographically 4 times larger, on the theory Ariel will be allowed to stay under a peace agreement. These kind of games will not lead to “land for peace” or “peace for peace”.
I’ve heard Ze’ev Boim give a talk at a synogogue in Ma’ale Adumim stating Israel belongs in Judea and Samaria and these areas will ALWAYS have room for Jews.Look at the maps the settlers pass around, you will see four “reservations” for Palestinians with Israel taking all the rest, including the Jordan Valley. This is the game plan and I don’t think any Israeli politician is strong enough to stop it or slow it down. There is no such thing as the status quo, if peace is delayed Israeli settlement expansion will surely prevent the birth of a viable Palestinian state.
This is a recipe for disaster as internal and external Palestinians demand citizenship and a bi-national state. Our dream of a Jewish homeland will disappear as it has so many times in the past. I, for one, find that to be an unforgivable mistake. However, an even worse outcome is possible, the loss of the jewish soul. I have seen IDF and settler depravity first hand in the West Bank. I have two nephews serving in the IDF and they are thugs, who have already lost their souls to hatred, along with numerous of my relatives. I cherish my Jewish faith and the wisdom of the Torah but I see too many Israelis abandoning this wisdom in their greed and contempt for “others”. If we lose our soul, land will not matter.
Also, regarding your nonsense about Islamic ‘imperialism”–it wasn’t imperialism. Sure, it conquered more territory, but for the most part local culture was allowed to continue. Some groups had dhimmi status, at one point there was the millet system, but with the exception of a few firebrand caliphs there was general religious toleration. Islamic conquests, on the whole, did not leave behind shattered societies in their wake. Western imperialism did; in many areas of the world, the locals have yet to fully pick up the pieces.
It’s pretty ridiculous for you to talk of the Islamic conquests as the “biggest imperialist aggression”, when for the past thousand years, our ancestors have run full speed from the Crusaders and into the arms of the “onerous” and “discriminatory” Jihadis.
Comparing jdedell & Shlomo’s arguments to YBD’s is like comparing PBS’s “The News Hour” to Fox News. If you’re a one-stater like me, the fact that more people agree with YBD than jdedell/Shlomo is actually good news: By trying to utterly screw the Palestinians, the Zionists will ultimately screw themselves.
At one time, I was told that Osama Bin Laden’s objective was to overthrow every government in the Mid-East and install Islamic theocracies. Afer about a trillion dollars and close to 1,000,000 lives lost the net results of our meddling
seems to more closely resemble Osama’s goals than any I
would have hoped for. Over fifty percent of our tax dollars go to pay for past and present wars while our schools and infrastructure are crumbling. Wealthy cowards start wars and then grant themselves tax cuts. They depend on the middle class to fight the wars and to pay for them also.
Matthew,
Thanks for the complement I guess. Beyond that–HUH??
No one will benefit if this destructive pattern continues. Not the Jews, not the Palestinians, not the one-staters or two-staters or five-staters. In the end, you’ll just have Israelis and Palestinians bombing each others’ people for nothing. Right-wingers on the Israeli side will frantically bomb Gaza to try and stop the violence, and Jihadis on the other side will bomb in response and carry out suicide attacks to try and redeem their homeland. Hopefully, that will be all that happens. But it is far more likely that Israel’s Arab neighbors will also intervene, forcing the West to respond in kind. This will lead to a regional, if not global conflagration. What we’ve seen of the War on Terror thus far is only a small taste.
Unfortunately, I must ask you the same question I want to ask Gary: What’s it like to make unproductive remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a safe distance? I wouldn’t know the answer, so I’m very curious for your response.
Why do you think advocating a one-state solution is unproductive. In the 1970s many White South Africans said they couldn’t live in a black majority nation. “Equality” is not equivalent to destruction.
That’s not what I said. What is unproductive is your misconception (which Gary shares) that what hurts Zionists must be good. Underlying this idea, it seems to me, is your idea that if Zionists self-destruct, a one-state solution is more likely so “one-staters” wil benefit.
I’ll dispel that very quickly: we had a trial run of a one-state solution during the 1948 War, when Israel claimed a land that was about 50% Arab. This “one-state solution” turned into violence and ethnic cleansing very quickly, and hatreds have only built up between then and now.
“Equality” is not much use for the Israeli and Palestinian if they’re equally dead. Yet that is exactly what’s at the end of the line, if people like Ben David carry the day–with the perplexing encouragement of progressives like yourself. While we might have one state in 40 years, we certainly won’t have anything resembling a solution.
Which brings me back to your idea that what’s bad for Zionists (and erodes the ideal of a Jewish state) must somehow be good (for whom, you don’t say-I assume Palestinians). This is a faulty logic, which you actually share with Gary AND Ben David : a solution will only come if THIS GROUP’S dreams are crushed. The fact that your target group is Zionist Jews only helps those that wish to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism.
Is this troll baiting? Is it ganging up? Oh well, please forgive me for this post.
There was a trial of a one-state solution in South Africa not long before the trial run of a one-state solution in Israel.
Violence, ethnic cleansing and ethnic hatred “forced”, both the White South Africans and the Zionists to impose a political separation. Since we’ve already tried it, we know it will never work. Only problem is that it did work in South Africa.
And as sentimental as it is that the “dream” of a white-majority state in southern Africa has been “crushed”, a lot of people think it was for the best.
Well, regardless of our sentiments, the winds seem to be blowing against Zionism by now. When the people of Israel realize this they will, as the Whites of South Africa did when they felt the same winds, negotiate terms of a practical surrender while they are still in a position of strength.
My current indication of the direction of the winds is that the US/Israeli attempt to isolate both Iran and Hamas just has not worked. Both have regional support equal or greater than they had last year at this time.
The death of Bhutto also now means that any assistance the US gets in isolating Al-Qaeda will require big concessions.
Zionists aren’t stupid enough to wait until the last person is killed. Before that they’ll come up with a one state solution the Palestinians can accept.
I am always amazed at the amount of shadow boxing and obfuscation in such debates about the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. So lets cut to the chase.
Israel and its apologists have always been in the casuistry business, ever since the start of modern Zionism, in particular in the business of trying to square a multiplicity of circles, for which what they need most of all is endless war and conflict as the principal unifying factor for the Jewish population in Israel and the diaspora.
The Palestinians who have been disposessed as individual Arabs, then subsequently formed themselves into a dispossessed “nation”, have been violently resisting the encroachments of Zionism for the past hundred years and in the process have lost much ground, but have the persistence, tenacity and mulish disposition of a Sicilian peasant, and a vast Arab-Moslem-European hinterland to fall back on for financial and moral support. They will have none of the Zionist casuistry and are prepared to fight Israel forever, tooth and nail, to regain what they lost, what they consider to be rightfully theirs.
Apart from the great unwashed in Israel, who are just as uninterested and/or incapable of thinking much about anything as anywhere else in the world, there exists essentially two kinds of thinking Israeli. One is the “in your face” type, who fervently believes that, given time, Israel would ultimately prevail through superior force. The other is the “humanist” type, who believes just as fervently that Israel would ultimately prevail through the application of “equitable” European-style left-liberal principles to the conflict. The first approach concedes nothing, the second approach concedes something, but the bottom line of both is that Israel would prevail, and that the local Arabs and their backers could somehow be made to accept that their disposession is to be permanent. My judgement is that such hopes are too fanciful to merit serious consideration for even a second.
Meantime the Zionist hinterland of diaspora Jewry is steadily shrinking in both numbers and influence, Europe has become part of the Arab hinterland, America is waning as a hyperpower, and openly exercised Jewish political influence in the US is under enormous challenge consequent upon the neocon fiasco. None of this bodes well for Israel in the longer term, notwithstanding its current military and economic strength, which is considerable, but no more so than South Africa’s was at the height of apartheid.
Zionism is a misconceived and misbegotten monstrosity born of Jewish despair in 19th century Eastern Europe coupled with the romantic notion of nation state and the then fashionable repectability of overseas colonising ventures. It has given rise to some awesome achievements in nation building and many incredible examples of Jewish heroism. And perhaps what is most important and pertinent here is that there are millions of Israeli Jews today who were born there and even whose parents and grandparents were also born there, and these people have really nowhere else in the world that they can call home. So one way or another the world is stuck with the consequences of the Zionist nightmare.
It has to be very clear to anyone who cares to look at things as they are, rather than as he or she would like to have them be, that there can be no question whatever that the future looks very bleak for the Zionist venture in the Holy Land, and that the only question is whether it will end with a bang or a whimper. If with a bang, it will be Masada 21st century style, with much of the Middle East reduced to a poisoned moonscape. If with a whimper, the Jewish populations of America and Australia will steadily increase, until most Jews who would rather not live in an Arab country have succeeded in decamping from the Middle East. But that the Zionist venture will come to a sticky end, and that this will happen sooner rather than later, this is unfortunately a virtual certainty.
That said, I am a former Israeli, a soldier for many years in the Israeli army, and a former member of Herut, one of Likud’s predecessor parties.
Mike,
We agree that Israel can not win by force. But you never really support your “judgement” that my liberal Zionist philosophy is doomed, except perhaps with this:
“They [Palestinians] will have none of the Zionist casuistry and are prepared to fight Israel forever, tooth and nail, to regain what they lost, what they consider to be rightfully theirs.”
But this is simply not true. The same Gazans that support “Hamastan” today were overwhelmingly in favor of peace after Oslo. I’m talking between 80-90% approval. And this was true probably up until the day before Sharon’s disgusting jaunt on Temple Mount. It can be true again once we have a real leader as PM, who can back off the “in-your-face” enough to realize that the crackdowns will fail.
In fact, there is STILL near-unanimity in favor of recognizing Israel, even within Gaza (the “radical” area). Fatah is offering explicit recognition, and Hamas’s offer of a 50-year hudna is implicit recognition–that’s almost as long as Israel has been around. So except for the Islamic Jihad crazies that keep lobbing rockets into Sderot, there’s still a consensus. Everyone since Barak has just been too blind to see it.
In the 4th long paragraph (5th total) of your post, you list supposed long-term “structural trends” that will doom Israel. But in reality, these only apply so long as Israeli and American leadership are morons who isolate themselves diplomatically. Maybe a Sino-Israeli alliance is in the offing. Maybe states in the non-Arab Muslim world (e.g. Turkey, Iran) will ally with Israel against the Arabs. A lot can happen if there’s creative thought and diplomacy. Unfortunatlely, since 2000 both America and Israel are ruled be people who keep running us into the same walls.
The logic both the posters above me use is not really logic at all. For some unrevealed reason, they assume that most Palestinians are crazy enough to fight to the death, but most Israelis are not. Bull. This is one giant and apocalyptic game of chicken, in which each side “sees” the other trying to destroy it utterly, and decides it will keep up the irrational behavior until the other side submits.
Arnold,
You forgot religion. White South Africans are not the descendents of the same people whose religion began in S. Africa; whose holiest site is in South Africa; who have remembered the holy land from which they were ethnically cleansed 2000 years ago; and who, having been cleansed from every other place since, now view that land as their sole refuge.
Mike,
After the Arab revolts of 1936-9, the British appointed Jewish policemen from among the Jews who formerly were under Arab rule. For that brief period ONLY, Israel fit perfectly into the colonialism-postcolonial narrative. Then, Holocaust refugees began arriving, closely followed by refugees from the Arab World–whom the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem tried to cleanse. Israel is a refuge for Jews. It must always remain so. But assuring this does not require un-Jewish practices such as oppressing the stranger or barring him at the gates (when we were once strangers in Egypt).
Shlomo
You sound like a very nice guy and very reasonable, and I sincerely hope that you are right about Israel’s prospects.
I would like however to pull you up on a couple of points. One is colonialism. If you look at the stamps and documents of the old, pre-World War One Zionist associations in Central Europe, they all called themselves associations for the colonisation of Palestine. At the time, the colonisation of native lands was stiil a perfectly respectable and even desirable course of action for Europeans. One of the dimensions of the practice of colonisation involved a Europe-based populace settling and in the process expropriating some non-European territory for itself over the objections of the natives, as for instance in America, Australia or Africa. Granted that European Jews came to colonise the Turkish and later Mandatory Palestine out of desperation, to escape European antisemitism, and that as Jews, most of them regarded this process of establishing a Jewish political entity there as not merely an ideal solution to the Jewish Problem in Eastern Europe, but as self-evidently the most natural course of action to take, given the millenia of religious, emotional and historical links between the Jewish people and their Promised Land. None of that however mattered a penny farthing from the point of view of the natives, because from their point of view the Zionist settlement project was a colonising process, plain and simple, and continues to be so to this day. From their point of view, what walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck – well, it is a duck. I personally have no moral compunctions about admitting that the Zionist project was and is a colonising venture, however unfashionable and “in your face” an admission like that might be, and to say “good on you”, if you can get away with it. One might even venture to say that the Arabs have got a hell of a lot of empty land from the Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf, so let them get themselves a life and leave the Jews alone in their tiny sliver of colonised land. The catch is that I don’t think that there is the slightest propect that either the Arabs or most of the rest of the world will ever allow Israel to forget that it is actually a colonising project in progress, in an era of virulent anticolonialist sentiment, in a world that is already decades past worldwide decolonisation.
The second point I would like to pull you up on is this notion that the bulk of Palestinians were overwhelmingly for peace during the Oslo process, and that suitably skilled Israeli and Palestinian “leadership” could guide this suddenly benighted Arab populace back onto the road of rectitude and brotherly love for their Zionist expropriators, where they would happily compromise on their grievances, forget about the farm and the house that grandpappy left behind in some primitive peasant village near today’s Ranana, and generally settle down to get themselves a lfe in a rump Palestine made up of some crowded Bantustans. So what is meant by “peace” by a well-meaning Israeli left-liberal is unlikely to bear the slightest resemblance to what is meant by “peace” by a Palestinian Arab refugee, or even an “internal” Palestinian that carries an Israeli passport. In essence, the delusional “solution” offered by Israeli.left-liberals to the “Palestinian Problem” is certainly no less delusional than the “solution” Zionism offered to the “Jewish Problem” back around the turn of the twentieth century. Peace means diffferent things to different people, I personally know the Palestinians and their mentality very well and from close quarters, I worked with them for many years, and I wouldn’t trust any of them as far as I can throw. A brutal, primitive and benighted bunch of extended families, clans and tribes that hate each other’s guts almost as much as they hate the Jews. And aren’t we Jews so lucky, for how could we have survived and prospered these sixty years, even in the presence with our own continuous corrosive and often bitter internal bickering, if the Palestinians would have been like the Brits, the Germans, the Russians or the Americans? Well, we would have got nowhere fast, that would have been just about guaranteed. So we have no cause to complain on this score.
And on the Israeli side, it makes absolutely no sense to make peace with the Palestinian Arabs, and not just because it is not possible to make peace with a deeply fragmented, violent, brutal and primitive group of people who mentally have not as yet left the Middle Ages. It makes no sense to make peace, because in conditions of peace Israeli society would simultaneously implode and explode, with the religious and secular at each other’s throats, and various ethnic groups having a free for all. The only thing that keeps the Jews together is the external threat from the Palestinian Arabs, thus war and conflict are necessary for the health of Israeli society, and the costs are after all pretty low, certainly a mere fraction of the traffic carnage on Israel’s roads. A bearable cost, worht paying the price. So there is no need to rush into anything, it is enough to go through the motions and pay lip service to the road map to keep Bush happy until he closes shop in a year’s time, and meantime continue to establish facts on the ground without letup, i.e. continue the colonising venture in full swing.
Well now, that was a bit of a mouthful, wasn’t it! :-)))
Shlomo
And a couple of supplementary points.
One, from the Palestinian Arab point of view, the Jewish refugees after the European holocaust and the Arab Jews fleeing to Israel were as much part of the Zionist colonising project as were the people of the second and third aliya (prewar waves of Jewish emigration from Europe). No difference, and in any case, the Palestinians had nothing to do with the European holocaust or with the motivations of Arab Jews to emigrate to the nascent state of Israel. None of that was any skin of their backs, and from their perspectives merely meant more and more expropriation, and an increasingly permanent refugee status, since keeping them as refugees was the number one strategic weapon against Israel in the hands of the neighbouring Arab states.
The other point is that all this talk about “leadership” orr lack of it is really a piece of poppycock. No amount of leadership is capable of squaring a circle, and certainly not a heap of circles. In Israel at least, the political leadership is elected in a genuinely democratic political process , so the Jewish electorate gets exactly what it votes for, and even the Arab Israeli electorate too. The only people Israelis can blame for the poor quality of their leadership is themselves. But the quality of leadership is essentially a function of the situation, of having to square circles, so the key strategic capability required of an Israeli leader is to play for time while establishing further facts on the ground while leading the Palestinians and the Americans around by the nose. American presidents come and go, the dogs bark but the caravan proceeds apace. So Olmert is indeed a perfect leader for Israel, not just because he is a master of political manipulation inside and outside Israel, but veritably personifies the soul of Israeli society today. After all, strategic vision is a dangerous thing over there, because implementation might uncover the hollowness of the entire enterprise, so the focus must be on playing for time and establishing facts on the gound. Until, that is, ultimately the shit inevitably hits the fan and the whole Rube Goldberg contraption crashes onto the ground. But let us console ourselves with the thought that this may still be a fair few years off, so let’s just enjoy the day while we can and not rock the boat, lest we overturn.
🙂
“Maybe a Sino-Israeli alliance is in the offing. Maybe states in the non-Arab Muslim world (e.g. Turkey, Iran) will ally with Israel against the Arabs. ”
Welll…maybe. But it’s hard to see what Israel would have to offer China, Turkey – or anyone else for that matter – once it is no longer an adjunct of the world’s only superpower. As US power wanes, and/or the US finally realises that Israel is an enormous strategic burden, Israel will be about as valuable a partner as RSA was in the late ’80s. Plus, ‘the Arabs’ (meaning the unrepresentative governments) are for the most part, if not at peace, then not exactly at war with Israel. It’s the Arab people who are the problem for Israel, and they’re not going anywhere. Temporary alliances of convenience with sundry corrupt governments can only take Israel so far, and probably have already taken it as far as it can go. Indeed, by your comments above you seem to acknowledge that powerful sponsors or allies are essential to the Israeli project. In their absence, it’s hard to see how Israel can survive in its present form.
“For some unrevealed reason, they assume that most Palestinians are crazy enough to fight to the death, but most Israelis are not.”
No, I don’t think that is the thinking. It’s not about being ‘crazy’, it’s about having no other choice. The Palestinians living in wretched refugee camps really have very little to lose, and very few options. The same is not true for many Israelis, who often have dual nationality (or easily could have). Also, given the relative prosperity of the Israeli middle class, it is at least questionable if, in the event of the going getting tough, many of them – particularly the former Soviets – would risk losing all just to stay in Israel.
Similarly, while you obviously know far more about Israeli society than I do, there is a common perception that Israeli society has lost its will to fight.This is not the generation of Ben Gurion, or even Moshe Dayan. Israelis pride themselves on their toughness, but at the same time – and this is a country which considers itself ‘at war’ – they consider 12 casualties from rocket attacks in 5 years to be completely unacceptable. In Palestine, by contrast, 12 casualties in a single day are not unusual. Observers of Israeli military practice and hardware often point out that they seem designed with one purpose in mind: minimising casualties (Israeli casualties, obviously). This may sound like a laudable enough objective, but is such a priority really in line with a supposedly ‘hard as nails’ society? If and when push really comes to shove – I’m obviously not talking about the phony war Israel currently likes to think it is fighting – will the secular, globalised middle classes really choose to sacrifice their sons (and daughters), when other options are available to them? These are questions which need to be asked.
As for the Palestinians, they simply have nowhere else to go.
Mike,
“I don’t think that there is the slightest propect that either the Arabs or most of the rest of the world will ever allow Israel to forget that it is actually a colonising project in progress”
I agree, and that is the essence of the two-state solution. Israel maintains a colonial regime by force in the West Bank and Gaza; it is a democratic regime, even for Arabs, within Israel proper. The way to end the colonialist project is to stop trying to conquer the Palestinian Territories.
“A brutal, primitive and benighted bunch of extended families, clans and tribes…primitive group of people who mentally have not as yet left the Middle Ages”
Dear Lord! Clearly, colonialist thought is alive and well in Israel today. This seems to underly, for you at least, the idea that Palestinians are too irrational to settle for a two-state solution. But this is more bull. If Palestinian civil society has “not left the Middle Ages”, it is because Israelis (and some elements within Palestinian society) have deliberately kept it there. It’s hard to build up societal institutions when a majority of your civic leaders are in IDF jails. It’s also hard when every election, you can vote either for grinding poverty under a corrupt government or grinding poverty due to economic strangulation. Clearly, if this type of societal breakdown is encouraged, an astounding array of gangsters will rush to fill the void.
I also don’t believe your pessimism about Israeli society. Israel has only been around for 60 years, and is basically a patchwork of huge refugee exoduses (Tsarist Russia, Holocaust, Arab World, Soviet Jewry). Clearly, there are going to be some differences to overcome. But this “bitter bickering” is a hallmark of democracy. It happens in India and in America too. I don’t see how Israeli society is any worse of than these others, which are both doing fine.
Your reason why strategic leadership is dangerous: “the focus must be on playing for time and establishing facts on the gound”. Again–the facts are already well-established in Israel. The problem is the settlers who want to put more “facts on the ground” in the West Bank. I agree with you, this effort is very hollow, and it’s a good reason to withdraw from the Palestinian Territories.
Murphy,
Israel is a center of technological innovation in its own right. It is in a strategic location and has a powerful military. It’s not like we’re talking about Somalia here.
In which comments did I say Israel needed powerful sponsors?
Both of you,
The whole idea that the Palestinians have nowhere else to go–AGAIN!–only explains why continued Occupation is foolish. Once there are two states, Palestinians will have a choice between building up society and chasing after nationalist dreams–and so will Israelis!!
Some people in Israel might geniunely consider 12 casualties unacceptable. But for most, I suspect it’s a propaganda ploy designed to justify whatever idiotic militaristic option is on the table.
Murphy
I would like to comment on your statement that:
“The Palestinians living in wretched refugee camps really have very little to lose, and very few options.”
The term “refugee camp” is a misnomer, since it evokes tents and primitive conditions on the ground, whilst Palestinian refuges live in settlements made up mostly of multi-storey cinder block buildings, where the slum conditions are most often their own making.
It is true that keeping them there leaves them with few options, but that has always been the whole point of their Arab bretheren confining the Palestinian refugees to the “camps”, to keep them in a physical and psychological condition that would ensure that they continue to serve as the most crucial strategic weapon in the Arab struggle against the Zionist colonial venture.
The limited options that Palestinian refugees have is to a very large extent a matter of their own choice, since that is the way their leadership wants things to be, with all other options absolutely subordinated to the armed and political-psychological struggle against the Zionist enemy.
In this connection, one might ask oneself how much of the many, many billions of dollars worth of cash aid received by the Palestinians over the years, particularly from Europe, have actually trickled down into slum clearance, schools, modern apartment buildings, public parks and the creation of meaningful work for the unemployed in public and private enterprise. And how much into arms and and into the private bank accounts of the leadership.
Unlike Israelis of European origin, Palestinians are Middle Easterners in the traditionally understood sense of the term. They are supremely patient and incredibly tenacious, their sense of time is traditional and not geared to craving for immediate gratification, and their brutal, medieval value system is one that is totally alien to the value system of Westerners, although of course they will never hesitate to play on, and play to, Western sensitivities, in the furtherance of their cause.
You end your comment with this:
“As for the Palestinians, they simply have nowhere else to go.”
Well, yes, primarily because their Arab bretheren would not let them resettle anywhere else in the wide lands between the Atlantic Ocean and the Persian Gulf, even if the Palestinian Arabs wished to do so, which they mostly don’t, since they themselves prefer to remain the potent weapon against the Zionist venture that they are, and thereby keep the struggle against Zionism alive and well until final victory.
At the same time, let us remember that those Jews who are native-born in Israel and whose parents, grandparents might already have been native-born there, are also in the position of simply having nowhere else to go, even if they wanted to, which they mostly don’t, of course.
A classic case of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.
The problem of Zionism is that the Palestinians can win without the Jews going any where. If the Jews want to stay in an Arab majority country they can.
For the Zionists to win, the Arabs have to go somewhere.
The immovable force already met the irresistable object in South Africa. Neither moved, but when everyone voted in place, the dream of a White state in southern Africa had ended.
Right.
Not if we lop off the West Bank and Gaza. In S. Africa, there was a homogeneous area of apartheid rule. Here, there are three different types of government systems in three different areas, and the democratic area should have a Jewish majority for a looong time.
Well, Shlomo, that will depend on who means what by the West Bank, and who agrees to what and who doesn’t. The body politic of both the Israelis and the Palestinians is just far too fragmented and too full of crazies to make posssible any kind of a viable agreement. between the two sides There are simply too many potential spoilers on the Palestinian side and the Israeli side hasn’t got a shortage of its own crazies either.
And in any case, why make the assumption that the Palestinians would be satisfied, could be satisfied, with control over the West Bank and Gaza. Because they say so? Well, that’s a laugh. These are Middle Easterners, for whom lying, subterfuge and backstabbing have been a way of life for milennia, who will say anything whatsoever in the service of their objectives. And why shouldn’t they? After all, they have been well and truly diddled and dudded by the Zionist Jews, thus by extension by World Jewry too, since they form the hinterland of support from which the Zionist Jews draw strength, resources and succour. I think that any Israeli who is deluded enough to believe that the Palestinians will ever be satisfied by the Bantustans on the West Bank and the Gaza enclosure ought to have his head read by a psychiatrist or consult the tooth fairy. Why should the Bantustans be more important or more significant to the Paelstinians than the little triangle on the coastal plain, the big triangle in the Galilee and the homes of their grandfathers in Haifa, Jaffa or Ramle? Apart, that is, as temporary bases of operation for pushing the Jews out from all areas of West Palestine. In my humblest opinion, the “peace dividends” of lopping off the West Bank and Gaza will last exactly until the minute when SHOCK!, HORROR! the first shoulder held rocket attack is mounted on Ben Gurion airport, or the first new suicide bomber will hit a crowded Jerusalem bus.
Anyway, from the Palestinian point of view “lopping off the West Bank” can only mean one thing: the return to the 1949 armistice lines, so as to bring Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion airport within easy rocket and mortar range of the Palestinian irregulars – on the good cop, bad cop principle of “my brother is crazy, what can I do about it?”. Because make no mistake, what the Palestinians are currently engaged in is simply salami tactics in the service of their ultimate strategic goal of getting rid of the Jewish interlopers from the territory of all of West Palestine – just as what the Israelis are currently engaged in is playing for time, and leading the Palestinians and Americans by the nose around in the “road map” merry-go-around.
Naturally, the Israeli leadership is perfectly well aware of the true intentions of the Palestinian leadership and of the Palestinian Arab clans and tribes as a whole, both east and west of the security fence, and none of the fine words issuing from the mouths of the Palestinian leadership washes with anyone in Israel, not even with most post-Zionists, except those on the loony left. At most, Israel would only be prepared to release SOME of its strategic stranglehold on the Bantustans beyond the security fence, excluding of course the Jordan valley, and throw in perhaps as a bonus a couple of Arab neighbourhoods in Jerusalem, as long as they could be made contiguous with the Bantustans on the other side and effectively isolated from the rest of Greater Jerusalem.
So the idea of being able to”lop off” the West Bank and achieve thereby peace with the Palestinian Arabs, or even get to a point where there was no longer any need for the continuous physical presence and vigilance of the Israeli army and intelligence services to prevent sabotage, suicide bombings and rocket attacks from the West Bank – or for that matter that there would be no further applicants for the status of shahid by blowing themselves up on a crowded Israeli bus – would seem to me to be absolute nonsense, the delusions of sensitive left-liberal souls among Israeli intellectuals. Under the circumstances, then, what on earth would or could “lopping off the West Bank” actually achieve in concrete terms?
As far as Gaza is concerned, it has already got “lopped off”, but for the life of me I can’t see what the hell THAT has actually achieved, apart from a heck of a lot more irritation and aggravation than ever before.
Israel is definitely not apartheid South Africa, but what is for sure that many unfortunate, but perfectly valid parallels can be drawn between them. I hope you are right, Shlomo, that Israel is not going to get forced into ending up in the same or a similar sticky mess that apartheid South Africa ended up in. I certainly am far less hopeful and not at all as sanguine about this than you seem to be.
“The term “refugee camp” is a misnomer, since it evokes tents and primitive conditions on the ground,”
That is the standard phrase used to describe the places where Palestinians live in Gaza and elsewhere.
“the slum conditions are most often their own making.”
A bit like how the disgusting ghettos where so many Jews lived were made that way by their naturally filthy inhabitants?
“confining the Palestinian refugees to the “camps”, to keep them in a physical and psychological condition that would ensure that they continue to serve as the most crucial strategic weapon in the Arab struggle against the Zionist colonial venture.”
I think you’re a few decades behind the times. The Arab governments, for the most part, would like nothing better than to be rid of the “Palestinian problem”. They would mostly like to normalise with Israel, but they know that their populations would not tolerate this. And while I agree with the point that the governments have used and abused the Palestinian refugeees for decades, I hardly think it is their responsibility to atone for Israel’s ethnic cleansing of its Palestinian population.
“their brutal, medieval value system is one that is totally alien to the value system of Westerners, ”
Hmmmm…. once a Likudnik, always a Likudnik?
“Western sensitivities”
To paraphrase Gandhi, they would be a nice idea.
“have actually trickled down into slum clearance, schools, modern apartment buildings, public parks and the creation of meaningful work for the unemployed in public and private enterprise. And how much into arms and and into the private bank accounts of the leadership.”
That succesive Palestinian ‘leaders’ have been corrupt goes without saying. However, it’s a bit much to ask a people under occupation to build an infrastructure when a) they are currently under brutal sanctions, and b) their territoriy is constantly subject to ongoing Israeli colonisation, not to mention intermittent raids often designed specifcally to destroy Palestine’s infrastructure. Plus, the nation which is the biggest charity case in history – and which has seen welfare standards plummet over the last few decades – is in no position to lecture anyone in this regard.
“those Jews who are native-born in Israel and whose parents, grandparents might already have been native-born there, are also in the position of simply having nowhere else to go, even if they wanted to, which they mostly don’t, of course.”
Many of these people have dual nationality, or could obtain it easily enough. But of course I am not saying that all Israelis will simply up and leave when the going gets tough, although many of the best and brightest probably will. As the state of Israel becomes weaker, and its sponsors melt away, those that remain will no longer be in a position to force a Zionist state on the Arabs of the region. Like the Afrikaners, they may have no option other than to accept equal status with Muslims and Christians. If they’re lucky, that is.
Arnold,
“when everyone voted in place, the dream of a White state in southern Africa had ended. ”
Yes, but this did not happen spontaneously. Only when the price of maintaining Apartheid became unbearable did the whites agree to power sharing. The same is true for Israel: right now – and whatever they might say – Zionism is pretty much pain free for Israeli Jews. They have little incentive to change things. However, that will change dramatically, partly for the reasons outlined above – the only questions are when and how.
Shlomo,
“Not if we lop off the West Bank and Gaza.”
Mike has already pointed out why the idea of Israel’s attaining peace and security in perpetuity by ‘lopping off’ the OT, really is a fantasy. Besides, there is absolutely no reason to believe that any Israeli leadership has the slightest intention of making any meaningful territorial ‘concessions’ to the Palestinians.
“the democratic area should have a Jewish majority for a looong time.”
Well, a ‘looong’ time is open to interpretation, but yes, it does seem that Jews will be the majority in so-called “Israel proper” for the foreseeable future. However, there is equally little doubt that Palestinian population growth will continue to outstrip Israeli Jewish growth. Also, Jewish immigration to Israel is at it’s lowest pint in – well – a looong time. Can Israel – even if, for the sake of argument, we indulge the fantasy that it will ‘give up’ the West Bank – continue to call itself democratic if it is a self-proclaimed “Jewish state” with, say, a 35% non-Jewish population?
Mike,
“I hope you are right, Shlomo, that Israel is not going to get forced into ending up in the same or a similar sticky mess that apartheid South Africa ended up in”
Personally, I think the Israelis would be doing very well to end up like the white South Africans – shorn of racial privileges but allowed to live as equal citizens in a democratic state. It’s possible the demise of Zionism may come about in such a manner – relatively peacefully and with little desire for revenge from the long-oppressed population – but I would say it’s more likely that Israeli Jews may find themselves rushing to the ports like the Greeks of Smyrna or the colons of Algeria. And it could yet be worse, for all concerned.
Mike’s contribution: “And on the Israeli side, it makes absolutely no sense to make peace with the Palestinian Arabs, and not just because it is not possible to make peace with a deeply fragmented, violent, brutal and primitive group of people who mentally have not as yet left the Middle Ages.”
The irony is that the Palestinians apparently entered the Middle Ages in 1967. Wonder what happened then…..?
Seriously, this is nothing more than the lowest-common denominator version of “no partner for peace.” The more Israel wants the land, the more evil the Palestinians become.
Mike,
Read my comments to Y. Ben-David earlier in the thread. I am not sanguine about this situation at all. I just think that our best hope for a Jewish homeland is through peace.
This is why the disengagment from Gaza did not work. You can unilaterally withdraw from a territory, but you can not unilaterally declare peace. The disengagement was based on your idea that Palestinians are too stupid to make peace, so we should just go ahead with things–worked great, didn’t it?
Beyond that, there is a HUGE difference between trying to keep a population down forever, and trying to defend yourself from militants. A people under military rule have no choice but to fight back in some form, But if these people actually control a territory, they have something to lose. They find better things to do than constantly bomb Israel, knowing they’ll be attacked in return.
We see this before our very eyes in Gaza today. Hamas fired rockets practically every day before seizing power, and now that it has power, it’s stopped, and other opposition groups are doing it. In the 2-3 days when Hamas took power, did it suddenly rush ahead from a “Medeival” to a “modern” mindset? And did the Fatah militants who fire all the rockets now similarly fall backward?
Nope. Hamas has something to lose, it wants to stablize society, it’s not interested in trading rocket fire with Israel for another 50 years. Apparently, however, your charming mindset is too popular in the IDF, so no one’s paying attention to this.
Murphy,
Dear Lord! I know the moderator of this forum is South African, and I think the end of apartheid was great. But it’s absurd to think that every place will be like South Africa. It could also be like Rwanda.
In the 1959 “Hutu Revolution”, the majority Hutus threw off the yolk of Tutsi oppression. After numerous fits and starts, Rwanda appeared well on its way to a prosperous democratic state in the 1980’s, led by Hutus. Then, there were a few important assassinations, followed closely the Rwanda Genocide.
Why is Israel closer to S. Africa than to Rwanda? What prevents Jews from being the next Tutsis?
OH, that’s why! Silly me!
Murphy
You say:
A bit like how the disgusting ghettos where so many Jews lived were made that way by their naturally filthy inhabitants?
I say:
I am not aware that Europe and America were willing to donate billions of dollars a year, to finance the clean up disgusting Jewish ghettos and help their denizens acquire the amenities of civilised life.
You say:
I think you’re a few decades behind the times. The Arab governments, for the most part, would like nothing better than to be rid of the “Palestinian problem”. They would mostly like to normalise with Israel, but they know that their populations would not tolerate this. And while I agree with the point that the governments have used and abused the Palestinian refugeees for decades, I hardly think it is their responsibility to atone for Israel’s ethnic cleansing of its Palestinian population.
I say:
I am not aware that there is any Arab country with Palestinian Arab refugees that would be willing to grant them equal rights, including the right to work, nor am I aware of any Arab country from the Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf, which would be willing to resettle and rehabilitate hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arab refugees as Israel resettled and rehabilitated hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews from those lands, nor am I aware of too many billionaire Arab oil shieks or sheikdoms willing to donate generously for the in-situ rehabilitation of Palestinian Arab refugees, even to some small fraction of what the Europeans and Americans have already donated and are willing to donate.for this purpose. Why? I tell you why. Because that would cause the disappearence of the “Palestinian problem” so fast that it would seem that there never was a “Palestinian problem”. And understandably that is the last thing that either the Palestinian Arabs or their bretheren in the the Arab League would want, since their ultimate strategic aim is not any old resolution of the “Palestinian problem”, but one that gets rid of the Jews from all of West Palestine. That said, if what we are talking about is not just any old resolution of the “Palestinian problem”, but the absolute necessity for exacting full retribution for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians followed by full restitution for those ethnically cleansed Palestinians, I agree that it would be most impolitic and counterproductive on the part of any Arab government or Palestinian leader to lift even one little finger to palliate or mitigate in any way the misery of these children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Palestinian Arab refugees. On the contrary, the more miserable they are, the better, because that makes it possible to keep the Struggle going at full bore and at the centre of international attention, and not least because misery makes a heck of a better copy in the international media than satisfied, happy customers. Ergo, the miserableness of the Palestinian refugees must be maintained as a crucial strategic weapon in the struggle against the Zionist entity, irrespective of what some “good cop” Arabs in government might say for Western consumption, whilst “bad cop” Arabs on the Arab street continue to do of course what comes natural. Ergo, I ain’t a few decades behind the times, but right on the knocker.
You say:
“their brutal, medieval value system is one that is totally alien to the value system of Westerners, ”
I say:
Murphy, I understand that a statement like this might not be to your taste, which is no doubt refined, postmodern and multicultural – on the contrary, you might find it most distasteful, racist, even hateful. Nonetheless, it is totally factual, not asserted lightly, and based on many years of intensive experience with both Arab peasants, town Arabs and educated Arabs in the Land of Palestine.
You say:
Hmmmm…. once a Likudnik, always a Likudnik?
I say:
Well, I suppose, you can get Mike out of the Likud, but you can’t get the Likud out of Mike. Bur seriously, with ideas like mine, I would be drummed out of Likud today, then summarily shot, hung and quartered. When I was a member of the predecessor party many, many decades ago, it was a different world in which I was a young romantic idealist. Things have moved on since: that world is no more and that person is no more.
You say:
That succesive Palestinian ‘leaders’ have been corrupt goes without saying.
I say:
Why? Is that a law of nature? Or perhaps it might have something to do with the above-mentioned value system?
You say:
However, it’s a bit much to ask a people under occupation to build an infrastructure when a) they are currently under brutal sanctions, and b) their territoriy is constantly subject to ongoing Israeli colonisation, not to mention intermittent raids often designed specifcally to destroy Palestine’s infrastructure. Plus, the nation which is the biggest charity case in history – and which has seen welfare standards plummet over the last few decades – is in no position to lecture anyone in this regard.
I say:
Why are they under occupation? I seem to vaguely remember that there used to be something called the Oslo process which would have ultimately put an end to the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, though not of the rest of West Palestine, which of course happened to be the core of the problem from the Palestinian point of view. So, it is not at all surprising that, as I seem to recall, it was not actually the Israelis that have brought this Oslo process to grinding halt.
Why are they under brutal sanctions? It is certainly not because they make a habit of helping little old ladies across the road in Israel.
Why is their territory constantly subject to ongoing Israeli colonisation? If theyhad cut a deal with the Jews in 1948, there would have been no ethnic cleansing in 1948 – and probably no viable State of Israel either in the three tiny West Palestinian enclaves allocated to the Jews by the UN. If they had cut a deal with the Jews after 1967, there would have been very little likelihood of mounting any kind of a “viable” settlement program in Gaza and the West Bank. If they had cut a deal as part of the Oslo process, there woould be absolutely no ongoing colonisation today. For, just as keeping the refugee problem alive is the most fundamental Arab strategic weapon, ongoing, creeping colonisation is the most fundamental Jewish strategic weapon. For, paradoxically, it is the “intransigence” of Palestinian Arabs that has always been the greatest facilitator of the Zionist colonising venture from the start, and its chief “critical success factor” especially since the establishment of the State of Israel.
Not to mention intermittent raids often designed specifcally to destroy Palestine’s infrastructure? Well, that is no doubt because Israel is dissatisfied by the quantities of lollies and chocolates donated to Israeli kindergartens by kindly Palestinian Arab communities in the West Bank and Gaza. Anyway, I think that you are getting mixed up here between Lebanese infrastucture deliberately destroyed in the misbegotten war of 2006, and collateral damage caused in West Bbank and Gaza infrastructure when chasing after kindly distributors of lollies and chocolates to Israeli kindergartens.
The nation which is the biggest charity case in history – and which has seen welfare standards plummet over the last few decades – is in no position to lecture anyone in this regard? Presumably you are referring to Israel. It sure ain’t a charity case today, after having absorbed a half a million Holocaust refugees, another half a million Arab Jewish refugees and lately a million or so Soviet Jewish refugees, whilst creating a top class public infrastucture, building world class industires and agriculature, attaining an average standard of living that is better than in many European countries, and all the while successfully overcoming all manner of external military and strategic threat. Smart, very smart, and lots to lecture about in this regard to anyone who cares to listen. Sure, the funding of all of this needed a heck of a lot of external investment – or charity, as you would have it – but so what? And sure, it was courtesy of the American taxpayer that much of this funding was made available, although let us remember that the bulk of the funding has always been tied to purchasing American goods and services.
The drop in Israeli welfare standards “plummetting” over the “past decades”? Where did that one popped up from? There were indeed some consequences of the relatively recent significant liberalisation and privatisation of what used to be a largely government owned socialist command economy, and the welfare lobby has of course been very vocal and public in its objections to this entire very necessary process. But anyway, why is this a matter of such seemingly vital and overwhelming concern to you?
And the end of the day what was the point you were trying to make here? My principal point is that the Arabs could certainly have been able to notch up similar achievements with respect to their refugees and in the matter of Palestine, if they wished to, as the Jews have been able to achieve with their refugees and their state.
Having said this, I also understand of course perfectly well why the Arabs did not and would not wish to do so.
Murphy
You say:
Many of these people have dual nationality, or could obtain it easily enough. But of course I am not saying that all Israelis will simply up and leave when the going gets tough, although many of the best and brightest probably will. As the state of Israel becomes weaker, and its sponsors melt away, those that remain will no longer be in a position to force a Zionist state on the Arabs of the region. Like the Afrikaners, they may have no option other than to accept equal status with Muslims and Christians. If they’re lucky, that is.
I say:
Agreed. As I said earlier, the Zionist enterprise might end in a whimper or might end in a bang, but that it will sooner or later end is I think not open to serious question. If it ends in a whimper, there might remain some significant ethnic Jewish minority in an Arab majority State of Palestine, Jews who would either be diehards and those who would have nowhere else to go. If it ends in a bang, the entire Middle East will be reduced to a poisoned moonscape for centuries to come. This, by the way, is a thought that have prevented more adventurous Arab states from attempting to do anything about Israel over the past few decades. Oh, the beauties of a nuclear, chemical and bacterological arsenal! :-))
Matthew
You say:
The irony is that the Palestinians apparently entered the Middle Ages in 1967. Wonder what happened then…..?
I say:
Duh?
You say:
Seriously, this is nothing more than the lowest-common denominator version of “no partner for peace.” The more Israel wants the land, the more evil the Palestinians become.
I say:
Nonsense. This is the Middle East, where endless hard haggling is the rule in the oriental marketplace, and the haggling only ends when both sides feel they have made a fair trade. No such trade is possible however where one side is weak and the other side is strong, since for the weak side it is dangerous to compromise from a position of weakness, whilst for the strong side there is little incentive to compromise from a position of strength.
Israel will continue the creeping colonisation process as long as the Arabs insist on keeping the Palestinian refugee problem alive and well, and vice versa. The dynamics of the two nicely complement each other, in that Israel acts from a position of strength (“therefore why should it stop or compromise?”), whilst the Arabs act from a position of weaknesss (“therefore why should theyI stop or compromise?”), and thus the irresistible force meets the immovable object.
In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are three possible circuit breakers that could break this vicious cycle: (1) Israel gives up on the creeping colonisation without the Arabs having given up on the retribution and restitution project for the Palestinian Arab refugees (not bloody likely), (2) The Arabs give up on the retribution and restitution project without the Israelis giving up on the the creeping colonisation project , together with somehow just disappearing over the horizon and out of the face of the Arabs (not bloody likely either), (3) a la South Africa, an overwhelming force of American and international public opinion causing American and other geo-strategic, political, economical and financial support for Israel to melt away and dry up, consequently bringing about the hara-kiri of the State of Israel, whether in a bang or in a whimper. This third option is unfortunately the likely scenario to be played out over the next few decades.
Shlomo,
“But it’s absurd to think that every place will be like South Africa. It could also be like Rwanda.”
It’s a shame you didn’t read my post. I said that for Israel to end up like Apartheid SA might be the least bad option for Israeli Jews. I never said it would be the only one.
“Why is Israel closer to S. Africa than to Rwanda? What prevents Jews from being the next Tutsis?”
This really is not at all an appropriate analogy. The similarities with SA are obvious, in that you have a group of colonial settlers who have constructed a system of law and infrastructure which gives them considerable privileges over the native population. Now, I of course am aware that most Israelis do not see themselves as colonists, but the fact is that that is precisely how most of the world – including, more to the point, almost every single Palestinian and Arab – sees them.
The situation in Rwanda was very different, in that you had two ethnic groups who were both indigenous, had the same skin colour, spoke the same language and practised the same religion. Intermarriage between the two groups was common, and they could often only be distinguished by their ID cards. None of these things are the case in Israel-Palestine, where the two groups are easily distinguishable by language and religion – if nothing else – and the ethnic nature of the Israeli state means that for the most part they have little to do with one another. So saying that the Jews could end up like the Tutsis really isn’t a strong analogy.
Of course, I agree that massacres – of one or both groups – is an all too possible scenario at some stage in Zionism’s almost inevitable demise. However, as I’ve said, the Jews of Palestine are more likely to end up like the colons of Algiers or the Greeks of Smyrna.
Shlom
You say:
This is why the disengagment from Gaza did not work. You can unilaterally withdraw from a territory, but you can not unilaterally declare peace. The disengagement was based on your idea that Palestinians are too stupid to make peace, so we should just go ahead with things–worked great, didn’t it?
I say:
Did I ever say that the Palestinians are too stupid to make peace? Where did you get that one from, Shlomo?
Did I ever imply that I ever was or am today for any kind of unilateral withdrawal, as in Gaza? Where did you get that one from?
You say:
But if these people actually control a territory, they have something to lose. They find better things to do than constantly bomb Israel, knowing they’ll be attacked in return.
I say:
You hope.
You say:
We see this before our very eyes in Gaza today. Hamas fired rockets practically every day before seizing power, and now that it has power, it’s stopped, and other opposition groups are doing it. In the 2-3 days when Hamas took power, did it suddenly rush ahead from a “Medeival” to a “modern” mindset? And did the Fatah militants who fire all the rockets now similarly fall backward?
I say:
I have a somewhat more jaundiced interpretation of the events you refer to. What we see here are various versions of the “good cop, bad cop” routine or the “I am your buddy, it is my brother iwho is doggone crazy, but what do you expect me to do about it?” routine being played out. And for your information, Shlomo, the mindsets of both the good cop and the bad cop are equally medieval, or let’s charitably say “Sicilian”. That should not come as a terribly great surprise to you, if you are an Israeli, and have eyes to see and ears to hear – unless of course you hold that if the fact don’t fit the theory, to hell with the facts.
Having said this, the fact that the vast majority of Arabs have this medieval mindset of clans and tribes, generational bloodfeuds and honour killings, of unimaginable brutality and routine backstabbing, piracy and kidnapping, of barfaced lying whilst smiling into the face of the other, woman as chattel, etc. etc. – the mention of all of which might be terribly offensive to your delicate left liberal sensibilities – well, none of that has actually got anything to do with the price of rice, as far as the Arabs are concerned.
On the contrary, that medieval mindset is a most magnificient asset in their generational struggle against the Zionist entity, since it is is also the wellspring of incredible tenacity, of mulish stubbornness, of the ability to make do with very, very little in the way of material comfort and to endure unimaginable hardship in the service of the Cause. And having a medieval mindset does not of course in any way impede figuring out ever more inventive ways to harass the Jews, particularly if there is substantial outside help in stimulating the creative imagination and fund the implementation of its products.
Shlomo
And by the way, I am an equal opportunity defamer, and have just as much contempt, if not more, a lot more, for the medievals and neanderthals among the Jews – of which there are almost as many tribes today in Israel as among the Arabs – as for the medievals and neanderthals among the Arabs and Islamists.
Just to set the record straight.
:-))
Murphy, Shlomo
Re the medieval mindset issue, may I add to the list a mindless religosity combined with equally mindless violence, an unbelievable capacity for corruption, a chronic sense of grievance and that nothing is ever their fault or their own making – and this is an all-Arab, rather than just a Palestinian Arab characteristic – a lust for revenge that can be never satisfied, and of course the already mentioned endless blood feauds followed by tribal peace making or “sulcha”.
Shlomo
But none of this means that they are in any way “stupid”, merely that they are medieval in their thinking, which is a whole different ball of wax.
Mike: You apparently haven’t realized that in America decent people are embarrassed by overarching negative generalizations about people. This is not naiviety. It comes from our legacy as slave holders: We know that our older, racist political order required the utter dehumanization of its victims, i.e., Native Americans and African-Americans. So we are a little sensitive to people giving us the skinny on “primitivism” of an ENTIRE REGION.
You seem to have drank quite deeply from this cup during your tours with the IDF. Maybe if you had spent less time violating Palestinian human rights, you might now have a different perspective.
Mike,
It seems like this argument is no longer about politics, but about the premises underlying our viewpoints on the Mideast. You see incorrigible Neanderthals on each side (especially the Palestinian), who will inevitably act as “spoilers”; I see people who are hurt, and who wish to protect their families and bring dignity to their people.
I know it’s a lot of fun to highlight the worst in human nature. Sometimes I do it too. But ultimately, it can bring no good to this world. Based on the limited amount I know about you, it seems that after time in Likud and the IDF, you see the flaws in each. But you have also internalized the negative traits you’ve seen, and this prevents you from seeing a way out.
This is not about one state versus two state anymore. If there are enough people on EITHER side who are implacable, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will ultimately end in genocide. Be the change you wish to see.
Matthew
A description of any culture and social psychology necessarily involves making overarching generalisations about people. How else do you describe a culture? The question is not so much whether those generalisations paint a negative picture, but whether the picture painted is factual, valid, balanced and defensible. An anthropologist may judge childhood female circumcision as just another social custom that merits scientific attention, no different from any other rite of passage, and in the process make absolutely no ethical judgement about the practice. An ethicist steeped in a Universal Humanist or Judeo-Christian value system, on the other hand, may condemn the practice, even if such condemnation brings with it the opprobrium of politically incorrect.ness in the eyes of some. I freely admit that my description of Arab social mores and social psychology is politically incorrect, but I do not intend this to be taken as any kind of judgement call on the Arabs, who in their own lands and communities are perfectly entitled to practice whatever traditions and customs they chose. On the other hand, I would rather be politically incorrect than than coyly – if politically correctly – avert the eyes and engage in the usual nonsensical pretenses about the way things actually are among the Arabs. So yes, I prefer being objective, if politically incorrect, to being sentimental and inaccurate, but politically correct. As far as my personal habits of drinking IDF poison from mugs and cruelly oppressing helpless Palestinians are concerned, well yes, you are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion.