Gideon Levy, well-known voice in the wilderness, urges an end to "Word Games", with hopes that our President won't get dragged into the long-lasting posturing so typical of Israeli leadership as they thumb their noses at US and International strictures against settlement expansion on Palestinian territory.
(I'm trying, intentionally, to lighten up on the number of articles I send you, hoping to bring more hopeful "signs of the in-breaking kingdom" from people on the ground, who've been there recently and report people-to-people exchanges that defy "enemy combatant" characterizations, so typical of the secular press). Peace, reconciliation (Without justice there will be no peace; without love, there will be no justice -- JRK)
Word games
The only recognition that is needed now is Israel's recognition of the Palestinians as human beings.
By Gideon Levy
Ha'aretz -- Thursday - April 23, 2009
Lord have mercy: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has relinquished for the moment his demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as "a Jewish state" as a condition for negotiations. He has deigned to postpone the demand until future stages. Listen up, world: Perhaps, just perhaps, Netanyahu will also see fit to utter the forbidden phrase "two states for two peoples."
The slogan of yesterday's illegitimate radical left will be heard publicly in Washington from the mouth of Israel's most right-wing prime minister ever, and everyone will sing the praises of the historic turnaround. The diplomatic process will again take wing and the expectations will soar. Peace is just around the corner.
Once again the diplomatic arena has become a playground of words. This will be said and that will be declared and the other will be proclaimed. This is a guarantee of another foregone failure.
Whether or not Netanyahu says two states, nothing will change. The Americans will rejoice, the Europeans will be thrilled, the Israeli right will wax wrathful, commentators will again write with pathos about how the dream of the greater land of Israel has been shelved - and the occupation will flourish.
The Jewish settlements in the territories will also continue to metastasize. After all, most Israelis, and at least two prime ministers and two leaders of the opposition, already said yes to the formula for peace long ago, and nothing has happened.
No less contemptible are the word games over the desired recognition of Israel: For a generation now we have been amusing ourselves with them. The silly game should have ended 16 years ago, and we are still at it. In September of 1993, Yasser Arafat promised prime minister Yitzhak Rabin that the Palestine Liberation Organization would recognize Israel; three years later, in April 1996, the Palestinian National Council convened and ratified the recognition.
The barrage of words demanding a change in the charter should have stopped right away, but the Israeli longing for recognition was not satisfied. Two years later, in December 1998, U.S. president Bill Clinton went all the way to Gaza and there, at a formal session of the Palestinian National Council, no less than 12 terrible clauses were deleted from the Palestinian Charter (phooey on it) and along with them, another 16 sub-clauses.
Huge rejoicing. Council member Jawad al-Tibi from Gaza said that he had voted with his feet, not only his hand. At that time the prime minister was none other than Netanyahu, the same Netanyahu who is again trying to squeeze out another unnecessary recognition. After the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state there will no doubt come the demand to recognize Saturday as its day of rest, and after that perhaps also a demand for Palestinian recognition of the law prohibiting the display of leaven during Passover.
But we aren't talking about having fun here, rather about fateful issues. Only those who want to prevent progress are engaging in these vanities of recognition, and only a country with especially limp self-confidence needs recognition of its national character at all.
Is it conceivable that France would demand recognition as a French state? Or Italy as an Italian state? And from whom are we demanding the recognition? From those who have been groaning under the boots of the occupation for more than 40 years now.
In the meantime, one begins to fear that another promising American president, perhaps the most promising of all, is about to fall into the honey trap of words and formulas. This president should be told now is not a time for words. Their time has passed. No more peace plan and - heavens forefend - not another outline; not negotiations, not a formula and not a summit.
All the plans are in a drawer, waiting for their day. Now is the time for deeds.
The only recognition that is needed now is Israel's recognition of the Palestinians as human beings. If this is obtained, all the rest will be relatively easy. The day will come when Israelis and Palestinians will not understand how they shed blood for so many years and why, but this day is further off than ever.
Now the time has come for the test of actions. Instead of wasting precious time on formulas, we need to take steps. Instead of dithering over verbiage, we need to make changes on the ground.
Twenty evacuated settlements are worth more than a thousand peace formulas, and 2,000 released prisoners will move the sides forward more than 10,000 words.
If only Israel agrees to implement what it has agreed to, from the release of prisoners to a freeze on settlements, it will be possible to come to the Palestinians with demands.
To paraphrase David Ben-Gurion, it is necessary to tell the president of the United States now that it doesn't matter what the Jews say, it matters what they do.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080106.html
Friday, May 1, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Uri Avnery Speaks (complicated) Truth
Dear Friend,
Here is the last half of a recent editorial from Uri Avnery, Israeli poet and prophet, who agonizes over the complex clash between (early) Zionist idealism and the "people of the land" (Arabs). He seeks to live in the center of the contradictions that (somehow) need to be reconciled, integrated, given their rightful place in the scheme of things over there. God help us in this endeavor. JRK
IN 1948, the songs of the War of Independence joined the pioneer songs. Regarding them, too, not a few among us suffer from cognitive dissonance. On the one side – what we felt then. On the other – the truth as we know it now.
For the fighters – as for the entire Yishuv [new Israeli society] – it was, quite simply, an existential war. The slogan was “There is No Alternative”, and all of us believed in it completely. We were fighting with our backs to the wall, the lives of our families hanging in the balance. The enemy was all around us. We believed that we, the few, the very few, almost without arms, were standing up against a sea of Arabs. In the first half of the war, the Arab fighters (known to us as “the gangs”) indeed dominated all the roads, and in the second half, the regular Arab armies approached the centers of the Hebrew population, surrounding Hebrew Jerusalem and coming close to Tel-Aviv. The Yishuv lost 6000 young people out of a population of some 635 thousand. Whole year-groups were decimated. Innumerable heroic acts were performed.
The idealism of the fighters found its expression in the songs. Most of them are imbued with faith in victory, and, of course, total conviction of the justness of our cause. We did not leave Arabs behind our lines, nor did the Arabs leave any Jews behind theirs. It looked in those circumstances like a simple military necessity. The fighters did not think then about “ethnic cleansing” – a term not yet invented.
We had no understanding about the real balance of power between us and the other side. The Arabs looked to us like a huge force. We did not know that the Palestinians were quarreling with each other, unable to unite and to create a country-wide defense force, that they had a severe shortage of modern arms. Later, when the Arab armies joined the fray, we did not know that they were unable to cooperate with each other, that it was more important for them to compete with each other than to defeat us.
Today, a growing number of Israelis have started to understand the full significance of the “Nakba”, the great tragedy of the Palestinian people and all the individuals who lost their homes and most of their homeland. But the songs come and remind us of what we felt at the time, when the things happened. An abyss yawns between the emotional reality of those days and the historical truth as we know it now.
Some see the entire 1948 war as a conspiracy of the Zionist leadership which intended right from the beginning to expel the Palestinians from the country in order to turn it into a Jewish State. According to this view, the soldiers of 1948 were war criminals who implemented a vicious policy, much as the pioneers of the preceding generation were land robbers, knights of ethnic cleansing by expulsion and expropriation.
They are strengthened in this view by today’s settlers, who are driving the Palestinians from what remains of their land. By their actions they blacken the pioneer past. Religious fanatics and fascist hooligans, who claim to be the heirs of the pioneers, obliterate the real intentions of that generation
HOW CAN one overcome the contradiction between the intentions and emotions of the actors and their many magnificent achievements in building a new nation, and the dark side of their actions and the consequences?
How to sing about the hopes and dreams of our youth and at the same time admit to the terrible injustice of many of our actions? Sing with full heart the pioneer songs and the 1948 war songs (one of which I wrote, of which I am far from proud), without denying the terrible tragedy we imposed on the Palestinian people?
Barack Obama told the Turkish people this week that they must come to grips with the massacre of the Armenians committed by their fathers, while at the same time reminding the Americans that they must confront the genocide of the Native Americans and the black slavery exploited by their own forefathers.
I believe we can do this regarding the catastrophe that we have caused the Palestinians. I am convinced that this is important, indeed essential, for our own national mental health, as well as a first step toward eventual reconciliation. We must acknowledge and recognize the consequences of our deeds and repair what can be repaired – without rejecting our past and the songs that express the innocence of our youth.
We must live with this contradiction, because it is the truth of our lives.
permlink: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1239519715/
www.gush-shalom.org
www.friendsofpalestiniansandisraelis.blogspot.com
Here is the last half of a recent editorial from Uri Avnery, Israeli poet and prophet, who agonizes over the complex clash between (early) Zionist idealism and the "people of the land" (Arabs). He seeks to live in the center of the contradictions that (somehow) need to be reconciled, integrated, given their rightful place in the scheme of things over there. God help us in this endeavor. JRK
IN 1948, the songs of the War of Independence joined the pioneer songs. Regarding them, too, not a few among us suffer from cognitive dissonance. On the one side – what we felt then. On the other – the truth as we know it now.
For the fighters – as for the entire Yishuv [new Israeli society] – it was, quite simply, an existential war. The slogan was “There is No Alternative”, and all of us believed in it completely. We were fighting with our backs to the wall, the lives of our families hanging in the balance. The enemy was all around us. We believed that we, the few, the very few, almost without arms, were standing up against a sea of Arabs. In the first half of the war, the Arab fighters (known to us as “the gangs”) indeed dominated all the roads, and in the second half, the regular Arab armies approached the centers of the Hebrew population, surrounding Hebrew Jerusalem and coming close to Tel-Aviv. The Yishuv lost 6000 young people out of a population of some 635 thousand. Whole year-groups were decimated. Innumerable heroic acts were performed.
The idealism of the fighters found its expression in the songs. Most of them are imbued with faith in victory, and, of course, total conviction of the justness of our cause. We did not leave Arabs behind our lines, nor did the Arabs leave any Jews behind theirs. It looked in those circumstances like a simple military necessity. The fighters did not think then about “ethnic cleansing” – a term not yet invented.
We had no understanding about the real balance of power between us and the other side. The Arabs looked to us like a huge force. We did not know that the Palestinians were quarreling with each other, unable to unite and to create a country-wide defense force, that they had a severe shortage of modern arms. Later, when the Arab armies joined the fray, we did not know that they were unable to cooperate with each other, that it was more important for them to compete with each other than to defeat us.
Today, a growing number of Israelis have started to understand the full significance of the “Nakba”, the great tragedy of the Palestinian people and all the individuals who lost their homes and most of their homeland. But the songs come and remind us of what we felt at the time, when the things happened. An abyss yawns between the emotional reality of those days and the historical truth as we know it now.
Some see the entire 1948 war as a conspiracy of the Zionist leadership which intended right from the beginning to expel the Palestinians from the country in order to turn it into a Jewish State. According to this view, the soldiers of 1948 were war criminals who implemented a vicious policy, much as the pioneers of the preceding generation were land robbers, knights of ethnic cleansing by expulsion and expropriation.
They are strengthened in this view by today’s settlers, who are driving the Palestinians from what remains of their land. By their actions they blacken the pioneer past. Religious fanatics and fascist hooligans, who claim to be the heirs of the pioneers, obliterate the real intentions of that generation
HOW CAN one overcome the contradiction between the intentions and emotions of the actors and their many magnificent achievements in building a new nation, and the dark side of their actions and the consequences?
How to sing about the hopes and dreams of our youth and at the same time admit to the terrible injustice of many of our actions? Sing with full heart the pioneer songs and the 1948 war songs (one of which I wrote, of which I am far from proud), without denying the terrible tragedy we imposed on the Palestinian people?
Barack Obama told the Turkish people this week that they must come to grips with the massacre of the Armenians committed by their fathers, while at the same time reminding the Americans that they must confront the genocide of the Native Americans and the black slavery exploited by their own forefathers.
I believe we can do this regarding the catastrophe that we have caused the Palestinians. I am convinced that this is important, indeed essential, for our own national mental health, as well as a first step toward eventual reconciliation. We must acknowledge and recognize the consequences of our deeds and repair what can be repaired – without rejecting our past and the songs that express the innocence of our youth.
We must live with this contradiction, because it is the truth of our lives.
permlink: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1239519715/
www.gush-shalom.org
www.friendsofpalestiniansandisraelis.blogspot.com
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Netanyahu Agrees to Extremists' Demands!
Dear Friend,
Early indications confirm "Bibi", the new Israeli P.M. is talking out of both sides of his mouth. To forge his right-wing coalition, he agreed to settler (extremists') demands to confiscate more Palestinian land and create a road that will link setttlements at the expense of a contiguous Palestinian state (see Haaretz editorial below); AND, saying he is committed to "peace" with Palestinians (and compatibility with President Obama's goal of a freeze on "settlements").
Netanyahu CANNOT have it BOTH WAYS. But this is the Orwellian double-speak characteristic of Israeli governments especially since the 1967 military conquest of the West Bank and Gaza (and Golan Heights).
Will the Obama administration call him on this, right away, or will it be the same old, same old, as under Bush II? Does anyone in the US government dare to oppose Israeli actions on the ground? Anyone at all? [Not if they want to be re-elected!]. JRK
Leave East Jerusalem alone
Media Outlet:
Haaretz
Article Type:
Editorial
Date:
March 31, 2009
Source Link(s):
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1075105.html [1]
On the eve of the new government's swearing-in, right-wing elements in the new coalition and among the settlers are preparing to heighten Israeli control in East Jerusalem. In the coalition negotiations, Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu was forced to promise to carry out the large (E1) plan to create Jewish urban contiguity between Ma'aleh Adumim and the capital. The plan, which calls for building 3,500 residential units, was suspended a number of years ago due to pressure from the American administration, which feared it would be an obstacle to creating a territorially contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank.
Settlers' associations that have gained purchase in the Holy Basin near the Old City are increasing their pressure on the political system. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, who was supported by these groups in his election campaign, was under pressure from them to demolish dozens of homes in the village of Silwan to reduce the Palestinian population in the area. Were it not for the intelligent decision by the municipality's legal adviser, Yossi Havilio, to freeze a plan to build 230 residential units in the Kidmat Zion neighborhood, in the heart of Abu Dis, we would soon be witness to Har Homa, the sequel. It can be assumed that the Ateret Cohanim activists who were behind the establishment of the Jewish neighborhood in Abu Dis will lobby their loyalists in the government and the municipality to revive the project.
Netanyahu's declaration that his government will renew the negotiations with the Palestinians is at odds with unilateral measures in Jerusalem, whose status is one of the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian agenda. Just as Israel is obligated to freezing building in the West Bank settlements as long as there is no agreement on the permanent borders, so too must it avoid creating new facts on the ground in and around East Jerusalem.
It can be hoped that Netanyahu, who says that he has "changed," learned his lesson from his bull in a china shop behavior in Jerusalem during his first premiership. Opening the Western Wall Tunnel and building the Har Homa neighborhood confirmed the fears of the Palestinians and of the Arab states with regard to the right-wing government.
Barack Obama's administration asked Israel not to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and let Netanyahu know that the United States is monitoring Israel's moves in the city and expects it to avoid controversial ones. Netanyahu must listen to this message.
Early indications confirm "Bibi", the new Israeli P.M. is talking out of both sides of his mouth. To forge his right-wing coalition, he agreed to settler (extremists') demands to confiscate more Palestinian land and create a road that will link setttlements at the expense of a contiguous Palestinian state (see Haaretz editorial below); AND, saying he is committed to "peace" with Palestinians (and compatibility with President Obama's goal of a freeze on "settlements").
Netanyahu CANNOT have it BOTH WAYS. But this is the Orwellian double-speak characteristic of Israeli governments especially since the 1967 military conquest of the West Bank and Gaza (and Golan Heights).
Will the Obama administration call him on this, right away, or will it be the same old, same old, as under Bush II? Does anyone in the US government dare to oppose Israeli actions on the ground? Anyone at all? [Not if they want to be re-elected!]. JRK
Leave East Jerusalem alone
Media Outlet:
Haaretz
Article Type:
Editorial
Date:
March 31, 2009
Source Link(s):
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1075105.html [1]
On the eve of the new government's swearing-in, right-wing elements in the new coalition and among the settlers are preparing to heighten Israeli control in East Jerusalem. In the coalition negotiations, Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu was forced to promise to carry out the large (E1) plan to create Jewish urban contiguity between Ma'aleh Adumim and the capital. The plan, which calls for building 3,500 residential units, was suspended a number of years ago due to pressure from the American administration, which feared it would be an obstacle to creating a territorially contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank.
Settlers' associations that have gained purchase in the Holy Basin near the Old City are increasing their pressure on the political system. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, who was supported by these groups in his election campaign, was under pressure from them to demolish dozens of homes in the village of Silwan to reduce the Palestinian population in the area. Were it not for the intelligent decision by the municipality's legal adviser, Yossi Havilio, to freeze a plan to build 230 residential units in the Kidmat Zion neighborhood, in the heart of Abu Dis, we would soon be witness to Har Homa, the sequel. It can be assumed that the Ateret Cohanim activists who were behind the establishment of the Jewish neighborhood in Abu Dis will lobby their loyalists in the government and the municipality to revive the project.
Netanyahu's declaration that his government will renew the negotiations with the Palestinians is at odds with unilateral measures in Jerusalem, whose status is one of the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian agenda. Just as Israel is obligated to freezing building in the West Bank settlements as long as there is no agreement on the permanent borders, so too must it avoid creating new facts on the ground in and around East Jerusalem.
It can be hoped that Netanyahu, who says that he has "changed," learned his lesson from his bull in a china shop behavior in Jerusalem during his first premiership. Opening the Western Wall Tunnel and building the Har Homa neighborhood confirmed the fears of the Palestinians and of the Arab states with regard to the right-wing government.
Barack Obama's administration asked Israel not to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and let Netanyahu know that the United States is monitoring Israel's moves in the city and expects it to avoid controversial ones. Netanyahu must listen to this message.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Can We Talk Honestly About Israel?
Published on The American Task Force on Palestine (http://www.americantaskforce.org)
The Lobby Falters
John Mearsheimer
London Review of Books
Opinion
March 26, 2009
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n06/mear01_.html [1]
Many people in Washington were surprised when the Obama administration tapped Charles Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council, the body that oversees the production of National Intelligence Estimates: Freeman had a distinguished 30-year career as a diplomat and Defense Department official, but he has publicly criticised Israeli policy and America’s special relationship with Israel, saying, for example, in a speech in 2005, that ‘as long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected.’ Words like these are rarely spoken in public in Washington, and anyone who does use them is almost certain not to get a high-level government position. But Admiral Dennis Blair, the new director of national intelligence, greatly admires Freeman: just the sort of person, he thought, to revitalise the intelligence community, which had been very politicised in the Bush years.
Predictably alarmed, the Israel lobby launched a smear campaign against Freeman, hoping that he would either quit or be fired by Obama. The opening salvo came in a blog posting by Steven Rosen, a former official of Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, now under indictment for passing secrets to Israel. Freeman’s views of the Middle East, he said, ‘are what you would expect in the Saudi Foreign Ministry, with which he maintains an extremely close relationship’. Prominent pro-Israel journalists such as Jonathan Chait and Martin Peretz of the New Republic, and Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, quickly joined the fray and Freeman was hammered in publications that consistently defend Israel, such as the National Review, the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard.
The real heat, however, came from Congress, where Aipac (which describes itself as ‘America’s Pro-Israel Lobby’) wields enormous power. All the Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee came out against Freeman, as did key Senate Democrats such as Joseph Lieberman and Charles Schumer. ‘I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him,’ Schumer said, ‘and I am glad they did the right thing.’ It was the same story in the House, where the charge was led by Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Steve Israel, who pushed Blair to initiate a formal investigation of Freeman’s finances. In the end, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, declared the Freeman appointment ‘beyond the pale’. Freeman might have survived this onslaught had the White House stood by him. But Barack Obama’s pandering to the Israel lobby during the campaign and his silence during the Gaza War show that this is one opponent he is not willing to challenge. True to form, he remained silent and Freeman had little choice but to withdraw.
The lobby has since gone to great lengths to deny its role in Freeman’s resignation. The Aipac spokesman Josh Block said his organisation ‘took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it’. The Washington Post, whose editorial page is run by Fred Hiatt, a man staunchly committed to the special relationship, ran an editorial which claimed that blaming the lobby for Freeman’s resignation was something dreamed up by ‘Mr Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists’.
In fact, there is abundant evidence that Aipac and other hardline supporters of Israel were deeply involved in the campaign. Block admitted that he had spoken to reporters and bloggers about Freeman and provided them with information, always on the understanding that his comments would not be attributed to him or to Aipac. Jonathan Chait, who denied that Israel was at the root of the controversy before Freeman was toppled, wrote afterwards: ‘Of course I recognise that the Israel lobby is powerful and was a key element in the pushback against Freeman, and that it is not always a force for good.’ Daniel Pipes, who runs the Middle East Forum, where Steven Rosen now works, quickly sent out an email newsletter boasting about Rosen’s role in bringing Freeman down.
On 12 March, the day the Washington Post ran its editorial railing against anyone who suggested that the Israel lobby had helped topple Freeman, the paper also published a front-page story describing the central role that the lobby had played in the affair. There was also a comment piece by the veteran journalist David Broder, which opened with the words: ‘The Obama administration has just suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the lobbyists the president vowed to keep in their place.’
Freeman’s critics maintain that his views on Israel were not his only problem. He is said to have especially close – maybe even improper – ties to Saudi Arabia, where he previously served as American ambassador. The charge hasn’t stuck, however, because there is no evidence for it. Israel’s supporters also said that he had made insensitive remarks about what happened to the Chinese protesters at Tiananmen Square, but that charge, which his defenders contest, only came up because Freeman’s pro-Israel critics were looking for any argument they could muster to damage his reputation.
Why does the lobby care so much about one appointment to an important, but not top leadership position? Here’s one reason: Freeman would have been responsible for the production of National Intelligence Estimates. Israel and its American supporters were outraged when the National Intelligence Council concluded in November 2007 that Iran was not building nuclear weapons, and they have worked assiduously to undermine that report ever since. The lobby wants to make sure that the next estimate of Iran’s nuclear capabilities reaches the opposite conclusion, and that would have been much less likely to happen with Freeman in charge. Better to have someone vetted by Aipac running the show.
An even more important reason for the lobby to drive Freeman out of his job is the weakness of the case for America’s present policy towards Israel, which makes it imperative to silence or marginalise anyone who criticises the special relationship. If Freeman hadn’t been punished, others would see that one could talk critically about Israel and still have a successful career in Washington. And once you get an open and free-wheeling discussion about Israel, the special relationship will be in serious trouble.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the Freeman affair was that the mainstream media paid it little attention – the New York Times, for example, did not run a single story dealing with Freeman until the day after he stepped down – while a fierce battle over the appointment took place in the blogosphere. Freeman’s opponents used the internet to their advantage; that is where Rosen launched the campaign. But something happened there that would never have happened in the mainstream media: the lobby faced real opposition. Indeed, a vigorous, well-informed and highly regarded array of bloggers defended Freeman at every turn and would probably have carried the day had Congress not tipped the scales against them. In short, the internet enabled a serious debate in the United States about an issue involving Israel. The lobby has never had much trouble keeping the New York Times and the Washington Post in line, but it has few ways to silence critics on the internet.
When pro-Israel forces clashed with a major political figure in the past, that person usually backed off. Jimmy Carter, who was smeared by the lobby after he published Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, was the first prominent American to stand his ground and fight back. The lobby has been unable to silence him, and it is not for lack of trying. Freeman is following in Carter’s footsteps, but with sharper elbows. After stepping down, he issued a blistering denunciation of ‘unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country’ whose aim is ‘to prevent any view other than its own from being aired’. ‘There is,’ he continued, ‘a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government.’
Freeman’s remarkable statement has shot all around the world and been read by countless individuals. This isn’t good for the lobby, which would have preferred to kill Freeman’s appointment without leaving any fingerprints. But Freeman will continue to speak out about Israel and the lobby, and maybe some of his natural allies inside the Beltway will eventually join him. Slowly but steadily, space is being opened up in the United States to talk honestly about Israel.
The Lobby Falters
John Mearsheimer
London Review of Books
Opinion
March 26, 2009
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n06/mear01_.html [1]
Many people in Washington were surprised when the Obama administration tapped Charles Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council, the body that oversees the production of National Intelligence Estimates: Freeman had a distinguished 30-year career as a diplomat and Defense Department official, but he has publicly criticised Israeli policy and America’s special relationship with Israel, saying, for example, in a speech in 2005, that ‘as long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected.’ Words like these are rarely spoken in public in Washington, and anyone who does use them is almost certain not to get a high-level government position. But Admiral Dennis Blair, the new director of national intelligence, greatly admires Freeman: just the sort of person, he thought, to revitalise the intelligence community, which had been very politicised in the Bush years.
Predictably alarmed, the Israel lobby launched a smear campaign against Freeman, hoping that he would either quit or be fired by Obama. The opening salvo came in a blog posting by Steven Rosen, a former official of Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, now under indictment for passing secrets to Israel. Freeman’s views of the Middle East, he said, ‘are what you would expect in the Saudi Foreign Ministry, with which he maintains an extremely close relationship’. Prominent pro-Israel journalists such as Jonathan Chait and Martin Peretz of the New Republic, and Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, quickly joined the fray and Freeman was hammered in publications that consistently defend Israel, such as the National Review, the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard.
The real heat, however, came from Congress, where Aipac (which describes itself as ‘America’s Pro-Israel Lobby’) wields enormous power. All the Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee came out against Freeman, as did key Senate Democrats such as Joseph Lieberman and Charles Schumer. ‘I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him,’ Schumer said, ‘and I am glad they did the right thing.’ It was the same story in the House, where the charge was led by Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Steve Israel, who pushed Blair to initiate a formal investigation of Freeman’s finances. In the end, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, declared the Freeman appointment ‘beyond the pale’. Freeman might have survived this onslaught had the White House stood by him. But Barack Obama’s pandering to the Israel lobby during the campaign and his silence during the Gaza War show that this is one opponent he is not willing to challenge. True to form, he remained silent and Freeman had little choice but to withdraw.
The lobby has since gone to great lengths to deny its role in Freeman’s resignation. The Aipac spokesman Josh Block said his organisation ‘took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it’. The Washington Post, whose editorial page is run by Fred Hiatt, a man staunchly committed to the special relationship, ran an editorial which claimed that blaming the lobby for Freeman’s resignation was something dreamed up by ‘Mr Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists’.
In fact, there is abundant evidence that Aipac and other hardline supporters of Israel were deeply involved in the campaign. Block admitted that he had spoken to reporters and bloggers about Freeman and provided them with information, always on the understanding that his comments would not be attributed to him or to Aipac. Jonathan Chait, who denied that Israel was at the root of the controversy before Freeman was toppled, wrote afterwards: ‘Of course I recognise that the Israel lobby is powerful and was a key element in the pushback against Freeman, and that it is not always a force for good.’ Daniel Pipes, who runs the Middle East Forum, where Steven Rosen now works, quickly sent out an email newsletter boasting about Rosen’s role in bringing Freeman down.
On 12 March, the day the Washington Post ran its editorial railing against anyone who suggested that the Israel lobby had helped topple Freeman, the paper also published a front-page story describing the central role that the lobby had played in the affair. There was also a comment piece by the veteran journalist David Broder, which opened with the words: ‘The Obama administration has just suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the lobbyists the president vowed to keep in their place.’
Freeman’s critics maintain that his views on Israel were not his only problem. He is said to have especially close – maybe even improper – ties to Saudi Arabia, where he previously served as American ambassador. The charge hasn’t stuck, however, because there is no evidence for it. Israel’s supporters also said that he had made insensitive remarks about what happened to the Chinese protesters at Tiananmen Square, but that charge, which his defenders contest, only came up because Freeman’s pro-Israel critics were looking for any argument they could muster to damage his reputation.
Why does the lobby care so much about one appointment to an important, but not top leadership position? Here’s one reason: Freeman would have been responsible for the production of National Intelligence Estimates. Israel and its American supporters were outraged when the National Intelligence Council concluded in November 2007 that Iran was not building nuclear weapons, and they have worked assiduously to undermine that report ever since. The lobby wants to make sure that the next estimate of Iran’s nuclear capabilities reaches the opposite conclusion, and that would have been much less likely to happen with Freeman in charge. Better to have someone vetted by Aipac running the show.
An even more important reason for the lobby to drive Freeman out of his job is the weakness of the case for America’s present policy towards Israel, which makes it imperative to silence or marginalise anyone who criticises the special relationship. If Freeman hadn’t been punished, others would see that one could talk critically about Israel and still have a successful career in Washington. And once you get an open and free-wheeling discussion about Israel, the special relationship will be in serious trouble.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the Freeman affair was that the mainstream media paid it little attention – the New York Times, for example, did not run a single story dealing with Freeman until the day after he stepped down – while a fierce battle over the appointment took place in the blogosphere. Freeman’s opponents used the internet to their advantage; that is where Rosen launched the campaign. But something happened there that would never have happened in the mainstream media: the lobby faced real opposition. Indeed, a vigorous, well-informed and highly regarded array of bloggers defended Freeman at every turn and would probably have carried the day had Congress not tipped the scales against them. In short, the internet enabled a serious debate in the United States about an issue involving Israel. The lobby has never had much trouble keeping the New York Times and the Washington Post in line, but it has few ways to silence critics on the internet.
When pro-Israel forces clashed with a major political figure in the past, that person usually backed off. Jimmy Carter, who was smeared by the lobby after he published Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, was the first prominent American to stand his ground and fight back. The lobby has been unable to silence him, and it is not for lack of trying. Freeman is following in Carter’s footsteps, but with sharper elbows. After stepping down, he issued a blistering denunciation of ‘unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country’ whose aim is ‘to prevent any view other than its own from being aired’. ‘There is,’ he continued, ‘a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government.’
Freeman’s remarkable statement has shot all around the world and been read by countless individuals. This isn’t good for the lobby, which would have preferred to kill Freeman’s appointment without leaving any fingerprints. But Freeman will continue to speak out about Israel and the lobby, and maybe some of his natural allies inside the Beltway will eventually join him. Slowly but steadily, space is being opened up in the United States to talk honestly about Israel.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The Battle of Religious Fundamentalism
Dear Friend,
The following article illustrates the size of our dilemma: HAMAS is the religious equivalent of Israeli "fundamentalism", invoking "God's help" in destroying those who are not "of God". This is further compounded by "Christian" Zionists, who also invoke "God" to help rid the world of those arrayed "against God".
Where are the voices of those who believe it is the will of "God" to allow Jews, Muslims and Christians to learn to live together, side by side, in that God-tormented land, learning from each other, making room for each other, listening to each other?
It looks to me like there are two kinds of people in the US and the world right now: 1) Those who work towards finding ways of "living together" as part of the world's great religions and 2) Those who deep down believe that the differences are irreconciliable and will always lead to bloodshed and annihilation of "the other". Why are both of these tendencies "true"? JRK
In a follow up to yesterday's report by Donald MacIntyre from Jerusalem, the Independent Newspaper has an article, entitled, "Israeli's told to fight 'holy war' in Gaza". If true this is a lamentable example of how religious Zionism is justifying racism and ethnic cleansing.
MacIntyre writes, "Many Israeli troops had the sense of fighting a "religious war" against Gentiles during the 22-day offensive in Gaza, according to a soldier who has highlighted the martial role of military rabbis during the operation.
The soldier testified that the "clear" message of literature distributed to troops by the rabbinate was: "We are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land and now we need to fight to expel the Gentiles who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land."
One has to ask which rabbinate? Perhaps the one the Apostle John refers to in the Book of Revelation 2:9-10, 3:9? [This paragraph smacks of the kind of "Christian fundamentalism" that we must stop invoking, IMO - JRK]
Back in May 2007, the Jerusalem Post reported that Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu wrote to the Israeli Prime Minister Olmert about Gaza. Under the heading "Eliyahu advocates carpet bombing Gaza" Matthew Wagner writes,
"Eliyahu ruled that there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings... Eliyahu's son, Shmuel Eliyahu, who is chief rabbi of Safed, said his father opposed a ground troop incursion into Gaza that would endanger IDF soldiers. Rather, he advocated carpet bombing the general area from which the Kassams were launched, regardless of the price in Palestinian life."If they don't stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand," said Shmuel Eliyahu. "And if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don't stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop."
The following article illustrates the size of our dilemma: HAMAS is the religious equivalent of Israeli "fundamentalism", invoking "God's help" in destroying those who are not "of God". This is further compounded by "Christian" Zionists, who also invoke "God" to help rid the world of those arrayed "against God".
Where are the voices of those who believe it is the will of "God" to allow Jews, Muslims and Christians to learn to live together, side by side, in that God-tormented land, learning from each other, making room for each other, listening to each other?
It looks to me like there are two kinds of people in the US and the world right now: 1) Those who work towards finding ways of "living together" as part of the world's great religions and 2) Those who deep down believe that the differences are irreconciliable and will always lead to bloodshed and annihilation of "the other". Why are both of these tendencies "true"? JRK
In a follow up to yesterday's report by Donald MacIntyre from Jerusalem, the Independent Newspaper has an article, entitled, "Israeli's told to fight 'holy war' in Gaza". If true this is a lamentable example of how religious Zionism is justifying racism and ethnic cleansing.
MacIntyre writes, "Many Israeli troops had the sense of fighting a "religious war" against Gentiles during the 22-day offensive in Gaza, according to a soldier who has highlighted the martial role of military rabbis during the operation.
The soldier testified that the "clear" message of literature distributed to troops by the rabbinate was: "We are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land and now we need to fight to expel the Gentiles who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land."
One has to ask which rabbinate? Perhaps the one the Apostle John refers to in the Book of Revelation 2:9-10, 3:9? [This paragraph smacks of the kind of "Christian fundamentalism" that we must stop invoking, IMO - JRK]
Back in May 2007, the Jerusalem Post reported that Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu wrote to the Israeli Prime Minister Olmert about Gaza. Under the heading "Eliyahu advocates carpet bombing Gaza" Matthew Wagner writes,
"Eliyahu ruled that there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings... Eliyahu's son, Shmuel Eliyahu, who is chief rabbi of Safed, said his father opposed a ground troop incursion into Gaza that would endanger IDF soldiers. Rather, he advocated carpet bombing the general area from which the Kassams were launched, regardless of the price in Palestinian life."If they don't stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand," said Shmuel Eliyahu. "And if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don't stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop."
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The Parable of the Land Magnate
The Parable of the Land Magnate
Once upon a time, in a land far away, there lived a rich Land Magnate who ruled his fiefdom with a veneer of kindly benevolence and trustworthy competence. But underneath he wore brass knuckles to silence critics and extend his reach. He was highly regarded by rich insiders and the majority. Poor outsiders and minorities were suspicious and hateful. (Some of the land he managed had previously belonged to them.) He was approved by all governmental authorities. He especially had the confidence and support of other wealthy land holders from other favored countries, apparently knowledgeable and skilled in handling his own and other people’s properties. His company, BMAC, was an Acquisition Corporation par excellence, duly registered with and given oversight by all the proper regulative bodies.
Then it came to pass, after a short and smashing military victory over surrounding “enemies”, BMAC gained control of more land than ever before. But, lo and behold, it quickly became a problem. Our Magnate wanted to insure the conquered land would benefit himself and his friends. He didn’t care that the land previously belonged to the “enemies” of his people. He built well-appointed subdivisions with a copious water supply and gated communities high above the vanquished who were kept in their place. These new places were off limits to them. The self-respecting but marginalized people of the valley looked up with growing disgust at the high-end neighborhoods nestled on the fortified hills, joined by modern thoroughfares on land that once was theirs. Many years passed. It appeared the Magnate was an extraordinarily good manager. His reach was extended. Goods and services flowed especially to the favored ones who had learned of his uncanny and unequaled ability to make their assets grow. The vanquished had no “rights”. To the victors belonged the spoils. Might made right. Those who rule make the rules.
However, there was a major problem. (It was hidden from public view). He was a thief! He stole and mismanaged people’s property. He consistently committed fraudulent practices. He was deceitful. He betrayed people’s trust. He used the land to please his family, friends and supporters at all costs, giving them greater returns than was humanly possible or permissible. He lied about assets he managed. He printed false documents on asset usage, making it look to all the world that the people’s possessions were being used wisely and well.
Even though he knew that what he was doing was criminal, he kept the scheme going through many decades, adding more and more land to his empire, his reputation climbing to new heights of admiration and awe. He built defensive walls to protect his assets, hoping against all truth that his empire would be secure and last forever against all “enemies”. The illusion grew that he was beating all the odds. He is one of us. You can trust him. He takes care of his own. There were his detractors, a few people “in the know” who doubted that BMAC was “on the up and up”. No one listened to them. Things were going “well”. People were “happy”. Trust BMAC.
But, buried deep in his sub-conscious mind, the Magnate was fearful there would be a Day of Reckoning, a Day when his actions would be exposed and his company would disappear like vapor. He knew from the very beginning that his behavior was completely criminal, that he was misusing people and mismanaging their possessions. He dulled the pain he was feeling for abusing the confidence others place in him.
And come it did. Fear of a great depression crept over all the land. People of the country were feeling insecure, fearing they might lose everything. Many wanted their assets back. Suddenly the fiefdom he had built with their assets crumbled like a house of cards. The company office was shuttered and the social fabric was left torn and tattered. He could no longer hide his thievery. His deceit became apparent to those closest to him and to those farthest away. It now became clear to the whole world that the great Land Magnate, the head of BMAC was a crook.
I’m ashamed of my actions, he confessed. I am so sorry for the hurt I’ve caused many, many people. I wanted to end the scheme in short order, but the whole enterprise quickly spun out of control. I became captive to it. I wanted to keep administering the land as long as I could. It became impossible. I just couldn’t keep things from unspooling.
Meanwhile, there was great anger, grief and confusion among all the defrauded people. They quickly lined up, demanding restitution for their lost assets and the return of what had previously been theirs. There was no easy way to return the stolen assets to rich and poor, insiders and outsiders, the majority and minorities alike. There was no simple way to live side by side, separate yet united. There wasn’t enough insurance money to compensate those wronged. Some suggested a Truth and Reconciliation Commission with forgiveness as the way, vowing to handle people more respectfully and possessions more fairly. Others even said there could be no compensation for “stolen” lands. After the “crash” it took several generations to attain equanimity approaching normality. For many, many years it seemed impossible to untangle the knots that had formed. New fabric had to be woven, the knots cut away and discarded.
The day came when other Acquisition corporations were formed, knowing right from wrong, slowly restoring the trust that had been betrayed, promising transparency in reporting, issuing responsible returns from properties entrusted to them, thus fulfilling their promises.
It took many decades for people’s trust to be restored. The sense of betrayal was pervasive. Hatred of the Magnate was deep. The consequences of wrong-doing were long lasting. None of it healed easily. Those who wanted “justice” (revenge) hung around the margins of the new society for years and years, but were kept on the margins by strong and able leadership. Friends and “enemies” tore down the walls that separated them. People learned to appreciate their differences and value each person’s and group’s unique contribution to the well being of the larger community.
The whole society continued to wrestle with its bias toward selfish greed, self-serving lies, bitter vengefulness and persistent cover-up. New leaders were more humble, more vulnerable, more willing to admit their mistakes, more willing to say they were sorry and more willing and able to do better. Slowly, all the citizens learned that not all is fair in love and war, all are flawed, all persons are to be treated with respect and all possessions are to be valued and compensated fairly.
It was a costly lesson. But learn it they did. It was not easy and the road was rough. Issues of proper governance were contentious, but friends and “enemies” were brought into the process. Rich insiders and poor outsiders shared space equitably. And the people and the land lived happily and in peace for many generations.
Once upon a time, in a land far away, there lived a rich Land Magnate who ruled his fiefdom with a veneer of kindly benevolence and trustworthy competence. But underneath he wore brass knuckles to silence critics and extend his reach. He was highly regarded by rich insiders and the majority. Poor outsiders and minorities were suspicious and hateful. (Some of the land he managed had previously belonged to them.) He was approved by all governmental authorities. He especially had the confidence and support of other wealthy land holders from other favored countries, apparently knowledgeable and skilled in handling his own and other people’s properties. His company, BMAC, was an Acquisition Corporation par excellence, duly registered with and given oversight by all the proper regulative bodies.
Then it came to pass, after a short and smashing military victory over surrounding “enemies”, BMAC gained control of more land than ever before. But, lo and behold, it quickly became a problem. Our Magnate wanted to insure the conquered land would benefit himself and his friends. He didn’t care that the land previously belonged to the “enemies” of his people. He built well-appointed subdivisions with a copious water supply and gated communities high above the vanquished who were kept in their place. These new places were off limits to them. The self-respecting but marginalized people of the valley looked up with growing disgust at the high-end neighborhoods nestled on the fortified hills, joined by modern thoroughfares on land that once was theirs. Many years passed. It appeared the Magnate was an extraordinarily good manager. His reach was extended. Goods and services flowed especially to the favored ones who had learned of his uncanny and unequaled ability to make their assets grow. The vanquished had no “rights”. To the victors belonged the spoils. Might made right. Those who rule make the rules.
However, there was a major problem. (It was hidden from public view). He was a thief! He stole and mismanaged people’s property. He consistently committed fraudulent practices. He was deceitful. He betrayed people’s trust. He used the land to please his family, friends and supporters at all costs, giving them greater returns than was humanly possible or permissible. He lied about assets he managed. He printed false documents on asset usage, making it look to all the world that the people’s possessions were being used wisely and well.
Even though he knew that what he was doing was criminal, he kept the scheme going through many decades, adding more and more land to his empire, his reputation climbing to new heights of admiration and awe. He built defensive walls to protect his assets, hoping against all truth that his empire would be secure and last forever against all “enemies”. The illusion grew that he was beating all the odds. He is one of us. You can trust him. He takes care of his own. There were his detractors, a few people “in the know” who doubted that BMAC was “on the up and up”. No one listened to them. Things were going “well”. People were “happy”. Trust BMAC.
But, buried deep in his sub-conscious mind, the Magnate was fearful there would be a Day of Reckoning, a Day when his actions would be exposed and his company would disappear like vapor. He knew from the very beginning that his behavior was completely criminal, that he was misusing people and mismanaging their possessions. He dulled the pain he was feeling for abusing the confidence others place in him.
And come it did. Fear of a great depression crept over all the land. People of the country were feeling insecure, fearing they might lose everything. Many wanted their assets back. Suddenly the fiefdom he had built with their assets crumbled like a house of cards. The company office was shuttered and the social fabric was left torn and tattered. He could no longer hide his thievery. His deceit became apparent to those closest to him and to those farthest away. It now became clear to the whole world that the great Land Magnate, the head of BMAC was a crook.
I’m ashamed of my actions, he confessed. I am so sorry for the hurt I’ve caused many, many people. I wanted to end the scheme in short order, but the whole enterprise quickly spun out of control. I became captive to it. I wanted to keep administering the land as long as I could. It became impossible. I just couldn’t keep things from unspooling.
Meanwhile, there was great anger, grief and confusion among all the defrauded people. They quickly lined up, demanding restitution for their lost assets and the return of what had previously been theirs. There was no easy way to return the stolen assets to rich and poor, insiders and outsiders, the majority and minorities alike. There was no simple way to live side by side, separate yet united. There wasn’t enough insurance money to compensate those wronged. Some suggested a Truth and Reconciliation Commission with forgiveness as the way, vowing to handle people more respectfully and possessions more fairly. Others even said there could be no compensation for “stolen” lands. After the “crash” it took several generations to attain equanimity approaching normality. For many, many years it seemed impossible to untangle the knots that had formed. New fabric had to be woven, the knots cut away and discarded.
The day came when other Acquisition corporations were formed, knowing right from wrong, slowly restoring the trust that had been betrayed, promising transparency in reporting, issuing responsible returns from properties entrusted to them, thus fulfilling their promises.
It took many decades for people’s trust to be restored. The sense of betrayal was pervasive. Hatred of the Magnate was deep. The consequences of wrong-doing were long lasting. None of it healed easily. Those who wanted “justice” (revenge) hung around the margins of the new society for years and years, but were kept on the margins by strong and able leadership. Friends and “enemies” tore down the walls that separated them. People learned to appreciate their differences and value each person’s and group’s unique contribution to the well being of the larger community.
The whole society continued to wrestle with its bias toward selfish greed, self-serving lies, bitter vengefulness and persistent cover-up. New leaders were more humble, more vulnerable, more willing to admit their mistakes, more willing to say they were sorry and more willing and able to do better. Slowly, all the citizens learned that not all is fair in love and war, all are flawed, all persons are to be treated with respect and all possessions are to be valued and compensated fairly.
It was a costly lesson. But learn it they did. It was not easy and the road was rough. Issues of proper governance were contentious, but friends and “enemies” were brought into the process. Rich insiders and poor outsiders shared space equitably. And the people and the land lived happily and in peace for many generations.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
END THE OCCUPATION!
The key is an end to occupation
Daoud Kuttab
The Jordan Times
March 12, 2009
http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=14952 [1]
Following the words and efforts of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Sharm El Sheikh, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Ramallah, one gets the feeling that she was on a hard-sell campaign trying to convince the majority of Israelis to accept the concept of the two-state solution.
For now, Palestinians are more interested in the end of the decades-old occupation of their lands.
Clinton’s pleading with Netanyahu to adopt the international consensus on the two-state solution is wrong. She should focus instead on the choices that Israel has, namely, to share the land of Palestine/Israel with the Palestinian side or agree to power sharing, among the people living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.
The two-state solution has been on the books for some time. An independent Palestinian state alongside Israel has been a demand of some Palestinians since the 1970s, but became official PLO policy in one year, after the relatively nonviolent Intifada began.
The November 15, 1988, declaration of a Palestinian state alongside Israel replaced the PLO policy which called for a secular state on all of historic Palestine.
The two-state solution was adopted by the Arab League at its Beirut summit in 2004, and following that, it was unanimously supported by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which includes states such as Iran, Indonesia and Pakistan.
Former US president George W. Bush gave the two-state solution public support most prominently in the last year of his second term, when he promised that an independent, viable and contiguous state of Palestine will see the light before the end of his term.
Consecutive Israeli governments have given mixed responses to it. The current Olmert/Livni government gave lip service to the two-state solution, but exclusive Jewish settlement building continued in areas earmarked for the Palestinian part. The effort to depopulate East Jerusalem of its Palestinian inhabitants has not stopped since Israel occupied and then unilaterally annexed the Arab-populated section of the city to Israel.
The poll results that followed the assault on Gaza seemed to show a shift in the Israeli opinion towards a more hawkish position, contrasting sharply with the more dovish shift in the US. Some expect that a Netanyahu government will be on a collision course with the Obama administration. Hence, Clinton has been pleading with the right-wing Israeli leader to adopt the policy that even the pro-Israeli Bush-Cheney team had adopted.
With the shift to the hawkish right in the most recent Israeli elections, many Palestinians believe that the true nature of the Israeli ruling elite became clear. Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been tapped to form a coalition government, refused to publicly accept the two-state concept.
As Israelis seem to be backtracking from the two-state solution, some Palestinians are arguing for the need to create one state for all the people living in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. But the choices that should be made clear to Israel are not whether it should accept the two-state or the one-state solution. Israeli leaders and people must be made to understand that the key issue is the need to end the occupation.
The international community has made this very clear since 1967. In the preamble of UN Security Council Resolution 242, the binding resolution states: “It is inadmissible to occupy land by force.”
Being wedded to the two-state solution, the US has been forced to try and deal with the day-to-day actions of the Israeli army and Israeli government in the occupied territories.
US Middle East envoy George Mitchell decided to set up office in Jerusalem and to staff it with security and political personnel whose job will be to monitor the situation in the occupied territories. This is a positive development, but what is needed is much more strategic. Instead of pleading with the Israelis to accept the two-state solution, the US should simply ask the Israelis to end their military occupation of Arab lands.
Such a strategy might require the international community to help Palestinians and Israelis in the transitional period. This might mean the introduction of international troops in the occupied territories, instead of the Israeli army.
To carry out such strategy, the US must not beg the Israelis to accept this or that solution. Instead, the US as the leader of the international community, must place a clear challenge to Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman, Livni, Barak and all Israelis. It should set a date for the withdrawal of occupation forces and begin negotiating a responsible pullout.
The question, therefore, is as simple as the one uttered by a US presidential nominee in the 1990s. Using former president Bill Clinton’s phrase, it is not a two-state or a one-state solution, “it is the occupation, stupid”.
Daoud Kuttab
The Jordan Times
March 12, 2009
http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=14952 [1]
Following the words and efforts of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Sharm El Sheikh, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Ramallah, one gets the feeling that she was on a hard-sell campaign trying to convince the majority of Israelis to accept the concept of the two-state solution.
For now, Palestinians are more interested in the end of the decades-old occupation of their lands.
Clinton’s pleading with Netanyahu to adopt the international consensus on the two-state solution is wrong. She should focus instead on the choices that Israel has, namely, to share the land of Palestine/Israel with the Palestinian side or agree to power sharing, among the people living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.
The two-state solution has been on the books for some time. An independent Palestinian state alongside Israel has been a demand of some Palestinians since the 1970s, but became official PLO policy in one year, after the relatively nonviolent Intifada began.
The November 15, 1988, declaration of a Palestinian state alongside Israel replaced the PLO policy which called for a secular state on all of historic Palestine.
The two-state solution was adopted by the Arab League at its Beirut summit in 2004, and following that, it was unanimously supported by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which includes states such as Iran, Indonesia and Pakistan.
Former US president George W. Bush gave the two-state solution public support most prominently in the last year of his second term, when he promised that an independent, viable and contiguous state of Palestine will see the light before the end of his term.
Consecutive Israeli governments have given mixed responses to it. The current Olmert/Livni government gave lip service to the two-state solution, but exclusive Jewish settlement building continued in areas earmarked for the Palestinian part. The effort to depopulate East Jerusalem of its Palestinian inhabitants has not stopped since Israel occupied and then unilaterally annexed the Arab-populated section of the city to Israel.
The poll results that followed the assault on Gaza seemed to show a shift in the Israeli opinion towards a more hawkish position, contrasting sharply with the more dovish shift in the US. Some expect that a Netanyahu government will be on a collision course with the Obama administration. Hence, Clinton has been pleading with the right-wing Israeli leader to adopt the policy that even the pro-Israeli Bush-Cheney team had adopted.
With the shift to the hawkish right in the most recent Israeli elections, many Palestinians believe that the true nature of the Israeli ruling elite became clear. Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been tapped to form a coalition government, refused to publicly accept the two-state concept.
As Israelis seem to be backtracking from the two-state solution, some Palestinians are arguing for the need to create one state for all the people living in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. But the choices that should be made clear to Israel are not whether it should accept the two-state or the one-state solution. Israeli leaders and people must be made to understand that the key issue is the need to end the occupation.
The international community has made this very clear since 1967. In the preamble of UN Security Council Resolution 242, the binding resolution states: “It is inadmissible to occupy land by force.”
Being wedded to the two-state solution, the US has been forced to try and deal with the day-to-day actions of the Israeli army and Israeli government in the occupied territories.
US Middle East envoy George Mitchell decided to set up office in Jerusalem and to staff it with security and political personnel whose job will be to monitor the situation in the occupied territories. This is a positive development, but what is needed is much more strategic. Instead of pleading with the Israelis to accept the two-state solution, the US should simply ask the Israelis to end their military occupation of Arab lands.
Such a strategy might require the international community to help Palestinians and Israelis in the transitional period. This might mean the introduction of international troops in the occupied territories, instead of the Israeli army.
To carry out such strategy, the US must not beg the Israelis to accept this or that solution. Instead, the US as the leader of the international community, must place a clear challenge to Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman, Livni, Barak and all Israelis. It should set a date for the withdrawal of occupation forces and begin negotiating a responsible pullout.
The question, therefore, is as simple as the one uttered by a US presidential nominee in the 1990s. Using former president Bill Clinton’s phrase, it is not a two-state or a one-state solution, “it is the occupation, stupid”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)