The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    David Seaton's picture

    The Middle East made simple(r)

    By David Seaton on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:37am |

    When very complex situations become very simple is when they become most dangerous. The situation that America finds itself in today's Middle East is such a situation: simple and potentially deadly for American prestige and power, two things which feed off each other, and in passing feed the American people.

    The endless Palestinian question is a bone in the throat of an Arab and Muslim world that sits astride some of the world's most essential commodities, notably oil. The United States is seen as the only country that could possibly have enough influence over Israel to solve it. 

    The perception the world has is that Israel has more influence over the USA than the USA has over Israel, this is very bad for America's worldwide reputation and influence. In a great extent the prosperity, the "way of life" of the American people depends on that power and influence.

    Perhaps for the senators and congressmen in Washington, Israel is the measure of all things, but this is not true for the rest of the world, and every day there are relevant, new players to take into account. AIPAC works tirelessly to insure that Americans' notorious love of cheap gasoline doesn't trump their legendary. love of Israel. Unfortunately for Israel there is no such thing as a CHIPAC (China Israel Public Affairs Committee) or much less a BRICIPAC or a even a European EUIPAC... so Obama is left holding the bag.

    The "solving" of the Palestinian question is the Saudi Peace Initiative, which would fully integrate Israel into the Middle East, economically and diplomatically, in exchange for Israel returning to its 1967 frontiers. Israel wants no part of the Saudi plan. My private hypothesis is that they are merely playing for time, thinking that sooner or later a great war will break out involving the entire Middle East, and under the cover of that chaos, they will be able to ethnically cleanse the occupied (sorry, "disputed") territories.  With the entire region in ferment, the possibility of such a conflict and the opportunities it would present, multiply exponentially.

    Truly the "Arab Spring" complicates the situation wonderfully. Let me quote president Obama on this one:

    (...) a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region. A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders. Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained.

    The rest of oil-consuming world is also running out of patience: they are suffering from (to coin a phrase) "Israel fatigue". Again Obama:

    And just as the context has changed in the Middle East, so too has it been changing in the international community over the last several years. There's a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process, or the absence of one, not just in the Arab World -- in Latin America, in Asia, and in Europe. And that impatience is growing, and it's already manifesting itself in capitals around the world.

    America is trying to end two wars of its own and cut its gargantuan defense budget, this is urgent because the American debt is causing great concern everywhere, the dollar, the basis of international commodity trading, is no longer seen as a uniquely reliable store of value and the Middle East, where the oil on which the world runs is concentrated -- democratic and otherwise -- is growing more volatile with every passing day. 

    Ending the Palestinian problem is an essential component in pacifying the Middle East. If the USA is incapable of doing so the rest of the world is going to give it a try.  They  have no other choice. "Ein brera" as the Israelis say.

    Comments

    Greenwald has the video comparisons in his "Great American Patriots" snarkily named piece of how joint sessions have treated the President v. how they treated Bibi; just disgusting: 29 standing ovations while so often Republicans sat on their hands for the President, shook their heads  (Justice Roberts), yelled "You lie!", etc.  Bibi they treated like a god while he...lied about Obama's speech and that he did anything but mention the age-old '67 borders starting point, complete with 'all parties must approve land-swaps', 'we'll tackle Jerusalem later', and 'I'll veto a Palestinian State at the UN'. 

    And now, in some insanity, these Democrats are smacking Obama around over it: Reid, Casey, Hoyer, and others.  What gall.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 12:27pm

    Read  this and guess who wrote it:

    Not since Nikita Khrushchev berated Dwight Eisenhower over Gary Powers' U-2 spy flight over Russia only weeks earlier has an American president been subjected to a dressing down like the one Barack Obama received from Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday. With this crucial difference. Khrushchev ranted behind closed doors, and when Ike refused to apologize, blew up the Paris summit hosted by President de Gaulle.

    Obama, however, was lectured like some schoolboy in the Oval Office in front of the national press and a worldwide TV audience. And two days later, he trooped over to the Israeli lobby AIPAC to walk back what he had said that had so infuriated

    Netanyahu. "Bibi" then purred that he was "pleased" with the clarification. (...) Bibi won the confrontation, hands down. Like no other leader before him, he humiliated a U.S. president in front of the world, forced him to revise his remarks of four days previous, then graciously accepted the revision.
      
    But a second-term Obama is unlikely to forget what was done to him.

    Check it in Google and be amazed.


    by David Seaton on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:22pm

    Surprised, but not amazed.  And he's right, but he left out that on his way to the White House, Bibi okayed a bunch of new buildings in areas that were extremely controversial, just to spit in his eye one more time.  Not sure I quite agree with Pat's reasoning as to 'the why' of it though.

    And I thought he'd pretty much used the same speech at AIPAC, just added the 'THIS is what I said' (ya idiots; ya got it ALL!).  I'm a bit more curious about what the Dems challenging him are about; not substance, obviously.  Bibi telling the joint session that he is about peace was jaw-dropping (and the crowd went wiiiilllllld!)

    Unless it's of course about just letting it all go by again because Hamas is a terrorist organization, etc.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:33pm

    I'm a bit more curious about what the Dems challenging him are about; not substance, obviously.

    Campaign financing is suddenly not substantial?


    by David Seaton on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 4:29pm

    be amazed

    Huh? What am I supposed to be amazed about? Sounds just like what he would say. Buchanan has long been rabidly anti-Israel (an example picked at random from a quick google,) has been labeled anti-semite by some (not without cause, it's easy to find examples why that might be, this example popped up after playing the first link.) He is also big on the U.S. presidential office maintaining "respect" of world leaders by talking tough to them and not taking lightly to dissing from them--it's always very clear he'd still like to be writing the presidential speeches and soundbites like he did for the Nixon administration, especially on foreign policy. He is always 100% sure he could do a better job of handling foreign leaders than the current president in office and his handlers.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:26pm

    I am always surprised when Pat Buchanan gets it absolutely right. I cannot think of another commentator that so often offends me, but at the same time, sometimes hits the nail straight on the head like he does. That's why I read him.


    by David Seaton on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 4:31pm

    Artie, are you implying by extension that what Buchanan said in this comment is anti-semitic?  If so, I 'd have to disagree, understanding that the man is pretty much an equal-opportunity bigot who shouldn't be on any network (or paper if he says similar stuff in print).

    There were many people who thought that Bibi's schooling of Obama on Israeli history was just hideous, treating him like a wet-behind-the-ears kid.  I know I was offended on Obama's behalf, even though it was not surprising that he was treated so by Netanyahu for the second time.  Or Biden, for that matter.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 5:38pm

    No.

    Actually, I don't think it's accurate to call Buchanan anti-semitic, or racist for that matter. But I also must admit he often doesn't make it easy by the way he says stuff to argue that, he often gets pretty close to both descriptions.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:13pm

    I meant the comment in particular, but I think you answered it in a way; thanks.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:33pm

    AA,

    I think you have a point, a strong point, about the pervasiveness of this notion that it is Israel that is responsible for all that is wrong in the Middle East and that an I-P settlement would make America groovy again in the multi-faceted Arab and broader Islamic world.  It is, of course, true that Israel has been and remains a flashpoint for anger at the United States and other western states (even though the other western states have a materially different relationship with Israel than the U.S. does).  Recently we have seen first-hand how many of the autocratic (fascist IMO) leadership continues to use Israel as pretext for their own preservation of power and denial of basic human freedoms to their people.  Syria is Exhibit A.

    I'm surprised David hasn't picked up on this scapegoat angle, aren't you?   I mean he knows so much about how the Islamic world thinks--he tells us so all the time!  Wink

    By the way, none of this is to say that a resolution of the I-P conflict is not imperative and in the interest of the entire world.  It's critical.  I've been avoiding posting about it over the last few days because I don't like the role I generally wind up playing.  You might be interested in knowing that I went over to a relatively right-wing "pro-Israel" site a couple of days ago and then promised never to post there again after I was chastized by the regulars for having the audacity to suggest that Bibi acted inappropriately in his meeting with President Obama.  So I get it from the extreme right and I get it from the extreme alleged "left".  Ain't no place I'd rather be.

    Cheers.

    Bruce


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 5:46pm

    It's a pet peeve of mine not because I have extreme interest or concern for Israel but because I've see so many who seem myopically deluded by thinking it would make such a big difference to anyone but Palestinians.

    No one can even predict what it would do if it happened. To bet on it making everything over there hunky dory sounds delusional to me.  I.E., things haven't worked out exactly as expected by the planners for that past two-state "solution" in Pakistan, have they? To me it's more like: why in world would anyone actually think things are going to calm down in the region once Palestinians living in Palestine have a country? It's a lot like believing regime change in Iraq would calm things down over there.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:27pm

    On

    I went over to a relatively right-wing "pro-Israel" site a couple of days ago and then promised never to post there again after I was chastized by the regulars for having the audacity to suggest that Bibi acted inappropriately in his meeting with President Obama.

    Despite your depressing outcome, I think it's good to get out of  the usual bubble or echo chamber now and then. One of the most interesting things I learn checking out others in the past is that all political persuasions seem to be into the some of the same internet forum games. Wink


    by artappraiser on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:34pm

    All this is much more basic,  a different paradigm. The first thing to remember is that the defining moment in the West's relationship with the Jewish people, the Holocaust, occurred in Europe, in the West. Arabs and Muslims had nothing to do with it. In short, they do not feel that they have any debt or moral obligation toward the Jewish people. All they see is a western, neocolonial, presence in their midst, the checkpoints, the walls, the humiliation of people who look and speak like they do, by wealthy westerners. Most of the rest of the world, which isn't white and isn't western sees it that way too. The non-white, non-western world is growing in power and influence daily. So, this is no longer a "family" conversation.

    In short we in the West have a well-earned guilt complex concerning the Jewish people and everything to do with Israel orbits around that. The non-west is not connected with that: you might pardon them for thinking that this troubled relationship between the Jewish people and the post-Christian west is an obscure dispute between pale. round-eyed, imperialist, devils and a plague on both their houses.

    If you catch this basic idea, the problem is much easier to understand.


    by David Seaton on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:44am

    David:

    I catch your narrative, a garden-variety, cereal box one, benefitted by facially compelling logic--but ultimately a narrative that is incomplete and non-responsive.  Among other things, you leave out that rightly or wrongly, the Jewish People were promised a homeland in all of Mandatory Palestine (including what is now judenrein Jordan)  before Hitler and his motley crew of ne'er do-wells were having drunken brawls in Munich.  Of course you also leave out that the putative Palestinian leader, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, spent Word War II in Berlin as a guest of Mr. Hitler and the gang, where he broadcast Nazi propaganda to the Arab world, organized an SS unit in Bosnia, and then was warmly received by the followers of Hasan al-Banna, the father of your Muslim Brotherhood who glorified, expressly and even after the war had ended, the fascism of Adolf Hitler.  Now there were many Arabs who aided their Jewish countrymen in places like Tunisia and other North African countries as the Nazis sought to spread the Final Solution to those Arab lands where Jews had lived for thousands of years--Robert Satloff wrote an amazing book about these heros.  Problem is, 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands (not Europe) wound up homeless after WWII, not the fault of the Nazis as you know, and wound up in Israel--often facing discrimination from their European brothers and sisters, but full citizens and now fully integrated in Israeli society.  In contrast the Palestinian refugees, and their fifth generation descendants, by and large languish in camps and/or are denied the right to citizenship and in some cases to hold jobs in the countries where they now dwell for over 60 years.

    I only point this out because you have a western narrative and you impose it on the entire Arab world, most of which by unambiguous example, seem not to give two shits about the plight of the Palestinian "refugee".   A more important point  is that you don't know real Arab opinion because you can't know what people really feel if they could think freely and outside the box of repressive regimes where they are fed, on a daily basis from the time they are able to talk, that the reason things are the way they are is because of the Jews in Palestine.  Show me an Arab population where the press is free, where the books are unrestricted, where the school system is not focused on Jew-hatred, and let's then see what the Arab street thinks in the aggregate.  Until then David, you and other well-meaning folks presume to speak for them without foundation.

    Finally, none of this addresses the point you were asserting, i.e. that Israel is the cause of Arab hatred of America and the west, and that but for Israel everything would be groovy.  Hogwash.

    By the way, here's an interesting article from today's New York Times about how African refugees are treated in Spain:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/world/europe/26migrants.html?_r=1&hp

    Todays bonus question:  In light of the above, what standing do the Spanish people have to judge any other nation on humanitarian grounds, including Israel, which is populated by the descendants of those extinguished by Francisco Franco's good buddy?

    Bruce


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 7:30am

    You'd be a great defense lawyer, if I'm ever up for a rap like DSK, you'ed be the first guy I'd call. Laughing

    However lets look at this:

    the Jewish People were promised a homeland in all of Mandatory Palestine

    Promised by whom? The British Empire... you can imagine how much ice that cuts in a UN packed with ex-colonies.

    Resuming another of your arguments:

    I'm sure that if the Arabs got to really know the Israelis, they would find them just as lovable as the US Congress does. Unfortunately all they see is Al Jazeera footage of the checkpoints, Operation Cast Lead, and the invasion(s) of Lebanon... so they have got this twisted image.

    Or this one:

    The Spaniards persecuted the Jews, the Germans did too, so did the French, the English, the Russians... practically every European country has at one time or another persecuted the Jews.

    The only people who have never really persecuted the Jews are the peoples of Asia, Chinese, Indians, Japanese etc and the entire Islamic world for hundreds of years, until Zionism entered their space.

    So it might have been fair if the Europeans had chipped in and given the Jewish people Luxembourg as compensation. But, honestly, where do they get off giving them Palestine which isn't in Europe, without the consent of its inhabitants, in compensation for crimes committed in Europe by Europeans which the Palestinians had no part in?

    If you look at this as some unfinished business of the winding up of European imperialism, everything falls into place.


    by David Seaton on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:51am

    David, that same British Empire, along with the French and a  host of others carved out all of the nation-states in the Middle East at the same time.  Do you believe that we should return to the Ottoman Empire?  All I'm saying is that the idea of a Jewish homeland predates European guilt over the Holocaust.

    That's the international component, the one upon which we rely, warts and all.  I'm not defending what happened post World-War I.

     On a different note David, Jews have been praying to return to Jerusalem, their homeland, for centuries and more.  You might think that's meaningless, and so too might others, but that doesn't mean that Jews have to accept your interpretation of what is their homeland.  

    And the notion that Jews weren't relegated to second-class citizenship under Islam for hundreds of year is just not true, and perhaps cause for another blog.   What you are arguing is analogous to those who say that Jews have it good in Iran today because you can still by kosher meat in about three or four butcher shops.  That guy from TPM, Don Bacon (no pun intended) used to argue that all the time.

    Bruce


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 11:47am

    I think the best analysis of the situation was Henry Kissinger's when he said, "I wish the Bible had been written in Uganda", personally I would have preferred Belize.

    I am not saying that the treatment of the Jews in Islam was perfect, simply that there were no pogroms or a Holocaust and the Arabs have no moral debt with the Jewish people at all. The moral debt of Europe has been foisted off on people that had no part in the Holocaust.

    When you come down to it, the only country with a sizable Jewish community where Jews have ever really been treated very well is the USA, which is something the Zionist right may finally spoil.


    by David Seaton on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 1:18pm

    Well, yes, there were pogroms in the Arab world against the Jews over the centuries, but I agree with you to the extent that isn't the point.  More to the point is the fact that  there were 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab and Islamic lands after 1948, and under the Palestinian definition of refugee (i.e. counting descendants) their numbers are in the millions.  Most of them are in Israel David, and they ain't going back, and indeed, Helen Thomas didn't even suggest that they should!


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 1:21pm

    I think in the end, all the Jews in Israel will finally have to come and live in the USA, which in my estimation is the true "promised land". This will be "good for the Jews" and also good for the USA.

    (I wonder how this will be construed as an antisemitic remark)


    by David Seaton on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 1:45pm

    Not by me.  I let you know when you cross the line David, you know that!


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:27pm

    Maybe a very small point. You tell me, if you will.
     Would it help if Netanyahu, or anyone who speaks for Israel and for Zionism, voiced the demand that the Palestinians recognize the right for the "State of Israel" to exist rather than demand they agree that they recognize th right to a "Jewish State" to exist? Is the difference, in this case, one which should not be codified if only for the purpose of advancing diplomatic possibilities? It seems to me that it is. Is the demand one which is intended to keep a wedge between possible other agreements?
      I live in a Mormon state, but for the local lawmakers to legally define it that way would piss me off.  If they tried to do so, I would object. It does not seem that such a stand, or such a legal structure, can mesh with democracy.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:50pm

    That

    is

    a

    very

    good

    point

    Wink


    by David Seaton on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:03pm

    If you believe that the Jewish People are nothing more than a religion, then I guess your suggestion would make sense.  We tend to think of ourselves as a Nation.  Over the past century, for one reason or another, the Jewish People have asserted nationhood.  I'm not sure if the Mormons have or have not.


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:14pm

    I think you should check out my Solomonic "Eretz Y' Arizona" plan for Middle East peace:

    http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/2010/04/my-plan-for-solving-arizona-and-middle.html


    by David Seaton on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:43pm

    Or let all Palestinians settle in Miami.


    by Rootman on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 7:56am

    Let's not overgeneralize, Bruce. Some Jews do, some don't. The way they identify themselves is irrelevant. What we're talking about here is an Israeli foreign-policy position: "We refuse to even negotiate with you unless you first recognize us as a Jewish state." On a practical level, Palestinians see that as cutting all links with their counterparts inside Israel and abandoning them to whatever fate Bibi and Co. have in mind for them. Hence, a deal-breaker.

    And that precondition is without precedent. Of the 150-plus states that currently recognize Israel, how many recognize it as "a Jewish state"? I mean formally, not in pandering presidential speeches. I doubt there is one. Not Canada, not the U.S. Certainly not any of the Arab states that made peace with Israel. Israel has no problem cutting deals with them. Nor did it have a problem signing a peace deal with Arafat while the PLO charter still called for its destruction.

    No, the demand is a new one formulated by the Netanyahu-Lieberman regime. Its purpose is simply to sabotage negotiations. If Israel wants to define itself constitutionally as the Jewish state, it's free to do so. Last time I looked, I don't believe it has.


    by acanuck on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 4:19pm

    The issue is whether the Palestinians are going to recognize the right of Jewish people around the world to have a haven and settle in the Land of Israel.  That's the significance of a Jewish State. In that sense, it is not correct to be as dismissive as you appear to be by designating this as a negotiating ploy.  Indeed, the resistance of the Palestinians to this demand might raise antannae more than anything else.  What's the problem with the designation if there will be two states?

    Right now, the charter of Hamas is that there should be no Israel.  That is not a negotiating ploy either.  


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 5:42pm

    Thank

    God

    Bruce

    opened

    a

    new

    line


    by David Seaton on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 12:37am

    Turns out Bibi's performance skills are not drawing raves in Israel. And just mebbe the Obama administration does have some access to data on how the Israeli public majoity feels and acts accordingly.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:48pm

    @Acanuck:

    Sorry Ack, can't handle the thin line!  But the Jewish State issue is not a precondition to negotiations by the Israelis so far as I know.  The only party that has set preconditions is the PA, i.e. absolute and total freeze of all building on land outside the Green Line, and now an agreement to base negotiations on the Green Line.

     


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 6:19pm

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/05/24/2011-05-24_israeli_p...


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 6:45pm

    To state a position is not a precondition.


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 6:48pm

    We'll see.  And with all due respect, beyond perhaps dropping in the occasional link, I won't engage with you.  Since the recent crap I've received both on your blogs and mine from you and others with no objection from you, I will say that our former relationship in which we tried very hard to honor one anothers' positions seems to have evaporated.  I will try to mainly watch and read. 

    signed,

    stardust


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 7:55pm

    Stars,

    I love it when you visit me, you are always welcome at any post of mine and if anybody gets on your case, we'll deal with that. Kiss


    by David Seaton on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 12:40am

    I'd give you my shoulder to cry on, but I'm afraid you've got a knife.Wink


    by Resistance on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 1:13am

    Sorry to truncate our part of the discussion, Bruce, but I'll be away from the computer for a bit. As for PA preconditions, the Pals did return to talks during last year's temporary, partial, not-including-Jerusalem-or-any-construction-already-in-the-pipeline "freeze." A mistake, as it turns out, since that only emboldened Netanyahu.

    And the 1967 lines (with swaps) were the basis for negotiations with both Ehud Barak and Olmert, if I'm not mistaken. As well as unofficial talks like the Geneva Initiative. Everyone (not just the Pals) expected them to continue as the baseline. Unilaterally taking them off the table is not a good way to restart negotiations.

    We differ on whether Netanyahu has any actual intent to negotiate. The "Jewish state" demand might have been possible to finesse, but you need to see it as part of his entire package: no role for Hamas (even though Abbas would be the one negotiating), no right of return, no sharing of Jerusalem, no Jordan Valley -- he even hinted he'd keep Hebron. In short, no to talks about anything the Pals consider important.

    Incredibly, the current "charm offensive" Netanyahu is on was actually touted as a chance for him to present some new ideas for a negotiated deal as a way to head off the September UN vote. Instead, he's persuaded the Pals the UN route is their only bet, and may have pushed a number of on-the-fence countries to vote for statehood.

    Jerusalem Post's David Horovitz had a fascinating article two months ago on the possible real-life ramifications of that September statehood vote. It's worth reading in full:

    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=213752


    by acanuck on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 2:19am

    Thanks for the terrific link!


    by David Seaton on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 4:41am

    Ack:

    Hope your computer respite is for good reasons.  I'm heading to the hills for the weekend myself, but unlike the old days, the computer now works up yonder.  Of course, could leave it home. . .nah.

    Anyway, thanks for the Horovitz link, and I do recall it when it came out.  Israelis are undoubtedly concerned about the September vote, and I'm afraid that Netanyahu got his cheers over here and back home and is really not doing much at all to come to yes as they say. 

    On the other hand, realistically, Abbas is doing the only thing he can do, setting preconditions, because he does not have and he has never had the authority to make a deal.  The wikileaks are often trotted out as evidence that the parties were close.  I don't understand that.  In fact, the wikileaks show that Olmert made a far-reaching proposal in September 2008 (which may or may not have been accepted by the Israelis), and the Palestinians never responded with an actual counteroffer.   People often miscast discussions about possible solutions as proposals; that is what happened with respect to to the 2008 Olmert negotiations.  Olmert's offer was what was left on the table.

    And then the Israelis elected Netanyahu, and I fear that you have two leaders who are unwilling or unable to make a deal.  If I'm Abbas, I do everything I can to get to September looking as if I'm willing to negotiate but avoiding it at all costs.  And so we have preconditions, one the settlements being the product of an amateurish bonehead move by Obama which prevented Abbas from asking for anything less, and the second the 67 armistice line issue, which of course has been the basis for all settlement discussions but has never been the precondition it is now.  Objectively, Abbas is playing four corners defense and I don't blame him for doing so in a short-term political sense.  And backing up to a year ago, Abbas never really came to the table--the focus on this house or that house in East Jerusalem, never an impediment to negotiations before, left the table for talks empty until a few short bursts of talks at the end of what really was a politically difficult freeze in Israel.  And no new settlements were constructed or have been constructed since.

    I think we can agree that Netanyahu screwed up in the United States but for different reasons.  Israel needs Obama this September, and he needs to help foster trust both ways.  He took applause instead of results.  On the other hand, the bold statements of position thing that you focus on doesn't do it for me.  Negotiations are not done in front of cameras; negotiations are done at the table.  And the fact of the matter is, whether Bibi would deal or not, it's the Palestinians who will not come to the table.  And, given their political position internationally, I understand their position in a political short-term sense.  I'm not sure what a declaration of statehood in the General Assembly does for them in the long-run.  I fear war.

    Finally, Hamas.  Yes, Abbas would be negotiating if there were negotiations.  But once again Israel is being asked to ignore a terrorist group that it is committed to its destruction.  I understand that.  I also understand Jews and their history and the conclusions they reach accordingly, and to a lesser extent I understand Israeli Jews.   The consensus, hardly uniform when it comes to Hamas is, "Are you kidding me?"  Of course, over the next few months, and until September, everything is likely to look wonderful between Fatah and Hamas--that's politically expedient.  But the divisions between them are deeper than those between Fatah and Likud, and it will unravel with unknown results, and none of it good for the Palestinians or the Israelis.  The Israelis know this better than anyone.

    Cheers Ack.

    Bruce

    Update: Forget one other point.  To the extent that Israel has authorized any new building, it has not been to create a new "settlement" so to speak, and it has been consistently in neighborhoods that are likely to remain Israeli neighborhoods based on the '67 lines with swaps concept that is now a precondition for negotiations.  There is a disconnect there.  If one asserts that Israel shouldn't worry because there will be adjustments to the '67 lines to reflect demographic realities and security concerns, then building a house in one of the areas that "everyone knows" will remain part of Israel should not be an impediment or a precondition to negotiations.   The settlement impediment, raised by the president (with good intentions), is now pretext for the Palestinians to avoid talks and to blame Israel (with the political support internationally to do just that).

     

     


    by Bruce Levine on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 7:25am