Posts
Deliver Us From AIPAC
By MosheYaroni / February 16, 2009
In an interview with Press TV on January 24 , Noam Chomsky gave voice to the cynicism of the hardcore left, predicting that the Obama administration would show little substantive difference with past American governments in its dealings with Israel.
"The US is not going to join the world in seeking to implement a diplomatic settlement," Chomsky told his Iranian interlocutor. "and if that is the case, (George) Mitchell’s mission is vacuous."
In theory, one can debate all sorts of things. However, the proof is in the actions oft he new president. Already we are seeing signs that Chomsky’s pessimism is misplaced. In fact, early indications show a distinct change in American policy, with the possibility of more to come.
Durban 2
One small examplewas Obama’s reversal of the Bush administration’sdecision to boycott the planning of the so-called Durban2 conference. This gathering, which will be held in Geneva in April, is a follow up to the much criticized first World Conference Against Racism that took place in 2001 in Durban, SouthAfrica.
That conference was largely diverted by pro-Palestinian groups and governments pushing anextremist agenda. The US and Israel both walked out. Some of those same NGOs and governmental delegations are pushing a similar agenda this time. But there are also strong forces working to ensure that this WCAR addresses broader issues of racism, and avoids the descenti nto anti-Semitism that characterized the first conference.
Israel has already announced its boycott, as has Canada. The United States has now decided, however, that the best way to prevent the conference from descending into an anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic frenzy is to engage in the event’s planning. If that fails, the Americans can always decide not to participate, as the U.S. and Israeli delegations did in 2001.
Barack Obama should be applauded for taking this course of action. He is working to prevent another demonstration of anti-Jewish racism, while demonstrating that failed strategies for combating it are being abandoned. Sadly, the Israeli government, and a number of prominent U.S. Jewish leaders would rather continue to use claims of anti-Semitism as a political hammer than try to eradicate the phenomenon.
The Settlements
The Durban 2 decision is nothing in comparison to the stance that is emerging regarding settlement expansion in the West Bank. Ha’aretz reported on February 15 that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Special Mideast Envoy George Mitchell are expected to take a firm stance with Israel on settlement expansion, including threatening to reduce the remaining $1.3 billion in loan guarantees the US has promised to Israel by the amount spent on settlement expansion.
This expectation was bolstered by statements in the House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. On February 12, opening a hearing on the Gaza War, the chairman of the subcommittee, Gary Ackerman, one of the House’s key pro-Israel leaders, issued a scathing indictment of Israel’s settlement enterprise. Coming from a source like Ackerman, blame for the stalled peace process being laid at the doorstep of settlements alongside (though not, Ackerman was quick to point out, on an equal footing with) Palestinian violence was surprising, to say the least.
Ackerman’s bold statement indicates that the direction Obama intends to head in is being mapped out not only with his own team of advisors, but with key pro-Israel figures in Congress. Unlike Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush, whose maverick policy making endeavors eschewed such collaboration, Obama is crafting an approach that he hopes will be executed without opposition from legislators and AIPAC-allied forces.
Indeed, at that very hearing (which I attended) we saw how things may split amongst Israel’s supporters in Congress. While Shelly Berkley and ranking Republican Dan Burton sang the same old tune, other notable figures like Robert Wexler appeared very much in line with Ackerman, as did some of the House’s newer lawmakers, such asrepresentatives Gerald Connolly and Michael McMahon. This indicates that the Obama team has marshaled reasonable Democrats behind it, and is ready to brave the attacks of the old guard.
Border Crossings
It is no coincidence that Israel has suddenly shown a willingness to discuss ways to openGaza’s border crossings as part of a long-term truce and reconstruction arrangement. The idea was never hinted at during the Bush administration’s tenure, right through its very last day. Suddenly, under Obama, it has become a cornerstone of every proposed arrangement.
In my discussions with officials at the State Department, it has been very clear that, while they always felt this was a necessary condition, Israel’s responsiveness to the idea changed dramatically once they knew the President agreed with that direction.
Obama’s team has demonstrated its interest in building stability in Gaza. It has also been absolutely clear (as was Ackerman) that anything that legitimized Hamas was a red line it was not willing to cross. But instead of leaving the people of Gaza to starve, they have insisted on exploring alternatives that would allow the territory’s civilian population to pursue their businesses and access needed services while bypassing its Islamist government
This strategy might well fail. The hope is to find a way to re-establish the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. Hamas is both determined and well-positioned enough to prevent that. The Obama administration will not legitimize Hamas, and sees that as too high a price to pay to open up access to the devastated territory.
Hamas stands accused of very serious breaches of Gazans’ trust. It appears to have wantonly deployed its forces in civilian areas during the fighting with Israel (to a greater degree than the considerable extent that the physical terrain and crowded conditions of Gaza made inevitable), and it has carried out beatings and executions of political enemies during and after the war. Hamas’ well-documented attempts to steal aid from UNRWA nearly cut off the one lifeline for humanitarian assistance that the people of Gaza have left.
Hamas’ position is not strong, and recent polls indicate that, while its profile remains high in the Arab world at large, in Gaza, support is at a low point. There may indeed be a way to administer the crossings without benefiting the Palestinian organization.
However, even if there is not, the fact that the US has chosen to vigorously pursue this approach is further evidence of real change from the Obama administration. Its stated eagerness to open a dialogue with Syria, and its slow pace in appointing an envoy to Iran further underline the depth of this change.
The Blank Cheque Has Bounced
Despite this change in policy direction, it is important to recognize that Israel isstill the American government’s most valued ally in the Middle East. It is seen by the Obama administration as the closest friend the US has in the region, and it will remain that way on the President’s final day in office.
What has taken hold in Washington is the clarity that only a party outside of a conflict can have. It is the view of what is truly in the best interest of both Israel and America. It is an understanding that giving Israel a blank cheque to decide its own course is unwise, especially when that course is subject to the volatile emotions of a populace in long-term conflict and a political system that is fractured and broken.
Martin Indyk, former US ambassador to Israel and founder ofthe pro-Israel think tank the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, stated after Obama’s electoral victory that the "era of the blank cheque is over." This change is not due to decreased sympathy for Israel. On the contrary, it is precisely because of such sentiments, combined with a sober analysis of Israeli needs, that the Obama administration is embarking on this course. And it’s also why it may very well succeed.
The rightward shift in Israel is a major obstacle. But Israel — even Benjamin Netanyahu– has already demonstrated that it understands that this is a new America it’s dealing with. The question of how effective this strategy will be will come down to how well the Obama administration can deal with the backlash from so-called "pro-Israel" forces, who do not understand how much harm they are doing to the Jewish state, with their focus on protecting the settlements and defending other Israeli policy excesses.
Part of that equation will be measured by Obama’s willingness to stay the course. But part will also come from the efforts of pro-Israel, pro-peace groups whose task it will be to counter two opposing forces. One is the supporters of the status quo, such as AIPAC, and more radical US organizations, such as the Zionist Organization of America. The other is the radical left who will follow Chomsky’s lead and insist that until the US adopts an unrealistic and ineffective posture of withdrawing its support (particularly military aid) for Israel, nothing will change.
Moderate US peace organizations must demonstrate that a clear American stance that supports Israel’s ability to defend itself, insists on an end to the settlement enterprise, and that gives Palestinians a real chance to build their society is a politically viable and effective position. Though liberal activists and pundits alike have been making this point for years, this is the first time since the beginning of the Oslo era where there has been such a serious chance to actually follow through. If they are effective, Obama’s diplomacy stands a serious chance of succeeding.
POST A COMMENT
And if you anti-Zionist Jews get your way, then who will save you from the Islamists when they come to drag you out of your home and kill you?
Are you really that stupid? I didn’t say it wasn’t worth losing, I said it’s a poor way to "eradicate anti-semitism". Whatever the benefits of getting rid of anti-semites, it’s impossible to believe that it will stamp out anti-semitism as well.
The more we kill, the more they’ll love us!
Yes, some asshole would be concerned about losing the love of the anti-Semites. Why of course, that would be a fellow anti-Semite!
If you want "an effort" to account for why Chomsky is the object of disdain on this page, here’s a concise appraisal, though doubtless a wasted effort, since left-wingers are just as pinheaded as right-wingers.
The only way to eradicate anti-Semitism is to eradicate anti-Semites.
The more we kill, the more they’ll love us!
Deliver us from…AIPAC? The article isn’t about AIPAC at all. Cute dishonest hook à la New Republic.
As for the settlements, I agree with Disco-Stu: depends on what settlements you’re talking about. The metro-Jerusalem settlements are appropriate, and the Nahals are just that — strategic outposts. Israel occupies those territories through which it was invaded in 1967. It has an absolute right to occupy those territories as it sees fit for its security. The settlements are not "illegal" per se. Whether they constitute strategic outposts (legal) or migrations (illegal) is certainly not for its enemies — whether Hamas or Chomsky — to determine.
Sadly, the Israeli government, and a number of prominent U.S. Jewish
leaders would rather continue to use claims of anti-Semitism as a
political hammer than try to eradicate the phenomenon.
Based on the context, this is one idiotic statement, since the antecedent paragraphs address the rabid anti-Semitism of the Arab/Muslim-rigged WCAR. The only way to eradicate anti-Semitism is to eradicate anti-Semites. The notion, apparently embraced by Jews of the left, is that anti-Semites only need a good talking to to see the light. They are under the delusion that anti-Semites are rational, intelligent or benign. One only need witness the lengthy efforts of Isaac vis-à-vis Ismael to realize the fatuousness of such a notion. Anti-Semites are psychopaths, and psychiatrists and psychologists recognize that psychopathy is untreatable.
Not until the virulent, deep-seated anti-Semitism in the Muslim world in general and the Palestinians in particular ends — along with the endemic European anti-Semitism which undergirds it — will Israel be secure. Alas, anti-Semitism is a terminal condition. There are three ways to eliminate anti-Semites — kill them, as was done in World War II, contain them, or rely on generational attrition to do its work. As one author has said, "jihidi cool" will hopefully be replaced by sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll.
As for Yoroni’s final, platitudinous paragraph, Israel has made every attempt to allow the Palestinians to "build their society". Given the chance, the Palestinians have freely chosen on one hand the utterly corrupt, utterly incompetent Fatah and on the other, a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s annihilation, more interested in cross-border terror attacks than in providing for their own people.
The Palestinians have for over a hundred years defined themselves by their hatred. They show no sign of changing. Since its formation in 1948, Israel has tried every approach under the sun to placate, appease, accommodate and, when necessary, contain and police the Palestinians. Middle East peace does not depend, as Yoroni and other historically obtuse pundits insist, on Israel’s performing yet more contortions for the West, but for the Palestinians to decide finally that they are a people defined by other than their hatreds, that it’s time to move on and live for the future instead of wallowing in the real and imagined grievances of the past. (In fact, such would be a good prescription for the ummah.)
The prospect of this happening is rather bleak, for the Palestinians need Israel in order to define themselves as its negation. This is why the Palestinian problem has proven so intractable. Without an Israeli nemesis, there would no longer be a Palestinian raison d’être.
???? ???
Mr. Friedman, I mostly agree. But there is a fundamental problem here you do not address: the illegitimacy of Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank, which shows no signs of abating (especially now).
You write, "The perception that Jews living beyond the artificial pre-1967 lines are somehow an ‘obstacle to peace’ must be rejected out of hand as void of fact and filled with racist intent." This is true if we also accept that the borders the entire international community (excepting the United States and the Israeli gov’t) recognizes as legitimate is the Green Line and no farther, and that the settlement blocs (Ma’aleh Adumim, Ari’el and the Greater J’m settlements, not to speak of the Kookist outposts that number in the hundreds; but it is best to focus on the biggest and therefore most threatening to the future of Israeli democracy) and the highways interconnecting them have already precluded the establishment of any viable Palestinian state.
It is, as you put it, "void of fact" to deny this reality. The operating assumption in your post is that there is no negotiating partner. It is true that Hamas, which is on record supporting a two-state settlement (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html), will not accept negotiating with a state that insists on collectively punishing Gaza, for example. In the West Bank, which is in my opinion more relevant here, Hamas is not the dominant faction, though its influence grows the more that Palestinians see their worst nightmares become facts on the ground.
Note the source of this interview. Has anyone reading this ever watched Press TV. I have. It is an Iranian mouthpiece spouting the worst types of anti-Israle propaganda under a thin veneer of impartiality. What have we come to when a Jewish website bases one of its articles on the mouthpiece of a regime pledged to murder the majority of Jews in the world?
Israel’s has patiently waited for an opportunity to fulfill the premise of the UN Res. 242 and 338, a negotiated settlement between the parties. Absent a secure situation for its citizenry, Israel is forced to wait until the Arab side is willing to proceed in good faith.
The issue of Jews living beyond the pre-1967 lines is rightly non-controversial. I believe it is incumbent upon all persons to recognize the right of the sovereign state of Israel, in coordination of its courts and administration of the "territories" to make decisions regarding land use, housing, permits and whether a community can expand into state-owned land. Arabs living in the Land of Israel have full access to the courts and communities which have been created or expanded have come about through legal administration and adjudication of those issues. The perception that Jews living beyond the artificial pre-1967 lines are somehow an "obstacle to peace" must be rejected out of hand as void of fact and filled with racist intent. East Jerusalem has exploded in Arab population under Israeli administration and if there are communities built within a legal framework housing primarily Jews–how is that community an "obstacle" in any way shape or form. The premise which holds that Jews must be contained within some specific line requires explanation. Further, the premise that violence emenating from areas under the control of the PA in accordance with Oslo fully abrogates such a treaty and requires Israel to take measures to destroy the violence to protect its citizenry.
As for the question of whether Israel should allow for the development of an Arab Paelstinians state within its borders–this is a political matter to be determined when there is room for good faith negotiation. It is evident that every Israeli adminsitration welcomes such negotiations. When such agreement is premised upon the elimination of Jews from their own land–there can never be peace or agreement. The Arabs have refused many opportunities to have a state carved out of Israel and I would not be prone to make another such offer but alas, I am not the elected leader of the state of Israel or even a citizen.
Further, the Golan has been annexed by Israel and is rightly never to be returned to Syria under any conditions. This is sensible, reasonable policy and Israel is fully justified in annexing land obtained in a war of defense where the other side has used such land to lauch attacks into Israel rendering its Northern communities so vulnerable. Securing strategic depth in the Golan populated at the time it was annexed by so few non-Israelis made the move non-controversial in the eyes of many in the international community which have recognized the annexation. By contrast, Israel cannot easily move out a million Arabs in Gaza but there is no interest in such a result since Israel has already made the painful choice to abandon Gaza to the Arab side.
If violence under Hamas persists and becomes greater, Israel will be forced to change its policy since it has a moral right to protect its population centers from attack, that is to say, war.
One phrase that sticks out to me in Ackerman’s speech (not quoted in this article) is "settler pogroms", which have surely been going on for many years, probably since ’67. Everytime the media focus on Gaza, we ignore what has been going on and what continues to proceed — with our blessing, maybe paring down the budget here or there — in the West Bank.
(I never understood the hatred toward Chomsky, if we can begin with him — after all, that was the article’s jump-off point. I don’t want to name names but at least of a few of the comments in this page are based on quite unfounded and malicious charges toward him without any effort at… forget it. Defending him may be a waste of time with some people.)
Back to the piece in question, and the options Israel has. It appears to be quickly headed down a terrible road (e.g., the Feb. 10 elections). Very soon, I’m afraid, the Israeli state may have to make the awful choice between being a democratic state for all its citizens or a Jewish state. The consequences of each decision should be obvious: namely, if it goes the binational democratic route (it is arguably already de facto bi-national, given how closely interconnected Israel and the territories are) that is essentially the termination of the Zionist project, which would be terrible. On the other hand, one-seventh of the population is not Jewish — so that would inescapably mean that continuing as a Jewish state would mean it would choose to go down the apartheid route, which is also terrible.
I’d like add further that no one, anywhere, seems to have any good solutions. No one. We just have to sort through the least worst choice we still can make. I wish I knew what it is.
svetistephen is correct all the way. Thius is vintage Jewcy support for the antisemites and this is what makes Jewcy so notorious in the Jewish world–ever willing to cheer on those who would want to destroy us.
Obama is clearly against Israel in its battle to survive and a conference chaired by Libya and co-chaired by Cuba and other dictators which loathe Israell and wish to equate support Israel for support for "racism" PROVES that Obama is not pro-Israel. The entire point of the conference is name-calling, the specific labelling of Jews as racist and Arab "Palestinians" as victims. Bush was correct to have nothing to do with Durban I and it is some shock that while Canada protests, America attends. Should Jews now find Canada more supportive than the USA?
AIPAC is hardly right-wing–it is a center-LEFT group and always has been. It has comfortably called for Israel to dump the "west Bank" now for decades. I am a true right-winder and the folks at AIPAC are frequently too liberal for my sensibilities, alas, I want Israel to survive in its struggle for peace and security and AIPAC is quick to call on Israel to take risks for peace. Chomsky is a bigot, a racist, and most importantly a true idiot and I cannot call anyone names since it is not polite. However, in the case of Chomsky, he is such a sick person, the description of "idiocy" is far more of a proven fact than some kind of accusation or insult.
Nothing much can be expected from a piece that starts with a passing genuflection to the loathsome Chomsky: why does Y bother? And why is Obama’s ludicrous attempt to turn Durban II into something other than Kristallnacht II seen as betokening something admirable rather than yet another sign of the Innocence Abroad and At Home O has demonstrated in these early days (any one that could be sandbagged by Senate Republicans clearly won’t do too well where the opponents are smarter). Once again we are being warned that Israel is being placed in danger by the EVIL RIGHT. But it was the moronic left under Barak, seeking to please another American liberal, Bill Clinton, who nearly gave the country away. It was only Arafat’s stupidity that saved us: he should have bought the Barak surrender and started the Second Intifada on Israel’s 20 yardline — but no, he decided to start back on his own 10. Why? Because he, like Hamas, was not a Palestinian nationalist. Why can’t the Left figure this out? They are Islamists for whom a Palestinian State is an afterthought: the main goal is driving Heathens out of Dar Islam. And don’t count on US pressure to help matters. So far as I can see, the Israelis are best left to figure out their own future. The US makes a mess of whatever it touches. And the image of Jews cheering on US pressure is too disgusting to bear.
As if Jewish antisemites and American-hating leftists need more space to shill for those who wish to destroy us.
herbert kaine gave the wrong first name for the murdered emergency room doctor murdered on the eve of his daughter’s wedding. his name was David Applebaum.
To argue with someone who is attentive to Noam Chomsky is in itself a wasted effort. Yes, Obama administration will demand to do something with the settlements, but the most it’ll get is a "discount" of funds spent beyond the "green line". Get this into your heads – the "West Bank" (and this is the first and the last time I use this weasel term) is an Israeli hinterland, a natural living space. Of course, except for Messianic religious right-wingers, nobody wants to settle in the near vicinity of big Arab population centers, but there’s enough empty space in the central Samaria, around Jerusalem and in the Jordan valley. Yes, there’s such thing as settlements with no sence and no future – Gaza strip is a good example, and see how easy it was to remove them even without any peace treaty of foreign pressure. So much for "obstacles for peace". But the vast majority of Israelis do not agree to full withdrawal to 1949 armistice lines and do not want to split Jerusalem, and no Obamas and no Ackermans will break this will.
I’m not sure what other "foreign policy excesses" of Israel’s Yaroni was referring to, but I’m curious to see what will transpire from this ‘new era’ of getting tough on settlements.
"Put an end to ongoing settlement building". "The settlements are the major obstacle to peace." Etc. Statements like this roll easily off the tongue, and pass for constructive criticism, but without a deeper understanding, they are mere truisms. Do "the settlements" refer to the Gush Emunim settlements and the breakaway outposts? The bedroom communities like Efrat and Maaleh Adumim? The post-1967 neighborhoods of Greater Jerusalem? The Nahal-type agricultural settlements along the Jordanian border? All of the above? Some of the above?
If I’ve learned anything over the last fifteen years it’s that simplistic truisms are not going to solve anything. Fifteen years ago I would have thought that ending the IDF occupation of southern Lebanon and uprooting every Jewish settlement in Gaza would have constituted the removal of two significant obstacles to peace. But how has that worked out? And by extension, Israel’s various phased withdrawals that were enacted under Oslo didn’t change the situation a whole lot either when push came to shove.
I would like to see a better quality of Israeli government. I would like to see an end to Gush Emunim style sentiments dictating Israeli policy, particularly where settlement is concerned. However, the last fifteen years have made it evident that simply leaving territory isn’t going to alter the situation one bit. And when you consider that the magic formula that’s supposed to make this all work out is "land for peace", and Israel doesn’t have much to bring to the table other than land, once they give that up, there aren’t a whole lot of options left.
Sure, settlements are an obstacle to peace, and Israel could always do more than it’s doing, but based on what I’ve seen with the withdrawals from Gaza and Lebanon and even the quasi-withdrawals from the West Bank under Oslo, I don’t really think the fight against Israel is going to end regardless of where the would-be border falls in relation to the Green Line. It seems to me the more important variable in the equation is whether the Palestinians and the Arab world can truly accept Israel’s right to exist–which doesn’t mean a truce or a cease fire, but a true acceptance of Israel’s right to thrive and prosper as a nation. I don’t see that happening any time soon.
The pro-Palestinian side likes to say, as corollary to their insistence that Israel withdraw to the last meter of the 1949 Armistice boundaries, that they are making a sacrifice by accepting a mere 22% of Mandatory Palestine. Based on my understanding of the Palestinian narrative, I don’t know if they could ever be content with 22% of what they view as rightfully theirs. To put it another way, if they could live with 22% why couldn’t they live with 15%? The answer is they could. But the Palestinian project has always been about stopping Israel rather than creating a viable state.
The state of Palestine, even under the 1949 Green Line borders, will likely always be smaller, poorer, and otherwise lesser than the state of Israel, particularly in a New Middle East scenario where there are no trade barriers and wars slowing down Israel’s potentially explosive growth.
Are Palestinians or much of the Arab world prepared to live with this? The answer seems to be no at the moment. No in two ways. Firstly, I don’t think they’re psychologically ready for that sort of Palestine, a noncontiguous entity existing in the shadows of the mighty Israeli enterprise, watching while Israelis live confidently in New Middle East prosperity and the Zionist narrative thrives. Secondly, at this point the Palestinian leadership is still a kleptocracy staffed by loose confederation of warlords who depend on international handouts to keep the wheels turning. I don’t see much of a state forming out of that.
Legislating fairness has its limits. Let’s remember, the Zionists created their state despite numerous obstacles put in their way both then and now. The determination to create and maintain a Jewish state has yet to be stamped out despite the efforts. The Palestinians on the other hand are the resisters of the Israeli state, who receive much support for the endeavor of creating their own state. Yet despite the goodwill of apparently most of the world, it seems to have trouble getting off the ground A boundary adjustment here or another settlement there isn’t going to be the ultimate determinant of the nature and viability of a Palestinian state.
While I would like to see a reining in of Israel’s extreme settlers and some evacuations of settlements, I simply don’t believe that by "finally standing up to" and getting tough with AIPAC the US can magically transform the reality of the Middle East.
The invasion of and regime change in Iraq was a wake up call for some on the limits of American and world power when it comes to nation building. Those same limits apply with the case of Palestine.
Ever since we have followed their advice, adopted the Palestinian narrative that Jews stole Palestine, and subcontracted out our defence to the UN and the PA, Israel has lost a great deal of respect. Yaroni and his ilk have the blood of Israeli intifada victims on his hand, such as Moshe Appelbaum and his daughter, who were killed in Jerusalem the day before her wedding. As long as the victims of post-Zionism arent close to Yaroni, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran are cool, and Jews are not.
Ackermanns supporters have been madoffed, so Ackermann is diversifying his donor base to the Saudis. In a year, he will be indistinguishable from Cynthia McKinney
Israel has already
announced its boycott, as has Canada. The United States has now decided,
however, that the best way to prevent the conference from descending
into an anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic frenzy is to engage in the
event’s planning. If that fails, the Americans can always
decide not to participate, as the U.S. and Israeli delegations did in
2001
I’m already taking bets on this one. If anyone cares to get a piece of the action (even if only to play the point spread), just send me a message here on Jewcy.
Important information. Glad you posted. Will share.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!