THE SPINE MARCH 10, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Everything is narrative. And the present “responsible” narrative, we are told, comes from President Obama. It’s too bad he knows very little about the intrinsic history of the dispute or about its present contours, which, after all, he--in his arrogance, vanity, and suave--has done much to make both sides more rigid rather than more amenable to compromise. (Actually it’s at least three sides if you count Hamas-controlled Gaza, which the president blithely ignores ... and more if you count the so-called “Palestinians-in-exile” and the Arab interlopers, like the Saudis, worthy of an executive genuflection, who agitate but don’t really much care. OK, this may be harsh. They do care, maybe a fig or two.)
There is some confusion in the Obama administration about its attitude toward Israel. Joe Biden’s visit to Jerusalem over the last few days actually must have focused all participants and observers on the ambiguities of the relationship. Herb Keinon, the very astute observer of U.S.-Israel relations at the Jerusalem Post, published an article today titled “Veep shows Israel some love.” And in a subhead: “In Jerusalem, Biden reiterates Washington’s ‘absolute, total unvarnished commitment to Israel’s security.’” And this was not all. Biden has his own longtime and almost maternally breastfed affections for Israel. Before meeting with the gaga president of Israel, he observed that the Jewish state “captured my heart. I make no bones about it. That does not mean I do not understand and have a great empathy for the circumstances of the Palestinians, but Israel captured heart and my imagination.”
Then the prime minister gave the vice president a certificate attesting to the fact that a ring of trees had been planted by the Jewish National Fund--for those of you who remember the blue collection box (or, as it was called, the pushke)--in memory of Biden’s mother, Catherine Eugenia Jean Finnegan Biden, who passed on at 92 in January. Biden took the certificate and said, “My love for your country was watered by this Irish lady, who was proudest of me when I was with and for the security of Israel.” This Irish lady, believe me, did not attend the Reverend John Hagee’s church.
Netanyahu’s colleagues did not reciprocate Biden’s gesture at all. The fact is that Bibi is continually undermined by several members of his cabinet and by the members of parliament who belong to their political parties. (Alas, the Israeli parliamentary system is not disciplined parliamentarianism at all.) My guess is that Netanyahu was as surprised as Biden when the interior ministry announced that it had approved construction for 1,600 apartments in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, which already houses 18,000 (mostly) ultra-orthodox Jews. But I do not believe that Interior Minister Eli Yishai--leader of Shas, the benighted ultra-orthodox party of many Sephardic Jews--was at all surprised as he claimed in a craftily wrought “apology.”
That said, I believe that the great rabbi in the skies has not instructed Israel to force history to stand still. So let me be direct: The Palestinians have only themselves to blame on Jerusalem, as on other disputed matters. In 2000 and 2001, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak agreed to a peace that included handing over the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem for the Palestinian capital. (Ehud Olmert made the same offer in 2008). The Arabs always believed that time was on their side, that their reluctance to negotiate and then their reluctance to sign would somehow improve their position. But time does not stand still, and it certainly no longer stands still for the Jews. Having waited in exile for 2,000 years, having struggled over nearly a century for a Jewish commonwealth, have tried to engage its neighbors in parley for more than half a century, the Jewish polity will no longer tarry, and it is justified in not tarrying.
Indeed, the American quick fix of “indirect” negotiations (with poor self-deluded George Mitchell shuttling between Jerusalem and Ramallah) plays into the Palestinian historic habit of eluding reality. But, if they will not sit with the Israelis, how can they possibly make peace with the Israelis? So what Obama’s affinity for the Palestinian sensibility has forced is a dangerous historic retreat that puts American sanction and blessings on fantasy. I actually believe that Netanyahu should have rejected this foolish formula. It is, however, an earnest representation of his commitment to move on with whatever “peace process” there is ... and there will be a peace process. It will end in nothing.
Now, back to Biden. Given that he surely understands this Israeli narrative and doubtless sympathizes with it as well, why did he use the word “condemn” about the announcement of the far-into-the future East Jerusalem housing? After all, if a peace agreement is struck beforehand, the 1,600 units can easily be cancelled. In fact, as Jennifer Rubin aptly points out today at Commentary, “condemn” is a rather shrill word in the affairs of state and is not used casually by the Obami. Mrs. Clinton, no longer a supplicant for Jewish votes and money, has also rushed to the strident in speaking about and to Israel. I conclude that this is actually administration policy. There is curious confirmation illuminating this in a column by Roger Cohen which has nothing to do with Israel. His piece fixes on Obama’s affinities for cultures and polities that had not been central in the minds of previous American presidents. So this president has actually played rough with our traditional allies and ideological companions. He is, as I have said a few times, a third worlder. We will see how America will do with our true friends sidelined. Perhaps the Brits will console themselves that Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill that they lent to the White House after 9/11.
Anyway, it is increasingly clear that the president feels more connection to the Palestinians specifically and the Arabs generally than he does to the Israelis (and just possibly more connection to Muslims than to Jews, to Islam than to Judaism and Jewishness.)
So he is stuck with the allies he has chosen. In the long run, it will not matter. The Palestinians will not play even the minimal accommodating role in peace-seeking that Obama has assigned them. There are relentless facts about Palestine that even the president’s disregard for Jewish sensibility and for Israel’s security will not be able to alter.
60 comments
This is crap. People are dying over half the world in large part because of Israel, and yet the Israelis can't resist the grand, defiant, unnecessary gesture that probably blows away the first small chance for contact in many months and embarrasses their most steadfast if not only ally (regardless of what the editor may think and in spite of his reprehensible accusations against Obama). Personally, I think that when Biden found out he had been stabbed in the back, along with all the other people who are bleeding for Israel around the world, he should simply have said, "OK, good luck, boys. We won't be back."
- mlottman
March 10, 2010 at 11:29pm
This column is a disgrace. In this case, the Israeli government is guilty of diplomatic and political incompetence on a breathtaking scale. And all Peretz can say is that that too is all the fault of the Arabs. Peretz, you are not merely obnoxious, you are a putz. Israel doesn't need friends like you. No one needs friends like you.
- roidubouloi
March 10, 2010 at 11:47pm
...This is crap. People are dying over half the world in large part because of Israel... You're right this is crap. But that aside, I can't understand any pragmatic justification for the announcement nor the case for why it isn't an instance of "diplomatic and political incompetence" as above said. In this case, Peretz's post is unpersuasive and attenuated. The cost of alienating Israel closest and most urgently necessary ally outweighs any benefits accruing from this uneccssarily provocative and badly mistimed act. Retreating and resorting to narrative--something Peretz condemns as narrative encroaches on history--and overarching assignments of blame, even if correct, cannot explain away or justify the sheer incompetence of the announcement.
- basman
March 11, 2010 at 1:28am
Marty, Referencing Jennifer Rubin to back up your point is about as unhelpful as it gets. This is a person who relies on promulgating the vilest anti-Semitic stereotypes - in Commentary! - just to protect the likes of Sarah Palin. Please. Biden's visit, along with other events of the past year, have not been amongst Israel's finest. If you need to lean on such a person as Rubin to gloss over this point, then you weaken your point.
- rlgordonma
March 11, 2010 at 8:57am
"The Palestinians have only themselves to blame on Jerusalem, as on other disputed matters." When I look at a group of people who, starting from, say 1800, have been under the thumb serially of one Imperial or colonial administration after another, eventually to be cordoned into what amounts to a vast refugee camp administered by yet another "other" power, the phrase "only themselves to blame" strikes me as ludicrously callous and unthoughtful. Please, Mr. Peretz, show us any point in the last 200 years when the people we now call Palestinians, or their forbearers, were in a position to do other than react to the designs someone else had on their future, or to hope for more than to "settle" for less in the way of autonomy and identity than what they had in the previous generation. That is not to say that Palestinian "leadership" has been much other than feckless and callow in the last 50 years, nor to in any way justify the nihilist violence of some Palestinian groups in the name of those people, nor even to suppose that their reaction to the war for the establishment of Israel was well organized or thoughtfully considered. But neither the crowd of people now in the West Bank and Gaza, nor their ancestors, ever asked to be shoved aside by history, and they have plenty of company in finding causes for their misery, from the Ottomans, to the British, to the Arab states, to the Israelis. "Only themselves ...." is an insult to history.
- IowaBeauty
March 11, 2010 at 9:04am
The Palestinians Arabs, per IowaBeauty, may well be captives of their history. They never had, prior to the Zionists, a separate national identity. They have always been captive to larger Arab and Muslim agendas, Soviet and Western agendas. Hamas is a subsidiary of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimun) and totally rejects equality with the Jews; it cannot be otherwise, that is its nature. Jews must always be a subordinated, humiliated people under Islam. That is in the Koran, the immutable Word of Allah. The Ikhwan is also profoundly anti-Western. Fatah (which means "Conquest", remember that), ruler of the "West Bank", was a clever confection of Arafat and his Soviet advisers, pretends to be a modern territorial nationalist movement, but hasn't mastered all the moves, so always failed to consummate agreements with eager Israeli interlocutors such as Barak and Olmert. Its soul, its Id, won't allow it.
- amidut
March 11, 2010 at 10:57am
I don't particularly blame Netanyahu for the debacle -- it's clearly his right-wing allies who were quite happy to embarrass him too, as he needs them more. This wasn't diplomacy by megaphone -- something we can be guilty of at times -- but rather diplomacy by jeering from the front row. Or, to put it another way, permitting local political brawling to trump larger national concerns.
- ironyroad
March 11, 2010 at 1:01pm
basman, I am with you on this. I also find this funny: It’s too bad he knows very little about the intrinsic history of the dispute or about its present contours, which, after all, he--in his arrogance, vanity, and suave--has done much to make both sides more rigid rather than more amenable to compromise. Yes, I am sure a President McCain would have wrapped up a peace deal by now. Frankly, I see no reason why the building or not building would have any real effect on a peace process that really doesn't exist. It is all kabuki. Now if Marty can explain how the 1,600 units are justified on their own merits, then I am up for it. Right now, I don't see it. There is nowhere else in Israel that they can build these houses? And if Israel is looking to annex East Jerusalem, then they should just do it and give the Arab residents of East Jerusalem full citizenship rights. But right now I simply don't know what they are up to. Once these houses are built, I can't see them coming down, nor can I see the Jews who live there being handed over to be residents of a Palestinian state.
- blackton
March 11, 2010 at 1:27pm
- wkwami
March 11, 2010 at 1:28pm
- wkwami
March 11, 2010 at 1:47pm
Just as matter of interest, Peretz's favored Barry Rubin's take from my email box this afternoon: ...There’s been a lot of nonsense written about an Israeli government announcement that 1600 apartments will be built in east Jerusalem. The timing was stupid, of course, since Vice-President Joe Biden was in town and didn’t like the idea. Moreover, to have such an announcement just when indirect talks were about to start between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) doesn’t make Israel look helpful. But that’s about it. Anyone who knows Israel really well understands this to be what is called locally a “fashlan,” that is a stupid mess-up as often happens with the government there. Israel combines the candor of a First World country with the bureaucratic incompetence of a Third World one. The ministry simply didn’t think about what the impact would be nor did it consult with the prime minister’s office. It was sheer narrow-visioned incompetence. Of course, though, Israel has announced since 1993, when the Oslo Agreement was signed, that it would continue building on existing settlements. And the government made clear all along that construction would continue in east Jerusalem. The action, if not the timing, was neither a provocation, the establishment of a “new settlement,” or proof that Israel didn’t want peace. After all, everyone seems to have forgotten one simple fact: the U.S. government officially accepted Israel's position that it would keep building in east Jerusalem. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton praised the resulting deal. So how all of a sudden can Joe Biden and the U.S. government say they are shocked, shocked to see that construction (in east Jerusalem) is going on when they agreed to that point months ago? (Doesn't it seem rather important for the media to highlight that point rather than make it sound that--aside from the bad timing--Israel did something horrible and unexpected to the U.S. government?) Actually, it’s sort of amusing that with the PA sabotaging negotiations for around 14 months while Israel was seeking them, the PA’s behavior isn’t taken as some proof that it doesn’t want peace while Israel’s single action demonstrates the opposite. What this announcement really shows is that Israel doesn’t want or intend to give up all of east Jerusalem as part of a peace agreement, which is not exactly news. Would it be better for Israel’s international position if the announcement had not been made? Yes. Because it allows the United States—which needs excuses for the failure to succeed at peacemaking—and the PA and Arab states—which need some rationale for their own policies to blame Israel But does it really do any material harm to a peace process which is going nowhere due to Palestinian positions? Or does it make the PA and Arab states, which are supposedly salivating for a peace deal, change their mind? In both cases, no. So, stupid yes. But deliberate sabotage or proof of warmongering? No....
- basman
March 11, 2010 at 1:50pm
- wkwami
March 11, 2010 at 2:08pm
Please forgive my multiple postings... I haven't posted here in a long time, and it looks like the site has changed quite a bit. I kept clicking on "save" not realizing it was posting my raw thoughts.
- wkwami
March 11, 2010 at 2:11pm
basman, during the height of the Cuban missile crisis the Pentagon tested a Nuke in the South Pacific, it was a regularly scheduled test, but in light of the fact that we were a hairs breath away from Nuclear war, was something that should have been postponed to say the least. I think that example takes “fashlan,” to its highest degree and shows it happens everywhere. As to previous agreements, I accept some degree of natural growth, a house here, an Israeli buys a Palestinian shop there. If they are going to be friendly neighbors this has to be accepted, but c'mon 1,600 new units? Israel is the only grown up in the region, it has to act like it. If it is their intention to annex East Jerusalem, then do it. If not, then Israel has to stop pretty much all not normal and natural growth. 1,600 units anywhere in the world is a massive development project. In the heart of East Jerusalem it is a major provocation. Again, I don't even have any problem with Israel annexing East Jerusalem because then that will be it. The residents there will have full rights. Maybe malahat is right, maybe it is all a negotiating ploy, but I find it morally weak. Can someone please tell me what is the justification of this on its own merits? Oh man, I miss Ehud Barak as PM.
- blackton
March 11, 2010 at 3:00pm
Blackton: how about this as an anlytical and short course historical answer as slightly edited and paraphrased by me from Jonathan Tobin (and leaving his right wing credentials to the side): ie what's wrong with his argument? (For myself, I'd want a divided Jersualem, if only that issue stood in the way of a real peace.) Israel has a right to build homes in its own capital. Netanyahu rightly opposed extending the freeze on building in the West Bank to Jerusalem. President Obama’s criticisms of Jewish building there were met with almost universal opposition on the part of Israelis, a factor that helped solidify Netanyahu’s popularity and the stability of his coalition. The argument is made that if Israelis expect the world to support their opposition to the Palestinians’ assertion of a so-called “right of return” to parts of the country they fled in 1948, Jews cannot at the same time claim their own right to return to property that was lost to the Arabs even in Jerusalem. Thus, according to this reasoning, the building of Jewish homes in East Jerusalem or even the reassertion of control over existing buildings that were Jewish property in 1948 across the Green Line is illegitimate and hypocritical as well as an obstacle to creating a Palestinian state with parts of Jerusalem as its capital. The problem here is that while Arabs and their Jewish supporters assume that keeping all Jews out of East Jerusalem is a prerequisite of Palestinian independence, no one questions the right of Israeli Arabs to live in any part of Jerusalem, including the sections that were under Israeli control from 1949 to 1967. Thus, the hypocrisy is not on the part of Israel but rather its critics. So long as Arabs are free to buy and/or build in West Jerusalem, banning Jews from doing the same in the eastern part of the city that was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967 is discriminatory. And even if a peace deal were ever adopted in which parts of the city were given to a Palestinian state, why would the presence of Jews there prevent such a pact, since no responsible person would expect such an agreement to also specify the eviction of Arabs from Israel? Moreover, the idea that it is a form of colonialism for Israelis to have the chutzpah to attempt to live in parts of Jerusalem is not only wrong-headed; it is based on a historical mistake that East Jerusalem has always been off-limits to Jews. There has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem since the mid-19th century. These areas are seeped in both ancient and modern Jewish history.
- basman
March 11, 2010 at 3:19pm
- wkwami
March 11, 2010 at 3:55pm
Deliberate sabotage. Does it change the overall balance of interests? No. Is intended to humiliate the Palestinians and make it that much more politically difficult to move forward even with the indirect talks? Absolutely. Was that the intended effect? Absolutely. Fashlan my ass. No one in Israel is that stupid. In any case, the stupidity defense doesn't play for Israel any more than it did for George Bush, even though was as stupid as a brick. There is exactly one moral justification for Israel maintaining dominion over the Palestinian Arabs, that security does not permit anything else. However, if one is in the unfortunate position of being unable to cede control, it is morally incumbent not to inflame the situation or to govern with a heavier hand than security requires. This is just one more case of needlessly inflaming the situation in order to continue the conditions of insecurity that justify the control. And that is morally unacceptable, even disgraceful. If you keep poking a dog in the eye with a sharp stick, you can still be justified in shooting it if it tries to kill you. But you can hardly hold yourself blameless for the outcome. The only thing that has enabled Israel to get away with this sort of thing is the even more stupid behavior of the Palestinians. If I were running their show, I would completely renounce violence and then declare a state tomorrow. It would quickly be recognized by most of the world. Then I would declare that the only thing to be negotiated are the mechanics of Israeli withdrawal and offer to cooperate as necessary to assure that Israeli security is fully protected as that withdrawal occurs. I would never concede an inch of territory east of the Green Line but would negotiate any step-by-step arrangement for Israel's ceding of control. Whenever Israel stopped moving toward the Green Line, I would appeal to the UN for assistance while constantly forswearing violence. In a decade, there would an Arab Palestinian state in every inch of territory east of the Green Line, including Jerusalem. This, mind you, is not the outcome I personally want, but it is only the failure of the Arabs to seize the political opportunity that prevents this from occurring. The Israeli right with its messianic nonsense seems to imagine that time is on its side. Not so. The longer this struggle goes on without being settled, the worse the ultimate terms will be for Israel. The Arabs, for all their fecklessness, at least understand that dynamic correctly and so do what they can to prevent any settlement. It is beyond idiotic for the government of the State of Israel to play into their hands. Okay, maybe Netanyahu really is that stupid. He certainly isn't clever. I can only imagine what Ben Gurion would have thought of him.
- roidubouloi
March 11, 2010 at 4:33pm
It's signifcant whether the announcement was a fuck up or intended. Assertions either way do not a case make. So Malahat's last post is at least the beginning of a possible argument. I'd like to see the case made, either way, on the issue by someone who can speak with knowing authority.
- basman
March 11, 2010 at 4:49pm
So long as Arabs are free to buy and/or build in West Jerusalem...really? You mean Arabs from the West Bank or Gaza are free to buy and/or build in West Jerusalem, that is news to me. Or is it that only Arabs who have residency in East Jerusalem are allowed to? If that is the case, then only Jews who have residency in West Jerusalem should have the same right. Again, either annex it and give the Arab residents Israeli citizenship or stay out. You can't defacto annex it and leave a significant portion of the residents of East Jerusalem without any rights. If Israel doesn't want to annex it, then they have to respect the rights of the majority of East Jerusalem the right to control their own zoning laws.
- blackton
March 11, 2010 at 5:02pm
"Thus, according to this reasoning, the building of Jewish homes in East Jerusalem or even the reassertion of control over existing buildings that were Jewish property in 1948 across the Green Line is illegitimate and hypocritical as well as an obstacle to creating a Palestinian state with parts of Jerusalem as its capital." Illegitimate? I might accept this folrmulation if the author of these words can show me one example in which the Palestinian so-called "Right of Return" has been described as "illegitimate" by any world leader, or media outlet or whatever. We should also recall that no one takes the slightest bit of interest in the property abandoned by Jews who fled persecution from Arab lands roundabout the same time that Palestinians did. What I see is a one sided formula in which any claims by Jews to land in Israel is thus called "illegitimate" while all around the world campuses celebrate "Israel Apartheid week" whose intention is "to protest the Israeli state's ongoing denial of the inalienable rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties". And the president of the US himself reinforces in this lopsided perception. Let's see one measure applied across to all claims.
- noga1
March 11, 2010 at 5:09pm
Noga that argument was set out only to be refuted by Tobin immediately after.
- basman
March 11, 2010 at 5:17pm
"If you keep poking a dog in the eye with a sharp stick, you can still be justified in shooting it if it tries to kill you. But you can hardly hold yourself blameless for the outcome." Or even a dull stick. Well said.
- IowaBeauty
March 11, 2010 at 5:21pm
Basman: I did not read past that paragraph. Thank you for pointing it out.
- noga1
March 11, 2010 at 5:52pm
noga, the difference is that Palestinians in fact have no right of return, regardless of what some Greek Labor sec. says. So answer this, do you believe Palestinians have a right of return? I don't. So why are you contrasting this non existent right to a right that Israel asserts for itself? I favor a united and unified Jerusalem, but one that respects all of its citizens. This action doesn't. Again, natural growth I have zero problem with, but imagine if some rich white powerful politicians decided to take a large chunk or harlem for itself, driving out the blacks and putting in rich white people. It would never happen. Thank God though for the Labor party: The Labor party will leave the governing coalition, creating a government crisis if, the decision to build 1600 new settlements in east Jerusalem, occupied by Israel in 1968, goes ahead. Shalom Simhon, Agriculture Minister in the government of Netanyahu and Labor party member, said today that members of his party "have increasing difficulties in taking part in the coalition government" of which they are part "with regard to the relaunch of the peace process with the Palestinians". Why are right wingers everywhere prone to such nuttery?
- blackton
March 11, 2010 at 6:26pm
"...imagine if some rich white powerful politicians decided to take a large chunk or harlem for itself, driving out the blacks and putting in rich white people." If you imagine this is an adequate analogy then you do not understand much about the history of Jerusalem and its Jewish residents... Are Arabs being driven from their homes? Are Arabs in Israel like blacks in America? Are Israeli Jews like "rich white powerful politicians" in America? I'm offended by this analogy but Palestinians would love the analogy. They like to fantasize that they are victimized like the descendants of black slaves and decimated like the indigenous Indians. Funny. When I look at the wages of history, I see Jews being massacred and driven away from their centuries long homes in Hebron, Jerusalem; I see Jews being decimated so that 70 years after they have not yet managed to recover their pre-Holocaust number; I see Jews being denied what is generously and unblinkingly allowed to Palestinians. It is only a matter of time before the "truths" currently circulating in your campuses become the universally acknowledged historical narrative. Jews haven't got the numbers, the oil, the steel, it takes to prevent this from happening. The analogy you furnished is proof of how successful the Arab onslaught on American thinking is, even with someone like yourself, who is pro-Israel.
- noga1
March 11, 2010 at 7:52pm
I don't agree with blackton's account, but noga correctly notes that it is only a matter of time before the "truths" circulating on campuses become the universally acknowledged narrative. And when that happens, woe unto Israel. But why? Not because of lack of oil or steel or numbers, but because some such narrative is inevitable as long as Israel maintains a captive population of Arabs, whether the captivity is justified or not. But what is the conclusion from this? I conclude that time is not on the side of Israel and that it is in Israel's urgent self-interest to create the conditions for peace and to conclude peace. Once that happens, the impetus for the narrative will fade. Is it necessarily the case that Israel can achieve this? No. Many critical matters are not within its control. But as to the matters that are, all we get is "right-wing nuttery," as blackton so aptly puts it, and then more right-wing nuttery, such as this latest spectacle of Shas crapping all over a barely breathing peace process that Israel needs much more than the Arabs do. The Arabs are willing to endure another 100 years of suffering and anarchy if that's what it takes to succeed. It is in Israel's interest for them not to suffer or endure anarchy, but to be as comfortable, fat, happy, and watching TV in a Barca-lounger as the needs of security allow -- so that the Arab "street" loses interest in its own version of nuttery.
- roidubouloi
March 11, 2010 at 8:26pm
noga, then answer me this: what is your opinion about the construction? Do you agree or not? I don't know all the details of it, where it is, on what land, who owns the land, etc. so don't you think it would be nice to fill us in on this information? And most importantly, why is this being done? There is nowhere else in Israel this could be built? As to Harlem, hell that land isn't even disputed. Legally, if whites wanted to move en mass there they can. We call it gentrification, but it is not a stated policy. I truly don't understand why this is being done. There is nowhere else to build these 1600 units? Again, I support a unified and united Jerusalem, I don't think the city should be split in two, but this requires Israel to being especially mindful of their responsibility (which they have been). Why be provocative? Now if you are offended I said blacks in Harlem, I suppose I could have said Italians in little Italy. I would be opposed to the US government tearing that all up to build high rise residential areas specifically for people who are not from that neighborhood. Now if these 1600 units for being built for anyone, with local residents in the neighborhood getting first dibs I would be all for it. But they are called settlements. How the hell can you have settlements in Jerusalem? And my analogy has nothing to do with any arab onslaught. I would say the same thing if it were reversed. I supported Switzerland's right not to build Mosques because they didn't want to change the character of their towns. I simply don't see what right anyone has to appropriate land to build for non residents of that neighborhood. As I said, if the government wants to build for the locals, be they jews, gentiles, or arabs, I am all for that. If the government wants to build 1600 units for jews only, that is fine, but do it not in an Arab neighborhood. Is that really too much to ask.
- blackton
March 11, 2010 at 8:31pm
There are no Italians in Little Italy, blackton. Only Chinese and a short street of Italian restaurants maintained out of nostalgia and because the Mafia has told the Chinese to step back. The Chinese wisely figure that it isn't worth fighting over a short stretch of Mulberry Street. Peace is maintained.
- roidubouloi
March 11, 2010 at 8:35pm
by the way noga, that was a low blow about blacks in American history. You are basically saying that old tripe "blacks can't be racists." Of course the policy of Israel can be wrong, just because the actions of Arabs in the past has been horrendous doesn't mean Netanyahu is right now. I agree my analogy can be weak, but I am no one so it doesn't matter, but my weak analogy doesn't mean this policy is right. Nowhere have I read anyone that has justified this particular action on its own merits.
- blackton
March 11, 2010 at 8:47pm
roid, good one. and noga, just because I am against this policy doesn't mean I am going to man the barricades for the PLO. Sometimes you got to let people agree to disagree about some decisions.
- blackton
March 11, 2010 at 8:53pm
- wkwami
March 11, 2010 at 9:08pm
wkwami beautifully makes noga's point about the narrative that is taking over and will inevitably take over as long as Israel maintains its dominion over the Palestinians, whether that dominion is justified or not. One has to be a student of Jewish history to take issue with wkwami's query, and in too many instances the correct answer would be, "It doesn't," even if, overall, the answer would be mortal threat and the right of the Jews to their physical, cultural, and religious patrimony in common with all the other peoples of the earth.
- roidubouloi
March 11, 2010 at 9:26pm
Hi, Roid, Glad to see you around these parts again. Anyway, the Israeli government is not alone in the blame game. Much of America--especially on the Repug side--unconditionally supports the state of Israel. (Interestingly, but not surprisingly, a minority of Democrats supports Israel.) It's the religious right, you see. No politician is going to piss these people off. So it isn't just AIPAC and the Jews that Obama and the rest are concerned about.
- MOLLYSIMON
March 11, 2010 at 10:29pm
"noga, then answer me this: what is your opinion about the construction? Do you agree or not?" Blackton: You should watch this little clip to understand what kind of global defamation Israel is up against. Please don't tell me that the construction of 1,600 units in a part of Jerusalem where Jews historically were the majority is what causes this genocidal hatred which reverberates not in the streets of Cairo or Tehran, but at the heart of NYC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOCd5iCfdEw&feature=player_embedded You can see from the maps carried by these brainless ugly people that they do not even try to conceal their ultimate goal: the destruction of Israel in favour of a Palestinian state. So they are not protesting construction or "apartheid". They are propagating for mass elimination. In good conscience, when I watch these scenes or listen to Palestinian leaders talk about Haifa and Tel Aviv as if it were theirs by right, or read Arab media which actively incites against Jewish historical clams as lies, the last thing I feel like doing is to tell Jews that they cannot live in parts of Jerusalem.
- noga1
March 12, 2010 at 7:22am
noga, of course Tel Aviv doesn't belong to the Palestinians, and if the PLO said it was going to put up 1,600 units in the heart of Tel Aviv on the basis that at some point in the past Palestinians were the majority I would laugh my ass off. I don't care about "historically" Historically California was part of Mexico, that doesn't mean Mexicans can reclaim it as their own now. At some point you have to get off that merry go round and deal with the now. Who lives there now? Why build there? I am not even disputing Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, but this is based completely on my belief that Israel will be fair and evenhanded over all of its inhabitants. You and I both know that these settlements will have walls, and checkpoints, extra police, and that the new settlers will not interact with the local people. It is a logistical nightmare. To be utterly honest though, I think in the end Netanyahu will back down and these units will never be built so a lot of this is much ado about nothing, but it should serve as fair warning to right wing nut jobs in Israel that they don't have Carte Blanche. Trying to guilt me into doing so ain't going to work. Anyway, you have never said your opinion about this. Are you in favor or not? If not, then why defend it? Do you really think Israel is so precarious it can't take any criticism?
- blackton
March 12, 2010 at 10:22am
- wkwami
March 12, 2010 at 11:02am
wkwami, sorry but that is a bit of a slur. Lay this fiasco completely at the feet of Netanyahu. No need to talk in generalities.
- blackton
March 12, 2010 at 11:08am
"..warning to right wing nut jobs in Israel that they don't have Carte Blanche" (blackton) So you consider that building 1600 units in East Jerusalem is the work of "right wing nut jobs"?? So now East Jerusalem is a "settlement"? I have given my position on settlements more than once. I am all for mutual cancellation of "rights" if the result is genuine peace. But I refuse to reiterate a stand that de-facto strengthens Palestinian claims over Israel while weakening Jewish historical claims. If Israeli Jews are expected to wrench their attachment from their historical heartland, so should Palestinians. President Obama with his insistence on including Jerusalem within his definition of "settlements" has not advanced peace one tiny step. He has only served to breathe new life into Palestinian hopes of destroying Israel, one step at a time. It's not the Israelis that need to be bullied into concessions they ALREADY MADE MORE THAN ONCE!
- noga1
March 12, 2010 at 11:23am
"Their policies appear to be a captive to the worst aspects of their history of suffering," The history of Jewish suffering has not had a chance to become a thing of the past. The over 1000 victims of the last suicide terrorist campaign, or the 8,000+ qassams are fresh in the minds of most Israelis. They did not happen in the last century. They happened just a few years, months, back, and are still going on, relentlessly. This sneering assessment of Jewish suffering is not a slur. It is revisionism. It is an attempt to roll back history, to reverse the order of things. It borders on the perverse. Palestinians suffer. Jews suffer from paranoia.
- noga1
March 12, 2010 at 11:36am
blackton, I do not mean to slur, apologies if it came across that way. But Netanyahu is the leader of Israel, his actions or rather what happens under his watch affects the way Israel is seen by the rest of the world.
- wkwami
March 12, 2010 at 11:53am
Mahalat wrote: Who are the peace partners? Clearly, Tel Aviv and Washington seem to think there is a partner on the other side worth holding talks with. Israel can't have it both ways; either there is no partner on the other side, which would suggest that attempts to hold peace talks is a waste of time, or there is a partner, regardless of whether Isreal thinks that partner is ideal or not.
- wkwami
March 12, 2010 at 12:28pm
Good post Noga: 3/12/2010/ 11:23: As I argued here before once: ...There is a continuum between ceding legitimacy to the “territories” and the right of Israel proper to exist. When Obama spoke of Israel as a consequence of the Holocaust he fueled the canard that she is but a colonial-like imposition on the Palestinians by the Western powers. If an important reason for Israel’s legitimacy is Jews’ deep and long historical connection to the lands, then that reason applies to the territories as well. Deny the latter, and then the former becomes more fragile. Assert the latter, then the former gains strength… Now for me that isn’t an argument for Israel's insistence on claiming the West Bank, thought it can be the framework for an overall position under which negotiations can proceed. But it is an argument that does apply more directly to Israel's present claim to a non divided Jerusalem. I would in the interest of clearer thinking separate the issues of the timing of the announcement--whether snafu or intended, I do not know; the principled right of Israel to build in East (or North as Peretz says, I am not sure) which right Obama and Clinton affirmed in backing off their freeze position to that extent, as Barry Rubin argued; and whether this particular announced 1600 unit project is a pragmatically wise one, leaving the timing aside. For myself, for the latter pragmatic issue I need to more about it and see an anlalysis of the costs against the benefits and its rationales. The immediate inclusion of East Jerusalem into Israel proper, as Blackton suggests, would be a terrible decision politically. It would be so unilateral and provocative as to generate consequences immensely grave consequences. Stalled as the peace process is, there is still a notion of it, something that may possibly be resurrected. One can’t hold to any idea of a two state solution without faith in that possibility. The immediate, unilateral inclusive Israelization of East Jerusalem would be the death knell of a two state solution. No, the parties, I think, will have to limp along with their stalled process including the present status of Jerusalem. For myself, I like the this approach: Good post Noga: 3/12/2010/ 11:23: I argued here before once: ...There is a continuum between ceding legitimacy to the “territories” and the right of Israel proper to exist. When Obama spoke of Israel as a consequence of the Holocaust he fueled the canard that she is but a colonial-like imposition on the Palestinians by the Western powers. If an important reason for Israel’s legitimacy is Jews’ deep and long historical connection to the lands, then that reason applies to the territories as well. Deny the latter, and then the former becomes more fragile. Assert the latter, then the former gains strength… Now for me that isn’t an argument for Israel's insistence on claiming the West Bank, thought it can be the framework for an overall position under which negotiations can proceed. But it is an argument that does apply more directly to Israel's present claim to a non divided Jerusalem. I would in the interest of clearer thinking separate the issues of the timing of the announcement--whether snafu or intended, I do not know; the principled right of Israel to build in East (or North as Peretz says, I am not sure) which right Obama and Clinton affirmed in backing off their freeze position to that extent, as Barry Rubin argued; and whether this particular announced 1600 unit project is a pragmatically wise one, leaving the timing aside. For myself, for the latter pragmatic issue I need to more about it and see an anlalysis of the costs against the benefits and its rationales. The immediate inclusion of East Jerusalem into Israel proper, as Blackton suggests, would be a terrible decision politically. It would be so unilateral and provocative as to generate consequences immensely grave consequences. Stalled as the peace process is, there is still a notion of it, something that may possibly be resurrected. One can’t hold to any idea of a two state solution without faith in that possibility. The immediate, unilateral inclusive Israelization of East Jerusalem would be the death knell of a two state solution. No, the parties, I think, will have to limp along with their stalled process including the present status of Jerusalem. For myself, I like the sounds of this approach in principle, questions of its own timing notwithstanding: http://jta.org/news/article-print/2010/03/08/1010980/salam-fayyad-the-palestinian-with-a-plan-for-statehood?TB_iframe=true&width=750&height=500
- basman
March 12, 2010 at 12:36pm
Sorry for the screw up in that lost posting. For anyone interested, here it is again in proper form. ________________________ Good post Noga: 3/12/2010/ 11:23: I argued here before once: ...There is a continuum between ceding legitimacy to the “territories” and the right of Israel proper to exist. When Obama spoke of Israel as a consequence of the Holocaust he fueled the canard that she is but a colonial-like imposition on the Palestinians by the Western powers. If an important reason for Israel’s legitimacy is Jews’ deep and long historical connection to the lands, then that reason applies to the territories as well. Deny the latter, and then the former becomes more fragile. Assert the latter, then the former gains strength… Now for me that isn’t an argument for Israel's insistence on claiming the West Bank, thought it can be the framework for an overall position under which negotiations can proceed. But it is an argument that does apply more directly to Israel's present claim to a non divided Jerusalem. I would in the interest of clearer thinking separate the issues of the timing of the announcement--whether snafu or intended, I do not know; the principled right of Israel to build in East (or North as Peretz says, I am not sure) which right Obama and Clinton affirmed in backing off their freeze position to that extent, as Barry Rubin argued; and whether this particular announced 1600 unit project is a pragmatically wise one, leaving the timing aside. For myself, for the latter pragmatic issue I need to more about it and see an anlalysis of the costs against the benefits and its rationales. The immediate inclusion of East Jerusalem into Israel proper, as Blackton suggests, would be a terrible decision politically. It would be so unilateral and provocative as to generate consequences immensely grave consequences. Stalled as the peace process is, there is still a notion of it, something that may possibly be resurrected. One can’t hold to any idea of a two state solution without faith in that possibility. The immediate, unilateral inclusive Israelization of East Jerusalem would be the death knell of a two state solution. No, the parties, I think, will have to limp along with their stalled process including the present status of Jerusalem. For myself, I like the sounds of this approach in principle, questions of its own timing notwithstanding: http://jta.org/news/article-print/2010/03/08/1010980/salam-fayyad-the-palestinian-with-a-plan-for-statehood?TB_iframe=true&width=750&height=500
- basman
March 12, 2010 at 12:41pm
- wkwami
March 12, 2010 at 12:47pm
Also for anyone interested: Rubin giving a synoptic lecture: http://hosting.epresence.tv/MUNK/1/watch/161.aspx
- basman
March 12, 2010 at 12:48pm
noga, who is talking about claims? I am not stating that Israel renounce any claims to East Jerusalem, in fact I disagree with Basman that East Jerusalem being part of Israel is wrong, but I base that on Israel respecting the neighborhoods are they are. If Basman hopes that it is all bartered away at some future point, then there is no logic to have the units built there. If Israel wants to have claim over the area, they must exhibit proper administration. I am not interested in any theoretical rights of Israel to build there, having a right to do something doesn't mean you should do something. Noga, I ask you again. Do you think building this is a good idea, and if so why?
- blackton
March 12, 2010 at 1:19pm
Basman, I dunno, I think Israel can have sovereignty over the entire city proper and cede some parts of it as a constituted Capital of Palestine. Work out a Vatican type of solution. Israel would guarantee the security of the city, etc. Turning Jerusalem into a cold war Berlin type city is just too depressing. Anyway, this is rightly up to the local people to decide.
- blackton
March 12, 2010 at 1:25pm
mahalat, Yes, it is difficult, but not impossible. Which is why the announcement to build 1600 new units in East Jerusalem was not only bad timing, but complicates an already difficult situation. Jomo Kenyatta said, "the key to a lasting compromise is knowing what to forget and what to remember". It seems the Middle East has a long memory and no one wants to forget anything. The past is given too much weight, when in fact it is not of much consequence in the grand scheme of things (i.e. ancestral homelands, rights fo return, etc). Maybe if both sides can give up on certain demands, there could be a solution. As for Hamas being dedicated to the annihilation of Israel, that's just wishful thinking on their part. Israel is going nowhere.
- wkwami
March 12, 2010 at 1:26pm
- wkwami
March 12, 2010 at 3:23pm
- wkwami
March 12, 2010 at 4:00pm
"...there is such a thing as playing up certain aspects of one’s suffering " And there is such a thing as playing down certain aspects of the other's suffering as you demonstrate here: "Suffering is not limited to just one group. Jews, like many other groups have historically suffered and continue to suffer. However, when you occupy and dominate a people, they are bound to fight back. It is tragic that Palestinian terrorism has claimed over 1000 Israeli victims as you point out, but an even higher loss of Palestinian lives at the hand of the Israelis is no less tragic. And, “Palestinian terrorism made Israel do it” (and vice versa), is not a particularly convincing argument." There is a difference between committing terrorist acts and acting to prevent terrorist acts. It's not “Palestinian terrorism made Israel do it”; it is "Israel WILL defend its citizens against Palestinian terrorism". Curious: How is your being African in any way relevant or enlightening to your arguments about Palestinian suffering?
- noga1
March 12, 2010 at 4:29pm
"There is a difference between committing terrorist acts and acting to prevent terrorist acts." Agreed, you get no argument with me on this point. But I ask again, how does the Israeli occupation itself, or the announcement of building 1600 units in East Jerusalem qualify as acting to prevent terrorist acts. "Israel WILL defend its citizens against Palestinian terrorism". I have said as much myself. Anytime Hamas sends qassams into Israel, Israel has every right to do whatever is necessary to defend itself. Raise the cost of terrorism to the other side. Hamas must not benefit one bit from its terrorist acts. But again, it brings me back to my question... Is the occupation making Israel any safer? How does the announcement of building 1600 units in East Jerusalem qualify as acting to prevent terroristacts? "Curious: How is your being African in any way relevant or enlightening to your arguments about Palestinian suffering?" To point out to you that I don't need any lectures on suffering, as I am no stranger to suffering whether in the historical sense or in the present.
- wkwami
March 12, 2010 at 6:04pm
Oh c'mon now... You don't think that being an occupying power is what enables Israel's land grab and building of settlements wherever it chooses? One cannot fail to see how that would inflame Palestinian passions. No? But maybe I am getting this all wrong, so why not lay out for me how the occupation itself, and the recent announcement of building 1600 units in East Jerusalem, makes Israel any safer, or qualifies as acting to prevent terrorist acts against it?
- wkwami
March 12, 2010 at 7:26pm
mahalat, no offense taken. It's been an interesting conversation. I am not much of an expert on this conflict. From the little I know of internal Israeli politics, it may well be that Netanyahu was himself blindsided by the announcement. Either way, it wasn't helpful to Israel's long term interests. And I being that Israel is the "grownup", it is not too much to expect that they will act in ways that does not complicate this situation. The occupation can't continue forever, it has to end at some point. No matter the history, who's right and whos' wrong, dominion over others will have an adverse effect even on the Israelis eventually.
- wkwami
March 12, 2010 at 9:02pm
"... that Israel is the "grownup", it is not too much to expect that they will act in ways that does not complicate this situation." Does that imply that Palestinians are juvenile and must be treated with indulgence because of their immaturity? I do not accept this reading at all. " The occupation can't continue forever, it has to end at some point. No matter the history, who's right and whos' wrong, dominion over others will have an adverse effect even on the Israelis eventually." The "occupation" could have ended years ago, and even more recently if only the Palestinians would agree to have a state of their own with all the responsibility that accrues to independence and self-governance, like, for example, agreeing not to kill Israelis, or to plan to kill Israelis, or to want to kill Israelis. In other words, accept that compromise is not a dirty word. Palestinian/Arab rejectionism: Khartoum http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/khartoum.asp Camp David 2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit Gaza Disengagement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_unilateral_disengagement_plan Ehud Olmert's peace plan http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135699.html And so the story goes about how Poor Palestinians suffer so under the occupation which they refuse to end.
- noga1
March 12, 2010 at 10:49pm
"One cannot fail to see how that would inflame Palestinian passions." "Palestinian passions" http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2010/03/the-next-generation/index.shtml
- noga1
March 13, 2010 at 8:20am
Blackton if you're still around here's something short someone said. I offer this not to justify the terribly timed announcement but to suggest the possibillity that in the circumstances the 1600 unit project need not destroy the the possibility of even a divided Jerusalem as part of a final resolution or generally be objectionable in substance" ."...Ramat Shlomo already has more than 20,000 Israeli residents — far too big to be uprooted even without the planned 1,600 new houses. It is also, as noted, of considerable strategic importance, dominating all of Jerusalem’s major roads; thus Israel would insist on retaining it, even if not a single Jew lived there. Finally, its location in no way precludes the division of Jerusalem, which is what both Washington and Europe claim to want: situated in the corner formed by two other huge Jewish neighborhoods to its west and south, it does not block a single Arab neighborhood from contiguity with a future Palestinian state..." Is this brief analysis wrong, questions of mistiming notwithstanding.
- basman
March 14, 2010 at 2:29pm
Well Basman, Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi's personal trainer, wrote about Rehavia, Talbia, Talpiot, etc as Arab neigbourhoods. If president Obama continues in this path of objecting to "Jewish building" in Jerusalem the day is soon coming when we will hear from him objecting to building in those neigborhoods as well, since it is a provocation and insult to American sensibilities. Instead of focusing on Arab rejectionism, it is so much easier to bully Israel. Or is this just a red-herring storm in a teacup deliberately brewed by way of warning to Israel to sit still while Iran nuclearizes?
- noga1
March 14, 2010 at 3:03pm
...Or is this just a red-herring storm in a teacup deliberately brewed by way of warning to Israel to sit still while Iran nuclearizes... What kind of a post is that Nogs, for God's sake! The mixing of metaphors and the conflating of imagery are upsetting my poetic sensibility such that I have to take an anti depresssant--some Masi Amarone--and lay down.
- basman
March 14, 2010 at 5:44pm
As I said on the occasion of his election, Netanyahu is a clod, Israel's very own Bush. The issue is not justification; it is one of Israel's self-interest in its own survival in a definitely hostile world that is only growing more-so. The messianic Jewish right, no different than the right-wing ideological and religious nuts in the US, is incapable of discerning that what it deems morally justified does not therefore necessarily lead to the desired outcome. There are other forces and powers in the world who see things differently and invoke their own moral justifications in pursuit of their own interests. What is demanded of Israel by virtue of its vulnerability is adroit management of the equation of power. But the right is oblivious (supposing perhaps that the Almighty will provide) and Netanyahu far too stupid. The slowly unfolding tragedy is akin to a national death-wish. At the basest level, if Israel wants the support of the US for its view of the urgency of preventing a nuclear Iran, one would think that a sensible person would not take the opportunity at this very moment publicly to give the US government and its Vice President the finger. But, perhaps the wacko Jewish religious nuts think that these 1,600 apartments will protect them from Iran or from the consequences of facing Iran on their own. I am embarrassed that these people are Jews and mortally dismayed that the security of my family rides with them. If it were up to me, my Israeli family, three generations of whom still carry American passports, would leave at once and come back here. Israel, hopelessly in the grip of its own nuts, doesn't deserve them.
- roidubouloi
March 14, 2010 at 6:55pm