Israel and the US [Archive] - HungAngels - Guide to TGirls and Transsexuals

Prospero

11-12-2012, 12:38 PM

This is a piece, published today, analysing the relationship between Israel and the US after the election.

It is written by a journalist called Habib Fowsi who worked with Iran Review - which is presented as an independent non-partisan and non government agency in Iran.

Iran Viewpoint: Is Obama’s Reelection Bad News For Netanyahu?
By: Iran Review

November 12, 2012

By Habib Fowzi

Tel Aviv is the first important point in the United States foreign policy where political observers try to assess the consequences of the recent US presidential election which was held on November 6, 2012. The high-ranking officials of Israel are wondering what approach will Obama take as the dominant approach of the United States’ foreign policy during his second term in office as president: will he choose for diplomacy and interaction, or give priority to confrontation and pressure?

As a result of this situation, the Arabs and Israelis are following the outlook of the United States’ foreign policy during Obama’s second term as president, with a common question in mind.

For the United States, which has already gone through to costly and bloody wars in the Middle East over the past decade, the political disputes in this region are in fact the toughest tests that the United States president will be taking in terms of foreign policy decisions. Current conditions which are now governing the Middle East as a result of what has happened in this region during the past two years are very different from the situation at the beginning of his first term. Four years ago, when Obama came to power following presidential polls in 2008, the main issue in the Middle East for the United States was simply how to manage two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to challenges related to the process of peace in the Middle East. Now, however, Islamic and Arab movements and revolutions have totally changed the political structure of this strategic region.

Most observers believe that during his first term in office, Obama did not pass the crucial test with regard to ending the 60-year conflict between Palestinians and Israel. He tried his chance in this political minefield during his early days in office. Soon after he was elected president, he promised to stop Israel’s expansionist policies especially in the field of building new Zionist settlements, but he failed to fulfill that promise as a result of the opposition of Tel Aviv officials, and this was recorded as the first failure in his first term as the United States president.

It would suffice to remember that Obama made his first international phone call to Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority about four years ago, and after that he called the then leaders of Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

During his early days of presence at the White House, Obama appointed George Mitchell, a seasoned diplomat who had played a very effective role in pulling off the cease-fire in Northern Ireland, as his special envoy to the Middle East.

American analysts, however, noted from the very beginning of his mission that due to empowerment of radical politicians in Tel Aviv, Obama’s envoy had been actually assigned to “mission impossible.” The new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was leading a coalition of radical Israeli politicians, opposed any kind of restriction or limitation on Tel Aviv’s expansionist policies. In this way, the radical leaders in Tel Aviv dragged George Mitchell into an actual diplomatic quagmire.

After the failure of Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East, the relations between Israeli’s ruling party and Obama entered a new phase of tension, distrust and suspicion and that distrust continued until the final days of Obama’s first presidential term.

During this period, Tel Aviv leaders spared no effort to take open swipes at Obama’s policies. The most severe reaction shown by Tel Aviv to Obama’s foreign policy approaches was shown after the US president’s famous address at Cairo University during his visit to Egypt. In that address on June 4, 2009, Obama said, “On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they’ve endured the pain of dislocation.

Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn its backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

Meanwhile, the United States’ former ambassador to Tel Aviv, Martin Indyk, has been quoted as saying that instead of building trust between the two sides, namely Washington and Tel Aviv, Obama just raised the expectations of the Arabs and the Palestinian side; expectations that he was not able to meet.

It was in that period of distrust and tug of war between Obama and Netanyahu that Tel Aviv recklessly embarked on humiliating Obama’s Cabinet members. When the US Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Tel Aviv for an official visit in March 2010, the Israeli Interior Ministry issued necessary permit for the construction of 1,600 new Zionist settlement units in the occupied territories on the West Bank of the Jordan River. That measure, which amounted to humiliation of Biden, caused further tension in relations between the two countries.

The main problem which faced Obama in the final months of his presidency was that to gain the support of the US Jewish lobby, he was forced to go back over previous plans which he had already presented for the modification of Tel Aviv’s treatment of the Arabs and Palestinians. Before long, he totally forgot that he had promised establishment of an independent Palestinian state during the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September 2010.

The resistance of officials of the Israeli government and pressures from their affiliated lobbies in Washington forced the White House into a shameful withdrawal. The US withdrawal continued right up to February 2011, when the White House vetoed a resolution by the United Nations Security Council which condemned continuation of settlement building on the occupied Palestinian lands.

As the presidential election in 2012 approached, Obama distanced more and more from promises he had previously given the Arabs and Palestinians. The positions he took in his third year in office during an address to the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, conveyed the message that the US leader, who once claimed to be bent on bringing change to the Middle East, could not do anything more. During that address, Obama stated that there was no shortcut to the termination of a dispute which had been raging on for decades. He added that it was up to Palestinians and Israelis, not the Americans, to find a solution for that dispute.

Early in his presidential hustings, Obama explicitly admitted to the failure of his ideas about the Middle East conflict and the peace process, saying that the things he could do without the support of the Congress were mostly related to the foreign policy. He then admitted that he had not been successful in that field and had not been able to promote the Middle East peace process in the way he wanted to do.

The question now is will the deadlock which is currently plaguing the Democrats finally break, and does Obama basically have a plan to change the political balance between Israelis and Palestinians?

In one of his election debates, Obama tried to distance from policies which his predecessor, George W. Bush, had adopted for the Middle East. He even went as far as reminding his Republican contestant, Mitt Romney, that he [Romney] has begged for money and vote with the American Jewish lobby in order to win the election.

However, Obama had taken a similar categorical position; that is, negating George Bush’s policies, four years ago as well. Therefore, it goes without saying that by merely distancing from Bush’s Middle East policy, or using a neutral literature about the conflict in the Middle East, he will not be able to solve the problem in this hectic region.

As a result, some Middle East observers maintain that given Obama’s current understanding of and experience with the decision-makers in Tel Aviv, he would not be able to suffice to changing his tone or using pacifist literature anymore. They argue that the US president is no more wary about losing the votes of the Jewish lobby as he is not supposed to run for a third term and can, therefore, resort to political and economic leverages in order to make Tel Aviv more aligned with his political ideas.

Some media circles in the United States have claimed that reelection of Obama as the US president should be considered bad news for Tel Aviv leaders. Referring to heavy investment made in the Republicans’ election campaign by the Zionist lobby, they maintain that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his friends used all the means at their disposal to help Romney win the presidential race. During election campaigns, Obama had made continuation of the United States’ all-out support for the government of Netanyahu conditional on certain changes in Israel’s warmongering policies as well as his government’s stances on the Palestinian Authority or Iran’s nuclear issue. At the same time, his Republican rival, Romney, announced his unbridled support for all adventurist plans of Israel.

In the heat of US election campaigns, Iran’s nuclear case overshadowed relations between Tel Aviv and Obama more than any other issue in the Middle East. During the United Nations General Assembly meeting which was held before the presidential polls in the United States, the US president and Israeli prime minister made speeches which were full of incriminations against the other party. Afterwards and during an election debate, Obama proudly announced that he has successfully prevented a new war over Iran’s nuclear issue. The question, however, is that to what extent, the US president will be able to withstand ambitious demands of Tel Aviv leaders.

In reality, although the results of presidential election on November 6 have, to some extent, determined the fate of the White House chief, they have left the situation of the second most important US decision-making body with regard to the Middle East in limbo: the US Congress. In the new arrangement of the US political power, the Congress is still dominated by those who are loyal allies of Israel. Therefore, even if Obama is dreaming about the implementation and pursuit of a new strategy in the Middle East, he will have to go through the Congress. Due to profound and powerful influence of the pro-Israeli lobby on the Congress, pulling off such a feat by Obama appears to be very difficult, if not impossible at all.

About the author:
Iran Review

Iran Review is a Tehran-based site that claims to be independent, non-governmental and non-partisan and representing scientific and professional approaches towards Iran’s political, economic, social, religious, and cultural affairs, its foreign policy, and regional and international issues within the framework of analysis and articles.

Ilovetranny

11-19-2012, 08:34 PM

Whether obama chose the side of jewih lobby or not, he wont see the effect that he expected. Because he wants to make everyone happy and not hurt anybody. İt is not possible. If Mitt romney won the election, he wouldnt be the president because of his future false foreign policies. Obama is at the same situation. He will be loser when this problem is more complicated. there wont be a solution of middle east for a long time until israil or hamas step back.:loser:

Ben

11-21-2012, 05:13 AM

Glenn Greenwald.

Stop pretending the US is an uninvolved, helpless party in the Israeli assault on Gaza

The Obama administration's unstinting financial, military and diplomatic support for Israel is a key enabling force in the conflict:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/17/israel-gaza-us-policy

And Noam Chomsky:

Noam Chomsky on Gaza conflict - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR7hL-QrnRE)

greyman

11-22-2012, 04:27 PM

<there wont be a solution of middle east for a long time until israil or hamas step back.>

There won't be a solution until Israel moves its illegal settlements off occupied land and agrees borders through negotiation based on the 1967 ceasefire line with agreed land swaps.
How many developed countries do not have fully defined borders? I can only think of one.

Stavros

11-22-2012, 06:47 PM

Apart from the lack of a delimited boundary between Israel and a future Palestinian state, should there ever be one, there are still undelimited areas of Arabia between Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, and between Oman and Yemen. There are more than 40 undelimited boundaries in the Pacific region stretching from Canada and the US through the various island chains north of Australia, and I believe Malaysia and Brueni have never concluded a definitive boundary. This does not of course touch on the disputed boundaries, of which there are too many to list.

If you are interested in this topic and not already aware of it, the International Boundaries Research Unit in Durham publishes a lot on it, and has some links on their website.
https://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/resources/

hippifried

11-23-2012, 05:13 PM

I think he said "developed" countries.

broncofan

11-23-2012, 07:54 PM

Stavros

11-23-2012, 08:07 PM

I think he said "developed" countries.

It still applies; as far as I know the USA and Canada have failed to fully delimit the boundary along the Juan de Fuca strait; the maritime boundary has been agreed but not the seaward boundary. In the Arctic region, Russia and Norway reached an agreement on the delimitation of boundaries related to oil and gas reservoirs that straddle existing delimited boundaries in through the Barents Sea Agreement of 2010, but the other states with Arctic boundaries -for example the USA and Canada, have not done so.

Stavros

11-23-2012, 08:23 PM

I know it might sound tiresome for me to invoke my Jewishness to talk about Israel but bear with me one second. It is true that many Jews myself included think that they know what the Israelis do, why they do it or what the public opinion in Israel is. I didn't realize until recently that I have no more clue than anyone else.

For years I told people I discussed this issue with that Israelis wanted a two-state solution, they were persnickety about the terms but they accepted it in principle, at least the average man on the street. And when Hamas was elected the leadership of the Palestinians this reinforced a pre-existing belief for me that they did not want a two state solution and had an extremist mindset. Then came the Netanyahu years.

He made a liar out of me with this false narrative I was peddling. Actually I made a liar of myself for not being more skeptical or objective. But here was a democratically elected Israeli leader who could barely bring himself to accept a Palestinian state even in principle. He essentially took a situation where there was very little chance for successful negotiation and made it an impossibility.

This is not to cast the majority of the blame on Israel (I don't know the total score) but I suppose a cautionary tale for anyone who says they can sum up the conflict for you. Even if you get both sides to agree to a two-state solution in principle, the number of issues for settlement make it so difficult. Some of these issues are deal-breakers for both sides, such as the right of return, the exact land swaps, the status of Jerusalem. It will be very difficult to figure out what should happen when the time comes that both nations have sound-minded leadership. In the meantime, Netanyahu and Hamas are both major impediments to peace.

Israel, like most other countries, does not speak with a single voice. I have said before that the best of Israel does not go into politics, but prefers to express itself in science and the arts, at which they excel. Netanyahu and Likud received 21.6% of the vote on a turnout of 64%. His political lineage, like that of Tzipi Livni (whose father was for a while operations commander of the Irgun) is on the Revisionist side of Israeli politics which once was marginal, but since Begin's election in 1977 has become mainstream. Netanyahu thus belongs to a group for whom Zionism, if it has any meaning, is a form of 'Jewish Nationalism' which for that reason finds it somewhere between hard and impossible to admit non-Jews into Israel as equal citizens. This is the 'Iron Wall' mentality that Avi Shlaim has written about. On this level, I think that politicians like Netanyahu thrive on the 'constant threat' posed by Hamas, an organisation it promoted in 1988 as an alternative to Fateh; and as you so grimly suggest, Hamas is boosted by Israeli attacks. Not much movement on this front for the time being.

For two alternative voices, try -apologies if you are familiar with them- Jerome Slater, and Gideon Levy:

http://www.jeromeslater.com/2012_10_01_archive.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/is-gideon-levy-the-most-hated-man-in-israel-or-just-the-most-heroic-2087909.html

broncofan

11-23-2012, 08:29 PM

Israel, like most other countries, does not speak with a single voice. I have said before that the best of Israel does not go into politics, but prefers to express itself in science and the arts, at which they excel. Netanyahu and Likud received 21.6% of the vote on a turnout of 64%. His political lineage, like that of Tzipi Livni (whose father was for a while operations commander of the Irgun) is on the Revisionist side of Israeli politics which once was marginal, but since Begin's election in 1977 has become mainstream. Netanyahu thus belongs to a group for whom Zionism, if it has any meaning, is a form of 'Jewish Nationalism' which for that reason finds it somewhere between hard and impossible to admit non-Jews into Israel as equal citizens. This is the 'Iron Wall' mentality that Avi Shlaim has written about. On this level, I think that politicians like Netanyahu thrive on the 'constant threat' posed by Hamas, an organisation it promoted in 1988 as an alternative to Fateh; and as you so grimly suggest, Hamas is boosted by Israeli attacks. Not much movement on this front for the time being.

For two alternative voices, try -apologies if you are familiar with them- Jerome Slater, and Gideon Levy:

http://www.jeromeslater.com/2012_10_01_archive.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/is-gideon-levy-the-most-hated-man-in-israel-or-just-the-most-heroic-2087909.html
Very interesting. I am taking down this post for my reference. It puts a lie to another narrative of mine. Because I strongly believe Israel should be a "Jewish state" but open to people of all backgrounds, only reflecting a Jewish culture while maintaining secular institutions, it is too easy to impute it to the Israelis. For me it is the only thing that makes sense. Anyhow, facts trump stories.

I am familiar with Gideon Levy, but have not seen this article so thank you. And as your post indicates, that they have a sort of fractured with parties gaining power with little total support it makes generalizing very difficult.

muh_muh

11-23-2012, 09:59 PM

He made a liar out of me with this false narrative I was peddling. Actually I made a liar of myself for not being more skeptical or objective. But here was a democratically elected Israeli leader who could barely bring himself to accept a Palestinian state even in principle.

history made a liar out of you well before
not like what youre describing is anything new:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin
Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.

Israel will not transfer Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza District to any foreign sovereign authority, [because] of the historic right of our nation to this land, [and] the needs of our national security, which demand a capability to defend our State and the lives of our citizens.

They are beasts walking on two legs.
On terrorists, in a speech to the Knesset (24 June 1982), quoted in "Begin and the 'Beasts" ivy Amnon Kapeliouk, in The New Statesman (25 June 1982); some accounts claim that Begin was referring to Palestinians in general, others that he refers only to Palestinian terrorists who target children within Israel.

keep in mind that this was being said by someone who was dabbling in terrorism himself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin#Jewish_underground

broncofan

11-23-2012, 10:11 PM

history made a liar out of you well before
not like what youre describing is anything new:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin
Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.

Israel will not transfer Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza District to any foreign sovereign authority, [because] of the historic right of our nation to this land, [and] the needs of our national security, which demand a capability to defend our State and the lives of our citizens.

They are beasts walking on two legs.
On terrorists, in a speech to the Knesset (24 June 1982), quoted in "Begin and the 'Beasts" ivy Amnon Kapeliouk, in The New Statesman (25 June 1982); some accounts claim that Begin was referring to Palestinians in general, others that he refers only to Palestinian terrorists who target children within Israel.

keep in mind that this was being said by someone who was dabbling in terrorism himself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin#Jewish_underground
I know of Begin's position and of the positions of the early Zionists. I was talking about more recent overtures by the government including the Camp David talks where it seemed the Israelis under Barak's leadership were willing to not only accept Palestinian state in principle but also try to make it happen. This was very different from Begin's or Netanyahu's stance on the issue. I also was encouraged by Rabin's apparent willingness to negotiate though not by what happened to him.

I thought Israel's position had evolved a great deal on the idea of a Palestinian state and the steps they were willing to take to accomplish that.

There's really no need to be confrontational. I was saying that I had a misconception, as someone who has friends and family in Israel, and I think it was in good faith though not perfectly informed (I was about 20 at the time). It just shows that sometimes a person's connection to an issue can influence their position in the short-term though I'm sure you know that;.

broncofan

11-23-2012, 10:27 PM

"Every attempt [by the State of Israel] to keep hold of this area [the West Bank and Gaza] as one political entity leads, necessarily, to either a nondemocratic or a non-Jewish state. Because if the Palestinians vote, then it is a binational state, and if they don’t vote it is an apartheid state".

I find this statement by Barak for instance to be encouraging. Here he is acknowledging that if they try to hold onto the territories they do not have the state of Israel but a binational state. If they try to control the Palestinians without giving them political rights then they perpetuate an injustice.

We can all say after the fact that he did not do enough, but compared to Begin and compared to Netanyahu, the man at least seemed to believe creating a Palestinian state was a necessary endeavor. I don't really blame him for talking about the injustices in terms of how it would effect Israel because afterall, when people commit injustices it usually hurts the perpetrators indirectly. As we were talking about the Munich massacre. It goes without saying that this was a harmful blow to Israel and Israelis but it was very bad for the Palestinian movement internationally as well.

doctor screw

11-24-2012, 01:00 AM

I piss on Zionist

greyman

11-24-2012, 01:20 AM

Avraham Burg put it very neatly nearly 10 years ago:-

"Do you want democracy? No problem. Either abandon the greater land of Israel, to the last settlement and outpost, or give full citizenship and voting rights to everyone, including Arabs. The result, of course, will be that those who did not want a Palestinian state alongside us will have one in our midst, via the ballot box. The prime minister should present the choices forthrightly: Jewish racism or democracy. Settlements, or hope for both peoples."
(Avraham Burg, 15 September 2003)

Israel cannot have it both ways. Which shall it be?

Stavros

11-24-2012, 06:06 PM

Very interesting. I am taking down this post for my reference. It puts a lie to another narrative of mine. Because I strongly believe Israel should be a "Jewish state" but open to people of all backgrounds, only reflecting a Jewish culture while maintaining secular institutions, it is too easy to impute it to the Israelis. For me it is the only thing that makes sense. Anyhow, facts trump stories.

I am familiar with Gideon Levy, but have not seen this article so thank you. And as your post indicates, that they have a sort of fractured with parties gaining power with little total support it makes generalizing very difficult.

Israel is an intriguing country, and it is a pity that it tends to be judged by its politics; I wonder what would happen if we judged every other state in the same way.

I cannot agree with your belief that it should be a 'Jewish state' because that to me is part of the problem inherent in all forms of nationalism, and in Israel in particular -what happens to those people who are not of the 'elected' group in charge? For example, when Turkey was created in 1923, it may have been the moment when people calling themselves Turks were able to throw off the cloak of Ottoman Imperial rule and re-define their identity -and many of the people who did take Turkish nationality were not 'ethnic Turks' at all, but originally migrants from Europe who had lost their homes in places like Bosnia in the late 19th century. But why would an Ottoman Armenian, an Ottoman Greek Orthodox, an Ottoman Jew, an Ottoman Arab, an Ottoman Kurd want to be defned as a 'Turk' when clearly they were not?

What would happen, for example, if the USA was to become, officially, a Christian state? The UK is a Christian State, the Queen is the head of state and head of the Church of England, but there are a lot of people who want to dis-establish the Church of England for preciely this reason, just as there are those who want to retain it as the 'last vestige' of English identity -and yes, this is English, not Scots or Welsh or (Northern) Irish.

One of the key problems that accompanied the creation of Israel was precisely this sense that there were people who belonged, and those who did not. It was not based on any precise political geography derived from the Biblical record, because that record is imprecise. Moreover, the land that was allocated to the Jewish Agency by the UN Partition Plan of 1947 was less than the land that the war of 1948 secured for Israel, and this other sense, that Israel is a state with expansionary ambitions can be found in the diaries and memoirs of Ben-Gurion as well as more contemporary politicians. You could thus argue that at the very moment when the UN made the acquisition of territory by force illegal, the creation of Israel did precisely that -but then Israel has treated the UN with contempt since 1947 anyway.

On this basis, 'Eretz Israel' if applied in its full practical sense, is a recipe for disaster, given that parts of Jordan that were biblical Moab, Gilead and Ammon could in theory be part of such an Israel. That Israel has not been assiduous in its application of the law to all citizens has been a chronic complaint of the non-Jews who, after all, have lived in cities like Jerusalem and Bethlehem for over a thousand years, as if that didn't matter. Even if you believe that the Balfour Declaration of 1917 is a crucial text in the founding of Israel, the governments of Israel have not met its injunction when it says that it supports the proposal for a 'National home for the Jewish people...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...etc'.

There were people in Palestine in 1948 who woke up one day and were expected to become citizens of a 'Jewish state', but they were never asked if they wanted it, merely given a choice: take Israeli citizenship, or go away. That is no way to organise a state. At some point you reach the same conclusion that has been shown to fail again and again: France pour les Francais; A Turkish state for the Turkish people; an Aryan State for the Aryan people; A land for people for a people without land. States do not survive by being exlusive, but by being inclusive; and all of the states just referred to have been unable to define what it is to be French, Turkish, German/Aryan or Israeli, and when laws were drawn up to make the attempt it (has) caused endless woe -just ask any Kurd born in this thing called 'Turkey'.

Right now, the lack of trust between the two blocs (Israelis and Arabs) runs so deep there is no hope of a major breakthrough, while within the Palestinian communities there are the perennial divisions that have obstructed their politics since the Ottoman reforms of the mid-19th century. Mahmoud Abbas if he had the opportunity would sell out the Palestinians in an even more shameful way than Arafat. Obama has little to achieve in this scenario, and with the long term implications of the Arab Spring still so uncertain, there are too many jangling nerves for real progress to be made, because it must be based on a dialogue, and that is what is not taking place.

Prospero

11-24-2012, 06:19 PM

broncofan

11-24-2012, 08:18 PM

I cannot agree with your belief that it should be a 'Jewish state' because that to me is part of the problem inherent in all forms of nationalism, and in Israel in particular -what happens to those people who are not of the 'elected' group in charge? For example, when Turkey was created in 1923, it may have been the moment when people calling themselves Turks were able to throw off the cloak of Ottoman Imperial rule and re-define their identity -and many of the people who did take Turkish nationality were not 'ethnic Turks' at all, but originally migrants from Europe who had lost their homes in places like Bosnia in the late 19th century. But why would an Ottoman Armenian, an Ottoman Greek Orthodox, an Ottoman Jew, an Ottoman Arab, an Ottoman Kurd want to be defned as a 'Turk' when clearly they were not?

What would happen, for example, if the USA was to become, officially, a Christian state? The UK is a Christian State, the Queen is the head of state and head of the Church of England, but there are a lot of people who want to dis-establish the Church of England for preciely this reason, just as there are those who want to retain it as the 'last vestige' of English identity -and yes, this is English, not Scots or Welsh or (Northern) Irish.

I suppose it depends what is meant by Jewish state. Why would a Jew or a Palestinian want to be defined as British for instance if naturalized through the immigration process? Yet there are many people in Britain who do not spring from Anglo-Saxon roots. It is an unavoidable thing that each state has a character, a set of traditions, and a culture in some way influenced by its founders. When a young Arab kid in England reads Shakespeare as part of his school curriculum, is it possible he does not feel the same national pride that Anglo-Saxon Britons feel? Or about the battle of Agincourt? On this latter point, might he not say, nobody of my background was there.

When you define a nation of people, they can be identified based on the sharing of a common language, a common culture, and sometimes a common religion. As a result, I would think that the creation of a Palestinian state would create just as much of an assimilation issue for Jewish individuals who do not share that heritage or that culture. If religion were an important part of governance, as it is in many states, officially sanctioned, then the problem would be magnified.

So, the question is, if Jewish is meant in a sense to define a nation of Jewish people, then to me it's not really different from a Palestinian state based on the customs of Palestinians, with street signs in Arabic etc. I know it is a subject of some debate whether the Jewish people are a nation, and particularly whether they are a nation sans religion. I think it is so. The only way it would seem to me that a Palestinian state based on Palestinian customs would be inviting to non-Palestinians would be if it reflects a universal culture. What if a Palestinian state flag for instance had a crucifix, a star of David, and the star and crescent? I cannot imagine that they will be expected not to reflect their customs, and if they do, how might that make those individuals feel who have citizenship but no shared history?

broncofan

11-24-2012, 08:38 PM

There were people in Palestine in 1948 who woke up one day and were expected to become citizens of a 'Jewish state', but they were never asked if they wanted it, merely given a choice: take Israeli citizenship, or go away. That is no way to organise a state. At some point you reach the same conclusion that has been shown to fail again and again: France pour les Francais; A Turkish state for the Turkish people; an Aryan State for the Aryan people; A land for people for a people without land. States do not survive by being exlusive, but by being inclusive; and all of the states just referred to have been unable to define what it is to be French, Turkish, German/Aryan or Israeli, and when laws were drawn up to make the attempt it (has) caused endless woe -just ask any Kurd born in this thing called 'Turkey'.
.
I understand your point better now. One of the problems was that the state that had this defined character already had inhabitants in it who were not part of that group. But if you look at your examples for instance. Aryan state for the Aryan people. If you asked Jewish people living in Germany whether they would have minded a certain amount of national pride, I'm sure they would have said no. But then, ask them after the Nuremberg Laws when it was illegal for them to marry Aryans, or after 1945 and it would have been much different.

In order for a country to be exclusive it must have laws making it so. Israel does not have those laws. Per their right of return, being Jewish is a sufficient but not necessary condition for citizenship. And the laws on the books do not provide different rights for non-Jews as for Jews. You may be right that it is a slippery slope, where national pride becomes subordination of the alien, but I think all of the countries you mentioned have a certain culture reflected in their national identity. It just so happens that Jewish also doubles as a religious identity. Yet religion seems to play a much smaller part in the governance of Israel than it does in Iran, where the Ayatollah is the Supreme Leader of the country. And there are religious minorities in Iran, and we're always reminded by the government there how happy they are:)

Stavros

11-24-2012, 09:15 PM

I recall reading various different options were once considered as a "Jewish" homeland - including somewhere in Africa and in Northern Russia where a small Jewish settlement was establishde with the notion of it become the core of a homeland.

The trouble with historical claims to any land is at what point in history do you say "this is the starting point'. As Stavros pointed out parts of Moab, Gilead ad Ammon could in theory be part of Israel. Once you start referencing the Bible as a key element of your argument you have profound problems.

And ttake a wider view of the region and many of the resent day states are the result of Anglo-French machinations in the closing stages of World War One and teh immediate aftermath - the Sykes-Picot agreement which created Iraq and Syria broadly along their present borders, the promises made and betrayed to the Arabs that they would get some form of self determination as as a result of the Arab uprising which was a key element in the overthrow of the Turks in "Arabia" and so on.... a total mess.

About Abu Mazen, I think that Stavros is adopting a somewhat pro-Hamas line. But Hamas are a significant barrier to peace because of their refusal to renounce their belief in the destruction of any idea of Israel. And it will be interesting to find out how big a hand Iran has in fomenting the ongoing trouble from Gaza.

The problem truly remains profound and seemingly intractable. But the evolution of the Arab spring might change that - if the islamist elements across the region gain the upper hand.

First of all, Herzl considered a 'Jewish State' in Uganda, and also within Argentina.
Second, the division of the Ottoman lands was agreed in the 'Secret treaties' which initially awarded pieces of the Ottoman Empire to Britain, France, Italy and Russia, a sequence that began in 1915 and continued that year with the notorious correspondence that was initiated by the Sharif of Mecca, the Hashemite Hussein ibn Ali and the High Commissioner in Cairo, Sir Henry MacMahon. This traded the military engagement of the Ottoman forces by his Arab warriors in exchange for an independent Arab state whose vague boundaries appeared to stretch from Hama and Homs in present-day Syria to the Hejaz, the western coastal province of Saudi Arabia- it is not clear if it included present-day Israel/Palestine: the Arabs say it did, the British say it did not. Sykes-Picot came in 1916 and the Balfour Declaration in 1917.

These secret treaties were published -and repdudiated- by the Bolsheviks in 1918, much to the embarrassment of the British and the French, and were in any case subject to revision first at the conference in San Remo in 1920, and in the British case in Cairo in 1921 which created Transjordan and Iraq as respectively, a Hashemite Emirate and Kingdom. Mosul, which in Sykes-Picot was to have been in French mandated Syrian territory, was given away over breakfast by the foreign minister Berthelot, who allegedly had such a bad hangover he agreed to anything the British proposed so he could go back to bed. They have rued that transfer ever since, as it is one of the most prolific oil-bearing regions in Iraq.
Third, I am not a supporter of Hamas, but you have to ask pertinent questions about the fate of the settlements in the Occupied West Bank, and the Palestinians 'right of return' rather than just throw in the towel and effectively surrender. In addition, the charter of Hamas is not much different from Clause 4 of the old Labour Party, and Hamas have on more than one occasion over the years offered free and open negotiations with the Israelis. Not much different from the Provisional IRA claiming they want a United Ireland;
However, YES, the violence is counter-productive, and if Hamas want to be taken seriously they should call a truce and mean it. In recent months, incidentally, their relationship with Iran has cooled, it was always an odd one anyway.
Mahmoud Abbas is part of that whole PLO set-up which in the early 1970s was out of touch with the average Palestinian on the West Bank and in Gaza, and which was terrified of losing its 'consituents' to local politicians, and moved to sideline them, as they did with Haidar Abdul Shafi and Hanan Ashrawi in 1990-91, to the detriment of the cause.

Stavros

11-24-2012, 09:25 PM

I understand your point better now. One of the problems was that the state that had this defined character already had inhabitants in it who were not part of that group. But if you look at your examples for instance. Aryan state for the Aryan people. If you asked Jewish people living in Germany whether they would have minded a certain amount of national pride, I'm sure they would have said no. But then, ask them after the Nuremberg Laws when it was illegal for them to marry Aryans, or after 1945 and it would have been much different.

In order for a country to be exclusive it must have laws making it so. Israel does not have those laws. Per their right of return, being Jewish is a sufficient but not necessary condition for citizenship. And the laws on the books do not provide different rights for non-Jews as for Jews. You may be right that it is a slippery slope, where national pride becomes subordination of the alien, but I think all of the countries you mentioned have a certain culture reflected in their national identity. It just so happens that Jewish also doubles as a religious identity. Yet religion seems to play a much smaller part in the governance of Israel than it does in Iran, where the Ayatollah is the Supreme Leader of the country. And there are religious minorities in Iran, and we're always reminded by the government there how happy they are:)

My problem is with Nationalism tout court. What in the 19th century was presented as an ideology of liberation to me became a curse in the 20th century. It seems to me to play to the basest instincts in societies which believe some purity of heritage exists that endorses their right to exist as privileged people in their state; I think this is dangerous nonsense and the relative success of the USA is an example of how to give one set of people a secure sense of identity without sacrificing other people's, although the history of the country with regard to slavery, the treatment of the first nations, and women suggests that even this option has been hard to implement in practice and hass been achieved after much violence and agony.

In Israel's case it is the religious dimension which I believe is the problem, certainly for the Christian communities, but also for the Muslims -and small religious parties have melded together coalition governments in Israel for their own narrow benefit so you can't write them out of the agenda.

In other words, if nationalism is bad enough, imagine religion as an alternative form of, or expression of nationalism. No. Even in the UK where an historian like Jonathan Clark (in Our Shadowed Present) insists that Christianity is so woven into the experience of being English that to detach the Church of England from the State would be to effectively end the sense of being English within the UK, I think we have matured to the point where we no longer need a symbiosis between church and state. So ultimately being Jewish or Christian or Muslim is not the problem, it is the manipulation of this belief in the service of politics that causes problems.

greyman

11-24-2012, 10:46 PM

broncofan

11-24-2012, 10:56 PM

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it is one of those inherent problems of statehood. A state has to define itself in a certain way in order to be distinct from its neighbors. It's just a matter I suppose how closely tied to ethnicity and religion these traditions are. For instance, in the United States when we celebrate Thanksgiving, it is a sort of phony memorial of a non-existent cooperation between Native Americans and European settlers. It is very inclusive, but only because nobody stops to think about what actually happened. We just eat.

But then again it does not celebrate a 5000 year old "covenant" supposedly exclusive to one tribe. The nation of the Jewish people and thus a state based on this nation status has tribal characteristics. It is far from ideal, even undesirable. But if the laws are protective of minority rights then I think over time you have a melding of interests. Every European state at some point had some notion of proprietary culture that eventually shifted towards inclusion in a variety of ways.

I am not trying to create a reductio ad absurdum when I say, why should there be any such thing as a state? Is a state only supposed to be a convenient unit for governing discrete numbers of people based on certain laws? If boundaries are to be drawn and different segments of people are to be governed by different sets of laws, then on what basis? We are all human afterall. Why should something be illegal in Syria but legal in the United States? Does the nature of a crime change based on who committed it and against whom?

I'm not pretending to be naive, as I know your point is that when nationalism is related to tribalism (as when you say purity), or to religious belief it can become a force of oppression. But cultures are only exclusive to the extent one chooses not to subscribe? If you make believing in a certain God a necessary condition, then the hurdle is too high, and if race is the requirement then there is no choice. But promoting the popular usages of certain languages moves in that direction. Every distinction from one's neighbor involves a value choice that comprises a culture piecemeal; but sharing the culture one is immersed in is not a requirement unless embodied in law. When I went to Texas I wore tennis shoes and not a cowboy hat;.

I think nationalism itself is a matter of different degrees of repugnance to universal values. It would be great if it could be extracted altogether from the notion of governance, as an ideal. But even without any political science background, I have trouble reconciling the existence of states, without a national identity that's more exclusive than universal.

greyman

11-24-2012, 11:02 PM

I forgot to mention the Citizenship Law.

<The practical meaning of the law is that Arab citizens of Israel who marry Palestinian non-citizens – something that happens quite often, since these are members of the same nation, and sometimes of the same communities – won’t be able to live with their wives or husbands. If they want to unite, they will have to leave the country. By doing so, the law achieves two (racist) objectives against members of the Arab minority: (a) it prevents non-Jews from entering the country and applying for permanent residency or citizenship and (b) it makes it harder for Israeli Arab citizens to build families in their own community or in their own country, thus encouraging them to leave Israel. Arab Palestinians comprise roughly 20 percent of Israel’s population.>
http://972mag.com/high-court-okays-citizenship-law-legalizing-racial-discrimination-of-arabs/32802/

In addition, it was recently made illegal for any institution to commemorate the "Nakba" in any way.

broncofan

11-24-2012, 11:06 PM

Broncofan
<And the laws on the books do not provide different rights for non-Jews as for Jews>

Are you serious? In the occupied West Bank, two people who are accused of the same crime are dealt with under two different legal systems depending on whether or not they are Jews. Jews are dealt with ,if at all, under the liberal legal code of the state of Israel. Arabs are prosecuted under a very punitive military code with far harsher sentences.
I will quote the former Attorney General of Israel:-

"We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day."
(Michael Ben-Yair, 3 March 2002)

I should add that I am impressed and heartened by the polite nature of the discourse here.
This is part and parcel a problem of Israel's foreign policy and the occupation. I don't see it as inhering in the nature of the state, but in the administration of it. What I mean to say is, within Israel proper, those who are citizens of Israel are treated equally under the Israeli legal code. And there are non-Jewish citizens of Israel, subject to the same laws as Jewish Israelis.

In the United States as well, one would much rather be tried in a civilian court than by a military commission. Procedurally, it is a huge advantage to for instance not have hearsay be used against you. Another example would be that those captured abroad who are non-citizens of the United States (for instance during the military occupation of Iraq), would not have the same Constitutional protections as an American. When the distinction is made based on citizenship and not ethnicity, even if the foreign policy is so twisted that foreign territory is occupied, I don't think it necessarily has racist implications.

I think the jurisdictional issues you cite are not based as a threshold matter on whether one is a Jew but on whether a military commission can assert jurisdiction based on the crime. I don't know this, but in studying the implementation of military commissions here, they tend to be reserved for those violating the laws of war and yes they are procedurally less rigorous.

broncofan

11-25-2012, 12:19 AM

Greyman,
you are absolutely right about the immigration policy. While I think the dual legal system you cite is probably not quite what is indicated, the immigration policy is facially discriminatory. Even the right of return, though not wholly excluding non-Jews is discriminatory in the sense that Jews automatically qualify, while others apply for citizenship.

I think in my posts to Stavros I was discussing more what it would necessarily entail to have a Jewish state in the abstract. I think the ultimate point is that each state has to fight reactionary forces that want to define the state in a certain way. However, I don't think describing Israel as a Jewish state has the unique implications many fear. I think it is mainly a problem of nomenclature on many fronts. What is a name without a meaning?

France can describe itself as French and people would say, well yes French is derived from France linguistically. For some people though it sounds like a leap to say Israel is a Jewish state, but what was it ever when it was created? Israel is not exactly a secular word in its own right. Yet it can have a secular government and be inclusive of other people (whether it is as a descriptive matter I don't think it is necessarily foreclosed from it because of its origins).

Anyhow, it's been a pleasure discussing this. I'll check in periodically, but I have to admit I'd much rather chat with y'all than do some of the things I am forced to do:cry. But I will read, it's just that the pressure to respond or forfeit might keep me from doing some work.

greyman

12-01-2012, 10:48 PM

nina_lisa

12-02-2012, 12:58 AM

So, just one day after Mahmoud Abbas addressed the UN in order to gain upgraded status for Palestine, which was approved by the vast majority of the world, Israel states that it will build another 3,000 houses on occupied land, and will fast track another 1,000 planning applications.

What message does that send?

It is a little bit like the war on Iraq, the world was against it, but the USA was: we fuck the world, we don't care, we are the strongest power on earth, it is not like anyone can do anything about it.

notdrunk

12-02-2012, 08:29 AM

So, just one day after Mahmoud Abbas addressed the UN in order to gain upgraded status for Palestine, which was approved by the vast majority of the world, Israel states that it will build another 3,000 houses on occupied land, and will fast track another 1,000 planning applications.

What message does that send?

East Jerusalem is always going to be a major issue because the Israelis still remember what the Arabs did to Jewish property and graveyards when they ruled it pre-67. Plus, the whole historical and religious thing...

yosi

12-04-2012, 04:27 PM

I know it might sound tiresome for me to invoke my Jewishness to talk about Israel but bear with me one second. It is true that many Jews myself included think that they know what the Israelis do, why they do it or what the public opinion in Israel is. I didn't realize until recently that I have no more clue than anyone else.

For years I told people I discussed this issue with that Israelis wanted a two-state solution, they were persnickety about the terms but they accepted it in principle, at least the average man on the street. And when Hamas was elected the leadership of the Palestinians this reinforced a pre-existing belief for me that they did not want a two state solution and had an extremist mindset. Then came the Netanyahu years.

He made a liar out of me with this false narrative I was peddling. Actually I made a liar of myself for not being more skeptical or objective. But here was a democratically elected Israeli leader who could barely bring himself to accept a Palestinian state even in principle. He essentially took a situation where there was very little chance for successful negotiation and made it an impossibility.

This is not to cast the majority of the blame on Israel (I don't know the total score) but I suppose a cautionary tale for anyone who says they can sum up the conflict for you. Even if you get both sides to agree to a two-state solution in principle, the number of issues for settlement make it so difficult. Some of these issues are deal-breakers for both sides, such as the right of return, the exact land swaps, the status of Jerusalem. It will be very difficult to figure out what should happen when the time comes that both nations have sound-minded leadership. In the meantime, Netanyahu and Hamas are both major impediments to peace.

Olmert: Abbas never responded to my peace offer

Former prime minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday that during his tenure he offered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas an unprecedented peace offer, based on a return to the 1967 borders and a fair demographic land arrangement which would see heavily Jewish areas in the West Bank remain under Israeli control.
"I offered a land swap, I offered a solution for Jerusalem, where the Jewish part would remain under Israeli authority and the Arab sections would be given to the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state,"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/olmert-abbas-never-responded-to-my-peace-offer-1.263328

Stavros

12-04-2012, 06:10 PM

Olmert: Abbas never responded to my peace offer

Former prime minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday that during his tenure he offered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas an unprecedented peace offer, based on a return to the 1967 borders and a fair demographic land arrangement which would see heavily Jewish areas in the West Bank remain under Israeli control.
"I offered a land swap, I offered a solution for Jerusalem, where the Jewish part would remain under Israeli authority and the Arab sections would be given to the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state,"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/olmert-abbas-never-responded-to-my-peace-offer-1.263328

One of the curious aspects of these old stories is that they are always concerned to promote the belief that Israel has been willing to 'negotiate' with 'the Palestinians' but that, to quote Abba Eban of yesteryear The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity -except Eban forgot to add the crucial end to his quip -The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to give Israel what it wants.

Condoleeza Rice mentioned this chestnut in her memoirs, noting at the same time that Tzipi Livni who successfully ousted Olmert from the leadership of Kadima (Olmert has been bogged down in corruption trials having been found gulty in one with another yet to complete) was placed in charge of negotiations even though Olmert “admitted that she didn’t know the issues as well but she came up to speed very quickly.” Rice herself demonstrated her firm grasp of foreign policy by suggesting Palestinian refugees could be re-located to Argentina and Chile (presumably with the full support of those states)....

In the event, the meetings, I believe there were three, were mostly informal dinners, at one of which Olmert offered Abbas
-shared sovereignty of Jerusalem with leadership based on a numerical majority -which, given the extensive boundaries of Jerusalem is pre-designed to give Israel a permanent majority, although the Palestinians would have the post of Deputy Mayor (Shukran). It isn't clear to me if Jerusalem as a result would be an 'open city', whatever the intention might have been.
-no absolute right of return for Palestinian refugess, but 1,000 would be allowed for five years, ie 5,000 (Shukran).
-a territorial solution to the Occupation of the West Bank, with Israel claiming 6.4% of the territory occupied since 1967, with 'safe passage' from the West Bank to Gaza possibly via a tunnel but not a road; the key point is that Olmert showed Abbas a map of what the Israel and Palestinian state would look like, but this was not for negotiation at all, it was a final take it or leave it offer, and Olmert would only allow Abbas to take the map away if he signed it first.

There are other versions with more or less detail, but it seems that Olmert's concept of negotiation is that you present your opponent with a plan over an infirmal dinner, not in a formal setting, and moreover, one that on a key feature of any future settlement, is non-negotiable!

Abbas was being asked to sign something that would have tied him in to something more formal, without having the opportunity to discuss it with his own people, without the opportunity -some might even say, the Right- to make a counter-offer, for example, on settlements and settlers. No, not a bit of it.

Shortly after these talks Olmert was out of office, and once Netanyahu entered it, the talks and the proposals were instantly scrapped, no surprise there.

When someone can offer a serious process of negotiations which are not fixed in advance to privilege the Israeli position, who knows, real talks might even take place.

Article on Rice's memoirs here:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/149084#.UL4WNoaa8YI

Another version of what really happened is here:
http://daledamos.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/palestine-papers-refute-abbas-claim-he.html

A detailed version from al-Jazeera's Transparency Unit here
http://transparency.aljazeera.net/en/projects/thepalestinepapers/20121821046718794.html

greyman

12-04-2012, 07:13 PM

Harkabi, then the head of Israeli Military Intelligence was very clear about how Israel should approach negotiations. It is an old quote but still relevant:-

" We must define our position and lay down basic principles for a settlement. Our demands should be moderate and balanced, and appear to be reasonable. But in fact they must involve such conditions as to ensure that the enemy rejects them. Then we should manoeuvre and allow him to define his own position, and reject a settlement on the basis of a compromise position. We should then publish his demands as embodying unreasonable extremism."
(Yehoshafat Harkabi, 2 November 1973)

The whole aim of Zionism included the expulsion of all Arabs from Greater Israel.

"Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left."
Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department in 1940.

The only possible conclusion is that Israel has been avoiding peace for all of its existence, and that continues today.

Stavros

12-05-2012, 07:00 AM

I am not sure this is true, the first generation of Israeli leaders may have been more liable to international pressure and to take what they had, the weakness of the Palestinian leadership in the 1940s was crucial to the failure to establish any forward movement at the time -to understand this you would have to trace the development of politics among Palestinians in the 19th century, because although there was a growing class of merchants on the coast, in Jaffa and Haifa, and internally at Hebron and particularly in Nablus, Palestinian society was fractured by regional, clan/tribal, economic and religious differences which others exploited. The introduction of British rule in 1918 consolidated the position of emerging merchants in Nablus but undermined the growth of others, complicated by the immigration pattern of European Jews, land sales whose sigificance at the time was not fully known -with the Zionists fighting the British and the Arabs, the Arabs fighting the British and the Zionists, with divisions within the Zionist camp -socialists -vs- Revisionists, and within the Palestinians also the absence of any political representation of depth and meaning left the Palestinians high and dry in 1948 when the Jordanians invaded from the east, as Palestinians were forced at gunpoint from their homes in the west. Between the end of the war and the Rhodes Armistice of 1949 there might have been a consolidation, but it never happened. Moshe Sharett was the kind of Israeli leader who might have reached out to the Palestinians but he was sidelined by the Lavon Affair int he 1950s. In addition, the Hashemite obsession with Jerusalem and the effective annexation of the West Bank further undermined Palestinian representation and thus the voices of many Palestinians were either ignored or 'bought' through the grace and favour system in Amman which traded security for the freedom of the merchants to grow their businesses and support for the King. One way or another, the constant interference of outsiders in a weak Palestinian polity meant it failed to emerge with any stength of collective identity capable of negotiating on an equal footing with the Israelis -who exploited this weakness and division and have done so since, noting with glee the rift between the West Bank 'stay behinds' and those mostly in Fateh and other minority groups who never really lived there anyway -but the fundamental weakness of Israel's position is that the occupation of the West Bank is and will remain a security nightmare, a demographic migraine, but cannot be solvedf through wholesale transfers of population -where are the Palestinians going to go? And perhaps someone could point out that the Christian churches and their congregations have been living on the West Bank now for over a thousand years, doesn't that count at all?

yosi

12-05-2012, 07:33 AM

Stavros

12-05-2012, 08:06 AM

Hamas to Obama: We Won't Recognize Israel

(CNSNews.com) – “The U.S. administration will fail, just as all others have in the past, in forcing Hamas to recognize [Israel],” a Hamas spokesman declared Sunday after President Obama once again pressed the terrorist group to relinquish violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hamas-obama-we-wont-recognize-israel

does this explain why Abbas refused Olmert peace offer?

No, because Olmert did not offer sincere, free and open, negotiations, he presented Abbas with a proposal on a take it or leave it basis; that is not negotiation by any definition of the word. That Hamas is in conflict with Fateh is run-of-the-mill Palestinians politics and the report you cite which is from last year, merely suggests that Hamas doesn't want to look or sound weak.

Memo: dont be fooled by the headlines, the devil is in the detail.

yosi

12-05-2012, 02:43 PM

No, because Olmert did not offer sincere, free and open, negotiations, he presented Abbas with a proposal on a take it or leave it basis; that is not negotiation by any definition of the word. That Hamas is in conflict with Fateh is run-of-the-mill Palestinians politics and the report you cite which is from last year, merely suggests that Hamas doesn't want to look or sound weak.

Memo: dont be fooled by the headlines, the devil is in the detail.

Can you negotiate with someone who doesn't want to recognise that you exist? you need 2 to tango , you cannot tango with someone with an attitude of: "this town ain't big enough for the both of us , it isn't me whose gonna leave".....

Hammas is supported and financed by Iran that want to wipe Israel off the map.

so it's not only suggesting that Hammas doesn't want to look or sound weak , it's much more than that , it's a religious war , a Jihad ,in the eyes of the extreme muslims - and Iran is ruled by extreme muslims , there is no place for a jewish state in the middle east.

greyman

12-05-2012, 06:04 PM

This conflict far pre-dates the existence of Hamas, an organisation that Israel initially supported in order to undermine Fatah. If Israel was honestly looking for a peace deal, it would not continue to do the one thing that is certain to prevent it.

<Iran that want to wipe Israel off the map.>
Oh please! That was a mistranslation and you know it. Ahmadinejad, for all his faults said no such thing.

<it's much more than that , it's a religious war , a Jihad ,in the eyes of the extreme muslims - and Iran is ruled by extreme muslims>
And Israel is ruled by extreme Jews who regard Gentiles as being less than human. Anyway, it's not a religious war but a dispute over land.

yosi

12-06-2012, 12:07 PM

<Iran that want to wipe Israel off the map.>
Oh please! That was a mistranslation and you know it. Ahmadinejad, for all his faults said no such thing.

.

mistranslation?

Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9zcElqetqk)

greyman

12-06-2012, 06:34 PM

Ben

12-08-2012, 04:00 AM

UN tells Israel to let in nuclear inspectors:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/04/un-tells-israel-nuclear-inspectors

yosi

12-09-2012, 07:17 AM

Yes, mistranslation.

<Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155

did you bother to see the youtube clip ?

Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9zcElqetqk)

what do you think Ahmadinejad neant when he shouted to the crowed: death to Israel?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/hundreds-of-thousands-mark-hamas-25th-anniversary-in-gaza-rally-1.483441

the latest news from yesterday contradicts your claim that's only mistranslation.

yesterday in a rally marking the 25th anniversary of the Hamas , Hamas leader Khaled Meshal said: "We will never recogniזe the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation and therefore there is no legitimacy for Israel, no matter how long it will take"

yosi

12-09-2012, 07:18 AM

double post , please delete

greyman

12-09-2012, 06:52 PM

<did you bother to see the youtube clip ?>

I clicked on it but it is "unavailable in your country". Did you read the article I posted? There are plenty more like it.

Stavros

12-09-2012, 07:47 PM

Ahmadinejad plays to an audience that expects him to make uncompromising statements; Netanyahu does the same. Ahmadinejad leaves office next June, the real issue in Iran is how the elections will be managed and whether or not the reform minded opposition can field a candidate that can win. Just as Netanyahu has locked Israel's position behind a wall of pre-conditions, so in Iran the core issue is the survival of the apparatus of power created by the Ayatollah Khomeini in the years following the Revolution of 1979.

What seems to be obvious is that Israel and its neighbours have no mechanism or means of communicating with each other, except either by shouting or routing their messages through third parties. The Jewish population of Iran at one time used to act as a conduit in communications with Israel, even after Khomeini came to power, but as happened in Northern Ireland, unless, and until people who are sworn enemies are forced to deal with each other on a regular basis, the rhetoric obscures the common problems they all have which need attention. Water resources, affordable accommodation, economic growth, jobs -most people in Iran and Israel are actually more concerned with these very real issues than some hysterical speech made by their leader in the UN or anywhere else.

yosi

12-10-2012, 02:30 PM

<did you bother to see the youtube clip ?>

I clicked on it but it is "unavailable in your country". Did you read the article I posted? There are plenty more like it.

I've read the aticle , but the clip proves otherwise.

Hamas leader's speech from 3 days ago also proves that they want to wipe Israel off the map.

here is a screenshot from the clip you couldn't see.

1 picture = 1,000 words

hippifried

12-10-2012, 06:45 PM

Quick question:
Why would anyone think that a non English speaker would use American or western idioms when addressing his people (also non English speakers) in Farsi?

greyman

12-10-2012, 06:58 PM

<Hamas leader's speech from 3 days ago also proves that they want to wipe Israel off the map.>

Of that I have no doubt, but what you said is that Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map", as if Ahmadinejad is planning a military attack. That has been disproved enough times. By continually repeating that old chestnut, it reminds me of the pack of lies used by the west to soften up public opinion prior to invading Iraq.

Of course you ignore the constant threats of military action against Iran coming from Israel.

yosi

12-11-2012, 07:50 AM

Stavros

12-11-2012, 12:21 PM

the threats coming from Israel of military action against Iran are against the nuclear power Iran is building , nuclear bombs to use to wipe Israel off the map .

Worth reading the whole article, but there is a summary here:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb

hippifried

12-11-2012, 12:52 PM

the threats coming from Israel of military action against Iran are against the nuclear power Iran is building , nuclear bombs to use to wipe Israel off the map .

What nuclear bombs?

greyman

12-11-2012, 06:03 PM

Stavros

12-11-2012, 06:55 PM

< nuclear bombs to use to wipe Israel off the map >

Not again! Iran has never made any such threat. Ahmadinejad may be an unpleasant anti Semite but he is not stupid.

The threat to any future stability in the region does not come from Iran but from Israel. How many countries has Iran attacked since 1948? Zero! How many has Israel attacked? Almost too many to count.

The best thing that could happen is for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and for Israel to back off. Then it would be a good idea for Israel to enter meaningful negotiations with Hamas and Fatah and to stop all building on occupied land. Until the continued theft of land stops, this conflict will never end and Israel will have only itself to blame.

On the other hand, Iran has intervened in the Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in Saudi Arabia, none of it peacebuilding, most of it buying up support and providing weapons and training and insurgent violence. For all the hysteria surrounding the country, which I recognise as often being merely that, Iran is hardly an innocent in a volatile region.

As for the proliferation of nuclear energy which always bears with it the 'threat'-'fear'-'expectation'-'option' of military use, Iran is following Israel having first sought US help for a nuclear programme in the 1970s; Turkey, Saudi Arabia and before its present crisis, Syria were all on the road to nuclearisation. The genie is out of the bottle and has been for some time. The real question is whether or not there can be a regional agreement for countries which have water defiicits and whose long-term energy sources are uncertain (as in 50-100 years from now).

A little more sober thinking would be a welcome change from the hysteria.

broncofan

12-12-2012, 12:27 AM

The number of deceptive statements by Greyman on this thread is almost as noticeable as the absence of his comments on relevant, interesting threads about other political issues. I find it quite amazing that on the two occasions he was found to say things that were untrue or unproven, he did not respond but rather continued to make assertions. So I'll go back to my major objection that I've held back.

Use of Hearsay While Impliedly Condemning It
Greyman has used numerous statements by Israeli leaders, generals, and other less important figures for pure hearsay uses. A hearsay use is a statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. For instance when Muh Muh quoted Begin as saying Palestinians are beasts this was NOT a hearsay use because it was offered to prove Begin was a bigot and not that Palestinians are beasts. When I quoted Barak the purpose of the quotation was to demonstrate where Barak stood at a particular moment in time on the prospect of deferring peace and continuing the occupation.

But when Greyman quotes an Israeli General to establish that Israel has a dual legal system where the apparent jurisdictional predicate for their military tribunals is non-Jewishness, this is indeed a hearsay use. Not only is it a poor substitute for other information corroborating this man's opinion but it is also a bit strange that someone condemning military commissions would use hearsay to prove they operate in a discriminatory fashion and are unjust in their methods. The most controversial aspect of military commissions? You guessed it. The use of hearsay evidence without other indicia of reliability. Apparently Greyman holds himself to a lower standard than an Israeli military judge. Yes, this is not a courtroom but if you have to establish a fact based on one person's conclusions you are hanging your argument on a thin reed.

Evidence Did Not Establish How Israeli Military Tribunals Work
Not only was this his only evidence of a legal system designed to provide different procedures for non-Jews and Jews, but he did not respond to my follow-up. I myself do not know how Israeli Military Tribunals work, but I do know how American Commissions work and I found myself doubting that race and not citizenship is the jurisdictional predicate. If you would like to substantiate your claim and prove there is a de jure policy of targetting non-Jews by these commissions you might want to answer the following questions. What is the subject matter jurisdiction of such commissions? Are they only for law of war crimes? What is the personal jurisdiction of such tribunals? Are they only for non-citizens who have committed law of war crimes. If they are, then you can demonstrate a de facto racist policy by pointing out those situations that the Israeli military commissions have failed to prosecute Jewish non-citizens who have committed law of war crimes. Do Israel's civilian statutes provide for extra-territorial jurisdiction? Is there overlap between the jurisdiction of the military tribunals and civilian courts providing an option as to where to try such individuals. Now, I am not saying you are wrong but you did not establish any of these things, nor did you try. And you made quite a bold claim. Perhaps I missed it and in personam jurisdiction can only be established by an Israeli Military Tribunal by demonstrating the accused is non-Jewish? This would be a smoking gun if you provided it.

Curious Statement That He is Heartened By Polite Discourse
The discourse has not always been particularly polite but the few comments that were unsavory would have been unlikely to effect you. But I don't see how you have engaged in discourse. When challenged on a particular issue such as the uniqueness of Israeli's undelimited boundaries you do not retract or modify your statements. I thought the purpose of discourse was to share ideas and make concessions from time to time. Which leads me to my next point.

You Concede Nothing and You Assert Much Without Support
You can barely bring yourself to say that Ahmadinejad is anti-semitic. You make such statements as "for all his faults" (holding a Holocaust denial conference is more than a fault) or "he may be anti-semitic". If he is not anti-semitic then it would be tough to establish anyone is. You excoriate Israel for racism while saying nothing about Hamas, the numerous statements of its leaders including incitement to murder on the sole basis of ethnicity, and lack of recognition of Israel. You say the conflict is purely about land and deny that there is an aggravating factor of Muslim anti-semitism which has manifested itself in the statements of many Arab and Persian leaders as well as in hate crimes committed against Jews globally. You might be halfway to discourse if you admitted that these too are impediments to peace.

Meanwhile, I have stated that the occupation is wrong, that Netanyahu does not want peace, that Israeli leaders have made numerous racist statements. I would like more evidence on the military tribunal issue but who wouldn't.

As far as I can tell your arguments rest on inculpatory statements by Israeli individuals. You use such statements to establish Israeli negotiating tactics, not at any given point in time but throughout their history. You use hearsay to establish complicated issues that can be independently corroborated. You may say you like polite discourse but it seems to me you like expressing your views unchallenged and hearing a chorus of support. No thank you.

broncofan

12-12-2012, 01:16 AM

T
And Israel is ruled by extreme Jews who regard Gentiles as being less than human. Anyway, it's not a religious war but a dispute over land.
This is quite the statement. It is one thing to say extremist Muslims have said things that are anti-semitic or extremist Jews have said things that are Islamophobic. However, notice how you have now said that the Jews who run Israel consider all gentiles to be sub-human. You are accusing them of racism against the entire rest of mankind.

Just because you have said something that has echoed through the last several centuries as a dangerous libel against Jews does not mean you had malicious intent. But if someone in my presence said that Muslims regard all "infidels" as sub-human or that particular Muslims did and then did not provide support I would consider it bad form. You are essentially accusing Israeli Jews of racism against all of humanity. Do you not think that is a bit reckless?

You also say that it is not a religious war but a dispute over land, but that is because you choose to frame it that way. For many Muslims across the Middle East having a Jewish state in the holy land is an affront and the aversion to Israel has taken on an explicitly religious overtone. Has not Hamas used religious rhetoric to threaten murder of Jews in many statements? Have not many Muslims in western countries committed hate crimes against Jewish individuals based on their view of Israel's wrongs? I'm not saying there have been no instances of Jews reciprocating but I can assure you there is a great imbalance. Either way, pretending that the conflict does not have a religious dimension or that none of the antipathy towards Israel is based on its Jewishness is blind. If I were so inclined, I would provide quotations from Middle Eastern leaders.

Stavros

12-12-2012, 07:44 AM

Two powerfully argued posts, Broncofan. Sadly there are many -probably too many- political figures across the Middle East whose various public statements are a gift to their enemies; yet both Israel and the Arab states offer complex challenges to anyone interested in politics and religion; not sure how many people are up to the challlenge, as it is also easy to get carried away by 'the moment', when a long view is probably required.

At one time in Northern Ireland, the Rev Ian Paisley didn't just campaign against Irish Republicans, he made a point of linking them to Roman Catholicism as a superstitious creed suggesting Catholics had been brainwashed from birth and so on. They used to carry placards saying 'No Popery' and so on. He may be retired and at death's door, but even this warrior of words has co-operated with those very same acolytes of the Pope...including the leadership of the Provisional IRA/Sinn Fein. You have to wonder how deep some of this rhetoric goes over time, even if it is also easy to despair over the future of Israel's relations with the Arabs.

yosi

12-12-2012, 02:06 PM

A little more sober thinking would be a welcome change from the hysteria.

I agree on that .

just a reminder: Israel was founded after WW2: the German nazis and their slogan: "Death to jews" , which caused the killings of 6 million jews.
many Israelis are still living this trauma to these days.

with Iran and Hamas slogans "Death to Israel" , Israel wil do anything to prevent it from happening again.

can you blame them?

Stavros

12-12-2012, 11:07 PM

I agree on that .

just a reminder: Israel was founded after WW2: the German nazis and their slogan: "Death to jews" , which caused the killings of 6 million jews.
many Israelis are still living this trauma to these days.

with Iran and Hamas slogans "Death to Israel" , Israel wil do anything to prevent it from happening again.

can you blame them?

You may or may not be aware that the Holocaust is a controversial issue in Israel and has been since the 1940s. As an example, the obituary of Yehuda Elkana that appeared a few days ago may interest you (the link follows the obit):

Professor Yehuda Elkana

Professor Yehuda Elkana, who has died aged 78, was a historian and philosopher of science and a controversial critic of the “Holocaust industry” and Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Elkana was a survivor of Auschwitz, so when, in 1988, he published an article in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz on “The Need to Forget”, few could question his credentials.

He recalled that he had been transported to Auschwitz as a boy of 10 and, after the camp was liberated, spent some time in a Russian “liberation camp”, where he encountered Germans, Austrians, Croats, Ukrainians, Hungarians and Russians, as well as fellow Jews. Later he concluded that “there was not much difference in the conduct of many of the people I encountered ... It was clear to me that what happened in Germany could happen anywhere and to any people.”

Moving to Israel after the war, Elkana experienced profound unease with the way in which the Holocaust was being manipulated by governments of Right and Left to craft an atavistic Jewish national identity. He became convinced that the motives behind Israel’s uncompromising approach to the Palestinians was “a profound existential 'angst’ fed by a particular interpretation of the lessons of the Holocaust and the readiness to believe that the whole world is against us, and that we are the eternal victim”.

In a later interview he observed that parties on the Right of Israeli politics had used trips to Auschwitz to impart the lesson to young people that “this is what happens when Jews are not strong”, thereby justifying a repressive approach to the Palestinians. In this belief he saw the “paradoxical victory of Hitler”, whose appeal to the German people had also been based on the central idea of victimhood.

Two Jewish nations had emerged from Auschwitz, he observed: “a minority who assert: 'this must never happen again’; and a frightened majority who assert, 'this must never happen to us again.’” While all societies needed a collective mythology (and Elkana was critical of those in Germany who want to “close the chapter” of the Holocaust), “any philosophy of life nurtured solely or mostly by the Holocaust leads to disastrous consequences”.

In a later interview Elkana spelt out his fears for where this philosophy was leading Israel: “We are heading toward turning 100 million Arabs into a terrorist army against us: the whole Arab world! The United States wants to support rational, moderate Arabs. And rational, moderate Arabs will tolerate Israel’s occupation of Arab land less and less. So what is there to look forward to if we go on this way?’’
Yehuda Elkana was born to Hungarian-Jewish parents at Subotica, in what was then Yugoslavia, on June 16 1934. His father, an engineer, was a Zionist who travelled to Palestine in that year as a fencer and head of the Yugoslav delegation to the Maccabiah Games (an international Jewish athletic event held in defiance of the British Mandate authorities). “He wanted to remain in Palestine,” Elkana recalled. “Mother refused and the fool listened.”
In 1944 the family moved to Szeged in Hungary where, later that year, they were rounded up and transported to Auschwitz. They survived by sheer accident. As they were being lined up for the gas chambers, SS guards pulled them out of the line and sent them in a train with other Jews to clean up Allied bomb damage in Austrian cities. They made it to Israel in 1948.
The 14-year-old Yehuda joined a kibbutz and won a scholarship to the Herzliya High School in Tel Aviv, where he developed an interest in the philosophy and history of science. After studying Mathematics and Physics at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he took a PhD in the Philosophy of Science at Brandeis University in the United States and taught at Harvard for a year. His doctoral dissertation would form the basis for a book, The Discovery of the Conservation of Energy (1974).
He returned to Israel as chairman of the department of the history and philosophy of science at the Hebrew University.
From 1969 to 1993 Elkana was founder-director of the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem, which works to reduce tensions among the different groups in Israeli society and challenge taboos. He was proud of the fact that the Institute was a place where people could come and listen to Wagner and Strauss. At the same time he also ran, at Tel Aviv University, the Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, which he co-founded in 1983. From 1995 he was Professor of Theory of Science at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zürich.
In 1999 Elkana was appointed president and rector of the Central European University in Budapest, which had been founded by the international financier George Soros in 1991 with the aim of educating a new cadre of regional leaders to help usher in democratic transitions across the old Soviet bloc. Under Elkana’s leadership the university was transformed from a regional experiment in post-communist education into a major graduate institution of the social sciences and humanities.
The author of many books, including Essays on the Cognitive and Political Organisation of Science (1994), Elkana was also a permanent fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Berlin and co-founder and editor of the journal Science in Context. He spent a year as fellow at the Centre for Advanced Study in the Behavioural Sciences at Stanford University and was a visiting fellow at All Souls, Oxford, in 1977-78.
After retiring in 2009 he went on to oversee an international programme aimed at reforming undergraduate curricula. He was the co-author, with Hannes Klopper, of The University in the 21st Century: Teaching at the Dawn of the Digital Age (2011).
In 1960 he married Yehudit Keren, who became a prominent Israeli peace campaigner. She survives him with their two daughters and two sons.
Professor Yehuda Elkana, born June 16 1934, died September 21 2012
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9737917/Professor-Yehuda-Elkana.html