The Settlements

OK, Joe, Kraut is worthy of your time. How about Chomsky, from the other end of the spectrum? Your take?
~
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/04-16

I would further that Sharon and Olmert also rejected viability of a Palestinian state, evident through their brutally oppressive (especially Sharon) incitement of the Palestinians. One they provoked Hamas, they too used the "we can't have peace because Hamas is too violent" argument.
.
Sharon pulled out of Gaza, yes. But in doing so he simply transferred the problem to the West Bank, immediately settling 12,000 additional and illegal Israelis there. The number now hovers over 500,000 illegal settlers in West Bank.

I think Chomsky is spot on in his analysis of the situation. Few may recall, but Bush II pursued a similar approach as Obama to Israel in 2001-2002. Hoping to slow the growing tide of anti-American sentiment among Arabs and thus assist in slowing terrorism, Mr. Bush targeted Israel's expansionist policies and attempted to push for Palestinian statehood. Bush pressured Sharon on withdrawal from Gaza and encouraged dialogue with Arafat. However, Sharon vehemently rejected this new approach. There was some back-and-forth harsh rhetoric between Sharon and WH Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, if you recall.
.
Shortly thereafter, Israel turned up the political pressure utilizing the Israel lobby, AIPAC. 89 United States Senators authored a letter to the President demanding that he issue a public statement asserting absolute and total support for Israel and rejecting Arafat. Bush complied. Relations between US and Israel normalized. Business as usual.
.
Thus, what may appear to be a break from one-sided dealings with Israel will soon result in massive behind the scenes political pressure from Israel for the US to change rhetoric. Whether Obama has the courage to resist these influential sources, including the overwhelming majority of his party's Congressmen, remains to be seen. I would venture a guess, though, that there will be no 'change' with regard to Israel.

Thanks for providing honest journalism on middle east issues. As a middle American it is difficult to judge reporting from spin.

I am sure you receive much pressure to slant your work, but for readers your impartiality is comforting.

I just let my Newsweek subscription lapse because I have been getting most of my news on the web. (and tired of George Wills BS)

I am clicking now to subscribe to Time to contribute to support your work.

@jcapan:

1. Chomski is not published twice a week in WaPo, and is notr, in fact, a professional bloviator. Thus your so called "balance" is fatuous.

2. Chomski has a number of pompous and irritating tics, but he is nothing like as dishonest as Krauthammer. Furthermore, see 1. You have to go LOOKING for his stuff --he doesn't show up on Fox News.

You do do good work Joe --as stated by randy80302. Your presentation of "Ricci" in "The Return of Hot Button Issues" was below par work, though.

Most people who have read that case agree that --in legal terms --all the 3 judges did was strictly construe existing law. In other words, they did what Republicans always claim they want (except when they don't): --the judges refused to legislate from the bunch. The law may have been unfair BUT IT WASN'T UNCONSTITUTIONAL --therefore, the three judges had no right to overturn it.

Many of Sotormayer's rulings are like that: --narrowly written, with a tendency to support the defendants in civil rights cases, and the police in cases where they are accused of overstepping their authority.

If I had a beef --which I don't really --it would be that I would like to see her be a bit peppier. In any case, she has been far more consistent and honest than Alito and Roberts, who insisted, during confirmation, as if butter wouldn't melt in their mouths --that they had the greatest respect for precedent.

As soon as they were confirmed, they started after every precedent they could with a flame thrower.

For my money --I would rather have the real deal than a mealy mouthed appeaser one day, turned tyrant the next.

Krazyhater is not worth engaging seriously. He really is consumed by bitterness and anger. It's all about his personality, which is why ad hominem arguments are all he deserves. Leave him to Richard Widmark, I say.

[...] and Joe Klein at the Time Swampland blog agrees… not with the NAZI part, but with the idiot [...]

Joe, are you not concerned that you are now part of the endangered species: the journalist who let's the facts on the ground drive the argument. WaPo for all its "liberal" history is a place where a string of NeoCons have blossomed under the somewhat dubious proposition that their op-eds represent a legitimate source of ideas and viewpoints. Unfortunately the contents produced by Krauthammar ( and the Kagans and Kristol, etc) show that propaganda is now a "respectable" form of "journalism"; and cant is welcomed at the WaPo.

A person can cite all of the reasons for and against the Israeli - Palestinian conflicts that have been going on since 1948. The anger runs very deep with Palestinian Arabs. It is not the pre-1967 lands which are in dispute Joe. It is the fact that in 1948, Israel was in fact created. Arabs, whether they be Palestinians, Egyptians, or Jordanians continue to incite all Arabs across the globe to fight a recognized Israeli State.
.
I guess my first question , what is Palestine? Where is it shown in world history that there was a Palestinian State? a Country? Are not the lands now recognized as Israeli simply lands once controlled by Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt? Land that was conquered by the British during their colonial period? I do not seem to remember reading about a “Palestinian King or Mullah or Shah” who governed this area of the middle east.
.
In my mind and I believe in the minds of the Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians”, the disputed lands are not only those in Gaza and the West Bank, but also all of the lands now occupied by any Israeli in this region. The unfortunate thing that occurred in 1948 was lands lived on for several generations of “Palestinians”, where taken away from them, and given to Israelis. It wasn't bought and paid for as is the usual practice when one conveys land to another. I do not think anyone will be successful in coming to an “agreement” until this more major fact is settled. Britain controlled these lands through their colonial conquests. Perhaps it is up to the British to pay for those lands that were once occupied by the Palestinians pre-1948. If consideration is not made to the Arabs, this conflict will never be settled. There will always be fighting and anger to fuel the fire of injustice that the Arabs believe was caused to them in 1948.
.
I think this is yet again another situation which will never go away in my lifetime, the lifetime of my children or my children's children.

Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests
.
Sorry for the long George Washington quote, but I think of this every time I think of Israel. They should be our friend and ally yes, but too much favor is not healthy for us, them or the region.

Rusty, this may not be what you're looking for but:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_when_islam.php
.
As you know, 1948 was the beginning of a chapter not the book.
From the link:
Palestine was invaded by Muslim Arab armies during this period, capped by the capture of Jerusalem in 638 AD. The invasion was bloody for the long-established Christian and Jewish inhabitants and the countryside was devastated. This was the start of 1300 years of Muslim presence in what the Arabs called Filastin, an Arabic rendition of the name Palaestina assigned by the Romans.

He rants, on much firmer ground, about the corruption and incompetence of the Palestinian leadership.
.
The only case where we can use other people's behavior to excuse our own is when we arrest and jail criminals. Any other instance of using someone elses bad behavior to justify your own is a good working definition of hypocrisy. The fact that in the Israeli/Palastinian conflict, even more than in other war situations, the victims of retribution are never the same people as the perpetrators of the act being avenged. This is why you get the long generational conflict that Rusty evaluates so pessimistically.
.
My only response is my same one from yesterday.
We might try to achieve Peace and fail but that is certainly better than not trying. I pray for progress.

It never fails to amaze me how much the Arab/Israeli conflict remains a jobs program for the psudo-intellectuals and talking heads.
.
.
Here we have Joe Klein getting paid to opine about another opiner. No wonder the news industry is falling to pieces.

Joe:
.
I have a question for you:
.
Let's say, even if "settlements" were legal, is that even really the issue here?
.
More questions that you need to address that are central to the above:
.
1. What do Israelis do when creating new "settlements" or expanding existing ones.
2. Who was the immediate previous owner of the land that lies under the footprints of these "settlements"?
3. How do Israelis implement a "settlement" or expand an existing one?
.
This is really not about the "legality" or not of these "settlements"*1, because that so-called legality obscures other facts about them that relate to ones' home, and how one goes about obtaining a place to live under the rule of law - by this I mean as it is intended for the average individual.
.
My point is that even without that additional veneer of "complexity", the "settlements" are a morally bankrupt concept. They are entities that have their foundation in concepts like like claim jumping and ethnic cleansing*2.
.
*1 I never refer to them without quotes as the implication is that the land is uninhabited, open to use, and open to settlement - which in this case is clearly not true.
.
*2 Ethnic cleansing does not have to be accompanied by death. Ethnic cleansing is simply the removal, by whatever means, of an ethnic group from a specific geographic location.

Right on, Joe. Thanks for the observations. Sane as usual.

[...] Joe Klein on Krauthammer [...]

The WaPo has the worst columnists out there: Will, Gerson, Broder and Krauthammer routinely say stupid stuff that is easy to disprove.

I often disagree with David Brooks but I almost always admire how he frames his arguments.

But the conservatives (and I'm going to include Broder in this group because he tends to kiss Republican butt and sharply criticize Dems)whose home is the WaPo routinely offer up op-eds that are just plain dumb.

Thank you for your link, some people. But, I am clearly aware of the holocaust of the Muslims from 600 or so AD and for nearly 1300 years afterwards.
.
I just wanted to point out to our esteemed Joe Klein that just drawing imaginary lines based on occupied lands since 1967 is never going to erase all the hate held by the now called Palestinians in their hearts for the Jews in Israel. The hate really became engrained in 1948, when Western Nations after WWII decided to create a "homeland" for the Jews that Hitler persecuted.
.
The history in this area of the world is storied with other conquests by the Romans, Babylonians (later Muslims), and Christians which goes far backward in time than 600 AD. The current Palestinians however do owe their Muslim conquerors led by the teachings of Mohammad their allegiance. The "jihad" that Mohammad unleashed in the 600's continues today, and this in my mind is what we are fighting so far as our current “terrorist War”. Obama and all of his merry men will never bring any peace to this land, not with a "2 State" solution or anything else. The only time you shall see peace in this region is when some other conqueror steps in and redistricts the borders. I for one happen to believe that will be Jesus Christ himself.

Expanding settlements, dismantling settlements is not the real problem. Frankly, what do about the settlements is a problem that could be easily solved by parties who were truly dedicated to establishing peace. Tell charlie to call me when he is really ready to talk about the problem, because this is nothing but a mere symptom of what is really ailing these folks.
.
Conservatives, everywhere in the world, have failed to recognize that a new generation is coming of age free from the visceral attachment to the grudge-match of yesteryear. This new generation is defined by its pragmatism and can rightly see that no matter how bitter their parents and grandparents become about the past, it's going to remain the past.
.
Extremists of every ilk draw power from an offer to provide the means and opportunity to vent today's frustrations. Of course, real leadership, the kind that Obama is exhibiting despite the ridiculous claims from the right, remains focused on the future. The point is not to forget history, but rather provide an opportunity for this new generation to make their own.

Why do so many who claim to be people of faith operate in the context of fear. President Obama is proposing a doctrine of faith rather than fear. Which is more powerful, fear or faith?

http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/06/05/of-fear-faith-and-foreign-affairs/

I would just like to point out that the Israel-Arabs have been living more or less happily in Israel since 1948. While there have been individual incidents, they have not turned in mass to HAMAS or even FATAH. The point being that it is not impossible for Israel to live in peace with a large Arab minority within its borders.

The difference being how the state of Israel treats Palestinians in the West Bank from those within its internationally-recognized borders. Israel-Arabs are Israel citizens and while they are subject to discrimination, they have similar rights to Jewish citizens. On the other hand, Palestinians are subject to an unbearable list of restrictions and daily humiliations by the settlers and Israel military.

There can be peace between Israel and Arab states, look at Jordan and Egypt. The Israelis cannot have their cake and eat it too, they can't force their enemies to stop fighting them without giving some concessions. The Sinai bought a 40 year peace with Eqypt. Who knows perhaps a withdrawal from most of the West Bank will do the same with the Palestinians.

rusty-

Its disingenuous to suppose that Arab sentiment is linked directly to 1948, implying that the ultimate goal lies not with curbing Israel back to the pre-1967 borders, but with nullifying Israel as a whole. This is simply not true. Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and to an extent Syria have all made their peace (formal or informal) with Israel. Fatah has not carried out any terrorist attacks in decades and has no rhetoric calling for the destruction of Israel. Even Hamas has, on numerous occasions, accepted the land for peace premise. Notably, in 2005 a Hamas delegate was sent to Europe to negotiate with EU leaders a peace accord, whereby Hamas would cease all hostilities in return for complete Israeli withdrawal from West Bank and Golan Heights. Israel, with no intention of letting go of illegally occupied lands, warned Europe not to entertain Hamas, and the delegation was subsequently ignored.
.
Furthermore, the argument questioning the authenticity of a 'Palestinian' people should not belie the fact that these people resided in present day Israel/West Bank/Gaza for 1300 years. Call them what you will, it matters not, and will never negate the fact of their existence. And, as somepeoplelikeit noted, under the Romans the region was in fact referred to as Palaestina. Whether or not there was an officially recognized Palestinian nation is irrelevant and arguments of that notion seek only to distract from more relevant and truthful grievances.
.
Dee in MD
I really hate to destroy your image of Obama, but he has shown no leadership on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'm sorry but giving a speech in Cairo whereby he lists some US flaws, lists some Arabic flaws, quotes the Quran, Bible, and Talmud will do nothing to improve US-Middle East relations. Furthermore, his approach to Israel with regard to pressure on the settlements issue closely resemble Bush II's efforts in 2001-2002. US-Israeli relations soured, until Sharon turned up the heat, pressing AIPAC to influence US rhetoric. AIPAC held meetings with ranking members of the US Senate and within 2 weeks 89 US Senators wrote a harshly worded letter to Bush demanding he publicly state America's unwavering commitment to Israel. Bush caved, the expansionist policies of Israel were ignored, and relations normalized. I am confident such pressure on Obama has already begun behind the scenes and his approach to the conflict will soon resemble administrations past.

Joe,

The settlements are NOT illegal. There was never a sovereign country called Palestine that was governed by Palestinians. As you well know, the land has always been disputed and still is.

UN Resolution 181 specifically talks about Israel giving back "territories," as opposed to "all of the territories." Israeli dove Abba Eban called the '67 borders "Auschwitz borders," because those borders leave Israel with a 12-mile-wide waist, making it impossible to defend the country.

The Palestinians have agreed in talks to land swaps, because it is obvious that Israel will need to keep some of the settlements. Nothing "holy" happened in '67, and the lines that were produced aren't holy. Pre-67, Egypt and Jordan were controlling Gaza and the West Bank, respectively, and they had zero intention of ever giving that land to the Palestinians. Why didn't a Palestinian state form during the 19 years when it was Arab-controlled land?

Here was my favorite line: "There may be no peace for Israel, in any case; there will always be implacable Arab terrorists. But a coherent and prosperous Palestine certainly increases the odds.."

So Israel can endanger itself by more withdrawals and risk another mass murder of Jews, and then MAYBE there will be peace. BRILLIANT, Joe, brilliant. Def. written from the perspective of someone whose own children are not at risk...

I love Charles Krauthammer because he makes this radical leftist Klein mad!