If Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador to Iraq, is– with the full backing of President Bush and apparently the US Congress– engaging in negotiations with leaders of the Sunni Arab insurgency in Iraq, who have been targeting (and killing) US troops continuously for the past three years and in many places continue to do so, who have engaged in some extremely inhumane acts against noncombatants, and whose rhetoric is often extremely anti-US… Then on what basis does the Bush administration, with apparently the full backing of the US Congress, call for “no negotiations with Hamas”, an organization that has never in its history targeted US troops or other assets and that with one exception has maintained a ceasefire in its own theater of operations (Palestine/Israel) for the past ten months?
Don’t get me wrong. As I have written on several occasions, I think it is excellent that Zal has been reaching out to the (authentically Iraqi) Sunni leaders in Iraq to try– as I understand it– to find a peaceful way to ramp down the violence and arrive at an agreed, legitimate political order in that country.
But if he, a US Ambassador, can talk to those insurgent leaders, why on earth should US officials at a high rank not also be talking to leaders and members of a party in Palestine that recently emerged the winner of a democratically contested election– with a similarly eirenic goal in mind?
I would be “shocked” indeed [irony alert there] to learn that the interventions of a foreign power were dictating US policy in this matter.
Just a reminder to everyone here: peace is made between opponents, not between people who already like each other. If we are serious about trying to find a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, then talking to all relevant parties is the only way forward. In Palestine, as in Iraq… Please, let the pro-Israel “lobby” be reminded of these essential facts, and sent politely on its way with all its special pleading. It’s time to get serious about making peace and averting another generation or two of strife and war.
31 thoughts on “Just a question”
Comments are closed.
Neocons and radical Islamists can’t talk. What else is new?
Jonah Goldberg. Palestine’s Willing Executioners: http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200602010821.asp
Peace may be made by opponents, but no nation would negotiate with an opponent who denies its fundamental right to exist.
Pretty good post, Helena.
It makes a couple of good points in a nice simple way, both about the current and about the eternal needs of peace.
I hope you won’t mind if I pinch it, with attribution of course.
Peel comes in quick for the Isreali never-ending war lobby. Shame.
Peace is made on the dark side of the heart, over the dimly sunned horizon, where hope overcomes fear.
Jimmy Carter is making a similar argument. Of course, he’s already being vilified for it…
“no nation would negotiate with an opponent who denies its fundamental right to exist.”
Good point. And given that Zionists/Israel deny not only the Palestinians’ RIGHT to exist, but their very existence, Palestinians should not be expected to negotiate with them.
Helena
“leaders of the Sunni Arab insurgency in Iraq, who have been targeting (and killing) US troops continuously for the past three years and in many places continue to do so”
Its shameful that you, the expert in ME talking in this way.
The Killing of US troops and contractors also other same for other troops who jointed the occupation of Iraq.
Recently if you don’t read or your Fox,CNN not telling the truth because al the news from Iraq filtered, there are killing of British and others in Basra, Nasryia, Samawa Babil.
So its all around Iraq they do not likes the occupiers it’s not Sunni and Shia’a or Kurds, by stating this you joined your propaganda machine and we all as Iraqi knew very well all this its just insulting to each individual Iraqi and simply “Rubbish”.
Helena
“leaders of the Sunni Arab insurgency in Iraq, who have been targeting (and killing) US troops continuously for the past three years and in many places continue to do so”
Its shameful that you, the expert in ME talking in this way.
The Killing of US troops and contractors also other same for other troops who jointed the occupation of Iraq.
Recently if you don’t read or your Fox,CNN not telling the truth because al the news from Iraq filtered, there are killing of British and others in Basra, Nasryia, Samawa Babil.
So its all around Iraq they do not likes the occupiers it’s not Sunni and Shia’a or Kurds, by stating this you joined your propaganda machine and we all as Iraqi knew very well all this its just insulting to each individual Iraqi and simply “Rubbish”.
On what basis? The differences are:
It’s really not such a mystery. These are the bases.
It’s Bush who is directing Kadima not the other way around. Just look at the events in Amona as described by the Jerusalem Post or by the New York Times. No way this is the bright thing to do before an election. Olmert is pandering to Bush.
Helena, your irony alert is an understatement: “I would be “shocked” indeed [irony alert there] to learn that the interventions of a foreign power were dictating US policy in this matter.”
How about “fire alert”? The Zionist Organization of America, always in the service of a foreign power (Israel), has a firm grip on relevant US policy through the hands of ZOA members Rep. Tom Lantos and Rep. Illena Ros-Lehtinen in their cynically-named ‘Palestinian Democracy Support Act of 2006,’ introduced into Congress with the past day or so. It is really a “destroy Hamas” bill.
When the issue becomes whether the US is able to have a foreign policy in the interests of its citizens, as opposed to appeasing the rash goals sought by ZOA fanatics in Congress, there is grave doubt that the US will allow Hamas the opportunity to evolve and mature its diplomatic capacities. The enemy within is the Zionist threat in Congress to a just peace.
So, what you are saying Timothy is that the ZOA and two Congressmen control US foreign policy?
That is indeed interesting!
Hamas will not be able to have it both ways imo. Either it becomes a responsible negotiating partner and loses its suicide bombers and Qassam rockets or it forfeits international support (apart from the mullahs in Iran). It should be under no illusions that there will be talks on a timetable for Israel’s withering away.
And by the same token, Wm Peele, Israel must also be a responsible negotiating partner; ie it must cease the confiscation of Palestinian land, the building of illegal settlements on that land, and all other practices that are in defiance of international law and of the human rights of the Palestinian people.
Only in an Orwellian world could someone call Hamas’s goals “eirenic.” Hamas’s stated goals are the elimination of Israel. Their charter is predicated on violent struggle leading to genocide.
If the U.S. wants to negotiate with various insurgent groups in Iraq, good for it. But Helena’s analogy fails on multiple grounds.
1) Although the U.S. may negotiate with Iraqi insurgents, they sure aren’t negotiating with Al Qaeda. Hamas is much more like the latter than the former.
2) The U.S. can ultimately choose to negotiate with whom it wants to. It is not appropriate for it to demand that an ally negotiate with an enemy that has pledged its ally’s destruction. Helena seems to think that U.S. support or aid of Israel allows it total dominance over that country’s government. Although the U.S. can be expected to exert leverage over Israel (as it has, despite the claims that Israel actually controls the U.S.) it cannot credibly claim that Israel has to negotiate with such racists.
The appropriate thing to do here is for all responsible parties, not just the U.S., to make very clear that Hamas will only get a seat at the table once it renounces its hateful rhetoric and agrees to the existance of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic state.
Finally, Sherry is simply wrong when she claims that Israel does not recognize the Palestinians. Israel is more than willing to recognize a Palestinian state, albeit not on the surrender terms that the Palestinians have demanded.
Sorry, Joshua, perhaps my putting that long dash there in front of the word “eirenic” did not serve the purpose I intended it to. I meant you to understand that the US talking to Hamas would have an eirenic goal, not that Hamas’s goal in winning the election had been eirenic. The latter would have clearly been implied if I hadn’t used the long dash.
Let me restate that paragraph thus and we can resume the discussion:
But if he, a US Ambassador, can talk to those insurgent leaders, why on earth should US officials at a high rank not also– with a similarly eirenic goal in mind– be talking to leaders and members of a party in Palestine that recently emerged the winner of a democratically contested election?
As for Hamas being much more like Al-Qaeda than, say, the IIP or the AMS, that may be your opinion. It isn’t backed up by much evidence, however. Hamas has no “global” goals, but is a Palestinian organization; it has a highly developed social-welfare wing; it has kept remarkably well (even if with one infraction) to a ceasefire maintained under extremely trying circumstances; it has emerged the winner of a democratic election process… And Qaeda?
I understand that you, like many pro-Israelis in the US, are upset and unsettled by H’s emergence. I’m far from 100% delighted myself, for reasons stated earlier.
But with whom on the Palestinian side do you propose the US discuss further peace diplomacy? Fateh– with its proven factionalism and lack of discipline? Or nobody?
We know from experience where continuing to deal only with Fateh would lead… same place it’s led for the past 12 years. (Unless and until they can undertake sorely needed internal reform.)
Dealing with “nobody” on the Palestinian side strikes me as a recipe for certain disaster…
So that leaves– ??
And finally, who on earth is this “Sherry” that you’re speaking to in such a patronizing way, anyway?
Neocons and radical Islamists can’t talk. What else is new?
I suppose Reuel Gerecht is something other than a neocon?
“Shiite clerics and Sunni fundamentalists hold the keys to spreading democracy among the faithful. They, not the much-admired Muslim secularists, will probably liberate the Muslim Middle East from its age-old reflexive hostility to the West. ”
I think Joshua is speaking to Shirin. I don’t see anything patronising about his reply to her factually challenged claims that ” Zionists/Israel deny not only the Palestinians’ RIGHT to exist, but their very existence” and that “Palestinians should not be expected to negotiate with [Israelis.]” Why wouldn’t you take issue with these remarks yourself Helena? You can’t possibly agree with them, do you?
Helena,
I am not ruling out talks with Hamas, so long as they make clear that they are willing to drop their eliminationist rhetoric. But ultimately, we may just have to have Israel unilaterally take steps to further withdrawals.
I also think you give Hamas way too much credit with respect to the “hudna.” It seems more realistic to say that Hamas declared a “hudna” because they’re attacks were becoming more difficult and less effective. Whether you like to admit it or not, there were other factors at work here. Operation Defensive Shield, the “apartheied wall” and Israel’s assassination of Yassin and Rantisi. It is my belief that Hamas largely folded its military operations in response to those factors more than anything else.
So if Hamas wants to talk, then that’s great. However, the fact that they have supposedly observed a “hudna” doesn’t really give me much faith or hope.
As for Sherry, I’m just referring to her by her actual given name. She’s never objected to me (or anyone else) doing so. And I don’t see anything patronizing in what I said. She made a factual error and I corrected it.
It’s Bush who is directing Kadima not the other way around.
Semantric games aside, it does not make much sense to discuss who directs whom: Macbeth or his wife.
Israel is more than willing to recognize a Palestinian state, albeit not on the surrender terms that the Palestinians have demanded.
Semantric games aside, it does not make much sense to discuss whom Macbeths recognize, their actions are completely unilateral.
Yes this is the truth, Israel State refused the Peace Offer made by Saudi King Abdullah when all the Arabs supported in Arab League meeting.
For decades Israel mangling with the words and imposing all their conditions on Arab, if ýthis sick polices not being stoped, then we will never hope there is peace cover the region
Salah,
The Saudi offer was not something Israel could just accept and end the conflict. First of all, it was far too vague on numerous points. Second, even if the Saudi royals or even the Arab League say something, that is not something that can bind the PNA.
Nevertheless, the Saudi offer was important in that, at the very least, it showed that a prominent state in the Arab and Muslim world was officially on board with the concept of land for peace, and its adoption by the Arab League was that much more encouraging.
Sharon said that the offer, as stated, was not acceptable, but offered to visit the Arab League summitt to address them with Israel’s concerns. The Arab League refused. That’s too bad, because allowing the Israeli PM to address an Arab League summit would have been a true breakthrough for peace. Perhaps on par with Sadat visiting Jerusalem.
By Jonathan Spyer
Salah…you expressed your belief that Israel should accept the Saudi offer…do you similarly believe that Hamas should accept the recent Egyptian proposal, namely…
“One, stop the violence. Two, it should become doctrine with them to be committed to all the agreements signed with Israel. Three, they would have to recognize Israel.”
Egypt, not Saudi Arabia, is the largest Arab nation and, ironically, it was Egypt that ordered the UN peacekeepers out of Sinai in 1967, blockaded the Straits of Tiran, mobilized its army and sent them to the border with Israel – leading to the very war that created expanded Israeli borders that the Saudi offer was intended to undo.
WmPeele, Roosevelt, in the face of criticism like yours, decided to recognize the USSR, which denied the fundamental right to exist of all non-socialist states, and
claimed to scientifically know that they were doomed, when he became president. Do you think this was a bad decision?
Concerning the question you pose Salah. I too think Israel should have accepted the Abdullah proposal (and its multitude of forerunners.) I think it would be a
good for Hamas to accept this Egyptian proposal. But do you similarly believe that Israel should accept the same three points respecting Palestine? It never has
before.
Joshua, why do you think that “Israel is more than willing to recognize a Palestinian state, albeit not on the surrender terms that the Palestinians have demanded.”
What surrender terms have they demanded? The conflict is almost entirely about land. The Palestinian demand is for the occupied territories, the border being the
Green Line. They, like Jordan before them, since 1967, have been flexible about minor and mutual changes a la SC 242. This has been the Arab position, with
perhaps some wavering in the beginning, for more than 30 years now. Unfortunately Israel has never really accepted SC 242, especially regarding these areas, and
were slow even about formally doing so. Warren, you speak e.g. of a (mythical) Arab rejectionism which has lasted for 50 years. Most of your beliefs about the
conflict (inconsistent e.g. with the facts I adduce above) would not survive contact with a good library. I suggest you visit one.
Is the conflict is about security and land, as if there were some sort of trade-off? Not so. The conflict is just about land. One side, Israel, has been jeopardizing its
own security and victimizing another people in the hope of getting their land. Land which by no stretch of the imagination it has a legitimate claim to – having
renounced it in its infancy decades ago. It claims it needs these lands for its security, but this is preposterous, insultingly so. This is the Big Lie told to the Israeli
public and its American supporters that has sustained the conflict. Maybe some politicos now actually believe it, but the ones of the 70s who started with it didn’t.
These days, a conventional threat from the Arabs is a ridiculous, ridiculous joke.
Israeli Martin Van Creveld, one of the most respected military thinkers in the world, recently wrote a book that I think anyone who believes, even a little, in this Big
Lie should read – “Defending Israel.” (BTW, Dominic and Shirin, I don’t think you really understood what he was saying and why Helena posted his statements on
Iraq a few months ago.) He asks just what are Israel’s defensible borders, from a military point of view? His answer – the Green Line, or something very
very close to it. This is not land that Israel needs for its security, it is land Israel needs NOT to have for its security. And the insane settlements, which supposedly
are there to be human shields for the protection of Israel? “Seen from a security point of view, indeed, the entire map of settlement hardly makes sense at all.” (He
compares the leaders who put them there to”the man who cut off his penis to ensure his wife did not enjoy sex; and like that man, they have succeeded..”) I would
not endorse everything he says – he likes having a wall, and he recycles hoary myths like the 1950s US arms embargo, and suggests committing a crime against
humanity against Arab Israelis “if they continue to cause trouble” – a self-hating lefty dove peacenik he ain’t, but this book is sane in a way that most discussion about
Israel’s security is not. Also of interest is his professional opinion as to the importance of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, cf Helena above: “Even disregarding its
symbolic importance, without it all they can have is not a state, but two separate cantons linked, if they can be linked at all, by a waist as narrow as that of an ant.”
John R,
If the conflict were only about land – in the sense of real estate – it probably could have been settled years ago. There is no better indication of the fact that it is not about land, as you seem to think about it, than in the Hamas Covenant itself:
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?
I know, I know. I bet you can find similar statements from the settlers and others on the Zionist fringe, but Hamas has won the election now, and it is their platform that is important here.
As Joshua has already pointed out, the Saudi offer was too vague in important areas – those not concerning real estate – for Israel to have accepted it. I also agree with Joshua that the Arab League was remiss in not having accepted the Israeli Prime Minister’s offer to speak to the organization and lay out his conditions.
Now, concerning the “Big Lie”. I think this does a disservice to history. I haven’t read Martin Van Creveld’s book, but I would wager that he did not hold this view back in the 70s. The reason is simple: ballistic missiles were not a major element in the conflict at that time, and strategic depth had a whole different meaning when the primary vehicle of war was the tank. Michael Oren, in his book Six Days of War, lays out very clearly what the Jordanian war plan was for Jerusalem in 1967. Strategic depth was essential at that time (as was making certain of holding on to the no-man’s land around Jerusalem that Helena laments in her posting).
As to the point about Jerusalem in the midst of “two separate cantons linked, if they can be linked at all, by a waist as narrow as that of an ant.” I believe that someone actually measured the distances, and that “waist as narrow as that of an ant” is precisely the same width as the distance from Netanya to the Green Line. Does that mean that Israel, prior to 1967 (or after returning to those borders), was not a “viable” state?
Finally, I would maintain that the conflict cannot be resolved based on the view of land expressed, as cited above, in the Hamas Covenant. Further, it cannot be resolved without a fundamental shift in thinking about the use, and not the possession, of land, particularly on the Palestinian side. The Palestinian dream of an agrarian-pastoral society is simply not practical in the twenty-first century. For them to realize this ideal, there simply is no room for six million Jews in the area of Mandate Palestine. There probably isn’t enough room for all six million Palestinians either!
Well, JES, only some Palestinians want to hang onto their agricultural roots, though those have represented a very important part of the people’s historical gestalt. But most Palestinians are thoroughly and probably irreversibly urbanized at this point. but heck, even city-dwellers need water, land, and other resources.
There are around 6 million Israelis and 7 million (non-Israeli) Palestinians who all have some valid claim on the land and resources of Israel/Palestine. So somethng like a 50-50 split of the whole land would seem fair in the context of a two-state outcome. As it is, all that the Palestinian and Arab negotiating position up until now (i.e., the “Beirut Declaration” position, based on resolution 242) has been asking for is some 23% of the whole– that is, the land occupied by military force by Israel in 1967.
It is faintly ridiculous to characterize this as requiring a “surrender” from Israel. I understand that many Israelis have been concerned by Palestinian claims regarding the right of return. But I’m confident that if an Israeli government was prepared to make a basic commitment to evacuate all the land occupied in 1967, then the remaining issues could all be worked out with the Palestinian side showing massive flexibility on every other issue including disarmament, demobilization, demographics, and economics…
That happened with Egypt. It was on the point of happening with Hafez al-Asad in 1994-95. There is every expectation it could happen with the Palestinians– if the fundamental commitment on complete withdrawal from the land was forthcoming from Israel. So far, regarding the Palestinians’ land in the West Bank, it has not been.
So yes, the conflict is still very much about land.
(Of course, as in any negotiation, there are huge problems of sequencing the concessions required of each side… That’s where Track Two talks and the work of trustworthy mediators comes in… Too bad the Arabs and Israelis haven’t had a trustworthy– i.e. impartial– mediator for many years now, eh?)
بين حماس ودايان
Joshua,
For your information, the fact that I do not object to being called “Sherry” is unrelated to whether or not it is my “actual given name”, which in fact it is not. It is a nickname I have used for many years to make it easier for Americans who seem to have difficulties with anything they are not familiar with.
And please don’t insult our intelligence by pretending you used that name “innocently” – you clearly thought you were making some kind of point, didn’t you?
PS Joshua, whereas you made a factual error by claiming that my “actual given name” is Sherry, I did NOT make a factual error when I pointed out that Zionists and Israelis have denied the very existence of Palestinians. That fact is copiously documented in Zionist, Israeli, and “other” sources.
I did NOT make a factual error when I pointed out that Zionists and Israelis have denied the very existence of Palestinians.
ahem~ I think you mean SOME Zionists and Israelis, charloma 🙂 Most Israelis are fine with the idea of Palestinians.
kindest regards,
ahem – I said that Zionists and Israelis deny the very existence of the Palestinians. That implies some and not all. Had I meant to say that all Zionists and Israelis deny the existence of Palestinians I would have specified that by the use of the definite article. 🙂
And I suppose you have documentation to back up your assertion that most Israelis are “fine with the idea of Palestinians” (whatever that is supposed to mean). In fact, I have never seen anything to indicate what percentage of Israelis and Zionists deny and what percentage do not deny the existence of the Palestinians. However, given the frequency with which the non-existence of the Palestinians as a people, nation, culture, or any other sort of entity has been and continues to be used by Zionists and Israelis one has the impression that the percentage of deniers is fairly high.
Oh – and I find this speculation about my “actual given name” simply fascinating, though I admit I fail to understand what you and your cohort(s) are trying to prove – and it seems obvious that you ARE trying to prove something or other that has nothing whatsoever to do with the ideas I present on these pages. Seems like the ultimate meaningless ad hominem diversion, as a matter of fact.
Shirin,
And I suppose you have documentation to back up your assertion that most Israelis are “fine with the idea of Palestinians”
“Idea of Palestinian statehood,” and every poll you’re likely to consult will agree.
http://www.ipforum.org/serial.cfm?rid=1191
Here’s one showing 76% Israeli support for a two-state solution.
http://www.metransparent.com/texts/akiva_eldar_majority_palestinians_support_two_state_solution.htm
Here’s another.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1122-01.htm
and another.
You’ll also recall that (then-) Likud leader Ariel Sharon himself came out in favor of a Palestinian state.
You could of course take the position that everyone consulted in the foregoing links is insincere, but that would be ad hominem and counterproductive. until a mind-reading machine is invented, the only way to gauge public opinion is through opinion polls and public statements.
re: definite articles — I’m sorry you didnt appreciate my facetious reference to an earlier remark of Helena’s. FWIW I agree with your usage.
best regards,