Richard Sale had an excellent post on Pat Lang’s blog yesterday, in which he surveyed some of the key problems in the relationship between Pres. Obama and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, who will have their first face-to-face meeting as national leaders in Washington, on Monday.
There are plenty of serious disagreements between the two leaders, which have been well described both by Sale, writing from Washington, and by the pro-Likud magnate and commentator Isi Leibler, writing in the Jerusalem Post on Monday.
Leibler, who had just concluded a quick visit to New York, wrote,
- JEWISH LEADERS are loath to openly express their concerns. But off record, many despairingly predict a Jewish head-on clash over Israel with the most popular US president since Franklin Roosevelt. Their concerns are exacerbated by the behavior of key Jewish officials in the administration who privately proclaim that they would not flinch from a major confrontation with the Jewish state and predict that most American Jews continue to venerate Obama and will support him.
AIPAC leaders were bluntly told by Jewish White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that failure to advance with the Palestinians would impact on progress with the Iranians. Similar messages were conveyed by Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones assured a European foreign minister that unlike Bush, Obama would be “forceful” with Israel. More chilling was the bland announcement without notice, from an assistant secretary of state calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Jewish leaders are also appalled with the favorable media exposure provided to fringe groups like J Street, whose prime objective is to “balance” AIPAC activities by lobbying the Obama administration to force Israel to make further unilateral concessions.
Of course, Leibler’s intention in calling “J Street” a “fringe group” and mischaracterizing its platform in the way he did is quite clear…
Sales’s piece has more details of the problems that have arisen between leading representatives of the two governments. Including, crucially, the issue of Uzi Arad, the man named by Netanyahu as his national security adviser.
Arad has been barred from getting a visa to enter the US since June 2007 under section 212 3(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, because of FBI concerns about his role in having “run” Lawrence Franklin, the former Pentagon analyst jailed for 12.5 years for having passed highly classified U.S. intelligence directly to Arad.
Will Netanyahu try to take Arad with him when he travels to Washington this weekend? As Sales writes, when Hillary Clinton was in Israel in March, Netanyahu and his team pulled a fast one on her by sneaking Arad into a meeting with her even though her people had already conveyed their desire this not happen.
I imagine this did little to endear Netanyahu or Arad to her. (Which is probably good.)
Beyond the question of Uzi Arad, however, there are numerous other matters of significant disagreement between the two governments. The main one is the peace process with the Palestinians.
Netanyahu has continued to refrain from expressing any support for the approach favored by Obama: the two-state solution involving a viable Palestinian state. He’s been expressing support for some form of an “economic peace” for the Palestinians, instead.
Today, he took a step that was most likely designed to make him look “flexible” and “visionary” ahead of his visit to Washington: He announced that he would allow a full range of foodstuffs to be shipped into Gaza.
Hold the applause, folks!
Firstly, this is only a promise; who knows about its implementation? Secondly: Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza and therefore has entire responsibility for the welfare of Gaza’s 1.5 million people, so why should anyone applaud Netanyahu when he “promises” to fulfill this small part of that responsibility? Thirdly, of course Israel’s responsibility to Gaza’s people goes considerably beyond the provision of adequate foodstuffs; Israel has a responsibility to support the full social and economic development of the Strip’s people, including, as a very first step, allowing the shipping into the Strip of the the construction materials needed to repair the horrendous damages from the recent war… No word from Netanyahu on that, yet.
And finally, on those foodstuffs, don’t you remember that back at the end of March, outgoing PM Olmert already promised that full shipments of them would forthwith be restored? So why would Netanyahu expect anyone to “applaud” now if he is merely– two months after Olmert’s promise– finally getting around to “promising” implementation of it, once again?
It is interesting to see, though, how desperately Netanyahu seems to be trying to appear “reasonable” and “flexible” in front of an American public that is much more skeptical of the Israeli PM’s good intentions than at any other point since– well, since he was PM the time before, in the mid-1990s.
My expectation of Monday’s meeting between him and Obama, fwiw, is that Netanyahu may well decide to show some more apparent “flexibility” inside the meeting room by telling Obama that he has, indeed, finally become convinced that a Palestinian “state” of some sort could be a workble idea…
Of course, he would continue to hedge that position around with all kinds of preconditions for what powers the “state” might have, and the timeline on which it could even start to be established.
Regarding its powers, do recall that South Africa’s Bantustans were given the formal name of “states”. (Also, in US political parlance, a “state” is a distinctly sub-national entity.)
Regarding the timeline for it, Netanyahu and his people would certainly, under this scenario, bring forward all those huge preconditions that the “state” could only start to be established after all Palestinian “terrorism” has been completely eradicated, and after the US and the rest of the international community have destroyed Iran’s nuclear programs, etc etc etc…
They might also bring in the language of “viability.”
When most people talk about the need for a future Palestinian state to be “viable”, they look at two key aspects of it: its territorial base and the base of its political support among Palestinians.
When people around Netanyahu talk about “viability” it often seems they are talking about the state having been built over many years, “from the bottom up” (as they like to say), by the Americans, and along a template that the Israelis themselves would still completely control.
So anyway, my bottom line on Monday’s meeting is that Obama’s people should be ready, in the event that Netanyahu grants them the “concession” of starting to agree to the idea of a Palestinian state, with their own response to that that makes clear that the US version of a viable Palestinian state is one that is truly viable.
Palestinians and all other Arabs are very wary of the prospect of a Palestinian end-state that is only a Bantustan. (It’s bad enough that Ramallastan looks and acts so much like a Bantustan already today; but at least the PA is only a “temporary” body, not the end-state.)
If Netanyahu comes out openly and says he supports a “state”, and then immediately hedges his definition of it around in an impossible way, and without his caveats meeting a firm and clear reaction from the Obama team, then that could end up killing the two-state project far faster than anything else.
Netanyahu’s hug for an Israeli-dominated and completely non-indepedent Palestinian “state” would a hug of death.
You see, there is this concept that Americans used to adhere called, quite quaintly, the “consent of the governed.”
Remember that?
… Anyway, we’ll clearly have some interesting days ahead.
…many despairingly predict a Jewish head-on clash over Israel with the most popular US president since Franklin Roosevelt.
How’s that for some hyperoblic trash? Obama hasn’t yet been in office six months (and hasn’t really done anything except smile and speak nicely), and Leibler is already comparing him with FDR (who, as I recall, during his first term was probably not more popular than… well, George W. Bush).
[M]ore chilling was the bland announcement without notice, from an assistant secretary of state calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
That’s right. It was bland. Not only was it bland, and delivered by an assistant Secretary of State, but Israel wasn’t singled out as a non-signatory of the NPT. (And I do believe that this administration has not been the first to make such a suggestion in the past two decades.)
The Uzi Arad bit is, I believe, largely overplayed. I doubt that Bibi will try to bring him to the US, and even if he does, I don’t think he’ll be taking him in tow to many meetings.
…the approach favored by Obama: the two-state solution involving a viable Palestinian state. He’s been expressing support for some form of an “economic peace” for the Palestinians, instead.
I don’t think that you get it yet: This has been the approach favored by all recent US Presidents, and the one that George W. Bush first stated explicitly. There is absolutely nothing new in what Obama is saying here, except for the fact that he may (or may not) be willing to put pressure on Israel to achieve this end.
Regarding the timeline for it, Netanyahu and his people would certainly, under this scenario, bring forward all those huge preconditions that the “state” could only start to be established after all Palestinian “terrorism” has been completely eradicated, and after the US and the rest of the international community have destroyed Iran’s nuclear programs, etc etc etc…
And what about the “huge preconditions” that Fatah and the Arab states (not to mention Hamas) are insisting upon? Don’t these count for anything?
So anyway, my bottom line on Monday’s meeting is that Obama’s people should be ready, in the event that Netanyahu grants them the “concession” of starting to agree to the idea of a Palestinian state, with their own response to that that makes clear that the US version of a viable Palestinian state is one that is truly viable.
Frankly, I don’t think that anybody is listening at the White House or at Foggy Bottom.
If Netanyahu comes out openly and says he supports a “state”, and then immediately hedges his definition of it around in an impossible way, and without his caveats meeting a firm and clear reaction from the Obama team, then then that could end up killing the two-state project far faster than anything else.
Enough with the threats already. Here’s a counter-threat for you:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1082944.html
The 3 irrevocable roads ahead for Israel. regardless of whether Obama or future Presidents do or do not do the do.
a) Either accept in “toto” the UN Resolutions of 1948 that created Israel and a Palestenian state or:
b) Continue its “colonizing” of both Gaza and the West Bank with the increasing hostility coupled to increasing military capabilities of its neighbors for a future of face offs whose most likelyhood would be an Israeli military defeat.
c) Incorporate the Gaza and West Bank into a one state with the eventual reality that within two or three decades the “Jewish” population will become a minority.
If the above seems a bit of a fantasy one only needs to recall the longevity of the USSR.
Obama, Netanyahu, et al are but bit players on stage with limited impacts on what the Middle East will eventually look on a map in 2048.
It seems the Israelis have chosen Door B, omop.
I think that Obama/Clinton are behind them. Helena keeps on saying (hoping?) all is not lost. I hope that she is right and that I am wrong.
But if they all dutifully smile and quaff their paper cup of Kool-Aid from the AIPAC it will all end very badly. After the financial collapse of the US the military collapse will quickly follow. Israel will be left surrounded by the sea of “friends” it’s so carefully cultivated over the years.
The only question is if Israel will nuke itself as its final act, Samson redux.
Maybe that will be the final impetus to serious nuclear disarmament.
Helena: The problem with Arad isn’t just that he might accompany Bibi to Washignton. As I wrote in my blog (see accompanying link) based on a Haaretz report, Arad is due in DC to meet with James Jones BEFORE the presidential-prime ministerial visit, in order to iron out the agenda of the meetings.
I’m completely confused how Haaretz could be reporting him coming very soon to such a mtg. while Sale reports the issue of his visa is still unresolved.
Could you let me know privately if you hear anything more definitive about this.
Richard, I believe that the requirement for a visa is not necessary if traveling under a diplomatic passport, provided the Department of State has not declared him persona non grata (which I don’t believe they have).
Richard, after doing a bit of research, perhaps this will help:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1075092.htm
(It appears that Helena was in error.)
* A Two State Solution “
Defining a Two State Solution
BTW JES your link broken?
Your observation John Francis Lee seems to be quite evident.
It does not take an intellect to conclude that since probably AD 1 the “reactions to every action taken by a socalled major power” were not the anticipated and/or desired ones.
Given the evolving changes in power relationships one could venture the thought that since Israel has chosen door B its chosen a well trod path of reliance on a sugar daddy that is having major problems of his/her own and are not able to continue to be nanny and nurse.
The zionists have always voiced that the Palestenians are bascially “cockroaches”. The irony is that most of humanity will confirm that cockraoches will outlast humans on planet earth.
t’s the misguided notion, peddled in the name of Israel’s best interests by some in the diplomatic, academic, and media worlds, that if only Israel did this or that, peace with its neighbors would be at hand. But since it doesn’t, then Israel constitutes the principal, perhaps only, real obstacle to a new day in the Middle East.
Striking, isn’t it?
Poor Israel. If only it had the visual acuity of these “enlightened” souls, then all would be hunky-dory. After all, according to them, Israel holds all the cards, yet refuses to play them.
The thinking goes: Why can’t those shortsighted Israelis figure out what needs to be done – it’s so obvious to us, isn’t it? – so the conflict can be brought to a screeching halt?
Thus, if only Israel froze settlements. If only Israel removed checkpoints. If only Israel recognized the Hamas government in Gaza. If only Israel stopped assuming the worst about Iran’s “pragmatic” leadership, which just wants a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes. If only Israel got beyond its Holocaust trauma. If only Israel ______ well, you can fill in the blank.
The point is that, for sufferers of IOI, it essentially all comes down to Israel.
And the IOI syndrome has only been strengthened by the advent of the new Israeli government, of course.
After all, media outlets from the Associated Press to CBS News to Der Spiegel have already branded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “hardline” from the get-go. Their word choice simply reinforces the notion that the conflict is all about alleged Israeli intransigence.
At moments like this, it’s important to underscore a few basic points too often lost in the din.
First, the Netanyahu government follows on the heels of three successive Israeli governments that sought to achieve peace based on a two-state settlement with the Palestinians – and failed. Each of those governments went far in attempting to strike a deal, but ultimately to no avail.
Prime Minister Ehud Barak, joined by President Bill Clinton, tried mightily to reach an agreement with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. The answer was a thunderous rejection, accompanied by the launching of a new wave of terror attacks on Israel.
And, not to be forgotten, a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon also took place during the Barak era. It was met by the entrenchment of Hizbullah, committed to Israel’s destruction, in the emptied space. No good deed goes unpunished!
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon defied his own Likud Party – indeed, he left it to create a new political bloc – and faced down thousands of settlers and their supporters to leave Gaza entirely. It was the first chance ever for Gaza’s Arab residents to govern themselves.
Had Gazans seized the opportunity in a responsible manner, they could have created unstoppable momentum for a second phase of withdrawal from the West Bank. Instead, Gaza quickly turned itself into a terrorist redoubt, realizing Israelis’ worst fears.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, joined by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and urged on by Washington, pressed hard for a deal with the Palestinians on the West Bank. According to Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, the most recent Israeli offer “talked about Jerusalem and almost 100 percent of the West Bank.” Not only was the offer not accepted, but there was not even a counteroffer from the Palestinian side.
Prime Minister Netanyahu inherits a situation in which (a) Hamas holds the reins of power in Gaza and a growing arsenal; (b) Hizbullah is continuing to gain strength in Lebanon; (c) the Palestinian Authority failed to take Olmert’s outstretched hand and make a deal; (d) indirect talks between Israel and Syria, brokered by Turkey, did not produce an accord on Olmert’s watch; and (e) Iran continues its march toward nuclear weapons capability, while trumpeting its support for Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah.
So before Prime Minister Netanyahu gets further lectures on what needs to be done from New York Times or Financial Times editorial writers or columnists, or from American Jewish groups who profess to love Israel more than Israel loves itself, or from some European leaders eager for a deal at practically any cost, perhaps we should take some stock of whats transpired – and why.
There have been three successive and bold Israeli efforts to create a breakthrough – and three successive failures.
The vast majority of Israelis are desperately hungry for peace and understand the considerable price the country will have to pay in territory and displaced population. Poll after poll proves their readiness, but only if they are assured that lasting peace will be the outcome.
Israelis don’t have to be pushed, prodded, nudged, cajoled, or pressured to seek a comprehensive peace beyond its current treaties with Egypt and Jordan.
They have lived with the absence of peace for 61 years, and know better than anyone else the jarring physical and psychological toll it has inflicted on the nation.
Rather, they have to be convinced that the tangible rewards justify the immense risks for a small state in a tough area. Those rewards begin with its neighbors’ acceptance of Israel’s rightful place in the region as a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders.
And that, far more than settlements, checkpoints, or any of the other items on the IOI bill of particulars, gets to the essence of the conflict.
The Gaza disengagement demonstrated that settlements and checkpoints can be removed when the time comes.
But unless and until Israel’s neighbors recognize its inherent legitimacy, and stop viewing it as a temporary interloper that can be defeated militarily or swamped by Palestinian “refugees,” then whatever the IOI crowd insists upon will be a secondary issue in the real world.
Unless and until this recognition is reflected in Palestinian and other Arab textbooks, where children have been taught for generations that Israelis are modern-day Crusaders to be driven out, then what hope is there for the future?
Unless and until the Palestinian Authority succeeds in building a serious governing structure, including an enhanced capacity and political will to combat Palestinian terrorism, then Israel will have no choice but to operate in the West Bank to prevent attacks against its civilians.
And unless and until the forces seeking Israels annihilation – from Iran’s current regime to Hamas to Hizbullah – are marginalized or replaced by those committed to coexistence, then there will always be a long shadow cast over the road to peace. Some would argue that this view gives the spoilers too much power over the process. I believe it simply acknowledges the inescapable and ominous reality that Israel faces.
As Prime Minister Netanyahu makes his first visit to Washington since his election earlier this year, and as the IOI chorus once again raises the decibel level, let’s hope that cooler heads prevail.
Israel doesn’t need sanctimonious lectures on peace. It needs genuine partners for peace. Without them, peace remains elusive. With them, peace becomes inevitable.
David Harris must have not been around when Ari Shavat made the following statement;- “We killed them [the Palesternians] out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own…” — Ari Shavat. Reproduced in the New York Times, May 27th, 1999
” those were the days mien friend …we thought they would never end ….” a beatles song.
It is jarring the juxtaposition of David Harris post and the inanities expressed by OMOP.
Who the hell is Ari Shavat?
When in doubt and have no counter argument, produce a quote from the many blogs specializing in quotes. And you complain about Israel Hasbara?
Who the hell is Ari Shavat[shavit]? Ruth demands following her dubiosus condemnation of my “inantties”
For your information Ms. Ruth. Mr. Shavat is a longtime political contributor to Haaretz. And encourages one to ask “who the hell are you”?
As usual, the Golan Heights, which are unquestionably the sovereign territory of Syria, are being left out of the discussion.
As a Jew with a serious committment to Israel(my grandfather was Irgun and all 35 members of my side of the family reside in Israel) I must respond to David Harris and his plea that Israel has done everything it could to achieve peace and it’s really only the arab’s fault.
1 – I have been to Israel almost 80 times in the last 50 years since my bar mitsveh there in 1956. I lived there in 83-84. I have seen how Israel has changed over the last 5 decades and not for the better.
2 – Even after the 67 and 73 wars, Isreali Jews could still easily visit Ramallah, or Nablus for shopping or dining. There was not the hatred between the two peoples that exist now. Certainly, the Palestinians were not happy with the occupation but always assummed they would eventually get their state. Many more Israelis spoke rudimentary arabic back then – now hardly any do.
3 – After the Egyptian Peace agreement was signed the Palestinians started demonstrating all the time for statehood or at least autonomy. The demonstrations were all very peaceful. Israel basically laughed at them and essentially told them to F%#K Off. By 1987 the frustration boiled over in the first Infitada.
4 – The Palestinians could read the actions of Israelis – no to any form of rights for the Palestinians under occupation and settlement activity was going full blast. I personally asked governmental officials why we were building in Palestinian territory if eventually we have to make peace. The answer was always so the Palestinians will go away.
5 – Oslo was a good effort but Rabin was killed and all the momentum went with him. The snake Netanyahu took over every evasion and lie was dragged out. When Clinton finally took a hammer to Bibi at Wye River a further accord was signed. What did Bibi and Sharon do? The very next day they told Israelis to take to the hills and grab the land for whatever is not taken now will fall into Palestinian hands. This was totally against the spirit of the agreement and told the Palestinians that with Israel you better read all the fine print or you are going to get screwed. Every single one of my relatives followed Bibi’s advice and now live in West Bank settlements and unauthorized outposts.
6 – Much has been made of Barak’s “unprecedented” offer at Camp David. First of all there was no official offer just ideas batted around and various pieces of scratch paper contained areas of agreement/disagreement. Barak’s offer was really only 70+% with the vague idea that the Jordan Valley could be eventually turned over to the Palestinians in 20-25 years. Furthermore, the Jewish only roads and security zones would stay around the settlements that Israel kept but that land was considered Palestinian in the percentages even though they could not use it. Arafat made a mistake with not using Clinton to make a detailed counter offer.
7 – Israel considers the negotiation to be a zero sum game. Their idea of negotiating is to figure out the best deal for themselves that they can get. Justice and equity do not enter their equation. They have never understood that a deal that is not good for both sides will not stand and will eventually fall apart.
8 – Until Israel offers a detailed plan complete with photos, land surveys etc. and 5000 pages of detail, their efforts at peace are nothing more than talk and smokesceen.
9 – If you think arab talk about Jews is bad, I invite you to shul in some of the west bank settlements. You will hear talk that will make your stomach toss it’s contents. You will hear about the Palestinian vermin and the need to annhilate them. Go to the orthodox schools and look at the textbooks and see if you find any maps showing Palestine or even and words about Palestinians. They have simply ceased to exist for many Israelis. I cannot imagine that Palestinian hatred is any worse than Israeli hatred.
10 – I have two IDF nephews who regularly take “target practice” from the hills of Ariel at any stray Palestinian goat or donkey. From listening to their talking with their IDF buddies, the callousness and indifference to Palestinian life is worse than my grandfather’s Irgun days.
11 – Over the past year I have been in Israel most of the time examining whether to make aliyah. As a result I was there for Cast Lead as well as the election campaign. I heard Likud and YB politicians talk about their “reservation” goal for the Palestinians and how if it was good enough for the American Indian problem, it’s good enough for the Palestinians.
12 – Israel is incredibly strong militarily and economically. There is no way any country or combination of countries in the mideast could defeat Israel. Hezballah and Hamas are mesquitos and the IDF regularly swats them. They pose no existential threat to Israel. The sooner Israel makes peace with Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians the sooner we can find out if the arabs can keep the peace. If they do get out of line, the IDF can swat them again with impunity.
13 – The only threat Israel faces is from nuclear weapons. The Iran deal is important but not the end of the story. Unless Israel makes a genuine peace with the arab world and does it’s part to lessen the hatred over the coming generations, nuclear proliferation will come to the mideast and some day Israel will be obliterated.
14 – As I talked to hundreds of normal Israelis this past year in making my aliyah decision, it’s become apparant to me that young Israelis are making themselves world citizens and living abroad. It’s estimated 700,000 to 1 million Israelis citizens actually live permanently abroad. This exodus will continue if Israel does not make permanent peace. What might be left in Israel is the ultra-orthodox and arabs if the best and the brightest emigrate.
The occupation has gone on longer than any other in the world with the exception of China and Tibet. I sure hope Israel has more sense than to use China as a role model.
“The vast majority of Israelis are desperately hungry for peace and understand the considerable price the country will have to pay in territory and displaced population.”
This is funny. Returning stolen land isn’t usually considered “paying a price”. This is how someone utterly blind to the crimes committed by his favored side would see the situation.
Both sides have legitimate grievances–there’s been generations of war, terrorism, occupation, war crimes, etc…. And both sides have good reason to distrust the other. But are we all supposed to feel sorry for Israel because it will have to give up its apartheid-like regime on the West Bank?
And James Wolfenssohn (sp?) had a slightly different take on why Gaza didn’t become an economic paradise, but I don’t have time to go link hunting.
jdledell’s comments sound a bit fishy. How do we know that they are true? What makes it even more fishy is that “jdledell” is considering making aliyah but everything in Israel makes his stomach churn. I suspect he is a clever hasbarista of the other side. David Harris has more of a whiff of truth
Clement Fong – There is nothing fishy about my comments. Look me up on TPM Cafe where I have been commenting for the last 4 years. My story and commentary has been plastered over dozens of blogs, including Huffington Post. I enjoy Helena’s blog and insight although I have rarely posted here.
omop,
Ruth is quite correct in her appraisal. You mean Ari Shavit, but you wouldn’t know that when all you did was cut and paste from the Islamic shill Website – complete with mispelling.
“David Harris has more of a whiff of truth”
A whiff of something, anyway. I smell the whiff of a propagandist who paints the situation in a totally one-sided and inaccurate way, so as to make the Israelis completely innocent.
jdledell: “Arafat made a mistake with not using Clinton to make a detailed counter offer.”
Indeed he did. Arafat didn’t even have to make a detailed counter offer. He could have acknowledged what progress had been made – eg, Barak’s agreement to the arab quarters of East Jerusalem being the capital of the Palestinian state, he could have also reiterated what the Palestinians saw as still unacceptable, and suggested further negotiations at a later date.
So why did he choose to reject camp david holus bolus?
So why did he [Arafat] choose to reject camp david holus bolus?
I’d say it’s because he was either unwilling or unable to deliver on the two sticking points: a declaration of the end of the conflict and solution of the “right of return” that was unacceptable to the refugees (particularly in the camps outside of Mandatory Palestine). I also think that Arafat himself bore most of the responsibility for this impotence, because rather than preparing his constiuents, he continued to feed their unrealistic hopes.
Sorry, I dont believe ledells comments either. Just because it has appeared in dozens of blogs doesnt make it true. David Irving appears on more blogs that ledell, but that doesnt make his writings true either. Ledell makes Israel seem like a worse place than the Swat valley or eastern Congo. If this is indeed the case, why would anyone want to move there? Shirin, did you create ledell as a sock puppet?
Negotiations continued after Camp David. The Palestinians were the ones who wanted Clinton to emphasize what had been accomplished, but Clinton was angry and chose to make Arafat the sole villain.
On jdledell, he has been at TPM for awhile. And nothing in his post above makes Israel sound worse than the eastern Congo, where several million people have died–evidently the criticism he does level is so hard to hear for Mr. Lipschift that he started imagining things.
Sorry, I dont believe ledells comments either. Just because it has appeared in dozens of blogs doesnt make it true.
These words are from a letter written by Dr Shlomo Shmelzman, a survivor of the Holocaust, to the press in Israel announcing his courageous hunger strike at the height of the bombing of West Beirut in Lebanon in August 1982
David Harris,
Is he same person?
David Harris
is executive director of American Jewish Committee and may be reached through http://www.ajc.org.
David:
The cloud come and pass but the light of the Sun in the sky there is not be blocked by the darkness by some dark cloud comes and goes, the darkness just in those minds that are deaf and blind of the “big” & Bright truth some can not seen.
We love to see your reaction if “a stranger” come and took your home or part of it from you what you do?
Answer us in plan English our Sir “executive director of American Jewish Committee”
المؤرخون الجدد
من تاريخ النكبة إلى الواقع الحالي
في 15 مايو/أيار من سنة 1948، اندلعت الحرب العربية الإسرائيلية الأولى التي أعقبت إعلان قيام دولة إسرائيل. وكما هو معروف فقد انتهت هذه الحرب بنكبة القوات العربية وتهجير مئات الآلاف من السكان الفلسطينيين.
لقد رسخ هذا الحدث أسطورة التأسيس البطولي للكيان اليهودي في الذاكرة الجمعية للإسرائيليين والتي تم تصديرها للرأي العام العالمي وخاصة الغربي منه من طرف أجهزة الإعلام الصهيونية بهدف طمس حقيقة النكبة.
بعد ما يزيد عن ستين عاما، بدأت هذه الرواية الرسمية تتعرى بفعل دور نخبة قليلة من المؤرخين الجدد الذين حاولوا استعادة الحدث بعيدا عن تأثير الدوائر الصهيونية مما مكنهم من الاقتراب من الرواية الفلسطينية والعربية، بالرغم من الضوابط السلبية التي ما زالت تطبع كتاباتهم وآرائهم.
أسطورة التأسيس وطمس التاريخ
لمعرفة مدى تفرد هذه النخبة الجديدة من المؤرخين، لا بد من العودة للتذكير بأهم النقاط التي ترتكز عليها الرواية الصهيونية الرسمية لتاريخ التأسيس الإسرائيلي.
وهي رواية ألفها الإسرائيليون واستساغها الإعلام الرسمي الغربي معتبرا غير ذلك ضربا من ضروب “اللاسامية”. إنها رواية المنتصر. تقول هذه الرواية إن الدولة اليهودية الناشئة في نهاية الأربعينيات من القرن الماضي، كانت وليدة مقاومة بطولية قادتها قوة التحرر الصهيوني في وجه الاحتلال البريطاني وفي وجه جيوش عربية جرارة تفوق اليهود من حيث العدد والعدة.
وبطبيعة الحال لا بد لهذه الرواية من تفسير وضع مئات آلاف المهجرين الفلسطينيين الذين أجبروا على مغادرة أراضيهم. في هذه الحالة تقول رواية التأسيس الصهيوني الرسمي، إن جحافل الفلسطينيين العزل غادروا أراضيهم تلبية لطلب القادة العرب المنخرطين في الحرب، بمغادرة ساحة المعارك مؤقتا والعودة بعد تحقيق النصر. وتضيف الرواية كذلك أن الإسرائيليين حاولوا فيما بعد البحث عن سبل للسلام لكنهم لم يجدوا طرفا جادا يبادلهم نيتهم السلمية. لن أتحدث هنا عن أرض بلا شعب مقابل شعب بلا أرض لأنها لم تنطل حتى على الإسرائيليين أنفسهم منذ البداية.
Ralph Lipschitz,
according to your standard of finding truth, it might be very interesting to tell us why then David comment looks very “Truthful” for you?
Donald.
The reason Clinton got “angry” and blamed Arafat was because Arafat refused to make any counter offers – not because Arafat didn’t accept Barak and Clinton’s proposals. Refused even to acknowledge progress had been made, particularly on the division of Jerusalem. Arafat also denied that the Temple had ever existed in Jerusalem.
JES … and interestingly Saeb Erekat is now saying on Arab television, that Arafat’s red line was Israel having sovereignity over the Wailing Wall. He also says this is Abbas’ red line, and suggests this is the sticking point in the current negotations.
If this is correct – ie – if the muslims are demanding sovereignity over a jewish holy site, we are a very long way from seeing this ever resolved.
bb said: if the muslims are demanding sovereignity over a jewish holy site, we are a very long way from seeing this ever resolved.
But doesn’t your precept cut both ways?
ie, if the Israelis are demanding sovereignty over a muslim holy site, we are a very long way from seeing this ever resolved.
Isn’t it true that holy sites of both sides are only a stone’s throw apart? Oops a bad choice of words? No, I mean it – both sides will have to get along well enough, side by side, that each can visit holy sites which are only a stone’s throw apart, and remain peaceful and respectful. And yes, I fear we are a long way from seeing this ever resolved, to everyone’s regret and loss.
tjallen …
The precept didn’t cut both ways.
At Camp David the Israelis were not seeking sovereignity over the Al Aqsa mosque in East Jerusalem. The proposal was that the mosque would be under the sovereignity of the Palestinian state. The Wailing Wall, which is below the mosque, would be under Israeli sovereignity. Arafat rejected this, famously denying the Temple had ever been in Jerusalem in the first place, implying that the WW was a myth.
Hard to see Israel ever agreeing to a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital if the Palestinians and the Arab world reject Israeli holy sites?
ergo, if that attitude prevails, the status quo will continue until such time some Muslim country like Iran can solve the problem with a tidy little nuke.
Sorry, I dont believe ledells comments either. Just because it has appeared in dozens of blogs doesnt make it true.
Hedy Epstein: Holocaust Survivor
“I owe a real debt of thanks to the Quakers. They fed my mother in the camps in the 1940s. They weren’t able to save my parents-they were eventually taken to Auschwitz, where they died. But my mother wrote me that the Quakers fed her, and it made their lives a little easier at that time,” said Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein on first meeting.
Hedy Epstein’s parents, Hugo and Ella Wachenheimer, sent her to England in 1939 with the Kindertransport when she was 14 ½ years old. Epstein said. “It must have been a terrible sacrifice for them to send me away. By sending me away, my parents gave me life a second time. It had to be a terrible sacrifice to them, as their only child. Theirs was a powerful love.” Quakers were also involved in the Kindertransport, she noted. England saved almost 10,000 Jewish children from Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia in the 9 months preceding World War II; small numbers of the children were also sent to the US.
The precept didn’t cut both ways.
Why not bb?
I am kind of amazed at the skepticism here, specifically over my consideration of aliyah when I post such negative images of Israel. My motivation is a deep desire of peace for Israel as a Jewish homeland. My grandfather fought for that ideal and I fear Israel is squandering that aspiration by being greedy in it’s desire for land and it’s arrogance as a result of it’s military and economic superiority in the mideast.
Without a two state solution, I fear the eventual loss of a Jewish homeland in a one state solution or without a peaceful resolution to the conflict and the hatred building to the point of eventually having Israel succomb to a WMD attack. It does not even take an actual attack to hurt Israel. The constant unsettled fear and paranoia is causing some of the best and brightest to emmigrate. Aleady some 700,000 to 1,000,000 Israelis live abroad.
My criticisms of Israel are out of love and in no way did I compare Israel’s mistakes and misguided decisions to the world’s worst. I wanted to make aliyah out of a misguided belief that I could make more of a difference for Peace living in Israel than I could in America. It’s now apparent after Bibi’s visit that I was naive in that belief.
So scepticism aside, I have met many of my fellow bloggers and commentators in person at various events such as the Israel Policy Forum. Maybe one of these days I’ll meet up with some of you.
jdledell.
The following is submitted on behalf of your cause:
“One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” —Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994
The Forgotten Faithful
2009 National Geographic