Listen Up: The arrogance of the advice-givers.

[Mosby]

One remarkable thing about watching the Middle East is how what’s celebrated as brilliant in Europe or America is errant nonsense.

snip

As for those giving advice, here’s what we’ve seen in the last six months from those who want to "save" others by imposing their own vision:

--The idea that stopping construction on Jewish settlements would bring some Arab concession has already proven wrong.

--The idea that engagement with Iran would work has already proven wrong.

--The idea that the United States could successfully engage Syria in a set of mutual compromises has already proven wrong.

--The idea that an Obama charm offensive would bring higher levels of Arab support has already proven wrong. And that's just in six months!

Let’s have a little humility and readiness to listen, please, from those who would play with the lives of other people.

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/listen

[ixion]

1. uh-huh...

yeah, there's so much humility in your post. :eyes:

[ehartle]

2. thank you

I was beginning to think all reason and intelligence had left this forum.

[dionysus]

3. translation: arabs are evil, blah blah blah...

[katandmoon]

4. Yeah, let's just look the other way while Israel starts WW3. It'll get fundies off to heaven faster.

[LeftishBrit]

14. Israel isn't going to start WW3...

that's just as simplistic as the article in the OP.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. Actually, the really striking thing is how little Israel understands what is under its nose.

Israeli public debate has essentially become an echo chamber, from which reality is completely excluded; your post is a wonderful example of this.


Stopping construction on Jewish settlements probably would have brought some Arab concessions, but Israel hasn't done that, it's continued it, and as a result the Arabs haven't made concessions.

I'm intrigued as to how you know that engagement with Iran won't work - are you a time traveller? Last time I checked, Iran didn't have nukes yet.

Ditto your dismissal of Obama's attempts to improve US diplomatic relations with the Arab world - what you contemptuously term a "charm offensive" - is doomed. As you say, it's been going for all of six months, and US/Arab relations are already somewhat improved...


I think it's fairly clear which side is talking errant nonsense and needs to learn humility. I also think it's entirely clear which side is playing with the lives of others (although most Israeli apologists clearly don't actually think of the Palestinians as people).

[henank]

6. It's clear to me

that a lot of people who comment on this forum couldn't care less about the lives of Israelis.

Yeah! Take down that wall! Who cares if a few dozen Israelis are killed by suicide bombers.

Yeah! Stop those settlements. Then all will be puppies and rainbows. Just like when Israel took down all the settlements in Gaza and got... er, um, missiles and rockets in return.

Yeah! Talk away to Iran! Just ignore that Iran has now begun to operate how many thousands of centrifuges? And that little bit about wiping Israel off the map? It was a joke man! A joke!

Yeah. You know soooo much about cause and effect in the Middle East. I take my hat off to you.

:sarcasm:

[Vegasaurus]

7. The lives of Israelis are incidental

people on this forum have stated that Israel has outlived its welcome, that it never should have been formed, that all its citizens should move to Montana or Timbuktu.

They contend that removing every settlement (which will never happen without a major war, which seems not to bother these anti-war "progressives") will result in everlasting peace!!!!

Never mind that Hamas, Hezbollah,all the hateful jihad groups have said that they will never stop their violence and resistance until they free "all of greater Palestine", which means all of Israel.

Because again, these people seem not to understand that the conflict is not and never has been about the occupied lands of the Sinai, or Gaza or the WB.

Because no attempt to return "land for peace" has ever resulted in anything remotely resembling peace.

The only way that calm has returned is with a big stick.

Unfortunate.

[cali]

9. bullshit. gross generalization. And btw, I support Israel

and I support Palestinian nationhood but I do not support the vile far right gov't in power. I do not support the settlers. Did you see the NYT frontpage article on the Settlers yesterday? Many of them, particularly in the illegal outposts are insane and rabid. Every fucking bit as hateful as Hamas.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. I'm tacking a +1 onto yr post...

Well said....

I read the article about the settlers. Yr correct in pointing out that they're every bit as hateful as Hamas. Religious extremism has a tendency to do that to people....

[Ken Burch]

35. +1 for cali as well.

Why would ANYONE defend the settlements? I can understand making cases for everything else, but why should the settlements be so freaking sacred? It's not like the people in the settlements have no place else to live, and it's not like they have any positive effect that could possibly out way the degree to which they inflame tensions.

[Ken Burch]

34. Setttlement expansion does NOTHING to protect the lives of Israeli

Neither does pretending that the whole thing is the Palestinians' fault and the Israeli government is innocent and blameless.

Why are you defending a status quo that doesn't work?

[Ken Burch]

42. Nobody ever said the lives of Israelis were incidental, and you know it

Those settlements have never had any positive value, and have never made the lives of any Israelis any safer.

This article demands that everyone give the intransigent Israeli military machine unconditional support, even though everyone(including you)knows that the status quo makes peace impossible.

[Ken Burch]

33. You're defending a status quo that is a total failure

Can't you see that you sound like LBJ defending the war in the spring of 1968?

[cali]

8. talk about empty, errant nonsense. you've surely posted it.

first of all, the Israelis have no fucking right to build settlements on STOLEN land. That's right, dear. STOLEN. Secondly all that crap about how it's pointless to try and work toward a non-violent solution leaves only one alternative whicgh YOU clearly endorse: Attack 'em. Fuck that. Yhe article you posted is arrogant and ugly bullshit.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. Do you mean arrant nonsense?

The idea of nonsense-errant, questing to slay the dragons of reason and rescue the princess of illogic, appeals to me, but arrant possibly makes more sense in context...

[Mosby]

21. Just because I posted Rubin's piece

does not mean that I agree with every single assertion he makes. I think there is value in continuing the peace process, but it's naive to think that if only the Israelis would stop expanding settlements the roadblocks to peace would just miraculously melt away.

It's a fact that past Israeli concessions have not been reciprocated by the Palestinians.

It's a fact that the IAEA has been "negotiating" with Iran for more than 3 years with no positive results.

It's a fact that the Arab states remain intransigent towards Israel despite the very real benefits they would gain by helping the process along.

It's a fact that the one Palestinian who could move the process along (Fayyad) has no political support whatsoever on the Arab street.

Taken together the prospect for peace in the ME is pretty dim right now.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Let's go through yr 'facts'....

It's a fact that past Israeli concessions have not been reciprocated by the Palestinians.

I don't really understand why an occupying power is expected to be rewarded by the occupied people for what supporters of the occupying power call 'concessions'. This sort of attitude didn't exist when it came to Indonesia's occupation of East Timor, and certainly doesn't exist about China's occupation of Tibet...

It's a fact that the IAEA has been "negotiating" with Iran for more than 3 years with no positive results.

I'm not sure about this one. Why did you put negotiating in quotes?

It's a fact that the Arab states remain intransigent towards Israel despite the very real benefits they would gain by helping the process along.

Don't you have to ignore the Saudi peace plan and attempts by Egypt to negotiate Shalit's release to believe that Arab states are intransigent?

It's a fact that the one Palestinian who could move the process along (Fayyad) has no political support whatsoever on the Arab street.

How exactly can anyone move the process along when Israel refuses even to stop settlement construction and when Israel has the current extremist govt it has?


on edit: I didn't assume that just because you posted this article that you agreed with it. I wish you'd agree with less of it than you currently do though :)

[Mosby]

40. reply

I don't really understand why an occupying power is expected to be rewarded by the occupied people for what supporters of the occupying power call 'concessions'.

"concession" was probably not the best word choice, I am referring to confidence building measures (CBMs) which are typically used in formal conflict resolutions. CBMs were central to ending the cold war, they were part of the Egypt/Israel agreements and the Oslo agreements.

Obama's peace efforts have yielded some good faith gestures from the Netanyahu gov, some checkpoints and roadblocks have come down, a few illegal settler outposts have been removed and he got a commitment from Bibi about a two state solution to the conflict. Obama got nothing from the Palestinians except a re-commitment to armed struggle. (Fatah Congress foreign policy doc).

I'm not sure about this one. Why did you put negotiating in quotes?

I'm not sure what to call IAEAs approach to Iran's nuclear aspirations. Regardless, no progress has been made at least according to the latest IAEA report.

Don't you have to ignore the Saudi peace plan and attempts by Egypt to negotiate Shalit's release to believe that Arab states are intransigent?

The head of the Arab league (Moussa) has already backed away from some specifics in the Saudi plan, stating that it was up to individual states to determine how and when to normalize relations with Israel. This clarification basically guts the plan.

How exactly can anyone move the process along when Israel refuses even to stop settlement construction and when Israel has the current extremist govt it has?

The settlements expanded all through the Oslo process, so I don't know what difference it makes now, especially due to the fact that land swaps will be part of any permanent settlement. Bibi's party is RW, but he did give four portfolios to Labor members, including a high profile portfolio to Barak.

[Ken Burch]

41. Nobody was actually saying that simply stopping the settlements would bring instant peace

What a lot of people have been saying is that no Israeli government that expands the settlements really wants peace.

What is truly depressing about the article is that it embodies the most destructive aspect of the Israeli government's worldview:

Keep stalling for time while creating facts on the ground.

The problem is, stalling for time doesn't work anymore.

[shira]

43. what Rubin is saying is no matter what Israel does, the Arab world isn't ready for peace

[Violet_Crumble]

10. That guy has no idea...

As for those giving advice, here’s what we’ve seen in the last six months from those who want to "save" others by imposing their own vision:

--The idea that stopping construction on Jewish settlements would bring some Arab concession has already proven wrong.


Gosh, and I thought the idea was that stopping settlement construction would happen because to do otherwise is to hammer nails into any chance of a viable and independent Palestinian state emerging. That, plus the settlements are illegal under international law, and Israel doesn't get a free pass to flout international law....

[shira]

15. that guy is right - the conventional "wisdom" proven wrong was that Israeli good deeds would lead to

Arab concessions, and as it's been pointed out many times over the last few months - Arab leadership is adamant they will make zero concessions in the event Israel carries out a complete 100% freeze.

The Israeli people want to believe that good actions by their government will be rewarded by peaceful intentions from Arab governments before their own government does anything big again (like Gaza 2005). If not, they have no reason to believe that another Gaza 2005 will be rewarded by more Kassams and International condemnation once Israel responds to them.

The settlement freeze is a non-issue, mainly because borders have to be negotiated. If the settlement areas are to be included within Israel, the settlement freeze makes no sense. If they are to be part of a future Palestinian state, the settlement freeze is no big deal either - as those settlements paid for by Israel would become Palestinian property. They're not an obstacle, only a side-issue. Abbas proved that last year when he negotiated with Olmert without a settlement freeze and turned down Olmert due mainly to the RoR.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. No, the guy is a flaming nut who holds absolutist views...

I'm not sure who died and decided the convetional "wisdom" was anything of the sort. It's not about *good deeds* and *concenssions*. This seems to escape the attention of some folk, but Israel's carrying out what's a belligerant and brutal occupation. It's not a *good deed* to remove a checkpoint to great fanfare and then put another one up somewhere else.

Of course the settlement freeze is an issue. Continuing to construct settlements in the occupied West Bank while claiming to want to negotiate a two-state solution is clearly contradictory, and above all else the Palestinians in the West Bank have to be shown that Israel isn't trying to do more facts on the ground. That Israel refuses to stop construction the way it has jsut shows that the main priority for Israel isn't peace, but territorial expansion...

[shira]

38. the Obama administration banked on Arab states making goodwill gestures to Israel based on...

...Israeli deeds (like freezing settlements).

This was the conventional wisdom of Obama and his team.

They have been proven wrong.

==========

Settlements were not an issue during the Annapolis accords between Olmert and Abbas. They're serving as an excuse for Abbas to stay out of negotiations (in which he'll look bad once again by sticking to absolutist demands like full RoR, etc..).

[azurnoir]

11. The arrogance is on the part of the writer

the Arabs did make an offer Israel rejected it
it would seem that maintaining control of the West Bank and the Golan Heights is more important than peace to Israel

http://www.al-bab.com/Arab/docs/league/peace02.htm

[shira]

16. offering negotiations after granting RoR to millions is not a sincere peace offer

[Vegasaurus]

17. Not only is it not serious

it's absolutely ridiculous.

The Arab states must know that Israel will never agree to RofR for millions.

It's a non-starter as much as settlements.

[shira]

18. 2 reasons why the Saudi initiative is still in play - the oil lobby and INT'L terror

Better to keep the price of oil down than piss of the oil mafia and better to keep terror confined to the middle east, Africa, or Asia rather than export it to western nations.

If Israel is screwed in the process, oh well!

Those are the 2 main reasons the Saudi initiative hasn't been completely ridiculed by the West and taken off the table - and those are the 2 main reasons why such ridiculously absurd "conventional wisdom" about I/P exists.

It's not about right and wrong - it's about fear and acquiescence. It's why demonization of Israel is preferred over dealing with the actual reality of the situation. Israel doesn't have oil and they don't issue fatwas.

[azurnoir]

20. Lets review that shall we

This is what it says

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighbourliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity.

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organisations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union.

UN Res 194 was drawn up in 1948 and would be applicable to those directly affected at that time

[shira]

22. exactly - a "just" solution is full RoR - otherwise many refugees would have been absorbed into...

...other countries by now.

But none have.

What are they all waiting for?

You know the answer.

[azurnoir]

23. surprise res 194 does not demand full right of return

that is the false and hysterical claims of the pro-occupation crowd

[shira]

24. LOL, and res 242 doesn't call for retreat behind '67 borders but that doesn't stop

Israel's neighbors from demanding it for "peace"....same goes for res 194.

[azurnoir]

26. perhaps in your own paranoid little fantasy world

eta this getting truly interesting as sometimes 'fact finding" can be lets continue shall we ?

[Vegasaurus]

25. Oh?

Palestinian leadership and writers disagree with you

An example of the current media blitz on behalf of this "right of return" demand is an op-ed by Nir Rosen a reporter who has covered the Islamic world for many of the United States' leading media organs, in the Washington Post ("Scapegoats in an Unwelcoming Land," Sunday, December 16, 2007). Mr. Rosen writes:

"the rights of the Palestinian refugees have been ignored for six decades by a world that has wished them away. But the Middle East will never know peace or stability until they are granted justice. In 1948-49, around the conflict that Israelis refer to as their War of Independence and that Palestinians call the Catastrophe, some 750,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed to make way for the creation of the Jewish state. In 1967, during the Six-Day War, 400,000 Palestinians were expelled by the Israeli military, according to Amnesty International."

A similar polemic by one Ghada Ageel, who describes herself as "a third-generation Palestinian refugee grew up in the Khan Yunis refugee camp in Gaza and teaches Middle Eastern politics at the University of Exeter in Britain," appeared in the Dec.1, 2007 issue of the Los Angles Times: Ms. Ageel avers:

"sixty years ago, my grandparents lived in the beautiful village of Beit Daras, a few kilometers north of Gaza. They were farmers and owned hundreds of acres of land. But in 1948, in the first Arab-Israeli war, many people lost their lives defending our village from the Zionist militias. In the end, with their crops and homes burning, the villagers fled. My family eventually made its way to what became the refugee camp of Khan Yunis in Gaza . We were hit hard by poverty, humiliation and disease. We became refugees, queuing for tents, food and assistance, while the state of Israel was established on the ruins of my family's property and on the ruins of hundreds of other Palestinian villages. . . I raise this story today. . . to help convey the deep-seated fears of Palestinian refugees that we will be asked to exonerate Israel for its actions and to relinquish our right to return home.
That cannot be allowed to happen. All refugees have the right to return. This is an individual right, long recognized in international law, that cannot be negotiated away." .

and what about Jewish right of return, or reparations for their loss of property? It is never mentioned even under the same resolution. Why?

t is relevant to note that unlike UN Security Council Resolutions, which are binding on member states, General Assembly resolutions are considered to be merely non-binding recommendations. Nevertheless it is ironic that those Arab states that now rely on 194 to claim a right of return, voted against it because they said then it did not contain such right and because it implicitly recognized Israel.

Notably, the resolution does not refer to descendants of refugees, but it does refer to all refugees, not only Arabs. It therefore includes the Jews who were forced to flee from Arab countries and abandon property estimated at over $30 billion.

Most significantly, since resolution 194 specifically applies only to refugees who wish "to live at peace with their neighbors," it cannot yet apply to the Palestinians, as evident from a 2003 survey directed by professor of political science Khalil Shikaki of the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey. The overwhelming majority of those refugees who wished to exercise the right of return in Israel refuse to become Israeli citizens. In addition, both Hamas and PLO charters emphatically reject peace with Israel. Article 13 of the Hamas charter specifically states that peaceful solutions and international conferences contradict the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement and that Jihad is the only solution.

The official Palestinian Media Center website confirms that promised changes to the PLO Charter have not been made. Article 9 of the PLO covenant still plainly declares that armed struggle is not merely tactical, it is the overall strategy. Article 19 rejects the 1947 UN partition, implicitly rejecting the Quartet’s proposed two-state solution. Moreover, the covenant advocates destruction of the entire Jewish state. Article 20 deems the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate null and void

[azurnoir]

27. did you forget a link

here I'll provide it for you http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_un_194.php

[LeftishBrit]

13. Well, if people don't want advice, they don't; but in a global society that's what they will get

Britain gets advice from other countries all the time, on the basis of their experiences and perspectives. Some of it is valid; some of it isn't.

I have frequently encountered the 'you don't live in Israel, you have no right to comment' from Israelis in response to criticism. In my experience, it's far commoner than any sort of accusation of antisemitism. I suppose you should expect that sort of thing from Israeli isolationists. What is odd here, is that an American, who makes a living by commenting on the Middle East, should be using the same argument. If he really thinks that Israel should be left to its own devices and that external comment is arrogant, what is he doing 'watching the Middle East' and writing opinion pieces about it?

As regards the content of the article, it is standard 'peace is impossible; it's wrong even to try' argument by the hawks:

'The idea that engagement with Iran would work has already proven wrong.

--The idea that the United States could successfully engage Syria in a set of mutual compromises has already proven wrong.

--The idea that an Obama charm offensive would bring higher levels of Arab support has already proven wrong. And that's just in six months!'

Yes, 'just in six months'. So if it doesn't work instantly, that means you shouldn't even bother trying. I'm glad that the Northern Ireland negotiators had a different attitude. That took years.


'Finally, if someone doesn't understand that the barrier to peace is the Palestinians and not Israel, any advice they give Israel is going to be worthless.'

How about considering the possibility that the 'barrier' is created by both sides???? Arguments that imply that one side is perfect and the other is entirely villainous are generally wrong, whether from the likes of Barry Rubin, or from the likes of Counterpunch.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. But...It's All Their Fault!!!!!

How about considering the possibility that the 'barrier' is created by both sides???? Arguments that imply that one side is perfect and the other is entirely villainous are generally wrong, whether from the likes of Barry Rubin, or from the likes of Counterpunch.

Far too many people, especially in this forum, do cling to the idea that one side is perfect while the other is to blame for everything. That sort of attitude is better suited to following a football team rather than participating in discussion about a complex and long-running conflict. I know why it happenes - it's easier to throw blame at Them and deflect it from Us rather than have to think at any level about the conflict...

[LeftishBrit]

36. Very strongly agree - though I don't think it's 'especially in this forum'

It's everywhere, and applies to many conflicts.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. True, I should have said 'much more prevalent in this forum than it's been for a long time' n/t

[Ken Burch]

31. Humility=Support for Persecution of Palestinians?

As Bill Cosby(playing Noah)would say:

"....RRIIIIIIGGGHHHHTT..."

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

32. The message of this peace is:support fhe status quo forever or your"anti-Israel"

This article is just a Likud campaign pamphlet, and has nothing of any value to say.

[shira]

39. wrong - it means wake up to reality, adapt, change - or perish