Friday, March 19, 2010
[Crossposted from JStreetJive.]
Now That's an Insult.
The Obama Administration must have been reading from its Marxist playbook (Groucho, of course) when they escalated a non-event into the most serious breach in American Israeli relations since Gen. George Marshall wished for the stillbirth of the Jewish State in 1948. Just imagine - Joe Biden, Barack Obama, David Axelrod, Ram Emanuel, Hillary Clinton - all children of the 60's - irreverant and iconoclastic - suddenly and grievously "insulted" by the announcement that Jews will expand a community in the capital of their own country. Imagine the effrontery! Imagine their injured pride!
And yet, for some inexplicable reason, Joe Biden was apparently not insulted or bothered by his other "peace partner", Mahmoud Abbas, when he dedicated a town square in Ramallah in the memory of Dalal Mughrabi, the terrorist who, in 1978, commandeered a bus and murdered 37 Jewish civilians including 13 children. No "slap in the face" there. As a matter of fact, Joe gave Mahmoud a great big hug when he visited Ramallah last week.
The "insult" has spawned international outrage at Israel for her impertinence of wanting to build apartments in her own capital city. Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman of the New York Times penned op-eds condemning the action and the same paper's Ethan Bronner even played the race card in smearing Israelis. In the ensuing feeding frenzy, Ben Cohen of the American Jewish Committee was man-handled on CNN by an unabashed Ben Ami supporter; J Street could not hide its delight at its Presidential Messiah leading the charge. The EU is now demanding more stringent concessions from Israel and insists on a complete settlement freeze including natural growth. There can be no other interpretation of a ban on "natural growth" than ethnic cleansing.
At the same time, an even more ominous storm has appeared on the horizon in the form of General David Petraeus' report to The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, that the current Israeli government, in effect, is also an "insult" to the Arab and Muslim world in its "intransigence" by not completely acceding to Palestinian demands. Petraeus' report was most troubling in its ultimate warning that Israel's perceived obstructionism in the Peace Process was placing American lives in danger in the region (read soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq). Forget about the fact that during the past twenty years, American blood has been intentionally shed by Palestinians: Scores of American citizens, including the unsolved (and quickly forgotten) murder of three U.S. diplomatic security guards in October of 2003.
Petraeus' and CENTCOM's heaving of Israel under the bus would appear to comport well with the current administration's unprecedented public animus towards one of its staunchest allies. Diana West has been brilliantly following the story here, here, and here.
Biden reinforced the Petraeus message last week when he reportedly said to Bibi, "This [building housing in Jerusalem] is starting to get dangerous for us. What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan."
All of these ominous signs beg the question, exactly who is informing Obama on the Middle East conflict? I think we have to look to the antecedents of the current (manufactured) crisis: Rashid Khalidi and Samantha Power, to name just two of the most prominent players. It is worth recalling that Ms. Power is now Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs at the National Security Council working for General Jim Jones. Ms. Power sounded alarm bells when she advocated U.S. military intervention on behalf of Palestinians in the current conflict. Listen carefully to her comments, especially her nervous swipe at Jewish "financial" power:
Jones, it should be noted, was the keynote speaker at the American Task Force for Palestine conference in October of last year. At that conference, its President, Ziad Asali, boasted of nearly a billion dollars in working capital earmarked for building in the disputed areas of the West Bank (don't ever call them Arab "settlements").
Obama's Advisors? G-d Help Us.
Hussein Ibish, an inveterate demonizer of Israel, occupies a high position at the ATFP. Add to the mix the undoubted counsel of Rob Malley, apologist for Arafat, and you have the perfect storm of advisors to a President whose address to the Arab and Muslim world in Cairo in June of last year signaled near submission.
Finally, that leaves us with Rashid Khalidi, another inveterate Israel basher, advocate of a one (none) state solution for the Jews and a close, personal friend of the President. Speaking of Khalidi, what ever happened to the "lost" video of Obama's comments at Khalidi's farewell dinner party?
There is no question of the seriousness of the current administration's hostility towards Israel, especially at a time of plunging polls for the President. Hanging Israel out to dry would seem a no-risk proposition, especially with the cheering on of George Soros' favorite Jewish organization, J Street.
small correction: "Rahm," not "Ram," though some may think the latter fitting.
As Max Boot documented at http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/boot/260876, the claims about General Petraeus "heaving of Israel under the bus" are bogus. They seem to be a conflation of the statements of members of the Obama administration and the fantasies of various anti-Israel figures who desire to attach Petraeus' prestige to their cause. Boot's article has the actual Petraeus quotes.
Seems to me that Dalal Mughrabi and her band of terrorists began their rampage with the murder of an American citizen, a photographer if memory serves.
But apparently Obama doesn't mind the PA dedicating a town square in memory of someone who murdered an American.
You forgot how offended and insulted the Arabs are that the Jews had the temerity to RE-construct the Hurva Synagogue which the Jordanians destroyed in 1948, and rededicated it while Biden was away laying wreathes on Arafat's tomb.
Hamas called for days of rage and Obama added to the incitement.
It was first built in 1694 by Jews escaping Eastern Europe, purchasing the land from the Ottoman rulers. When the Jews were unable to make payments on time, however, in 1721, it was destroyed by the Ottomans. At that time, the name "Hurva" or "Ruins" was attached to the synagogue.
In 1864 a new synagogue was dedicated on the site.
@cynic - I was commenting that the Petraeus part was bogus. The Obama administration has indeed behaved asymmetrically by failing to condemn the naming of a square for Dalal Mughrabi, a provocation that was particularly personal since one of the victims was the niece of one of Biden's former Senate colleagues (documented in item #1 at http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001098.html).
On the Hurva synagogue "day of rage" the US State Department did issue a statement of disapproval (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171091), though it was low key, in contrast to the desire to punish PM Netanyahu in very public ways for keeping to the status quo on the right of Jews to live in Jerusalem.
As far as I've been able to figure out, the whole Petraeus-Israel meme originates from claims by former Arafat advisor Mark Perry. The claim that Perry tries to pin on Petraeus is "America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers". But this is a Perry quote, not a Petraeus quote. More details in a CNN video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kJAQMpkxlM and Perry's Foreign Policy article at http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/14/the_petraeus_briefing_biden_s_embarrassment_is_not_the_whole_story
Perry's article also links to the Amazon page for his book "Talking to Terrorists: Why America Must Engage with its Enemies".
A transcript of the interview with former Arafat advisor Mark Perry is at:
http://storyballoon.org/rick-sanchez-pushes-the-israelis-are-endangering-american-troops-line-with-former-arafet-advisor/
One of the unfortunate things about the politicization of this issue is that it shuts down discussion of the legitimate organizational issue of which countries should be under the CENTCOM "Area Of Responsibility". Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are all in the CENTCOM AOR, while Israel and the Palestinian Authority controlled territories are in the AOR of the European command. There is a certain logic to including Israel in the CENTCOM AOR if all its neighbors are also included. It diminishes the meaning of "anti-Israel" to apply that label to anyone who raises this legitimate organizational issue.
By the way just came across this Dry Bones cartoon which I think should be seen by everybody:
Forgetting History (1995)
There is also a link to the full text of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995
segalsegal,
Numerous "media activists" have already climbed onto the Perry bandwagon.
The thing about what Petraeus actually said is that apparently he believes everything Arab leaders tell him including the Taquiya they apply to get what they want.
@Cynic:
People can read General Petraeus' actual comments at http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/boot/260876 . Petraeus is known for dividing opponents into the reconcilables and the irreconcilables, and he's the last person I'd assume to be naive in doing so.
It is perfectly fine for Americans to look for ways to bring peace and prosperity to Palestinian Arabs. Indeed, much of PM Netanyahu's focus has been on improving economic opportunities in Palestinian areas, and they've had quite an economic boom in the past year.
In 2002, in the "'Crazy Thought' Peace Agreement" (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=105002000), US guards were used to ensure that Palestinian terrorists stayed incarcerated. Similarly, one could also imagine at some point in the future closing the Gaza smuggling tunnels and opening up supervised trade from Gaza to the outside world that would be overseen by US troops.
Arguing that the US should not do anything to improve the lives of Palestinian Arabs would be very shortsighted. Israel certainly doesn't share that view, and neither should General Petraeus.
Abbas; Ahmadinejad and the "Islamic Republic of Iran," a usage Obama himself adopted; Saudi royalty and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," another usage he has adopted; Chavez; Honduras; China; etc., etc. Nope, we wouldn't want to offend or presume upon any of those actors.
But Israel, building 1,600 apartments in its own capitol city. Now there's an opportunity for "hope" ... and "change" ... and "courage".
Pitiable. Pitiable in the tragic and tragi-comic senses of the term. Repulsive as well, at such a level that it makes one want to wretch.
Petraeus's report though may be the most offensive - offensive, that is, against common sense and what should be common knowledge within such a high-ranking strata of govt. and the military establishment. Otoh, military professionals and establishmentarians at that rank, most any rank beyond colonel, can become incredibly taken in by their own myopia and vanity at times, and can also be taken in my whoever occupies the high ground above them (i.e. the commander in chief, the pres.).
Hmmm, I don't know what you are talking about. I thought Samantha Power was perfectly sensible, boring even.
I don't see how you can be pro-settlements (a crime under international law, a war crime even) and blame Palestinians for not accepting Israel. Get real buddy.
Ridiculous.
Settlements illegal? Not by any reasonable standard, like the governing documents that would be used in a court of law: League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine, subsumed by the UN and the Oslo Accords. They're permitted under Oslo and were never an obstacle to direct negotiations between Israel and the PA until Obama's dunderheaded moves gave Abu Mazen all the cover he needed to dig in and be even more intransigent.
UN resolutions, especially General Assembly resolutions, do not have the force of law.
The fact that propaganda keeps repeating the big lie claiming they're illegal just change the facts that it's an open-and-shut case.
And Samantha Power's suggestion the US should invade the Israel or the territories to protect Palestinian Arabs is outrageous. During the campaign, Obama was tried to impress everyone with how much he supported Israel—remember Obama's statement to AIPAC's Policy Conference in 2008 the need for Jerusalem to stay united? It was the history of bashing Israel by advisers like her that lead many people to believe that he was a lying panderer who would say anything to get elected.
Rube, you know what are crimes under international law?
- hijacking commercial airliners
- flying hijacked planes into buildings
- using WMDs and murdering 5,000 Kurds in Iraq
- hijacking an entire country - Lebanon
- somali pirates hijacking ships
- sudan engaging in Current Day slavery
- bombing commercial airliners like Pan Am 103
- bombing buses and the underground in Londonistan
Rube, your heroes are at war with EVERYONE.
Reuban V: "Hmmm, I don't know what you are talking about. I thought Samantha Power was perfectly sensible, boring even."
Why, oh why, is the use of litotes among the presumptive crowd on the left ever and always accompanied with a smilingly contented smirk, an arrogated sneer, a contented and facile presumption of superiority?
Why, Reuban?
Look, either Israeli rule over the West Bank (including parts of greater Jerusalem) is a permanent status, in which case Israel has to annex it and give all its residents full citizenship rights (One state solution.) Or Israel recognizes that the occupation is temporary (what it wants the Palestinians to recognize) in which case it has no right under international law to change the demographic make-up of the territory. This is not remotely contentious. Settlements are illegal, possibly a war crime.
I did not hear Samantha Power call for the invasion of Israel. I listened to it twice. She spoke about imposing a solution and "intervening". Sounds about right to me: Demand that Israel withdraw to 1967 and at that point assist in guaranteeing the security of both states. What part of that could a reasonable person possibly disagree with?
If you think Israel is entitled to more territory than the 1967 borders, even all of the West Bank, then just say so. But then don't pretend you are any better than Hamas.
By the way, transfer by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population (regardless of whether the transfer was voluntary or forced) into the occupied territory is listed as a war crime under Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Not sure about Balfour.
It is a real laugher that we even talk in civilized company about whether Israel should be "halting" or slowing down settlements. It is the most destructive thing Israel has ever done for its own security - in addition to being a crime.
"Imposing" and "intervening," ... hmmmm, for chin pullers, that's a difficult one. How about someone, or the govt., imposing and intervening in your household affairs, would that constitute an invasion? Or how about another nation/state imposing and intervening in city planning activities in Washington D.C., or your home town.
"Not sure about Balfour." Telling, that, as well. But you're well versed in presumptive and rhetorical formulations.
The crime is the superficiality and incurious quality reflected in your considerations, Reuban.
Wait - but then isn't the problem that ISRAEL is "imposing and intervening" beyond its borders?? This, anyway, is how the Israeli High Court of Justice views the territories: as a matter for foreign policy, because they are not part of Israel. (Repeat: NOT part of Israel.)
Besides, who says that the US is not imposing and intervening there at the moment? If you are saying that the US should just get out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict entirely (including by withdrawing any and all military aid), I think you are just advocating all the Arabs really want anyway.
Finally, doesn't the government intervene and impose all the time in my family life? When I have to send my kids to school, pay my taxes and agree to the application of criminal law within the household?
Not commensurate, Reuban. You took the easy way out, in order to dismiss it, whole cloth. Shocked, I'm shocked ...
Iow, let's say the govt, to take your domestic example and make the analogy more commensurate, told you whether or not you could add a closet, or bedroom, to your existing structure. Not that difficult, Reuban. You can't so much as apply a reasonable and commensurate analogy, yet you want to solve the Israel/Sunni Arab problem - and all at the cost of Israel.
Shocked, I'm shocked ...
I'm not sure what you are talking about now. Perhaps if you could clarify your analogies. What is the equivalent of 'a closet, or bedroom' in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
No one is talking about imposing on Israel a solution, say, to its problem between secular and religious Jews. The question is how to resolve an international conflict like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where, because the balance of power is so skewed, it has the potential to last an awful long time.
I think what Powers is calling for is for the US to play hardball with the Israelis and get them to agree to a fair two-state solution and then police it rigorously afterwards. Sounds like something very much in Israel's interest as well, if that matters to you.
Jeez. What about "imposing" or "intervening" doesn't imply force? Especially when the balance of power between Israel and the US is so enormous?
Even in the case of Iran this is a much larger, more populous and potentially very wealthy country - and it's backed for all intents and purposes by Russia and even China if for no other reason than to annoy the West. Plus of course its petroleum products are extensively used around the world.
Israel is tiny and its people are embattled, whereas the Arab League states cover something like 1/9 of the world's land mass - and of course are huge gas and oil producers - so the whole thing is just ridiculous.
Furthermore it's ridiculous to talk about population "transfers" as "war crimes" in view of what's actually transpired all over the planet since, say, 1900. Enormous numbers of people have moved or have been forcibly transferred or have tried to move but had no place to go, for example Jews.
I'd like to ask, was the creation of Pakistan a crime then?
Also, there are worse things than moving. One of them is genocide. We don't even discuss real genocide because we are all tied up in knots about "Palestinian genocide," which involves great population increases, a dedicated UN agency and huge, apparently permanent financial aid yet none of this has translated into even one Arab state offering constructive input to helping solve their dilemma - and now it might be 40 years too late. Indeed I don't see how the millions of Palestinians in diaspora are going to be able to live in the West Bank do you? That's assuming they even want to go there.
Yet what Arab state is offering land or even citizenship?
Listen. I argue on this board and elsewhere all the time for Palestinian rights and I am in accord with the need for clarity with regard to the West Bank and its people. I can think of worse things than giving a binational state a shot. It would probably not work our well but the situation as it stands isn't working out either.
I think Gaza should be given, by Egypt and by Israel, some more space because the people there are growing in number and don't have enough room and/or people should be allowed to leave and become citizens elsewhere.
Egypt however won't even grant citizenship to the Palestinians already living in Egypt although most are probably related to Egyptians, as was Yasser Arafat who was born there. Thus the very definition of Palestinian is pretty flexible to begin with and somewhat after the fact considering that it referred to "Jews" until well after the war of 1948.
I also disagree with the idea that people on the West Bank should be second-class citizens thus, again, the need for clarity. We go back and forth about this Reuban V, with me generally arguing for two states.
Regardless I don't see that Jews should be prevented from returning to the West Bank or remaining there after a Palestinian state is created should one actually come into being. I also think at least some Arabs though not the millions suggested by Fatah and the Sauds will probably go to Israel, maybe the people in Lebanon who are not wanted there, although they are heavily armed and radicalized so I have no clue how that will work out.
People have not begun to think rationally about how 400,000 Lebanese Palestinians would be disarmed and peaceably transferred to Israel or a Palestinian state especially if they don't want to be transferred or disarmed.
What if they don't want to go? Wouldn't forcing them be a war crime then? Isn't denying them Lebanese citizenship and freedom of movement and full human rights a war crime by your standards? Or at least some kind of a human rights violation?
In any case there needs to be a sense of proportion when it comes to "war crimes."
It is absurd, when you have millions of people dislocated, dead, maimed, raped, gassed, bombed, real genocides, real war crimes, which are going on as we speak and which we largely ignore - especially in Africa - some Arab League African states are war-torn or suffer from large scale terror - also not to mention the bloodshed in Iraq, etc - it is therefore absurd to discuss anything the Israelis are doing in those terms.
It also argues against any kind of peaceful settlement because that kind of language is in and of itself incitement.
I agree with Sophia's very thoughtful sentiments. Thanks for sharing them.
Calling x a war crime does not imply that it is the worst thing in the world morally, politically or legally. Of course you are very right that there are many worse crimes going on right now in the world.
I was just surprised that this whole discussion was centered around objecting to the idea that Obama could object to Israeli settlements. So I think it has to be remembered that not building settlements is not something "nice" Israel does for the Palestinians, but a legal obligation they have.
My own view is that the settlements are primarily a political crime - they make a peaceful resolution of the conflict almost impossible. Just like Palestinian terrorism makes a political solution almost impossible. That is why I am always surprised when people who want the Palestinians to recognize Israel are not equally outraged by the settlements, which destroy the peace process.
But I am glad you spoke up - you said a lot of really thoughtful and reasonable things.
You're not sure of a lot of things, Reuban, thus my comment upon your studied and resolute incurious quality. The only thing you're "sure" of is your facile arrogations and contempt.
CAMERA has done an article on the Petraeus allegations: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1829