CH'S Blog @unlpols2 - Tumblr Blog

Blogging, Israel, and Palestine

Blogging was fun. Searching the news and responding to classmates made the blogging engaging and challenging. Through these interactions, my views grew less certain, as is often the case when one learns more about a given topic, and actions on both sides of the conflict have been and are questionable. The blogging definitely helped shape my views and forced me to engage with the material more often than a regular 6-8 page essay would. This is the main positive I took away from blogging.

As for some shortcomings, some of the problems were reoccurring, particularly since we had to rely on recent news (knife attacks, France, tunnels in Gaza, Knesset members meeting with the families of knife attackers etc.). In some ways, engaging in a 100-word blog post was less effective in seeing the overall perspective of the conflict than an essay. My posts remained somewhat stagnant, though the topics I posted on expanded. This was mostly my own shortcoming. Overall, the blogging kept us arguing outside of class, which is always a good thing!

A plan promoted by a group of liberal Israeli Jews would fence off most of the Palestinian neighborhoods and transfer responsibility for their residents to the Palestinian Authority.

Jerusalem, as we are going to find out even in a more acute sense tomorrow, is one of the major obstacles to peace. Since 1967, the city has been “united” under Israeli control and yet both sides harbor hopes of establishing their capital in the sacred city. The newest proposal--the one outlined in the article--is, however, a sign of what should not be done: outright separation.

Particularly in the case of Jerusalem, there is no way to establish a separate, fenced off Arab side that could work efficiently. The resources are divided unequally and with he Arab leadership in disarray splitting Jerusalem now is likely to exacerbate the economic, social and political problems already apparent. Bibi is not wrong when he points out that though many Arab residents of Jerusalem did not choose to become naturalized Israeli citizens, they enjoy the benefits of Israeli residency. In many ways, they are better off now than they most likely would be under a Palestinian East Jerusalem. These are realizations the Palestinians would have to come to!

#labour party (israel)

herdonuttheorist-blog

Yet another Tunnel

According to a article in the NYT, the Israelis have found yet another tunnel spanning from Gaza to Israel. “The state of Israel has achieved a global breakthrough in the ability to locate tunnels”. Sensibly, the Israeli government refuses to disclose any information about the technology that they have used to find and locate tunnels. Unsurprisingly, it is rumored that the tunnel was built by Hamas. According to the Israeli government, they are responsible for finding and destroying 32 tunnels by the end of the 2014 war. Later in the article, the author says that it is likely that Hamas has rebuilt much of the tunnel systems that were destroyed by Israel in 2014. Also according to the article, the tunnel spanning from Gaza to Israel was fully functional with electricity, communication lines and even a rail line to make the process easier for the builders. Do you think that tunnels are an effective mechanism against Israel? Because to me it seems that Hamas has a ton of resources and will not ever stop with the tunnel business but yet the Israeli government is getting better at finding said tunnels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/world/middleeast/israelis-find-new-tunnel-from-gaza-into-israel.html?ref=middleeast

mysteriouslydisguisedgentle-blog

I think that that is a tough question to answer. If these tunnels are some of the only ones that Hamas has built, and Israel keeps finding them and destroying them, then I would say that no, these tunnels aren’t effective. However, if the tunnels found by Israel are only a fraction of the tunnels, then it is possible that Hamas uses them effectively. My guess is that, overall, the tunnels are effective due to the fact that Hamas keeps building them.

A question I have is, “What can the political wing of Hamas do to curb the terrorist wing of Hamas? Can anything actually be done? With the bus bombing yesterday, what would bring Israel to the negotiating table to deal with Hamas?

loudlytinyflower-blog

I think that the answer to your question, @herdonuttheorist, is that it depends on how effective that technology is. If its effective, then Hamas should obviously reconsider investing money in the tunnels. However, if this is the only tunnel they’ve found, then it is not as effective as the Israelis are making it out to be. What I found interesting about the article was that it noted that the tunnel was actually incomplete, meaning it “did not have an exit coming up to the surface, suggesting that it was detected deep underground” at about 100 to 130 feet. Before we contribute the tunnel’s discovery mainly to technology we should also consider that Lt. Col. Peter Lerner reported that it was a combination of “technology, intelligence, engineering, and troops on the ground.” It is difficult to tell how much weight we should give each of these components.

unlpols2

Besides whether the tunnels are in fact effective, I took away from the article the sheer unwillingness of the Hamas military wing to invest into the Palestinian people. Gaza has plenty of problems, some of which we have been discussing in class. Yet, the military wing of their governing party appears more intent on sending a couple of assailants into Israel to carry out local and isolated attacks. For what purpose?

Hamas may praise itself as a “liberation organization” and group of “freedom fighters.” However, any examination of their governing record in Gaza unveils Hamas as an inept political organization. Gaza is significantly worse off now than they were ten years ago. The Palestinians in Gaza have recognized this dire reality, which is part of the reason why the party that once advocated for reform and demanded elections no longer wants those elections now. In my view, Hamas’ tunnel building is merely a rally around the flag effort.

The ambassador argues that American endorsement of a Security Council resolution would be a departure from United States policy.

Danny Danon, who is the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, nicely sums up the Israeli argument regarding a potential UN Security Council Resolution for a framework for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. His argument is basically: we are ready whenever the Palestinians grow up and are willing to negotiate. International resolutions, therefore, will not help. In part, Danon’s NYT opinion piece highlights his belief that the United States would not act against Israeli interests and would be willing to block a Security Council resolution. While this is the main argument put forth in the piece, it is the former statement I highlighted, where Danon basically blames the Palestinians for a failure of peace, that I find more important.

Danon exhibits a dangerously anti-cooperative stance. We are ready and you are not--you being the Palestinians--is in part, of course, grounded in some truth. The Palestinians are facing enormous struggles over identity and leadership. However, the Israelis must change their narrative on the ground as well. The “it is all the Palestinians’ fault” narrative will make it next to impossible to build a cooperative peace that could last. At this point, if Danon’s position were one that is in fact widespread among Israeli policymakers, I see Israel’s lack of empathy for Palestinians as a major roadblock to peace.

#palestinians

Poll commissioned by Sheldon Adelson-owned Israel Hayom conducted on 11th and 12th grade high school students exclusively from the Jewish sector, excluding the near-quarter of the country’s non-Jewish population.

I know Dr. Kohen has warned us in class repeatedly about the notorious unreliability of Israeli polling. However, we have also learned that a peace process under a Likud government will inevitably run into, mostly likely insurmountable, roadblocks. With the youth moving right, Likud may have succeeded in creating another body of facts on the ground: young Israelis socialized in the Likud period who share Bibi and co.’s despise for the peace process.

Without creating Israelis and Palestinians who believe and demand the peace process from their governments, any top down changes will likely fail to carry with them the necessary commitments on the ground. I understand the argument, even am sympathetic to it to a degree, Likud politicians are putting forth. But does the “security now” impede security in the future? Where you come down on this question depends on whether you think the status quo is acceptable and workable; I believe it is not.

rightistheleftsmuse-blog

The 2012 Levy Report was designed to analyze Israeli actions and settlement activity in Judea and Samaria in light of International law. It was controversial in that it found Israel’s case in the region to be unique (sui generis) and hence not subject to the norms provided by international law. In other words, Israel was (according to the report) within its rights to build or develop in these areas.

Secretary of State Clinton condemned the report at the time of its release. Predictably, the Israeli right praised the report and the left condemned it. The Likud led coalition government clearly preferred to let it die on the vine as too hot to handle. According to the article, “It became clear the coalition [government] did not intend to adopt its proposals as government policy.”

Yet behind the scenes it appears that the government has been allowing the elements of the report to direct policy. Some 30 “outposts” were placed on the road to full recognition. This meshes with what we know of the overall strategy of Likud – to allow settlements to mature and gain legitimacy, becoming “facts on the ground” that are hard to dislodge or refute.

Dr. Kohen has mentioned that forces at play will eventually make this strategy impossible to hold. In his view (as I recall) public opinion and civil unrest eventually bring to bear alternate pressure that makes these positions difficult to hold. I’m not so sure. In my view this could be an effective strategy.

It seems that time is the key variable to Likud strategy here. The longer these settlements exists the more entrenched they become. I have no doubt that Palestinian public opinion will be in favor of displacing the settlements for some generations to come. The real question is, after 10 or 15 years, will Israelis be able to stomach driving Israelis out of homes they have occupied for more than a decade. Meanwhile, violence is low and the Palestinian “leadership” continues to look like the juvenile unstable partner in peace that Likud has always characterized. Isn’t it possible that time will transform these settlements into the fait accompli that Likud is hoping for?

unlpols2

At this point in time it certainly looks like the Palestinians are playing the role you described in the process. Moreover, with the influx of Jewish immigrants from Europe--granted the numbers may be negligible at this point, but they are estimated to grow--settlement expansion and what Begin called “creating facts on the ground” will probably remain a pillar of Likud policy. You are right, under Bibi the settlements have expanded, but at what cost?

The settlements in the West Bank will be a significant roadblock to peace negotiations with the Palestinians. On the other hand, the Israelis, even under Sharon’s leadership, demonstrated their willingness to abandon settlements (Gaza 2005). The question is whether the situations are comparable. I do think that Israel, if the circumstances are right, will be willing to negotiate over the settlements. What they are trying to achieve at this point is to stack up the cards in the their favor; the more settlements you have the more you will likely be allowed to keep.

pecca-fortiter-blog1-deactivate

Abbas’s Call for Peace

In response to the recent escalation of violent knife attacks dating back to mid-September, Mahmoud Abbas stated today that he hopes to resume to a peace process with Israel. In total, stabbings, shootings, and car-ramming assaults have taken the lives of 28 Israelis. Israeli security forces have killed 188 Palestinians— most of whom they claim were attackers. Though these numbers remain tragic for both Israelis and Palestinians, the recently surfaced video footage of the apparent “execution” of Abed al-Fattah Yusri al-Sharif no doubt influenced the decision of President Abbas. Abbas announced, “I want to see peace in my life,” and therefore, he aims to “give [his] people hope” so that “nobody would dare go and stab or shoot.” Abbas continued by urging Netanyahu to meet with him “at any time.”

While Abbas’s call to resume the peace process should be regarded positively, one can doubt its ability to immediately end violence— particularly the recent trend in youth violence. As the presidential term of Abbas drags on, Palestinian youth feel frustration not only toward Israeli occupation, but the Palestinian government itself. Additionally, Abbas’s call to resume the peace process does little to address the problem of Hamas in Gaza.

http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2016-03-31/israel-demolishes-home-of-palestinian-who-killed-israeli

unlpols2

Part of Abbas’ problem is he himself has become a figurehead of a movement with a decreasing social significance. A solution of the Palestinian problem requires a Palestinian leader and that Abbas is not. In fact, the last two decades of the Palestinian Authority is largely a story of decline. Losing the elections in Gaza and the ensuing civil war between Fatah and Hamas underlined the deep divisions the Palestinian people must bridge in order to form a coalition that can work together and negotiate with the Israelis.

What that coalition would look like, I do not know. Certainly the radical wings of Hamas cannot be part of it. In a sense, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict first requires a solution of the Palestinian-Palestinian conflict. This is an ambitious goal and one that will likely take years to achieve. I do believe, however, that it is the only solution. And Abbas may not be the one to do it.

rightistheleftsmuse-blog

“A figurehead of a movement with decreasing social significance.” That’s very succinct. I believe I agree with you. I would add that such significance as it carried in the past was often a result of outside forces lending status to leaders who were not really standard bearers. The apparent goal of much of the Palestinian “leadership” is similar to that of many US congressman - stay in power by catering to forces likely to help them maintain and enhance prestige and status.

The problem with the Palestinian leaders is there is no Dr. King, General Washington, Mahatma Ghandi or Theodor Herzl (I’ll throw him in to be relevant :). No specific leader who’s ambition is to build a lasting legacy on behalf of his people. Instead they are all modern day Pharaohs building useless monuments to themselves on the backs of the impoverished. Should such a real leader ever arise, there is enough moral capital to make something happen - assuming he lasts a few years before he’s assassinated. But it truly is a dearth of leadership that is at the heart of the failures in the region. It’s not all on the Palestinian side of course, but they have the most egregious examples I think.

lmepal-blog

As Wittes quoted in the third chapter, there’s “leaders, but no leadership”. I agree with the above statement that this will not end the violence any time soon. If anything, I think we’ll be seeing a few more incidents (hopefully not, but I expect the worst) before anything really starts happening and then probably when negotiations start again. (Who knows - maybe the third intifada will finally rear its ugly head.) But in the meantime, I think that this is a very positive step in the right direction! I’ve often wondered if Rabin was honestly just tired of the same arguments back and forth and petty squabbling and that’s how he was so effective - he listened, he insisted, and got stuff done.

“The Palestinian issue is the core of the conflict in the region and the world,” Abbas says and is quoted in my article below from J-Post, in accordance with this subject. In response to this I agree with the comment above that the Palestinian-Palestinian conflict must be resolved first (not just between the people, but the government and the people). There is absolutely no way in my mind that there will be any kind of resolution to anything, really, if the party and people are not a united front. Now this will take a lot of work since they just don’t have the experience that the Israelis do - as we discussed in class today - but nothing bad has ever really come out of trying (except Oslo..and Oslo II.. the idea is nice).

I really can’t wait to see how this may pan out in the years to come! This is super exciting because as Dr. Kohen has mentioned in class, we’ve never witnessed any negotiations that have resulted in much. I’ll be looking for updates!

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Abbas-calls-for-international-parley-in-meeting-with-visiting-Indian-FM-441860

loudlytinyflower-blog

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4787310,00.html Building off the original post, Netanyahu has “dared” Abbas to meet with him and subsequently cleared his schedule, according to the article below. It will be interesting to see if Abbas takes Netanyahu up on his offer or not. If he does, then hopefully peace can start to unravel. If not, then again….stagnation. Either way, it’s almost relieving that both leaders have publicly announced and opened a road of communication between the two countries. Although this may not happen, it still, in my opinion, gives hope to both the Palestinians and Israelis (and international community) that want to see an end to the conflict. I’m eager to see how this will end or if it will continue.

unlpols2

Netanyahu’s reactions in the article are fairly telling. Sure we can meet, but the “first order of business will be ending the Palestinian campaign of incitement to murder Israelis,” Bibi reminded the journalist. Abbas, on the other hand, claimed he had in fact responded and it was Bibi who let the date slip. Anyway, the cat and mouse game is not getting anywhere.

I think Netanyahu’s stance makes any negotiations next to impossible; yet, I also think negotiations with Abbas will not lead anywhere. It is not that the Palestinians are required to solve all its internal divisions immediately, but they have to put together a functioning coalition that represents a reasonable part of the Palestinian people. The Netanyahu government, on the other hand, must recognize that dealing with a Palestinian coalition backed by popular support may be a more efficient way to combat radicalism than the traditional approach.

Radicalism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires an incremental solution; both sides know it and fail to act.

pecca-fortiter-blog1-deactivate

Abbas’s Call for Peace

In response to the recent escalation of violent knife attacks dating back to mid-September, Mahmoud Abbas stated today that he hopes to resume to a peace process with Israel. In total, stabbings, shootings, and car-ramming assaults have taken the lives of 28 Israelis. Israeli security forces have killed 188 Palestinians— most of whom they claim were attackers. Though these numbers remain tragic for both Israelis and Palestinians, the recently surfaced video footage of the apparent “execution” of Abed al-Fattah Yusri al-Sharif no doubt influenced the decision of President Abbas. Abbas announced, “I want to see peace in my life,” and therefore, he aims to “give [his] people hope” so that “nobody would dare go and stab or shoot.” Abbas continued by urging Netanyahu to meet with him “at any time.”

While Abbas’s call to resume the peace process should be regarded positively, one can doubt its ability to immediately end violence— particularly the recent trend in youth violence. As the presidential term of Abbas drags on, Palestinian youth feel frustration not only toward Israeli occupation, but the Palestinian government itself. Additionally, Abbas’s call to resume the peace process does little to address the problem of Hamas in Gaza.

http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2016-03-31/israel-demolishes-home-of-palestinian-who-killed-israeli

unlpols2

Part of Abbas’ problem is he himself has become a figurehead of a movement with a decreasing social significance. A solution of the Palestinian problem requires a Palestinian leader and that Abbas is not. In fact, the last two decades of the Palestinian Authority is largely a story of decline. Losing the elections in Gaza and the ensuing civil war between Fatah and Hamas underlined the deep divisions the Palestinian people must bridge in order to form a coalition that can work together and negotiate with the Israelis.

What that coalition would look like, I do not know. Certainly the radical wings of Hamas cannot be part of it. In a sense, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict first requires a solution of the Palestinian-Palestinian conflict. This is an ambitious goal and one that will likely take years to achieve. I do believe, however, that it is the only solution. And Abbas may not be the one to do it.

mysteriouslydisguisedgentle-blog

The Nature of Islam and “Christianity”

Continuing our ending discussion in class, I think it would be interesting to look at the nature of the two proselytizing monotheistic religions and the nature of their evangelization.

In a nutshell, the Church’s message (the Gospel) is that the Mosaic Law and the Prophets (Major and Minor) were fulfilled by Jesus Christ, who then opened up the covenant between God and humanity from a chosen nation to all nations. The truth of the Gospel is based on a historical event, the Resurrection of Jesus after being put to death. If this event happened, then the message of the Church is true, and there is no other rational choice for a person than to join the Church. The Church’s mission then is to spread the Gospel to the whole earth and hope that people accept baptism. If the Resurrection did not occur, then despite having nice tidbits on how to treat the downtrodden, the Church and its message is based on a lie and should be rejected.

On the other hand, Islam, in a nutshell, teaches that God gave the Jews via Moses a revelation in book form, but that they corrupted it intentionally so as to not submit to the will of God. He then gave Jesus a revelation in the form of the gospels (injil), but his followers perverted them and deified him, so as to not submit to the will of God. Finally, God came to Mohammed and gave to him the last revelation, the Quran, making Mohammed the seal of the prophets. If this is true, then the Quran reveals the truth about God and how to conduct a human life, and all people should convert to Islam. Governments should cease relying on man-made law and should submit to the Shariah, or divine law, as ascribed in the Quran. Also, Muslims should try to convert all people of the Book (Jews and Christians) and infidels (the rest of the world).

rightistheleftsmuse-blog

It’s true that being a Christian or a Muslim means dealing with an imperative to draw others into your faith. It’s also true that Christians (traditionally) and Muslims feel that their way is the only path to God. Given the all-encompassing nature of their doctrine why would they feel otherwise? To dilute that “one-way” message means short-changing humanity from the truth of the “path.”

The problem is violence and coercion. Both of these faiths have a long history of “forced conversions” - conversions by the sword. The idea that someone can be coerced into believing and following a faith has been around since the inception of religion. This is what is so abhorrent about some people of faith. It is not that they have some sort of “good news” to share, it’s that they are willing to dehumanize those who they cannot persuade, or (in some cases) simply force religious behavior out of others with no actual belief in play. This sort of “conversion” is less a belief change than a type of political oppression.

I have no problem with people – Christians, Muslims, Atheists, etc. – trying to use persuasion to convert others to follow their faith. When someone chooses to believe and convert, that’s all well and good. It is when religion becomes part of an arsenal of oppression that it is truly pernicious.

unlpols2

The problem with “religion,” a gross overgeneralization of a not very monolithic bloc, is the lack of toleration. Isn’t to try to convert others a violation of toleration? In that sense, whether through force or words, conversion attempts violate the principle of toleration, right? I seem to go back and forth on this issue. Thoughts?

unlpols2

rightistheleftsmuse “Can I not "tolerate" someone and still believe they are in error? I hold no ill will toward anti vaccine people but I still think they are wrong and would persuade them (if I could) to change their mind in the interest of public health. Why must I always say "agree to disagree" Dr Bloom? :)”

In response (the above quote is a question someone posed to my earlier statement):

Can we equate public health, where factual statistics exist, with beliefs, which, as beliefs, cannot be right and wrong? Conversion attempts follow the “I believe X therefore you should too” and therefore I think they fall in a separate category. People who try to convert others impose the notion right and wrong on a system of beliefs, which logically cannot have a right answer (at least not in this life... I may be wrong; hopefully I won’t have to find out too soon ;)). So, toleration is even more important because of the fallacious premises people use when they try to convert others to their religion (By fallacious, of course, I simply mean that there is not satisfactory evidence to support the factuality of many religious claims).

mysteriouslydisguisedgentle-blog

The Nature of Islam and “Christianity”

Continuing our ending discussion in class, I think it would be interesting to look at the nature of the two proselytizing monotheistic religions and the nature of their evangelization.

In a nutshell, the Church’s message (the Gospel) is that the Mosaic Law and the Prophets (Major and Minor) were fulfilled by Jesus Christ, who then opened up the covenant between God and humanity from a chosen nation to all nations. The truth of the Gospel is based on a historical event, the Resurrection of Jesus after being put to death. If this event happened, then the message of the Church is true, and there is no other rational choice for a person than to join the Church. The Church’s mission then is to spread the Gospel to the whole earth and hope that people accept baptism. If the Resurrection did not occur, then despite having nice tidbits on how to treat the downtrodden, the Church and its message is based on a lie and should be rejected.

On the other hand, Islam, in a nutshell, teaches that God gave the Jews via Moses a revelation in book form, but that they corrupted it intentionally so as to not submit to the will of God. He then gave Jesus a revelation in the form of the gospels (injil), but his followers perverted them and deified him, so as to not submit to the will of God. Finally, God came to Mohammed and gave to him the last revelation, the Quran, making Mohammed the seal of the prophets. If this is true, then the Quran reveals the truth about God and how to conduct a human life, and all people should convert to Islam. Governments should cease relying on man-made law and should submit to the Shariah, or divine law, as ascribed in the Quran. Also, Muslims should try to convert all people of the Book (Jews and Christians) and infidels (the rest of the world).

rightistheleftsmuse-blog

It’s true that being a Christian or a Muslim means dealing with an imperative to draw others into your faith. It’s also true that Christians (traditionally) and Muslims feel that their way is the only path to God. Given the all-encompassing nature of their doctrine why would they feel otherwise? To dilute that “one-way” message means short-changing humanity from the truth of the “path.”

The problem is violence and coercion. Both of these faiths have a long history of “forced conversions” - conversions by the sword. The idea that someone can be coerced into believing and following a faith has been around since the inception of religion. This is what is so abhorrent about some people of faith. It is not that they have some sort of “good news” to share, it’s that they are willing to dehumanize those who they cannot persuade, or (in some cases) simply force religious behavior out of others with no actual belief in play. This sort of “conversion” is less a belief change than a type of political oppression.

I have no problem with people – Christians, Muslims, Atheists, etc. – trying to use persuasion to convert others to follow their faith. When someone chooses to believe and convert, that’s all well and good. It is when religion becomes part of an arsenal of oppression that it is truly pernicious.

unlpols2

The problem with “religion,” a gross overgeneralization of a not very monolithic bloc, is the lack of toleration. Isn’t to try to convert others a violation of toleration? In that sense, whether through force or words, conversion attempts violate the principle of toleration, right? I seem to go back and forth on this issue. Thoughts?

ime16-blog

Israel's parliament gave initial approval on Monday to a bill that would allow members to suspend from the legislature colleagues whom they believe have supported Israel's enemies or have acted against the state.

The article title is a little misleading - the law doesn’t say it will suspend Arab legislators, legislators who parliament believes “have supported Israel’s enemies or have acted against the state.” Given how fraught relations between Arab and Jewish Israelis often are, Arab Israeli legislators are probably right to suspect this law of targeting them, as it’s easy to see how their stances might be interpreted as anti-Israel. (The article shows that this kind of interpretation happened even without the law.) But on the surface, it’s hard to criticize this plan - what country would want those who would harm it in positions of power? I would guess that Israel would be particularly sensitive to this, given its lack of allies in the region and the threats it’s neighboring countries pose to its existence. I think it will come down to how this law is implemented; it looks like it could be walking a fine line between protecting the country and restricting free speech and debate.

unlpols2

While I understand the reasons the Likud coalition would support such measures, we also have to see the dangerous and rather hypocritical result the employment of such questionable means to achieve a fully undemocratic can bring about. It is the same paradox people committed to political liberalism have faced elsewhere, including in this country, during acts of terror / resistance / war. To suspend civil liberties is a way to suppress the opposition and gain the overhand in a conflict. The question is whether this is prudent policy-making?

Reactionary decisions, in my view, often have drastic consequences and can jeopardize the moral integrity of a state. Did the Patriot Act bring about desired results? In some ways yes. In others no. What seems like an reasonable policy decision can have drastically undesired consequences in the future. Part of being a political liberal means accepting certain harms the norms that as a whole bring about positive results impose. Don’t be fickle.

An edited transcript of a telephone interview with the Republican presidential candidate.

If you want to be angry, read the entire transcript; if you would rather just respond to my thoughts, read the part on the Iran Nuclear deal. The common criticism presidential candidates on the right have raised is that the deal is bad. Period. Trump agrees and his solution is Donald Trump. And his views appear somewhat inconsistent, to say the least.

From not negotiating to negotiating and threatening harsher sanctions to negotiating and then selling the Iranians U.S. equipment, Trump’s ideology is one of constant innovation and rapid transformation. We may ask ourselves were this leaves the nuclear deal today. Iran has made missteps. The missile tests suggest that Iran was after all not a very trustworthy negotiation partner. However, who ever said they would be? Instead of relying on self-serving hypotheticals critics should contemplate another hypothetical: no deal. Is this the best we could do? Probably not. Is it better than nothing? I think so.

#united states international relations

PA president says he declined proposal — which included near-total withdrawal from West Bank and relinquishing Israeli control of Jerusalem’s Old City — because he wasn’t allowed to study map

I must admit, until Dr. Kohen mentioned Ehud Olmert as a politician who once came close to solving Jerusalem, a critical piece of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I was rather surprised. I had heard of Olmert’s trials and corruption allegations, not of his pragmatic efforts to better relations with the Palestinians.

The 2008 proposal, however serious it may have been, raises another critical question: in the same way that Arafat conceded too much in his letter to Rabin didn’t Abbas commit the opposite mistake? After all, he was too careful to accept Olmert’s proposal without “having studied the map.”

It may be true that Arafat forfeited the Palestinians’ claims, but Abbas failed to fully recognize the dimensions of his position as well. The Palestinians are negotiating from a position of weakness, recognizing this dire reality could lead them to formulate a more realistic position. The empty claims approach will not yield peace, rather it will further frustrate potential progress.

Three Palestinians carried out back-to-back gun and car-ramming attacks on Israelis near a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank on Monday and were shot dead by the army, it said.

Marginalization cannot be fought with violence.

This is the lesson the Palestinian people must learn as a collective community, which ultimately requires Hamas to adopt an anti-violence stance--clearly this is an ample challenge. Let me clarify what I mean. There are instances were violence can bring parties to the negotiation table. It can serve as a subsidiary tactic--the first intifada underlines this notion. However, then violence ceases to be useful, and in fact becomes very counterproductive.

When Palestinians incite violence, Israel retaliates and this being an unequal struggle, the Israelis kill more Palestinians and further crack down on the West Bank and Gaza etc. It is plight that leads to no progress. Violence only leads to an unworkable future. The Palestinians have arguments to make; they could gain international support. Yet, currently terrorists halt any peace negotiations in their tracks. If violence is subsumed by peaceful protests, there will be opportunities. Until then, the Palestinian cause is a rather hopeless endeavor

rightistheleftsmuse-blog

Postmortem on Peace Talks

What did we learn in our two rounds of negotiation? Here’s the Muse assessment:

Land Does Not Solve Everything

At the beginning of round two things seemed hopeful. As the Palestinian delegation we felt like we were doing well. With little to offer other than support or condemnation we had managed to rest a portion of the state of Syria to be the state of “New Palestine” - it even has a nice ring to it. In the end however we had rather more questions than answers.

How would we be able to consolidate our existing holdings in occupied territories? How would movement be achieved? Have acquired new territory we were now responsible for it. Were we equipped to handle administration? Security? economy? Meanwhile the issues of “the homeland” remained. Our solution may have provided a spot in the world for Palestinians but it did not redress the grievances of our people or their longing to return to their homeland.

We forgot about Jerusalem

As the Palestinian delegation we totally whiffed on the issue of Jerusalem. If we moved our capital from Ramallah to New Palestine it would move the seat of government more than 100 miles north of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is (as stated by our own rhetoric and policy) the heart and capital of Palestine. Does moving north mean abandoning that claim and ceding to the Israelis?

The US and Palestine Working Together?

One of the oddest and least likely scenarios here is that the US would side with the Palestinian authority on some form of land allocation. The US does not see Palestine or anyone in authority there as credible negotiating partners. In this they clearly mirror the Israeli point of view. All candidates for US president save Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders hue closely to the status quo on support for Israel. Something short of a state - a safe haven for Palestinian refugees jointly administered by coalition forces and Arab governments might be possible, but carving out territory for them? I’m guessing it would be a non-starter.

Intractable Problems

Clearly, as I’ve stated before, there does not seem to be a clear path to peace in the region that allows each party to claim a “win.” Wiping out ISIS will require western money and (probably) western forces, but it leaves other (lesser) bad guys in charge of the shop. The status quo of the Palestinian problem is not likely to change as a result of settlements and changes in Syria. The Syrian civil war is an opportunity for Arab governments to flex new muscle and influence, for Russia to make a play for a return to great power status, and for individual regional actors like the Kurds to gain a foothold for their own project. It does not appear to be an opportunity for changes in entrenched positions with regard to Palestine and Israel. If anything, the shift in attention allows the status quo to atrophy even more.

Student Buy in and Play to Form

One of the failings of our Palestinian delegation was that we really didn’t “buy in” to the way the PA treats it’s interests. We weren’t parochial. We didn’t have narrowly constrained needs to maintain personal power or the influence of a party within our own coalition. Instead, we tried to be reasonable - at one point recognizing that Gaza had been a ‘thorn in the side” of Israels southern border - something I can’t imaging the PA acknowledging except perhaps in praise of Gazans. The US for it’s part also seemed willing to throw in with whomever might have a middle way.

That’s where it ends. The Assad regime played it true to form. They were defensive and only gave in grudgingly - making the smallest concessions possible. The Israeli’s for their part were unflappable and unmistakably narrow in their regional interests - security first, everything else is peanuts. The rebels also held their own - insisting on the partition plan as a temporary cease fire and free and fair elections as a concession.

What’s amazing about it is how being arbitrarily assigned to a group and given the task of protecting its interests automatically makes you invested in the outcome and willing to lobby for interests you might otherwise oppose.

Great Experiment

All in all it was terrific illustration of why peace seems so illusive. It was enlightening and entertaining. I’m glad this experiment was part of the class experience. I think it illustrated better than mere research how these issues collide and resist compromise.

unlpols2

I agree, well at least in part! I think an additional lesson, which both the Oslo agreements and camp David summit illustrated, is that status quo politics will exacerbate the Palestinian plight.

As the deal with Iran illustrated, there are deals to be had in the Middle East. The question is whether the western allies can force their eyes to see it.

unlpols2

Overheard at Oberlin: The Holocaust was mere

Roger Cohen advances a salient point: criticism of Israel is one thing, blatant anti-Semitism another. A complex veil of identities and ideologies surrounds the anti-Israel stance many Europeans are willing to take. What leads them to their position? Is it sympathy with the Arabs? Is anti-Semitism alone? Like all pieces of an identity, the anti-Israel stance Europeans take has its origins in various ideological undercurrents. Cohen addresses most of them in his article. However, one he omits and it is one I have not heard on this blog either. In part Europe’s anti-Israel stance is simply rooted in old fashioned anti-Semitism, which has a long tradition on the continent. The more recent developments, however, suggest, and this is largely my own interpretation, that part of the anti-Israel stance stems from the inability to comprehend the U.S.-Israeli relationship. I think many Europeans perceive Israel merely as an extension of the United States.

Therefore, the increase in anti-Israel sentiments could correspond to the unpopularity of U.S. military actions in the Middle East.

thekingfish-ip

I was planning on writing about the same article, but I’ll take a different angle for my blogging than you did.

Johnson, writing in Fathom Journal, outlined three components to left-wing anti-Semitic anti-Zionism. First, “the abolition of the Jewish homeland; not Palestine alongside Israel, but Palestine instead of Israel.” Second, “a demonizing intellectual discourse” that holds that “Zionism is racism” and pursues the “systematic Nazification of Israel.” Third, a global social movement to “exclude one state — and only one state — from the economic, cultural and educational life of humanity.”

Johnson’s components to left-wing anti-Semitic anti-Zionism are overly broad; There is nothing inherently anti-Semetic about any of these three components.

First, “the abolition of the Jewish homeland; not Palestine alongside Israel, but Palestine instead of Israel.”

This component only seems anti-Semitic when cloaked in Johnson’s charged language. “The creation of a unitary secular state for the entire people of Israel/Palestine” carries the same meaning and is much harder to take offense with.

Second, “a demonizing intellectual discourse” that holds that “Zionism is racism” and pursues the “systematic Nazification of Israel.”

Though controversial, its difficult to describe Zionism in terms that a leftist wouldn’t deem racist. We already discussed in class that Zionism is essentially an expression of Jewish nationalism; inherent racist baggage and all. The “Naztification of Israel” is shitty and insensitive, but also ubiquitous within the Western world- Godwin’s Law exists for a reason.

Third, a global social movement to “exclude one state — and only one state — from the economic, cultural and educational life of humanity.”

Israel is the one and only state that counts itself among the global democratic West while simultaneously displaying a gross disregard for human rights and troubling preoccupation with its ethnic identity.

mysteriouslydisguisedgentle-blog

I agree that the label “anti-Semitic” is often used when it isn’t necessary. Like many other political labels, it shuts down or limits any real discussion. On the other side of the coin, is Zionism inherently racist? I think equating Zionism with racism shuts down conversation in the same way calling someone anti-Semitic does.

In class, we’ve defined Zionism as an ideology that believes that the Jewish people have a right to their own Statehood. I think whether or not the State is racist depends on how it is run and what its purpose is. That is and has been a debate between the Israeli people. With all the current news about apartheid, I think the State could justly be considered racist. However, I don’t think the State is automatically racist by its nature.

unlpols2

A couple points regarding issues raised above:

- “Palestine instead of Israel”: fine, superficially you can argue Johnson puts forth his call for a one-state solution. However, the statement suggests opposition to the Jewish nation-state, opposition to the project at the very heart of the founding of Israel. To call for Palestine instead of Israel does elevate the Palestinians’ right to live in Palestine above the Israelis and doing so is just another way of getting lost in history. The Palestinians and the Arab states rolled the dice in 1948, 1967, and 1973. Their goal was not to establish a one state solution with the Zionists; they wanted a one state solution without the Zionists. Why would Israel give up its claims now?

- “A demonizing intellectual discourse” to assess Israeli policies: it’s critical not to get lost in idealized visions here. Israel lives in a war zone; so national security policies make you Nazi? I don’t follow that argument.

- Ethnocentrism rather than racism: ethnocentrism is not exclusive to Israel; Israel merely exists in an environment where these tendencies become more pronounced in everyday life. At the core, what is happening again and again in debates surrounding Israel is a misunderstanding of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is the belief in the superiority of one’s state and nation, which, if you are Israel, is really a rather salient and factual position, right? This can translate into racist policies, but that racism is at the heart of the Israeli project is an exaggeration.

Also, isn’t an obsession with ethnic identity a critical component of all national narratives, especially in the Western democracies? The Europeans may have abandoned this tendency in law, but the rhetoric certainly is alive and well. The same holds true for the United States. I guess what I am trying to articulate is that we should consider Israel’s policies and national narrative in light of history. And considering their situation, their actions are not unique. And in many ways, people in Europe and the even in the United States are quick to condemn them. So, why is that? If it is not anti-Semitism, what is then? The moral awakening of the Western democracies? That is simply an idealized and frankly, not very critical, answer.

Overheard at Oberlin: The Holocaust was mere

Roger Cohen advances a salient point: criticism of Israel is one thing, blatant anti-Semitism another. A complex veil of identities and ideologies surrounds the anti-Israel stance many Europeans are willing to take. What leads them to their position? Is it sympathy with the Arabs? Is anti-Semitism alone? Like all pieces of an identity, the anti-Israel stance Europeans take has its origins in various ideological undercurrents. Cohen addresses most of them in his article. However, one he omits and it is one I have not heard on this blog either. In part Europe’s anti-Israel stance is simply rooted in old fashioned anti-Semitism, which has a long tradition on the continent. The more recent developments, however, suggest, and this is largely my own interpretation, that part of the anti-Israel stance stems from the inability to comprehend the U.S.-Israeli relationship. I think many Europeans perceive Israel merely as an extension of the United States.

Therefore, the increase in anti-Israel sentiments could correspond to the unpopularity of U.S. military actions in the Middle East.

#palestinians

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

CH'S Blog