Time for a Change

I think the only time I've ever mentioned Roger Cohen on this site was to complain about something, but today's piece about why it's time for "an end to uncritical American support of Israel, a real push to persuade Olmert to engage with Abbas, enough boldness to reach beyond the details to a vision of what is needed to bring a Palestinian state into being." A minor emendation would be that Cohen says "the Democrats who now control Capitol Hill have shown little inclination to debate a related subject, Israel and Palestine, where a shift in American policy at a time of fluidity could make an important difference." The truth is in some ways better and in other ways worse. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs' Middle East Subcommittee is having a hearing today on the "Next Steps in Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process." The trouble is that the subcommittee's arranged for the roster of witnesses to be former AIPACer Martin Indyk, David Makovsky from WINEP, and Daniel Pipes.

On the other hand, as Daniel Levy points out there are some positive developments as well that people could lend their support to:

Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) has introduced House Resolution 143 urging the President to appoint a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace. H. Res. 143 has already attracted a number of co-sponsors, including Jewish members and Congress’ only Muslim member. (Co-sponsors include Blumenauer (D-OR), Ellison (D-MN), Klein (D-FL), McCollum (D-MN), Schiff (D-CA)). H. Res. 143 includes a lot of sensible language such as “it is directly in the national interest of the US to reengage both sides…a lasting peace…will reduce tension in the region…help repair America’s image in the international community…and help reduce Iranian influence in the region” (Read the full resolution here and for the APN campaign see here).

That would be good.

Comments

But all conventional attempts to achieve peace, like the "roadmap" and all of Clinton's efforts, came to nothing because the United States could not be seen as--and in fact was not--a honest broker. So forgive me if I contain my excitement over our reengagment in the region; reengagement isn't enough. We need rethinking.

Posted by david mizner | February 14, 2007 10:05 AM

Wow, Indyk, Makovsky, and...Pipes. Here in the U.S., that's the equivalent of "all sides being heard from."

Posted by M. Duss | February 14, 2007 11:26 AM

Pipes is one of the few men who can make Cohen appear smart.

Posted by Reality Man | February 14, 2007 12:28 PM

M. Duss:

Take a deep breath: you need to understand that non-Jews are genetically incapable of being objective about anything pertaining to Israel. It triggers our autonomic anti-Semitism.

Posted by brendan | February 14, 2007 1:16 PM

Abbas is no shape to deliver on anything. This was true in 2003, and it is true now.

Liberals really ought to cut down on meaningless platitudes when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Posted by David | February 14, 2007 1:54 PM

"I think the only time I've ever mentioned Roger Cohen on this site was to complain about something, but today's piece about why it's time for "an end to uncritical American support of Israel, a real push to persuade Olmert to engage with Abbas, enough boldness to reach beyond the details to a vision of what is needed to bring a Palestinian state into being."

Is this really the question? Surely the kind of detachment by the Bush administration from the conflict amounts to near-criminal negligence, but at the same time surely at least a few people recognize that the chief obstacle to a viable two-state solution is that the only thing which unites Palestinians is opposition to zionism, and that the Palestinian leadership - in addition to being grotesquely cynical and corrupt - is also (not unjustifiably) shit-scared of a civil war breaking out on their turf after the conflict is resolved or even on the path to being resolved. How is it not the case that the best thing Israel, America, and the international community community can do for Palestinians is provide for their economic development given the fact that countries with a prosperous middle class are less likely to have sectarian civil wars?

Posted by Linus | February 14, 2007 3:04 PM

Is there a trick to pulling up the Cohen piece without getting trapped by "Times Select?

Posted by Trevor | February 14, 2007 3:37 PM

surely at least a few people recognize that the chief obstacle to a viable two-state solution is that the only thing which unites Palestinians is opposition to zionism

Yes, and those few people are surely wrong. The chief obstacle to a viable two-state solution, indeed what has all but killed the prospect of a two-state solution, is Israel's almost forty year(!) military occupation of Palestinian land, and the program of illegal colonization which that occupation exists to facilitate.

This isn't to say that Fatah isn't corrupt, it is, or that Hamas is bad news, it is, just that Israel's actions in the territories over that last four decades seem designed specifically to empower rejectionist extremists in those groups, at the expense of moderates.

Posted by M. Duss | February 14, 2007 4:08 PM

Note how this:

"that the Palestinian leadership - in addition to being grotesquely cynical and corrupt - is also (not unjustifiably) shit-scared of a civil war breaking out on their turf after the conflict is resolved or even on the path to being resolved."

is left out of M. Duss's response.

If you don't understand why Palestinian leaders don't negotiate in good faith you can't begin to address the reasons they aren't negotiating in good faith, which are primarily economic (there are also cultural reasons, but there's nothing you can do about those). The last thing the Palestinian leadership (and any number of bright and aware Palestinians) want in the present economic context is a unilateral Israeli withdrawl from the territories. They can't say that aloud, but understanding politics means understanding not just what is said but what is not and cannot be said.

Posted by Linus | February 14, 2007 4:49 PM

What the hell is wrong with Indyk and Makovsky? They happen to be two of the most knowledgeable and experienced people on the subject, and they are not ideological either. Are the only people Yglesias deems credible the pervasive critics of Israel?

Posted by David | February 14, 2007 5:16 PM

Linus, I don't disagree that some Palestinian leaders are cynical and corrupt, though the Palestinians certainly don't have a monopoly on this type of behaviour, especially in regard to Israel's history of bad faith. The relevant point here is that the nascent civil war in Palestine is in large part a result of Israeli policies, which, as I wrote, have served to strengthen Palestinian extremists. Laying blame solely at the feet of corrupt and cynical Palestinian leaders is, at best, ridiculous.

They can't say that aloud, but understanding politics means understanding not just what is said but what is not and cannot be said.

Yeah, okay, thanks, Yoda.

And as for suggesting that there are "cultural reasons" for Palestinian bad faith, you'll probably find a much more receptive audience for that sort of racist trash over at Marty Peretz's blog.

Posted by M. Duss | February 14, 2007 5:20 PM

What the hell is wrong with Indyk and Makovsky

Nothing, if you buy into the Palestinian rejectionist myth. The point is that, characteristic of the way the debate is usually framed in U.S. media, the range of opinion representated by these witnesses runs the gamut from "solid Zionist" to "Super-hardcore Zionist."

Posted by M. Duss | February 14, 2007 5:31 PM

Scuse me, that should've read:

...characteristic of the way the debate is usually framed in the House (and U.S. media)...

Posted by M. Duss | February 14, 2007 5:33 PM

"The relevant point here is that the nascent civil war in Palestine is in large part a result of Israeli policies, which, as I wrote, have served to strengthen Palestinian extremists."

No. It's a tribal and sectarian power struggle with deep historical and cultural roots (not as in Palestinians are backward heathens but that Palestinian identity is a modern construct that exists almost entirely in opposition to Israel) fed by extreme poverty which is in itself being sustained and exacerbated by the Israeli blockade. Israel has genuine security concerns, but those concerns need to be balanced by the humanitarian and economic needs of the people of the occupied territories. Like the Palestinian leadership, the Arab elite has little use for an immediate Israeli withdrawl from the West Bank (and the Gaza withdrawl was only ever cosmetic), and fears sectarian civil war in their own countries (75 years of investing in palaces, Porches, and prostitutes rather than their own people is finally coming back to haunt them). But Israel as well as America and the international community has a responsibility to help make Palestine a viable nation-state, and policies, aid, and investment that help the Palestinians to revive their battered economy must for the reasons I've suggested be at the top of the list of priorities.

Posted by Linus | February 14, 2007 5:53 PM

M.Duss,

I can't say that I understand your criticism. Indyk and Makovsky are basically components of the "Peace Process" universe. They exist to facilitate a deal between the sides, which last I checked, is what responsible peace-loving people desire.

I don't know what you mean by "rejectionist myth." Looking forward instead of backward, I do know that Hamas is rejectionist, and that no deal will be reached until they come around. I also know that a critical mass of Israeli society is prepared to accept a deal along the Clinton parameters.

Posted by David | February 14, 2007 5:56 PM

Palestinian identity is a modern construct that exists almost entirely in opposition to Israel

See, when you repeat utterly discredited nonsense like that, you might as well be wearing a red nose and a rainbow-colored afro wig. That view has about as much cred among historians as the "young earth" theory does among geologists.

As for your comment about "Porches (sic) and prostitutes", I'd offer that A) Saudi royals are by no means representative of "the Arab elite", and B) the fact that the Palestinians have been poorly served by other Arab groups, and I think they have been, in no way mitigates or excuses the ongoing brutalization of Palestinian society, and colonization of Palestinian land, by Israel.

Indyk and Makovsky are basically components of the "Peace Process" universe. They exist to facilitate a deal between the sides, which last I checked, is what responsible peace-loving people desire.

I don't dispute that in terms of Indyk, Makovsky is another matter. My point is that, in a hearing on "Next Steps in Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process," the U.S. Congress will be hearing from a guy who is strongly supportive of Israel's position, another guy who is really, really supportive of Israel's positions, and a third guy who is stark-raving insane supportive of Israel's position. AS I said in my first post, in the U.S., this qualifies as "hearing from all sides," and is part of the reason why we still have to endure nonsense about Palestinian identity like the stuff Linus is shovelling.

Posted by M. Duss | February 14, 2007 6:56 PM

"See, when you repeat utterly discredited nonsense like that, you might as well be wearing a red nose and a rainbow-colored afro wig. That view has about as much cred among historians as the "young earth" theory does among geologists."

No, you're right. And the German nation isn't a creation of 19th century nationalism and revisionism but a magical tribe whose homeland was invaded, divided, and sullied by Jew types in the mists of the middle ages.

Posted by Linus | February 14, 2007 9:33 PM

Linus, I won't take offense at your clumsy imputation of anti-Semitism, but rather recognize it for what it is: the frantic flailing of a man who has realized he's out of his depth, and has been caught repeating a bit of received wisdom.

Your assertion that

"Palestinian identity is a modern construct that exists almost entirely in opposition to Israel"

is basically the polite version of "Palestinians don't exist," though it is, in my view, no less offensive. It is, in short, not a credible historical argument, but rather a political argument used to justify the disposession of Palestine's indigenous inhabitants.

Briefly, Palestinian identity began to develop at roughly the same time, and for the same reasons, that other Arab national identities developed, in the mid-nineteenth century. Zionism certainly played a part in the development of that identity, for the obvious reason that Palestinians were aware that the Zionists were trying to colonize and take over part of Palestine. Recognizing that Zionism played a part in the development of Palestinian identity, however, in no way justifies the claim that Palestinian identity "exists almost entirely in opposition to Israel," as that identity was already well-developed before Israel existed.

Posted by M. Duss | February 14, 2007 11:17 PM

"Linus, I won't take offense at your clumsy imputation of anti-Semitism, but rather recognize it for what it is: the frantic flailing of a man who has realized he's out of his depth, and has been caught repeating a bit of received wisdom."

In other words, Linus is a big dumb jerk. He should do his dark heart of Arabia bit for someone who cares.

Posted by Linus | February 14, 2007 11:48 PM

David, the problem is that they are the ONLY witnesses, and they are biase3d and completely one sided. A hearing usually involves two points of view, unless it's rigged. By ONLY having AIPAC representatives on the panel (formally so or not) they avoid any possibility of exposure to any view other than "Israel is sacred and has the right to do whatever it wants because it's better than the dirty wog nations". That you don't know what the "rejectionist myth" means indicates that you've actually not studied the other sides position or even objective history. I'll break it down for you. Bill Clinton told the Palestinians that they would recieve a great many things, including a real country not dissected with military checkpoints and an honest attempt at resolving the right of return and settlement issues. Instead, he issued a one-sided take it or leave it peace offering that did not provide for an unintterupted country and did not provide for a country actually operated by the palestinians. Instead it merely created Palestine as a colony wherein Israel still controled 35% of the country and all major roads within it. In other words, it did not offer them what they had been promised: A soveriegn nation. When Arrafat rejected this "peace plan", he tried to make a counter-offer but was told that he had to accept the Israeli-American offer or the peace process was over. Not being a doormat, he did what anyone who gets pissed on does, he told Clinton to fuck off. So don't pretend that the plan offered by Clinton was the plan everyone had agreed on. It wasn't, it was a completely different plan that included none of the agreed upon frameworks. That's the "rejectionist myth".

Not that it matters. America is not interested in peace, it's just interested in being less obvious about it's one-sided policies and dishonest negotiating techniques. America has thousand reasons not to support Israel the way it does, the primary being that it is manifestly more in it's interest to ally itself with the arabic nations because they have things we can actually use. What do the Israeli's do for us other than make trouble?

Linus, you're pretty obviously a racist and I really doubt you're winning over any converts. Seriously, this is not a deep tribal conflict. There was no heavy animosity between these two peoples before the creation of Israel and the ethnic cleansing of several million Palestinians, most of whom were forced into other nearby countries. No ancient blood fueds, no historical racism. Just a bunch of white men that took land from a bunch of brown men and gave it to other white men. You're lying, and I get the distinct impression that like a lot of other Shills for Israel, you know it and just don't care. You think you're divinely right and as such you are justified in lying your ass off.

Posted by soullite | February 15, 2007 7:28 AM

Soullite --

What do you think the outcome should be in Israel vis a vis the Palestinians? It sounds like you have a specific plan, and I would be curious to hear it (and no, I'm not being sarcastic -- I'm genuinely curious given your last posting).

Posted by IP Guy | February 15, 2007 7:40 AM