New Republic editor in chief Martin Peretz explains that we shouldn't be involved in trying to foster an Israeli-Palestinian peace process because "In some places in the world, conflicts are resistant to U.S. influence. Like infections that are resistant to antibiotics." Interestingly, I won't be holding my breath waiting for Peretz's column about how since the US has no influence over conflicts in that region, we may as well cut off Israel's foreign aid. Also see that he's kind of toying with analogizing Palestinians to bacteria, but doesn't quite go there. It's classy.
« Probability of War: Declining | Main | Talking About Iran »
The Pestilence
01 Apr 2007 02:11 pm
Comments (26)
Peretz is a joke, but I'm not sure this post is fair. First, it's clearly the case that US interference can have unintented consequences (e.g., criticizing Chavez probably helps him, praising Iranian moderates probably hurts them). The disease/resistence analogy isn't perfect, but it's getting at something real.
Peretz also doesn't really say anything to imply that Palestinians are germs - that may be what he's driving at, but you'd need extrinsic evidence to draw that conclusion.
Finally, even if the US can't resolve mideastern conflicts, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't give Israel lots of money. Maybe we should, maybe we shouldn't, but it's not as though the only justification is that the US must resolve the conflict.
Wasn't it all the vogue to abuse medical analogies in Nazi Germany? What's next, pest control analogies?
This is the second person in short succession who youve strongly implied is a racist based upon disagreements with their politics. Well done
Going by most accounts the implication is accurate.
"Since the only solution that will satisfy the Palestinians is one in which the State of Israel agrees to go out of business"
You seem to know little about the Palestinians or about the most recent negitiations. In 2000 the two sides were very close on issues which Americans often assume are intractable (Jerusalem, the settlements, etc.). The impasse can be blamed at least in part on Arafat, but not on some unmoveable essence in the Palestinians. Most Palestinians support recognition of the state of Israel; they supported Hamas in the election because Hamas was seen as less corrupt, and because they thought taking a hard line would lead to an eventual two-state peace (sound familiar?). I think they were wrong, but they were not wrong because they'd rather die under occupation than acknowledge the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine.
"In some places in the world, conflicts are resistant to U.S. influence. Like infections that are resistant to antibiotics"--Ambassador Peretz.
"This is the second person in short succession who youve strongly implied is a racist based upon disagreements with their politics. Well done"
Posted by: the invisible pimp hand
Well, given the context, and, um, Marty's, history on the topic, I would say MY is underplaying the racism on display here.
Re Jeremiah
The 2000 negotiations failed because the Palestinians refused to give up the demand that all Palestinian refugees and their descendants be allowed to resettle in what is now Israel. This demand is tantamount to a demand that the State of Israel go out of business. Contrary to Mr. Jeremiahs' claim, the Palestinians in refugee camps would rather remain therein then give up this demand. It may be that some Palestinians not living in refugee camps are willing to give up this demand but they are not calling the shots and it appears they will never be calling the shots.
SLC's comment: "The 2000 negotiations failed because the Palestinians refused to give up the demand that all Palestinian refugees and their descendants be allowed to resettle in what is now Israel" - points to what the U.S., as it retracts from its former hegemonic position in the Middle East, can do: set up a reparation fund for Palestions. A ten billion dollar fund or so. Israel won't do it, Hamas obviously wants that issue to remain alive, and it is in the U.S. interest that Palestinians not only form a state, but a successful state. The U.S. spent maybe one hundred times the ten billion dollar amount on Israel over the last fifty years, and we got, for that money, a fairly successful country - although one that still can't support itself and the military role it has taken on. So how about an active humanitarian intervention that doesn't involve the military? And that is cheaper than three months in Iraq?
Israel's hardcore supporters might kick because of the symbolism, but I think their real problem would be that it might work - for in essence, the hardcore wants the Palestians to move out of the West Bank - in other words, they want an expanded Israel. That would make the offer politically challenging in this country, but it would be interesting to see what the objections would be. I imagine they would come down to: such a plan would make a Palestinian state viable.
Roger:
"Set up a reparation fund for Palestions. A ten billion dollar fund or so."
Would we have to set up a fund for the Jewish refugees kicked out of the Arab countries at the same time? A third of Baghadis were Jews -- a merchant class whose property was stolen from them. Do they get reimbursed too?
Also, have you considered by how much the number of self-indentified Palestinians will grow once you start that trust fund? Why wouldn't every Arab in Jordan, Lebanon, etc. say they were Palestinians? How would you determine whether or not they were?
SLC:
The 2000 negotiations failed because the Palestinians refused to give up the demand that all Palestinian refugees and their descendants be allowed to resettle in what is now Israel.
Actually, as reported by hardheaded realists like Caroline Glick, the negotiations failed because the Palestinians refused to give up their demand that they get all the Iraqi WMD that Russia had transferred to Syria.
It's understandable that Israel-bashers like SLC don't want to mention this. But for those of us who live in the real world, it's important to get these things right.
Re ArgleBargle
I think one can say, without fear of contradiction that Mr. ArgleBargle is about as humorous as AIDS.
I think one can say, without fear of contradiction that Mr. ArgleBargle is about as humorous as AIDS.
Well, to each their own. That's something that hardheaded realists like myself have always understood, and that Israel-bashers and Arab-lovers like SLC will simply never comprehend.
Anyway, I must be off, on my new mission with Caroline Glick to prevent the UN from handing over all of the Iraqi WMD in Syria to the Palestinians!
Re ArgleBargle
yawn
SLC, it's perfectly natural for you to be upset that Caroline and I didn't ask you to come along on our supersecret mission. We understand, and won't hold it against you.
Re ArgleBargle
Mr. ArgleBargle is the man from it and how it happened.
Stephan, as I pointed out, the amount of money we have given to Israel is much greater than the fund for the Palestinians, so we have, in effect, already paid reparations to the Jews kicked out of Yemen, Algeria, Iraq, etc. But the point here isn't to repay the moral debt owed any people who have been dispossessed - the point, of course, is to insure peace in the Middle East by solving the one continuing crisis that continues to cause region wide turmoil. We've spent much more insuring non-peace, re our policy in Iraq, military support for Israel from 1967 onwards, etc.
As for the expansion of the number of Palestinians asking for reparation, I simply don't think that would be a problem. If it was, that would be great. Even if the fund had to be doubled because of fraud, it would still be an amazingly cheap solution to the problem. But the real hitch in implementation, I think, would be that Hamas would threaten those who took the step to resolve the return issue. Israel's interest and the radical Palestinian group's interest converge here.
That analogy makes no sense. OK, a war is like an infection, got it, good one. But U.S. influence is like antibiotics? Where'd that come from? Does U.S. influence regularly stop wars? Maybe I'm just too young...
Re roger
As I have previously stated, the evidence is that the Palestinians living in refugee camps will except nothing less then being allowed to relocate in what is now Israel. It matters not at all what Hamas does or Fatah does, or Saudi Arabia does or the US does. The bottom line is that until the subject Palestinians face reality, there is no solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict.
Peretz also doesn't really say anything to imply that Palestinians are germs - that may be what he's driving at, but you'd need extrinsic evidence to draw that conclusion.
That's an excellent point. Or it would be if there weren't HEAPING MOUNDS of your so-called extrinsic evidence...
SLC - "the evidence is that the Palestinians living in refugee camps will except nothing less then being allowed to relocate in what is now Israel." This is what I mean by the convergence between Israel's hardcore supporters and Hamas. Of course, there is, to my knowledge, no pool of reparation money set up by Israel to compensate Palestinian refugees, so there could be no evidence on the subject. Evidence here actually means: a priori judgment about ethnic character. Israel's most rightwing supporters certainly would not like to see Palestinians having the kind of money that would allow them to set up a decent, competitive state in the Middle East. However, I don't think it is at all in the American interest to keep encouraging Israel to consider itself a Middle Eastern superpower, able to devastate all economic rivals (like Lebanon), with a vastly inflated, permanent military sector. A non-dysfunctional West Bank state is in the American interest, and that kind of money would very much ease Palestinian stresses. In effect, America would simply do, for the Palestinians, what America has done, successfully, for the Israelis. Sounds like a good thing to me.
Re roger
1. Until such time as the Palestinians living in refugees accept the fact that they are not going to resettle in Israel, it doesn't make much sense to set up such a fund. The current attitude in those camps is that they can't be bought off for any amount of money. In fact, there are reports that Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the US are having discussions about such a fund, in lieu of resettlement in Israel. I suspect that nothing will come of these discussions, if indeed they are taking place.
2. The notion that there is widespread belief in Israel that a prostrate Palestinian Authority is to Israels' benefit is absolute nonsense. Only the Greater Israel movement, which is miniscual movement which has about as much support in Israel as the annex Canada movement has in the United States, holds such views. In fact, even such a noted right winger as Avigdor Lieberman has publicly written that it is to Israels' advantage to have a prosperous PA as a neighbor.
It appears that a third player has entered the lists in the Gaza Strip. The following link indicates that an Al Qaida affiliated group has become engaged with Hamas for control of the Islamic fundamentalist sector. And for Mr. ArgleBargles' information, the writer is an Israeli Moslem Arab with wide contacts in the Palestinian territories who generally knows what he's talking about.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879220984&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
the evidence is that the Palestinians living in refugee camps will except nothing less then being allowed to relocate in what is now Israel.
Would you like to share this evidence with us?
This NY Times article from last week tells how many Palestinians accept that they will not be able to exercise their right of return.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/world/middleeast/26palestinians.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Also inconvenient for SLC's thesis is that the Palestinian Center for Survey and Polciy Research has shown a solid majority of Palestinians in favor of a two state solution since at least the mid-90s.
http://www.pcpsr.org/
Re M. Duss
The NY Times fails to make a distinction between Palestinians in refugee camps and Palestinians not in refugee camps. Of course, many of the latter are doing okay where they are and have little incentive to resettle in Israel where they would probably be worse off. The same is not true of the Palestinians in refugee camps who have steadfastly refused any solution other then resettlement in what is now Israel. The fact that a majority of Palestinians favor a two state solution is irrelevant. They also demand the right to resettle in what is now Israel. Ain't going to happen.
SLC, still waiting for you to provide "the evidence...that the Palestinians living in refugee camps will except nothing less then being allowed to relocate in what is now Israel."
Should I, or should I not, hold my breath?
Comments closed April 15, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Re Peretz
Mr. Peretz is right for the wrong reasons. The problem is that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is unsolvable because the positions of the two parties are so far apart. Unfortunately, not all problems are solvable. Mr. Yglesias' apparent belief is that the the US can solve the problem if we just apply enough pressure on Israel (known as the James Baker/James Earl Carter approach). Since the only solution that will satisfy the Palestinians is one in which the State of Israel agrees to go out of business, and since the aforementioned state is adamantly opposed to going out of business, I don't think that any pressure short of a threat of US military action would suffice.
Posted by SLC | April 1, 2007 2:38 PM