I Can't Even Think of An Appropriate Joke

Haaretz reports that "The Bush administration has given Israel permission to discuss the future of the Golan Heights, security arrangements and Israeli-Syrian peace accords if it agrees to talks with Syria." But Nancy Pelosi's a traitor -- dhimmitude! That said, if I were an Israeli and I woke up to read in my morning paper (though my understanding is that few actual Israelis read Haaretz) that my government was getting "permission" from the United States to conduct diplomacy with an adjacent country I might worry that something had gone awry in the US-Israeli special friendship.

Like the people driving the relationship, and policy to the region generally, are bloodthirsty and crazy, with no actual idea about how to advance American or Israeli interests.

Comments

Considering just last night I was talking with someone worried about what many here as a probable summer war with Syria (though I don't see how one starts), I suspect some might be relieved.

I like how the American ambassador is apparently out of the loop.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | May 21, 2007 10:16 AM

The new "concession" from Bush is pretty meaningless anyway, according to the story. Israel can talk about the Golan with Syria, but not about anything that would be an issue between Syria and the U.S., including terrorism, Lebanon, Iran, etc. How Israel and Syria are supposed to come to an agreement under those terms is...well...not so clear (read: obviously impossible).

This new approach of "you can talk to them, but WE won't" is a bizarre arrangement that seems like a "compromise" hashed out to appease some pro-negotiation people (Within the administration? Outside the administration, i.e. maybe the Saudis? I'm not sure) without actually changing anything.

Posted by Haggai | May 21, 2007 10:19 AM

To complete the AmFoot troika here:

I'd say that the recent thawing of relations between the US/Israel and Syria is likely part of the effort to counter Iran (the first steps in the attempt to peel Syria from its ally Iran, thus leaving Iran more vulnerable and with less geographic reach for retaliation).

Part of that would involve some level of normalization between Syria and Israel - and Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni regimes in the region have been pushing the Bush administration on this front as one of their pre-requisites to forming a muscular alliance with the US and Israel contra-Iran.

In a similar vein, Olmert recently announced a willingness to engage Arab States regarding the Saudi land-for-peace deal.

In both instances, though, making pleasing sounds is a lot easier (and more common) than any actual progress. Especially given the weak mandate of Olmert.

All too often, these types of diplomatic dances amount to bones thrown in the direction of the concerned parties in order to secure their cooperation along ulterior agendas. And nothing really gets resolved.

Posted by Eric Martin | May 21, 2007 10:38 AM

Obviously, this is mostly a charade given that Israel can and does talk to whoever it wants. While there's lots of huffing-and-puffing in US politics in favour of Israel adopting militarist/chauvinist policies towards arabs, and of course Israel does generally adopt those sorts of policies, there is no constituency in US politics for actually sanctioning Israel for not being right-wing enough, and where no possibility of sanction exists, Israel will do as it pleases.

Posted by otto | May 21, 2007 10:52 AM

"...there is no constituency in US politics for actually sanctioning Israel for not being right-wing enough, ...."

I wouldn't be sure of this, otto: not, at any rate, as long as the Bush Administration is in office. There is most likely just the right number of "constituency" - the neocon cabal at the core of the Bush regime - to ensure that any Israeli/Syrian "negotiations" stay at the level of political theater: big plans, noble intentions, lofty rhetoric, splashy photo-ops: and in the end, no progress, and the status quo maintained.

Posted by Jay C | May 21, 2007 11:02 AM

Obviously, this is mostly a charade given that Israel can and does talk to whoever it wants.

It's always good to start the day with a bit of humor. Thanks for the chuckles, otto.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | May 21, 2007 11:48 AM

Which of us is the client-state and which one is the master?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 21, 2007 12:09 PM

though my understanding is that few actual Israelis read Haaretz)

No this is bullshit. Perhaps you're thinking of the Jerusalem Post?

Posted by g | May 21, 2007 12:18 PM

The reason why the Bush administration, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are unenthusiastic about Israel/Syria negotiations is that, given his demonstrated incompetence in Lebanon last summer, they have no confidence in Olmert and fear he would be willing to sell out Lebanon to reach an agreement. If somebody more competent (if there is such a person, given the widespread corruption in Israeli politics) were Prime Minister of Israel, they might show more enthusiasm.

Posted by SLC | May 21, 2007 12:41 PM

Yediot Achronot has been the most widely read newspaper in Israel for many years, with Ma'ariv second and Haaretz third. Here are some numbers from Wikipedia:

Yedioth Ahronoth (ידיעות אחרונות) (The Latest News) — (Est. 1939) A daily circulation of 300,000-600,000

Maariv (מעריב) (Evening Prayer) — (Est. 1948) Average weekday circulation 160,000-270,000.

Haaretz (הארץ) (The Land) — (Est. 1918) Average weekday circulation of 65,000-75,000.

The Jerusalem Post — (Est. 1932) Weekday circulation of 30,000.

Posted by Haggai | May 21, 2007 12:53 PM

Haaretz is the paper of choice of the highbrow readers while the Jerusalem Post is the paper of choice of English speaking readers.

Posted by SLC | May 21, 2007 2:07 PM

Say, there seems to be some sort of armed conflict raging in Lebanon now. Any thoughts on that situation?

How many people need to get killed in Lebanon before folks on here get interested?

Posted by Fred | May 21, 2007 3:32 PM

Update on the Lebanon situation: The group fighting with Lebanese government troops appears to be an Islamist offshoot of Arafat's old Fatah movement called Fatah al-Islam. And they are operating out of "refugee" camps, where descendants of Palestinian refugees from sixty years ago are confined by Lebanon, and prevented from holding jobs or otherwise integrating into Lebanese society.

I wonder how much more interesting the region would be ("interesting" in the sense of the old Chinese curse) if the descendants of hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries had been kept in similar camps for sixty years.

Posted by Fred | May 21, 2007 6:47 PM

That's why the Palestinian right of return is so important, Fred.

Posted by Bill | May 21, 2007 8:17 PM

"That's why the Palestinian right of return is so important, Fred."

Fatah al-Islam isn't doing a good job of selling the benefits of that policy for Israel. I frankly wonder if old-school Fatah and Hamas would welcome them either.

The more salient point, IMO, is that the cynical policy of confining Palestinians to refugee camps in Lebanon created a time bomb for that country. Had they let the Palestinians -- who speak the same language, worship the same religions, etc. -- get jobs, start business, and live like other residents of Lebanon, radical groups like Fatah al-Islam wouldn't be shooting at Lebanese troops now.

Posted by Fred | May 22, 2007 1:36 AM

Exactly, Fred, just as the policy of confining Palestinians to camps in the Gaza strip hasn't worked either.

Posted by Bill | May 22, 2007 7:48 AM

Bill,

Who is confining the Palestinians to those camps, the UNHCR? The Palestinians otherwise have Gaza to themselves.

Posted by Fred | May 22, 2007 8:01 AM

The more salient point, IMO, is that the cynical policy of confining Palestinians to refugee camps in Lebanon created a time bomb for that country. Had they let the Palestinians -- who speak the same language, worship the same religions, etc. -- get jobs, start business, and live like other residents of Lebanon, radical groups like Fatah al-Islam wouldn't be shooting at Lebanese troops now.

Would that be the same language, religion, etc., as the Druze or the Christians? The Sunnis or the Shiites, or all of the above? As we know "they" [meaning the Lebanese] are a homogenous group.

And absorbing refugees is easy!

The Palestinians otherwise have Gaza to themselves.

And what splendid real estate that is.

Posted by Eric Martin | May 22, 2007 5:17 PM

"Would that be the same language, religion, etc., as the Druze or the Christians? The Sunnis or the Shiites, or all of the above? As we know "they" [meaning the Lebanese] are a homogenous group."

The language would be Arabic, which post Lebanese and Palestinians speak. The religions would be, primarily Sunni Islam and Christianity among the Palestinians; there are plenty of Sunni Muslim and Christian Lebanese.

"And absorbing refugees is easy!"

No, but it's better than the alternative of cynically keeping them in refugee camps to use as a political weapon against Israel. Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees kicked out from Arab countries; there's no reason Arab countries like Lebanon couldn't have done the same with Palestinian refugees.

"And what splendid real estate that is."

Prime Mediterranean beach front, if the Pals would stop making it a war zone by shooting at each other and provoking Israel by launching rockets into Israel from there. Why not try to build something for once, instead of the constant whining and nihilism?

Posted by Fred | May 23, 2007 12:51 AM