"More Atlantic for me"

Peretz strikes back offering, unless I'm mistaken, no actual arguments that I'm mistaken in thinking that Hamas-Fatah violence is largely the result of deliberate American policy. But to go through the sequence of events, Fatah used to rule the roost on the Palestinian side of the Green Line. Then the US proclaimed that the Palestinian Authority needed to implement political reforms and hold elections. The Palestinians went to the polls and duly booted out the ruling party in favor of the main opposition party. At this point, the US government, apparently run by morons, realized that the main opposition to Fatah was . . . Hamas.

For the record, I didn't mean to imply that Fatah are quislings. Rather, that the implicit logic of the election scheme seemed to be an American belief that elections would bring a new quisling government to power in order to replace Fatah. Instead, of course, Hamas won. At which point the United States embarked upon a campaign of funneling all monies away from the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority government and directly into the hands of Fatah-run security services. Shockingly, this has tended to fuel rather than constrain intra-Palestinian fighting. Similarly, the US State Department discouraged the Saudis from trying to heal the Fatah-Hamas breach.

This is all laid out in David Samuels' Atlantic cover story on Condoleezza Rice, a story that's wildly more friendly to Rice than anything I would have said. But this, according to Rice's friends, is Rice's brilliant plan in action. Greg Djerejian responds to a different missive from Peretz here.

Comments

Fatah are Quislings.

Posted by ~~~~ | May 19, 2007 12:52 PM

That's the story at face value.

How about the idea of the US asking for elections so as to conveniently freeze the peace process on the calculation that Fatah would refuse to cooperate?

And that plan B was for Hamas to get elected precisely so that any negotiations with terrorists be denied?

Obviously, I can accept the idea that well-meaning but not particularly influential people like Rice really did believe the story Matt proposed, while more cynical and influential people like Elliott Abrams knew precisely what they were doing.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | May 19, 2007 12:54 PM

OK, show me a place that has a total fertility rate of 5.6, has no economy to speak of, is completely loaded to the gills with Kalashnikovs, and has a population density rarely seen this side of Bangladesh. And then tell me that place isn't going to explode in violence.

The Gaza violence is not fundamentally about elections or opposition parties or quisling governments. It's about a whole ton of desperately poor people crammed into a tiny little space and given automatic weapons. The only way I think it's going to stop is if the Strip is opened up so Gazans can leave.

Posted by Mr. Noah | May 19, 2007 1:11 PM

Matthew Yglesias: Anti-Semite, self-hating Jew (Peretz)
Howard Dean: Anti-Democrat, self-hating liberal (DLC)
Christina Hoff Sommers: Anti-Feminist, self-hating woman (Yglesias)

Posted by anon | May 19, 2007 1:20 PM

As Condi said last summer about another conflict just to the north, these are the birth pangs of a new Middle East.

So nothing to be concerned about. If people are killing each other and shit, eventually the result will be a new Middle East, and Condi's sure we'll love it when it gets here, and you can't make an omelet without spilling buckets of blood, or something.

Posted by low-tech cyclist (formerly RT) | May 19, 2007 1:27 PM

Hmm. Set of terrorists (1) killing set of terrorists (2). Let me think for a second...

Nope. Can't be bothered to care.

Posted by James Robertson | May 19, 2007 1:37 PM

Nope. Can't be bothered to care.

Hmm. Ignorant fucker (1) making glib remark (2).

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 19, 2007 2:16 PM

Notice the raving racist's rhetorical construction: "the Arabs of Palestine." The flipside, of course, is "the Jews of Palestine."

When will we realize that sending $5 billion, per annum, to the Jews of Palestine, gives US taxpayers some leverage that the Bush/Cheney regime seems unwilling to deploy.

As long as the "Jews of Palestine" continue to attempt to destabilize the democratic results of the the elections the Arbas of Palestine held there will continue to be these kind of fratricidal struggles. Until the "Jews of Palestine" return to their internationally-recognized borders this kind of violence will continue. Will the "Jews of Palestine" end their illegal Occupation on their own? Doubtful.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | May 19, 2007 2:22 PM

I have the feeling that you're getting through to Peretz with your quisling voodoo tango and wango dance. Or is he always that way nowadays?

When are you going to announce your Fatah membership to the general public? Don't answer me here of course, email me.

Posted by John Emerson | May 19, 2007 2:38 PM

Given that the legitimate Palestinian government is strongly committed to war with Israel, encouraging Palestinian infighting seems like a perfectly good policy.

Implicit in Matt's argument is that there's some US policy that would have resulted in a Palestinian government willing to make peace on terms something like a return to the 1967 borders. But what reason is there to believe that?

The Palestinians have made pretty clear (in the 2000 round of peace negotiations, in their last elections) that that, at best, they're only going to accept an Israeli surrender. They basically want a binational state ruled by Palestinians. The minimal version of this is an unlimited right-of-return, while Hamas essentially wants the maximal version where most Jews leave or are killed.

Mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari: the US subsidy (which is closer to $2.5 billion than to $5 billion) probably buys the US enough leverage to get the Israelis to accept a 1967-borders peace. But it doesn't buy enough leverage to make Israel accept the kind of suicidal peace that Hamas would like to impose.

Posted by Ragout | May 19, 2007 3:29 PM

Nick Kaufman is right, Israel has been trying to start an internal war there for a long time.

Posted by abb1 | May 19, 2007 3:31 PM

Ragout and Don Williams make a nice matched set.

Posted by Jon | May 19, 2007 3:33 PM

I don't know if the Israelis are encouraging a civil war or not, but I do know that a civil war in Gaza was widely predicted when the Israelis first announced that they were going to pull out.

Who's Don Williams? Someone else who makes substantive arguments rather than just snide remarks?

Posted by Ragout | May 19, 2007 3:40 PM

Given that the legitimate Palestinian government is strongly committed to war with Israel, encouraging Palestinian infighting seems like a perfectly good policy.

I can see why some would take that view. Peretz, however, seems to think it's some outrageous smear on my part to assert that this is the policy.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | May 19, 2007 3:46 PM

I don't understand Peretz' obsession with Palestinian ethnicity. If you've read the Old Testament you know it distinguishes between Judean (Jewish), Philistine (Palestinian), Ammonite (Jordanian), Moabite (Northern Egyptian), Phoenician (Lebanese) etc... If you're going to make a distinction between Jewish and Palestinian Israelis, then you must also make a distinction between Palestinian and Jordanian Arabs.

On the flip side, if there is no cohesion, then what's the point of collective punishment? What happens to the myth that "all Palestinians only want war"? What then happens to the justification for killing as many Palestinians as possible?

The fact is, yes the Middle East is tribal (like most desert cultures), yes it's violent (although less so than Africa or Europe 200 years ago), and yes it's full of Arabs (duh). This is like moving to Sicily, complaining that it's full of Italian mafiosos, and deciding the only solution is to bomb all the Italians in the city.

Eventually the Palestinians will have to accept an Israeli state, but it will take a lot of time. In the interim, we are either increasing or decreasing the number of our enemies. To say that people's sentiments are not a direct result of their circumstances, or that they will not change their minds, is to deny their humanity. And to use that as an excuse to kill as many people as we want through direct or indirect means is murderous and counter-productive.

Posted by Lana | May 19, 2007 3:53 PM

Lana,

Peretz's point is that Palestinian nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon. This is true, although I don't agree with the implication that their nationalism is therefore illegitimate.

But you're also wrong when you say: "This is like moving to Sicily, complaining that it's full of Italian mafiosos, and deciding the only solution is to bomb all the Italians in the city." Actually, when Jews were immigrating to Palestine before WWII, there wasn't any Palestinian nationalism. Most Jews at the time reasonably believed that they could live in peace and prosperity with their Arab neighbors. Remember, back then, Jews and Muslims lived together relatively peacefully in almost every middle eastern country.

Posted by Ragout | May 19, 2007 4:14 PM

Actually, when Jews were immigrating to Palestine before WWII, there wasn't any Palestinian nationalism.

Well, being ethnically cleansed and subjected to a military occupation for a few generations typically takes care of this kind of anomaly.

Posted by abb1 | May 19, 2007 4:51 PM

Remember, back then, Jews and Muslims lived together relatively peacefully in almost every middle eastern country.

"Relatively peacefully" being a, uhm, relative term. And European Jews were fairly naive about what the Middle East was actually like.

Posted by vanya | May 19, 2007 5:18 PM

OK, show me a place that has a total fertility rate of 5.6

followed by....

They [the Palestinians] basically want a binational state ruled by Palestinians.

Well, unless Israel can figure out a way to get a settlement on a permanent Palestinian state, it's hard to see how the latter scenario isn't the inevitable alternative.

Posted by Tyro | May 19, 2007 5:53 PM

Vanya,

Yes, Jews were second-class citizens in Muslim countries, but it was still a lot different from today when all the middle eastern countries have expelled almost all their Jews.

More generally, there hasn't been a continuous Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the dawn of time. Israel's Arab neighbors have launched numerous wars, of course. But Israelis lived relatively peacefully with the Palestinians until the first intifada in 1987. The Palestinians were treated as second class citizens, but large numbers worked in Israel, Jordan played a major role in administering the West Bank, and there were few settlers.

It was only in 1987 that the Palestinians demanded statehood. Before that time, Israel had been trying to return the West Bank to Jordan, which didn't want it back. It took all of 6 years for the Israelis to accede to Palestinian demands and sign a deal for Palestinian autonomy. Israel tried to make more concessions in 2000, but the Palestinians weren't interested.

Posted by Ragout | May 19, 2007 6:13 PM

Poor Yglesias!

Posted by mq | May 19, 2007 6:30 PM

Judging by some of the comments at the Spine the TNR readership has suffered a greater decline in quality than the magazine. Or is there a wing-nut contingent that subscribes just so that they can write stupid comments?

Posted by vanya | May 20, 2007 3:56 AM

Ragout, your must be a total lunatic, because no one would hire a paid hack to tell stories this ridiculous.

Posted by abb1 | May 20, 2007 4:01 AM

The Palestinians have made pretty clear (in the 2000 round of peace negotiations, in their last elections) that that, at best, they're only going to accept an Israeli surrender. They basically want a binational state ruled by Palestinians. The minimal version of this is an unlimited right-of-return, while Hamas essentially wants the maximal version where most Jews leave or are killed.

For the record, there were negotiations still going on in Taba in January 2001, and that included discussion about tangible limits of the number of refugees being allowed back into Israel. These negotatiatons were cut off by Barak. There haven't been final status-negotations since then. If you go around saying "we have no partner for peace", then, not surprisingly, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As I said in our last discussion, the popularity of Hamas is a direct function of the brutality of Israel's occupation. Trying to weaken Hamas through an economic embargo is only furthering angering & radicalizing Palestinians, which is what led to Hamas' election in the first place. And if Israel & US are successful in weakening Hamas, then some other, more violent, radical & uncontrollable group(s) will supplant it.

Posted by Peter H | May 20, 2007 4:16 AM

Actually, when Jews were immigrating to Palestine before WWII, there wasn't any Palestinian nationalism. Most Jews at the time reasonably believed that they could live in peace and prosperity with their Arab neighbors

That's certainly not what early Zionist leaders believed.

"Were I an Arab, and Arab with nationalist political consciousness . . . I would rise up against an immigration liable in the future to hand the country and all of its Arab inhabitants over to Jewish rule. What Arab cannot do his math and understand what [Jewish] immigration at the rate of 60,000 a year means a Jewish state in all of Palestine." - David Ben Gurion, letter to Moshe Sharett, 1937. (Quoted in Ben-Gurion And The Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War, Shabtai Teveth, p. 171-72).

"When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves ---- that is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." - David Ben Gurion, 1938. (Quoted in Righteous Victims, Benny Morris, p. 652)

Posted by Peter H | May 20, 2007 4:31 AM

Peter H writes: negotiations still going on in Taba in January 2001...These negotiations were cut off by Barak

Actually, Barak continued negotiating even after the Palestinians launched their 2nd intifada in September 2000. They continued almost until the Israeli elections, when Barak was voted out of office in February 2001.

Barak cut off negotiations? You need to find better sources of information than Z Magazine.

Posted by Ragout | May 20, 2007 5:18 AM

I wrote, "Most Jews [before WWII] reasonably believed that they could live in peace and prosperity with their Arab neighbors."

Peter H responds with by quoting David Ben Gurion as saying in 1937 and 1938 that the Palestinians were very hostile and saw Jews as aggressors. Certainly Nazi ideology was spreading among Palestinian elites during that time. So maybe Peter's right that the serious Palestinian hatred of the Jews began in 1936 rather than 1939, as I said. This hardly undermines my point.

Anyway, if Peter had actually read the Benny Morris book he quotes from, he'd know that Morris basically supports everything I said.

Here's what Morris says on the very next page.

Between 1881 and 1947, the enterprise expanded outward gradually and by purchase, most of the time finding...Arabs ready to collaborate by selling...land to the Jews. For most of the period, land purchase was restricted more by lack of funds than by Ottoman or British limitations or Arab nationalist pressure.

And on the page after that:

Down to the 1920s...The Arabs simply did not exist as a Palestinian people -- as another, competing nationalism. The small minority of politically conscious Arabs saw themselves as part of the wider 'Arab Nation' or of the 'Greater Syria' polity.

And finally,

During the first four decades of Zionist settlement, violence against it was disorganized and relatively rare.

Posted by Ragout | May 20, 2007 6:14 AM

Once again yglesias talks about arabs as if they were leaves in the wind. Their actions not the product of thought and subsequent decision, but merely the result of whatever external pressures are exerted upon them.

This civil war can only to be held to follow inevitably from US policy to weaken hamas if you believe, as yglesias apparently does, that palestinians operate on a level equivalent to animals.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | May 20, 2007 11:38 AM

Barak cut off negotiations? You need to find better sources of information than Z Magazine.

On no! Apparently even the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs gets its information from Z Magazine!

Seriously, though, the way people like Ragout desperately cling to an imaginary version of history is terrifying. It's killed a lot of people -- Palestinian, Israeli and American -- and it's going to kill a lot more.

Posted by ArgleBargle | May 20, 2007 12:43 PM

"They basically want a binational state ruled by Palestinians. The minimal version of this is an unlimited right-of-return, while Hamas essentially wants the maximal version where most Jews leave or are killed."

This is news to me, when have Palestinians ever claimed to want anything besides all of Israel and the occupied territories for themselves and themselves alone?

Hamas seems to want a crushing military defeat against Israel and won't accept peace under any other circumstances AFAICT.

Posted by michael farris | May 20, 2007 1:23 PM

Thanks, ArgleBargle.

Ragout - It's a fact that Israel has avoided final-status negotiations with Palestinians since 2001. You can defend that policy if you wish, but you can't be surprised when it doesn't lead to peace. Like I said, going around saying, "We have no partner for peace" tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy – especially when you’re the vastly stronger party on the ground.

I responded to you about my citation of Znet (actually, it was the Journal of Palestine Studies) on the previous thread.

Posted by Peter H | May 20, 2007 2:27 PM

Also, Ragout, in regards to the Ben Gurion quotes, you can make of them what you want, but their meaning seems pretty clear to me. I should add that the issue was not Jewish immigration per se; of course, Jews had maintained a presence in Palestine since the destruction of the Second Commonwealth, and Jews had emigrated to Palestine thoughout the Middle Ages and into the 19th Century without any problem from the local population. It was only with the advent of the Zionist movement in 1881 that Jewish settlement generated any opposition, and resistance to Zionism became especially pronounced after the Young Turk Revolution of 1908. The source of contention was not a Jewish presence in Palestine, but trying to convert Palestine into a Jewish state.

By the way, I have read Benny Morris' Righteous Victims. For a different perspective on the development of Palestinian identity & nationalism, I would suggest Rashid Khalidi's Palestinian Identity.

Posted by Peter H | May 20, 2007 3:23 PM

Even though this post has fallen back into the archives, the claim that I'm falsifying history still deserves a response.

Peter H wrote: "These negotiations were cut off by Barak." This bald statement is so misleading as to be dishonest since it doesn't mention that negotiations continued even after the Palestinians restarted the fighting.

As ArgleBargle's link shows, negotiations continued right up to Barak's final days in office. It's just that in the month leading up to the election, "final status" negotiations were suspended in favor of talks about the ongoing violence initiated by the Palestinians.

Posted by Ragout | May 21, 2007 1:16 PM