Give Giving Peace a Chance a Chance

I'm not sure this really qualifies as muckraking per se, but over at TPM Muckraker Spencer Ackerman has a post up on how Jewish-Americans and Arab-Americans alike would like to see the United States get more involved (again) in trying to foster an Israeli-Arab settlement:

Contrary to the election-year tendency to pander to Mideast hardliners in the U.S., 68 percent of American Jews and 64 percent of American Arabs say that they'd be "more likely" to back an active peace-processor; only 3 percent of both communities would be less likely to support such a candidate. The same robust support exists in both communities for the notion that promoting a negotiated peace is in U.S. interests: 96 percent of Jewish-Americans and 91 percent of Arab-Americans answered affirmatively. And 89 percent of American Jews and 92 percent of American Arabs agree that "Arab/Jewish American collaboration" is important in making Mideast peace a reality.

Who wants to step up?

Comments

Here's Richardson's chance! If he could solve that I might overlook his recent wanking and vote for him.

Posted by Ryan | June 4, 2007 7:38 PM

Not Marty Peretz, that's who.

Posted by Jon H | June 4, 2007 7:58 PM

Any chance the crack team of Ackerman and Yglesias can shed some light on the crack-smoking motorist/Marion Barry receptionist running down folks in D.C. yesterday?

Posted by Fred | June 4, 2007 8:06 PM

That was a rather egregiously shameless troll.

Anyhow, serious query: is this policy literalism?

Posted by JP | June 4, 2007 8:11 PM

Fred got kicked out of the other bar, so he decided to step down to Matt's Place. Soon he'll be drinking Mad Dog out of a paper bag on the sidewalk.

Posted by John Emerson | June 4, 2007 8:11 PM

It's really meaningless, I'm sure if you phoned Marty Peretz he'd have wound up in the supportive column. Everyone wants peace, what people fight about is what that peace looks like in the end.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 4, 2007 8:18 PM

It is hard to think of anything more irrelevant then the opinions of Jewish and Arab Americans who don't live in Palestine. The fact is that, if peace is to be made,it will be made by the people who live there, not kibitzers in the US.

Posted by SLC | June 4, 2007 8:24 PM

That's right. EH Carr said IIRC: Some people want peace because they want the status quo without fighting for it, others advocate peace because they want to change the status quo without fighting for it.

Posted by otto | June 4, 2007 8:25 PM

It's really meaningless, I'm sure if you phoned Marty Peretz he'd have wound up in the supportive column.

Not at all. Being pro-peace may be a default position among low-information sorts, but hardliners have nothing but contempt for the "peace process," which happens to be a term of art. It's kind of like, you'd think everyone would be in favor of diplomacy, but then you read the WSJ editorial page.

More to the point, Spencer's post also quotes the poll's findings to the effect that both groups overwhelmingly support the existence of the other guy's state.

Posted by Steve | June 4, 2007 8:32 PM

Matt has mentioned how he and Ackerman have pursued local crime stories in the past (the shooting near Matt's house), so it's perfectly reasonable to ask if they might be looking into this crack-smoking motorist incident.

Posted by Fred | June 4, 2007 8:40 PM

Being pro-peace may be a default position among low-information sorts, but hardliners have nothing but contempt for the "peace process," which happens to be a term of art.

Peretz is (highly) theoretically a two-stater. So there is some sort of "peace" he wants to offer. SLC says he is an "Arab lover" over it, and is probably part of the 32% who wouldn't support an American role as peacemaker. I have never been able to discern what SLC would like to see for "peace" but my guess so far is "everyone move over one", where you run all the Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza into Jordan, The Jordanians move out and into Iraq and then it's hugs and puppies for everyone thereafter, so you can't say such a person isn't for peace!

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 4, 2007 8:51 PM

"It's really meaningless, I'm sure if you phoned Marty Peretz he'd have wound up in the supportive column. Everyone wants peace, what people fight about is what that peace looks like in the end."

Peretz wants the kind of peace that comes from being surrounded by sixty foot berms of dead Arabs. I bet the acoustical properties would be remarkable. At least until the bloat sets in.

Posted by Jon H | June 4, 2007 8:53 PM

Go piss up a rope, Fred.

Posted by John Emerson | June 4, 2007 9:07 PM

Re Ed Marshall

My recipe for peace is to recognize that the Palestinian State is in Amman. A two state solution in what currently is Palestine (i.e. all land west of the Jordan River) is not feasible. The West Bank should be returned to Jordan with the border subject to negotiations between the Jordanian Government and the Israeli Government. As for the Gaza Strip, I haven't got a clue since nobody wants it. The Egyptian Government refused to take it back from Israel during the Camp David talks and Israel doesn't want it either. One possibility would be an independent Gaza converted into an industrial city, much like Singapore (as Sharon suggested in his autobiography).

Posted by SLC | June 4, 2007 9:14 PM

Edward Luttwak raises the meta-question of why we should even care about Mideast conflicts in his essay Middle of Nowhere in Prospect Magazine.

For Matt Yglesias, I think, there is an element of moral status seeking in his blogging on this: it's a way to show that he is one of those liberal Jews morally sensitive enough to sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians; he is above the moral squalor of the petty and ethnocentric Marty Peretz. For those further to the left, advocating the Palestinian side is a way to show your multiculti bona fides in opposing a "European", "colonial" power. All of this moral preening overstates the importance of what actually happens in the Middle East, as Luttwak writes.

Posted by Fred | June 4, 2007 9:35 PM

You're flouting me, Fred.

Posted by John Emerson | June 4, 2007 9:50 PM

The problem here is that you are discussing the problem entirely within the US frame of reference, i.e. two state solution equals peace.

Hamas does not want a two state solution, nor do the Likud ultras. Most folk in the US seem to think that what is there is some sort of approximation to a two state solution rather than a one state solution with a Bantustan or two to warehouse the cheap source of labor.

Its not a case of being pro or anti Israel here, its a case of pointing out that the Israeli ultras already think that they have given the Palestinians far more than they should. And they would not change their minds if all violence stopped permanently tommorow.

Israel's position is going to be less defensible over time, particularly if the pro-democracy forces in Iran manage to push aside the theocrats and if the fiasco in Iraq is settled. This is not going to happen soon but its much more likely over a decade or two.

Revolutions do eventually reach a Thermidorean phase. The neocons scheme of creating chaos and letting it settle back is not entirely crazy, well not if you accept the million or so deaths as an acceptable price.

The end result is unlikely to be very friendly to Israel maintaining its 'two citizenship' approach. It is hardly likely that in 2020-2030 that the US will be in any position to impose its will on other countries either. And even if it were it is unlikely to be unconditionally attached to Israel.

Posted by Phill | June 4, 2007 10:07 PM

All of this moral preening overstates the importance of what actually happens in the Middle East, as Luttwak writes.

I think it's impossible to overstate the importance of the Palestine question. That it shouldn't matter is a completely different question. Muslims really, really, care who rules the Levant. Americans really, really care who rules the Levant. George Bush (great-great-great-something Grandfather to the president) was an important "restorationist" who spilled all sort of ink back in the 1840's that America's purpose was to restore Jews to Palestine. This is an old current in American politics that runs through to Lincoln (who also made campaign promises that we were going to get around to Zionism after we saved the Union) to TR (who had more materialist and honest motives than religion).

It really is small beer in the grand scheme of things, but it's also the engine running an insane conflict between Christians and Muslims that makes absolutely no sense in the 21'st century. Maybe it's stupid for them to care, but Muslims didn't give the Palestinians nukes (as France did back in the 60's) or drown them in arms and reduce themselves to ridiculousness in their support (as the U.S. has over things like voting "no" on a global anti-terrorism resolution along with Israel and Micronesia). All I can do is point out the stupidity in all this on behalf of my people, and if it doesn't matter, Fred, then the easiest thing in the world is to let the Israelis sink or swim on their own.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 4, 2007 10:10 PM

the election-year tendency to pander to Mideast hardliners in the U.S.,

Err, let's be a bit more honest here: the tendency is to pander to pro-Israel hardliners. I'm unaware of any tendency to pander to pro-Palestinian hardliners among American politicians.

Posted by M. Duss | June 4, 2007 10:21 PM

What's that? A crime story in D.C. afoot? Saddle up, Yglesias; we've got work to do!

Posted by Spenc/r Ackerm/n | June 4, 2007 10:31 PM

I'm unaware of any tendency to pander to pro-Palestinian hardliners among American politicians.

I'm not sure how you define "hardliners", but GW Bush circa 2000 made one hell of an effort to be the "pro-Palestine" candidate. It wasn't all quite smoke and mirrors either. In the Kabuki theatre of international relations Bush at least downgraded the West Bank and Gaza from "disputed territories" to "occupied territories".

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 4, 2007 10:59 PM

The problem I see with this blog, and the people who comment on it, is that none of you have spent 5 minutes in the shoes of someone living under a colonial occupation.

Put down your books fellas, and go see the world. From my travels, one thing is clear: People in the south, and particularly in the Middle East, want America out of their lives and that includes the liberal imperialists like yourselves. Or as Chavez put it, "Gringo's Go To Hell, Go Home"

Posted by Salviati | June 4, 2007 11:43 PM

"People in the south, and particularly in the Middle East, want America out of their lives and that includes the liberal imperialists like yourselves. Or as Chavez put it, "Gringo's Go To Hell, Go Home"

Heh. Chavez had Venezuelans buying a lot of his "Gringos go to Hell" stuff, but then he had to go be a dick like a typical lefty authoritarian, and take over Venezuela's favorite TV station. Now all of a sudden he's the bad guy to Venezuelans.

How ignorant is Chavez? Does he not understand that just because you can rig an election, censure newspapers, nationalize industries, and intimidate the legislature into giving you near-dictatorial powers, it doesn't mean you can take away everybody's TV privileges!

Posted by Fred | June 5, 2007 4:05 AM

I'm not sure how you define "hardliners", but GW Bush circa 2000 made one hell of an effort to be the "pro-Palestine" candidate. It wasn't all quite smoke and mirrors either. In the Kabuki theatre of international relations Bush at least downgraded the West Bank and Gaza from "disputed territories" to "occupied territories".

Given that almost the entire international community has long considered the territories "occupied," the fact that Bush's recognizing them as such could be presented as "progress" only indicates the perverse treatment of the issue in the US. This is in no sense a pander to Palestinian hardliners.

And, of course, Bush's effective recognition of the legitimacy of large Israeli settlements and negation of the Palestinian right of return in 2002, in which he attempted to unilaterally decide two of the major final status issues in the conflict in Israel's favor, undid, and much more, any positive movement toward a resolution with which he could (debatably) be credited.

Posted by M. Duss | June 5, 2007 8:46 AM

Sigh.

You would think that a Harvard graduate would have realized by now that Washington DC does not give a hairy rat's posterior what America's Jewish citizens think. There are only 6 million of them and most of them are middle class voters whose campaign donations are paltry. Neither their votes nor their money matters.

Our professional political class is a pack of whores and whores go where the money is. So when billionaire Zionists like Mort Zuckerman, Haim Saban and S Daniel Abraham say "Shit" the Democratic leadership squats and starts making grunting noises.

I appreciate my fellow citizens like MJ Rosenberg who are Jewish and who have the courage to stand up to the Israel Lobby and AIPAC. But MJ is frankly pissing into a hurricane.

Size matters -- and when the Democrats biggest donor is an Israeli Billionaire who is strongly
protective of Israeli aggression, then the opinions of America's 6 million Jews are irrelevant. Even when some of those Jews have lost sons in an unnecessary war in Iraq.

Public debate in this country is a deceitful Kabuki dance. You can only participate if you are the mouthpiece for a billionaire patron --i.e., only if you are someone like Kenneth Pollack (Haim Saban), Richard Perle (Conrad Black), Charles Krauthammer ( Graham/Meyer family) or Judith Miller (Sulzberger family)

Otherwise you might as well go off into a forest somewhere and talk to the squirrels.

Posted by Don Williams | June 5, 2007 9:49 AM

Don Williams:

Doesn't an anti-Israel Jewish billionaire Dem contributer like George Soros cancel out Haim Saban?

Just asking.

Posted by Fred | June 5, 2007 2:51 PM

Fred
I dunno. Haim gave the Democrats almost $15 Million in 2000-2002. He's raised about $1 Million for Hillary Clinton this year.

You tell me.

Plus there's other billionaires like S Daniel Abraham who try to exert influence on US Middle Eastern policy.

I also don't see why you think George Soros is "anti-Israel". You might could argue that Soros is "anti-Likud" or "anti-right wing" but Jewish progressives --both in the USA and in Israel --argue the the US neocons' support of Israel's right wing parties has hurt Israel's security more than it has helped it.

Posted by Don Williams | June 5, 2007 5:02 PM

Jewish progressives --both in the USA and in Israel --argue the the US neocons' support of Israel's right wing parties has hurt Israel's security more than it has helped it. - Don Williams

Hey -- I resemble that remark!

Posted by DAS | June 5, 2007 6:00 PM

Ah, Jewish money runs the world.

plus ca change...

Posted by David | June 5, 2007 6:51 PM

I don't recall Pat Robertson or Chuck Krauthammer complaining when Sharon evacuated Gaza.

Posted by David | June 5, 2007 6:55 PM

Re David's comment: "Ah, Jewish money runs the world"
-------
1) MONEY runs the world. Some of it is Jewish, some of it is not.
2) Some Jewish billionaires try to influence US Middle Eastern policy. Some do not.

Why is it that some people can't understand the most simple of concepts? Like,you know , set theory?

Posted by Don Williams | June 5, 2007 11:54 PM

irkyjcb fiacj rwnsug lcmnz axbdugj jwohi mjqbly

Posted by xtledv oxldgjh | June 7, 2007 11:50 AM

ckytbasg ubctr zruoh mlozebix ydesrl ntsakdeoy zrkc http://www.tshgbcn.ornxclpjm.com

Posted by xslc aevmks | June 7, 2007 11:51 AM