More Israel Stuff

Haggai's views on what to do about the Hamas takeover in Gaza. Bottom line:

As I've said, I think the only thing that can sustain a peace process is to have the final status parameters placed on the table up-front. Hence my disagreement with Indyk on provisional statehood. International-boycott-wise, my price for having it lifted would be participation in THAT process, i.e. one that seriously aimed for final status, not one that says "just recognize Israel up front and we'll go from there." In effect, this would fall into Indyk's camp of a separation/"West Bank first" approach (he's using that term as an ironic twist on the "Gaza first" initial stage of Oslo). And if that kind of comprehensive approach could work in the West Bank, the hope would be that it could either moderate Hamas in Gaza, or moderate Gaza to rid itself of Hamas. Short of participation in that process, I would not lift the boycott on Hamas. I see no other way of achieving real progress. Any short-term attempt to increase contacts on the ground between Israel and Hamas (or, as we've just seen, between Fatah and Hamas) is not likely to last long at all before collapsing into more violence.

It's also true, as Jim Henley says, that one should always hold open the possibility that it may be impossible to resolve the problem in a satisfactory way no matter what the US does. That said, there's no way for America's close relationship with Israel to be viable unless we can also be seen as engaged in the Palestinian problem in a somewhat constructive way. The effort to do otherwise during the Bush years has been a disaster.

Comments

To throw in a few more clarifications: Bush's current policy of "boycott Hamas + no serious diplomatic process" is clearly not working, nor should anyone expect it to work if it continues. My ideal policy is "super-serious diplomatic process + boycott."

But Bush is obviously not going to do anything serious diplomatically. Probably inspired in part by that obvious fact, Daniel Levy is currently taking the position of "if you're not going to be serious about a diplomatic process, at least lift the boycott and get out of the way." It can be argued that this is the best one can even sort of hope for in Bush-world.

Posted by Haggai | June 16, 2007 3:13 PM

"To throw in a few more clarifications: Bush's current policy of "boycott Hamas + no serious diplomatic process" is clearly not working, nor should anyone expect it to work if it continues."

I'd argue that it's working quite well to accomplish their goals. The problem is that their goals are loony.

Posted by Petey | June 16, 2007 3:23 PM

True, it does serve the goal of maintaining a veneer of involvement, since they're lifting the boycott on the West Bank now.

Posted by Haggai | June 16, 2007 3:48 PM

"True, it does serve the goal of maintaining a veneer of involvement"

Oh, I'm far more cynical than that here. I think the goal is to support the maximalist factions of Israeli politics.

Posted by Petey | June 16, 2007 4:01 PM

Jesus, what is all this? Why not just comply with the UN resolutions as they are written and be done with it? They'll decide if they want fatah, hamas, or schmanas; it's nobody's business but their own.

Posted by abb1 | June 16, 2007 4:03 PM

Oh, no, another Israel thread ruined... Abb1 is on pa-troll!

Posted by Lally | June 16, 2007 4:15 PM

Oh, I'm far more cynical than that here. I think the goal is to support the maximalist factions of Israeli politics.

That seems to be true for some of the usual suspects in the administration, but I don't think Bush is totally in that camp. He's generally sympathetic to hard-right views on most foreign conflicts, including this one, but by far the most animating principle of his policy on this one has been to minimize his involvement.

Posted by Haggai | June 16, 2007 4:30 PM

"I think the goal is to support the maximalist factions of Israeli politics."

Was that the goal of Hamas, by discrediting the land-for-peace formula (by lobbing rockets and launching raids against Israel after Israel ceded Gaza to them)?

Posted by Fred | June 16, 2007 4:36 PM

"That seems to be true for some of the usual suspects in the administration, but I don't think Bush is totally in that camp. He's generally sympathetic to hard-right views on most foreign conflicts, including this one, but by far the most animating principle of his policy on this one has been to minimize his involvement."

I'm not down in the weeds on this one, so I don't have any good insight on Bush's motivations and principles here.

But, of course, a minimized US involvement is the Levant is precisely what the maximalist faction of Israeli politics desires...

Posted by Petey | June 16, 2007 4:39 PM

there's no way for America's close relationship with Israel to be viable

Why? Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "viable."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 16, 2007 4:44 PM

by far the most animating principle of his policy on this one has been to minimize his involvement.

and

a minimized US involvement is the Levant

I don't think a U.S. president can be said to be minimizing his involvement when the US is sending billions of dollars to Israel and vetoing UN resolutions left and right on its behalf.

Posted by ArgleBargle | June 16, 2007 4:51 PM

I'm not down in the weeds on this one, so I don't have any good insight on Bush's motivations and principles here.

But, of course, a minimized US involvement is the Levant is precisely what the maximalist faction of Israeli politics desires...

I'm not saying the effects aren't the same, since to a large degree, they are. But during his first administration, Bush was willing to let Powell do whatever he wanted to try to get negotiations going, and to a somewhat different extent now with Rice. If someone brought an Israeli-Palestinian deal to Bush's doorstep that had already been more or less accepted by both sides, he'd probably be fine with accepting it and moving on. Of course, such a thing never happens in that conflict, so the hardliners can undermine whatever minimal diplomatic effort happens to be in play and get Bush's sympathy without much trouble.

Posted by Haggai | June 16, 2007 5:01 PM

Re arglebargle

As usual, Mr. argiebargie neglects to tell anyone about the billions spent on Egypt over the same period. That of course doesn't count since the Egyptians aren't Jews. It is rather clear that Mr. argiebargie, aka David Irving, supports Hamas' goal of forcing the Government of Israel to go out of business.

Posted by SLC | June 16, 2007 6:36 PM

1) I've never seen so much bullshit in the news media in my life.

2) To start with, Marty Indyk is not just a former US Ambassador -- he's Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. The Center funded by Israeli Billionaire Haim Saban.

Those who claim that Bush "lied us into Iraq" in 2002 seem to forget that Bush got a hell of a lot of help from Haim Saban's Center -- because Saddam was a serious threat to Israel.

Anyone remember the Los Angeles Op-Ed that Marty Indyk and Kenneth Pollack put out in December 2002 re the need to depose Saddam NOW? See http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20021219.htm

An excerpt:
*************
"As former U.S. government officials who had access to the most sensitive U.S. intelligence on Iraq, we are well aware of Iraq's continued efforts to retain and enhance its weapons capabilities...
Given that Hussein has chosen not to use his last chance to disarm, how should the United States respond?...
Rather, the Bush administration could take the time it needs to "study" the Iraqi declaration, discussing its falsehoods and fabrications with allied governments until it has lined up all the necessary political and military ducks. Once the best case has been made and the preparations completed (probably in a few weeks), President Bush could announce that, in accordance with United Nations Resolution 1441, we and our allies have concluded that Iraq is in material breach of the 1991 cease-fire resolution and therefore the U.S. will lead a coalition to disarm Iraq by force.

If there must be war, this is the best way. The problem with allowing the inspections to play themselves out is that it is a policy based on hope, and as Secretary of State Colin Powell is fond of saying, "hope is not a plan."...

There is real risk in allowing the inspections to run on indefinitely. The longer the inspections go on and find nothing, the harder it will be for the U.S. to build a coalition when we finally decide to take action...."
--------

Why would anyone interested in the best interests of the United States --vice the best interests of Israel -- care what Marty Indyk says?

Posted by Don Williams | June 16, 2007 7:05 PM

It is rather clear that Mr. argiebargie, aka David Irving, supports Hamas' goal of forcing the Government of Israel to go out of business.

SLC,

I appreciate you're angry and embarrassed that you demonstrated you know nothing whatsoever about various subjects, yet are still eager to pontificate about them.

But you don't have to continue frothing at the mouth in your baleful ignorance. You could choose to learn something about the world. It's a big place and actually very interesting.

I realize the likelihood you'll do this is slim to none, and it's far more likely you'll just spend the rest of your life frothing. But I just put it out there as a possibility.

Posted by ArgleBargle | June 16, 2007 7:51 PM

In his proposal over on his blog, Haggai states:
"Most notable among them is that Bush just doesn't want to get that involved in this [Israel-Palestinian] issue, and never has wanted to, from day 1 of his presidency."
----------
This, of course, is false. From day one, Bush showed that he would give Ariel Sharon a blowjob if that would entice Israel Lobby billionaires like Haim Saban away from the Democratic Party. The 2000 Presidential election -- with $2 Trillion in tax cuts for the rich at stake --was too close for comfort.

Bush did NOTHING to punish Sharon for sabotaging the US peace process by marching through the Al Aqsa mosque with hundreds of armed guards in Sept 2000. In May 2001, Sharon bombed the Palestinians with US made bombs dropped from US-made F16s sold to Israel with US-taxpayer dollars. The rest of the world protested strongly. The State Department moved to slap Sharon but was ordered to stand down by the WHite House.

Bush then rubbed the Islamic World's nose in the mess by giving Sharon 52 more F16s in June 2001. The Al Qaeda order to execute the Sept 11 attack was issued in July 2001. In a Nov 2001 interview, Bin Laden cited US sales of advanced weapons to Israel --and Israel's use of those weapons to kill Palestinian Muslims -- as justification for the Sept 11 attack == statements that were suppressed by the New York Times.

I have plenty of citations to aviation trade journals,etc for anyone who's interested.

I would note that there were other factors in the June 2001 F16 sale beyond influence from the Israel Lobby. The F16s bought $2+ Billion to Lockheed Martin at a time when the company badly needed it. Dick Cheney's wife , Lynne Cheney, was on Lockheed's Board of Directors from 1994 until the Jan 2001 inaugural. The F16s are made in Fort Worth Texas. Lockheed gives millions in donations to the Republicans. Plus, the Israel Lobby had allowed Lockheed to sell F16s to the UAE earlier without opposition based on the sales to Israel also going through.

As I've noted before, Big Oil and Big Defense have greatly advanced their interests in the Middle East via the Bush/Cheney Administration making an unholy alliance with the Israel Lobby --based on taking out Israel's enemies. That alliance with the Lobby kneecaps any Democratic opposition and explains why John Kerry was so tongue-tied during the 2004 Presidential debates.

Posted by Don Williams | June 16, 2007 8:09 PM

All you people who are so happy about doing a deal with Fatah: a large majority voted for Hamas some time back, and Fatah is now conducting a brutal purge on the West Bank. It's so brutal that many men are shaving their beards, because the Fatah gunmen are roughing up or even killing anyone they suspect of being a Fatah member (Islamic purists don't shave their beards). Members of Hamas on the West Bank are being rounded up and shot. In Gaza, similar things are happening to Fatah members, but at this point the Hamas leaders are reaching out for some kind of accomodation and have pronounced an amnesty, while Fatah is doing its best to crush Hamas.

It's a bad situation, but anyone talking about democracy promotion at this point is full of crap. The "quartet" has decided to support a brutal Fatah dictactorship, one intent on killing its opponents. Furthermore, the people doing the killing have conducted attacks on Israeli civilians, they are the al Aqsa Martyr Brigades and similar groups, and form the out-of-control fringe of Fatah.

Posted by Joe Buck | June 17, 2007 1:01 AM

a large majority voted for Hamas some time back

Not really. Not if you mean popular vote. Hamas won 44 percent of the popular vote but 56 percent of the seats, while Fatah won 42 percent of the popular vote but, because of votes-per-seat anomalies, only 34 percent of the seats.

Posted by Ellen | June 17, 2007 9:00 AM

Peace Process means process not peace. It means talking, talking, talking while Israel fills up the West Bank with settlers, while making Palestinian's lives so horrible that they trickle out to other parts of the world in a slow motion expulsion.

Israel will never force the settlers to leave. The US will never force Israel to do anything.

Posted by Laney | June 17, 2007 7:57 PM