Some Must Read Articles on the Impasse Between the U.S. and Israel
I’m on my way for a few days to New York City, but before leaving, I wanted to call your attention to a few important articles on the real issues on the discord now in place between Israel and the United States.
First, Steven Rosen, Director of the Washington Project at Dan Pipes’ Middle East Forum, has written a comprehensive article about the history of Israeli building in the East of Jerusalem and its relationship to any peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Rosen shows definitively that when Barack Obama made its cessation an ultimatum to Israel, it was his action that in fact made any forward movement impossible.
Had Bill Clinton followed what Obama now has done, he points out, and ”taken Obama’s position and issued an ultimatum demanding that all construction in Jerusalem stop, and had Arafat made that American demand a precondition to begin negotiations, the Camp David Summit of 2000 and the Taba talks in January 2001 would not have occurred.” He says near his conclusion: “The record is clear and consistent: The United States has never liked Israeli construction in East Jerusalem, and frequently stated that it complicated the peace process. But until Obama, no U.S. president had made its cancelation a precondition for negotiations, and until Obama, Palestinian leaders including Abbas did not make it a precondition either.” The result is that we have no peace negotiations, and Obama has given the Palestinians a perfect excuse to do nothing at all to make meaningful ones take place.
Second, and equally important, is the article by Alan Dershowitz, who at the Hudson Institute New York website, writes that “No one in their right mind believes that Israel has any obligation to give up the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, the holiest Jewish site in the world, despite the fact that it was recaptured during the 1967 war.” Palestinians know this, he emphasizes, and never protested about it before. But, he notes, The bellicose response came from the American leadership, which refused to let the issue go. Once this piling on occurred, the Palestinian leadership had no choice but to join the chorus of condemnation, lest they be perceived as being less Palestinian than the Obama Administration.”
Dershowitz is correctly angry about what he calls “the phony arguments” attributed to General David Patraeus and Vice-President Joe Biden that Israel is a danger to American troops, that have “now taken on a life of their own,” despite the denial by those cited that they ever made any statements of that nature. He cites the usual suspects, people for whom facts never get in the way of an anti-Israeli argument. The list includes Joe Klein, Roger Cohen, Pat Buchanan and others. About this false argument, he writes: “ By seeking to scapegoat Israel for the death of American troops at the hands of Islamic terrorists, this argument blames those who love America for deaths caused by those who hate America.”
His final conclusion is the basic one, and Dershowitz states it well: “ when the Palestinian leadership and population want their own state more than they want there not to be a Jewish state, there will be a two-state solution.”
And finally, from Israel, an important editorial appears in The Jerusalem Post. Its editors take up the issue of the importance of ending the dispute with the United States, whose support and alliance is necessary to keep intact. The editors of this supposedly hard-line paper note they fully understand that Israel has to make compromises. All of Israel agrees, they argue, that there has to be a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza that accepts Israel as a Jewish State, and that is willing to live alongside it in peace. And they note that what they call “illegal outposts” by some settlers have to be taken down.
But, they write in their major point, “it seems obvious from here that US pressure on Israel is distancing the Palestinians from substantive compromise, since they see no need to give ground when Washington is doing their bargaining for them. But the Obama administration thinks differently, and that requires a pragmatic Israeli approach.” Therefore “it is vital that Israel not allow itself to be misrepresented as an obstacle to peace, and that it enable the present US administration to discover on its own the nature of Palestinian rejectionism, as a first step toward reversing it.”
The problem they do not address is rather obvious: What will it take for the Obama administration to realize what we all know. The editors do not address what people like Ed Koch have said- as he did yesterday on Neil Cavuto’s program on Fox News, that President Obama obviously accepts the Palestinian narrative, and is not about to pressure the Fatah leadership, leaving his attempt to put pressure on Israel alone. That is why what the Post editors want, a “profound Palestinian shift – toward true recognition of the Jewish state,” is not likely to take place any time soon.
“What will it take for the Obama administration to realize what we all know(?).”
I am going to start crying. Drinking a fifth of whiskey within a fifteen minute time period might also be a splendid idea. Barack Obama is existentially committed to the non-violent radical left-wing worldview. The odds are that he will remain so for the rest of his life. Persuading him to think differently is fine and dandy—but of secondary importance. It is imperative that Obama is effectively marginalized as quickly as possible. Israel and the United States will be safer once his poll numbers are below 40%. Thankfully, the just released CBS poll has him at 44%.
Full-grown adults rarely change their minds regarding their long held existential convictions. What is the chance that the pope will become a snake handling Baptist, or Hugh Hefner becoming a celibate monk? One should be very hesitant of betting on a dramatic shift in a worldview so dearly held. Best to take it for granted that the individual must instead be rendered impotent.
Things are truly backasswards when people who try to confront real and blatant racism head on are the ones who end up being called racists.
Boggles the dazed and confused mind.
This more than an ordinary blunder by a inexperienced executive. It is the reflection of poor moral foundations and a readiness to embrace the prejudices of the fast-think (mental equivalent of fast food) addicts. This president is definitely against the seminal American values that made this nation the shining city on the hill, and against the welfare of Israel, which is also the beacon of hope for the Middle East.
Here are some REAL must read articles:
Caroline Glick (either at JPost or her website), ”Column One: Exploiting the Crisis”
Sarah Honig (also at JPost), ”Another Tack: Putty in His Hands”
Steven Goldberg (American Thinker archives), ” Israel’s Crisis & Opportunity”
Mr Dershowitz, while obviously sincere in his defense of Israel, is an apologist for Obama, basically another intellectually dishonest liberal, unable to see beyond slogans about an unattainable ”peace” –
There is no ”peace process” & given circumstances, pretending that any such process is even desirable is sheer stupidity, just babbling slogans based on false assumptions disconnected from reality.
The two-state solution is total BS – just a step in the destruction of Israel.
There is a Palestinian state & it’s name is JORDAN.
And by the way, the editorial you mentioned in the Jerusalem Post was total crap, just the usual appeasement-minded garbage from our sadly spineless liberal media morons, it was very poorly received by JPost readers who saw it for what is was – cowardice. The editorial policy of the JPost is not at all an indication of Israeli public opinion, it is the viewpoint of mush-for-brains liberals, similar to what you Americans call RINOS – in other words, not looney-leftists like Haaretz, for example, but appeasement-minded compromisers whose policies would lead to a slower national suicide.
Thanks for things that need to be said, Terry.
A steady diet of articles by Caroline Glick and Sarah Honig is just what the doctor ordered for mental health. It does one’s heart a lot of good, too, helps firm up weak backbones by lifting one’s gaze from the ground, keeping one’s head on straight, holding it high, and maintaining a good, strong, stiff neck.
P.S. Also guaranteed to remove every last trace of unsightly yellow streaks, and to prevent further outbreaks.
CAUTION: May be habit forming, but so what? Abi gezunt!
Thanks. What needs to be said is that support for the ”Palestinian cause” depends entirely on re-writing history, accepting a false narrative, & misrepresenting the nature of the Arab war against a sovereign Jewish state.
I must be missing something. Israelis want peace but the settlements make it look like they want to take over the West Bank. And that doesn’t seem to be a viable policy.
If Israel doesn’t want to stop building and expanding settlements then doesn’t the US have to step in?
The Palestinians might be happy about this recent episode but they must know as well that their turn is going to come as well. You want peace bite the bullet.
Gibson Block.
You are definitely missing something – settlements have NOT expanded in any areas controled by the PA since Oslo Accords. Population increases have almost all been in areas sometimes called ”large settlement blocs” – areas that would NOT be part of any Palestinian state but would be formally annexed to Israel in any agreement. These are mostly very close to the armistice line, mainly surrounding Jerusalem. And, of course, Jerusalem is not a settlement.
The policy that is not viable is the two-state solution.
I don’t see the US ”stepping in” when it comes to China’s occupation of Tibet. I do not see the US ”stepping in” for an independent Kurdistan composed of land currently ”occupied” by Iraq, Turkey, Iran, & Syria. I do not see the US ”stepping in” for an independent Chechniya or other countries ”occupied” by Russia. Should I cite other examples?
America has been ”occupying” Mexican territory for quite some time. Same for Hawaii. You Americans seized that land in a war of aggression & colonized the whole area. I might add that from an Israeli & Jewish perspective, Arabs conquered & colonized OUR country.
Hi Terry,
Thanks for your feedback. I have to take note of the things I’ve read about settlements and be more specific when I speak about them.
I can address your reference to Tibet right now.
The US does not have the leverage with China to get them to stand back on Tibet.
If the relationship with China resembled that with Israel I think the US would take a more assertive stance on Tibet.
All the moreso because while China has security issues that involve Tibet, it is a huge well-established country without Tibet.
Gibson Block.
What it seems you are saying is that because Israel is a small country which depends on American support, it’s OK to bully us into accepting policies against our national interest, in effect, policies that endanger our survival.
In any case, you might find it of interest to check out the site THINK-ISRAEL which presents a wide variety of articles – not at all what you may have read up til now in the rather biased mainstream media.