Via Altercation, here’s a succinct statement as to what are the obstacles to peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, as well as who is to blame for not overcoming those obstacles, from “Amos Elon, an Israeli, . . . in the current New York Review of Books:”
The three main impediments to an Israeli-Palestinian agreement are the settlements, control over Jerusalem, and the Palestinian demand for the right of return of the Palestinian refugees and/or compensation for their loss. Of these, however, the problem of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem seems to be the most difficult to resolve. Taken together, these settlements are a huge, intentionally created obstacle that affects hundreds of thousands of lives. And for what? In the best case, the settlements extend the Israeli border to the east by a few miles, a distance devoid of serious strategic meaning; in the worst case, they could perpetuate the hundred-year war between the two peoples indefinitely. Yet there are now so many settlers — over 250,000 in the West Bank — that it may turn out to be impossible to dismantle communities created with the precise aim of precluding a repartitioning of the country. Too many lives, too many political careers and real estate interests — i.e., too many people and political factions within Israel — may depend on it. On the occasion of President Bush’s recent visit to Israel, the lead editorial in Haaretz blamed Bush for being an “accomplice after the fact” in the illegal, constantly expanding Israeli settlement project in the West Bank.
Of course, Bush is not the only accomplice. You might recall that under the Clinton administration, restricting Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory was not exactly a priority either.
Perhaps the most destructive aspect of the Clinton-led peace process was its unwillingness to insist that Israel stop the expansion of Jewish settlements and the taking of land destined for a Palestinian state. Many of the settlements, and all those in tiny crowded Gaza, should have been evacuated early in the process. It is because of the settlements that the pending state of Palestine has taken the shape of islands separated one from another by hostile settlers and the Israeli military. No wonder the Palestinian people lost confidence in the peace negotiations and ultimately in Israel’s commitment to peace itself.
Of course there are reasons that our Presidents have been unwilling to take on the issue of the settlements. The influence of Israel’s right wing supporters, lobbyists and organizations such as AIPAC is one of the principle causes why halting and reversing these settlements is never on the negotiating table. And then there is the question of our own elite media institutions, which for whatever reasons, rarely comment or consider Israel’s settlement process in the Palestinian territories as an impediment to peace.
Eric Alterman after quoting Mr. Elon above, asks the rhetorical question: “How is it that the “pro-Israeli” position in the U.S. media is to ignore the settlements as a cause of violence and an impediment to peace, when so many Israelis feel that way as well?” He then goes on to answer it, in part, by claiming that the current influence of right wing Christians such as John Haggee, who see the expansion of the State of Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem as a necessary requirement to achieving their dream of and end time apocalypse, should bear some of the blame. Yet even the support of extremist Christian fundamentalists, like Hagee, doesn’t explain the reluctance to discuss the problem of the settlements in America’s major news media, when it is a common topic in Israel’s press.
Indeed, it is almost always Palestinian intransigence and “terrorist actions” by Hamas, and anyone who supports Hamas, such as Iran, who are blamed for the failure of the “current” peace process:
As would-be peacemakers bask in the international limelight of the Annapolis conference, back in the Middle East two other parties are serving up notice that no deal will come to pass, if they can help it: Iran and its Palestinian ally, Hamas.
On the other hand, the violence perpetrated by Israel’s governments against the Palestinian people, including the use of “collective punishment” as well as the bulldozing of Palestinian buildings and homes, and the use of the Israeli military ground and air forces to target the “terrorists” often killing Palestinian civilians is rarely if ever mentioned as a barrier to a peace agreement.
Nor is much made of the inaction of many of our Arab allies to the plight of the Palestinians, whose governments cynically use the Palestinian issue to misdirect the anger of their own populations away from their own dictatorial and often brutal regimes and towards the readily available scapegoat: Israel and the Jews. It’s as if the Arab governments and Israel were in some sort of sick symbiotic relationship, in which each benefits from the current situation while ordinary Palestinians suffer the misery of occupation in Gaza or the West Bank, or exile in Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, etc.
Right now the current Presidential candidates rarely, if ever speak about Israel and the Palestinians, or what steps their administrations would take to end the stalemate. And that is because they are afraid to cross AIPAC and inevitable media firestorm that would result from any criticism of Israel’s actions in building settlements in the occupied territories, much less Israel’s actions in oppressing the Palestinian people essentially living under conditions of an “apartheid” regime mandated by Israeli policies over the last four decades, but particularly those implemented by right wing and conservative led Israeli governments. All Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain are willing to do at this point is repeat the by now oft repeated mantra of their undying support for the State of Israel and its right to exist. To say anything more, to indicate that they would make demands on Israel to end the settlements, would be political suicide.
At some point (and who can say when that point will be reached?), the failure of America, Europe and the rest of the world to address this problem will result in either a regional apocalypse, or the outright genocide of the Palestinian people. The Middle East has never been more unstable than it is today. Regional arms races are under way, aided and abetted by the sale of US weapons to our “friends” in the region, which include not only Israel but Egypt, the Saudis and the other Gulf states. Iran is going down a path that may very well lead to the development of nuclear weapons as a bulwark against Israel’s nuclear capabilities. Either Israel will attack them, or other Arab states in the region will begin their own efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. And this doesn’t even consider the risk of Pakistani nukes falling into the hands of stateless terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda or Hamas.
Unless a comprehensive diplomatic effort is made to address the security situation in the Mideast, which of necessity must include a resolution of the “Palestinian problem,” I fear that John McCain’s recent assertion that there will be more wars will become a self fulfilling prophecy. But you won’t hear about any of that on the campaign trail this year from our current contenders/pretenders to the throne of George Bush. The greatest risk to our national security and to peace in the world is the one topic that no American politician will dare talk about.
Update [2008-2-12 9:20:25 by Steven D]: Speak of the devil. Take look at who just authorized 1000 new settlements homes in east Jerusalem.
Israeli housing minister Zeev Boim says tenders will soon be issued for construction of more than 1,000 new homes for Jews in East Jerusalem.
Israel annexed the area in 1967 and has continued settlement activity despite a recent freeze on settlements on other occupied territory in the West Bank.
“The influence of Israel’s right wing supporters, lobbyists and organizations such as AIPAC is one of the principle causes why halting and reversing these settlements is never on the negotiating table.”
FWIW, my take is that American support for Israel’s occupation (and thus the settlements) is because support for Israel is viewed as being in the interests of U.S. elites, not because of the influence of some lobby. The Israel Lobby is powerful precisely because it preaches to the converted – if its message being being delivered to an environment that wasn’t receptive to it, I think AIPAC and co. would be marginal players, at best. The idea that AIPAC could have enough influence to counter-act the power of the infinitely wealthier petroleum lobby, for example, doesn’t seem credible to me.
This would also explain the media’s bias on the issue. The corporate press is slanted in favour of Israel because the corporate elite views support for Israel as in its interests.
I’m not so convinced. The last person to actively work to oppose settlements by Israel in the US government was, surprise, surprise, Mr. Bush I Consigliore himself, James Baker:
I think the realist faction (as opposed to the neocons George the Second signed on with) would have preferred a more stable Middle East. Not all the corporatists are big believers in Israels right to unilaterally expand.
An End Foreseen? –The Arc of Insurgencies
All Israelis should be required to read William Polk’s book “Violent Politics”
I think it’s more about supporting Israel as an outpost of American power in what is considered to be the most strategically important region on the planet than it is about believing in Israel’s “right to unilaterally expand.”
U.S. support for Israel is “a logical corollary” to its opposition to “radical [Arab] nationalism”, as the State Department explained in 1958. The idea that the U.S. establishment, with all its wealth and power and influence, has been somehow tricked or pressured into acting against its interests by a relatively weak lobby is simply not plausible, in my opinion.
To be sure, there are increasing concerns among mainstream elite planning and policy-making circles that the U.S. has overstretched itself in the Middle East and needs to change policy in order to secure control over the oil reserves. These concerns have expressed themselves in, for example, the Walt and Mearsheimer thesis, which is grounded in a fanciful conception of a “national interest” that is being harmed by support for the Israeli occupation. As if this theoretical “national interest” has ever been the determinant of U.S. policy. This may lead the U.S. to pressure Israel into offering a political settlement, but it’s unlikely to be the kind of settlement we or the Palestinians would find acceptable.
I think both Chomsky and lenin have written excellent critiques of the Israel Lobby thesis. The latter in particular is well worth a read – I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on them.
AIPAC represents military contracts. They have been the biggest pushers for missile defense which is single handedly starting an arms race between NATO/USA and Russia.
Look at the billions and billions of dollars for war the Palestinian issue has caused.
AND all the while those settlements were going up, their excuse was. the settlements could easily be vacated. Well, now is the time. And millionaires from New York and Miami and the crazy religious right should NOT be able to fund the settlement movement. It should be against the law. Plus, every time a new settlement starts, the IDF are right there protecting the settlers.
I’m weakly optimistic that a large Obama win in the Gewneral Election (I’m not predicting, just ‘if’ing here) will greatly diminish the power of AIPAC in American Mideast policy. For a number of reasons: the first is that the 12 percent of the population who are Black are six times the number of the 2 percent who are Jewish, and if they vote en masse, as is likely, and get the habit, they will dilute the effect of the Jewish vote in certain states that have always been crucial to Democratic victory. There is also a lot more money in the Black community than their used to be, and this offsets the money advantage.
Perhaps the biggest factor, however, is that in neutralizing AIPAC, a big Ogama win would permit the huge majority of American Jews who support a just settlement in that part of the world to have a more effective voice in our policy.
We live in hope.
I would say that another significant roadblock to Peace is Israel’s nature as a nation: An Ethnocentric Democracy. The nation was born into a ‘constitutional crisis’. This is evinced by the lack of a formal Constitution even after all these years. Imagine the corrosive effect that could have on a nation. Imagine if Bush didn’t have a constitution to fight in order to get his way.
This relates to the issues you mentioned, especially the right of return: How can you be both a Democracy, yet have many, many preferences and benefits only available to one ethnicity? What is a great benefit and relief for one group forces subjugation and second class status to another.
Until Israel is willing to drop it’s ethnic preferences (Then is it still Israel?), there can be no Democracy, no return of the refugees, no real reason to roll back anything.
Basically they have to realize that their founding fathers were right to form the nation, but wrong in how it should be formed. Not to say there was much choice about it, but it seems there could have been a better way.
that would only accept 2% of Americans as immigrants? And they get to define what is a Jew.
Their economy is doing great, their prime rate is better than ours, but we have to give them money. —-Heaven forbidden, we pressure them to the peace table.
No politician can withstand the power of the lobby, so if they stay mum now, it’s better. I just hope the next president solves the problem once and for all.
….we pay for military R&D, and then they get catch selling military secrets to our enemies.
And if we think they are our friends….let’s not forget this:
Yes, Mattes, she did somehow manage to become the senator from New York State without ever having lived there until she found out she would be welcome as the Democratic senatorial candidate. Some political narratives do defy explanation!
Why didn’t she run there?
Because New York offered her a Senate seat, WHY? Clinton screwed the Palestinians.
Are you saying then that supporters of Israel handed the nomination to her? If so, I might tend to agree, but I have no concrete indications how it happened. Hasn’t someone written an account of Mrs. (and Mr.) Clinton’s sudden New York political apotheosis?
I have never read even one article on how she got her senate seat. Odd.
Palestinian revenge was inevitable
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/953282.html
In my view, the most serious impediment to a more equitable American position is the inexplicable failure of otherwise progressive people in both House and Senate to speak out. There is a tacit understanding that certain lines should not be crossed when it comes to Israel. And make no mistake about it: The only way Israel will become less intransigent will be when we put our foot down. This careless partisanship will continue until such a time when we voters will establish some litmus test. There are some rumblings starting to be heard, but we’re a long way off from holding our elected representatives accountable for their unstinting approval of an “ally” engaging in illegal/immoral activities. There is one statement that just sticks in my craw, issued by Eliot Engel during the last Israel/Lebanon hostilities:
“I am very sensitive to Lebanon’s budding democracy. I’m very sensitive to the delicate balancing act we’re in, and I grieve for civilian casualties,” Engel said. But he added: “I don’t want to be an honest broker. I want to be a friend and ally of the only democratic government in the Middle East that is besieged by its enemies.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/25/AR2006072501324.html
This statement is so flippant in its shameless disregard of what is truly in the best national interest. This man, and others with similar approaches do not represent my interests in the least, nor those of my kids, no matter how progressive their domestic positions may be. For if we keep ignoring that problem, there will eventually come a point where there won’t be any domestic issues to discuss anymore. None of our front-runners on the Democratic side are willing to touch that topic. We hear nothing but general platitudes from Obama, and HRC has long ago thrown in her lot with the likes of Congressman Engel.
Yes, although I think that’s giving them far too much credit. U.S. policy towards Israel is certainly not motivated by an affinity with its “democratic” character.
“The three main impediments to an Israeli-Palestinian agreement are the settlements, control over Jerusalem, and the Palestinian demand for the right of return of the Palestinian refugees and/or compensation for their loss.”
So it’s all Israel’s doing, huh? What about the Palestinian categorical refusal to recognize Israel? Seems to me like that’s a pretty large impediment to peaceful coexistence.
And it’s time to stop referring to Lebanese and Jordanians of Palestinian ancestry as “refugees.” Their great-grandparents and grandparents may have been refugees but they certainly aren’t. Kind of strange. I mean my grandparents were thrown off of land they owned in Russia and Poland, with of course no compensation. Does that mean I can demand their land back? Of course not. They need to move on and stop trying to live in the past, and the Jordanian and Lebanese governments need to begin accepting responsibility for their citizens and residents rather than foisting them off onto the Israelis by pretending they’re Palestinians.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Israel-PLO+Recognition+-+Exchange
+of+Letters+betwe.htm
I suppose that’s why so many Palestinians are still living in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, etc., and aren’t granted citizen status.
Here are more recent statistics regarding the number of Palestinians living in refugee camps:
Link
Those figures show a total of over 1.3 million refugees living in camps today, and nearly 4.5 million officially registered refugees, of which approximately 2.7 million live outside of Gaza and the West Bank.
I imagine your family immigrated to the US and then achieved citizen status (correct me if I’m wrong). Unfortunately many Arab governments have refused to grant full citizenship rights to Palestinians. In that regard they live in a quasi-legal no man’s land, with no real guaranteed citizenship status, and often despised by others in the countries in which they reside (see, e.g., Iraq, for one). Like “illegal aliens” in America they can be deported at anytime the Arab governments no longer are willing to allow their presence inside their borders to continue.