Amro Musa, Chairman of the Arab League, is threatening to rescind the League's groundbreaking all-emcompassing peace and normalization offer of 2002 (reaffirmed 2007). This offer represents Israel's best and last, I fear, chance for true peace, as it answers all of Israel's concerns, leaving even the thorny issue of refugees largely at its discretion, and offers full peace and normalization. The last part means that the agreement will include trade clauses, and open up the entire region to Israeli goods.
Israel official response to this? Thundering silence, save a handful of rejecting offhand references. This is the sad, horrible truth: Israel has been offered a path to true peace, one that would make it a matter of face for the strongest and richest Arab nations to maintain. It didn't even bother to open initial discussions with the League. And yet all three of the leading parties keep pretending that they aim towards a real peace process. Iran, Hamas, Hizballah and anyone else whom we truly fear could have been marginalized long ago. Before the recent blood bath, the one of 2006 or hamas winning an election and taking over the Gaza Strip, jumping from terror gang to de-facto and elected ruling party. But nooooo. So now, if something doesn't move quick, that'll be off the table too. Great.
Yo, O Man! Think of something, will ya? Make the Arab League proposal the centerpiece of your approach. Not because America has some mystical obligation to take care of our self destructive ass, but because we have nukes, and if the crazies win they'll go off eventually. Our crazies are that crazy. So lets head that off, eh? I know, you got th economy thing, but think of it this way – someone's already written the actual basic document, so you got that.
In Israel, a frightening number of people are predisposed against George Mitchell, Obama's envoy to our kindergarten. Did you know his mother's Lebanese!!? Hey, maybe we should ask Rahm's dad, maybe they're just sending Mitchell over to mop the floors. That should get some of my idiot brethren to relax. Yo, George – definitely mop up some of the bullshit. There ain't many of us, but we got your back.
In the campaign here, Lieberman is the talk of the country following his racist ads and surge in the polls (they say 16. I won't be shocked if he approaches 19). Like I already observed, this is the frustrated reaction to the foretold (by me) result of the stupid killing spree in Gaza. His ad shows quotes by Arab MK's, stamps a “shame” and then bellows “No loyalty, no citizenship" Followed by "Only Liebermen understands Arabic” (He doesn't speak the language, because good nationalist Israelis shudder at the thought and fight attempts to make Arabic a required part of the curriculum in schools, but he "understands" it...).
This gave rise to a satire ad by Arab party Balad, in which a Lieberman lookalike sits and rejects the “loyalty application” of various Arabs (a mother of five, someone who when asked if he supports the war says “I don't like wars”, etc.). The "Lieberman" goes "not good, not good" and stamps them disloyal. Pretty cute.
Barak's ads have these lowbrow professionals (a auto body shop guy, a plasterer and a stereotypically gay fashion designer), all talking about Barak “doesn't get it” because he won't cover up the tough truth with surface little lies. Get it? They criticize, but it's actually a good thing? Currently that ain't stopping Labor from dropping to fourth largest party (behind Kadima, Likud and Lieberman), but at least the party that founded Israel managed to avoid dropping to single digits, and you don't count the dead when the poll's on your side.
Bibi? His ads glorify how he warned of the dangers of the disengagement, and totally ignore the fact that he voted for it 3 times and resigned only a week before, when it was too late to stop anything. Likud voters do not suffer from an overabundance of IQ or critical skills, so it's working like a charm.
In the world of smaller parties, not much changes: Shas is maintaining its strength around 10 seats, as is the ashkenazee ultra-orthodox party Agudat Israel at 6. Meretz, long the only home for leftists who are still basically Zionists, not managing to take off and holding at 6, despite a whole affair of “uniting” with the “new left movement” (which is indistinguishable from Meretz itself).
On the green front, there are two parties vying for the environmental vote: The Greens, who are a fifth column in the green movement and are designed to drain its votes in favor of a party that won't lift a finger to stop a single development (as proved beyond doubt by chairman Peer Visner's term as deputy mayor of Tel Aviv).
In the actually green corner we have the Green Movement-Meimad, which offers the top two environmental activists in the country in addition to the greenest MK in the last decade. Guess which one I'm voting for? The Meimad part comes from MK Rabbi Michael Malchior - an orthodox rabbi committed to separation of state and religion who is also head of the environmental lobby (what y'all call a caucus) in Knesset and is a bona-fide green, socially progressive legislator. I dig that kind of synergy. I just hope enough of my brethren do as well.
As for my former party, Green Leaf (legalization of cannabis and environmental party), it has reached the total farce phase of its existence, having split into two competing parties. The original Green Leaf has divested itself of any and all ideological pretensions, and are running on “vote for me, it'll be cool” (not paraphrasing, that's a direct quote). The other half, led by former chairman and true major league asshole Ohad Shem-Tov (think of Zhdanov in a tiny puddle), have joined with a tiny fringe party of holocaust survivors, under the ticket of “holocaust survivors with Green Leaf graduates”. They have managed to unite the country in dismay at the incongruent combination. Their ads are not outlandish or anything – Shemtov talking about holocaust survivors and the octogenarian holocaust survivor talking about a million Israelis criminalized for an innocuous consumer choice. Nu.
In short, Israel following the election will not have a government either capable or really willing to advance any peace process, unless a certain individual currently residing in a house with nice columns in front will apply some pressure. Here's to that hope.
Rate, comment, do stuff.
Update (05:15 EST, Superbowl Sunday): 8 rockets and mortar shells fired in the Negevf this morning. Yeah, that operation sure paid off.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
MJwycha
Caracalla's Amanuensis
LuluandPhoebe
Behind Blue Eyes
thegirlnextdoor
Dmitri Doubov
Salon.com
Comments
I had a peek at the Meimad site and it looks good. I particularly liked this part;
"• The party accepts a formula of “two states” for “two nations” as a basis for resolving the conflict with the Palestinians, but at the same time demands a commitment to strong security guarantees for Israel as part of any final agreement. The party also brings with it a detailed blue-print for transboundary cooperation in environmental protection between Israel and its neighbors as a foundation of a sustainable future for Middle East."
Thanks for your kind words, Natalie.
Rated
as i understand it, if obama wanted, he could say, "israel - you are free to reject the arab proposal. but if you do, you are on your own and we withdraw our financial aid."
no? so isn't every child killed by israel really a child killed by america?
we really like war over here. it is good for the economy.
That's baloney. There will only be peace when the Arabs acknowledge that Israel isn't going anywhere.
We are getting closer to that acknowledgment every day. Egypt has a peace treaty will Israel and did nothing to aid Hamas and the Palestinians in the recent conflict. Jordan has a peace treaty with Israel and did nothing to aid Hamas and the Palestinians in the recent conflict. The legitimate government of the Palestinians has an agreement with the Israels and opposes Hamas. The people of the Gaza strip are blaming Hamas for the recent death and destruction.
The Palestinians have only one backer in the region any more, and that is Iran (and its satellite Syria). The other Arab countries are far more afraid of Iran and its territorial ambitions than they are of Israel.
Sure, the Turkish president can make a big show of "condemning" 80+ year old Shimon Peres, but then he goes home and continues his relationship with Israel, including buying weapons.
You have it precisely backwards. The isn't the end of Israel's chance for peace; it's the beginning. Israel has been forging REAL, valuable links for peace with other Arab countries for year.
I'm not sure whether the so-called "peace" contingent is entirely clueless about recent history, or just getting carried away by their desire to see Israel destroyed. In any case, they are wrong, as they have been wrong continuously for years.
But now Israel and Hamas are breaking the ceasefire left and right, and you have Olmert threatening--and, apparently, now delivering--a 'disproportionate' (read: illegal) response.
The Palestinians have only one backer in the region any more, and that is Iran (and its satellite Syria). The other Arab countries are far more afraid of Iran and its territorial ambitions than they are of Israel." Amy
Notice how Amy says that Hamas is not supported by the Palestinians and in the next statement that they and the Palestinians are the same? If Hamas is hated by the Palestinians why suggest that they are all the same? Perhaps we shouldn't think of all Palestinians as alike, or Jews for that matter. Great logic by the regurgitater of old medical news.
Ricky provides real play by play commentary and insight.
Um, yeah, that's what the offer says. What more acknowledgment do you want than "provided these terms are met, the Arab League and all its members will consider the conflict OVER"?
I suggest, Doc, that you recall the humility of your famous apology and chill with the adjectives. I strongly doubt you're in a position to start calling others clueless about history, particular of this region, considering some of the people participating in the debate. Just as I would not call you clueless about medicine, even if and when I think you're wrong, so you should tread lightly with the expertise of others, even if you disagree with their analysis.
"The Palestinians have only one backer in the region any more, and that is Iran (and its satellite Syria). The other Arab countries are far more afraid of Iran and its territorial ambitions than they are of Israel."
Indeed, which is why they made the offer and why we should accept it. It marginalizes everyone we need to marginalize.
"Sure, the Turkish president can make a big show of "condemning" 80+ year old Shimon Peres, but then he goes home and continues his relationship with Israel, including buying weapons."
Maybe this time. It won't last forever. You don't get it - they were expecting us to take hamas down, just as they expected us to take hizballah down. That's why we got the tacit support for much of the operation. But we can't bring ourselves to actually commit troops anymore. So we just kill. And now, as I predicted, instead of being an outcast, hamas is declared indispensable to any agreement. How anyone can see that as success is beyond me.
I am glad to see Stellaa and Joan Walsh endorsing you. Keep on keeping on!
The January 29 issue of London Review of Books has some interesting articles on Israel and Gaza.
www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/sieg01_.html
www.lrb.co.uk/web/15/01/2009/mult04_.html
For those of you unable to access the London Review of Books, I have selected some extracts from the article by Henry Siegman entitled : “Israel’s Lies”.
It may be that Siegman is an unreliable anti-Semite but he is a former national director of the American Jewish Congress and of the Synagogue Council of America.
“Israel, not Hamas, violated the truce: Hamas undertook to stop firing rockets into Israel; in return, Israel was to ease its throttlehold on Gaza. In fact, during the truce, it tightened it further.
This was confirmed not only by every neutral international observer and NGO on the scene but by Brigadier General (Res.) Shmuel Zakai, a former commander of the IDF’s Gaza Division. In an interview in Ha’aretz on 22 December, he accused Israel’s government of having made a ‘central error’ during the tahdiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce, by failing ‘to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip . . . When you create a tahdiyeh, and the economic pressure on the Strip continues,’ General Zakai said, ‘it is obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahdiyeh, and that their way to achieve this is resumed Qassam fire . . . You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they’re in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing.’”
The cease fire “was seriously violated on 4 November, when the IDF entered Gaza and killed six members of Hamas. Hamas responded by launching Qassam rockets and Grad missiles. Even so, it offered to extend the truce, but only on condition that Israel ended its blockade. Israel refused. It could have met its obligation to protect its citizens by agreeing to ease the blockade, but it didn’t even try.
It cannot be said that Israel launched its assault to protect its citizens from rockets. It did so to protect its right to continue the strangulation of Gaza’s population.”
“Israel seeks to counter these indisputable facts by maintaining that in withdrawing Israeli settlements from Gaza in 2005, Ariel Sharon gave Hamas the chance to set out on the path to statehood, a chance it refused to take; instead, it transformed Gaza into a launching-pad for firing missiles at Israel’s civilian population.
The charge is a lie twice over. First, for all its failings, Hamas brought to Gaza a level of law and order unknown in recent years, and did so without the large sums of money that donors showered on the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. It eliminated the violent gangs and warlords who terrorised Gaza under Fatah’s rule. Non-observant Muslims, Christians and other minorities have more religious freedom under Hamas rule than they would have in Saudi Arabia, for example, or under many other Arab regimes.”
Siegman quotes Sharon’s senior adviser Dov Weisglass, on the withdrawal from Gaza: “What I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements [i.e. the major settlement blocks on the West Bank] would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. . . The significance [of the agreement with the US] is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with [President Bush’s] authority and permission. . . and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”
Siegman also quotes the Israeli historian, Benny Morris: “A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”
He quotes Sharon’s national security adviser, Ephraim Halevy. “The Hamas leadership has undergone a change ‘right under our very noses by recognising that ‘its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future.’ It is now ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state within the temporary borders of 1967. Halevy noted that while Hamas has not said how ‘temporary’ those borders would be, ‘they know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their co-operation, they will be obligated to change the rules of the game: they will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals.’”
Siegman: “ If Israel plans to keep control over any future Palestinian entity, it will never find a Palestinian partner, and even if it succeeds in dismantling Hamas, the movement will in time be replaced by a far more radical Palestinian opposition.”
a) He fails to mention that the Nov 4th incursion was in response to a tunnel being dug. It was an over the top response to be sure, but you kinda need to mention the provocation.
b) This is a really biased bit:
"Non-observant Muslims, Christians and other minorities have more religious freedom under Hamas rule than they would have in Saudi Arabia, for example, or under many other Arab regimes."
Saudi Arabia? Maybe, not sure, but not by any means better than under the Palestinian Authority, which is a more relvant comparison, dontcha think? Siegman doesn't want to poison minds against hamas, but the truth is they are theocratic assholes. Christians are leaving in droves and churches are being emptied and converted.
Turkey has largely given up on the hope of joining the EU, and AKP came to power (for all the jibbering paranoia about their religious stance) on the promise to greatly expand international trade.
Turkey does 3 billion a year in trade with Israel, and that effectively cuts them out of 30 billion a year in trade in the Arab world. Since being one of the junior partners in the EU is off the table, the economically sensible thing for Turkey to do is swing toward the Arab world, an arena in which its manufacturing capacity and construction know-how can make it a major player.
There's plenty of ill feeling toward turks, but for all that, the House of Saud will be better off with the Street if it's Muslims they contract with for major construction projects, rather than "Western" firms.
Beyond that, the Party that embraces Israel after 2006 and Operation Cast Phosphorus (as it's being called in the Turkish underground press - and the Ex-Pat Turkish Paper in Los Angeles) is a Party that cannot win an election in Turkey. After 600 years as serving as a refuge for both middle-eastern and european Jews, the bridge is in flames.
Even Baykal, the leader of the CHP (the socialist, stridently seccularist, opposition - and essentialy Erdogans "sworn enemy") said that he agreed entirely with Erdogans criticism, and only slammed him as "overly emotional". This, from an opposition leader who would call it a "Fundementalist Supperstition" if Erdogan said the sun rises in the east.
Do you know, Amy, who it was that Erdogan gratefully accepted a hug from as he left the stage at Davos? That was the Secretary General of the Arab league, Amr Moussa. He's been part of the Egyptian Diplomatic Corps for 40 years, and is far from what anyone would call a "Friend of Israel".
Israel can't hit hard enough to make Palestinians lay down their arms without becoming a Pariah State. It's already sliding down the ramp to that status, and it will continue too as long as the IDF views the killing of a few hundred women and children as preferable to the loss of a few dozen IDF soldiers.
The rest of the world understands that this is exactly the choice they made in Lebanon, and in Gaza. Including the Turks.
Do you think Turkey, planning a joint Natural Gas Pipeline to bring Iranian Natural Gas to Europe, benefits or loses from its alliance with Israel? Do you think a few billion in trade and access to nice avionics packages for their Jets is worth it, to Turkey, if the cost is an expensive and economically stiffling repression of their enraged populace?
Oh, this action "Changed the World"...but not in the way Israeli NeoCons planned. It gave Turkey an out from a costly deal.