In the Arena

Latest Column–and More on the Middle East

On Gaza.

I’ve spent the past three days wandering about the West Bank, visiting new commercial developments and social programs, and speaking with Palestinian leaders, including President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. I’ve also spent some time in Israel, talking with prominent members of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and the Knesset, as well as foreign policy experts on negotiating with the Palestinians. Almost everyone I’ve spoken with, on both sides, believes that despite last year’s failure, it is time for Barack Obama to intervene more forcefully in the Middle East peace process.

The most frequent request, especially from the Palestinian side, is for the President to lay out a proposed two-state plan. One Israeli expert said that this doesn’t have to be the ultimate deal–state to state issues (like the right of return, or reparations, for some Palestinian refugees) can be worked out between the Israelis and Palestinians–but Obama’s proposal should resemble Bill Clinton’s parameters laid out in December 2000, including suggestions on borders, security and sovereignty.

While Israel would seem to have the whip hand in any negotiation strategy–it controls the Palestinian lands, Netanyahu has practically no domestic opposition, the Palestinians remain divided between Fatah and Hamas–the Israelis I spoke with think that some sort of accomodation with the Palestinians has to come soon. “Next year, 50% of all first-graders in Israel will be either Arabs or Othodox Jews,” a member of the centrist Kadima Party told me. “We have a serious demographic problem.”

Meanwhile, the story from West Bank Palestine is relatively good news: the Israeli occupation is still a heavy–and sometimes an outrageously intrusive–burden, but the economy is growing at  8% per year. The security situation has improved dramatically–it’s safe for women to walk the streets in Nablus for the first time in years–with a well-trained national guard and police force. The Palestinian Authority seems to be governing honestly and well. There has been no significant violence targeting Israel in many months, from either Gaza or the West Bank, although the growing number of hilltop settler outposts–you can see them on almost every hill on the road from Ramallah to Nablus–seems a form of Israeli violence targeting the Palestinians. I’ll have much more about life on the West Bank in the magazine next week.

Update: The neocon extremists over at Commentary have wasted no time responding to my column with their usual bile and bullying. The piece is loaded with inaccuracies and Israel-first stupidity. I can’t do much about the stupidity, but as for the inaccuracies: I did not travel to Doha with Clinton, but attended the US-Islamic forum as an invited participant and was asked to be part of a small working group of Americans and Islamist Party members from throughout the Islamic world (from Morocco to Indonesia, in fact). Second, I did not criticize Clinton’s remarks–in fact, I thought her tough talk on Iran was just fine, the next step in Obama’s campaign to unite the world against the Revolutionary Guard regime. Third, I did report that the Doha delegates were disappointed with her remarks on Gaza; in fact, most American participants agreed with this assessment–all of us were struck by the vehemence of the Islamic feelings about Gaza. Fourth, as I wrote, the Obama Administration is aware of this situation and frustrated by it. Fifth, I didn’t blame it on Israel–but on Hamas, for not releasing the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, which might open the door to a more reasonable Israeli policy on the blockade. I suggested that the U.S. might see, privately, if it could serve as a mediator for a deal. I also suggested that Hamas should respond to such an offer and act quickly. (Sixth, I supported the first stage–the first week–of the Israel’s response to Hamas’s rocket attacks against Israeli citizens.)

My suggestions–or their distorted burlesque of my suggestions–are, apparently, what passes for anti-Israel extremism over at Commentary. But anything that doesn’t conform to their half-crazed macho crusaderism is seen as either anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. Their constant fury, their slightly-veiled calumnies against the President–and against the very notion of diplomacy–would be laughable if they weren’t so dangerous and disgraceful.

By the way, the barely concealed anti-Arab bigotry so frequently found on the Commentary blog, reveals itself in this sentence:

That answer pleased neither the Arabs nor Klein.

In fact, it was a U.S.-Islamic Forum: Arabs comprised maybe half the Islamic delegates, who came from as far away as Indonesia and the Philippines, including a sizeable contingent, as usual, from South Asia (Afghans, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis). And, to reiterate: the level of anger over the Gaza situation among all of these people was striking. (Several of us listened to a particularly impassioned statement from a demure woman from Indonesia, to our amazement.)

Related Topics: israel, Mahmoud Abbas, Palestine, Salam Fayyad, West Bank, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • afguy

    Oh, h*ll, why stop just there…
    .
    It is time for Barack Obama to intervene more forcefully in_________________
    .
    That statement could be pasted into just about ANY conversation we’ve been having.
    .
    Unless, of course, he REALLY doesn’t want the policies to pass.
    .
    Have Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel been fired yet? Just checking…

  • Paul-no not that one

    It is time for Barack Obama to intervene more forcefully in_________________
    .
    Austin Texas to stop people from flying planes into buildings that house IRS agents?

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    …it is time for Barack Obama to intervene more forcefully in the Middle East peace process.
    ~
    Even if President Obama wanted to -and I am not confident that he does- he cannot. The pervasive domestic influence of the Israel lobby is simply too powerful. We all know of the “Letter of 76″ sent to Gerald Ford, the Senate letter to the first Bush, and the Cantor-Hoyer letter to Obama. These are but a few instances of the near unanimous reflexive outrage expressed by our Congress any time an American President deviates, even slightly, from the special relationship with Israel. But here is a more vivid first-hand account of this monopoly of our Middle East foreign policy by President Reagan’s Secretary of State, George P. Shultz:
    .
    In early December [1982]…I got word that a supplement was moving through the lame-duck session of Congress to provide a $250 million increase in the amount of U.S. military assistance granted to Israel: this in the face of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, its use of cluster bombs, and its complicity in the Sabra and Shatila massacres! We fought the supplement and fought it hard. President Reagan and I weighed in personally, making numerous calls to senators and congressmen. On December 9, I added a formal letter of opposition saying that the supplement appeared “to endorse and reward Israel’s policies.” Foreign Minister Shamir called President Reagan’s opposition “an unfriendly act” and said that “it endangers the peace process.” The supplement sailed right by us and was approved by Congress as though President Reagan and I had not even been there. I was astonished and disheartened. This brought home to me vividly Israel’s leverage in our Congress. I saw that I must work carefully with the Israelis if I was to have any handle on congressional action that might affect Israel and if I was to maintain congressional support for my efforts to make progress in the Middle East.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    And this is why I reject, abhor, and am ashamed of my fellow citizens, and American culture in general. 5 hours later, and still no discernible care for the plight of the Palestinians, and not the slightest rebuff of Israeli intransigence and encroachment on American sovereignty. This aloofness both sickens and saddens me, but, of course, Mitt Romney gave a speech today, so who am I to pursue real human issues.

  • rdw56

    you are not going to get any discernible care for the plight of any group who supports terror. Hamas is a terror group.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    I do believe I wrote the “plight of the Palestinians,” not the plight of Hamas. The two are not synonymous. I’m quite confident that you have no discernible care for the plight of Irgun, Stern Gang, and Haganah, the precursors to the IDF, or the terrorist ideology of Zionism? Certainly, you apply your repudiation of terrorism to all groups, not just Arabs, yes?
    ~
    Israeli PM, David Ben-Gurion: After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of a state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.
    .
    Israeli Defense Minister, Moshe Dayan: There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.
    .
    David Ben-Gurion: If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?
    .
    Israeli Zionist, Ze’ev Jabotinsky: Colonization is self-explanatory and what it implies is fully understood by every sensible Jew and Arab. There can only be one purpose in colonization. For the country’s Arabs that purpose is essentially unacceptable. This is a natural reaction and nothing will change it.
    .
    Friend of Ben-Gurion, Berl Katznelson: The Zionist enterprise is an enterprise of conquest.
    .

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    And is anyone surprised that some Palestinians turned to Hamas and its tactics after this incessant Israeli expansion, conquest, and oppression? I must say, if my people had been as brutally suppressed, expelled, humiliated, alienated, silenced, and hopelessly aghast in social, economic, and military inferiority, I, too, would turn to more extreme measures of resistance. ‘Tis the natural, and quite common, reaction to occupation. Yet, we compulsively stand in utter shock and outrage at these tactics, rather than analyze why someone would turn to such.

  • rdw56

    The plight of the Palestinains are regards Gaza is due to Hamas. The civil war between Gaza and the WB is due to Hamas. Whatever the IDF was it isn’t now. Now either the Palestinians in Gaza are going to live peacefully with the Jews or they are not. They are promising not to. So they will fester inside their fence. As pointed out by Joe they’re getting food and medicine but nothing to build an economy because Israel AND Egypt have a blockaide on. Meanwhile the WB is booming. Fatah is strengthing. Hamas has to decide if they’re willing to take on Israel again as they did last year. The risk the next time is what happens after Israel delivers a beating to them. What if they allow Fatah to assist in the removal of Hamas?. Israel could again segment Gaza and Fatah could flood the segment bordering Egypt and do a thorough ‘investigation’ to remove Hamas. Think how bloody that would be and the fact the liberal world would be paralyzed. Israel could then move the line they created to bisect Gaza toward the eastern border a mile at a time to allow Fatah to further investigate Hamas members until such point Gaza has been returned to full control by Fatah.

  • Ike Jakson

    Joe, has anyone mentioned buying a statue of the President? Djakarta has one that they will make available real cheap.:

    http://pumabydesign001.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/barack-obama-statue-removed-from-jakarta-park/

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    The plight of the Palestinains are regards Gaza is due to Hamas.
    .
    And what of the plight of the Palestinians prior to Hamas’ formation in 1987? Nothing has changed by way of Israeli policies, so the plight of 1949 and the plight of 1986 remain the plight of today. So, how is this solely the result of Hamas if it was not even in existence for the majority of Israel’s occupation?
    .
    The civil war between Gaza and the WB is due to Hamas.
    .
    Israel supported and assisted Hamas in its formation to offset the growing power of the PLO and divide the people of Palestine. Divide and conquer. So, the Palestinian civil war is due to Israel, actually.
    .
    Whatever the IDF was it isn’t now.
    .
    Correct, it is not the same. It is more brutal, more experienced, more technologically advanced, more cunning and deceptive in its public relations management and propaganda proliferation. Cluster bombs, white phosphorous, targeted airstikes of schools, UN centers, journalists, etc. How very reformed of the IDF.
    .
    Now either the Palestinians in Gaza are going to live peacefully with the Jews or they are not. They are promising not to. So they will fester inside their fence.
    .
    Palestinian violence has been cyclical. Yet, throughout all the extensive periods of peace, the Israeli occupation has not subsided, has never softened, has never wavered. Relentless Israeli occupation has taught the Palestinians that peace does not precipitate peace. They have been socialized by Israeli oppression, the result being violent reprisal. And yet, the Arab League unanimously ratified a proposal of full recognition of the right of Israel to exist, among other things, in exchange for the occupied territories. Israel flatly refused, as Israel has always refused any concession or any substantial loss of its illegally occupied lands.

  • rdw56

    How well has turning to Hamas worked out?

    The bottom line is terror is a political tactic and it doesn’t work. It would be suicidal for Hamas to kill more jews. The kill ratio in the last war was 150 to 1. Everything I read and hear suggests this is it for Hamas. They don’t need to fear Israel as much as Fatah. If Israel goes into Gaza and Fatah follows they will systematically eliminate Hamas. Hamas will not survive.

    At the same time Egypt and the Arab world are full participants in this siege. Hamas is far more religious and fundamentalist and between their religious repression and the economic depravation Gaza is starting to emerge as a very different culture versus their WB cousins.

    It’s lose/lose for Gazans as long as Hamas is there. It’s lose/lose for any group relying on the slaughter of innocents. Gaza cannot advance until Hamas makes peace.

  • rdw56

    Relations between Israel and the Palestinains hae varied significantly. There was no need for a fence prior to Arafat’s return. IN the 80′s and 90′s Israeli’s traveled freely to Gazan beaches, resorts and resturants, etc. There was no fence.

    I happen to think Hamas is too extreme to make peace and will eventually be removed by Fatah. Egypt and the Arab world clearly want Hamas out and are moving to make it happen. Fatah and Israel have clearly made an accomodation as well. Netanyahu has pulled back subtantially and is helping the WB economy boom. Assuming this progress holds and the violence remains rare Israel will continuously reduce their footprint until real negotiations are realistic. A couple / few years of 10% GDP growth will reduce tensions and advance the possibility of talks. Once both sides are confident a deal can be made they’ll focus on getting Fatah back in control of Gaza so a full two-state solution can be negotiated.

    This could happen in two years if Hamas makes the mistake of taunting Israel or after five years of sequencial 10%+ economic growth in the WB and progressive normalization with Israel. Gaza will have little or no growth in that period. Israel will have at least 6% growth.

    By 2015 Fatah will be much more powerful than Hamas and the WB much wealthier. They will be ready at any time with Israel’s assitance to remove Hamas if they won’t submit to Fatah leadership.

    The politics just flow. Israel can’t do what needs to be done to finally remove Hamas. They’ll do the heavy lifting and segment Gaza into pieces Fatah can handle. Fatah them goes in and with methods the UN won’t question separate Hamas members from the general population and render them non-threats.

    At the end of the process Israel has it’s defensible borders and the WB gets the equivalent land area of the pre-67 period. The border won’t be exact but they’ll share Jerusalem and the holysites. Israel will keep some settlements and Abbas will get a land bridge to Gaza.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    You have the strangest rebuttals. I don’t recall you ever replying to one of my comments without the central point of your argument being that Hamas is weak and Israeli military prowess is unequaled in the region. Essentially, you seem to boil everything down to right by might. Odd. Is this perhaps because you cannot defend Israeli policies from a moral standpoint, so you choose to go the route of tactical supremacy?

  • rdw56

    The major faultline to the Israeli-Palestine confilct is terrorism. There can be no peace if one side is slaughtering innocents. Israel has constructed fences in order to eliminate the threat, or as least substantially reduce it. The next deal breaker is the position of Hamas and others that Israel must be pushed into the sea. No nation will negotiate for it’s survival. Nothing can happen until these two situations change. All of your moral points are silly and poinltess. I point out Israel’s strength to highlight the futility of the Palestinian position. I do feel sorry for the Palestinian people. They’ve been used as donkeys for decades by arab elitists. Israel is not going away. They are going to make Hamas go away because that’s the only choice Hamas gave them. After that Fatah and the PLO absorb Gaza back into the Arab world and peace will follow. Fatah and Natanyahu WILL make peace. They will reset borders. It will not be the same as in 67 but Palestine will have the same amount of land, control of Arab Jerusalem and share of the holy sites. The fences will come down some time later when it’s proven safe. You s/b happy. It is Israel’s strength making this possible. The people of Gaza will win as soon as Hamas is out. Israel can’t do it. Only Fatah can do it. Only when this is done can there be peace. Your talk of morality iis mere preening.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    There can be no peace if one side is slaughtering innocents.
    ~
    Israel slaughters innocents at a shockingly higher level than Hamas. 1500 Palestinians in a few weeks in January 2009, 1000 Lebanese in the summer of 2006. Neither Hamas nor the Palestinians at large have ever rivaled these figures in any such period of time. You’re making my case for me.
    ~
    Fatah and Natanyahu WILL make peace.
    ~
    Netanyahu is one of the most sadistic and brutal men in recent history. And you wish to peg peace to his repertoire? Gold help you.

  • hewhotypes

    Klein’s column is reasonable. Tobin’s response is polemic. But Klein’s response sounds like it was written by a different person, calling them “Bigots” is over the line. At the very least it would require much more substantial evidence than the short line quoted, which could have been precisely accurate. Perhaps the non-Arabs weren’t as unhappy.

    And if it was bigotry, it would have been against non-Arabs, since Tobin at least considered the feelings of Arabs. So Klein’s “Update” is backward twice, without being right.

blog comments powered by Disqus