My list of the top 11 obstacles for peace in the Middle East.

 From top to bottom, in descending order of severity.

1)     Different narratives that are sometimes conflicting.

2)     Lack of hope among the general public on both sides.

3)     Lack of trust on both sides.

4)     Continued Palestinian rejectionism of the negotiation process.

5)     An international, (and Israeli) peace movement that is more of a cult of Israel bashing, rather than any actual peace advocacy, or peace making.

6)     An array of “neutral” ngo’s that are in-fact an extreme expression of the former.

7)     Anti-Israel biases within the global media that makes it clear to everyday Israelis why peace should not be trusted. Also, an expression of 5.

8)     The UN.

9)     A hopelessly divided Palestinian leadership.

10)  Chronically unstable Israeli governments. This is due to Israel’s current system of government.

11)  The settlements.

 

What defines severity here is the ability to change/remove these obstacles.

Settlements had been removed before; and therefore, can be removed again. The question is what Israel gets in return.

Israel’s political system can change. It requires public support. The need to change it, is mainly due to internal reasons; unstable coalitions, and extortion power to smaller political parties. Changing it requires public support. When it comes to the peace process these weaknesses can be bypassed. But not always successfully.  

The Palestinian leadership can unite. If the leadership will it. Since their motivation for maintaining the division is that of personal gains that is less likely. And if they do unite, will that be behind an extremist message, a practical one, or a moderate one?

The UN will change if global politics change. Right now, it is another battlefield.

I don’t know what can change 5,6, and 7. But if they can, they can help alleviate, 3, 2, and 1. In that order. They will help the process; the process will do most of the work. The process will create trust in the process itself. This will serve at first as substitute to the lack of mutual trust. As the trust in the process increases, it will lead to some degree of mutual trust. As this is increased, hope will be rekindled. As hope, and trust increases, they will energize the dialogue. Opening the way for a dialogue of narratives, the hardest part of the process. Where it can all fall apart again.

For the process to restart, the Palestinian leadership must attend the process, change 4. The longer they procrastinating the less we have a motive to resume it from our side.

US Israel relationship: The peace process’ beggar’s choice

Seventh in a series of seven

parts: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

At some point during the Ramat Shlomo/ Dalal Mughrabi crisis, the Obama administration realized that what they were doing was counterproductive, and abruptly stopped their pressure. The administration went as far as blocking the supporting tailwind they got from their own media, another fact indicating there are no anti-Israel intentions behind this administration's policies, or else they would have continued their pressure. What brought this about has been the subject of countless unproven tales, guesses, and speculations. Many have an understandable need to know the full story, but until reliable first hand information comes out, this is futile, a waste of time.

What matters now is to move the peace process forwards. Idealistic as it may sound, peace is the moral and ethical obligation of the elected head of any state founded on the sanctity of life. In the Israeli Palestinian context this peaceful resolution is most likely to be the two states solution. Debate aside; as far as the author of this series is concerned this is the best solution. But more importantly for this discussion, this is the solution the international community publicly committed itself to. The question is how to get there? The answer is, not by haste, not by force, and not by storm, but by constructing workable agreements and understandings on the myriad of lesser issues separating the two peoples. Issues that are less controversial in each society, therefore an agreement is more likely to be reached regarding them. It is known as a peace process from the bottom up. When trust is at extremely low levels the bottom is the only place it can restart. And right now the level of trust is low also between the Israeli public and the current American administration for reason explained earlier in this series, though things may not be as bad as they were earlier this year, 2010.

While the trust of the Israeli public in the current American leadership will be extremely useful in order to gain their trust in the peace process, that is not in the books right now. But that is just a means to an end, the end being regaining the trust in the peace process. And that can be done gradually. If further Israeli concessions do not lead to another wave of violence, more can follow. The peace process will advance measured step by measured step. This is possible due to a point of agreement between Israelis and Americans. The main disagreement here is whether Israel has a peace partner. The Americans are saying yes, but the Israeli experience from the implementation of the Oslo peace process created a lot of skepticism regarding that answer. But the more recent experiences show a Palestinian Authority willing and able to provide security and engaged in economic development. This suggests that Israel at least has a partner for security and economic development and co-operation. This partner for something is the common ground between Israelis and Americans. Even if that something is different as far as each of them believes. Since both Israelis and Americans have the same interest, the two states solution, Israel will not object to use these security and development agreements as a platform for the final resolution of the conflict. All Israelis need is a reasonable amount of confidence nothing dreadful will follow further concessions. Constant success will balance the bad experience from the Oslo years and the skepticism it created. From the point of view of peacemaking this can be the equivalent of the truce Israel had with Egypt and Jordan before the peace agreements with them.

For these renewed process to be successful the settlements freeze must end. The reason for that is plain and obvious, since this moratorium was announced Mahmoud Abbas has entrenched himself so deep in a rejectionist position, in took the pressure of the entire world to get him out of it and into direct talks with the Israeli Prime Minister. And even that only when the moratorium was about to expire. This behavior is the exact opposite of what is expected from a peace partner when gestures are made towards him. One explanation is that he is indeed not a peace partner. True or not, this explanation is highly subjective, based on the highly traumatic Israeli experience. The negotiators should not belittle that experience; they should address it as part of the accountability of the process itself. But Israel on its part must not let the traumas override other concerns and other explanations. The other explanation here has to do with the governability of Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, or what they might perceive as threats to it.

When it comes to the issue of concessions over the settlements, 17 years of negotiations and concessions taught us that there are two types of concessions, facilitating concessions, and final-resolution concessions. Facilitating concessions facilitate the establishment of an autonomous Palestinian entity, (currently the Palestinian Authority). They include the A regions handed over to the Palestinians at the beginning of the Oslo process. There the Palestinian Authority rules and no settlements activity can take place. And the promise made by the first Netanyahu government to the Clinton administration, not to build new settlements, a decision that prevents the settlements from blocking the territorial continuity of a future Palestinian state. The removal of roadblocks and other travel restrictions are also facilitating concessions. These are also security concessions, and as such contain security risks for Israel and for Israelis.

Final resolution concessions are those related to the core issues of the conflict. They are the issue of the refugees, the fate of Jerusalem, the final status of the settlements, and recognizing Israel's right to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people.

These issues are connected, if the Israeli premier makes a major concession on the settlements issue, an issue that divides the Israeli society and puts his administration on the line; the Palestinian leadership is expected to do the same. But they have constantly proven themselves unable to do so. When former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered most of the West Bank in 2000, former Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat launched a wave of violence that scarred both nations. When Ehud Olmert offered similar concessions to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in 2008, Abbas did not return his calls. And when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the settlements freeze – putting all the settlements and their future on the table, Mahmoud Abbas refused to engage in direct talks with him. This is a pattern that shows that the Palestinian leadership cannot take on its own challenging issues. Concessions on issues such as the "right" of return or Palestinian refugees could threaten their leadership and their ability to govern. Adding to the threat already posed by Hamas from the Gaza Strip and from within the West Bank.

The settlement freeze is therefore a threat to the governability of the Palestinian peace partner. But in the long run it is also a threat to the governability of the Israeli peace partner. The settlements freeze is difficult to enforce. Besides the use of means of law enforcement, it requires political and economic pressure on the leadership of the ideological settlers, and the co-operation of the general population of the settlers. And that can be achieved only with a time limit, or a major Palestinian reciprocal gesture, the kind Mahmoud Abbas is unwilling or unable to provide. This pressure in all its forms will finally erode. And the extremists will find a way to bypass these restrictions. They are numerous, they know the terrain better, and they have done it before. The outposts, illegal or not, are a successful method of bypassing the Israeli government’s decision not to built new settlements. And since the settlement freeze includes all the settlements, the longer it continues the more likely it is to push the moderates towards the extremists. Whatever form this resistance will take, the mere images of an unenforceable moratorium will undermine the governability of the Israeli peace partner. This will create two lame duck peace partners, sending to hell the credibility of the peace process, again!

The Israeli Palestinian conflict is a low intensity conflict; therefore it has greater room for mistakes then other trouble spots, but this too will end. It is important to remember that all rulers have their weakness, putting them in a position that enhances their weakness, and they will became lame ducks. And needless to say the peace process won’t work with two lame ducks peace partners.

While it is highly apparent that this stick, the settlement freeze, cannot be pulled out from between the wheels of the peace process without bruising every one involved. After that bruising everyone will have to return to the talks, if they want peace. The solution to the problem created by the settlement freeze is the same type as the solution to the conflict will be. It is a solution where no one is happy, the settlers won’t get the building spree they fantasized about, and those who insisted on a complete settlement freeze will have to stomach low level of construction.

Beside lack of trust, and threats to the governability of the peace partners, a successful peace process must address the opposing narratives each side holds. Right now both Israeli and Palestinian economies are growing. It is a major encouragement for optimism, but until each side tries to understand the other’s narrative, and bridge the two, this optimism is wishful thinking. The opposing narratives are the reason why the core issues are so difficult. They are deep held national consensuses for both sides. And for each political entity it is the source of legitimacy in the eyes of its population, a source of legitimacy for the very existence of that political entity.

The Israeli narrative is the more flexible one, changing somewhat along the political spectrum. However the Palestinian narrative is still refusing to acknowledge any legitimate Israeli claim. But the biggest problem coming from the Palestinian narrative has to do with the role violence. As a strategic weapon the Palestinians had abandoned violence because it had failed disastrously. But the legitimacy of it was not abandoned; on the contrary, it is cherished and preserved by various means. Stone throwing in “non-violent” demonstrations, enforcing violently a boycott of produce from the settlements by burning them rather then returning them and finding alternatives, and commemorating mass murderers like Dalal Mughrabi and Yahya Ayyash, the father of suicide bombings. These are all different expression of the preservation of the sanctity of violence. In each of those actions, there is a component of violence that is not necessary to achieve the declared goal it is used for. For example, like any nation the Palestinians have a right for their own national heroes. But the criterion for these heroes is the high number of unarmed Israeli civilians they killed, rather than individuals who faced overwhelming odds. Even if we accept a claim that says that this practice is not evidence that shows that Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah are not peace partners, we must not forget that the core value of peace is the sanctity of life. Therefore no peace process can stand on the sanctity of violence. This contradiction will either erode or explode any peace agreement.

This may lower the optimism expressed in the mainstream media in the early weeks of September, but how truly optimistic this optimism was? Think of the reasoning that said that this time it would work because both sides are extremely skeptic. This is the same rational as that of a person taking pride in ones own humility. This absurdity is therefore not a sign of hope but another mark of desperation.

In this peace process, all of us who want peace are beggars facing limited choices. We cannot take the choices we yearn for but do not have. It does not mean that we should give up on peace making. It does mean we should treat it like all duties of government, requiring good judgment, accountability, responsibility, realism, and credibility. Even if the actual chances for peace are worse then described here, at the end, all those who want to continue living on this land, Israelis and Palestinians, are beggars as well, facing no choice other then living together. This is another desperate argument, but beggars can’t be choosers. So, as US emissary George Mitchell had said, we need to keep trying. But trying for the sake of trying is not enough, something basic the public debate seems to have missed.

Related link:

Delusions of "peace:" Breaking the conspiracy of silence

Dvar Dea

Previous

US Israel relationships a seven parts series:
The public debate, correcting a favorable picture
The public debate, Israel and the war on terror
The Palestinian component
The right wing component
The Israeli exclamation mark, Obama's triple inheritance
The Israeli exclamation mark, unbalancing outreach w go-between
The peace process' beggars' choice

US Israel relationships: the making of the Israeli exclamation mark, part 1, Obama’s triple inheritance

Fifth in a series of seven

parts: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Why Israelis don’t trust president Obama?
Why the most likely answer to the question, “Do you trust president Obama?” coming from Israel, especially during mid 2010, is not just ‘no,’ but ’no!’?
A part of the explanation is the role of the media and the Internet, explained here and here. The other part is the Palestinian component. Two other parts have to do with president Obama, and they are explained in this article and the following one.

The survey quoted by Katie Couric in the Benjamin Netanyahu interview on July 7 2010, said 71% of Israeli Jews don’t like president Obama. The word ‘like’ is a general term that does not disclose the causes of this emotion. Another survey made around that time by the 'Dahaf Institute', had found out that 24% of Israelis consider president Obama an anti-Semite. A finding that is considered unprecedented.

[The 'Dahaf Institute' is a leading Israeli marketing and research firm known for its political and social surveys. This survey was published in the current affairs program ‘Shovrim Kelim’ in the Knesset Channel, the cable channel of the Israeli parliament. This TV program is hosted by the head of the institute Dr. Mina Tzemach and Roni Milo, the former mayor of Tel – Aviv and former government minister.] 

Given the history of the Jewish people, there are always those who see all foreign heads of states as anti-Semites, so some percentage of suspicious people is always expected, but 24% is considered to be higher then usual. At the same time it hardly represents the entire 71%. What it is more likely is that this is an indicator of the general feelings at the time of the survey, June 2010. If the majority of Israeli Jews don’t trust president Obama, a greater percentage than usual is more likely to believe he is an anti Semite. Others will see him as pro-Palestinian, or point to the ideological differences between him and Prime Minister Netanyahu as the source of policies many couldn’t understand and could not trust. And the lack of it is what all these explanations have in common.

Those who are writing off the entire 71% as people that regard president Obama as an anti-Semite are making life easy for themselves. Just as they do when they put heavy weight on the president’s middle name, Hussein, as the cause of the Israelis’ apprehension. Hussein is a common name in the Middle East, and Israelis encounter it on many different occasions. On one side there was Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who promised to burn half of Israel, after his long war with Iran ended. On the other side there was the late king Hussein of Jordan. He is the second Arab head of state to sign a peace agreement with Israel, and a moderate ruler who survived most of his radical enemies. This achievement gave him the respect of many people including a lot of Israelis. When on March 13 1997 a Jordanian soldier murdered 7 Israeli schoolgirls in Naharayim on the Israeli Jordanian border, the king came to Israel with his royal entourage to visit the families of the victims, to express his condolences and to condemn the act. It was an act that showed determination, courage and leadership and left a strong impact on the Israeli public, even among those who hate Arabs.

So while this middle name did create some unease, it did not create the wave of panic the extreme right in Israel tried to make from it, and that the Israel-bashers claim exist. There were other more serious factors. As explained earlier in this series some of the causes are inherited from the previous administrations. The collapse of the Oslo accords during the tenure of Bill Clinton, and Hamas’ takeover of Gaza after the disengagement from Gaza, had demonstrated to the Israelis the limits of the power of the office of the American presidency. It cannot make the Palestinians want peace. Since eventually all peace processes boils down to the intentions of the adversaries.

But just as Barack Obama is the heir of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, he is also the representative of the large camp of George W. Bush’s critics. And that large camp wasn’t made up just of the American Democratic Party and its supporters. As the protest against the Iraq War grew in the United States and across the world, the Democratic Party and most of the mainstream American left failed to distinguish between those who opposed the war because of reasons of legality and strategic wisdom, and those who opposed it simply because they hate America and oppose everything the United States does. An important characteristic of that last group is that they hate Israel as well, burning Israeli flags alongside American flags. But Israelis did notice this. They saw on television and on the Internet, George W. Bush subjected to vile spectacles of hatred, were his effigy was burned, lynched, and he himself was compared to Hitler. All that was done by people that hated Israel and its elected leaders in the same fashion. This naturally created sympathy for him and helped bolster his image as the only foreign had of state sticking up for Israel at a time Israelis were attacked at their streets and in their homes. But the inability of the mainstream American left to separate themselves from those expressions of hate created suspicion towards them. And since Barack Obama is the elected leader of the Democratic Party, he inherited that as well.


Bush-hate fest, a small sample


And then there is Barack Obama’s personal inheritance, the only one discussed in the mainstream media. That  inheritance is his past association with the reverend Jeremiah Wright, a known Israel-basher, and former PLO adviser and major BDS campaigner professor Rashid Khalidi.

            Jeremiah Wright and Rashid Khalidi

Were president Obama and his advisers aware of these apprehensions?
The later? Most likely. The others? Unknown.

The desire to bridge this suspicion is probably part of the reason for the huge military and political investment in Israel’s security. This investment includes weaponry, joint training of the two countries armed forces, the acceptance of Israel to the OECD, the financing of Iron Dome, And the backing Israel’s policy of nuclear ambiguity. The most important support is the constant pressure on the international community regarding the Iranian threat. Part of the reason for all of this is to overcome the said mistrust. But the huge effort behind them shows a commitment to Israel’s security, because without it such an effort would not have been possible. Others may dispute this, but this dispute is largely due to ideological convictions, and as consequence of the turmoil that had taken place in March 2010. Turmoil that had taken place because commitment is not enough to win over a people’s trust, understanding them is needed in order to translate that commitment to tangible terms. This, the American administration failed to do. They understood that Iran is the biggest strategic threat to Israel, but sidelined the fact that most of the actual killing of Israelis was done by Iran’s Palestinians and Lebanese proxies.

Dvar Dea

Previous  Next

US Israel relationships a seven parts series:
The public debate, correcting a favorable picture
The public debate, Israel and the war on terror
The Palestinian component
The right wing component
The Israeli exclamation mark, Obama's triple inheritance
The Israeli exclamation mark, unbalancing outreach w go-between
The peace process' beggars' choice

US Israel relationships, the Palestinian component

Third in a series of seven

parts: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Why is the Israeli Palestinian peace process so difficult?
There are of course many reasons for that. One reason, which many veteran American diplomats and negotiators acknowledge with a sigh of desperation and exhaustion, is the tendency of both sides to bicker like children during the negotiations. This is not something that is easy to admit but it is apart of the problem.

Another reason, one that has no comical side to it, is the fact that in any such negotiations Israelis are asked to entrust their personal security in the hands of their enemies. This requires a huge leap of faith even under more promising conditions. Nowadays it means retaking security risks involving fears and anxieties no parent should relive. But these are Israel’s political realities, realities Israel must engage no matter how impossible they are. At the same time these realities don’t create trust out of thin air, and without trust the peace process cannot move forwards. This is where the negotiator, who is also a good friend and a close ally, comes in. As a participator in the negotiations, and co signatory with reputation on the line, the significant but not unlimited trust Israelis have in such a negotiator allay some of their concerns.

This is why the famous picture from Camp David I, of the three heads of states had a reassuring effect. This is why President Bill Clinton's support for the Oslo accords helped maintain a large pro – peace vote in Israel in spite of three waves of Palestinian initiated violence. And that is why George W. Bush's support for the disengagement from Gaza helped get the support of a majority of already skeptic Israelis. Since the results of the disengagement from Gaza are what they are, if George Bush or Bill Clinton, as leaders of the United States, were to ask Israelis for something similar their chances of success would have been very small. For any other person in that high office less so, and for Barack Obama even less. This is evident from a June 2010 survey, quoted by CBS’ Katie Couric in her Benjamin Netanyahu interview. That survey found that 71% of Israelis dislike President Obama. This finding is an indicator of deep mistrust; since no US president had such low approval rating in Israel. This means that the most likely Israeli answer to the question whether they trust President Obama won't be just “No”; but rather “No!” A “No” with an exclamation mark, at least for the time of the survey.

There are three main phases building up to that “No!” The first is the public debate discussed in parts 1 and 2 of this series, which was more of an aggravating factor. The second is the Palestinian Authority discussed here below. The third is the Obama administration policies prior to Netanyahu’s visit to Washington in July 2010, discussed in the sixth article in this series.

Defenders of the Palestinian Authority have said that it is fulfilling its obligations under the Oslo Accords, fighting terrorism and governing the major cities in the West Bank where Israel allowed their police forces to redeploy. Even if this is true grave concerns remain:

1) The Palestinian Authority is doing NOW what it was supposed to do in the 1990s. If they are really fulfilling their commitments, they are doing it only after a wave of brutal violence they had initiated. What assurances does Israel have that if the Palestinians sign new agreements, let’s say about Jerusalem, they won’t implement them the same way, after another run of violence of their choice and making?

2) How do the Palestinians implement this alleged cooperation? With the help of a deep American involvement. There is a Palestinian American Prime Minister, with no constituency of his own other than the American and international support, and a security force commanded and established by an American general. If the Americans ease or cease their involvement will this continue or fade as if it never existed?

3) Why are they cooperating? At least a part of the answer, and not a small part, is because of fear of Hamas that is literally pointing a gun at their temple and kneecap. As solid as Hamas’ rule over Gaza currently appears, a successful missile strike into Israel or a successful terror attack against Israelis in the Sinai will lead to an Israeli military intervention that has a good chance of removing that regime, or contributing to its demise. Once that happens, and this motivation to cooperate is gone, what will encourage the Fatah/Palestinian Authority to continue their cooperation? Would the international fiscal support be enough or will they just take it and hide it, the way Yassar Arafat did?

4) There is always a cloud over the Palestinian Authority’s ability to govern. Can what happened in Gaza repeat itself in the West Bank in a similar way or a different one? Will Fatah hold itself together once Mahmoud Abbas is no longer in charge?

5) Incitement continues under the PA. As the history of the Oslo Process had shown, incitement is the engine of terrorism. Territorial concessions created opportunities for both peace and war. But the history of the Oslo process had demonstrated that incitement from both the PA sources and opposition sources contributed to the turning of territories handed over by Israel into launching pads of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.

6) The Palestinian Authority is Fatah; in recent history the Tanzim in Nablus, another part of Fatah, was on Hizbullah’s payroll and command. Along with the 'Karin A' affair this grounds in reality an Israeli concern that a corrupt Palestinian Authority will switch sides and starts working with the Iranians.

All of these suggest that the Palestinian leadership has a long way to go in order to prove itself an able and willing peace partner.

Left to right, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Palestinian president Mahmoud  Abbas

These concerns are not something Israel should hide behind when expected to deliver its part in the peace process, and help and encourage further Palestinian self-rule. At the same time this is not something the quartet should ignore, especially not the United – States. The lack of easy answers as to how they should go about this is the reason why the peace process is difficult.

Dvar Dea

Previous  Next


US Israel relationships a seven parts series:
The public debate, correcting a favorable picture
The public debate, Israel and the war on terror
The Palestinian component
The right wing component
The Israeli exclamation mark, Obama's triple inheritance
The Israeli exclamation mark, unbalancing outreach w go-between
The peace process' beggars' choice

US Israel relationships: The public debate, correcting a favorable picture

First in a series of seven
parts: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

The American – Israeli crisis over the Jewish neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo in East Jerusalem is long behind us, almost forgotten because of other crises and events that followed. Analysts and commentators believe that the differences remain, but the American administration decided to address them non-confrontationally. If so, that is quite a u-turn from what was a highly charged clash of honor and anxiety.

This clash was not just between the two governments. One such non-governmental exchange was the minor and indirect clash of words between senior American journalist and New-York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and Israeli journalist and YNET contributor Avi Trengo. This was not a clash of equally matching titans. It is doubtful if Thomas Friedman even heard of Avi Trengo and his response. What is important here is not who each of these gentlemen is, but what they both represent. They are the two opposite ends of the narrowest divide of views between the majority of Israelis and the American left regarding the peace process. Avi Trengo is a representative of the largest and most underreported segment of Israeli society, the disillusioned peace activists, and peace voters. Only a handful of foreign reporters have reported on them, on their views and concerns. And the most important of those journalists is Thomas Friedman. One example of Friedman's attentiveness to this segment of the Israeli population followed his 2003 documentary for the Discovery Channel, “Straddling the fence,” about the construction of Israel’s effective security barrier. As he explained at the time to senior CNN anchorman Jonathan Mann: “But let me simply say one other thing. I'm sorry that that moral threat is there. I do believe it is a real danger to Israel, but I believe we cannot lose sight also of the fact, this fence is the fence that Hamas built. If there were no suicide bombings, there would be no fence.”

Thomas Friedman

While Hamas is not the only terrorist organization to use suicide bombings against Israeli citizens, understanding, and acknowledging the fears Israelis have from this threat, many of them supporters of the peace process, is a meeting of minds. This was an important meeting of minds because it took place over the issue of Israel's security barrier, which was strongly criticized by most of the world at the time.

But over Ramat Shlomo there was a parting of minds, and not a pleasant one. When Thomas Friedman referred to a regular housing announcement that had become a routine for 43 years as “Driving drunk,” Trengo responded, “Take your money back,” suggesting Israel should stop receiving the annual 3 billion dollars in financial aid from the USA, since it is really only 690 millions dollars a year; were the rest goes back to buy American military products. His suggestion was a rather simplistic understanding of the economic relationships between the two countries, which involve more factors than those annual loans or grants. What it does represent is not only an emotional counter response but also the will to act on one’s own words. Which meant that it was a crisis in which there were Israelis willing to sever the bond between the two nations, a bond these loans have come to represent.

February 17^th, 2002 is a day I will never forget: It was during the Intifada, with the worse still ahead of us. I participated in an intimate Peace Now demonstration as an active member. For more than 30 years, I shared Friedman’s view that a return to the 1967 borders is a magical solution. Yet during the rally, we were informed that a suicide bomber killed two children at a pizza parlor. The protestors observed a moment of silence, before the next speaker, a Palestinian “moderate,” took the stage. His speech focused solely on accusing Israel while going back to the Nakba and early days of Zionism. The terror attack at the pizza parlor in Karnei Shomron was not mentioned at all. I left the rally with a sense of disgust.


Avi Trengo

Thomas Friedman’s follow up “Hobby or necessity” tried to water down the dispute by explaining to his readers in both countries the other side’s positions and realities. This was an admirable and commendable undertaking, but one that he got wrong when it comes to Israel. In that article he argued that Israelis treat the need to reach peace as a hobby because they lost faith in the idea that Palestinians want peace. And because the Israeli economy is doing so well there is no need for peace. The first part is inaccurate, the second one, even more so.

To begin with, Israelis don’t consider the need to make peace with the Palestinians a hobby for a reason Thomas Friedman knows very well. Most Israeli families still send their sons and daughters to the army when they turn 18. Though the daily security situation has improved enormously due to the security barrier and other measures taken by Israel, it is not 100%. About once a year, the terrorists have a “success” in the form of a bombing, a shooting, or a stabbing. It is violence, which all Israelis, like all people, can do without.

Thomas Friedman builds a part of his article on a previous one written by Newsweek’s Dan Ephron and published on January 2^nd, 2010, “Who Needs Peace, Love, And Understanding, Anyway?“ From which he quotes: “in short, Israelis are enjoying a peace dividend without a peace agreement.” But that statement is wrong. A peace dividend is made up of two parts: the removal of the uncertainty of war from a country’s future, and the release of resources previously needed for maintaining a large army and waging a war. Therefore, Israel does not have a peace dividend. Its economy is doing well despite of the lack of a peace dividend. Imagine a country that does well without oil fields. Nonetheless it would certainly like to have oil fields so it can enjoy the oil boom and improve its economic independence. In the same way Israel would like to have a peace dividend. Israeli hi-tech firms would love to see their best and brightest no longer called for duty in the army reserves, and no one wants to see tourist attractions in the line of fire.

This is the economic part of the reasoning behind the arguments for peace that helped create and motivate the Israeli peace camp in the 1990’s. (The other part was the moral arguments regarding the occupation and the consequences of ruling over another people for a long period of time). The only thing that changed is the realization that there is no peace partner. If taking the path to peace has brought the very violence and dangers the advocates of peace and territorial concessions promise to avoid, why take that path again?

People don’t want to die, that is the sole reason behind the Israeli reluctance to resume the peace process, no more no less. Or to paraphrase Dan Ephron’s title, "Who Needs Peace, Love, And Understanding, if it keeps getting you killed?" Putting the blame on the relatively good condition of the Israeli economy serves two diversionary purposes. For Americans like Thomas Friedman, Dan Senor, and Saul Singer, this apparent anomaly, where the Israeli economy is doing better than the American economy, is a way of poking at those in charge of their economy to do better. For what is left of the hard core ideological left in Israeli, is a form of scapegoating and escapism. By not addressing and criticizing the Palestinian violence, its scale and brutality and the incitement that fed it, they lost the support of their natural constituency. However, instead of taking responsibility, they put the blame on the business success of this constituency. Thus portraying falsely an Israel that cares more about making money than making peace, as if there is a contradiction between the two.

The problem is that the hard core ideological left in Israel, on its various factions, Zionists and post-Zionists, seems to be the main conduit, favored by American and international media for explanations of the Israeli society. But this part of the Israeli left has a discredited ideology, denial, and an inability to reach the Israeli public, as evident by their devastating defeat in the elections of 2009. Therefore, their own understanding of Israeli society and politics is very limited and skewed.

This skewed picture, of a hedonist Israel, was introduced to the world in two articles: The above-mentioned article by Dan Ephron, and a later one by Karl Vick of the “Time” magazine.  Both articles base themselves on several omissions. First, that the reason the Israeli economy is doing better is because of sound economic policy, and not because of some mysterious business skills or hidden wealth. The second omission is the fact that most Israelis are very cautious in their optimism. Acutely aware of the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of their national economy, their confidence, no matter how high, always tries to avoid the trap of complacency. This is a recurring feature of all internal discussions inside Israel on this subject. But this discussion is absent from the Dan Ephron and Karl Vick articles. The third omission is the question that preoccupies many Israelis today. Is the current Palestinian leadership a partner for peace? As far as Ephron and Vick are concerned, this question shouldn’t be asked.

The fourth omission is a simple question that must be placed in front of Dan Ephron, Karl Vic, and others who share their intolerant and patronizing attitude. What do they expect a people who lost hope in the availability of peace to do? To sink into never ending depths of depression, or to invest and develop whatever part of their lives they can and make the best of it? Because this is what Israel has done. And this is what other nations would have done had they been in the same situation. And that is the purpose of this seven part series: to show that what Israel and Israelis are doing is not so unexplainable and inexcusable. In spite of the accusations its detractors make when they capitalize on the good intentions of Thomas Friedman, Dan Senor and others. Because when these slanders are made, ‘hedonistic Israel’, or ‘terror enabling Israel’, no one profits, especially not the peace process.

Dvar Dea

Next


US Israel relationships a seven parts series:
The public debate, correcting a favorable picture
The public debate, Israel and the war on terror
The Palestinian component
The right wing component
The Israeli exclamation mark, Obama's triple inheritance
The Israeli exclamation mark, unbalancing outreach w go-between
The peace process' beggars' choice

The ‘Daily Show’ forum, debating Israel, hope among bashing

When you ask an Israel basher a tough question you may get a reply. Whether that reply can be considered an answer that is open for interpretation.

Having seen last October that Dr. Mustafa Barghouti and Anna Baltzer were to appear as guests on the 'Daily Show' I placed a question in the Daily Show forum, suggesting to the host, Jon Stewart, to present it to his guests.

I would like to make a suggestion to Mr. Jon Stewart regarding tonight guests Dr. Mustafa Barghuoti and Anna Baltzer. My suggestion is that he should ask Dr. Barghuoti if Jews have the right for life and liberty.

Been an Israeli, and a Zionist, I naturally do not have an objective view of Dr. Barghuoti and his colleague, but I would state that I, Boaz Tibon (Dvar Dea is my pen name of a sort) acknowledge that Palestinians have the right for life and liberty, that been the freedom to live, worship, accumulate property and national freedom and self determination.

Transparently speaking the real target of the question were the various Israel bashers who kept congratulating the two guests, over time after the show aired, few replies did come, surprising they weren’t, but they were informative, especially to those who want to know why the Israeli Palestinian conflict is so protracted.

VHSingularity wrote:

Why would Jon Stewart waste time by asking his guests a question that has no basis in reality? Are you really suggesting that during the last 42 years in which Palestinians have lived under Israel's military occupation that the Palestinians have been secretly infringing on Israeli liberty? How would they even accomplish that when in the West Bank Palestinians are hardly allowed to leave their own towns? Palestinian children often face military checkpoints and harassment or even violence at the hands of Israeli settlers just on their way to school. In Gaza the situation is even more stark. You know that Israel doesn't allow for the importation of food or basic building supplies for even for homes and schools? Now how is it that the Palestinians are denied food to eat and you are talking about the the "right of accumulation of property" for Israelis??

As you have claimed that you acknowledge the right of Palestinians to self-determination, then I have a better question for you: Do you call on Israel to immediately withdraw from all territories occupied in the 1967 war, to end the military siege of Gaza and to quit the illegal and racist Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank?


The only thing standing between the Palestinians and their self-determination is the Israeli army. And by the way, I have been to the West Bank. When I say the settlements are Jewish-only, I mean... they do not allow non-Jews to enter or live there, or they will physically and violently expel you.

VHSingularity response is probably close to ‘No’. ‘Probably’ because he doesn’t say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, he does make a big deal from the fact that the question had been asked in first place. He is upset about it. Apparently he does not acknowledge the other persons right to live as real, which suggests that elementary moral human and democratic values do not exit in his own, personal, moral code. A possibility supported by the evident fact that terrorism, that is the targeting of innocent civilians by armed Palestinians, does not exist in his response, or he simply has no problem with it.

Christine (with no capital c)  wrote:

It is not about right or wrong. It is about humanatarian needs. When the U.S. had the riots in in the ghettos during the Civil Rights, we as a country stood tall to support those rights. Here in the U.S. we tend to fight for freedom and individual rights. But, when it comes to Gaza and what is happening there you want us to turn a blind eye. The truth will be known. We will fight for people to be treated in a humane way.



Just the facts
Killed: 1,072 Israel - 6,348 Palestinians
Injured: 8,864 Israel - 39,019 Palestinians
Prisoners: 1 Israeli - 10,756 Palestinians
Children Killed: 123 Israeli - 1,435 Palestinians
Homes Destroyed: 0 Israeli - 18,147 Palestinians
Illegal settlments: 23 Jewish only settlements and outposts - 0 Palestinians
UN Resolutions broken: Israel 65 (more than all other countries combined) - Palestine 0
Money Daily Given by US Taxpayers: Israel $7,000,000 - Palestine $0


Do those in the Gaza strip have a right to live freely on their land? When will Israel stop the invasion? Kicking people out of their homes and either tearing them down or just moving in, is that right? Stealing the livelihood of a whole people, is that right?



I suppose since those people that Zionists (not Jewish) are stealing land from need a place to live you can invite them to live next door to you. (Syria is already flooded with refugees from Iraq and Palestinians.) Where do you suggest those people live? Who do you think should feed those people? Or do you have the "let them die" attitude? This land is ours and we don't care what the world thinks!


I think the U.S. should stop giving Israel the $7 million dollars every day they receive from U.S. taxpayers. Obama just recently gave a slap to American farmers. He OK'd a $17,000 rebate back to a Israel butter maker who brings his goods to American soil. He is bringing butter into the U.S. at a time when many farmers here are suffering the "recession". He also waived most tariff's and taxes f;or Israel and Israel alone. They can bring commodities into U.S. without paying for it. Therefore they can undercut our own countries livelihoods. Obama did this without the approval of the Congress.


I think we need to treat Israel the same way we treat any other country. Or better yet maybe we should treat Israel the same way they treat the Palestinians.


Let us not forget the USS Liberty!!!!!
Go to IfAmericansKnew.org

Christine has a very long and not very smart reply, as indicated by her first sentence; humanitarian is not a right or wrong issue? Of course it is. Her comparison between a war situation that exist in the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the civil rights struggle in the US is very far from reality and the numbers she brings are best described as empty, empty from content and credibility. The number of casualties on each side that she gave lacks the breakdown to combatants and non-combatants, on the Israeli side for example percentage of civilians, non-combatants, is higher then on the Palestinian side, where a significant percentage of the dead are Palestinians killed by their own people.

‘Children killed’ has its own breakdown according to age, because there is a difference between a 15 years old engaged in violent, stone throwing and Molotov Cocktail throwing demonstrations and a 4 years old playing in the street. Not forgetting omitted categories such as ‘blown up buses’ and ‘killed by a lynch mob.’ The numbers she gives regarding aid to both sides are a show of ignorance that is not helping the Palestinian cause, because Palestinians to get aide from international resources including the USA, and the loans Israel receives from the USA are definitely nor per day. And I have no idea what ‘slap to American farmers’ she’s talking about. But I guess there are more then a few like her in every crowd. Her directing me to Alison Weir infamous site is not surprising.

Related links on the statistical breakdown of casualties:
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Institute of Counter Terrorism “An Engineered Tragedy.”


Clint wrote:

I have always been a supporter of Israel and have thought of them as one of our strongest allies. But, as an American, I believe in the concept of fairness and I have seen so many Israelis stick their fingers in their ears and scream LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! anytime anyone has the audacity to discuss the issues of the Palestinian people. Thank you Jon for taking your fingers out of your ears and facilitating a fair and even keeled discussion. You are the voice of reason in a cacophony of hate.

Clint is funny, a self proclaimed Israel supporter who knows nothing about internal debates in Israel and regards the Israelis as a whole as been unfair, and that is his response to a question that has nothing to do with his reply.

Msherif wrote:

Response to Dvar Dea: As a Palestinian who cannot return, I would like to ask you how you feel about the rt of Jews from any country being able to become citizens of Israel, but those of us non-Jewish Palestians not having the same rts. Also, Palestians who have Israeli "citizenship" are not permitted to own over 98% of the land in Israel because of their religion (the late Israel Shahak documents this apartheid system in his books). Also - Israelis are able to build on confiscated Palestinian land - in violation of international law - and the USA pays for it. So how do you, Dvar Dea, feel about Palestians having the rt to defend themselves against this injustice. Should the just say - Israelis are superior and just take it?

Msherif, him I shouldn’t have missed, though most of his reply is the usual anti Israel mantra, here as an excuse for not answering the question, it could have been a good opportunity to explain Jewish nationhood and the right of self determination for all nations, where the ‘Law of Return’ is a key tool in gaining and maintaining that right for the Jews, as well as to correct several misguided conceptions about land ownership in Israel.

Related links on land ownership in Israel:

Zionism Israel.

Jewish Virtual Library.

Middle East forum.


Canadian Arab wrote:

I would like to reply to you sir by one simple link to a website. please you call yourself a Zionist, take a moment and be proud of what your past LEADERS have said about the Palestinians and "their right to exist" because being a Zionist and believing in the right to life to Palestinians are 2 complete opposites. If you truly believe in your comment I would SUGGEST to you to never say you are a Zionist. Here's the link: http://www.monabaker.com/quotes.htm It’s quite disturbing and extremely appalling to say the least.And yes, Arabs believe in the right to life for Israelis just as long as you don't take our life in order to prosper yours.

Canadian Arab has a ‘no matter what we do we lose’ response, a catch 22 of a sort. He is willing to acknowledge our right for life and liberty, on the condition of that we won’t do a list of lies we are accused of doing. But since these are lies, no matter how much we, the Zionist Israelis, will try not to do them, his kind (or is it her kind?), will consider us doing them anyway, thereby refusing our right for life and liberty. Msherif, him I shouldn’t have missed, though most of his reply is the usual anti Israel mantra, here as an excuse for not answering the question, it could have been a good opportunity to explain Jewish nationhood and the right of self determination for all nations, where the ‘Law of Return’ is a key tool in gaining and maintaining that right for the Jews, as well as to correct several misguided conceptions about land ownership in Israel.


Sam samurai wrote:

To the self proclaimed Zionist I say, asking a person if they will give you Life and liberty, while taking his mother, father, brother,sister, and his identity is like asking a man you are about to murder to sign off on the murder with the hope that the signing off may allow you not to be killed; when all along you know you are going to kill him, because only then can you get his wife, his land, his house, his identity and his his claim to his citizenship. Isreal has more Liberty than any nation in this world and also growing resentment of the world, beware of History- Isreal one man may not be able to do anything but the entire world against Isreal autrocities is a burden no nation wants to face.

Sam Samurai’s response is a part of a concentrated reply to several other posters in the forum. The section where he replies to me makes his response is important. Putting aside the lies about Israel killing “father, brother, mother…” and stealing identity, (how exactly do we do that?), he apparently regards the very existence of Israel, and for that matter Jews who enjoy life and liberty, as murder, and calling something murder is a far stronger negation then just saying no.

And then there is this from seife, who signed as Adam.

Thank you Mr. Tibon for your objective view. I am the son of an Arab Muslim and Christian couple. I married into a Jewish American family. I know for a fact, that the majority of Arabs (Muslims and Christians) believe that the Jewish people have the right for life, liberty, and dignity. I am always surprised of how politicians on every side (not only Arab and Israeli) have been so successful in convincing both sides that the other group is a monster! Just read the history of the Jewish people and you will come to a quick conclusion that Muslims treated Jews better than anyone else over the years. The recent conflict started only after the massive immigration of European Jews to Palestine, and the declaration of the establishment of Israel. It is very understandable that the Arabs (Muslims and Christians) opposed it then. Who would like to give up land and control freely? Most of them accept it now, but unfortunately, are always surprised by the unjust one-sided rules they are subjected to by Israel. Many objective observers (not the current major news agencies, they are part of the problem) could consider the Israeli treatment of Arabs in the occupied territories as a form of racism. Unfortunately, the constant propaganda on all sides (Arab, Israeli, and American) has just fueled the emotion of everyone thus, the call by many, especially the extremists on both sides, to destroy the other. Very unfortunate and sad!!!



Adam

His claim that most Arabs would say ‘Yes’ to my question means his answer is ‘Yes’ or close to that. It is interesting that he considers me objective since I made it clear that I do not consider myself as such. And while I disagree with him on several of the points he made, it seems that on a moral level we have some common ground, which is encouraging. I never expect the other side to agree with me 100%, but if on morality and realism there is a common ground then may be there is hope.I am not a big fun of debating on forums, each and his/hers own taste I guess. In many cases the company on popular forums is similar to that associated with talkbacks, I prefer exchanging views on blogs, where there is a greater possibility for a constructive ex change. This is why I made no effort to reply and let the thread grow.

The dominant views themselves are not unique and can be found in Politico the Daily Kos, and elsewhere. Adam’s answer was certainly a surprise, one that undermined my lost of fait in human kind, the one that partake in popular forums and talkbacks that is, and it’s a good thing too. But when we look at the Israel bashers, those who have hard time keeping the word ‘No’ from slipping through their lips when asked whether Jews have the right to live; what their dominance among the critics of Israel tell us about the academic world and the political world they reflect?

Hope did surprised me, but it still a minority, and after all on the Israeli side we got our share of Arab bashers.

Is there a hope for peace?

I gave up long ago, which makes me a member of the majority here in Israel, and probably among the Palestinians as well, but sometimes people can surprise us for the better.
Usually talkbackers are full of trash talk and hate speech, but in this article by Yoram Ettinger, Mohammad and Said from Jordan had a lengthy constructive conversation with William and Logic from Israel.
This is only a trickle of hope, but by god I was thirsty, and so do a lot of other people.