Obama doesn’t get it

[shira]

Obama doesn’t get it
US president seeking instant Mideast solutions that show his ignorance
Guy Bechor Published: 06.22.09, 12:06 / Israel Opinion

When I read that President Obama will call for normalization of ties between the Arab world and Israel at the early stages of his “peace plan,” I shrugged. Yet when I read that he intends to settle the Palestinian refugees in the Arab states they currently live in, and grant them monetary compensation, I was amused.

These are pipe dreams, just like the “Arab democracy” vision of his predecessor that collapsed loudly and brought disaster to the region. This is a rookie plan of an intern who believes that the Israeli-Arab conflict can be resolved with a quick and arrogant gesture. It is clear that whoever came up with this plan lacks understanding of the history, demography, and mostly the fears of the region.

Arab states will never renounce their demand to send back Palestinian refugees to Palestine, that is, to the State of Israel, and some of them, maybe, to the Palestinian Authority. Why? Because these are holy issues.

These refugees define the aspirations of the Arab world, its politics, and its article of faith; this is something that one does not renounce. The demand for returning the refugees is the only common denominator connecting Hizbullah and the Christians in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran, and it’s worth more than gold.

cont'd....

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3735075,00.html

[shira]

1. article cont'd

The Arab political establishment wishes to realize the “right of return” not for the sake of the Palestinians, heaven forbid, who are hated in most Arab States, but rather, in order to weaken Israel, destroy it from within, and sink it in the sea of returning Palestinians.

For the Arab world, this is not about the fate of the “Palestinians,” but rather, the fate of the “Palestinian problem,” and these are two separate issues: They hate the Palestinians, but admire the Palestinian problem. They hate the refugees, but admire their right of return. The Arab states have not been maintaining the refugee problem for more than 60 years in order to renounce it.

Disregard for regional fears

Over the years, the notion of “return” in the Arab world has turned into something that is above any discussion. Like religion. When Mahmoud Abbas visited Beirut in 2005 he met with refugee representatives and promised that they will return to their homes and villages, as if they still exist, and as if Israel doesn’t exist. And this is the heart of the matter: For the Arabs, this is a metaphysical matter, larger than life, whereby the refugees are supposed to return not to Israel, but rather, to the year 1948, to the moment of departure.

The Lebanese added a problematic clause to the Saudi “peace” initiative when they ruled that refugees must not be settled in Arab states. Should Lebanon grant Lebanese citizenship to the Palestinians residing there, this will completely change the ethnic division of power and hugely increase the number of Muslims, at the expense of the Christians. No Christian will agree to that, and certainly no Shiite, as the Palestinians are Sunni. Yet most refugees, about 700,000, live in Lebanon, without ID cards, without work permits, and without citizenship.

Syria hosts them but doesn’t want them, and the same is true for Egypt. Kuwait already expelled them (250,000 people) after the first Gulf War. The Shiite Iraq would like to see them disappear, and in any case a sort of ethnic cleansing campaign against them is taking place. Only Jordan granted them citizenship, and they are Jordanians in every way.

And what does Barack Obama offer us and them? An instant solution meant to advance his personal agenda, alongside ignorance, disregard for regional fears, blindness, and pretenses. Just like the Sykes-Picot Agreement, where borders were drawn in the Middle East while disregarding the people, tribes, and religions, the same may happen this time around. The bitter price will be paid by the Middle East, as usual, in local blood.

[sui generis]

2. "Because these are holy issues."

enough said. Until you get the administration of religious authority out of the administration of governance, you are always going to have some religious group claiming to be the chosen people, to have their national identities inextricable from their religious identity, and interminable wars of ideology and retribution.

Screw the holy issues. If ANY government puts human rights first and foremost, it will by definition conflict with their "holy" mandates. It's what makes religious conservatives in the U.S. feel empowered: we place religious tradition above human and civil rights right here in the United States. I would say that we DO get it, the "it" being that we don't disagree.

[Buzz Clik]

3. When did Obama suggest that instant solutions exist?

Um ... never?

More hyperbole.

[LeftishBrit]

4. What 'instant solutions'?

'And what does Barack Obama offer us and them? An instant solution meant to advance his personal agenda, alongside ignorance, disregard for regional fears, blindness, and pretense'

I am quite sure that Obama is not naive enough to think that any solution will be 'instant'. He is trying to help to achieve the *beginnings* of some sort of solution. Even once it's begun, it may take years to achieve. But better that, than to throw up one's hands and assume that no solution is possible.

'Arab states will never renounce their demand to send back Palestinian refugees to Palestine, that is, to the State of Israel, and some of them, maybe, to the Palestinian Authority. Why? Because these are holy issues.'

Holy my hind foot. It's because it's convenient for the Arab states to make the right noises about their dear Palestinian brethren; but goodness forbid that THEY should have to take any real responsibility for them! As the author implicitly acknowledges elsewhere in the article. It's a fact of which everyone is doubtless aware, including Obama, the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Arab states themselves. And any solution will have to take this unpleasant fact into account. But then everyone knows this already.

But it's not any reason to diss all Obama's attempts to press for a peaceful solution before he's even started. Nor is it any excuse for Israel to just continue with the status quo and the occupation (even though they also can't be expected to allow ROR for *all* Palestinians at the cost, at best, of long-term civil war in their own state). Nor on the other hand should it be seen as giving the Arab states the moral high ground re UN resolutions, etc.

Peace won't be easy or instant; but I dare to hope it will be possible!

[shira]

5. how about an instant 2-year deadline for peace to just 'break out'

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1091465.html

hey, it could happen!

what could possibly go wrong?

:eyes:

I have the feeling there are many who just want Israel to GTFO of the territories forever and whatever happens, happens. Most people who advocate such a move don't have to live there with the repurcussions that will follow. I'm not sure 'forcing' an agreement will yield positive results.

[Ken Burch]

13. Then again, what YOU want is for Israel to stay IN the Occupiued Territories forever

And keep the war going forever, while forever arguing that the world is obligated to take the Israeli side against the Palestinians just to prove that the world isn't antisemitic.

You dishonor the victims of historic antisemitism by using their suffering to justify inflicting suffering on those who aren't responsible for historic antisemitism. Please stop doing that, it's disgusting.

[shira]

14. no I don't.....you're misrepresenting me

tell me, if you knew ending the occupation soon would result in FAR more death and destruction, at levels not seen since 1948 or worse, would you be for ending the occupation soon?

[Ken Burch]

17. Your whole purpose here has been to try and silence any criticism of Israeli policy.

Even though you know that what people like Sharon, Barak, Lieberman and Netanyahu have done has caused nothing but misery, has done nothing but make the situation worse, has done nothing but make the "Palestinian leadership" that you go on and on about ad nauseum worse, you insist on equating all criticism of Israeli policy with "antisemitism"(except for what you call "reasonable criticism" which is something you never admit exists). You still haven't figured out that, if Israel had negotiated with the PLO in the Eighties(or included them at Camp David) there would have been a stable two-state solution in place for decades now. And Hamas and Hezbollah would never have existed.

You blame everyone who dissents from what the Israeli government is doing for what UN bodies or other groups have done and said(even though you know we aren't responsible for those statements and actions and we could never have done anything to stop them). You have even slandered us by falsely implying that we don't support the Iranian democracy movement(refusing to admit you were wrong about that when it was proven to you that speaking out loudly on that would only ENDANGER the people in that movement and wasn't an example of any of us letting the Iranian police state off the hook at all). And you fall back on the old canard(an idea even YOU know is futile)that the Occupation must be kept in place until the Palestinians suddenly become Gandhians or perhaps saints. I have the sickening feeling that, had DU existed in the Eighties, you'd have been denouncing Mandela for his alliance with Libya(even though all liberation movements are duty-bound to accept support from wherever they get it)and would have been crying crocodile tears over the collaborators that were killed by the ANC(even though all liberation movements mete out punishment to traitors).

You were never a dove. You probably still think they Sinai should've been kept. And you are delusional if you think that Israel has any right to ask for peace if it holds onto the West Bank.

Oh, and before you drag it out of mothballs, yes I DO denounce my own country for all the land theft it committed against Native Americans and the repression it has visited upon them, the rest of the Rainbow, women, LGBT people, and workers and the poor. That should always have been clear from my basic position anyway, but I thought I should point it out before you tried that "double standard" bullshit on me.

[shira]

19. can you answer my question now please? i feel dumber for having read all that drek.

[Ken Burch]

24. You're question is built on a lie.

The Palestinians are not Nazis. They don't want to slaughter all the Jews in Israel. At some point you have got to accept that Palestinians are human beings just like Israelis.

[shira]

25. i'm basing it on Intifada 2 (following camp David) and the Gaza pullout

so again....IF ending the occupation results in a catastrophic war, you're for ending the occupation?

[Ken Burch]

28. I've just demonstrated that there's no basis in reality for your question

The Palestinians struggle for self-determination. They aren't interested in genocide. It's only Europeans that commit antisemitic genocide.

[shira]

38. no basis for reality? what are your thoughts on these vids?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=278672&mesg_id=279012

[Ken Burch]

34. You can't compare the establishment of a real Palestinian state with the Gaza pullout.

Sharon KNEW the Gaza pullout would provoke violence and he wanted it to. Sharon wanted to use the Gaza pullout to prevent the establishment of a real Palestinian state.

If such a state really were created, the natural reaction of the Palestinian people would be to celebrate and to try to make that state work. The natural reality of the situation would push them to a transition to peace.

You're just assuming that Palestinians are bloodthirsty psychotics.

[shira]

39. huh? Where were you and those like you PRIOR to the Gaza pullout preaching about how it would do

nothing but provoke more violence and assure the prevention of a Palestinian state?

And did you check out these vids (there are dozens more just like them or worse)...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=278672&mesg_id=279012

[IndianaGreen]

21. Ding, ding, ding! We got a winner!

Leon Trotsky

On The Jewish Problem (1934)

Question: What is your attitude about Palestine as a possible Jewish “Homeland” and about a land for the Jews generally? Don’t you believe that the anti-Semitism of German Fascism compels a different approach to the Jewish question on the part of Communists?

Answer: Both the Fascist State in Germany, as well as the Arabian Jewish struggle bring forth new and very clear verifications of the principles that the Jewish question cannot be served within the frame work of capitalism. I do not know whether Jewry will be built up again as a nation. However, there can be no doubt that the material conditions for the existence of Jewry as an independent nation could be brought about only by the proletarian revolution. There is no such a thing on our planet as the idea that one has more claim to land than another.

The establishment of a territorial base for Jewry in Palestine or any other country is conceivable only with the migrations of large human masses. Only a triumphant Socialism can take upon itself such tasks. It can be foreseen that it may take place either on the basis of a mutual understanding, or with the aid of a kind of international proletarian tribunal which should take up this question and solve it.

The blind-alley in which German Jewry finds itself as well as the blind-alley in which Zionism finds itself is inseparably bound up with the blind-alley of world capitalism, as a whole. Only when the Jewish workers clearly see this inter-relationship will they be forewarned against pessimism and despair.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/xx/jewish.htm

[bemildred]

6. This is drool. This guy is a tool.

It ain't Obama that doesn't get it. Israel was a "pipe dream" once. Time is a tailor specializing in alterations. There is nothing more foolish than thinking you can never lose. The "Arab world" he speaks so glibly about does not exist, and it never has. It's not that "Arab world" that Israel needs to worry about, it's the Palestinians and the non-Arab world.

[shira]

7. what on earth makes you believe the author of the OP is totally wrong?

what counter-evidence can you provide to show that the OP is nothing but "drool"?

Has the 2002 Arab peace initiative's clause regarding RoR been amended yet? If not, why not?

[Sezu]

8. her omnipotence? n/t

[shira]

9. more like, If I call people nasty names like "tool" and their work "drool", I don't have to read

what they write, and therefore, name-calling is an acceptable substitute for argumentation.

:eyes:

[bemildred]

51. Her? nt

[bemildred]

50. Literacy? nt

[IndianaGreen]

10. Only in the I/P forum you can post rightwing propaganda and get away with

Upstairs your posts would have been treated as if they were from Drudge or Free Republic.

[shira]

11. what makes the article "rightwing"?

[azurnoir]

12. The inferred support of comtinued occupation

news flash that is generally considered rightwing, not that you would be expected to understand

[shira]

15. i want the occupation to end ASAP....wish it could be done

tell me....if you knew ending the occupation ASAP would lead to the MOST bloody conflict since 1948, would you be all for it?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. That's an outright lie - you support the occupation becoming permanent.

I've seen you repeatedly state elsewhere that you oppose the removal of the settlements.

[shira]

20. why didn't you answer the question about occupation ending, big war beginning?

The major settlements, just as the Clinton Parameters of 2000 stipulated, should remain Israel's and there should be landswaps. The minor settlements and those way beyond the green line should be abandoned or dismantled IMO. Keeping the settlements does not equate to extending the occupation.

[Ken Burch]

22. Yes it does. If the settlements are kept, the creation of a Palestinian state is impossible

The settlements control all the water, all the good land. There's nothing left for Palestinians if the settlements are kept. Keeping the settlements means the Occupation never ends.

[shira]

26. so Clinton's Parameters wouldn't have worked with land swaps?

[Ken Burch]

31. You know perfectly well the Israeli government wouldn't give the Palestinians any good land

And that they wouldn't give them the equal control of the water supply that Palestinians are morally entitled to.

And if you're assuming that Palestinians are incapable of making peace, land swaps would hardly help that, since the Israeli government would make sure the swaps were unjust.

[shira]

36. the major settlement areas weren't "good land" until Israel made it into good land.

You should do some research into what Israel has been able to do with desert wasteland and swamp area.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. And money. Don't forget the money.

The big difference between Israel and Palestine is not, as you clearly think, that one is virtuous and industrious and makes the desert bloom while the other are thieving Arab layabouts, but that one has received massive influxes of money and support from overseas, while the other has been, either directly or indirectly under the heel of an exceptionally powerful and repressive neighbour and international embargoes.

It's easy to get to the top of the ladder if you start only one rung down; it's much harder if the people up there keep stamping on your toes.

This is, of course, a phenomen far from unique to the Middle East - the povery of the poor and the wealth of the rich owes more to self-perpetuation than to any other single cause wherever you look.

[shira]

44. as if the PA/PLO has not received billions in aid that's been squandered or used for arms?

[Ken Burch]

23. The Occupation ending doesn't HAVE to lead to a genocidal war.

The Palestinians want a state. They don't want to make what is currently Israel Judenrein. It's only Europeans that slaughter all the Jews in their countries.

[shira]

27. all it has to lead to is the W.Bank turning into a Gazan launching pad

you're for ending occupation if that results, right?

[Ken Burch]

29. Why can you not accept that Palestinians would let it go at getting a state?

Why insist on pretending they're Nazis when you know they're not?

[shira]

32. Palestinians or Palestinian leadership? Gaza 2005 and Intifada 2 aren't good examples?

Here's state-sponsored Palestinian TV...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSwpAX1xvrc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdRXkT1_eoI&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDBn8lUOKOM

nothing to worry about, right?

[Ken Burch]

35. You're assuming that leadership would remain in place in an independent Palestine

The settlements provide no security for Israel at all, and all they do is increase the rage and the violence that's fueled by rage. Why can't you admit that the status quo doesn't work?

[shira]

37. check out those videos and tell me you KNOW once occupation ends, the conflict is totally over

[Ken Burch]

30. They wouldn't still be fighting if they got a state.

n/t.

[shira]

33. they were offered it in 2000 and Intifada 2 was ordered in response

Occupation and settlements ended in Gaza 2005, and look at what resulted.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. Nonsense.

The Palestinians were offered a Bantustan in 2000, not a viable state.

And talking about "ending the occupation and settlements in Gaza" as a meaningful step is like talking about "ending one of the seven nodes of cancer in your brain" - it's a start, but nothing more than that; one still has cancer.

[shira]

43. maps by Dennis Ross, used by Jimmy Carter, show Palestinians were NOT offered bantustans

so if ending occupation in Gaza was a START, why didn't the PA/Hamas play along?

why didn't Hezbollah play along in 2000 when the occupation in Lebanon ended?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. Because it was a start that wasn't leading anywhere.

Israel had, and has, no intention of removing most of its other settlements, as you yourself admit and defend.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. The settlements are part of the occupation.

Talking about "ending the occupation but keeping the settlements" is like talking about "making peace, but still dropping rockets on Sderot".

As to your question: yes, *if* I knew for a fact that ending the occupation would lead to the most bloody conflict since 48 breaking out, *then* I would oppose it. It's an easy question to answer, but not one worth answering because it has no relevance to reality. If you knew for a fact that ending the occupation would lead to world peace and harmony, a cure for cancer and AIDS, mana raining from heaven and wine flowing in the streets, would you support it?

[shira]

45. settlements depend on the final borders, don't they?

As to your question: yes, *if* I knew for a fact that ending the occupation would lead to the most bloody conflict since 48 breaking out, *then* I would oppose it.

good....so you're as "against" the ending of occupation as I am. We agree.

It's an easy question to answer, but not one worth answering because it has no relevance to reality.

right...no relevance to reality.....hmm, Lebanon 2000 and Gaza 2005....ending occupation, peace breaks out! :eyes: Let's pretend ending occupation in the W.Bank will result in peace.

If you knew for a fact that ending the occupation would lead to world peace and harmony, a cure for cancer and AIDS, mana raining from heaven and wine flowing in the streets, would you support it?

If I knew ending occupation would lead to a cold peace (like Israel has with Egypt and Jordan) I would be for it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. Ending the occupation in Gaza was like removing one of ten brain tumours.

The fact that the patient is still dying after you take out the first tumour is *not* evidence that there is no point in removing the other nine.

And no, settlements don't depend on final borders, they depend on current legal borders, which is to say the Green line - please, spare me the "the settlements are not illegal" garbage.

[shira]

54. so it could only be expected that terror INCREASED due to Israeli good-faith measures?

It's not that terror levels remained the same when Israel granted the PA autonomy in the 90's, froze new settlements since the mid 90's, offered to end the conflict in 2000 and 2008, ended occupation in Lebanon and Gaza......TERROR INCREASED due to all that....but you can "understand" the Palestinian reaction, right? Israel rightly deserved an increase in terror due to these moves, right?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. They weren't "good faith measures".

Withdrawal from Gaza was a tactical move to make it easier for Israel to hold onto other illegal settlements.

How much terror there is depends largely on two factors: motive and opportunity.

Withdrawing from Gaza increased the opportunities, while doing nothing to decrease the motive - the Palestinians could still see that Israel had no intention of removing most of its settlements.

Withdrawing from *all* the settlements would likewise increase the opportunities somewhat, but it would massively decrease the motive for violence, and - crucially - would strengthen both the motive and the opportunties for those Palestinians opposed to violence to crack down on it: Hamas's greatest strength is that the PA has no alternative to offer; peaceful means clearly won't lead to an end to the occupation. If that changed, Hamas would lose most of its support and the PA would be massively strengthened.

And no, I don't believe Israeli civilians deserve to be victims of violence, as you have repeatedly heard me state before.

[shira]

56. not good faith measures?

- granting PA autonomy in the 90's
- freezing new settlements since mid 90's
- offering what Prez. Clinton deemed a fair settlement in 2000 (agreeing to Clinton Parameters)
- withdrawing completely from Leb'n 2000
- withdrawing from Gaza completely 2005 AND dismantling settlements in Samaria
- Olmert offering more than Taba 2008

and let's not forget the deal with Sadat and peace with Jordan.

...none of which were good faith measures?

...all of which "NATURALLY" led to more terror as a result of perceived "BAD FAITH"?

It doesn't matter WHY Israel withdrew from Gaza anymore than it matters WHY they made peace with Egypt and Jordan or withdrew from Lebanon. The FACT is it happened and it was met ONLY with more terror...

...terror against civilians that YOU believe is justified based on Israel's continued occupation of the W.Bank.....and which YOU believe Israel has no right to defend against. Or do I misunderstand your POV...in that Hamas or Hezbollah is only "justified" in attacking the IDF (which they rarely try doing) and that the IDF is only "justified" when defending against terror aimed at civilians (which you have never articulated), as if the IDF shouldn't attack when attacks are aimed at it?

this is where you usually disappear from discussion, BTW.

Your position is morally repugnant and offensive to the extreme, as you are only JUSTIFYING Hamas/Fatah ongoing violence which will only lead to the continuation of Palestinian suffering - suffering that you purport to care about and empathize with.

[excess_3]

16. Obama only has eight years

assuming he is re-elected.

any policy adopted now,
has to have a chance for success
during that time.


000.1 percent chance of success in 8,
is better than anything else
that takes longer.

.....................
ditto the next president

[Jefferson23]

48. LOL, what complete nonsense in this OP

[shira]

49. nonsense? has the Arab League revised the Saudi Initiative regarding RoR yet?

lemme know when they do, mkay? :)

[Jefferson23]

52. shira, the majority of the OP's you post are horseshit.

That you continue to post them regardless is your right, and my right to mock them.

[shira]

53. how about something substantive from you, like WHY this one is horseshit?

[Jefferson23]

57. You believe his perspective shira, I find his take on Obama absurd.

"This is a rookie plan of an intern who believes that the Israeli-Arab conflict can be resolved with a quick and arrogant gesture. It is clear that whoever came up with this plan lacks understanding of the history, demography, and mostly the fears of the region."

That is a horseshit argument, Obama isn't aware of the history, blah, blah, blah. Obama is a rookie, who believes the I/P conflict can be resolved with a quick and ARROGANT gesture?

Give me a fucking break, Obama has done nothing that warrants such a response.

[shira]

58. I believe Israelis and Pal'ns who know that RoR is a VERY big deal that can't just be dismissed so

easily after 61 years.

[Jefferson23]

59. Obama is not dismissing anything, that is why your Op sucks.

[shira]

60. wow...very substantive, how impressive

Obama believes the Arab League will just amend their charter, drop RoR, and see to it that refugees are taken in by their host countries after being paid off.

damn...so easy, I wonder why NO ONE ever thought of that one in the past 61 years. :eyes:

so tell me, IF they agree...when will it go into effect, AFTER a peace deal is struck or before? why wait? if not ALL become citizens in their host countries, then who? will it be fair? do those who are rejected as citizens immediately go to the W.Bank and Gaza? do you even give a shit?

[Jefferson23]

61. If anyone doesn't give a shit, it is you shira. That rings clear in the OP's

you add to this forum. No one could or has impressed you with their views on the I/P conflict shira that I have seen, you are in the minority opinion, which is your right. If you really think that Obama is a rookie and his approach arrogant to this conflict, I can't help you. That doesn't mean I won't mock the crap you throw up, nothing I say will change your mind, and visa versa.

[shira]

62. mocking and ad-hominem is all you have since there is no substance to your arguments.

[Jefferson23]

63. You and I will undoubtedly not ever agree on what is substantial

criticism of Obama, Israel/Palestinians, that is the point shira.

[shira]

64. so why mock and name-call when you cannot substantively refute your opponent's argument?

[Jefferson23]

65. Go back read my last response, take as much time with it as you need.

At some point, perhaps it will sink in.

[shira]

66. you mean you are incapable of rational, substantive debate and do not like your views challenged

you're a true believer when it comes to I/P - just like many on your side here - you're not amenable to any amount of reason, fact or history. When challenged, you resort to mocking and name-calling, then disappear.

And you seem proud of yourself.

You fit right in with most far-RW nutters who are capable of no better than you.

[Jefferson23]

67. "just like many on your side." Interesting choice of words shira.

I'll repeat for the last time, read the previous post for as long as it takes you to comprehend it. Until then, I expect you'll continue to posture that you are a proponent to end the occupation, all the while adding Op's such as this one to the forum.

[shira]

68. your side = Israel haters

now you brought up occupation....here's a really simple softball question for you:

Are you for ending it if you knew a big, terrible war would result and that Palestinian suffering would be worse than ever before?