Fierce debate on Israel underway inside Obama administration

[ProgressiveMuslim]

Since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s tense visit to the White House last week, an intense debate inside the Obama administration about how to proceed with Netanyahu to advance the Middle East peace process has grown more heated, even as Israeli officials are expected to announce they have reached some sort of agreement with Washington as soon as tonight.

Sources say within the inter-agency process, White House Middle East strategist Dennis Ross is staking out a position that Washington needs to be sensitive to Netanyahu’s domestic political constraints including over the issue of building in East Jerusalem in order to not raise new Arab demands, while other officials including some aligned with Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell are arguing Washington needs to hold firm in pressing Netanyahu for written commitments to avoid provocations that imperil Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and to preserve the Obama administration's credibility.

POLITICO spoke with several officials who confirmed the debate and its intensity. Ross did not respond to a query, nor did a spokesman for George Mitchell.

“He seems to be far more sensitive to Netanyahu's coalition politics than to U.S. interests,” one U.S. official told POLITICO Saturday. “And he doesn't seem to understand that this has become bigger than Jerusalem but is rather about the credibility of this Administration.”

What some saw as the suggestion of dual loyalties shows how heated the debate has become....
http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0310/Fierce_debate_on_Israel_underway_inside_Obama_administration.html#

[theoldman]

1. If the job were easy we would have elected McCain.

I am sure that Obama will make the right decision. It will not make everyone happy but it will be the right decision.

[zipplewrath]

2. Which presumes there is a "right" solution

More to the point, that there is any solution here at all. You have, by several different definitions, a "civil war" going on. And the worst case scenario for any civil war is when external actors get involved. (It is interesting to note that to a great degree, the American Civil war was able to keep overt external actors out of the conflict). This conflict is virtually defined by the external actors. It is telling that Obama's primary concern in Palistine is..... Iran.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

3. It's not a civil war. It's a 40+ year violent military occupation of a civilian people.

"Civil war" assumes to symmetric, or nearly symmetric sides. This is a foreign colonial occupation, in which indigenous people are being robbed of their land, stripped of their rights, and left to languish in prisons.

[zipplewrath]

4. You did see where I said "several different definitions"

At this point, they are all basically citizens of the area. I understand your point of view, and it involves alot of the aspect of the "outside actors" of which I spoke. This conflict has all the markings of the western expansion of the US and what we constantly referred to as the "Indian problem".

[pelsar]

7. or........its the opposite....

the indigenous people returning to their land after being kicked out and kicked around for a few thousand years....

wouldnt it be interesting to put a *number of years* on when when a people lose their *indigenous* rating?. If the Palestinians who are not living in Palestine for 1,000 years, do they lose their *indigenous* status and its then passed on to those living there?

or its really the bedouin and druze who are the real indigenous people, it was the arab muslims arabs who actually invaded and took their land...and are simply late comers who are attempting to make their own invasion *moral*......

either way the title *indigenous* hardly belongs solely to the muslim arabs.......

[ProgressiveMuslim]

8. One thing is for sure: YOU certainly are not indigenous.

Yet you can roam at will. My husband, who was born there and lived there for 25 years is banned.

Hmmm.

this is a new level of "Palestine denial" for you Pelsar.

[pelsar]

9. im just part of history......decisions made because of history

there is no denial....there the just the fact that the Palestinian arab muslim narrative is not the sole narrative......there is history which show that the Palestinian experience of people moving in and out of areas, of war, of different governing bodies, of war and refugees is nothing special and nothing original....

there are some unique aspects to the conflict, involving histories, competing narratives, opportunities lost and massive intolerance etc.

another angle is how the druze and bedouin took different political decisions from those of the arab muslims....and guess what? First they are still living in areas where they lived previously (s. Bedouin in a perpetual conflict with the state), and in fact have better relationship with the state then do the arab muslims.

interesting to compare the various decisions by the various groups......and the consequences of those decisions.

thats the biggest problem i see...a reluctance to understand and accept that there are consequences for political and military decisions. In the real world, a decision, an action has consequences that have to be lived with, not pretend that it "didn't happen or doesn't count"

[shaayecanaan]

12. Or...

another angle is how the druze and bedouin took different political decisions from those of the arab muslims

Or how the Samaritans took different decisions from those of the other Jews, and as a consequence, have better relations with the Arabs than the Orthodox Jews do.

[pelsar]

13. as long as you accept your status as a second class citizen..

which is what the samaritans did.....so they had a better relationship with their betters, just as did the jews in russia, in spain etc. its a good system as long as you dont mind the occasional blood libel etc.

in case you missed the concept of israel, its that jews dont have to live in a place where they are second class citizens or wondering when the next anti Semitic attack will occur.... though i do understand that there are those that disagree with that concept and as you have expressed, prefer the way of the Samaritans as a way of life.....

[shaayecanaan]

15. And the Druze and Bedouin in Israel are not second class citizens?

Do you honestly not see your hypocrisy for what it is?

[pelsar]

16. legally no.....hence there is no hypocrisy ...though it was a nice attempt....

furthermore, they are not, nor do they have to be satisfied with their political status as second class citizens. As they protest, get in the news, laws, policies and attitudes are changed.

your promotion of the Samaritans as the way to get along with the arabs, is to accept their legal status as second class citizens...sometimes i get confused as to what kind of forum this is, but it does reconfirm why israel is needed for the jews.

i do get amused however at the attempts to demonize israel.....in this case you *missed* the minor fact the bedouin and duze are not legally second class, its a social/political problem that can and is being solved.

nice try, im sure many will miss the difference......its just interesting why your promoting such a system for getting along with the arabs on a *progressive site*

[shaayecanaan]

17. The Samaritans are not "legally" second class citizens either...

They are Palestinian citizens, and additionally are entitled to a Samaritan seat in the national assembly.

[pelsar]

20. your statement about Samaritans

the history is pretty clear too: they lived in a muslim ruled world as second class citizens (which is what i was thinking about when i read your response-hence mine wasnt in response...sorry.

as far as today goes....they are an odd sect...considering themselves as the "real jews" and willing to live under a "foreign got"....and in case the concept slipped by, the concept of israel was to be a jewish state where one doesnt have to pay jizya, worry about blood libels etc and the local arabs and surrounding countries didn't agree to that concept, hence your comparison is mute.

This is just an attempt to show how the jews took the wrong path, when in fact that suggestion is that the whole concept of the jewish state was/is wrong. That may be your opinion, so if so, just say it, why bother with half assed attempts at demonizing israel and pretending that the jews in fact had other realistic options at the time?

[shaayecanaan]

27. No one has paid a jizya tax since 1856

when it was abolished across the Ottoman empire. Nor was there ever a single instance of Jews being accused of `blood libels` during the Muslim era. You`re talking out your arse, as usual.

My point was that relations between the heretical and orthdox practitioners of a single sect (such as orthdox Muslims and Druze) are often worse than relations between heretics and practitioners of a different religion. Consequently, orthdox Jews and Samaritans never got along, whereas Muslims and Christians had reasonable relations with the Samaritans, probably due to the story of the Good Samaritan as much as anything.

[ConsAreLiars]

10. Do you not have even a slight bit of rationality left that whispers at you when you make that

kind of insane justification?

"the indigenous people returning to their land after being kicked out and kicked around for a few thousand years...."

Holy self-centered supremacist crap on a stick!

You have the right to that land because some sort of ancestor or other lived there some millenia ago. But the people who have been living there for centuries have no claim and can be driven into exile, into camps, into open air prisonas and murdered with impunity because your ancestors have a forever deed signed by your murderous deity, one they have talked about but never shown.

How bigoted and ignorant can you be? You never surprise. but you never cease to amaze.

By your 'logic' every affinity group or religious or ethnic or other group has the right to go to Africa out or imprison those living there now, and claim it as their own because their ancestors originated there 100's of thousands af years before those there now were born or moved into their current location. And I could go back to the last known addresses of my ancestors in Europe and oust those now living there, because my claim, despite all the property transfers, since then, is based on the fact that such ancestors once had control of that parcel.

That 'justification' would be seen as insane regardless of the religious, ethnic or political affiliation of those making that claim, yet it gets put forward regularly in this forum and not deleted as obviously both delusional and racist/supremacist to the core.

The only reason you have for more entitlement to the land than those who have lived there forever is some nonsense religious text and a group-think tradition and culture that says so. Just admit it, rather thnan rambling on with that utterly brain-dead nonsense. Your claim to that land has the same status as the L. Ron Hubbardite's belief that the planet Xenu is their homeland.

Religious crazies, ethnic supremacists, and true believers and pure psychopaths have this in common -- they can justify any crime using what is little more than word salad. Give yourself a B+ grade in that category

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ConsAreLiars]

18. OK , that was pure gibberish. I know that is your native language

and reflects perfectly the way you "think" but if you can put whatever you said into something closer to English, maybe get some help, I might be able to reply to whatever that question/challenge/comment might have been.

[pelsar]

21. define indigenous

in regards to the the israeli/ Palestenian conflict:

list in order what is the most important to your value system:

civil rights
freedom of speech (including those that you disagree with)
nationalism
democracy
religion
freedom of religion
land ownership
preservation of culture
respecting others, with whom you disagree with
tolerance

lets stat with those......

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. In approximate order:

Now, this is a silly exercise, because there's no weighting implied - to say which is more important out of freedom of speech and freedom of religion one has to specify how much freedom of speech and how much freedom of religion you mean. But, mostly as an exercise in clarifying how I think, here's a possible list with some thoughts.

Group 1:

Land ownership (of individuals) - respect for private property is one of the cornerstones of civilisation.
Civil rights - not being dragged out of bed and locked up for no reason is another.


Group 2:

Freedom of Speech
Some degree of freedom of religion
Democracy


Group 3:

Broader freedom of religion - being allowed to work as a schoolteacher while wearing a veil is one thing, being allowed to wear a veil in public is another.
Land ownership (of nations/states/peoples/polities) - doesn't matter too much, provided individual ownership is preserved. If my house is part of England or part of France matters less than if I'm allowed to live in it.

Group 4:

Preservation of culture: I think it's a fun hobby - I'm an active Morris dancer and heavily involved in British folk music, I celebrate Passover once a year, and I enjoy Shakespeare - but it should never be allowed to stand in the way of more important things. Those who dwell on the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them, I think.


Meaningless things:
Tolerance, respecting others - tolerating what? Murder? Mixed race marriage? FGM? Polygamy? Eating meat? Many of the things people are usually talking about when they say "tolerance" are very good things, but tolerance itself isn't a meaningful phrase. I think that the principle that "anything not forbidden is permitted, and nothing should be forbidden without a damn good reason" is an important one, but then one gets into the argument about what are and aren't good reasons to forbid something...


Actively bad things:

Nationalism, Religion - these (especially nationalism) are probably the two greatest scourges of humanity.

If the words "Palestine", "Israel", "Jew" and "Muslim" were forgotten overnight then little of any value would be lost and the Middle East crisis become immeasurably more tractable (it wouldn't be solved overnight - it's now not just about who's living in whose homeland, but about who's living in whose home, and as I indicate above I think the latter is far more important than the former).

[pelsar]

30. your too easy....

in many respects you and i agree....this is was meant of the intolerant post above...the one who reminds me of stalin and his friends. (consareliars)

as far as your list, i put first freedom of speech and respect for it-no censorship allowed and no excuses for censorship...i put that as the cornerstone of freedom. States will take away your land for a freeway, but they should never ever ever take away your right to call the president, prime minister an asshole in public....muslims are terrorists, jews eat christian children for blood and all buddhists are homosexuals.....

start eating away at that freedom, and people start going to jail for saying the wrong thing.....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. I strongly support limits on freedom of speech.

:-I believe that incitement to hatred, etc, should be entirely legal and protected, but that incitement to *crime* should not be - saying "we should change the law to make being a redhead punishable by death" is one thing; saying "we should hang the redheads" is quite a different one.

:-I believe that malicious falsehood should be illegal (although I'm not sure how far slander/libel laws should go; I'm aware it's controversial and don't have an informed opinion).

:-I believe that it should be possible to enforce consensual limits on freedom of speech - it's a right that can be given away voluntarily. For example, confidentiality clauses, restrictions on abuse of position, etc. I think that you should have the right to stand outside a crowded theatre and shout "fire", but the theatre should have the right to forbid you doing so if you buy a ticket.

:-I am at least tentatively in favour of legislation to prevent excess expenditure on political campaigns.

:-I believe that individuals should pay far less respect to freedom of speech than the state should. If you say "we should ban mixed-raced marriage", I don't think the state should either censor or censure you, but I do think that private individuals should shun you.



On the other hand, I think there should be very few violations of private property ownership - I tentatively except the case for emminent domain, but I think the owners of confiscated land should be compensated at a multiple of market value, and it should only be used in extreme cases.

[pelsar]

32. how about the cartoons...

i think that was a "pivotal moment" in defining where people place freedom of speech.

me? i was for their publication and was astounded at the cowering of newspapers or news shows in the west that talked about them but refused to show them.....it was clear that it was purely fear of muslim reaction, since making fun of jesus, satires etc is a given in the west.


and i have no problem with the actual publication of the award winning cartoon in england showing a jewish sharon eating a Palestinian....or the production and showing of the protocols of zion in egypt during the ramadan fast

so which ones are hateful and should be banned?.......cartoons making fun of allah? of jesus? of israel? of jews?
----

i do not see how a value of a material (land) can be more important then the freedom that speech gives. Not all of us can or will be landowners, but freedom to think and believe as we see fit, and not be afraid to go public is something that touchs every human being on this planet..and i dont believe anybody has the right whatever their culture to impose their cultural limits on someone else....

and your claim of limitation is strictly cultural.......so which cultures are superior and have to be imposed on the "lesser cultures"?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. I was very much in favour of the publication of the Mohammed cartoons

(I assume those are the ones you mean)?

I think that "which ones are hateful and should be banned" is a *very* dangerous question - the questions "which ones are hateful" and "which ones should be banned" are very different. I'm not convinced the first is even a meaningful question, and I certainly don't care much about answering it; my answer to the second is "the ones that are intended to incite crime" - unlike most issues, I think it's a fairly clear, hard line not a continuum - "redheads are evil and eat babies" should be legal, "we should kill the redheads" should not (although obviously there's some ambiguity around things like "while of course I deplore and condemn all violence, it is only to be expected that there will be some reprisals by the decent people of this country against the perfidious redheads, some of whom live at 221b Kent Road...")

I couldn't disagree more about not imposing cultural limits on other people - for examply, I'm strongly in favour of attempts to stamp out female genital mutilation. There's what I consider a good objective test for which cultures are superior - ask "which one would I rather be born into, not knowing who/what I would be born as" - it has special name, but I can't remember what it is.

[ConsAreLiars]

37. Jeebus H Krist on a KKKross! Forgive the expression, but I cannot imagine a sicker justification for

the mass slaughtering of Palestinians, driving them into exile or refugee camps, seizing their homes and fields. denying those who survived food and medicine and even building material. You reveal your ignorance and bigotry with every post you make. "We are richer and more privileged so we can kill them." Or maybe "chosen" or "special."

Your "argument" boils down to the utterly sick and blatant supremacist shit that since the invading settlers are "superior" in some categories they can mass murder, oppress, starve, poison, and imprison the whole of the population of people who lived there before they arrived. Used in the US to "justify " genocide against the indigenous people here as well, and to fuel imperialist expansionism across the planet.

Good Dog in Haven! Can't you even take an honest look at what you said and what it says about your supremacist adherence to the ubermensch/untermensch belief system? They justified all sorts of injustices, moving from lesser to greater. Can you see that happening in the here and nows? Well, I know you probably can't, but give it a try anyway?.

[shaayecanaan]

11. Even the Bible concedes that the Israelites were never the indigenous people of Israel...

they stole it off the Canaanites, who inhabited the land for over 5,000 years. Apparently us Maronites are descended from the Canaanites, so who knows, maybe I have a better claim to your sandpit than you do. On the other hand, according to the Bible that makes me your slave. Swings and roundabouts, I guess.

But for the record, the Israelites were around for 700 years the first time (along with many other groups), and a mere 80 years the second time. The Arabs resided there for a thousand years, notwithstanding that the Turks and Crusaders stopped by from time to time.

The Druze are hardly the indigenous people, chum. They've only been around a thousand years. The Bedouin have a stronger claim, but the term "Bedouin" is more of a collective social identity than an ethnic one.

[kayecy]

22. 5,000 or even 700 years is ridiculous.......Why not something simple?.....

5,000 or even 700 years is ridiculous.......Why not something simple?.....I believe that either your parents or your grandparents must have been born in the UK for you to have a 'right-of-return' to the UK......If you can't show that, you become an immigrant- applicant like any other nationality.

Palestinians probably won't agree with me but 'indigenous' is only relevant to the Israel/Palestinian conflict in that 'non-indigenous' residents should be prepared to accept that their antecedents usurped the indigenous folk....I'm a big believer in the peace-promoting effect of a 'truth and reconciliation commission' a la South Africa.

[shira]

23. Do you support Palestinian refugees being given a choice to become citizens of their host countries

...under existing naturalization laws that any other Arabs (except Palestinians) can utilize in the region?

[kayecy]

24. Given a choice of what?......

Given a choice of what?......Citizenship or permanent refugee status?......What a choice!......

I support them being given a real choice....... A choice of returning to the area their grandparents grew up in (whichever side of the Green Line that was), or Citizenship of their 'host' country......

Most Jews, even Iranian-Jews, have the luxury of having the absolute right, either to live where they are, or move to Israel even if they cannot identify any antecedent who has ever lived there!

[shira]

25. so are you disappointed that Arab leaders, Abbas, NGO's, the UN, HRW, AI...

...are not pushing for this refugee choice now?

[kayecy]

26. I have long since ceased to be either pleased or disappointed .......

I have long since ceased to be either pleased or disappointed at anything the parties 'push' in this conflict......

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. No, it isn't that.

If none of your ancestor going back thousands of years have lived somewhere, you are not in any sense indigenous to that area, and moving there is not "returning".

If any two-thousand-year-old Jew turns up he or she will be able to honestly claim to have been kicked out of Israel. But sharing an ethnicity with people who were left an area two thousand years ago does not give you any right whatsoever to that area - otherwise, I could claim sovereignty over half the globe.

And, of course, it's not a cut-off, it's a continuum. If the descendants of the Palestinians spend a century or two - never mind a millenium - living somewhere else, they will be indigenous to that place rather than to Palestine.

The foundation of Israel *was* a matter of foreigners colonising a land and displacing the indigenous people, and it *was not* a matter of the indigenous people returning. There are indeed multiple "narratives", but some are honest and some are not.

[shira]

35. Jews coming to Israel were foreigners? Well then, so were all Arabs who migrated into the area....

...around the same time but in even bigger numbers.

Are both sets of foreigners considered colonialists or is this yet another double standard?

[kayecy]

19. Civil war???...What other civil war has a regional super-power taking on Kalashnikovs?

You can't call it a 'civil war' when the two sides are so asymetrical.....'revolt', 'resistance'.... yes but not civil war.....The US civil war was between more or less equal armies.

[MUAD_DIB]

36. One interesting point about the US Civil war is that

One interesting point about the US Civil war is that the South did more with less for a long time. Civil Wars historian Shelby Foote noted that the North really only fought the war with one arm. While the South sacrificed the North enjoyed relative tranquility. Life went on. Harvard still had its boat races. Many that could have fought didn't due to wealth and influence. If the Union had taken that other arm out from behind its back then the war would have ended very quickly.

But I digress. If Israel wanted to end the hostilities they could take that other arm out from behind its back as well and do it, but this really isn't a civil war. It's a war of attrition that neither side will win in the long run if there are enough young to take up the place of their fathers and die sadly for it. It would take more courage to actually sit down at the table, for both sides, to give up things in order to have a lasting peace. Neither side's citizens would like it very much, but it would be better than having a continual tit-for-tat blood letting: brought about by the oh-so-moral conviction that both sides claim to be right and the other wrong.

[lumpy]

34. Yes, if he listens to George Mitchell who has a helluva lot

more experience and knowledge stored up in his head than Obama does.

[bemildred]

5. "The sheep look up"

It is long overdue for this whole mess to be given a good rethink, and one hopes a thorough debate as to what we are trying to accomplish and how it ought to be carried out.

[Jefferson23]

6. This comes down to political will, and I am encouraged since the

Petreaus report that Obama will not consider maintaining the status quo.