Obama advisor: US Jews hinder peace [Archive]

aindik

03-26-2008, 12:41 AM

03-26-2008, 06:48 AM

...according to an inquiry by conservative American media outlets.Yes, that's definitely where you want to go for a "fair and balanced" account of anything having anything to do with a Dem.

Following the latest revelations, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) called on Obama to remove McPeak as his military advisor and national campaign co-chairmanHey, and imagine that, Republicans are pissed.

What's the take-away supposed to be on this, folks? McPeak says things that are unfortunately true but that are bad politics to mention? Or is he supposed to be a Jew-hater?

03-26-2008, 07:46 AM

The 5-year-old interview with McPeak wherein New York and Miami are mentioned is here, btw:

http://www.oregonlive.com/special/iraq/index.ssf?/special/iraq/0327mcpeak.html
You think Korea poses the more serious threat to peace?

Oh, yeah, don't you? First of all, this is a problem in weapons of mass destruction. Unquestionably. Don't have to be a genius to figure that out. Second, they're at the nexus of great power politics: the Chinese have a border, the Russians have a short border but a border. Japan's there. We're there. The 50,000 troops that we've had there for 50 years. I mean if this is not a strategic part of the world, what in the hell are we doing with 50,000 troops? . . . So this is a - a problem of global strategic significance. Any way you look at it, Iraq is a regional problem, and it's an important problem, it ties to a lot of other problems, but it's a regional problem, and therefore, if I were helping the president decide what we ought to work on today, I would have put it ahead of Iraq.

The other reason I would have put it ahead is I don't think we have anything like a strategy for the Middle East. And what we're doing in Iraq ought to be a piece of a larger undertaking. And it has all the aspects of a kind of a slapdash pickup fight, you know, where - I mean you always call audibles in war, but we're drawing the plays on the ground in the huddle here. We don't have a playbook for the Middle East. You know, for instance, obviously, a part of that long-term strategy would be getting the Israelis and the Palestinians together at . . . something other than a peace process. Process is not a substitute for achievement or settlement. And even so the process has gone off the tracks, but the process isn't enough. . . . We eed to get it fixed and only we have the authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody knows that.

So where's the problem? State? White House?

New York City. Miami. We have a large vote - vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.

Actually I was thinking of the larger lack of a Middle East strategy. Does that emanate out of the State Department or out of the White House, combination of both, is it a personality struggle, what's - what's going on?

I think that everybody understands that a settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem would require the Israelis to stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and maybe even withdraw some of the settlements that've already been put there. And nobody wants to take on that problem. It's just too tough politically. So that means we can't . . . you can't develop a Middle East strategy. It's impossible.

Do you think . . . there's an element within Hamas, Hezbollah, that doesn't want Israel to exist at all and always will be there?

Absolutely.

Otto

03-26-2008, 10:37 AM

Ugh. I'd be more concerned about the fact that he compares war to football.

TheIndependent

03-26-2008, 10:40 AM

Ugh. I'd be more concerned about the fact that he compares war to football.

at least he didn't compare it to badminton :)

03-26-2008, 11:07 AM

Y'all should read the whole article if you haven't already.

This was in March 2003, Baghdad hasn't been taken yet, and he already knows our "we'll be greeted as liberators" plan was a bad assumption to make, that our unilateralism will create legitimacy problems, that it's going to be harder to install democracy than it was in Germany or Japan (and why - because without a clear and total loss that puts the "fire" of resistance out, Arab states will pour gasoline on the fire), that we'll be there a long time and that it'll be a tough occupation.

Exactly the opposite of what the White House and Rumsfeld and the rest of that crowd were saying at the time and for many months afterward, in other words.

aindik

03-26-2008, 12:01 PM

What's the take-away supposed to be on this, folks? McPeak says things that are unfortunately true but that are bad politics to mention? Or is he supposed to be a Jew-hater?

He, more or less, questions the loyalty of American Jews to America. I think that's pretty anti-Semitic. Was it anti-Catholic when they did it to John Kennedy?

Saying support of Israel is a bad idea is one thing. Even I agree we shouldn't give them foreign aid (so long as we also stop giving everyone else foreign aid at the same time).

Saying American Jews support Israel even though they know supporting Israel is against the interests of America suggests that American Jews are disloyal.

Saying that we support Israel, despite it not being in our interest, because we're afraid of the Jews sounds like a "Jews run the world" conspiracy theory.

03-26-2008, 12:27 PM

He, more or less, questions the loyalty of American Jews to America. I think that's pretty anti-Semitic. Was it anti-Catholic when they did it to John Kennedy?Where did you get THAT? All he's saying is that the American pro-Israel lobby makes it a 3rd-rail/PC-violation to suggest Israel shares any responsibility whatsoever for there not being peace already. It's nothing to do with lack of loyalty to America, it's to do with loyalty to Israel. Loyalty ain't a zero-sum game, you know. Is it impossible to love America and love Israel at the same time?

Saying American Jews support Israel even though they know supporting Israel is against the interests of America suggests that American Jews are disloyal.You'll have to show me where he says that, that they KNOW supporting Israel is against the interests of America. My guess would be they think supporting Israel is directly in the interests of America and there's no conflict. Why is saying "they're wrong" have to mean "they know they're wrong but don't care"?

Saying that we support Israel, despite it not being in our interest, because we're afraid of the Jews sounds like a "Jews run the world" conspiracy theory.I think you're reading WAY too much into it. It sounds a lot more to me like a "Jews are an important voting/fundraising/activism constituency nobody wants to alienate". Which is true, isn't it? I don't see how saying so is necessarily derogatory to Jews.

pdhenry

03-26-2008, 12:34 PM

This one's pretty touchy, but can anyone argue that our cozy relationship with Israel isn't a significant factor in the mid-east situation, both Isreal-Palestine and Iran/Iraq?

aindik

03-26-2008, 01:16 PM

Where did you get THAT? All he's saying is that the American pro-Israel lobby makes it a 3rd-rail/PC-violation to suggest Israel shares any responsibility whatsoever for there not being peace already. It's nothing to do with lack of loyalty to America, it's to do with loyalty to Israel. Loyalty ain't a zero-sum game, you know. Is it impossible to love America and love Israel at the same time?

Loyalty isn't a zero sum game, but it is or can be a hierarchy. There is often a suggestion in anti-Semitic circles that, if made to choose, Jews would choose Israel over America. You heard it a lot in the aftermath of 9/11 (basically, that Jews caused it because they make our government support Israel). What McPeak said sounds an awful lot like that.

And the "American pro-Israel lobby" is code for "the Jews." Saying "we can't talk about Israel because of the Jews" sounds like Geraldine Ferraro defending herself.

You'll have to show me where he says that, that they KNOW supporting Israel is against the interests of America. My guess would be they think supporting Israel is directly in the interests of America and there's no conflict. Why is saying "they're wrong" have to mean "they know they're wrong but don't care"?

He says we can't even have a dialogue about whether supporting Israel is in the interests of America. That at least implies support of Israel regardless of U.S. interests.

03-26-2008, 01:21 PM

This one's pretty touchy, but can anyone argue that our cozy relationship with Israel isn't a significant factor in the mid-east situation, both Isreal-Palestine and Iran/Iraq?Or can anyone argue that there isn't a strong pro-Israel lobby?

If we change it up so it's not Jews, is it still a problem? Say somebody suggested you couldn't propose a big change in the U.S.'s Cuba policy for fear of losing the Cuban-American vote and thus losing Florida in the November election. Is this racist? Or just a statement of probable fact?

True, there's no bizarre anti-Cuban conspiracy theory that Cuban-Americans run the the nation or the world, as there are such bizarre conspiracies involving Jews. But does this mean anyone who says that Jews have any political power and influence is anti-semitic?

03-26-2008, 01:36 PM

Loyalty isn't a zero sum game, but it is or can be a hierarchy. There is often a suggestion in anti-Semitic circles that, if made to choose, Jews would choose Israel over America. You can hear all sorts of nutty weirdness from such circles. Anything any such nutter says, nobody can then say anything that sounds anything remotely like it? Since when do we let the ravings of nutters circumscribe our conversations?

And the "American pro-Israel lobby" is code for "the Jews." Saying "we can't talk about Israel because of the Jews" sounds like Geraldine Ferraro defending herself.If there's some less offensive name for the pro-Israel lobby I'd be happy to use it. I don't use it as "code" for Jews, I use it to mean what it says - a lobby that lobbies for Israel. I bet you there are pro-China and pro-Ireland lobbies, I wouldn't use those as code for "chinks" and "micks" and I doubt many people would think anyone who did so was speaking in some sort of racist "code". It's possible to mention those without touching anybody's 3rd-rail. Why is mentioning the lobby for Israel different?

He says we can't even have a dialogue about whether supporting Israel is in the interests of America. That at least implies support of Israel regardless of U.S. interests.He's right. I'm having trouble just talking to my reasonable potato-chip buddy about it, I can't even mention that there's a pro-Israel lobby without stepping on toes. Imagine how difficult it is having a dialog for regular people.

busyba

03-26-2008, 01:44 PM

It's one thing to be against the current Israeli government. From the perspective of a Jewish voter, that's bad enough but if they're particularly liberal and they turn their head sideways they can understand it.

But it's quite another thing to say that the problem in the Israeli-Palestinian situation is "New York and Miami." You know, where all the Jooz are. And "no politician wants to run against them" (perhaps its my oversensitivity that causes me to hear "because they have all the money" in my head after that).

This on the heels of the Wright-Farrakhan thing is not good for Obama with the Jews. Maybe he doesn't care.

Replace "Israel" with "Cuba" and "Jews" with "Cuban-American exiles" and it's totally true and can be said without fear of reprisal or labeling.

Is it possible that when it comes to discussion of things involving jews everyone is sorta conditioned to "be offended first, ask questions later"?

EDIT: some might call this a smeek, I call it great minds thinking alike. :)

aindik

03-26-2008, 01:52 PM

busyba

03-26-2008, 02:07 PM

Replace "Israel" with "Cuba" and "Jews" with "Cuban-American exiles" and it's totally true and can be said without fear of reprisal or labeling.

Well, it's not totally true. We don't support Cuba, we oppose it.

Sure, but the idea that the US foreign policy towards Cuba is seemingly dictated by people who don't necessarily care for the US's best interests is the same.

Is it possible that when it comes to discussion of things involving jews everyone is sorta conditioned to "be offended first, ask questions later"?

With the Cuban-Americans, the concern is solely about votes. With the Jews, it always seems like more than just votes. Like, there's a concern about banks, about campaign finance, about media access, etc.

Let's replace the Jews with "the Blacks." Are people concerned about the "black vote." Or are they concerned about things a racist would think a stereotypical black person will do (i.e., cry racism, engage in violent riots, etc.).

Well, in politics I'd say that it's actually the "black vote". In other matters there are other factors. And just because a racist might think those things, it doesn't mean that everyone who thinks them is a racist, especially the specific examples you gave. Look at the riots after the cops who beat Rodney King were found not guilty. Now tell me how many white people rioted after OJ was found not guilty.

One other consideration is the desire to not be shaken down by Jesse Jackson. Not only is it not racist to consider that, it's prudent. ;)

03-26-2008, 02:23 PM

Well, it's not totally true. We don't support Cuba, we oppose it.It's sufficiently true.

If someone says we can't have a discussion about changing our Cuba policy because the major parties fear alienating Cuban-Americans, nobody cries "racism".

One can mention the Cuban-American lobby without fear of being accused of speaking in "code".

With the Cuban-Americans, the concern is solely about votes. With the Jews, it always seems like more than just votes. Like, there's a concern about banks, about campaign finance, about media access, etc.That's what you hear. It doesn't make it so. I'm not saying there isn't good reason for suspecting there are anti-semitic nutters out there, because there are, or that Jews haven't been scapegoated for centuries and still are by some people today, because they are. You want to rant about those morons, I'm right with you. But McPeak is absolutely right that it's next to impossible to talk about this because the sensitivity on the anti-semitism detectors seems to be turned all the way up.

Let's replace the Jews with "the Blacks." Are people concerned about the "black vote." Or are they concerned about things a racist would think a stereotypical black person will do (i.e., cry racism, engage in violent riots, etc.).We've been talking about the black vote since January. Whether they'd vote for Obama, how they've broken away from Hillary, what the numbers are for the white and black vote in every contest, and that aspect of it's never been a "racism!" problem whenever it gets mentioned.

The racism detectors HAVE tripped on a few occasions, Bill Clinton's and Geraldine Ferraro's remarks for example. But most of those have been false alarms - those people aren't racists, though they were trying to play upon racial divisions for political gain.

aindik

03-26-2008, 05:01 PM

Well, it's not totally true. We don't support Cuba, we oppose it.It's sufficiently true.

If someone says we can't have a discussion about changing our Cuba policy because the major parties fear alienating Cuban-Americans, nobody cries "racism".

One can mention the Cuban-American lobby without fear of being accused of speaking in "code".

Cubans aren't a race. You can say Jews aren't a race either, but at least the racists think Jews are a race. You can't say the same about Cubans. Hispanics yes, but not specifically Cubans.

We're not talking about Israeli immigrants (which would be the Cuban analogy). We're talking about Jews, most of whom have no family connection to the land in Israel that's any newer than biblical times.

That's what you hear. It doesn't make it so. I'm not saying there isn't good reason for suspecting there are anti-semitic nutters out there, because there are, or that Jews haven't been scapegoated for centuries and still are by some people today, because they are. You want to rant about those morons, I'm right with you. But McPeak is absolutely right that it's next to impossible to talk about this because the sensitivity on the anti-semitism detectors seems to be turned all the way up.

Here's the problem. There are really only two ways to stop supporting Israel. They are:
a) butt out of the region entirely, or
b) support the Palestinian regime

McPeak is not suggesting a. He's suggesting b. That's why the anti-Semitism detectors go off. Because the implication of "supporting Israel less" is "support the Palestinians more."

We've been talking about the black vote since January. Whether they'd vote for Obama, how they've broken away from Hillary, what the numbers are for the white and black vote in every contest, and that aspect of it's never been a "racism!" problem whenever it gets mentioned.

We haven't had anyone in the Clinton or the McCain campaign say "we can't talk about x, which we really should be talking about, because it'll piss off the blacks if we do."

That is, other than Geraldine Ferraro.

03-27-2008, 07:55 AM

Cubans aren't a race. You can say Jews aren't a race either, but at least the racists think Jews are a race. You can't say the same about Cubans. Hispanics yes, but not specifically Cubans.Racists either don't know or don't care that Cubans aren't a race. Hating some group of people for being that group of people isn't predicated on logic or precise definitions. Do you figure anti-semites hate somebody who's half-Jewish more if their mom was the Jewish parent than if their dad was because Jewish tradition says its matrilineal?

We're not talking about Israeli immigrants (which would be the Cuban analogy). We're talking about Jews, most of whom have no family connection to the land in Israel that's any newer than biblical times. Anti-semites don't know or don't care about that. As far as they're concerned the only reason you all haven't moved to Israel is somebody's gotta stay over here to control the world through American military and economic might, and you musta drawn a short straw.

Here's the problem. There are really only two ways to stop supporting Israel. They are:
a) butt out of the region entirely, or
b) support the Palestinian regime

McPeak is not suggesting a. He's suggesting b. That's why the anti-Semitism detectors go off. Because the implication of "supporting Israel less" is "support the Palestinians more." Here's the problem - that anybody who thinks we need to make both sides sit down and hash out an agreement either must (a) not want us to support Israel and/or (b) likes the Palestinians better than Israel and/or (c) is an anti-semite. Why is there never a (d) wants there to be peace in the region and recognizes the reality that both sides are going to have to give a little to get it? Why is anti-semitism or anti-Israel-ism or pro-Palestinian-ism always "guilty until proven innocent"?

When it was Jeremiah Wright who figured rich white people were guilty until proven innocent, I was told that showed he was a racist.

We haven't had anyone in the Clinton or the McCain campaign say "we can't talk about x, which we really should be talking about, because it'll piss off the blacks if we do."

That is, other than Geraldine Ferraro.That's not what Ferraro said, that's how she tried to excuse her remarks afterward. What she said was Obama wouldn't be the front-runner if he wasn't black, which besides being wrong is racial divisive and perhaps meant to be so.

dcheesi

03-27-2008, 08:36 AM

Replace "Israel" with "Cuba" and "Jews" with "Cuban-American exiles" and it's totally true and can be said without fear of reprisal or labeling.

Well, it's not totally true. We don't support Cuba, we oppose it.

Is it possible that when it comes to discussion of things involving jews everyone is sorta conditioned to "be offended first, ask questions later"?

With the Cuban-Americans, the concern is solely about votes. With the Jews, it always seems like more than just votes. Like, there's a concern about banks, about campaign finance, about media access, etc.

Let's replace the Jews with "the Blacks." Are people concerned about the "black vote." Or are they concerned about things a racist would think a stereotypical black person will do (i.e., cry racism, engage in violent riots, etc.).See this is where the confusion is. Jews are *both* an ethnicity with a history of discrimination problems, *and* a nationality with political/emotional ties to a particular foreign country. "African-americans" are really just an ethnicity/race; they have a vague sense of nostalgia for Africa as a whole, but overall no close cultural ties to one particular nation. Cubans are sort of the opposite; when you say "Cuban-american" (as opposed to say, hispanic) you're clearly referring to a specific nationality, not an ethnic group, so it's easy to avoid racism charges.

With american jews, you get into this sticky situation where you can't talk about jewish/Isreali nationalism without it getting confused with the issue of ethnicity. And you can't say "Isreali-american" since most of the jews who support Isreali nationalism were never Isreali citizens or children thereof.

Personally I see nothing in the quote posted earlier that I don't at least somewhat agree with. Our insistence that Israel is always right, or mostly-right, is a hinderence to real peace efforts there. And aside from a few wacky christian apocalypticists who see Israel as the fulfillment of prophecy, the strongest and most visible backers of the blindly pro-Israel stance are jewish groups and lobbies. Perhaps his choice of singling out geographical regions was unfortunate, but it's not inaccurate; those are the places where pro-Israel interests hold the most sway.

aindik

03-27-2008, 10:06 AM

Racists either don't know or don't care that Cubans aren't a race. Hating some group of people for being that group of people isn't predicated on logic or precise definitions. Do you figure anti-semites hate somebody who's half-Jewish more if their mom was the Jewish parent than if their dad was because Jewish tradition says its matrilineal?

No, but it's based on blood. You got Jewish blood in you, you're a Jew. Being Cuban isn't quite the same thing, as I understand their twisted logic.

Here's the problem - that anybody who thinks we need to make both sides sit down and hash out an agreement either must (a) not want us to support Israel and/or (b) likes the Palestinians better than Israel and/or (c) is an anti-semite. Why is there never a (d) wants there to be peace in the region and recognizes the reality that both sides are going to have to give a little to get it? Why is anti-semitism or anti-Israel-ism or pro-Palestinian-ism always "guilty until proven innocent"?

Because the Palestinians are anti-Jew (I can't use "anti-Semites" because I think technically they are Semites too). That, I think, is undisputable. To support them is to support an anti-Jewish regime. If you attach a moral equivalence to them and Israel, you're giving credibility to them and their goal of driving the Jews into the sea.

When it was Jeremiah Wright who figured rich white people were guilty until proven innocent, I was told that showed he was a racist.

The Palestinian regime is proven guilty, I think.

That's not what Ferraro said, that's how she tried to excuse her remarks afterward. What she said was Obama wouldn't be the front-runner if he wasn't black, which besides being wrong is racial divisive and perhaps meant to be so.

So, "blame the Jews for problems in the Middle East" isn't racially divisive and perhaps meant to be so?

03-27-2008, 10:26 AM

No, but it's based on blood. You got Jewish blood in you, you're a Jew. Being Cuban isn't quite the same thing, as I understand their twisted logic.I suspect having Cuban blood in you, or in fact any blood that's not lily-white, is enough for racists.

Because the Palestinians are anti-Jew (I can't use "anti-Semites because I think technically they are Semites too). That, I think, is undisputable. To support them is to support an anti-Jewish regime. If you attach a moral equivalence to them and Israel, you're giving credibility to them and their goal of driving the Jews into the sea.How is saying "you two gotta make peace, and each give up some things rather than expecting to get everything your way" assigning moral equivalence to both sides? The idea is to get a peace deal that'll stick. "Okay, we think it's cool if you try drive the Jews into the sea" isn't conducive to peace, it's antithetical to it. That's the first things the Palestinians are expected to give up. Support for them is conditional on them giving that up.

The Palestinian regime is proven guilty, I think.I was talking about McPeak. Is he proven guilty also?

So, "blame the Jews for problems in the Middle East" isn't racially divisive or and perhaps meant to be so?Where does anyone blame the Jews for the problems in the Middle East? McPeak says fear of offending Jews in America prevents politicians from doing everything we could to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian problem - which is only one problem in the Middle East - and he's absolutely right. You (that's "you, aindik" not "you, Jews") get offended just talking about it.

TheIndependent

03-27-2008, 10:33 AM

jews are silly - and good at banking - is that racist?:)

aindik

03-27-2008, 10:36 AM

I suspect having Cuban blood in you, or in fact any blood that's not lily-white, is enough for racists.

Yes, but whether the blood is Cuban, Puerto Rican, or Mexican probably doesn't much matter to them.

How is saying "you two gotta make peace, and each give up some things rather than expecting to get everything your way" assigning moral equivalence to both sides? The idea is to get a peace deal that'll stick. "Okay, we think it's cool if you try drive the Jews into the sea" isn't conducive to peace, it's antithetical to it. That's the first things the Palestinians are expected to give up. Support for them is conditional on them giving that up.

Remember "you don't negotiate with terrorists"? By sitting down at the table with them, you say that they have some right to have the Israelis give something up.

The Palestinian regime is proven guilty, I think.I was talking about McPeak. Is he proven guilty also?

Guilty of being an antisemite? No. Guilty of supporting an anti-Jewish regime? Yes. And supporting that regime certainly tends in the anti-Jew direction, I think.

So, "blame the Jews for problems in the Middle East" isn't racially divisive or and perhaps meant to be so?Where does anyone blame the Jews for the problems in the Middle East? McPeak says fear of offending Jews in America prevents politicians from doing everything we could to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian problem - which is only one problem in the Middle East - and he's absolutely right.

That's not blaming Jews for the problems in Israel, Gaza, etc.? "We're forced to support Israel to placate the Jews here" is pretty much what he said. That's not blaming them?

You (that's "you, aindik" not "you, Jews") get offended just talking about it.

To me, you have two choices: you walk away or you support Israel. I would be happy with either one, and I truly think the first one is the better idea. So, for me, you can talk about "not supporting Israel" if that means walking away completely.

But if you take the third choice, placing the Palestinians on equal footing with the Israelis, you're supporting an anti-Jewish regime. Democrats like to complain when we ally ourselves with military thug dictatorships in Latin America and other places, but not with the Palestinians. Why is that?

03-27-2008, 11:03 AM

Remember "you don't negotiate with terrorists"? By sitting down at the table with them, you say that they have some right to have the Israelis give something up.You need to face the fact that there will never be peace unless both sides agree to a deal on it. That's never going to be easy. But that's never going to happen if one side, either side, is allowed to say "no deal unless you agree to ALL of my desires and admit you have no right to anything".

Or we can do it your way, and we'll get another 50 years that look a lot like the last 50. Which do you like better?

Guilty of being an antisemite? No. Guilty of supporting an anti-Jewish regime? Yes. And supporting that regime certainly tends in the anti-Jew direction, I think.Define what you mean by McPeak "supporting" the Palestinian regime. Is it just him saying there need to be real negotiations and compromises? Or is he talking about giving them bulldozers to push Israel into the sea with?

That's not blaming Jews for the problems in Israel, Gaza, etc.? "We're forced to support Israel to placate the Jews here" is pretty much what he said. That's not blaming them?Find me the place where he says that, or what he did say and how you arrived at that interpretation of it.

To me, you have two choices: you walk away or you support Israel. I would be happy with either one, and I truly think the first one is the better idea. So, for me, you can talk about "not supporting Israel" if that means walking away completely.

But if you take the third choice, placing the Palestinians on equal footing with the Israelis, you're supporting an anti-Jewish regime. Democrats like to complain when we ally ourselves with military thug dictatorships in Latin America and other places, but not with the Palestinians. Why is that?You're doing the all-or-nothing thing again. You're assuming that if someone says Israel and the Palestinians need to hammer out a peace deal, where neither side gets everything on their wish list, that this is support for Palestinian extremists pushing Israel into the sea. But that wish is the first thing they have to give up, and giving it up is required for receiving any support.

Would it be wonderful if the Palestinians stopped wanting to destroy Israel? Sure it would. But a lot of them aren't going to, not until there's been a generation or two of peace. Which you aren't going to get without a peace deal. Which you aren't going to get if either side insists they don't give up anything at all. Which we can't even ask anyone to consider without, apparently, being accused of supporting the right of the Palestinians to push Israel into the sea.

aindik

03-27-2008, 11:58 AM

You need to face the fact that there will never be peace unless both sides agree to a deal on it. That's never going to be easy. But that's never going to happen if one side, either side, is allowed to say "no deal unless you agree to ALL of my desires and admit you have no right to anything".

That's all well and good as a calculation between the two sides. They can decide to do that. I have no problem with Israel itself deciding to sit down and negotiate with the Palestinians rather than keep fighting.

But our intervening as a neutral broker means we're taking the position that the two sides are equivalent, or, at the very least, that both sides deserve our help in getting some piece of what they want.

Define what you mean by McPeak "supporting" the Palestinian regime. Is it just him saying there need to be real negotiations and compromises? Or is he talking about giving them bulldozers to push Israel into the sea with?

Supporting them by saying we need to be neutral (but still involved) as between them and the Israelis is assigning some level of moral equivalence between them.

Find me the place where he says that, or what he did say and how you arrived at that interpretation of it.

He said the problem with Middle East peace lies in New York and Miami. That doesn't say "we have our policy because of them" to you?

You're doing the all-or-nothing thing again. You're assuming that if someone says Israel and the Palestinians need to hammer out a peace deal, where neither side gets everything on their wish list, that this is support for Palestinian extremists pushing Israel into the sea. But that wish is the first thing they have to give up, and giving it up is required for receiving any support.

It's support for the position that the Palestinians are deserving of some territory.

Would it be wonderful if the Palestinians stopped wanting to destroy Israel? Sure it would. But a lot of them aren't going to, not until there's been a generation or two of peace. Which you aren't going to get without a peace deal. Which you aren't going to get if either side insists they don't give up anything at all. Which we can't even ask anyone to consider without, apparently, being accused of supporting the right of the Palestinians to push Israel into the sea.

I hate to go here and Godwin the thread, but try replacing "Palestinians" with "Germans" and replacing "Israel" with "France" or "Poland" and see if it sounds any better.

03-27-2008, 12:20 PM

That's all well and good as a calculation between the two sides. They can decide to do that. I have no problem with Israel itself deciding to sit down and negotiate with the Palestinians rather than keep fighting.

But our intervening as a neutral broker means we're taking the position that the two sides are equivalent, or, at the very least, that both sides deserve our help in getting some piece of what they want.And what makes you think "push Israel into the sea!" is one of the things we're going to help the Palestinians get?

Supporting them by saying we need to be neutral (but still involved) as between them and the Israelis is assigning some level of moral equivalence between them.No, it's acknowledging that to be a broker you can't go along with one side's demands to get everything they want. You have to tell both sides that's out, forget it.

He said the problem with Middle East peace lies in New York and Miami. That doesn't say "we have our policy because of them" to you?It says we can't change our policy because politicians don't want to offend them. Which is exactly what McPeak said in the interview.

It's support for the position that the Palestinians are deserving of some territory.What are you expecting them to do, flap their wings and live in the air?

I hate to go here and Godwin the thread, but try replacing "Palestinians" with "Germans" and replacing "Israel" with "France" or "Poland" and see if it sounds any better.Again with the "replacing". That doesn't work, because the situations aren't the same. Take any Limbaugh rant and replace "Democrat" with "Jew" and it'll sound like Uncle Adolf himself. Heck, go to any Linux forum and replace "Windows" with "Judaism", you can get the same thing.

aindik

03-27-2008, 12:39 PM

And what makes you think "push Israel into the sea!" is one of the things we're going to help the Palestinians get?

Well, they get to push 'em half way to the sea. :)

It gives credence to the idea that, if you start with "push 'em into the sea" as your bargaining position, you'll end up with something.

No, it's acknowledging that to be a broker you can't go along with one side's demands to get everything they want. You have to tell both sides that's out, forget it.

"Forget it" is certainly an option. But being a broker (rather than forgetting it) implies that the two sides both deserve to have their dispute mediated by a broker.

It says we can't change our policy because politicians don't want to offend them. Which is exactly what McPeak said in the interview.

How is that different from it being their fault?

What are you expecting them to do, flap their wings and live in the air?

Is the Israeli government threatening them with deportation or some other violation of their human rights? They can just live where they are now under an Israeli government. And, by the way, be freeer than they'd be in most other Arab countries. (They can also, by the way, go live in one of the Arab countries, except the Arab countries won't let them in).

03-27-2008, 02:15 PM

Well, they get to push 'em half way to the sea. :)

It gives credence to the idea that, if you start with "push 'em into the sea" as your bargaining position, you'll end up with something.

"Forget it" is certainly an option. But being a broker (rather than forgetting it) implies that the two sides both deserve to have their dispute mediated by a broker.If you wanna go over the ownership of that strip of land going back to the Roman Empire, we can. You act as if there was nobody there when Israel was created, but there was. Probably a greater percentage of current Palestinians can point to an ancestor that was living there in 1948 than current Israelis can.

But okay, it's Israel now, they turned it from a strip of barren nothing into a prosperous democracy and they deserve to benefit from their effort. But the Palestinians getting something, and not the choice something either but the leftover something, doesn't seem like it's such a tremendous favor. It seems like a reasonable compromise between "we get it all!" and "we'll drive you into the sea!".

How is that different from it being their fault?Because the problem isn't American Jews, it's that politicians don't have the courage to risk offending y'all. I do happen to think y'all are pretty touchy about it, heck I got thunked just for saying there WAS a pro-Israel lobby. But the real problem is politicians who won't stick up for realistic solutions when they can keep kicking the problem down the road to the next generation.

Is the Israeli government threatening them with deportation or some other violation of their human rights? They can just live where they are now under an Israeli government. And, by the way, be freeer than they'd be in most other Arab countries. (They can also, by the way, go live in one of the Arab countries, except the Arab countries won't let them in).All true. But they want a country of their own, and given the situation that seems like the best option for a lasting peace, hard as that will be. Not having a country of their own gives the extremists talking points to recruit new extremists with, and in 50 years our grandkids will still be arguing over how to solve it.

aindik

03-27-2008, 02:47 PM

If you wanna go over the ownership of that strip of land going back to the Roman Empire, we can. You act as if there was nobody there when Israel was created, but there was. Probably a greater percentage of current Palestinians can point to an ancestor that was living there in 1948 than current Israelis can.

Sure. Israel is a nation of immigrants. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

But okay, it's Israel now, they turned it from a strip of barren nothing into a prosperous democracy and they deserve to benefit from their effort. But the Palestinians getting something, and not the choice something either but the leftover something, doesn't seem like it's such a tremendous favor. It seems like a reasonable compromise between "we get it all!" and "we'll drive you into the sea!".

The problem comes when the Palestinians get their territory and their sovereignty over it, and it borders Israel, and they let their anti-Israel allies build military bases on it. This is a problem for Israeli security, which is the origin of why they feel the need to maintain jurisdiction over the west bank and Gaza.

And you phrase "the choice something" as if they're giving up something to which they have a rightful claim. Does "driving the Jews into the sea" qualify?

Because the problem isn't American Jews, it's that politicians don't have the courage to risk offending y'all.

That's not what McPeak says. "New York and Miami" isn't where the politicians are. It's where the Jews are.

All true. But they want a country of their own, and given the situation that seems like the best option for a lasting peace, hard as that will be. Not having a country of their own gives the extremists talking points to recruit new extremists with, and in 50 years our grandkids will still be arguing over how to solve it.

Palestinians, ethnically, are Arab Muslims. They have plenty of countries of their own. There's one, Jordan, right next door to Israel. Those countries don't want anything to do with them, though. They refer to the Palestinians as "refugees" because that makes the case better, but what are they running from? They're only "refugees" rather than, say, immigrants, because of the immigration policy of Jordan and other Arab nations.

03-27-2008, 03:59 PM

Sure. Israel is a nation of immigrants. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.I should think that was obvious. It has to do with "hey, it's our land, ALL ours, and why should we have to give you Palestinians anything even though your ancestors were here before our ancestors" argument.

The problem comes when the Palestinians get their territory and their sovereignty over it, and it borders Israel, and they let their anti-Israel allies build military bases on it. This is a problem for Israeli security, which is the origin of why they feel the need to maintain jurisdiction over the west bank and Gaza.So you make that part of the conditions of the deal. I didn't say anything was going to be easy. If you like the current situation better, you know what to do. Nothing.

And you phrase "the choice something" as if they're giving up something to which they have a rightful claim. Does "driving the Jews into the sea" qualify?You'll have to run that one by my again with the pronouns filled in.

That's not what McPeak says. "New York and Miami" isn't where the politicians are. It's where the Jews are.And those are the people the politicians fear to offend. He says so perfectly clearly in the complete interview I linked to earlier:
I think that everybody understands that a settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem would require the Israelis to stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and maybe even withdraw some of the settlements that've already been put there. And nobody wants to take on that problem. It's just too tough politically. So that means we can't . . . you can't develop a Middle East strategy. It's impossible.

Palestinians, ethnically, are Arab Muslims. They have plenty of countries of their own. There's one, Jordan, right next door to Israel. Those countries don't want anything to do with them, though. They refer to the Palestinians as "refugees" because that makes the case better, but what are they running from? They're only "refugees" rather than, say, immigrants, because of the immigration policy of Jordan and other Arab nations.So you've got the choice of making a 2-state peace deal or convincing Jordon or other nations to take them in (and convincing them they want to be taken in somewhere else). 50 (more like 60) years of waiting for that to happen has gotten us where we are now. You reckon another 60 years will do the trick?

aindik

03-27-2008, 04:40 PM

Sure. Israel is a nation of immigrants. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.I should think that was obvious. It has to do with "hey, it's our land, ALL ours, and why should we have to give you Palestinians anything even though your ancestors were here before our ancestors" argument.

Before? Israel was Israel 2000 years ago, before the Romans took it over in the first century C.E. (or A.D. for people who prefer that). If you're a Jew today, you're probably a descendant of a person who was kicked out of Israel by the Romans and ended up somewhere in eastern Europe.

As far as giving the Palestinians anything, Israel is mostly a free country. Palestinians are free to buy and own land in Israel.

So you make that part of the conditions of the deal. I didn't say anything was going to be easy. If you like the current situation better, you know what to do. Nothing.

This assumes that the parties to a deal will keep the deal. You have to factor in the likelihood that they won't, based on what you know about them.

You'll have to run that one by my again with the pronouns filled in.

You were talking about it being OK for the Palestinians to get something because it's not "the choice something." The choice something, for them, is driving the Jews into the sea.

And those are the people the politicians fear to offend. He says so perfectly clearly in the complete interview I linked to earlier:
I think that everybody understands that a settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem would require the Israelis to stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and maybe even withdraw some of the settlements that've already been put there. And nobody wants to take on that problem. It's just too tough politically. So that means we can't . . . you can't develop a Middle East strategy. It's impossible.

He was asked where the problem was. He pointed at two locations where Jews are. I don't see how it can be any clearer.

So you've got the choice of making a 2-state peace deal or convincing Jordon or other nations to take them in (and convincing them they want to be taken in somewhere else). 50 (more like 60) years of waiting for that to happen has gotten us where we are now. You reckon another 60 years will do the trick?

I'm just talking about a little recognition for why the problems of the Palestinian people are how they are, and why they are still treated as refugees. Because the people who claim to be fighting for their fair treatment won't let them in their own country. They have the right to immigrate to Israel, but not to Jordan. How about some recognition of that?

You say there's a choice of a 2-state peace deal like it's really available as an option. It hasn't worked yet and we're not the first people to discuss it. And, the Israelis aren't the only ones who don't want it.

03-27-2008, 05:12 PM

Before? Israel was Israel 2000 years ago, before the Romans took it over in the first century C.E. (or A.D. for people who prefer that). If you're a Jew today, you're probably a descendant of a person who was kicked out of Israel by the Romans and ended up somewhere in eastern Europe.See? I told you we could go back that far.

As far as giving the Palestinians anything, Israel is mostly a free country. Palestinians are free to buy and own land in Israel. So if they wanted to buy enough land and then secede, you think Israel would be cool with that?

This assumes that the parties to a deal will keep the deal. You have to factor in the likelihood that they won't, based on what you know about them.Based on what we know of them Israel will keep dealing with bombs and rocket attacks and state-sponsored terrorism forever. And nobody figured Israel and Eqypt's peace would last either, and that's held since the Carter administration.

You were talking about it being OK for the Palestinians to get something because it's not "the choice something." The choice something, for them, is driving the Jews into the sea.I meant "choice" as in "best". They don't get the best land with the best infrastructure. They get the land around the margins. And they may want to drive Israel into the sea, but as I keep telling you (I'm up to what, 3 or 4 times now?) that's something they have to give up or they get no support.

He was asked where the problem was. He pointed at two locations where Jews are. I don't see how it can be any clearer.Yes, those are the locations with the people the politicians are afraid of offending. Did he put it offensively? Sure. Does this make him wrong? No. It's not possible to discuss brokering a peace deal where Israel gives in on anything without offending those people, and they have substantial political influence, and thus politicians don't want to do it.

If he's wrong, what part is he wrong about? That those people won't be offended? That they haven't got substantial political influence? That the politicians aren't afraid of offending them?

I'm just talking about a little recognition for why the problems of the Palestinian people are how they are, and why they are still treated as refugees. Because the people who claim to be fighting for their fair treatment won't let them in their own country. They have the right to immigrate to Israel, but not to Jordan. How about some recognition of that?If anyone thinks recognizing that will help solve the problem, by all means let them work on making it happen. It hasn't done any good for 50 or more years, but maybe there's something new to try. I don't hear anyone out there putting forward ideas on that. I hear the 2-state solution, and I hear "we won't negotiate with terrorists".

You say there's a choice of a 2-state peace deal like it's really available as an option. It hasn't worked yet and we're not the first people to discuss it. And, the Israelis aren't the only ones who don't want it.Of course it's available as an option. It may not be simple, but nothing about the situation is simple. Nothing is guaranteed to work. And I may be remembering incorrectly, but I thought a sizable number of Israelis liked the two-state solution?

mbklein

03-28-2008, 04:03 PM

I'm just talking about a little recognition for why the problems of the Palestinian people are how they are, and why they are still treated as refugees. Because the people who claim to be fighting for their fair treatment won't let them in their own country. They have the right to immigrate to Israel, but not to Jordan. How about some recognition of that?

Let's say I live in Indiana (I don't, but what the hell.) The US, for one reason or another, decides to give, Illinois back to to Iroquois. The state of Indiana happens to believe that the people of Chicago who have ended up in temporary rental housing in Gary deserve their homes in Chicago back, and are openly critical of the Federal Government and the Iroquois. Is "let them live in Indiana" a reasonable response to that criticism? Seriously?

I grew up being fed the "Israel is a wonderful land of milk and honey given by God to the Jews; Arabs and Muslims are evil and want to kill all the Jews" line in Hebrew School. It took me until I was in my 20's to look at the issue afresh with my own eyes and see that both sides have legitimate grievances, and that each side has acted abominably toward the other using whatever means were at their disposal. I still support the existence of the state of Israel, but I have some serious issues with what I see as the completely uncritical support of Israel on the part of a lot of the people I grew up with. People need to live in the real world. My basic feeling about both sides is: Lasting peace almost always means sucking it up and making major concessions to people who've seriously wronged you in the past. Get it done, or move the fuck out.

aindik

03-28-2008, 04:59 PM

Let's say I live in Indiana (I don't, but what the hell.) The US, for one reason or another, decides to give, Illinois back to to Iroquois. The state of Indiana happens to believe that the people of Chicago who have ended up in temporary rental housing in Gary deserve their homes in Chicago back, and are openly critical of the Federal Government and the Iroquois. Is "let them live in Indiana" a reasonable response to that criticism? Seriously?

When the Iroquois get Illinois back, are the people of Chicago evicted from their homes by force? If so, then I agree "let them live in Indiana" is not appropriate.

Are they allowed to continue owning property in Illinois, albeit under Iroquois government? Do the Iroquois grant them more civil and human rights than they have in Indiana or in Michigan? Then yes, "let them live in Indiana, or in Illinois under an Iroquois government" is appropriate.

I grew up being fed the "Israel is a wonderful land of milk and honey given by God to the Jews; Arabs and Muslims are evil and want to kill all the Jews" line in Hebrew School. It took me until I was in my 20's to look at the issue afresh with my own eyes and see that both sides have legitimate grievances, and that each side has acted abominably toward the other using whatever means were at their disposal. I still support the existence of the state of Israel, but I have some serious issues with what I see as the completely uncritical support of Israel on the part of a lot of the people I grew up with. People need to live in the real world. My basic feeling about both sides is: Lasting peace almost always means sucking it up and making major concessions to people who've seriously wronged you in the past. Get it done, or move the fuck out.

History is littered with examples of lasting peace after one party or another won a war and made no concessions to the other side.

I don't unequivocally support everything the Israeli government does. I do, however, think that if we're going to be involved (and I really, at bottom, don't think we should be), the parties are not morally equivalent enough that we should stay neutral.

grondramb

03-28-2008, 05:39 PM

When we consider these analogies about giving Illinois back to the Indians we need to include the Indians getting Canada, Mexico, and Russia to attack and nearly destroy the U.S.

mbklein

03-28-2008, 05:46 PM

When we consider these analogies about giving Illinois back to the Indians we need to include the Indians getting Canada, Mexico, and Russia to attack and nearly destroy the U.S.

My analogy involves giving a very small area to a group that claims historical ownership of it, and leaving them completely surrounded by a comparatively homogeneous and potentially hostile bloc of states.

mbklein

03-28-2008, 06:05 PM

Are they allowed to continue owning property in Illinois, albeit under Iroquois government? Do the Iroquois grant them more civil and human rights than they have in Indiana or in Michigan? Then yes, "let them live in Indiana, or in Illinois under an Iroquois government" is appropriate.

Are they allowed to continue owning the same property they owned before the new government moved in? Nope. And their actual choice turns out to be "let them live in Indiana, or in Illinois under a government run by people who are hostile to their very existence and will treat them like second-class citizens for the rest of time."

History is littered with examples of lasting peace after one party or another won a war and made no concessions to the other side.

That generally involves such an overwhelming show of strength on the part of the winning party that the other side understands the futility of trying to gain anything back by force. I'd argue that we've gotten to a point where:

an individual or small group can wreak such havoc with a relatively small and attainable weapon, and
citizens of most states we would consider civilized have such a low tolerance for loss of life on their own side
that such a peace can no longer be imposed by one side.