Mandatory Reading For Anyone Interested in the Middle East: The Israeli Lobby

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

I hear you brother. I'm not debating the "better story." I picked a side a very long time ago, based on for want of a word "a story."

LOL - sometime we must sit down and quaft a few pints . I think that pretty much everyone chooses (or accepts) these types of stories at some time in their lives; it seems to be something that we, as a species, need to do.

"My story" is as valid as the "story" Americans tell themselves about their nation.
Why I get PO'd is folks telling me what "my story" is or why its somehow not the right one.

Oh, yeah, especially when the "discussion" isn't agreed upon in form or purpose .

Maybe it's because I grew up in an extremely multi-cultural setting, or maybe it was the acting training as a kid, but I realized early on how people operate on different stories even when they weren't aware of it. I spent years trying to come up with ways of talking about that (it's probably one of the main reasons why I went into symbolic Anthropology).

It's easy to see how stories, "narratives" if you want to use the hip academic phrase , can and do control actions, but it is really tricky to see how and when groups develop cross-cutting meta-narratives and the mental discipline to use them.

Okay, now that we have gone through all of this, let me toss out a more general question: other than (continuing) warfare, how should we handle competing claims?

Right now, or in 30 seconds time? That goes back to the "story." This is what folks just do not understand. Rex Brynen is about the only guy here who actually understands the problem, - and Rex as someone who has committed his life to helping Palestinians, - I can sit and talk to Rex pretty objectively, because we know the "story" is the issue.

Oh, hey, take a whole minute if you want!

Yes, I do agree that the story is the issue. It makes me sick to read / hear some of the stories that are currently running around (on all sides); they remind me too much of the War Scroll and similar apocalyptic insanities. Unlike you, I don't have to deal with it on a day-to-day basis; all I have to deal with is uncritical academics who "mean well" and just serve to inflame people.

Cheers,

Marc

[Ken White]

We've got a better shot at turning Kandahar into San Francisco than bringing peace to Jerusalem.

I could make a case for the fact that even including the 2+Bil a year to Israel (and a nearly similar amount to Egypt) the relationship does Israel as much or more harm as it does good.

Life at the top is lonely, adding 'allies' who can appear to be bought does neither the buyer or the ally any real favors.

[GI Zhou]

Hi Wilf,

all I have to deal with is uncritical academics who "mean well" and just serve to inflame people.

They must be different to the erstwhile academics I have come across in Australian and American resrach institutes whoiare invariably pro-Palestinian and rabidly anti-Israel. Funnily they are also rabidly anti-Egypt and Jordan when questioned, so are just good old fashioned Yankee bashers wearing a new hat. Being but a humble ex-airman, sarcasm is lost on me.

[marct]

Hi GI Zhou

They must be different to the erstwhile academics I have come across in Australian and American resrach institutes whoiare invariably pro-Palestinian and rabidly anti-Israel. Funnily they are also rabidly anti-Egypt and Jordan when questioned, so are just good old fashioned Yankee bashers wearing a new hat. Being but a humble ex-airman, sarcasm is lost on me.

Sounds about the same, although we have a lot of anti-American ex-Americans .

[Ken White]

...although we have a lot of anti-American ex-Americans .

comes in many guises...

[marct]

comes in many guises...

I never said we didn't have any anti-American Canadians, Ken ....

[Ken White]

They have quite legitimate complaints about twitching Elephants.

The fleas who migrate due to twitching OTOH....

[marct]

The fleas who migrate due to twitching OTOH....

LOL - hey, I would be glad to send them back . I got more than a touch "tired" of dealing with ex-Americans who kept trying to tell me what Canadian culture was all about; and being wrong about it . Unfortunately, they came for the jobs and stayed for the healthcare......

[GI Zhou]

It appeared a few of ex-Americans, who despise all things American, lumbered up on our shores into academia too. Many moved into cultural studies and economics, and yes also use our healthcare...... Any chance they might return?

[Ken White]

The good news is those in Canada have become more Canadian than folks born there, so, with any luck, in Oz, the same thing'll happen and then they can lecture you on how to behave.

Bogans they will not be...

[Kiwigrunt]

in Oz, the same thing'll happen and then they can lecture you on how to behave.

Wish them luck with that; we've been trying for years

[Ken White]

"Those people wear natural fibers..."

[Rex Brynen]

They must be different to the erstwhile academics I have come across in Australian and American resrach institutes whoiare invariably pro-Palestinian and rabidly anti-Israel. Funnily they are also rabidly anti-Egypt and Jordan when questioned, so are just good old fashioned Yankee bashers wearing a new hat. Being but a humble ex-airman, sarcasm is lost on me.

A good friend of mine--a former Israeli official, who previously served as one of the Israeli negotiating team--once corrected me when I used the terms "pro-Israeli" and "anti-Israeli." In his view, those who advocate Jewish settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem hardly qualified as "pro-Israeli" since they were damaging Israel's long-term national security interests. By the same measure, hardline Palestinian rejectionists were hardly being "pro-Palestinian" by supporting violence making unobtainable maximalist demands that only postponed the eventual achievement of Palestinian statehood.

Since then, I've avoided the terms because I think he was quite right. There is considerable sensible potential middle ground in this conflict (as the Geneva Initiative highlighted), and it is probably best to avoid polarizing language that obscures the grounds for compromise.

As for Egypt and Jordan--frankly, most people who work in the region very much enjoy both societies (I've lived in one, and extensively worked in the other). That being said, the regimes lose some of their luster when you've seen friends there harassed by the secret police, imprisoned, or even tortured.

[William F. Owen]

In his view, those who advocate Jewish settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem hardly qualified as "pro-Israeli" since they were damaging Israel's long-term national security interests.

Concur. - especially as some of the more extreme advocate violence against other Israelis.

[Rank amateur]

Anyone who has spent more than 30 seconds in middle-east knows the narrative is the facts.

So you're cool with anyone who considers the narrative in Matthew 27:25 "the facts." Because I'm not.

[Bullmoose Bailey]

I acknowledge the validity of many of the points described. However the existence of a "lobby" is entirely inconsequential. Is the said lobby a force for good or ill?

I feel the Israel Lobby is more of a force for good on the whole.

In 2010 does US foreign policy officially have to be;
"No Jews Allowed" ?

Honestly?

[Sylvan]

A good friend of mine--a former Israeli official, who previously served as one of the Israeli negotiating team--once corrected me when I used the terms "pro-Israeli" and "anti-Israeli." In his view, those who advocate Jewish settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem hardly qualified as "pro-Israeli" since they were damaging Israel's long-term national security interests. By the same measure, hardline Palestinian rejectionists were hardly being "pro-Palestinian" by supporting violence making unobtainable maximalist demands that only postponed the eventual achievement of Palestinian statehood.

Since then, I've avoided the terms because I think he was quite right. There is considerable sensible potential middle ground in this conflict (as the Geneva Initiative highlighted), and it is probably best to avoid polarizing language that obscures the grounds for compromise.

As for Egypt and Jordan--frankly, most people who work in the region very much enjoy both societies (I've lived in one, and extensively worked in the other). That being said, the regimes lose some of their luster when you've seen friends there harassed by the secret police, imprisoned, or even tortured.

You are lumping two seperate things together.
Settlements in East Jerusalem and Settlements in the West Bank.

The whole discussion revolves around East Jerusalem. When the Jordanians controlled it, the banned jews from crossing over (in violation of the cease fire) and systematically destroyed all the synagogues. Is there any reason the jews would think their lot would be different under Hamas or the PLO?

It has always facinated my how the lines from 1949-1967 are sacred, pure and without fault. yet those in place since 1967-2010 are artificial outcomes of war that must be rectified.

Israel has given up significant chunks of land from 1967 till now.
What has the Arab world given up? What indication is there they will ever give up anything?

As for the monetary payments to Israel, these are a treaty obligation based upon Camp David. We bought the sinai from Israel and gave it to the Egyptians for a price. Why we bought the Sinai from Egypt AND continue to pay them always amazes me.

[bourbon]

I acknowledge the validity of many of the points described. However the existence of a "lobby" is entirely inconsequential. Is the said lobby a force for good or ill?
I feel the Israel Lobby is more of a force for good on the whole.

It is consequential when its flagship organization is at the best in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938; and at the worst connected to ongoing espionage and influence operations by a foreign government against the US.

What good has our unconditional support for Israel done for us? What have we gained from it in the past 20 years? Are said gains worth the cost in American lives and treasure? Moreover, what good does it do for Israel’s national security?

In 2010 does US foreign policy officially have to be;
"No Jews Allowed" ?
Honestly?

This is a shameless and infantile comment.

[Rex Brynen]

The whole discussion revolves around East Jerusalem. When the Jordanians controlled it, the banned jews from crossing over (in violation of the cease fire) and systematically destroyed all the synagogues. Is there any reason the jews would think their lot would be different under Hamas or the PLO?

I'm not missing the point--no one is talking about Jewish neighbourhoods/settlements in East Jerusalem becoming part of a Palestinian state. Having a look at the Clinton Parameters, or any of the negotiating documents from past negotiations.

It has always facinated my how the lines from 1949-1967 are sacred, pure and without fault. yet those in place since 1967-2010 are artificial outcomes of war that must be rectified.

One could say that about any set of borders, frankly. However it rather misses the point that for 10 years now, both parties have been negotiating (when negotiating) on the basis of adjusting the 1967 borders to reflect demographic changes, but on the basis of an equitable swap (now widely understood as 1:1). The peace process is in bad enough shape as it is without trying to pedal backwards.

Israel has given up significant chunks of land from 1967 till now.
What has the Arab world given up? What indication is there they will ever give up anything?

In the Arab narrative, of course, they've already given up 78% of historic Palestine (an area in which they would have comprised a majority in 1948, had refugees not been barred from returning).

[Sylvan]

I'm not missing the point--no one is talking about Jewish neighbourhoods/settlements in East Jerusalem becoming part of a Palestinian state. Having a look at the Clinton Parameters, or any of the negotiating documents from past negotiations.



One could say that about any set of borders, frankly. However it rather misses the point that for 10 years now, both parties have been negotiating (when negotiating) on the basis of adjusting the 1967 borders to reflect demographic changes, but on the basis of an equitable swap (now widely understood as 1:1). The peace process is in bad enough shape as it is without trying to pedal backwards.



In the Arab narrative, of course, they've already given up 78% of historic Palestine (an area in which they would have comprised a majority in 1948, had refugees not been barred from returning).

The 1:1 has never included Jerusalem in the Arab negotiations. E. Jerusalem is non-negotiable for both sides, hence the impasse. The arabs specifically believe that ante-bellum borders are sacred. They aren't negotiating on anything to do with Jerusalem.

The Arabs have given up nothing. The lost land in armed conflict initiated by them. That they equate losing territory in combat to land given up in peaceful negotiations speaks volumes.
Israel has given up the Sinai (TWICE!), the gaza strip and de facto 80% of the West Bank all while at peace.
What did the arabs ever give up voluntarily?