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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Fuchs]

Jordania gave up its claim on the West Bank and Egypt gave up Gaza.
That's quite much.

Now you could point out that these were state claims and the "Arabs" as a people did not give up these territories - but then again it can be pointed out that a significant portion of the Israeli right never gave up the 80% of West Bank that you mentioned.

About Sinai; yeah, guess what? Germany gave up control over Paris as part of a peace treaty as well. Wanna cheer us?
I don't think that Sinai counts for much because it's not at the core of the territorial dispute.

[Rex Brynen]

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.

Of course it hasn't been non-negotiable for both sides! To quote from the internal EU non-paper summary of the 2001 Taba negotiations (generally acknowledged as accurate by negotiators on both sides):

Both sides accepted in principle the Clinton suggestion of having a Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods and an Israeli sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods. The Palestinian side affirmed that it was ready to discuss Israeli request to have sovereignty over those Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem that were constructed after 1967, but not Jebal Abu Ghneim and Ras al-Amud. The Palestinian side rejected Israeli sovereignty over settlements in the Jerusalem Metropolitan Area, namely of Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev.

The Palestinian side understood that Israel was ready to accept Palestinian sovereignty over the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, including part of Jerusalem's Old City. The Israeli side understood that the Palestinians were ready to accept Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and part of the American Quarter.

The Palestinian side understood that the Israeli side accepted to discuss Palestinian property claims in West Jerusalem.

Territorial compromise in Jerusalem was also discussed in the 2007-08 Annapolis round.

Such compromise, it might be added, involves the Palestinians effectively giving up hopes of including all areas of occupied East Jerusalem in a Palestinian state, and instead trying to maximize those areas which would become part of the state in the face of continued Israeli settlement activity.

[Sylvan]

Sinai isn't at the core of the debate because its been dealt with. If Israel was still in the Sinai,it would be pretty core to Egypt.

any Palistinian admission that it was, "Ready to discuss" has zero value to me. There is no history of palistinian willingness to do anything BUT talk. Israelis have demonstrated several times they are willing to take concrete and painful steps for peace. With partners such as Jordan and Egypt, these steps have paid off. The PLO and now Hamas have never demonstrated anything except an ineptness at governing and a gift for graft.

The jordian's abandonment of greater trans-jordan was simply a reflection of reality. The monarchy had missed the bus on the marxist, pan-arabist movement and even if they had regained control of the west bank, the egyptians and syrians would simply have supported a palistinian insurgency against the monarchy.The Jordanians gave up something they didn't have and never would have regained.

A strong majority of the israelis realize that the west bank is not a viable part of israel. What % of the arabs are willing to admit the same about Israel?