Congress Pushing Back on Obama’s Anti-Settlement Stance
I’ve remarked twice before that I’ve been surprised by the level of seriousness with which Barack Obama seems to be pursuing the settlement freeze issue. It’s been official American policy that these settlements are illegal and ought to be stopped for a long time, but the tradition is to offer clear signals that the U.S. is in fact willing to turn a blind eye. Thus far, Obama hasn’t done that, and now the pushback is beginning:
“There’s a line between articulating U.S. policy and seeming to be pressuring a democracy on what are their domestic policies, and the president is tiptoeing right up to that line,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who said he’d heard complaints from constituents during the congressional recess. “I would have liked to hear the president talk more about the Palestinian obligation to cut down on terrorism.”
What’s telling right there in Rep. Weiner’s statement and as pointed out by Ben Smith, the author of the piece, is that none of Obama’s critics are willing to say he’s actually wrong. Obama wants a settlement freeze, and as Smith reports “few will defend illegal Jewish outposts on land they hope will be part of a Palestinian state.” But the sense seems to be that it’s somehow unfair for Obama to actually criticize Israel for doing bad stuff, even if we agree that the stuff is bad.
I think the complaint that Obama has somehow failed to mention that Palestinian terrorism is unacceptable is just factually wrong. What’s more, Obama hasn’t just said terrorism is bad, he’s committed to an effort to rebuild the kind of state institutions in the West Bank that can provide provide security. But details aside, there’s a real “two wrongs don’t make a right” issue here. If it’s wrong for Israel to expand settlements—and it is—then it’s wrong for Israel to expand settlements and pressure should be brought to bear to make them stop. Settlement expansion doesn’t make the murder of civilians okay, and terrorism doesn’t make land grabs okay.
81 Responses to “Congress Pushing Back on Obama’s Anti-Settlement Stance”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Israel lobby. No offense intended, but that’s what you’ve got here.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:03 am
How is settling on land outside your borders a domestic policy?
Especially when, in the very next sentence, the Congressman states that Palestinians’ actions towards Israel are an appropriate subject for Obama to address; ie, not domestic policy.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:09 am
Settlements today, settlements tomorrow, settlements to the far horizon.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:10 am
We’re CONSTANTLY telling other democracies what to do with their policies. Ask the people at the other end of various free trade agreements.
Otherwise, what Joe said. This isn’t domestic Israeli policy, it’s Israeli foreign policy and it’s fucking everything up. That’s the whole point.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:12 am
Well, South Africa was a democracy, to the degree that Israel-Palestine is. I guess we shouldn’t have imposed our colonial will upon them, huh.
And if you don’t think it’s a single state, then maybe we should stop funding the invading settlers.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:15 am
Re Anthony Weiner
The operative point here is that the congressman is relaying what he is hearing from his constituents. Isn’t it his job to represent them?
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:17 am
The hilarious thing is that you can’t really tell if SLC is being serious. He really has come across at times as so far gone that he could say something like that without realizing exactly what he was comparing the settlements to…
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:17 am
Right… the motivation is cowardice. Obama is challenging the conventional wisdom that you have to maintain uncritical support for Israel. Other reps with alrge Jewish constituencies see that and feel the need to put some space between themselves and Obama. They say Obama doesn’t talk enough about Palestinian terrorism not because that accusation has any semblance of truth, but because it creates a pretense that they are the pro-Israel Obama critics. As long as their criticism remains that pathetic, it’s nothing for Obama to worry about. But I suspect that there are a lot of people in AIPAC freaking out right now.
The question is whether young liberal Jews are ready to deviate from the professional Jews of AIPAC. Y’all in the juicebox mafia are leading the way.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:20 am
Certainly, but the fact that some Congressman’s constituents feel a certain way doesn’t isn’t the end of the debate. It’s the beginning.
For those who don’t recognize it, SLC is paraphrasing George Wallace’s statement about segregation.
I thought equating Zionism with racism was anti-semitic. I guess not.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:23 am
How is settling on land outside your borders a domestic policy? – Joe from Lowell
Because the land in question is still part of the land of Israel, part of Mandate Palestine that was supposed to be part of the Jewish State and because Israel came to occupy the land after a war that was (arguably) defensive. Israel has the same right to occupy and settle that land that Russia had in Karelia, Poland had on its eastern frontier and the US had in the Southwest.
I know … I know … it’s against international law. But if US law worked the same way as international law (Congress got to write bills of attainder just as the UN General Assembly makes international “law” directed to particular parties … the final arbiter of how laws are interpreted is the legislature or executive, etc.), we liberals would be up in arms and rightly so. So how come so-called liberals are hiding their double standards with respect to Israel behind an argument not too different than “the President said they are terrorists, therefore they are terrorists”?
Anyway, why shouldn’t Jews be allowed and enabled to settle on historically Jewish lands? First you kick us out of Europe and kill half of us and then you say we can’t settle on lands that have been Hebrew since the dawn of the Hebrew people? WTF?
I certainly think that in order to achieve peace and justice settlements will have to be dismantled to make way for a Palestinian state. And I have huge problems with Zionism as an ideology to begin with. But the complete dismissal of the settlement point of view and the lack of empathy for the Jewish people displayed by some on the left is frankly frightening.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
Isn’t it his job to represent them? – SLC
Anthony “what is this place called Queens I keep hearing about” Weiner represents his constituents? Well he represents half of them, I guess … but if it’s his job to represent his constituents, Rep. Weiner is a bit confused about his job requirements as anybody who lives in the Queens (and not the Brooklyn) half of his district will certainly tell you.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
It’s been official American policy that these settlements are illegal and ought to be stopped for a long time, but the tradition is to offer clear signals that the U.S. is in fact willing to turn a blind eye.
Well with Clinton and Bush Jr. yes, but George H.W. Bush went further than Obama and did more than talk by actually cutting off loan guarentees over the settlements. And then in 1992 Clinton ran to the right of Poppy Bush on Israel (and Cuba.) Plus Clinton’s peace deal wasn’t that great, with the Palestenian state a bunch of Bantustans. But Arafat should have taken it.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:30 am
I don’t know whether equating Zionism with racism is anti-semetic, but equating settlement growth with racism is accurate.
What the land was 3,000 years ago is irrelevant. What the land is today is the last remaining shred of territory available to a people who have had the majority of their homeland taken from them, for no reason other than the misfortune of being located at the wrong place at the wrong time.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:30 am
Wait, how many guns and how much money did we give Israel last year?
And, uh, how much do we have to give them before we get an actual say in how they use our money and our guns?
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:32 am
DAS,
The Jewish/Zionist concept of the “Land of Israel,” corresponding to biblical Judea, has absolutely no legal or geo-political recognition.
Incorrect. The territories now known as the West Bank and Gaza Strip were NEVER supposed to be part of the Jewish state.
We came to occupy half of Germany and all of Japan after a war that was inarguably defensive. So?
Because international law is not the same thing as national law. There’s a “double standard” because the two are different subject. You might as well as me how I can bear the fact that Monopoly and Trouble have different rules.
Because there are people already there, and being able to trace your genetics back to someone 2000 years ago doesn’t provide the slightest legal or moral claim over someone else’s property. Are you kidding me with this crap?
Umwhat? Were they Hebrew in 800 AD? 1200? 1400? 1600? 1800? 1900? What a stupid statement.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:39 am
Interesting reflection in Ha’aretz about the notion that settlements have been growing via “natural population growth”.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 am
Anyway, why shouldn’t Jews be allowed and enabled to settle on historically Jewish lands?
The same reason you don’t have to give all of your shit to the Native Americans.
First you kick us out of Europe…
Actually, we offered you Florida…
… and kill half of us …
Are you under the impression you’re addressing Germans?
… and then you say we can’t settle on lands that have been Hebrew since the dawn of the Hebrew people?
You own history tells us the Hebrew people annihilated the Canaanites in order to settle the land. And there is that little gap between the Jewish Revoilt of 72 CE and the creation of Israel in 1948 CE during which those lands were most certainly NOT Hebrew.
Let’s recap shall we? Civilized settlement of the area is attested to from ca. 8000 BCE. Then ca. 1000 BCE the Hebrews destroy the Canaanite nations and settle the area. 1,000 years later they are kicked out by the Romans. 2,000 years later they come back. So, out of the approximately 10,000 years cities have existed in the Levant the Hebrews occupied it for approximately 1/10th of that time.
Even if you just take the time period from the Hebrew conquest to current time 2/3rds of the history of the area is that of an majority non-Hebrew land.
WTF indeed.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:55 am
Umwhat? Were they Hebrew in 800 AD? 1200? 1400? 1600? 1800? 1900? What a stupid statement.
OK then … so if Israel expels all the Palestinian Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza Strip and manages to keep them out for over a thousand years, then the Settlements will all be ok? That makes a lot of sense there …
As far as what the Bible says — there is strong evidence that the events as described in the Bible … well, they didn’t happen that way. There is continuity between the Canaanite and Hebrew civilizations. And there have been Hebrews/Jews living in Palestine since then and through the present. Why aren’t the Palestinian Arabs deemed the illegal settlers?
Anyway, the question still stands … if Jews don’t have a right to live in the occupied territories and Jews don’t have a right to live, well, anywhere, where do we have a right to live? Are we all condemned to be wandering Jews?
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:56 am
Let’s recap shall we? Civilized settlement of the area is attested to from ca. 8000 BCE. Then ca. 1000 BCE the Hebrews destroy the Canaanite nations and settle the area. 1,000 years later they are kicked out by the Romans. 2,000 years later they come back. So, out of the approximately 10,000 years cities have existed in the Levant the Hebrews occupied it for approximately 1/10th of that time.
Don’t forget the Babylonian Exile.
Maybe if your claims were less specious you’d have more support.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:59 am
Let’s recap shall we? Civilized settlement of the area is attested to from ca. 8000 BCE. Then ca. 1000 BCE the Hebrews destroy the Canaanite nations and settle the area. 1,000 years later they are kicked out by the Romans. 2,000 years later they come back. So, out of the approximately 10,000 years cities have existed in the Levant the Hebrews occupied it for approximately 1/10th of that time.
You marshaling of facts is futile. Magical sky man says its their land. Nothing competes with that.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 am
Anyway, the question still stands … if Jews don’t have a right to live in the occupied territories and Jews don’t have a right to live, well, anywhere, where do we have a right to live? Are we all condemned to be wandering Jews?
Wow, two responses come to mind:
A) Check your driver’s license, dipshit. Start there.
This is the 21st century. You have a passport and a credit card, I assume. Why not board a plane and go anywhere you fucking like?
B) if Jews don’t have a right to live in the occupied territories and Jews don’t have a right to live, well, anywhere
If only there was some strip of land between the West Bank and Mediterranean where Jews had a right to live. If only…
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:05 am
If only there were a majority-Jewish state in the vicinity of the settlements, DAS.
I get it, though. Israelis need a lot of lebensraum, don’t they. So if there’s an Anschluss of the settlements, it’s only fair.
And I think we all recognize that there are a lot of Fifth Columnists living in Israel. They should be concentrated into camps of some kind.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 am
DAS;
Your argument can be answered one of two ways, take your pick.
1. Jews are allowed to live in the West Bank because historically that’s where Jews have lived, and you can choose either the bible or more recent stuff (the fact that there were thriving Jewish communities in places like Hebron, for example). Fair enough. But if Jews get to live there now because they lived there once upon a time, then Palestinians get to live in Haifa and Tel Aviv because they lived there once upon a time. And they don’t need to point to ancient texts showing that Palestinians lived there 3000 years ago; they just need to visit the old man in the refugee camp who still has a key to his house.
OR,
2. The hell with all that sentimental bullshit, just because Palestinians used to live in Israel doesn’t mean they get to live there now. Hard political realities and all that. Again, fair enough, but in that case the same thing goes for banning Israeli settlements. The Palestinians want the West Bank and Gaza, they have a zillion UN resolutions on their side, the whole world supports their quest for independence in those territories, and your sentimental desire for Jews to live where they used to live once upon a time doesn’t hold a candle to that.
Basically if you’re for two states for two peoples that’s cool. If you’re for one state for Jews and Palestinians that’s cool. But don’t give me this shit about Jews can live wherever they want and Palestinians can’t.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:13 am
Settlement expansion doesn’t make the murder of civilians okay, and terrorism doesn’t make land grabs okay.
But Israel is guilty of settlement expansion, murder of civilians, terrorism and land grabs; whereas Palestinians are only guilty of two of those things.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:14 am
Anthony Weiner – what a tool. I would seriously vote for a Republican over him given the chance. Well, maybe.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:16 am
So.. Spokey is just a racist who thinks ethnic cleansing is awesome, then?
Hard reality? We have bigger guns. Obama just told your asses to jump. The only fucking thing Americans want to hear out of you now is ‘how high?’.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:18 am
Hamas was democratically elected, but that hasn’t stopped us from criticizing their policies.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:20 am
It would be gross crime against humanity to expel all of the Palestinian Arabs from their homes – which is NOT OK – but if that happened, their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-whatever-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren living in Italy 1000 years later will have no right to kick any Jewish people out of their homes.
Once again, BECAUSE IT HAPPENED OVER A THOUSAND YEARS AGO.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
No you won’t. That would just replace someone you agree with on everything except Israel with someone you disagree with on everything including Israel.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
The 400,000 or Jewish residents of the West Bank (the settlers and the Jewish residents of annexed East Jerusalem) are citizens of Israel and are permitted to vote in Israeli elections. The 2.4 million Palestinians who live there are not. So if the West Bank is part of Israel, then Israel is not a democracy. And if the West Bank is not part of Israel, then settlements are not a domestic affair. No matter how you look at it, this isn’t a question of “pressuring a democracy on what are their domestic policies.”
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:22 am
WTF are you talking about? “Don’t have a right to live anywhere?” There are millions of Jews living in America and Europe, and millions more living in Israel proper.
This is a debate about the occupied territories, not Israel.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:23 am
Seriously, if New Yorkers are not illegal settlers of Native American land, then Palestinians aren’t illegal settlers of Jewish land.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:31 am
oh i get it now – EMPATHY!!!
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:31 am
Soullite;
Get fucked. When you’re done getting fucked, read what I just wrote–
–and tell me where I say that ethnic cleansing is awesome.
It never ceases to amaze me how I can take an entirely pro-Palestinian position and get sniped in the back by some asshole who sucks at reading comprehension. I had a throwdown with abb1 over this exact same thing a couple weeks ago.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:37 am
Spokey, lick my ass you racist piece of shit. You advocated ethnic cleansing.
‘just because Palestinians used to live in Israel doesn’t mean they get to live there now’
That’s ethnic cleansing you retarded piece of shit.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:39 am
Anonyous, humans aren’t logical beings. Humans are emotional beings. There is a good chance that someone sufficiently angry about a single issue will vote against their beliefe when it comes to everything else.
In any case, there’s even some rationality to it. I won’t vote for Obama when he covers up rape at abu gharaib, even if he was doing something else I agreed with (he’s not, so it just makes it easy). Sometimes a single issue is so morally imperative it has to trump political considerations.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:44 am
soullite -
You really, really, quite radically did not understand spokeytown’s comment.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:49 am
Oh fergawdsake,
This was DAS’s position. Also the position of any and all Israeli hawks when you bring up the right of return. If you paid any attention to this issue you would know that. At the same time that they say this, they also say (like DAS did) that it would be incredibly cruel and racist to kick Jewish settlers out of their homes. If you paid any attention to this issue you would know that as well. This is a pretty obvious contradiction; why is it OK to kick Palestinians out of their homes but not Jews? If it’s good for one it’s good for the other, and if it’s wrong for one then it’s wrong for the other. This is what I was pointing out to DAS, but apparently the entire point of my post went right over your head and you started slinging reactionary internet troll bullshit.
Reading comprehension, soullite. It’s a good thing. Next fall when you’re in 8th grade English class they’ll teach you about that.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:53 am
No, I think he got it. I think Soulittle is just taking the rather extreme position that because Israel was founded through the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the Palestinians should have a right to all of Israel and recognizing that this is not a particularly practical or, for that matter, moral solution to the conflict is effectively rewarding Israel for ethnic cleansing. Which is sort of true if you choose to live in a simple world of moral absolutes and you are indifferent to the consequences of those absolutes.
It’s analogous to someone who would claim that Native Americans should be given back the entirity of the United States.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Satya;
I’m kind of on the fence about the whole right of return thing. Against it, I would say that Jews and Palestinians both favor a two state solution by large margins, and if it’s good enough for them then who am I to tell them any different? Also, if you decide that the great wrong done to Palestinians must be redressed by having them return to their land, how far back does that go? Giving the US back to Native Americans is just a start. Pretty much every country on earth was founded on/had its borders drawn by various invasions and ethnic cleansings. Do you ask me to go back to England because 1/4 of my ancestors were from there? How long do they get to stay there before the Cornish or whoever demand that they go back to Denmark or Germany? Serbians started their whole ethnic cleansing thing trying to reclaim or hold on to any place where some Serb had once lived. Hell, Jewish maximalists maintain that Greater Yeretz Israel should include pretty much everything between Damascus and Cairo. Like you said, moral absolutes without paying attention to the consequences.
On the other hand it’s not like 1948 is ancient history. If it’s bad for Israel to be pushing Palestinians around now, why is it OK to reward them for pushing them around (away) in 1948? And of course some Palestinians very much want to return and international law is pretty clear that they can provided they are willing to live in peace with their new Israeli neighbors.
I dunno. Khalil Shikaki did a poll a few years back where he found that only 10% of Palestinian refugees would actually want to return to Israel, and only 10% of those refugees (60,000~something) would want Israeli citizenship. The rest don’t like Israel, don’t want to learn Hebrew, would be afraid of getting expelled again, have already set down roots elsewhere, would want to work on building a new Palestinian state, etc. So maybe this is a way to fix this issue.
More importantly, I think a one state solution will happen just because Israel won’t be able to evacuate half a million settlers, and thus won’t be able to offer the Palestinians more than a few disconnected blobs, which they won’t accept. If there aren’t two states then there’s one. What’s most ironic is that the Zionist dream will have been destroyed and Israel will have no one to blame but themselves. If you want a Jewish-majority state but also take over an area full of Arabs, and then wonder where all the Arabs came from, I don’t know what to tell you.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
(1) It’s wrong to have these settlements, not only to expand them. The settlements are illegal – all of them, those in East Jerusalem included.
(2) In 4 or 8 years the Republicans will return to power and undo everything the Obama government may have achieved until then. – Netanyahu’s task is: Delay as much as possible!
(3) In a couple of years the Chinese will emerge in the OilEast and use the Palestinian question for their purpose – then, only then I suppose the USA will start to consider that they will have to abandon Israel not to lose their stance in the Arab world completely. The coming sea change is already palpable right now … — So for the Arab Palestinians the imperative is: Delay! The conditions for their success in negotiations will grow substantially not before the Chinese enter the stage.
=(4) Hypothesis: No breakthrough will be achieved in the coming 4 years.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Borders are an issue to be resolved in negotations, not beforehand. The Palestinians want this as a concession before negotations can begin? What are they offering in exchange — cessation of attacks on Israeli civilians? Israel ended up having to resolve this issue itself through military actions and the construction of the security wall.
The sooner an end to the entire conflict can be negotiated, the sooner the settlements will cease to be a problem.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
The sad thing about DAS’s comments is that they’re actually the best case to be made for settlements.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Any actions on settlements prior to peace negotiations is simply giving the Palestinians unneeded hope that they can simply waiting for the United States to pressure Israel instead of actually negotiating. Gaza has shown that one sided Israeli actions do not advance peace.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
If peace comes from it fine, but that’s not our job to cover their ass on settlements.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Larry, you seem to be being relatively reasonable at the moment.
Do you disagree that it’s a necessary precondition to good faith negotiations that expansion of these settlements cease?
Do you also disagree that the settlements have been strategically used to establish claims to certain plots of land?
Or that the Israeli government has purposefully dragged its heels on negotiations so as to buy more time for the development of claims on certain plots of land?
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:20 pm
“Anyway, why shouldn’t Jews be allowed and enabled to settle on historically Jewish lands? First you kick us out of Europe and kill half of us and then you say we can’t settle on lands that have been Hebrew since the dawn of the Hebrew people?”
Who’s “you,” kemosabe?
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
‘just because Palestinians used to live in Israel doesn’t mean they get to live there now’
That’s ethnic cleansing you retarded piece of shit. – soullite
I thought that was the anti-settlements position with a few words turned around — “just because Jews used to live on the West Bank doesn’t mean they get to live there now”.
So I guess we’re all for ethnic cleansing?
BTW — not to minimize the very real tragedy of forced relocations (which in 1947 affected Mizrachi Jews and Palestinian Arabs equally), but to equate forced relocations with centuries of persecution (including constant forced relocations) leading up to the wholesale murder of half of a population is a little bit odd, dontcha think?
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Once again, BECAUSE IT HAPPENED OVER A THOUSAND YEARS AGO.
Good. So all Israel needs to do is hold on to the occupied territories for a thousand years and that’ll make the settlements you so decry be perfectly alright?
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
@spokeytown,
Yeah, I don’t think that return to Israel writ large is a viable option for the Palestinians. That sucks for them, but the strong do what they will and the weak accept what they must, and the weak Palestinians have to accept a state on 22% of the land that, in an abstract moral sense, I think should be legitimately theirs. As you suggest, the redress of historical grievances should be a low priority for resolution of this conflict, the historical narratives of the two peoples are too diametrically opposed to each other for either side to feel satisfied. You will never get anywhere trying to refight the morality of the actions taken in 1967, 1948 or before. So the fact that I ultimately side with the Palestianians on the morality of those events (while respecting the extreme exigent circumstances that Jews faced that gave birth to Zionism) isn’t really as important as figuring out how these people are going to live together in the future. And that means that the Palestianians need to mostly drop or accept symbolic recognition of the right of return. Not because it’s fair. It isn’t. But because it is necessary to put this conflict behind them and improve the lives of Palestinians.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
DAS: Please don’t respond to Soullite as if he’s the anti-settlement position. He’s a walking, breathing, typing straw man.
Anyway. Do you really not recognize that “Palestinians used to live in Israel” and “Jews used to live on the West Bank” are using two very different “used to”s? Greeks “used to” live in Istanbul (was Constantinople) too, more recently than Jews were the majority in the West Bank as a matter of fact, but they don’t have any claim on Asia Minor.
You are consistently defining “traditionally” in ways that favor the Israeli claim, while ignoring any “traditions” (such as the facts on the ground for a millennium and a half) that would favor the Palestinian claim. The UN response is the proper one: to focus on the agreements and borders that were negotiated in the modern era, not the question of who held the land in the Iron Age. This has nothing to do with “equating” Palestinian forced relocations with the Holocaust—that’s a red herring which you’re using for emotional manipulation, and I wish you would cut it out.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Wait, wait — is the presumption here now that the settlements in Israel are a universalized “Jewish” issue, when even within Israel it is seen as a political issue, and quite a number of Israeli Jews see the settlers as a lawless authoritarian force getting nearly anything it wants from the government?
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I think the truth of the matter is that the pro-settlement position within Israel is a perfect example of the way the Israeli political system allows fringe groups to wield vast political power, making it almost impossible for Israel to take action on settlements that the majority of the Israeli public understands are necessary for the preservation of the Jewish state.
Why the United States Congress feels the need to mimic the extremes of Israeli pro-settlement opinion – or at least, take steps to ensure that there are no consequences whatsoever to continued settlement expansion – is another matter.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
“So all Israel needs to do is hold on to the occupied territories for a thousand years and that’ll make the settlements you so decry be perfectly alright?”
This has been answered already. No, it would not be “perfectly alright.” It would be a crime against humanity, just like the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the murder of the Native Americans, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by the Christians, the conquest and subjugation of Ireland, the annihilation of the Aborigines—how long to you want to go on? There are any number of irreversible crimes against humanity in any era of history in any part of the globe, and sensible people don’t waste time trying to balance them all out. The point here is to stop the settlements before they become an irreversible crime against humanity.
I’ve danced with you before, so I know what you’re going to say: “How come we let those other crimes happen, but once it’s the Jews committing crimes, we have to punish them?” The answer is that we’re trying to be a more compassionate, conscious people now—hence the creation of the UN—even though we fail quite a lot. If you think it’s due to anti-Semitism (which is certainly present on the anti-Israeli side), I’d ask you to point out a comparable situation that the US and UN are not involving themselves in; chances are I’ll be in favor of involvement there too.
As I’ve tried to express to you before, you don’t get a pass on committing international crimes, and more importantly you shouldn’t want one.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Actually, DAS, looking at it again: not only was your “thousand years” question already answered, it was answered in the same comment about which you were snarkily asking another “thousand years” question.
I haven’t thought of you as a troll before, but that is classic troll behavior. If you’re interested in being worth engaging with, you owe a little more respect to your conversation partners.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Has Weiner been following the news in recent years? What Palestinian terrorism? Pulease. How many Israelis have died from Palestinian terrorism in the last 3-4 years?
More importantly though, according to Juan Cole, one third of Jewish settlers in the West Bank are Americans. That’s about 100,000 Americans breaking international law and going against our policy. Haul them back home and force them to buy up foreclosed homes in the US.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Can the pro-settlement people, instead of making hypothetical arguments, answer these 3 questions?
Do you disagree that it’s a necessary precondition to good faith negotiations that expansion of these settlements cease?
Do you also disagree that the settlements have been strategically used to establish claims to certain plots of land?
Or that the Israeli government has purposefully dragged its heels on negotiations so as to buy more time for the development of claims on certain plots of land?
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Well, if you want to hear my humble opinion, here it is: whatever your angle, no matter how you look at it – Zionism is a disgrace, poisonous militant racist ideology.
Nothing is going to improve until it’s marginalized and sent to the garbage dump of history, where it belongs.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Just a minor point, but a handful of Congressfolk does not equal Congress. Especially if the most vocal among them is Anthony Weiner, who is particularly toolish on this issue. I remember when he was calling on Rashid Khalidi to be kicked out of Columbia – even by NYC standards, that’s far and above what’s necessary to keep the base happy.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Re abb1
Zionism today, Zionism tomorrow, Zionism forever.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
What EDB said. The Zionist fanatics and their useful idiots in the US like Weiner act as if the Intifiada is still raging.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
As usual, Mr. Abb1 posts a feeble taunt against Zionists, and then runs out presumably to go f*ck a sheep.
Something I’m wondering….if the State of Israel goes out of business, then where do you want the Jews to go? And don’t say ‘America’, because most Jews tend not to want to share a country with cosmopolite-hipster goat-f*cking @$$hole anti-Semites like Mr. Abb1.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Oh, please, let’s see another scintillating debate between SLC and abb1. Maybe Hector can join the mix! Then it’s guaranteed to be productive!
p.s. Hector: “@$$hole”? That won’t keep you out of hell.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Re: Greeks “used to” live in Istanbul (was Constantinople) too
Tomemos,
The name is still ‘Constantinople’, unless you recognize the legitimacy of the conquest by the p*ssy c*cksucker Mehmet II, the Michael Jackson of his age. I certainly don’t. Byzantium today, Byzantium tomorrow, Byzantium forever.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“if the State of Israel goes out of business, then where do you want the Jews to go? And don’t say ‘America’, because most Jews tend not to want to share a country with cosmopolite-hipster [blah blah blah].”
Well, no serious person in this debate is talking about Israel going out of business. But as for most Jews not wanting to share a country with evil liberal Americans: someone should tell that to the 5 million plus Jews living in the States right now, just under the Jewish population of Israel.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
“The name is still ‘Constantinople’, unless you recognize the legitimacy of the conquest by the p*ssy c*cksucker Mehmet II… Byzantium today, Byzantium tomorrow, Byzantium forever.”
Hector, you’re beautiful. Don’t ever change.
DAS: from Hector’s brilliant example, do you see the absurdity of insisting that the West Bank is “Jewish” land? Do you think Hector should lead a group of settlers to begin taking back Turkey?
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Weiner is a racist clown. Several years ago, he objected to Columbia University hisorian Rashid Khalidi consulting with the New York City school system.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Tomemos,
I have no interest in taking back Turkey. That’s a job for Jesus and his angelic host, when he comes back.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Hector, you’re beautiful.
You bet. In case you still don’t know, Hector is actually The Medium Lobster from Fafblog.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Richard Steven Hack, among others, might find this interesting.
Obama says Iran has legitimate concerns in developing a nuclear energy program.
The vague term “Iranian nuclear program,” a deliberately ambiguous phrase intended to lump nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons into the same rubric, has long been a problem in our discourse about this issue.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
if the State of Israel goes out of business, then where do you want the Jews to go?
Why, a whole lot of refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon will become vacant, so they can go there. What goes around come around, buddy.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
abb1: Wow, the internet is officially too postmodern for me.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Oh, the poor put-upon Zionists. America is putting pressure on a “democracy”.
BTW, what’s up with posting? Sometimes the post just doesn’t show up.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Perhaps that should be “Oh, the poor put-upon Zionist expansionists.”
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Luke,
1. Do you disagree that it’s a necessary precondition to good faith negotiations that expansion of these settlements cease?
Yes. I do understand why the Palestinians view them as a serious threat to and infringement on their sovereignty. I also understand that growth of these settlements potentially means a worse outcome for the Palestinians over time. I don’t see how it precludes good-faith negotiations however. If this is something the Palestinians want stopped they need to negotiate about it: Put it on the table and offer something in exchange. Which they previously did, viz., cessation of attacks on Israeli civilians. Which however Israel ended up having to solve for itself, as I remarked above. So, now they should resume negotiations and offer something else.
2. Do you also disagree that the settlements have been strategically used to establish claims to certain plots of land?
No. I am sure that settlements have been strategically placed, around Jerusalem for example, to enhance the outcome of negotiations from Israel’s perspective, at the Palestinians’ expense. That’s what governments do: they act in their self-interest.
3. Or that the Israeli government has purposefully dragged its heels on negotiations so as to buy more time for the development of claims on certain plots of land?
Yes. Read the Washington Post article based on their interview with Abbas during his visit last week. Read the description of the offer that Olmert made him. He’s dragging his feet, because he thinks time is on his side. And in general I think that’s how the Palestinians feel. Settlements push in the opposite direction. I believe they serve as an incentive for the Palestinians to reach an agreement sooner rather than later. But as long as they think the US will come in and force Israel to make this concession without themselves having to offer anything in exchange, they’ll wait.
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:22 pm
PS I think the settlements serve a positive purpose but I wouldn’t call myself “pro-settlement.” I’m certainly not sympathetic to religious zealots or calls for Greater Israel. And I think Israel must be prepared to trade land for peace and give up most of the West Bank.
But not for nothing. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Re: Why, a whole lot of refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon will become vacant, so they can go there. What goes around come around, buddy.
Ah, so Mr. Abb1 is another one of those pleasant fellows who thrills to the thought of herding Jews into camps. I thought that was over in 1945, but apparently not.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Re abb1
Mr. abb1 is a murdering rapist.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
SLC,
Is it rape if, like Mr. Abb1, you only f*ck sheep and goats?
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:30 am
Email me in four years when Obama succeeds in any of this AND manages to avoid being dragged into a war with Iran by Israel.
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Wow, actually some useful debate going on in here. I was on the NPR site the other day and it was a lot of hardline pro-Israel types.
I think the U.S. should absolutely come to Israel’s defense if it is every invaded (an actual invasionk, not some rocks and 1930 rockets).
But, I can’t believe how much bluster comes from some of the uber pro-Israel types. The fact is that Israel ain’t really that big a deal to the United States, in terms of our national interest. The fact is that the U.S. has been Israel’s big brother. We shield them from international scorn; we give them free billions; we give them military hardware and intelligence.
Some of the arrogance the emanates from Israeli officials and staunch pro-Israel persons in Israel, America, and elsewhere is 1) unrealistic and 2) annoying.
If the U.S. ever terminated its “special relationship” with Israel, Israel would be in a bad place. There’s too much chutzpah and not enough humility and appreciation.