Matt Yglesias

Lieberman Argues for Settlement Expansion

Via Faiz Shakir, it seems that Joe Lieberman appeared on Bloomberg and joined efforts by congressional hawks to bail Bibi Netanyahu out of his clash with the United States government by putting pressure on Barack Obama to back off his opposition to settlement expansion:

I thought the focus on the President’s direct call in that speech in Cairo for the Israelis to freeze all settlement activity — including the ‘natural growth‘ of settlements that everybody agrees are no longer settlements — …that was risky in the sense that it may lead listeners to believe that the main reason there is not an Arab-Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is the Israeli settlement policy.

I don’t think I would call the settlement freeze the “focus” of Obama’s Cairo speech, but he did focus on the need for both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict to live up to their commitments. Israel has previously promised to halt settlement activity, and while halting settlement activity is hardly the only barrier to peace, I think it’s clear enough that a cessation of Israeli land grabs is a necessary condition for peace.

Lieberman’s reference to “settlements that everybody agrees are no longer settlements” appears to refer to West Bank settlements built near the Green Line that more-or-less have the character of suburbs of Jerusalem. Israel hopes to annex most or all of these settlements in a final peace agreement. And perhaps some of them will be annexed. But the unilaterally decide that some settlements can and should be expanded because they’re “no longer settlements” is just a naked effort to prejudge the issue and circumvent the diplomatic process.

Meanwhile, if you look at a map you can see that while the built-up footprint of some of these “suburban” settlements is quite small, the municipal boundaries of the settlements are extremely expansion. Allowing for the “natural growth” of the settlements would entail cutting off the Arab portion of Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, displacing Bedouin from surrounding desert areas, and in effect making any kind of peace involving shared access to Jerusalem impossible. In other words, though “natural growth” of some existing blocs may sound like a small thing in the scheme of things, it would in fact shortly doom any hopes of reaching a realistic negotiated settlement.

Obama’s Car Invention Myth

I’ve been glad to see Obama getting dinged around a little for the line in his speech about how the United States invented the automobile. What I wish more people appreciated was that he’s been using this line on and off for a while now. Way back during ThinkProgress’ October 15 debate live-blog I noted:

Obama said America invented the automobile industry. In fact, the first market-viable car was developed by Germany’s Karl Benz. The first automobile was invented in 18th century France and the first internal combustion engine was invented in 1806 by a French-speaking Swiss man (this is why we use the French word “automobile”).

Obviously, this isn’t a really big deal in the scheme of things. But I do think that one thing this country needs is to become a little bit more mature about our place in the world. We’re the richest, mightiest nation on earth and we’re close to the top in land area and population size. A ton of stuff was invented here, a ton of first breakthroughs were made here, Henry Ford is a very important figure in the history of the car industry. But this can be taken too far. I recall that back during his 2000 convention speech, Joe Lieberman suggested that “only in America” could a Jewish person get nominated for Vice President even though France had a Jewish Prime Minister back in the 1930s. The kind of solipsism and hubris of that statement, or of made-up tales of automobile invention, ill-befits a country that wants and needs to play a role of genuine leadership on the world stage.

Lieberman & Lieberman: Together at Last

Fresh from trying, and failing, to convince American Jews that Sarah Palin and John Hagee should be our guiding lights, Joe Lieberman’s decided to hop across the pond for a photo op with Yisrael Beitenu leader Avigdor Lieberman, who seems to be auditioning for the role of Foreign Minister. Who’s Lieberman? I still don’t think there’s any better way to make the point than to quote Martin Peretz who deems him a “certified bigot and and apparent crook”. Or, in an earlier post “the Israeli equivalent of Jorg Haider of Austria (now dead) and Jean-Marie LePen . . . no better than Haider and no worse, except that he is a Jew which makes him more repulsive . . . team of non-entities . . . Arab-baiting.”

Obviously, given those kind of sentiments from even very hawkish and anti-Arab American Jews, sensible Israelis are going to wonder about the possible impact of the Liebermanification of their national security posture on U.S. public opinion. And rightly so. But here’s Joe Lieberman going out of his way to pre-empt those fears. And why? Coalition negotiations are ongoing in Israel. There’s some debate as to whether or not the U.S. ought to intervene behind the scenes to try to nudge things in a more centrist direction. I can see the arguments on both sides of that, but why on earth would a U.S. politician intervene to nudge things in a less centrist direction? It’s ludicrous.

Today’s Joe Lieberman Fact

Donny Shaw at OpenCongress has a blog post of insights gleaned from CQ’s analysis of voting records in the 110th congress. As everyone knows, bloggers are obsessed with Joe Lieberman, so:

Joe Lieberman (I-CT) votes with Bush as often as the least loyal Senate Democrat, Mary Landrieu (D-LA). But he votes with Democrats more often than at least six Democratic Senators.

Evan Bayh, meanwhile, has the lowest party unity score of any Democrat. I think that in years past, people would be inclined to give Bayh a pass on just about anything on the theory that Indiana seemed like such a hopelessly red state (see also Ben Nelson) but with Obama carrying the state back in November I can only assume the White House will be taking the view that strong support for the president’s agenda is consistent with electoral victory in Indiana.