Some recurring bad-news stories are so depressingly unchanging that all one can do is sadly to take note of them. The Israeli colonization of occupied territory, which for some four decades has been driving nails into the coffin of a two-state solution in which Jewish and Arab states could live peacefully side by side, continues apace. The word this week is that the Israeli interior ministry has approved construction of another 1,600 apartments in disputed East Jerusalem and that approval for 2,700 more is only days away. Although there is little new to say about how damaging the continued construction on disputed land is to U.S. interests and to Middle East peace (and to the interests of anyone wishing Israel to be over the long term a free, democratic and Jewish state), the consequences are too serious just to let this development slide by unmentioned because of sheer fatigue over this discouraging and long-running story. For a reminder of how much this unilateral action constitutes a slap in the face of Israel's American patron—which has incurred enormous material, diplomatic, political, and security costs on Israel's behalf—I commend Matt Duss's treatment of the subject. One of the recent costs the U.S. has incurred is to expend much diplomatic capital supporting Israel's resistance against a U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood. The only added point to make is that the colonization program, along with the current Israeli ruling coalition's larger opposition to a two-state solution, is what has elicited the very Palestinian initiative that raised the issue of a new U.N. resolution in the first place.
Closely related to all this is another piece of news this week about U.S.-Israeli relations: that 81 members of the U.S. Congress—nearly a sixth of the entire Congress—will be traveling to Israel during the current Congressional recess. The travel is funded by an AIPAC affiliate, the American Israel Education Foundation. House Republican leader Eric Cantor, fresh off his role as chief extortionist in the debt-ceiling debacle, says that through the trips “Members will better understand the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship.” This kind of lobbyist-funded jaunt enables us to better understand something about the members themselves and about their priorities. An appropriate reaction is the kind of indignation voiced by David Rothkopf, who notes that “Every moment spent jumping through a hoop for a potential group of supporters is a moment spent failing to address one of the many urgent issues confronting the United States.”
The trip to Israel to sit at the feet of Benjamin Netanyahu also demonstrates part of the extraordinary mechanism that leads legislators of the world's most powerful country to countenance—and even cheer—their country getting jerked around, much to its own detriment, by a small client that, at least under its current government, never stops displaying its ingratitude.
Comments
As did the Jews in 1920s Weimar Germany, Israel and its AIPAC minions have garnered disproportionate media, financial and political control right here in United States. Seems our country, not just Palestine, has been occupied. At horrific cost, Palestine justly and honorably resists, whereas we, like donkeys, serve the Israeli herdsmen. President Obama surely understands and hopefully will not veto a UN resolution recognizing Palestine. Justice demands resolution just as involuntary, disruptive and humiliating to Israel as Israel has wreaked upon Palestine for generations. . Maybe something like UN imposed and enforced return of twice the land seized, including and centered on the actual land seized, eviction of settlers, contiguity and autonomy plus debilitating PUNITIVE REPARATIONS.
It is high time, indeed, very high time the US, EU and their leaders understand: The core cause of the Arab Israeli conflict, local and regional, has nothing to do with "Jerusalem", "settlements", "borders", "refugees", "security" or "water"; it is rather the total and categorical refusal of the Muslim-Arab world - not the Christian-Arabs, not the Druze-Arabs, mind you!! - local and regional, the PLO included of course, to accept Israel's very RIGHT to be - and not only the FACT that it is - to exist as the independent nation-state of the Jewish people on ANY parcel of land between the River and the Sea. Thus, instead of focusing on symptoms of the conflict, be they what they may, the US, EU and their leaders must first and foremost demand of the Muslim-Arab leadership, the PLO included, to accept Israel's right to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people, and to view a peace treat, once concluded, as the "end of the conflict and the end of all future demands". The fact that the Muslim-Arab leadership has been refusing to accept the above, for many, many decades, should give the US, EU and their leaders a clue as to the reason why peace is not presently within reach, and only the management of the situation is, until and unless the Muslim-Arabs are forthcoming.
ho hum ... more Pillarian drivel.
On the 21st of September, a day after the PLO makes its move at the UN and regardless of the outcome there, the following should happen: 1. Israel applies its laws to the entire "Area C" and much of "Area B", thus in effect annexing these areas and incorporating them in the sovereign nation-state of the Jewish people ensuring that what it considers "secure and recognized borders" as called for in UN Security Council Resolution, 242, are implemented. 2. Israel should announce, and begin the preparations for the establishment of an additional Hebrew city in Eretz Israel (Land of Israel), this time in the Jordan Valley, between Jericho and Beit-Shan, one that would serve the agricultural communities of the region and will be located at a region that must never be handed over to a foreign power.3. Israel closes all borders to Gaza for human as well as commercial movement: no one goes in and no one goes out, including VIPs of any kind. Muslim-Arab Gaza, from this point on will have to deal directly with the country from which it was captured by Israel in 1967, Muslim-Arab Egypt that shares a border with it.4. Israel will call a meeting with Egypt and Jordan and put in motion the application of UN Security Council Resolution, 242, as is. UN Security Council Resolution, 242, which has been the basis for the entire peace process, it should be noted, does not call for the setting up of an additional state in the region, let alone a "Palestinian state", nor does 242 uses concepts such as "Palestinians" or "Palestine".5. As for the "Palestinians", they'll have to fend for themselves, in all respects, including financial!!
Okay, but given the preferences of the Knesset MPs and the general public, I think expanding construction is more palatable than seriously considered alternatives that include: annexation, re-initiating hostilities against ostensible antagonists in the Palestinian Territories, a cessation of formal diplomatic ties, or unilaterally determining the final boundaries. I can't say that I'm in Netanyahu's head, but I imagine that he believes that this concession will reduce the pressure to make any of aforementioned decisions.Given the state of anxiety in the region, Israel's low tolerance of exogenous threats, and Israel's relative capabilities, it makes sense to selectively appease it until the situation improves. But furthermore, can we honestly say that a Palestinian state will have the ability to adhere to terms that it agrees to, or stand by any significant measure on its own feet? And does anyone find it troubling that the success of a nation-state has been determined to rest on demarcation lines that more than anything else, separate sectarian groups? Because if such is the basis of peace, then I expect that future sectarian hostilities will be inevitable. In my assessment, the only way out of this is to develop the Palestinian Territories to a point where their primary interests aren't limited to boundaries and sectarianism. And to cultivate regional peace to the point where Israel no longer serves as a reminder of the failure of the Caliphate, and the Western conquests in the region. These are the issues that are the real source of friction, and will remain largely regardless of what happens in the Palestinian Territories.
Will anyone explain how Jewish construction in Jerusalem is anymore detrimental to peace than jewish construction in Eilat?I seem to recall the Egyptian Parliament demanding in 2006 Eilat be ceded to Egypt. The military assault launched from the Sinai onto civilian buses and cars travelling to Eilat seems to emblematic of that demand.It seems the National Interest is a mouthpiece for antisemitic drivel.