President Obama is in a very delicate international situation right now as Palestine prepares to ask the UN to recognize its statehood. The United States will vote against this measure in the UN Security Council and in doing so, will piss off most of the Arab nations. However, Palestinian Statehood must come about through peaceful negotiations with Israel, not a UN decree.
Meanwhile, candidates Romney and Perry really need to back off political commentary during this critical period. There cannot be two or three heads of state. Both men, embolden by a recent win in NY-9, are obviously pandering to the normally democratic Jewish vote in an attempt to lure votes away for the Republicans. The posturing needs to stop until these negotiations are over. Further instability in the middle east is not needed so Romney and Perry can pick up a few more votes.
Rick Perry calls the President of the United States ” naive, arrogant, misguided and dangerous.”
Rick Perry has a lot to learn. Regardless of his pandering, he needs to put a sock in it until this potentially flammable middle eastern situations has passed. Rick Perry is dangerous and he knows very little about foreign policy from what I have heard.
And are those foreign nationals standing with Rick Perry? Has he declared war against the United States? I knew he wanted to secede but this a little over the top.
I agree that Perry knows next to nothing about foreign policy, but neither does Obama. Hillary learned a lot as co-President from 1992 to 2000 but doesn’t have much sway in this administration. The last time we had a President or Vice-President with solid foreign policy credentials was George Bush senior during the Reagan administration and his own one term. To his credit Reagan, who also had limited experience in foreign affairs, picked the most solid foreign policy running mate he could in Bush and gave him much responsibility.
Clinton and Bush junior were very similar in their foreign policies focusing on nation-building. The main difference is that Clinton was somewhat less ready to pull the trigger on military force. He got us involved in the Balkans at Tony Blair’s insistence (dumb move) and had our troops picking up trash in Haiti under the guise of a peace-keeping mission, among other things. Bush junior had some people with foreign policy knowledge but most, such as Wolfowitz, were aggressive and came from the neo-con/nation-building school. We see where all of that got us.
Obama came in knowing nothing and picked a joke, Joe Biden, as his running mate. I will grant that Obama is less ready to use the military and relies more on drones, intelligence, covert operations, and other measures that don’t put Americans in harm’s way. This is good. In Libya, however, he shot at everyone except Kaddafi, which was very stupid. One well-place drone would have taken out Kaddafi and ended that conflict much sooner.
Another big problem is that the career foreign policy establishment (i.e., State Department and intelligence community) is not tremendously sympathetic to Israel. I know many people in those roles, and this is a widely-shared view of the career foreign policy community.
If I were Israel, I would be very worried right now. The US administration is not a solid ally in philosophy or knowledge. The UN sees an opportunity to whack Israel again by granting phony statehood to a bogus Palestinian entity. Most of the developed world opposes Israel, and yes, much of that opposition is based on a combination anti-Semitism and pandering for oil. The best hope is nothing blows up until we can elect a President who is philosophically strong in support of Israel and that such a president will build a competent foreign policy staff who shares that philosophy.
I am trying to think of failed Obama foreign policy and I can’t. However, the point is, Obama is the President of the United States and it is his job to be steering the USA through these tumultuous waters. Its a delicate situation at best. REgardless of what we do, there will be consequences.
It is not Rick Perry’s job and he isn’t undermining Obama. He is undermining the United States by shooting off his mouth. Romney also but he didn’t have an entourage of foreign nationals.
I don’t care if it is Bush, Clinton, Obama, Bush 1. Perry needs to SDASTFU. His behavior reminds me of what’s her face….Cindy Sheehan. He can say what he wants when this is over but not during tense negotiations.
NTK, have you forgotten that genocide was being routinely practiced in the Balkans? I fully supported our efforts there. I don’t think we can turn our back on genocide ever again.
Hillary Clinton is a very competent Secretary of State. Don’t expect Palestine to win. However, putting it to a vote puts the USA in a very bad position because they will vote against it.
We will just have to disagree about this entire issue.
I’m curious. “However, Palestinian Statehood must come about through peaceful negotiations with Israel, not a UN decree.” Why *does* Palestine have to have statehood?
Perry and Romney or any other talking head won’t impact anything. Foreign heads of state aren’t looking at FoxNews saying “Wow, that Perry has a point.. I need to vote for X”
But, from an American (electorate) point of view I think there is a valid point to be made. If Mr. Obama was and is for Palestine being a state should that not be information the electorate is given? After all Palestine is only moving forward with Obama’s goal during his UN speech..
This needs to be negotiated with Israel, period. When Gaza was given back to the Palestinians, what ensued? Well, bombing into Israel. How was this a good faith step by both sides? However, Israel keeps building settlements where they are suppose to be vacating. I am a supporter of Israel, but they have made mistakes.
Perry is a brash mouthpiece who speaks before he thinks, not someone I want representing my country. He does not understand the delicate balance of diplomacy. I have no interest in cowboy mentality.
Moon, Obama has been largely non-interventionist in foreign policy, and for the most part I don’t think that’s entirely a bad thing. The less meddling the better. Remember that I like Ron Paul’s idea of pursuing a foreign policy of minding our own business.
We have some allies that we must support staunchly and Israel is one of them. Obama has never been a strong friend of Israel and is now acting only out of political necessity (i.e., the 2012 election).
Britain is another strong ally whom we need to support most of the time. Clinton was at first disinclined to get involved in Tony Blair’s Balkan adventures and I do think he was correct with that initial assessment. Two reasons. First, the Balkans are the Europeans’ backyard. They should deal with those problems and pay for their resolution rather than running to the American taxpayer all the time. This was a matter for our European allies and the Russians to sort out for themselves. Second, the thanks we got for our actions in the Balkans were further accusations of meddling in Muslin-dominated areas and ultimately terrorist attacks. Blair goaded Clinton into getting us involved through some crafty global PR work and diplomatic pressure.
Generally, I favor non-interventionism. Many supported our intervention in the Balkans under Clinton but opposed intervention in Iraq under Bush. I see little difference, except that the US had more of an interest in Iraq than in the Balkans. The rational for Iraq at first was weapons of mass destruction and ending Saddam’s rule; both of which were legitimate US national security concerns. Check, check both done. Great job US military! But wait, we stayed and engaged in another nation-building exercise rather than go home after our stated goals were accomplished. Trillions added to the deficit, etc.
The Balkans’ problems have been going on for a millennium. They started when Muslim invaders made their way through the region advancing on a mission of conquest into Central Europe. In the process, they exterminated Serbian and other Christian populations, and settled the areas. Jews were completely exterminated in the area as they fell under the invaders’ swords also (an early precursor of the 20th century’s Holocaust). Here come the Americans and British to resolve a 1,000-year old problem. None of our business, and we don’t understand the history and nature of the problems there.
Regarding Perry and others commenting on Israel, Palestine and other foreign policy issues, I think they have an obligation to speak out. As do we. We can never take a position that we must support our elected officials, right or wrong.
@Need to Know
NTK,
While the shortest distance between two points is indeed a straight line, shooting a Hellfire missle into Kaddaffi would have been considered an assasination. Executive Order 11905, issued by Gerald Ford and renewed by every president since, prohibits the targeting and assasination of the recognized governmental leader of another country, except when a condition of declared hostility exists between the US, and the other country.
This aside, I agree with your analysis on the foreign policy shortcomings of this and previous administrations. I think the last time the US did it “by-the-book” and maintained the moral highground throughout, was the 1991 Gulf War. HW Bush was bashed for “leaving the job unfinished”, but he resisted his critics and refused to exceed the UN mandate. Under Clinton, not only was our Balkan policy muddled, the Somalia experience was a “goat-rope” of the highest order. We can debate GW Bush’s decision to invade Iraq forever, but I do believe the Afghan invasion post-911 was a sound decision. However, the actual execution of war, once the Taliban were overthrown, was based on an unclear policy, which is IMHO why we are still there in active combat against the Taliban and Al Qieda.
With regards to Palestinian statehood: The Palestinians have a homeland. It’s called Jordan. An actual independent state of Palestine has never existed. When the name “Palestine” was used to describe the area, it was the province of the Roman Empire. During this time, Arabs did not reside there, save a few Beddoin nomad families. Arabs came into the area post-Rome, 7th century, only to later be conqured by the Ottoman Turks (non-Arab people), but no state of Palestine existed during this period either. Everything during this time was ruled as a caliphate from Damascus. The British sought the aid of the Arabs during WWI against the Turks, and the Arab states were created post-war out of a league of nations mandate, but again, no state of Palestine existed. Trans-Jordan, and later the Heshimite Kingdom of Jordan were carved out of this mandate, and the land claimed by the Palistinians as their “historic homeland” was contained therein. This land was lost by Jordan, when Jordan attacked Israel in 1967. Same story for Gaza, which was historically part of Eqypt. “Palestinian” is a made-up nationality, as no “Palestinian” state has ever existed. Jordan doesn’t want these people back, as they had once tried to overthrow the monarchy, but they were considered Jordanian prior to 1967. If no Palestinian state has ever existed, then “Plaestinian” is a made up nationality. Their ethnicity is Arab, no different from those of Syria, Lebbanon, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, so no claim of “Palestinian” as a seperate cultural or ethnic sub-group can be made.
Understanding the history, I have little sympathy for the the “plight of the Palestinian people” and their quest for statehood.
@marinm
Of course it will have impact if Romney and Perry are casting aspersions on the President of the United States during a tense international situation. The eyes of the world are watching and having someone undermining what he is saying undermines the USA, not Obama.
Israel needs a Palestinian state, but it needs one created the correct way, through negotiations. They need this because otherwise they are occupiers. It is a security issue. They also need for us to give Palestine foreign aid.
This issue goes further than Fox News. I haven’t heard what they have to say about it.
There is plenty of time to have this discussion after the international crisis is over.
Most presidents in my lifetime have worked on brokering a deal for Palestinian statehood. Bill Clinton came very close….but Yassir Arrafat cratered it at the last minute.
@Elena
I will tell you the same thing I told my very liberal friend Tom when he suggested that Europe should handle its own problems. I reminded him that we would just have to come along and bail them out like we have had to do in both world wars so we might as well get in it from the beginning.
Regardless of what transpired 1000 years ago or longer, I prefer to deal with the here and now. Genocide was being committed on a large scale. Somehow the words ‘never again’ keep haunting me.
I doubt we will ever agree on this issue or on Israel or Obama. Netanyahu is very conservative. Not taking the far right stand on Israel does not mean that a person isn’t a friend of Israel. Times are changing. What worked 40 years ago might not be such a good idea now. There is a balance.
@Steve Thomas
Regardless of technicality, there sure are a lot of people out there who consider themselves Palestinians. Perception is reality. I can’t figure out all the warring factions between the Irish and the English either. The bottom line is that it is a huge problem and it is coming to a head in a way not acceptable to us or Israel. Perry and Romney don’t need to be chiming when tensions are high.
Ultimately, it will be the Israelis and the Palestinians who will have to work it out, if possible. Meanwhile, it is a lose/lost situation for the USA.
@Steve Thomas
Technically, you are correct about the Executive Order. I agree. However, this should have been a covert operation, followed up by a big “oops” if needed. This sort of thing has happened before and will happen again. Some hypocrites would whine in public about the action, but rejoice in private to see Kaddafi gone. Any problems with that and critics could go talk with the families of the Lockerbie bombing victims.
After the Libyan-backed Berlin terrorist attack, Reagan dropped some bombs on a tent where Kaddafi might have been and missed. If we had gotten him, we would have said that we didn’t know he was in that tent. At least Reagan took a shot. Moral of the story – Kaddafi dead and a lot of good people who did die would still be alive.
I didn’t even mention Somalia before (can’t cover everything in a single post) but agree with you there as well. Under Bush senior, the operation was restricted to facilitating the flow of humanitarian aid to get it to the people who needed it and out of the hands of the warlords. Bush never had any intention of a major military intervention or nation-building exercise. Only after Clinton came into office and some of the nation-builders in the career foreign policy establishment (I actually knew one of the senior brain-dead bureaucrats who pushed for this) did the operation expand its scope into what led to the catastrophe it was, including the “Blackhawk Down” episode.
Bush senior was absolutely correct in playing it “by-the-book” during the first Gulf War and not going to Bagdad. He, Colin Powell, and others knew what a disaster it would be and were not being driven by the neo-cons. The failure in the second Gulf War was intelligence. CIA and everyone else said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Everyone agreed from both parties. The intelligence turned out to be incorrect. Should we have gone in even assuming the intelligence was correct? That’s a question for historians to debate. However, once we knew there were none, and Saddam was out of power, we had no business remaining. You can’t impose Jeffersonian Democracy in a social environment that has not developed it organically.
Bush junior when asked if he had sought his dad’s advice about his intervention in Iraq replied that he just prayed about it for guidance. What a lame excuse for ignoring the wisdom of one of the best foreign policy presidents we’ve ever had – his own dad. God guides us in many ways and one of those ways is to put those with wisdom before us to provide sound counsel. Only the foolish shun that counsel and wisdom God makes available.
Moon, do we have to intervene anywhere and everywhere someone thinks genocide or other human rights abuses are taking place? What about Rwanda, China under Mao, Russia under Stalin, Cambodia, and on and on. We could cite many other cases that would have been as justified as the Balkans to intervene. I would say we acted less appropriately going into the Balkans than if we had intervened in Rwanda. In the case of Rwanda, there were no clear alternatives to the U.S. and we did not go in. In the Balkans, the Europeans had the ability and the resources to take care of the situation themselves, but knew they could goad the US into taking care of the problem for them. At some point (which I think we have already passed) Americans need to say to the world that we are not the global policeman anymore. The rest of the world can start taking care of (and paying for) their own problems.
We can’t. However, each case must be considered. Strategic location is important.
I would prefer to not have to clean up after Europe. That’s what they said in the late 1930s also.
I would say there is a difference in genocide and human rights violations. When people are penned in a stadium en masse and executed, that starts looking like genocide to me.
How about the fact that Romney and Perry are trying to second guess the POTUS during sensitive negotiations when the eyes of the world are upon us? No one wants to address that problem. How many presidents are there?
It would seem to me that Perry and Romney can wait, when this is over, then they can have at it. Arrogant and naive with a delegation of Israeli diplomats in the picture is…arrogant and naive on the part of Perry. It crosses a line he should not have crossed.
President Obama is doing no more or less than President Bush as far as the acknowledged road map between Israel and Palestinian Authority. We can’t go back to 1947 when there was an easy opportunity to have two seperate states as offered by the UN initially. We are where we are and have to find a way forward, the status quo is simply not sustainable. Abbas is hoping the “arab spring” will be enough to propel him to victory, but he is wrong. He is forcing Obama into a preordained outcome, the US will veto his bid before the UN and then everyone loses in the end.
@Elena
“We are where we are and have to find a way forward, the status quo is simply not sustainable.”
Why do “we” have to do it? Israel came to possess the Golan heights, West Bank and Gaza strip by right of conquest, after being attacked by Syria, Jordan and Egypt in 1967. Jerusalem is now united and should not be partitioned, as it is 100% within Israeli territory. Syria, Jordan and Egypt are not the ones pushing for their territory to be returned. They are the only ones who have a legitimate claim to it. The Palestinians certainly do not, but they could have all the rights and privilages of Israeli citizenship if they wanted, as many Israeli Arabs do.
@Moon-howler
“How about the fact that Romney and Perry are trying to second guess the POTUS during sensitive negotiations when the eyes of the world are upon us?”
Sounds a wee bit like the lambasting GW Bush took during the 2004 election cycle. Those were “sensitive” times as well, seeing we were engaged in 2 wars at the time. What is happening now is nothing new, and if you ask me, is fair game as an election issue, especially if the candidate(s) feel that Obama’s position if wrong.
@Steve, I think I addressed that issue regarding Bush, Clinton, Daddy Bush already. However it was a general remark. Is there a specific Bush case that we need to address? I am concerned at the moment over a delicate situation that involves the United States, not someone’s election or re-election.
I don’t think an election that’s over a year out should ever cause meddling in foreign policy negotiations.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Balfour_Declaration
The “Twice-promised land” was wired for conflict almost 100 years ago.
@Big Dog, that’s pretty much what happens when 2 different groups are promised the same thing.
@Steve,
You are making it sound like a clear cut situation. There are no winners or losers. Some of the Palestinians have ancestral homes that they have lost that go back in their families for a centuries.
No, they don’t HAVE to have a Palestinian state. They can be disposed for the rest of eternity. However, don’t expect anything resembling peace in the middle east. The Israeli citizen idea isn’t such a hot one for either group.
@Moon-howler
So, by that rationale, if the Cherokee’s or Ogala Souix were to start lobbing rockets into school yards, and sending sucide bombers onto public buses, we should accept, oh I don’t know, the Belgians or Australians to dictate to us that we have to sit down and talk, exchange land for “peace” and recognize statehood for terrorists? The Cherokee and Souix have ancestral claims on parts of the Carolinas and the Great Plains afterall. Or better yet, what if Mexican Americans started clamoring for some or all of CA, NM, TX, CO, AZ? I am sure some ancestral claims could be made. They can call the new state Aztlan, after some mythical kingdom that some say existed before the Aztecs. Perhaps the Malaysians or Chinese might want to dictate to us that we have to sit down and negotiate.
The PLO would have been wiped out in 1982, had the US not stopped the IDF from destroying them in Beruit. The PLO tried to claim ancestral homes in Lebanon too, and wrecked the place. This issue would have been settled a long time ago, had the US not been so meddlesome in Israeli affairs after the 1967 war. Need I point out that Israel has never started a war, and has only attacked after serious provocation. I was all for the Israely policy of bulldozing the homes of terrorists, and building settlements on them. It’s their land afterall. They took it away from three countries that had attacked them I think they should have outright annexed the land, as you’d have to find some Cananites or Hitites or Philistines whose “ancestral claims” pre-date those of Hebraic Jews…and Hebraic Jews have been in what we today call Israel, ever since it was called…Israel. The “palestinians” have the option to naturalize or emigrate back to Jordan, Syria, or Eqypt, their countries of origin.
What you failed to mention is that you had refugees pouring in to a country and some of those refugees took over from those who had been living there. Have you ever talked to someone who literally lost everything? I have. In fact, I had my eyes opened to 2 sides of a story listening to Mrs. N, a cute little Christian lady from Jerusalem. Those were tumultuous times in the late 40s. The state of Israel was not born without tremendous birth pains. Even the reason for its birth was not totally pure of heart.
But at this point, all of that is irrelevant. The point is, you have 2 sets of people occupying the same land. The question becomes, how do you protect the right of one to exist while not stomping out the human rights of the other.
Steve, you obviously take a very conservative position on Israel. Let me also state that if I want to have an Israeli discussion, I cannot have it in my own house. It brings out viscious disagreement. I have to call Elena who has a much more fair minded approach to all this than Mr. Howler who would probably swing through the Gaza strip in an Apache helicopter mowing down anyone suspected of being a terrorist.
I think there are two sides to this discussion and that the Palestinian side simply cannot be dismissed. At this point, the past really isn’t very helpful in moving forward, any more than looking at our own past with Native Americans. Israel must be able to secure the safety of its citizens and the Arab nations need to recognize the state of Israel.
The Palestinians I know, and granted it isn’t an army of them, I believe would be very offended to be told they weren’t from Jerusalem when their ancestors lived there for centuries. As it turns out, they immigrated. Here. When people have no voice, they get mean.
Mr. Howler sounds like my kinda guy 😈
He can be most unpleasant about such things. We also are not discussing Troy Davis’s request for stay of execution. Same reason. Rope. Gallows. Courthouse.
But Steve, the rationale being used by the Palestinians is the same logic being used by the Jews, the claim to ancestry homeland. I have been to Israel and mostly loved my 6 week trip. However, the poverty of the Arabs was pretty apparent. I will also add, the attitude towards the Arabs was also fairly negative from the Israeli’s. Now, this was over 25 years ago when I was barely out of diapers (stop laughing, I just refuse to date myself, but I “might” have been a tad older).
I believe the Jewish people have a right to a homeland, I have an uncle and aunt who emmigrated to Israel over two decades ago. As a Jew, I have been taught that a Jewish homeland is a necessity after the Holocaust. Never again will Jews be at the mercy of the world the next time we are hunted. However, having said all that, I still believe in the humanity of the Palestinian people and their right toa homeland.
If Yizhach Rabin can shake the hand of Yassar Afafat, than I can certainly find the same desire for peace within a two state solution.
Darn, NOW I know what those Mossad guys meant when they told the story of some American Jewish kid in diapers passing out political flyers at the Wailing Wall……
Keep an eye on the Sinai. The Egyptians want to send their regular military forces back in, ostensibly to better protect Egypt from jihadist attacks. Also I think there has been a strong internal reaction in Egypt to what happened after a recent terrorist attack against Israelis in Sinai in which IDF responders accidentally killed a number of local Egyptian militiamen. The Israelis are thinking over the pros and cons. Is the intention of the Egyptians also to help protect Israeli civilian and military installations in that area or will we just wind up once again with troops facing each other on front lines, especially given the tenuous political situation in Cairo, with many hotheads calling for a scrapping of the Sinai treaty, not just amending it?
Why would Rich Perry shoot off his mouth when the president and secretary of state are in serious international talks with those who do don’t have America’s best interest at heart?
Is he undermining his country? No one wants to have a serious discussion about his conduct. President Obama plans to veteo any attempts by the UN to recognize Palestinian Statehood. Why is Perry not only meddling but sabataging what Obama plan to do? What does he hope to accomplish?
Politics. The Jewish vote may be more in play than it ever has been because of some of the negative voices heard during the Brooklyn-Queens House race and because of some of Obama’s previous missteps. But I doubt that Obama or the country will be undermined by all this. The actual situation is wrong for that. If the Republican message was that they would be more accommodating to the Palestinians, then a POTUS trying to be tough might be undermined, especially with an election year coming closer. But it isn’t. It could even play a bit to Obama’s advantage in the negotiations. Theoretically he could make it clear to the Palestinians and others that, if they shaft him on this and make him look bad, they may have to deal next time with those other guys who are definitely not very empathetic to the Palestinian viewpoint. Heck, the Palestinians might even come to that conclusion themselves eventually without any prodding.
The inverse of this is the barrage of internal political criticism aimed at both LBJ and Nixon over the Vietnam War. Two guys trying to tough it out were undermined by the peace movement in such a way that the resistence of the North Vietnamese stiffened to the point of no-win for us. Brought down two presidents, in my opinion.
Actually, I am beginning to think that neither the Dems nor the Repubs may be the overriding critical factors in what happens to the Palestinian question during the next couple of years. The biggest elephant in this room is the so-called Arab Spring and the direction eventually taken internally by Egypt, as well as the possible results of the Syrian uprising and any serious signs that the Arab Spring may blossom in Jordan. Much of this may wind up being beyond our direct control, and we may have to play it the way it happens to be falling at any given moment. Turkey apparently going a bit off course in relations with Israel also worries me. No need to discourse about those nutcakes in Tehran. The next few years could be rough for all of us — and possibly not very susceptible to normal policy making.
@Elena
“However, the poverty of the Arabs was pretty apparent. I will also add, the attitude towards the Arabs was also fairly negative from the Israeli’s.”
Are you referring to Israeli citizens who are Arabs, or “Palestinian” Arabs? There is a difference. The former has the same rights & opportunities to isucceed as the Jewish or Christian Israeli. The latter has the corrupt PLO and “Palestinian Authority” to blame for the abject poverty. The camps could have been disbanded many, many years ago, but the residents have been fed a steady diet of hate-filled tripe from their so-called leaders since 1967. Also, if I constantly had to worry about a Quassam rocket landing on my child’s day-care, or if the lady wearing the Hajib has produce or symtex in her shopping bags, I’d have a pretty negative attitude towards Arabs. My point is simple: A war was fought, and they lost. To the victor go the spoils. If you attack your neighbor, and lose, you are at the mercy of their compassion as to what the cost of your attack will be paid by you. I think the Israelis have shown tremendous restraint over the years, and should be commended, not condemned by the international community. Just because Yassar Arafat made up some fake nationality to inspire a nationalist/Religious movement based on hate, doesn’t mean we have to recognize this as some legitimate state, with all the rights there unto pertaining.
I have to take exception to the ‘fake nationality’ aspect of this discussion. Palestinians have lived in the region for centuries and have referred to themselves as Palestinians for about as long.
Most of us see this issue as a little more multi-faceted than the view you take, which seems to overlook the fact that people lived and thrived in this region for eons before 1947.
Furthermore, I don’t believe any comparisons to anything American quite explains what happened in Palestine. This is a land that has been very fluid and very much at the mercy of outside controls for most of the 20th century. Notions like Azlan or returning lands to Native Amemicans in the United States are considered far-fetched and not likely to happen. A border change in Israel/Palestine could happen tomorrow.
Moon,
Please tell me what time period the nation of Palestine existed, and I will retract my assertion that “Palestinian” is a false construct, and will become legitimate only upon recognition of an independent Palestinian state.
Steve, I don’t think a locality has to be a nation as such to exist. Those places have been protectorates of one place and then another for so long. For that matter, when was Israel a nation prior to 1948? The region of Palestine comprised of Arabs and some Jews existed for centuries. Muslims, Christians and Jews have all lived there, especially in Jerusalem. I will not argue “nation” because it was not part of my original premise.
The Brits called this area Palestine (derived from the Philistines)under their occupation pre WWI. What you call this region isn’t as important as accepting that Arabs lived there for centuries along with Jews who had been begun returning to that region in the 19th century. Where it gets interesting is the promises made to both Jews and Muslims by the Brits were simply incompatible goals. On one hand you have promises for a Jewish State on on the other, promises for an Arab State.
“Israel” was really a no mans land, not officially called anything, hence the Brits need to name the area Palestine in order to designate its borders. This link brings you to a fascinating pretty factual website. I recommend it as a balanced read to understand the history of the conflict.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_ww1_balfour.php
What was the impact of the Balfour Declaration?
Zionists living in Britain, chief among them Chaim Weizmann, lobbied the British government for a statement in support of a Jewish National Home. In reward for Jewish support and as a result of Chaim Weizmann’s influence and diplomacy, the Balfour Declaration supported the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine as British policy, while not prejudicing competing Arab claims.
The Balfour Declaration radically changed the status of the Zionist movement. It promised support from a major world power and gave the Zionists international recognition. Zionism was transformed by the British pledge from a quixotic dream into a legitimate and achievable undertaking. For these reasons, the Balfour Declaration was widely criticized throughout the Arab world, and especially in Palestine, as contrary to the spirit of British pledges contained in the Husayn-McMahon correspondence. The wording of the document itself, although painstakingly devised, was interpreted differently by different people, according to their interests.
@Elena
“The Brits called this area Palestine (derived from the Philistines)under their occupation pre WWI.”
This is factually incorrect. Palestine and Philistine have nothing to do with each other. The British chose to call this area Palestine, using the historic reference to what the Roman’s called the area (who in turn had used a romanized version of the greek term for the area), as this was the last time that a western power had full and complete control. Also, the League of Nations mandate for the area administered by the British encompassed not only the historical lands of Israel and Judea, but Samaria as well. The borders were determined by the Franco-British Agreement of 1920 (as Lebanon and Syria were administered by France), and the Transjordan agreement of 1921 (which later defined the boundries of the Heshimite Kingdom of Jordan.
And I am well aware of the Balfour Declaration, its evolution and its impacts (History/PolySci major). But really this doesn’t change the fact that those asserting “Palestinian” as a nationality ignore the fact that there has never been a soverign nation-state of Palestine to begin with. If these Arab’s ancestral claims trace to Gaza, then they were Egyptian Arabs. If it was to the Golan, then they were Syrian Arabs. If to the West Bank, they were Jordanian Arabs. The Syrians, Egyptians and Jordanians aren’t pressing their claims to the land they lost in the 1967 and 1973 wars. They gave up on Nasser’s pan-arab political ideology after getting their butts handed to them three times, each time coming away poorer for the experience. Who carries the banner today? Hamas, in whose charter contains the stated goal to destroy Israel. When given a choice between the ultra-radical Hamas and the radical and corrupt PLO, who’d the people choose? Hamas. Has Hamas demonstrated a desire to enter the community of nations by acting like one? Nope. The charter still remains unchanged, and the rockets and suicide bombings continue. Yet so many believe to look at the historical facts and expect appeasment to work? Here’s another historical parallel: Munich, 1938. Chamberlain. We all know how that one turned out.
Never again.
Steve, It doesn’t matter whether Palestine was the formal nation of the people of Palestine. No one is making any claims that there was a great nation of Palestine. Why does this matter? The arab people from that region want a homeland. What is wrong with that? They will have to do a few things before that becomes possible. What was in the past is the past. That’s the problem. We need to look forward and the people of the region have to behave in a peaceful ciivilized way.
You have offered up all the different regions that people who consider themselves Palestinian belong to. What you have in essence said is, no one really belonged in Palestine. That makes one wonder where the Dome of the Rock came from. Did it just spring up in a vacuum? How about all those arab folks who were both Muslim and Christian who lived in Jerusalem? Those people consider themselves Palestinians.
Frankly, I hope I have read what you have said incorrectly. Your interpretation of history certainly would not encourage peace. It marginalizes an entire group of people. There are many historians who would disagree with your interpretation. I think it is probably better for Americans to stay out of it if that is the point that is going to be advanced. Your tone towards the people of that region is very hostile. Perhaps you don’t hear it in your writing but it nearly knocked me over.
@Moon-howler
“Steve, I don’t think a locality has to be a nation as such to exist. Those places have been protectorates of one place and then another for so long. For that matter, when was Israel a nation prior to 1948?”
“Nationality”…notice the root word there: Nation. And Israel has existed as a nation or state several times throughout history…starting about 1200 BC. Even when conquered by foreign powers such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans, Israel continued to function as a state, with it’s own king and government, answerable to the emporer. Not until the 70 AD did Israel cease to exist as a state. All of this predates the conquest of the Ottoman Turks in the 16th Century (who were not Arabs) and , and later administration by the British. Again, folks can cite “ancestral claims” to the land. The last legitimate claim is Syrian, Egyptian, or Jordanian. The first going back to the begining of recorded history is the Hebraic Jew. So if the Italians or Macedonian Greeks started petitioning for control of the area, should we honor their claims? How ’bout the Turks?
If history should demonstrate one thing, it’s possession is 9/10’s of the law.
Free Tibet!
@Steve, They are a group of people who existed in the lands now occuppied by Israel. It really doesn’t matter what you and I think. Religious books aren’t going to be used as official land deeds. the Palestinians think that they have a right to ancestral lands and that is what counts and what will keep them reaching towards that objective as long as the last Palestinian draws breath.
You are probably the most hard line person I have ever talked to. Help me understand…are you suggesting that no one arab lived in the region we now call Israel? Not everyone forms nations. The idea of nation changes and changes through time. I feel its fair to say that ‘nation’ is relative. The Palestinians occupied the land and existed on farms and in towns and cities like Jerusalem.
@Moon-howler
‘Religious books aren’t going to be used as official land deeds.”
Who said anything about religious books?
Perhaps I am hardline or even Machiavellian. That is because I understand the history and politics of the area. Yes. Arabs lived in the area. They were historically nomads. Claiming a right to build your house in a place is one thing. Claiming your right to self-govern based upon a canard is quite another. The idea of a “Nation” is not relative. It is quite concrete. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.
Steve,
I am not sure you are arguing a point that has relevancy though. Even Israel, through the various peace agreements, acknowledge the need for state for the Palestinians. Had it not been for the meddling of the Europe, maybe there would have been a very different outcome, but there is no going back in time and we are where we are in present time.
How many Palestinians do you know Steve, I mean, like as friends?
Moon,
I know many Arab-Americans whose familes emigrated from the occupied territories. Close friends. As a matter of fact, one of them owns a restaurant that you and I recently shared a meal at.
Now I am a realist. Something akin to a workable solution must be found. What I think is a mistake by this administration is not taking a very tough line with Hamas: If you want any chance at statehood, then you need to change your charter to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, renounce terrorisim, and act like a legitimate government. Additionally, they need to drop their demand for the partition of Jerusalem, in exchange for free access to their religipus sites. These should be preconditions before Israel is asked to make any additional concessions.
Sorry, that last comment was supposed to be directed to Elena.
The Arab world built towns and cities and did the Jewish world. History will always be debated and people will come up with different interpretations of the same events.
You keep arguing that Palestine was never a nation. One can make the same argument that Israel was never a nation either, until 1948. Had the Brits and than the Americans not started muddling the works, there is no telling what would happen.
Post WWII many Jewish immigrants risked life and limb getting to Palestine/Israel. They often came without permission. It could easily be argued that the modern day exodus from Europe and into Palestine was illegal immigration. There were examples of Jewish terrorism. Mechachin Begin was involved in bombing the King David Hotel where scores of people lost their lives. However, not all Jews supported that type of violence nor do all Palestinians support the suicide bombings and rocket attacks that have happened in the past 20 years in Israel. Dwelling on the past does not advance peace.
I am not willing to treat my Palestinian friends like they are people without a country. People have lived in repressive governments etc but they still love their mother country–the land and the region. I will at least give the Palestians that much.
Steve, I don’t think your point of view advances peace. You favor one group over the other. Unless the Palestinian issue is solved, I am not sure the middle east will ever be stable. As long as it is unstable, the United States will spend an inordiante amount of time and money on things that just don’t need to happen.
@Steve Thomas
I can’t imagine that he would like your attitude. I know that family has not recently immigrated so I expect that the younger generation of Americans might feel differently than the young folks who are there now.
I agree that Hammas has to make changes and terrorism needs to cease to exist. All has not been rosy for the Palestinians however, and I don’t think we need to lose sight of that fact.
I have no answers or I would be the richest woman in the world. However, it is a topic I have tried to learn more about over the years.
“One can make the same argument that Israel was never a nation either, until 1948.”
And that argument would not be supported by historical fact. Here’s a few more facts to consider:
-The unilateral strategy being pushed by Abbas now violates almost every agreement made between the Israelis and the Palistinian Authority to date.
– In both the PLO and Hamas charters, only the return of Palestine to it’s pre-1948 (not 67) status is acceptable. Anything less is unacceptable.
-You and Elena have pointed out that prior to 1948, Jews and Muslims co-existed in the region. Where do you think the anti-semitism held to by Hamas, the PLO, Iran, etc. etc. has it’s roots? Read up a bit on Abdul Nasser, the evolution of the Muslim Brotherhood and Yassir Arafat, statements actually made in the historical record, and you will find their views rooted in Nazism.
– You are correct when you point out many of the founders of 1948 Israel once engaged in acts that meet the definition of terrorism. At whom were these acts directed? Not the Arabs. They were directed against the British.
-The British also used a concentration camp system in Palestine, although not for the puposes of genocide.
-And the biggie: Abbas and many of the current leaders of the PLA consistiently use the term “Final Solution” when speaking of their desired ends for the Jewish state of Israel.
As to my relations with my friends, they know my views. They know they are not anti-Arab. They know I have a deep understanding of the historical and political situation there, and am not just talking out of my…. well, you know. They also know that I believe the Palestinians would have long ago had a place to call a home country, had they been willing to give up their stated goal of nothing short of the destruction of Israel, and on this they agree with me. They also agree that the Syrians and Iranians, as well as a few other countries have used the Palestinians, primarily muslims, to fight a proxy war with Israel, and are prepared to continue this war to the last drop of Palestinian blood if neccesary. And lastly, they agree that once a true Palestinian state is realized, life for non-muslim Palestinians will get tough, very tough.
Now I ask: What concessions have the PLO, the Palestinian Authority, or Hamas made to Israel. A quick calculation arrives at the sum of ZERO. I thought negotiations involved two parties, giving and taking, until an acceptable agreement was arrived at. Looks to me like the Israeli’s (although not blameless) have been doing all the giving.
Elena And I neither one are arguing for the PLO or for Hamas. In fact, I don’t really thing we were arguing for anything other than defending eventual statehood for Palestine, which you don’t seem to like the notion of.
I am still waiting to hear about this nation of Israel. I am not sure there were nations in biblical times. If you are going to claim historical fact, then where are they, not that I think it matters a hill of beans.
As for all the crap that has gone on from the fertile crescent times to the present: woulda coulda shoulda. Making way for the state of Israel was not necessarily clean or equitable to those living in what was called Palestine. Perhaps it wasn’t even clean or equitable to the Zionists who were living there for a hundred years before hand. We can spend the rest of our days doing the third grade thing of blame game. That solves nothing. The Palestinians are going to have to stop with the violence and Israel needs to stop with settlements per agreement a few years ago.
The one thing that has been accomplished, however, is that Mr. Howler has come down on my side after hearing what Steve has said. Maybe I should just turn the keyboard over the the old history/govt and politics major. It isn’t my field of study. Recall that he (Mr. H) and I couldn’t even discuss this topic because he is so pro Israel to a fault.
Steve, I flat out do not agree with you about the designation of Palestinians. I also don’t think it matters. I think where a person lives now is of importance. But to imply that there really is no such thing is a Palestinian, wow…that just can’t fly. Life for any minority is very tough in most of the middle east. Move to one of those small towns in Utah just to experience being an outsider.
Here is an interesting map with populations from 100 years ago.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/yishuv.html
Obviously Palestine wasn’t void of Jews or Palestinians before 1948.
I have a new gkid coming into the world in a few hours so I will have to revisit this issue.
so Steve, it sounds like you are acknowledging that the name Palestine originated from previous occupiers of that region. You also call you friends “Palestinians” as I imagine they probably call themselves as a way to reference their place of origin. It sounds like we agree on this issue not sure where the disagreement comes from acutally.
I believe I am also reading that you agree that there needs to be a solution and that the leadership of the Palestinian people need to prove, tangibly demonstrate, that they are no longer interested in the demise of Israel.
I have a very nice friendship with a man from Palestine who owns a local shop around here. We figure if we can look at each other as people, if only the rest of those in the middle east would do the same it would change the world.
And there Elena has hit the nail right on the head. If the Palestinians can admit to Israel’s right to exist as a nation under the parameters it sets internally for itself, then I think you will see a serious move toward negotiation of borders between Israel and a fullfledged Palestinian state — at least in the West Bank. Jerusalem will be a negotiations thorn, but one wonders if the area of the Dome of the Rock might be turned somehow into a UN Trust area with guaranteed free and unimpeded access for all. The fly in the ointment , of course, would be Gaza under Hamas control. But that might change too if everyone sees the main body of a fully independent Palestinian state finally at peace with Israel and on the road toward development. And then all the money, including, I am guessing, generous aid from Israel, goes no longer into arms but into economic development in the Palestinian state. One can only hope.
@Elena
“You also call you friends “Palestinians” as I imagine they probably call themselves as a way to reference their place of origin.”
I am doing so merely for the sake of moving the conversation along. My point is, at the time of Israel’s creation, the area referred to as Palestine ceased to exist, and it had never existed as an independent state. Every bit of it was carved up and became part of a very real and independent state, so these people did in fact have a nationality and citizenship, or were at the very least subject to the governance of a recognized nation. Then, after a series of unprovoked wars, portions of this territory ended up under Israel’s control. If people want to call this Gaza, West Bank, Golan Heights area collectively “the Israeli Occupied Territories” I have no objections to that, because that is exactly what these areas are, considering Israel has never formally annexed them.
What I do object to is referring to the land as “Palestine”. Palestine describes the entirety of the region to include Israel. When the PLO, Hamas, etc. refer to “Palestinian Statehood” they are in fact referring to the pre-1948 boundries. That is exactly what their charter calls for. The reason I react so strongly when we start referring to Abbas, Arrafat, and the other leaders of Hamas, PLO and PA as ‘The Palestinians” we are conferring quasi-statehood upon them.
Now don’t spin my argument as into something like I have an ax to grind with the people who live there. I could no more hate the people living in the camps, and occupied territories than I could hate the Germans or the Japanese people for allowing their governments to cause WWII. I said it before, I am a realist. The status quo can not continue indefinitely. Mistakes have been made on both sides of the negotiation table. Just because I am pro-Israel, does not mean I am 100% opposed to the occupied territories one day becoming a nation, provided that nation pledges to peacefully co-exist with Israel and its other neighbors. But to date, this has not happened. The people expressed their will, and they elected Hamas. Before that, they recognized the PLO as their legitimate government. Neither of these terrorist organizations has ever acknowledged Israels right to exist. Instead they publically state that independence for the occupied territories is the first step in an incremental process to rid the world of the Jewish state. They seem to feel pretty strongly about this. So much so that they have been willing to forego having an idependent state, that of the occupied territories, long ago.
I also object to the tremendous pressure applied to Israel by some very naieve American politicians. Israel has made all the concessions. Halting the settlements. Evicting the settlers. Unilaterally pulling its security forces out. Handing the areas over to local Palestinian Authority control. With the exception of Jerusalem, “the occupied territories” are no longer occupied. Not really. But no one has been able to answer my question: What concessions have Abbas, the PLO, or Hamas made to Israel?
I do think we agree that the collective peoples living in the occupied territories should be self governing. The problem is, to date they have not shown me that they have the ability to do so. At least not in any manner that would be acceptable to Israel or the greater community of nations.
My heritage is Irish. For years the IRA opposed the British occupation of Northern Ireland. I don’t feel that the Irish in Northern Ireland were right in how they went about trying to gain independence either. Or how about the Kurds? These people are spread accross several countries. Periodically they use terror in a bid for an independent Kurdish state. Should we push for statehood for them as well?
I think we have had common ground all throughout this debate. I am never saying never. What I am saying is: Not now, and not ever until you accept Israel’s right to exist, and never with the crew you have leading you, unless they renounce terror. Lastly, you are going to have to accept something less than pre-1967 borders. How much less is up to you, but it will be less.
and just to close out my thoughts: I do think that the Obama administration has been naive in its approach to date, but the previous administration and the one before that are just as guilty, if not more of being niaive. The whole Israel’s right to exist should have been agreed to in both principle and practice, before any further negotiations took place. Obama has only continued a flawed policy developed by the last two administrations. When I say he is being naive, I mean he is naive in thinking that something that hasn’t worked in the past, will somehow work today, when the underlying condition that has prevented the policy from working previously, remains unchanged. Hamas and the PLO, collectively the PA, do not recognize Israel’s right to exist, and will accept nothing short of the pre-1948 borders. It’s right there in their governing document, their charter(s). So, this isn’t really an indictment of Obama’s policy at all, as he is just continuing the Clinton/Bush policy. Perry’s singling out the Obama administration on this is not intellectually honest, but then again, it’s politics. When has politics ever been intellectually honest?
Now, with that said, I do think the Obama’s vocal opposition to Abba’s attempted end-around, that of going straight to the UN and requesting recognition is the proper action to take. I think his administration’s work to build opposition amongst the other UN members to Palestinian recognition is correct as well. I hope he continues to do so, and I hope and pray he is successful. And if he is, and wants to claim this as a foreign policy victory for his re-election campaign, he’d be right to do so.
Netanyahu has stated that he would accept a Palestinian state at this time. They just have to accept the borders as is. Abbas has stated that those “Palestinians” now living in refugee camps outside of Palestine would NOT be granted citizenship. The “refugee” problem cannot be allowed to go away.
The purpose of this political theater is not to build a Palestinian state but to destroy Israel and put a Palestinian one in its place. And, btw…..Palestinians DID NOT refer to themselves as Palestinians until the last 30 years or so, when the PLO took over.
Cargo,
My point(s) ad infinitum exactly.