Kerry's Middle Eastern Advisor

Politics and religion
1

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14474

It’s an article about Kerry’s newly appointed Middle East foreign policy advisor. For years, this man has been advocating Israel’s withdraw from the Gaza Strip and West Bank, while urging Israel to diplomatically deal with Arafat, and for Arafat to deal with Hamas et al.

Israel v. PLO argument aside… does anyone think that Arafat really would? I mean, didn’t Clinton invite a few of them over to Camp David during his presidency? What was the result of that again, my memory is fuzzy…

2

Maybe if Isreal would stop blowing up Palestinian civilians for five minutes we’d find out.

Horowitz’s rag isn’t exactly a reliable source.

3

On the other hand, no need to rely on memory to watch the result of Bush’s and Sharon’s policies on the matter, we can watch it every day on the evening news.

4

Sharon’s lately been pushing a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank, too. Guess he’s one of them damn lefty nuts who wants nothing less than the destruction of Israel!

while urging Israel to diplomatically deal with Arafat, and for Arafat to deal with Hamas et al.

With a quick google search, I came up with this speech that Indyk gave in Feb. about the Israel-PA situation. On p. 5, he says:

If the Palestinian Authority were willing and able today to fulfill its Roadmap commitments to stop Palestinian terror and violence and uproot its infrastructure, a meaningful negotiating process could easily take the place of Israeli unilateralism. But the PA cannot and will not take on these responsibilities.

So he’s not exactly a pie-in-the-sky liberal.

Also, the original article is crap–the number of silly things in it is astounding, considering how short the article is.

Gav

5

I have to say, my expectations were met again. I said nothing in my original post to suggest I disagreed with this guy - yet everyone argues with what I wrote. I love this forum =)

Actually, my plan for Middle Eastern peace is to, once the suicide bombers stop (hopefully diplomatically) to pull out of Gaza and WB. Once that happens, support a democratically elected Palestinian government. After that, propose joint control with international oversight over the city of Jerusalem. The key to this is to agree to support a Palestinian state - but only if it’s democratically elected, and ONLY once the bombers stop. (Or mostly, at least. If it can be demonstrated the PLO is genuinely working against them and not paying them off, and Hamas stops claiming responsibility etc. - you can’t stop the individual ones, of which there will undoubtedly be several.)

I didn’t say his advisor was wrong - I disagree with his emphasis on solely diplomatic tactics, though. While I agree wholeheartedly that diplomacy would be the best solution to this problem, I don’t believe that it has much of a chance of happening anytime soon.

6

Malderi, by saying “once the suicide bombers stop” you’re really saying “never.” Because until Isreal doesn’t wildly react to every one of them and just inflame the Palestinians more, it’s never going to end.

Did you expect us to take a front page magazine article as a source for serious discussion?

7

And of course, it will take quite a while to end even with that, since there are, by now, certain people with a vested interest in continued conflict.

8

Actually, you did. You say that “this man has been…urging Israel to diplomatically deal with Arafat”, and then go on to say that this doesn’t work.

Actually, my plan for Middle Eastern peace is to, once the suicide bombers stop (hopefully diplomatically) to pull out of Gaza and WB.

That sounds like a great plan. Except you must have forgotten the bit about what happens while you’re sitting around waiting for the suicide bombers to stop.

Once that happens, support a democratically elected Palestinian government.

You mean like the one they have now?

I didn’t say his advisor was wrong - I disagree with his emphasis on solely diplomatic tactics, though. While I agree wholeheartedly that diplomacy would be the best solution to this problem, I don’t believe that it has much of a chance of happening anytime soon.

  1. You don’t actually have any tactics of your own to offer (waiting for suicide bombings to stop is not a tactic), so I guess Martin Indyk is that much ahead of you.

  2. Martin Indyk doesn’t believe solely in negotiations. If you read what he actually says (per the link I supplied in my previous post), you’d find items like this:

[Among things needed for the receivership option is] A small component of international forces (perhaps NATO forces) to take control of key security nodes (such as Netzarim, and the crossing points at Erez, Karni and Rafah) and to provide back-up for the Palestinian security services.

Gav

9

I beg to differ. If the Palestinians had an authority that actually tried to crack down on the militant groups, the Israelis aren’t going to get rid of them due to isolated incidents. However, the PA won’t, and can’t and it’ll take an internal civil war and Arafat being gone before anything can possibly change. From an Israeli standpoint, going after high-level leaders and building the barrier have been more effective than anything else since the start of the infinada.

10

I partly agree - but how long do you think a Palestinian government would last if they cracked on down the bombers while Israel was still attacking civilians?

It’s a vicious circle, and no one has the wisdom to stay their hand even once when attacked. The Palestianians sure as hell aren’t doing themselves any favors here, but the Isrealis are in the drivers seat, and they’re not doing much better.

11

rubs hands together here goes…

Maybe if Isreal would stop blowing up Palestinian civilians for five minutes we’d find out

Did you have those reversed? Take a look at Israeli opinion polls. Most want a diplomatic solution, but at the same time, most agree that it won’t work. I think that’s the difference of opinion that most have. I think EVERYONE except the most hardcore hawks want a diplomatic solution. The difference of opinion is whether or not a diplomatic solution has a chance in hell of succeeding. I think that it does, but only in the long-term, and even then only a small chance.

Malderi, by saying “once the suicide bombers stop” you’re really saying “never.” Because until Isreal doesn’t wildly react to every one of them and just inflame the Palestinians more, it’s never going to end.

I would like to see your example of “reacting wildly”. Because normally, while Israel does respond to every attack (being realistic politically and strategically, it would be hard BUT NOT impossible to do otherwise) they don’t exactly do much more than launch a couple of missiles. Missiles, bombing a bus - the main difference is technology. The difference is, Israel doesn’t just say “Hey, let’s launch some missiles!”. Almost always, (except in surgical strikes or acting on reliable intelligence) it’s a strike in retaliation. Because of that, the burden is on the Palestinians to cut down. Stop the suicide bombers, and Israel would have really throttle back their surgical strikes, especially in the long-term. Because, in the international diplomatic arena, if there are no pictures of Israelies dying but lots of Palestinians dying (aka Europe), popular opinion would swing severely to Palestine.

Quote:

Once that happens, support a democratically elected Palestinian government.

You mean like the one they have now?

Does that even dignify a response? I’m not quite sure. Arafat has been in power for decades. He APPOINTS the Prime Minister, which is such a revolving door position nobody can remember who’s in it. The Palestinian territories are so far from being a democratically elected, recognized government it’s not even funny.

Quote:

Actually, my plan for Middle Eastern peace is to, once the suicide bombers stop (hopefully diplomatically) to pull out of Gaza and WB.

That sounds like a great plan. Except you must have forgotten the bit about what happens while you’re sitting around waiting for the suicide bombers to stop.

Yep.Hopefully, you can stop the suicide bombers through diplomatic means. The problem with that lies in Palestinian leadership - or the lack thereof. While most seem to recognize Arafat as having authority, he doesn’t have any authority over organizations like Hamas and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade except as a figurehead spokesman. He might have influence but no real control. And since Israel regards the leaders of organizations such as those as wanted criminals, it’s not likely to deal diplomatically with them. Therein lies the problem.

Actually, you did. You say that “this man has been…urging Israel to diplomatically deal with Arafat”, and then go on to say that this doesn’t work.

Let me rephrase that. I disagree with his emphasis on his positions, but I made no judgements as to him being a “damn lefty nut” (Gav).

I partly agree - but how long do you think a Palestinian government would last if they cracked on down the bombers while Israel was still attacking civilians?

Again, you are mistaken on the cause and effect here. Show me an example of where Israel did a non-major strike (i.e., not striking an already wanted criminal, like a leader of Hamas, etc.), something like launching a cruise missile or knocking down a building, and then look at that date and see if there was a suicide bombing within a week beforehand. While Israel certainly goes overboard sometimes, most, if not all, of its attacks are justified. The cause is the suicide bombing and the effect is a building knocked down. The agreggate Palestinian cause is buildings knocked down = more suicide bombers, but in the short-term it’s the bombing first. Once the Palestinians stop bombing Israelis in cafes (and I’ll see if I can dig up that news article from a few months ago from Hamas saying that apartment buildings were now legitimate targets), then Israel will stop adding more and more people to the wanted criminal list.

12

You mean like the one they have now?
[/quote]

Does that even dignify a response? I’m not quite sure. Arafat has been in power for decades.
[/quote]
Arafat was elected by a massive landslide. No-one seriously disputes that. He’s been in power for decades because he knows how to make himself popular.

He’s a dysfunctional leader, so it’s pretty sad, but it does go to show that a democratically elected government doesn’t guarantee much of anything.

Let’s just accept what you said as a given. You say that hopefully they can stop the suicide bombers through diplomatic means, and then give every reason why you can’t. Again, at least Martin Indyk has something resembling a plan–what you have is a vague hope that something good will happen if you wait long enough.

Maybe they should try it and see. Israel has tried the reverse, under Oslo (there were a couple of horrific bus bombings to which Israel didn’t retaliate–it was almost enough to bring down the government). The truth is, Arafat just didn’t have the political guts to really crack down then, and he doesn’t have them now.

(This is, incidentally, why I’ve gradually shifted to supporting a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from most of the occupied territories, providing there’s some security guarantees from other countries).

Gav

13

Alright, fine, my plan in the meantime is for Israel to keep using 100-ton tanks to run over Palestinian children playing in the street…

Seriously, at the moment, it’s either the status quo or to try and advance diplomacy further. Either that, or start some fun humanitarian stuff in the region. I’ve always thought Israel should open up a few schools or something in West Bank cities - except that the population over there is so rabidly brainwashed that nobody would attend them. Therein lies the problem - most of both sides completely hate the other. The problem is less evident to the common eye in Israel (I’ve recently traveled there to visit with family), but it’s there, alright. Some family/friends there I talked to very much looked forward to, um, opportunities inherent in impending military service. It wasn’t much better on the other side of the border, either.

14

me an example of where Israel did a non-major strike (i.e., not striking an already wanted criminal, like a leader of Hamas, etc.), something like launching a cruise missile or knocking down a building, and then look at that date and see if there was a suicide bombing within a week beforehand.

That’s not what I meant; I don’t care who started it.

  1. Suicide bombing will continue as long as it has widespread popular support.
  2. Israel killing civilians creates a virtually infinite amount of widespread popular support.
  3. Israel cannot kill all the terrorists and potential terrorists without resorting to genocide.
  4. Therefore, as long as Israel kills Palestinian civilians, Isreal will suffer suicide bombings.

Really, it’s the story of every insurgency ever - insurgents are naturally unpopular because they tend to blow up their allies. The only way they ever gain power is through a crackdown of the opposing force that inflames the population with collateral damage.

I don’t see what’s so hard about this. Arafat disappearing would at best lower the number of bubbles in the boiling water a bit. To get peace, you have to slaughter the other side into submission combined with removing their grievances. It’s been demonstrated as clearly as possible that killing is having no long-run effect on the state of things whatsoever, so you have to remove their grievances.

Refraining from firing missiles into civilians would remove one, which would lead to the removal of more, at every step popular support swinging towards peace and settlement. Every insurgency successfully come to terms with that didn’t involve genocide has used this model. Isreal’s refusal to accept reality is truly mind-boggling.

The response to this always seems to be “but the Palestinians could do that too! Why don’t they stop bombing to get the Isrealis to be nicer!” - no they can’t. They have no central government or way of limiting their expressed level of violence, and they’re not going to get one without the resolution of this conflict, which kind of makes that route impossible.

As to the two sides hating each other: Northern Ireland somehow worked out. And don’t give me “but the religions were closer together there” line of bull.

15

And unilateral withdrawal is not going to accomplish very much, because the Isrealis will still be blowing up apartment buildings and treating Palestine like an African colony. Grievances aren’t going anywhere.

And no installed Palestinian government for the foreseeable future is going to be able to “crack down” and stop the violence. It’s a pipe dream. Would someone in the Iraqi insurgency be able to “crack down” and stop the violence? Algeria? It’s a general rebellion, not city hall.

16

  1. Razing terrorists’ homes will continue as long as it has widespread popular support.

  2. Palestine killing civilians creates a virtually infinite amount of widespread popular support.

  3. Palestine cannot kill all Israeli civilians without resorting to genocide

  4. Therefore, as long as Palestine kills Israeli civilians, Palestine will suffer from Israel’s retaliation.

Really, it’s the story of every insurgency ever - insurgents are naturally unpopular because they tend to blow up their allies. (insert: this second paragraph) The only way they ever gain power is through a crackdown of the opposing force that inflames the population with collateral damage. (insert: this)

I don’t see what’s so hard about this. Sharon disappearing would at best lower the bubbles in the boiling water a bit. (Where did that come in?)

As to the two sides hating each other: this has been going on for thousands of years. (Read previous posts re: my opinion on diplomacy)

17

Boy, and I get accused of moral relativism. The best Isreal can do is to imitate the uneducated armed mob next door?

18

Refraining from firing missiles into civilians would remove one, which would lead to the removal of more, at every step popular support swinging towards peace and settlement. Every insurgency successfully come to terms with that didn’t involve genocide has used this model. Isreal’s refusal to accept reality is truly mind-boggling.

Arafat has no real political power, it’s all symbolic - especially among the general population. Could someone here please, sincerely, tell me that if Israel stopped retaliation, all the brainwashing of Palestinian children would stop; that Hamas/Arafat et al. would give up their control over the people from that (see one Mr. Kim Jong Il, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, and several others for other examples of using propaganda for fear and control), that all of the current conditions would stop. They WON’T. What needs to happen is a successful variation on the “hearts and minds” campaign. Win over the Palestinian people. I’ll see if I can find another news article mentioning a Palestinian family getting shot at and loosing their 8-year-old son after refusing to allow Hamas operatives to set up a mortar emplacement in their backyard to fire into Israel.

19

Give me a break - Hamas and Arafat aren’t a dictatorship imposing their power on an unwilling populace like Joseph frickin’ Stalin.

20

POINT ONE: STOP FUCKING POSTING WHILE I’M TYPING AND MY POSTS ARE ALREADY OUT OF DATE. Thanks. ;-)

Boy, and I get accused of moral relativism. The best Isreal can do is to imitate the uneducated armed mob next door?

I’m not quite sure where you’re coming from on that, please elaborate. Oh, and yea, I AM accusing you of moral relativism here. You’re on what I see is the wrong side - in the morally relativistic sense.

That’s the whole point. We both agree both sides have problems, do we not? The question is, which “deserves short-term support” and “what do we do so we don’t have to choose who to support in the long-term” (i.e., solution to aforementioned problem of the prevalence of explosives in the region.) I see Palestine at fault at the root cause; you see Israel at fault and the root cause. We both agree diplomacy is the best solution; we don’t agree on its chances of succeeding. We have about as much chance of persuading each other as my little sister has of catching Osama bin Laden shopping at the Gap in the local mall tommorrow.