American Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has been working hard for weeks on a Middle East peace conference to be held in Annapolis, Maryland in November. There are solid reasons for her efforts. The United States has undeniably lost a great deal of support in the Middle East both because of its lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction and Saadam’s supposed ties to El Qaeda and its unbelievably clumsy conduct of the Iraq War. Most people in the region regard the United States not as the guarantor of democracy but as an imperialist power propping up corrupt regimes and favoring Israel in its conflict with those whom they regard as hapless Palestinian victims. Through these last six years of the Bush administration, the U.S. has disengaged from the peace efforts of the Clinton administration and given the Israelis free rein in dealing with the Palestinians. Now, however Secretary Rice is understandably anxious to restore American credibility, especially in the Sunni world, and the United State has once again, taken on the role of Middle Eastern peace maker.
As a long time advocate of peace in the Middle East, I would love to find cause for optimism but I see little reason to believe that a conference in November can accomplish much. First, there is little evidence of adequate American preparation. The real work of such a conference is not done at the meeting itself but for months beforehand, through policy papers, frequent meetings with the players and major understandings reached before the conference. Camp David, many experts agree, may have failed, in part, because of inadequate preparation but the experienced Clinton team did shuttle constantly between the key players in a manner we have not seen, at least openly duplicated by Ms. Rice and her associates. All we have seen are a series of meetings between Olmert and Abu Mazen, with the former urging agreement on a series of “principles” and the latter asking for commitments and progress towards a final accord.
A second reason for my pessimism is the state of the Palestinian Authority under Abu Mazen. The years of the second intifadah spent in counter-productive suicide bombings and armed conflict, the great division in Palestinian ranks between Hamas and Fatah, the continuing corruption of the latter, and the undeniable pressures of the Israeli occupation have left Palestinians with little more than a figurehead government. Yes, part of the blame for this state of affairs can be placed on Israel but regardless of how the blame is apportioned, it is difficult to understand how any Israeli government could rely on the undertakings of a now pathetic PA leadership. Moreover, both Israeli and Western observers are keenly aware that Hamas, through the instrument of terror, has a fearsome veto power over any peace agreement. If Israel was prepared to grant major concessions to the PA, then the threat from Hamas might decline but that does not seem likely.
Of course, Israeli society is also much divided on the issue of peace. We all know the broad outlines of what a final status agreement should look like, along the lines of Camp David or Geneva, but the settler movement will fight any attempt to sacrifice large areas of the West Bank, the religious will oppose compromise on sovereignty over the Temple Mount and many Israelis will oppose any division of Jerusalem. Prime Minister Olmert’s own Kadima Party is divided merely over rumors coming from the negotiations. The new Labor Leader Ehud Barak, is trying to burnish his security credentials and openly opposes a peace agreement until Israel can construct a system to counter short range rockets, in four years or so. He advises that no concessions should be made to a lame-duck Bush administration. Haunted by Camp David, Barak has taken a sharp turn to the right, to compete with Bibi Netanyahu. There is, then, no substantial peace constituency in the Knesset.
If Secretary Rice proves capable of moving Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab powers to the bargaining table, with a realistic possibility of a constructive agreement, even on interim steps, then I will be pleasantly amazed. She has not much to show for her own legacy or that of the Bush administration. We should all wish her well.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
JEWS FACE THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
There is a controversy raging among American Jews which may get even hotter in the coming days. The issue arises because the U.S. congress will once again be asked to vote for a bill recognizing the Armenian genocide of 1915. One might think that this would not be a difficult issue for the Jewish community but unfortunately several of the major Jewish organizations in the United States have seen fit to intervene against the bill.
First, let me explain to those of you who are not well acquainted with the events of 1915 that an overwhelming number of historians recognize that the Turkish government of the day engaged in the pre-meditated murder of between 1 and 1.5 million Armenians. Jewish holocaust scholars including Raul Hilberg, Elie Wiesel , Yehuda Bauer, Daniel Goldhagen and Deborah Lipstadt have all signed ads urging the congress to pass the resolution. The scholarship is overwhelming; including even some Turkish writers, but the Turkish government persists in its refusal to acknowledge responsibility. Armenian genocide denial is close kin to holocaust denial and as morally reprehensible.
The current bill in the Congress was introduced in January by Representative Adam Schiff of California and has wide Jewish support in both the House and Senate, from Democrats and Republicans. However, it is not clear if or when the bills will come to a vote. The Turkish government has been active in supporting opposition to the bill, hiring prominent lobbyists and meeting with Jewish leaders. This leadership was obviously reminded, at a meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister Abdula Gul, of Turkey’s good relations with Israel as well as with the United States, her support for her own Jewish community numbering approximately 40,000, and her record as a sanctuary for Jewish refugees over the centuries. It is difficult to say whether it was Turkish lobbying, their own sentiments, or possibly direct intervention from Israel which led the Anti-Defamation League, B’nai Brith International, the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs to pass along to members of congress a letter from Turkish Jews opposing the resolution, thus implicitly taking the side of Turkey.
It was the ADLs Abraham Foxman who was the most outspoken of the Jewish leaders, declaring that “this is an issue that needs to be resolved by the parties, not by us. We are neither historians nor arbiters.” One has never heard Foxman, a child survivor of the holocaust; make such a cavalier reference to the death of six million Jews. He has given further fuel to his critics by firing the ADLs New England regional director who had urged that the organization recognize the genocide. A former ADL regional board member condemned the firing as “a vindictive, intolerant, and destructive act” by an organization and leader whose “fundamental mission – is to promote tolerance.” Foxman has subsequently, following much criticism and a conversation with Elie Wiesel, to agree that the events of 1915 constituted genocide but continues to oppose the bill as counterproductive.
For her part, Israel has not made any public reference to the Armenian genocide and has carefully deleted such references from text books and even withdrawn support from international conferences at which the genocide would have been a subject for discussion. Before a trip to Turkey then-foreign minister Shimon Peres said of the genocide, that it was “a matter for historians to decide.” There are many prominent Israelis who deplore their government’s failure to act on a significant moral issue. However, in the case of a nation state, realpolitik often triumphs over morality. Israel obviously considers that her relations with Turkey are too important to be possibly undermined by taking the moral road, though Israelis from across the political spectrum have disagreed on the consequences of such actions.
Nevertheless, the American Jewish leadership is not and should not be tied to Israeli realpolitik. Individual morality cannot be waived in the interest of Israel, the United States or Canada. Perhaps if the Armenian genocide resolution is again defeated these same community leaders will be at pains to deny the influence of the Jewish lobby. Neither Israel nor the American Jewish community will be well served by a community leadership that abandons elementary standards of behavior for a misguided assessment of the needs of Israel or Turkish Jewry. Perhaps they should recall the infamous words attributed to Adolph Hitler, calling on his troops to pursue their destructive work he stated: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” As Jews, we are obliged to speak, and our voices must be heard on the side of justice and morality.
First, let me explain to those of you who are not well acquainted with the events of 1915 that an overwhelming number of historians recognize that the Turkish government of the day engaged in the pre-meditated murder of between 1 and 1.5 million Armenians. Jewish holocaust scholars including Raul Hilberg, Elie Wiesel , Yehuda Bauer, Daniel Goldhagen and Deborah Lipstadt have all signed ads urging the congress to pass the resolution. The scholarship is overwhelming; including even some Turkish writers, but the Turkish government persists in its refusal to acknowledge responsibility. Armenian genocide denial is close kin to holocaust denial and as morally reprehensible.
The current bill in the Congress was introduced in January by Representative Adam Schiff of California and has wide Jewish support in both the House and Senate, from Democrats and Republicans. However, it is not clear if or when the bills will come to a vote. The Turkish government has been active in supporting opposition to the bill, hiring prominent lobbyists and meeting with Jewish leaders. This leadership was obviously reminded, at a meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister Abdula Gul, of Turkey’s good relations with Israel as well as with the United States, her support for her own Jewish community numbering approximately 40,000, and her record as a sanctuary for Jewish refugees over the centuries. It is difficult to say whether it was Turkish lobbying, their own sentiments, or possibly direct intervention from Israel which led the Anti-Defamation League, B’nai Brith International, the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs to pass along to members of congress a letter from Turkish Jews opposing the resolution, thus implicitly taking the side of Turkey.
It was the ADLs Abraham Foxman who was the most outspoken of the Jewish leaders, declaring that “this is an issue that needs to be resolved by the parties, not by us. We are neither historians nor arbiters.” One has never heard Foxman, a child survivor of the holocaust; make such a cavalier reference to the death of six million Jews. He has given further fuel to his critics by firing the ADLs New England regional director who had urged that the organization recognize the genocide. A former ADL regional board member condemned the firing as “a vindictive, intolerant, and destructive act” by an organization and leader whose “fundamental mission – is to promote tolerance.” Foxman has subsequently, following much criticism and a conversation with Elie Wiesel, to agree that the events of 1915 constituted genocide but continues to oppose the bill as counterproductive.
For her part, Israel has not made any public reference to the Armenian genocide and has carefully deleted such references from text books and even withdrawn support from international conferences at which the genocide would have been a subject for discussion. Before a trip to Turkey then-foreign minister Shimon Peres said of the genocide, that it was “a matter for historians to decide.” There are many prominent Israelis who deplore their government’s failure to act on a significant moral issue. However, in the case of a nation state, realpolitik often triumphs over morality. Israel obviously considers that her relations with Turkey are too important to be possibly undermined by taking the moral road, though Israelis from across the political spectrum have disagreed on the consequences of such actions.
Nevertheless, the American Jewish leadership is not and should not be tied to Israeli realpolitik. Individual morality cannot be waived in the interest of Israel, the United States or Canada. Perhaps if the Armenian genocide resolution is again defeated these same community leaders will be at pains to deny the influence of the Jewish lobby. Neither Israel nor the American Jewish community will be well served by a community leadership that abandons elementary standards of behavior for a misguided assessment of the needs of Israel or Turkish Jewry. Perhaps they should recall the infamous words attributed to Adolph Hitler, calling on his troops to pursue their destructive work he stated: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” As Jews, we are obliged to speak, and our voices must be heard on the side of justice and morality.
Monday, October 1, 2007
ALI ABUNIMEH
I have now been subjected twice by the CBC to one Ali Abunimeh, a Palestinian-American who somehow picked up a posh English accent in the course of his studies. This gentleman is currently promoting a book titled “One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” Credulous interviewers seem to accept him, at his word that he offers some new, perhaps helpful, view toward resolving the conflict but they mistake his purpose.
Abunimeh’s tone and his accent serve to mask his extremism. He is in fact urepresentative of the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza who advocate a two state solution, while he takes us back to the older, more militant demand, of one secular, democratic Palestinian state. Of course he never tells us on which planet his model of Arab democracy exists. He never tells us why even the most moderate Israelis would trust their lives and that of their children to his vision of a shared state in which Jews would soon be subject to a Muslim majority. More seriously, he never tells the Palestinians why they should enlist in perpetual conflict, for most of those who live in the West Bank and Gaza would recognize that Abunimeh offers a recipe for perpetuating the disaster of their current lives.
Abunimeh is offering a made in the diaspora solution that partakes of the same brand of extremism as that of those diaspora Jews who would fight to the last Israeli for all the lands of ancient Israel. We in diaspora communities can, at no personal cost, enjoy the luxury of extremisms which may further our own political or ideological goals. So, if Abunimeh offers nothing new, one must ask what his book and current promotion tour are all about, what is he seeking?
Ali Abunimeh is vying for leadership of the Palestinian diaspora. It is in their diaspora communities of North America and Western Europe that his message will resonate; it is in these communities that the so-called “right of return”, a non-starter for almost all Israelis,” is still cherished as an almost Koranic injunction. The Palestinian-American Professor Edward Said, who died in 2003, in his later years also advocated a one state solution and denounced the Oslo agreements because they did not embrace the right of return. Said’s death left a leadership vacuum, at least in the diaspora’s intellectual ranks and Abunimeh is attempting to fill it.
Thus, with his book of recycled early Arafat, with a Said veneer, Abunimeh launches a leadership campaign. Of course, on the way to his goal, he may snare some of the gullible who swallow his dubious logic. The more wary will understand that he offers not conflict resolution but conflict enhancement, with a program that Israelis can never accept, thus promoting more years of personal insecurity for Israelis and economic disaster for his Palestinian brothers and sisters.
Abunimeh’s tone and his accent serve to mask his extremism. He is in fact urepresentative of the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza who advocate a two state solution, while he takes us back to the older, more militant demand, of one secular, democratic Palestinian state. Of course he never tells us on which planet his model of Arab democracy exists. He never tells us why even the most moderate Israelis would trust their lives and that of their children to his vision of a shared state in which Jews would soon be subject to a Muslim majority. More seriously, he never tells the Palestinians why they should enlist in perpetual conflict, for most of those who live in the West Bank and Gaza would recognize that Abunimeh offers a recipe for perpetuating the disaster of their current lives.
Abunimeh is offering a made in the diaspora solution that partakes of the same brand of extremism as that of those diaspora Jews who would fight to the last Israeli for all the lands of ancient Israel. We in diaspora communities can, at no personal cost, enjoy the luxury of extremisms which may further our own political or ideological goals. So, if Abunimeh offers nothing new, one must ask what his book and current promotion tour are all about, what is he seeking?
Ali Abunimeh is vying for leadership of the Palestinian diaspora. It is in their diaspora communities of North America and Western Europe that his message will resonate; it is in these communities that the so-called “right of return”, a non-starter for almost all Israelis,” is still cherished as an almost Koranic injunction. The Palestinian-American Professor Edward Said, who died in 2003, in his later years also advocated a one state solution and denounced the Oslo agreements because they did not embrace the right of return. Said’s death left a leadership vacuum, at least in the diaspora’s intellectual ranks and Abunimeh is attempting to fill it.
Thus, with his book of recycled early Arafat, with a Said veneer, Abunimeh launches a leadership campaign. Of course, on the way to his goal, he may snare some of the gullible who swallow his dubious logic. The more wary will understand that he offers not conflict resolution but conflict enhancement, with a program that Israelis can never accept, thus promoting more years of personal insecurity for Israelis and economic disaster for his Palestinian brothers and sisters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)