Seven false assumptions underlying US policy
US administration’s view on conflict based on seven false assumptions
Giora Eiland,YNET
For some weeks now, commentators have been telling us that if only Israel agrees to accept the US position regarding the two-state solution, it would be possible to progress quickly and secure a final-status agreement.
This hypothesis is premised on seven assumptions, all of which are false. Had the US administration undertaken a real assessment and examined the fundamental assumptions underlining the solution, it may have reached different conclusions.
So what are the seven false assumptions?
1. “Establishing a Palestinian state in line with the 1967 borders is the essence of the Palestinians’ national aspiration.” It is true that the Palestinians wish to get rid of the Israeli occupation, yet a small and divided state whose establishment would force them to agree to end the conflict and their demands is the Palestinians’ nightmare, rather than their national aspiration. They could have secured such state three times in the past (in 1937, 1947, and 2000,) yet three times they rejected the offer with horror. What is the basis for assuming that the Palestinian ethos, which is premised on a “desire for justice,” need for revenge,” recognition of their victimhood, and mostly the “right of return” has changed all of a sudden?
2. “The gap between the Israeli and Palestinian positions is bridgeable.” Reality is different. The maximum an Israeli government (any Israeli government) can offer the Palestinians and still survive politically is far from the minimum that a Palestinian government (any Palestinian government) would be able to accept and survive politically.
3. “Egypt and Jordan want to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolved, and therefore they will be a contributing factor.” Reality is the different: Both Egypt and Jordan prefer the status quo to continue, whereby the conflict continues and they can continue to blame Israel. As long as the conflict exists, Egypt has the ultimate excuse for all domestic and regional troubles. Meanwhile, for the Jordanians, a neighboring Palestinian state - likely under Hamas’ rule - would mark the end of the Hashemite Kingdom.
4. “A final-status agreement would bring stability and security to the region.” The exact opposite is true. There is no chance that the small and divided Palestinian state would be viable. The frustration to be created by such situation (certainly in Gaza,) with Israel being stripped of “defensible borders, is an obvious foundation for instability.
5. “At this time we have an opportunity that must not be missed.” If we compare the situation that prevails today to the situation that prevailed in 2000, we reach the clear conclusion that the chance of securing an agreement back then was much greater than it is currently, yet it didn’t happen. Is it possible at this time to reach an agreement in Judea and Samaria, not to mention Gaza, when Hamas is the dominant Palestinian movement?
6. Progress on the Palestinian front is vital in order to enlist the support of Arab states against Iran.” How are these two issues related? Arab states (such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia) have a supreme interest in curbing Iran, irrespective of the Palestinian issue.
7. “There’s only one solution to the conflict.” What is this assumption based on? When was a thorough examination that looked into the range of possibilities been undertaken last, here or in the US? Alternate solutions, whereby the Palestinian are no longer under Israel’s control, can be presented easily.
Regrettably, and irrespective of the manner in which the American assessment was undertaken, the Obama administration’s conclusions are clear-cut. The chances of securing a final-status agreement on the basis of the two-state formula and implementing it successfully are not much greater than the prospects in 1993 (Oslo,) 2000 (Camp David,) and 2007 (Annapolis.)
We should hope that the almost assured failure would not have negative ramifications on other fronts, such as the effort to curb Iran or Israel-US ties.
A two-state solution is a fantasy. The chasm between the two sides has not closed since the 1930s. And the Palestinians are nowhere near ready to make the kind of compromises to enable an agreement to be reached that Israel could live with. The rule still holds good that an agreement that would be acceptable to Israel is not going to be acceptable to the Palestinians and vice versa. For the two sides have vastly different requirements that precludes a peace agreement from being realized in the next few generations.
Comment by NormanF — May 26, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
I beleive that Obama and every other world leader and nationality understands all of Eilands points and even some he has not mentioned. On the whole the policy of Obama is little different than Bush Junior, Bush Senior, Clinton,Reagan, Nixon and Eisenhower. Remarkable consistency, and all when viewed from a prism of rationality, irrational. The only conclusion I can think of is that they want the Jews to be what we have mostly been before Israel in 48, Jews as weak compliant and Jews where possible dead. The same pathological behavior where the Nazis diverted vast resources they couldn’t afford and at the expense of their own war effort to Kill Jews.
Comment by yamit82 — May 26, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
Yes - Jews with weapons; dangerous and scary. Now if only we could get the Jews to believe that and act on it.
Comment by keelie — May 27, 2009 @ 1:08 am
Yamit I need your help.
As a Catholic you know I am not too swift when it comes to Judaism.
From what I believe Zionist Jews are strick in their faith and believe they are a Nation and Israel is their rightful home.
Then what is the difference between Zionist Jews and Orthodox Jews?
And are the Orthodox Jews those with the short black hats and long hair?
From what I gather you are a Zionist Jew.
Comment by rongrand — May 27, 2009 @ 1:59 am
Hi, Ron
Never consult a Jew, on matters of “who is a Jew” and “what kind?” It’s like consulting a goose on matters of spelling. Here’s my quick-and-dirty summary of the matter”
I. There are two kinds of Jews (sort of):
A. Old World Jews. These are all throw-backs, after one fashion or another, from a lost world in the shtetls of Eastern Europe. Their background is one of dictatorial rule (either Russian-Polish-German, Turk or Persian), and life in Jewish-only communities called “shtetls”. They include:
1. Orthodox Jews of all stripes. This includes the “black hat” types who live entirely in a time warp set about a hundred years ago, and the “Modern Orthodox” — who are 21st Century when it comes to making money, but Second Century BC in their politics.
1a. The Modern Orthodox are often identified with the Religious Zionists; and to a good degree this is true, though these are really two overlapping groups. They are nearly all American English-speakers, since the movement began in America as a backlash to more modern forms of Judaism. Yamit is a Modern Orthodox in everything but name. Most other posters here, I suspect, are also MOs. If you really want to get a mouthful of these folks, read israelnationalradio.com.
1b. The “black hats” are more thoroughly European, even those who live in America. They tend to have their own neighborhoods and communities (like Monsee, NY and Bnei Brak, Israel), where they can live in their cult-like existence. They are not politically unified, nor otherwise connected with the real world. The Ashkenazi black hats mostly speak Yiddish: a German dialect with Hebrew and Slavic words, written in Hebrew script. The Sephardim and Mizrahim (from places like Morocco and Iraq, respectively) used to speak Arabic but now mostly speak Hebrew.
2. Most Israeli Jews. They are not strictly observant like the Orthodox, and some are flat-out anti-religious. They are thoroughly either European (Ashkenazi) or Arabic (Sephardic) in their outlook though, and do not understand American concepts such as real freedom of religion and American-style democracy. They do not consider themselves religious, but the religion they prefer not to be is Orthodox. It was these secular Jews, as H. Peskin repeatedly reminds us, who built the modern State of Israel.
3. Russian, Ukrainian, etc. Jews. Many of these are not even considered “Jewish” by the Orthodox. They lived for 70 years under a Communist regime, during which they were largely kept from religious practice. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is one.
4. French Jews. Most of these are refugees from Arab countries.
B. Western Jews. These are the children of the “Enlightenmet” of the 1800s, when Jews were allowed to live outside the ghettos. They have, to a great degree, taken on Western ways. They consist of:
1. The vast majority of American Jews. Their favorite denominations, when they actually are religious, are Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionsist. The speak English as their first language, and many of them are married to non-Jews.
2. English-speaking Jews in places like the UK, South Africa, Australia and Argentina. Some French Jews are in this class as well. They are usually non-religious or Reform. The Conservative and Reconstructionist movements are of American origin.
Western Jews tend to be EXTRMELY left-wing. They have cast off many of the stringencies of Orthodox Judaism, but pursue secular ideas with an ardent, religious, typically Jewish zeal. Like the Orthodox, they are laden with guilt of all sorts and see themselves as “fixers of the world”. Whereas the Orthodox tend to see the world (and “fixing” it) in other-worldly, theological ways, the Western Jews zero in on more natural goals such as saving the rain forest. Otherwise, they are identical to the Orthodox.
I hope that helps. I’ll leave it to the others to obfuscate things.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — May 27, 2009 @ 4:53 am
rongrand, good questions but not so easy to explain either to a gentile and even more difficult to explain to modern Jews especially those orthodox of all stripes still living in the exile.
I do not consider myself a Zionist. I consider myself a simple Jew who lives in THE LAND OF ISRAEL. Many Like the fool Oatmeal separates Zionism from Judaism but the exact opposite is true. Zionism is Judaism. Even so called secular Zionism and Zionists are more religious than the most religious Jew living outside of Israel Modern Zionism is the National Liberation Movement of the Jewish People to return to the Land of The Jews Zion (Israel). But Zionism is a religious obligation and a commandment of G-d in the Torah. The Torah is not just a list of individual commandments which affect a person’s daily life – it is the national constitution of the Jewish Nation. Thus, the life goal of our greatest spiritual leaders, like Moses,Josua, and King David, was to establish the nationhood of Israel in Eretz Yisrael. When G-d chose Avraham to be the founder of a unique holy nation, He commanded him to go to Israel. G-d’s master plan is that His word to the world come, not just through chosen individuals, but through a chosen NATION. Everyone can understand that a nation needs its own land. Therefore, the Jewish Nation and the Jewish Land go hand in hand (ZIONISM).
There should be no difference between Zionism and Orthodox Jewry but there is no room here to explain unlike Oat whjat are the real differences between Jews and why. His explanation is mostly stereotypical. It’s like me trying to understand the many sects and denominations of Christianity and all the theological differences between them as well as all the common features between them.
The mitzvah (commandment or obligation) of settling the Land of Israel does not involve only conquering it, but also requires the settling and developing of every part of it. “We should not leave the Land under foreign rule or desolate, as it says: you should inherit the land and settle it.”which obligates Jews to cultivate every part of the Land and not to leave it desolate.
The Jewish nation is commanded to establish rule over the Land of Israel. The second part requires each individual Jew to dwell in the Land. It is a obligation for every Jew to live in Israel when the Land is under foreign rule and even when it is under Jewish rule. The Rambam wrote (hilchot Malachim 5,12) “A person should live in Eretz Yisrael forever. He should live in Israel whether it is in a city where the majority of its inhabitants are not Jewish or where the majority of its citizens are Jewish. He should not live outside of Israel, for one who leaves Eretz Yisrael for the galut is as if he is worshiping idols.” Does this ans. Your Question? There should not be any light between Judaism, Orthodox or other from the commandment for every Jew to settle in the Land of Israel either under foreign rule and especially under Jewish sovereignty.
2000 years of Jewish exile has not only corrupted Judaism but the Jews as well. Zionism is the return to Zion by the Jews that the Jews refuse to heed this commandment will either doom themselves and or their progeny just like The Hebrew slaves who stayed in Egypt during the Exodus and the Jews of Alexandria and the millions of other Jews who ceased being Jews for any reason or another and the the chain was broken, the generations after them were no longer Jews. What we have today is only the small remnant of what should have and could have been a nation of hundreds of millions today.
Today, the Jewish people has in it still those elements of strength and endurance which enabled it to surmount all the crises of its past, surviving thus the most powerful empires of antiquity.
Throughout our history there have been weaker elements who have shirked the sacrifices which Judaism entailed. They have been swallowed, long since, in the great majority; only the more stalwart have carried on the traditions of their ancestors, and can now look back with pride upon their superb heritage. Are we to be numbered with he weak majority, or with the stalwart minority? It is for ourselves to decide.”
Comment by yamit82 — May 27, 2009 @ 9:45 am
I do not consider myself a Zionist. I consider myself a simple Jew who lives in THE LAND OF ISRAEL
I am still somewhat confused however; I would not consider you just a simple Jew.
Faithful and proud would be more like it.
What I have a problem with is; after again being led back to the Holy Land defending her sovereignty against greater odds why more Jews, especially American Jews are not supportive of Israel.
I don’t believe the return of the Jews to Israel was just a matter of chance but rather destiny.
Someone posted a statement with reference to some internal turmoil with liberal Jews causing many Jews to leave Israel for the US. (Liberals sure find a way to screw things up).
It takes conservatives to righting the ship. That’s why I am a fan of Caroline Glick.
I am with you; Jews only ask to be left alone to live in peace in the land provided for them.
Having said that, the Jews today will take whatever measures are necessary in defending their territory.
I hope and pray this government will not give into outside pressure.
I would tell PM Netanyahu not to pay attention to Obama. He was not elected as your president.
Unfortunately we are stuck with him.
By the way what Jewish sect are those that wear the black hats and pigtails?
Comment by rongrand — May 27, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
In the twenties and thirties Jews were in the vanguard of the old communists party and Socialist drive for equality especially in labor relations. Jews pioneered Labor Unions Like the ILGWU. American Jews were not handed social, economic,educational and political equality it was a long and sometimes bitter fight. American Jews refused to confront the Holocaust even well after the facts were becoming known. American Jews for the most part were against the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine, ambivalent and apathetic at best. American Jews were quite unfriendly to most of the Jewish survivors who came as either refugees or displaced persons after the war. They were an embarrassment to them. American Jews for the most part never supported the Jews in our war of independence in 48. There was an awakening in 67 but it seems to have dissipated. The under 30 crowd has no memories of those heady days. Now if most of the affiliated Jews(Jewish communal organizations including synagogue memberships) are connected with the assimilationist reform Judaism movement, what we see today is party a reflection of the success of that movement. I call them Jewish Protestants.
In short The American melting pot pluralism required that Jews give up what made them particular in favor of becoming in all things similar to the general Christian Majority Culture. Most Jews jumped at the opportunities, with both arms and both legs. So with the discarding of the outward trappings of particular Judaism, Jews became similar and or like their Christian neighbors. They not only discarded the outward orthodox appearances, they discarded Jewish education, Jewish history, and any warm feelings of Judaism itself. Being almost fully integrated into American society Judaism or the only practitioners of authentic Judaism became an embarrassment to them and Israel as their Symbol.
Jews were also in the vanguard of what has become known as post modernism and this movement has aligned itself with all the forces and movements who are today staunchly anti-Israel. American Jews when faced with the dichotomy of being Jewish and supporting Israel or with mainstream liberal Americanism have chosen Mainstream American Liberalism. That’s where we stand more or less today. I think I would not be far off in describing here about 70% of American Jewry. The rest can be divided between very strong support to support of only a certain kind of Israel reflected on the far left of the Israeli Political spectrum.
Comment by yamit82 — May 27, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
Rongrand, here is a small example of how far Jews have fallen in America.. How many have Challenged the Media and Obama seeking correction and Jewish recognition of what Obama and his many Jewish supporters seem ignorant of:
http://israeljewishnews.blogspot.com/
Sonia Sotomayor NOT the first Hispanic for US Supreme Court
B”H
I guess that if you are Jewish you don’t count as “Hispanic”? Because, as Shelomo Alfassa so correctly points out in his article, “Benjamin Nathan Cardozo (1870-1938) was the first Hispanic Justice in the US Supreme Court.”
Uh, I guess that Obama’s PR team isn’t capable of looking back in Supreme Court history 70 years? I know the drive-by media can’t possibly do any research–that’s nothing new. If Obama told them he was going to put the first person on the moon, they would probably just report it without remembering we already did that too.
Here’s the short article by Shelomo Alfassa–in both English AND Spanish–followed by a short Encyclopedia article on the REAL first Hispanic on the Supreme Court.
M
—–
BREAKING NEWS
Sonia Sotomayor NOT the first Hispanic for US Supreme Court
http://alfassa.com/sotomayer.html
By Shelomo Alfassa
Cardozo was a cousin of the poet Emma Lazarus whose poem “…Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free …” resides on the Statue of Liberty as a symbol of legal immigration into the United States of America.
Comment by yamit82 — May 27, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
Summary not quick enough and the only thing really dirty here is you dirt-bag.
Of all of your limy slimy ancestors the only one who seems real and normal is that Seneca Indian who ate live human hearts. There is an ancestor Oat. I see sour grapes wannabe Jew who was rejected by those black coates as why would we want to bring into a Jewish fold fruitcake antisemites like you?
I also see a disconnect with your railings for militant Israeli actions against the Arabs, keeping the Land of Israel under Jewish sovereignty and your supporting those left wing political entities and persons here who are the strongest in favor of doing the opposite to what you rail against.
In short you are a real nut case whose opinions should be read in such a context. Ravings and rantings of a disgruntled, vile antisemite.
Comment by yamit82 — May 27, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
ILGWU.
Strange to see that once again after all these years. As a young high School student found a summer job at the local Delightform Bra Company and worked in the cutting room and had to be a member of the ILGWU. Manny moons ago.
I guess in my community the Jews were not afraid to be Jewish. I live 1/2 block from the Jewish Community Center (earlier known as Young Men Hebrew Association) and hung out there. We had a number of Jewish markets and stores that we patronized.
As a teenager paled around with Jewish friends and they being Jewish was not different than us being Italian, Irish Catholic.
Time for Jews to start being Jews again especially with their own recognized Jewish Nation of Israel to support.
Comment by rongrand — May 27, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Once again Yamit, we are indebted to you for you knowable analysis. Thanks.
Comment by Ted Belman — May 28, 2009 @ 6:45 am
Ted,
Thanks a heap for agreeing with Yamit that I am a “dirt bag”. You certainly are tipping your hand. Should I expect you to take off the kid gloves altogether? Why don’t you just be a man, and flat-out ban me?
Comment by BlandOatmeal — May 28, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
Oatmeal:
Comment by h peskin — May 30, 2009 @ 11:56 pm