The Limits of American Power: Israel and Iran Editions

[Peikko 1,575]

I agree with Melanie Phillips that the principle reason there's no middle-east preace prcess worth the name is the Palestinian's reluctance to recognise and guarantee Israel's security. I believe there are other reasons too, mind you, that help to obstruct any path towards a proper and just settlement. Still, since Melanie doesn't believe there should be a Palestinian state, what does she think should be done? However much some people might wish it, the Palestinians cannot be wished away. They're not going anywhere. Right? And if this is so, then at some point some kind of a deal will have to be reached. Perhaps not for many years, but sometime for sure.

Meanwhile, I'm somewhat perplexed by her estimation of American power. She writes:

And why, once again, is a final solution being imposed by America upon democratic and beseiged Israel, while the administration of which Biden is such an ornament refuses to take any effective measures against the genocidal Iranian regime which is already responsible for countless American deaths and of which Israel is the present and potentially future victim, and which threatens the safety of the western world against which it has long declared war?

First she suggests that the United States has the power to impose an unwanted solution upon Israel; then Melanie suggests that it could also, if only it would choose to, halt Iran's nuclear programme and, who knows, perhaps topple the regime itself. In each case, may I suggest, Melanie exaggerrates Washington's ability to control events. In the first instance, Washington has no intention of "imposing" anything on Israel. A disagreement about settlements hardly constitutes a betrayal. In any case, even if Washington were so minded it is hard to see how this could actually happen, given Israel's own vigorous defence of its prerogatives and interests. Despite what (some of) the British left thinks, Israel is not America's plaything and I'm surprised to see Melanie suggest, perhaps obliquely, that it could be.

Meanwhile, on the Iranian question it really cannot be stated too often that the present American administration's policy differs from its predecessors' in terms of means, not ends. Obama and his colleagues have repeatedly declared an Iranian bomb "unacceptable" and the President has never once ruled out military action against Iran. In other words, there's a considerable measure of continuity between the Bush and Obama administrations.

Here too, however, I wonder if Melanie makes a common mistake: the United States may still be the world's most powerful nation but that does not make it omnipotent and there are times when even massive amounts of extra willpower are not enough for Washington to achieve its objectives. The notion that all that's missing is the necessary measure of grit and guts and seriousness does not persuade me, though clearly it does satisfy many others. It might be better if this were actually the case but it isn't and so it seems silly to insist that it must be.

Link

[Peikko 1,575]

No wonder he's smiling...

Israel is in the doghouse with America because it revealed during the visit by US Vice-President Joe Biden that it was building more houses for Israelis in east Jerusalem. According to Biden and outraged western received opinion, this ‘undermines peace efforts’.

Why? To be more precise, why does this initiative – or indeed any of the ‘settlements’ -- undermine peace efforts while the actual reason for the absence of peace, the fact that the Abbas administration has said it will never accept a Jewish state of Israel and refuses to renounce the Arab aim of ending Israel's existence, the sole reason for eight decades of aggression, terrorism and war in the Middle East, is not even mentioned?

Biden also said:

the Palestinians deserve a ‘viable’ independent state with contiguous territory

Why? What have they done to deserve it? In what other conflict in the history of the planet have people who have waged a war of annihilation for eight decades and continue to do so been considered to ‘deserve’ anything, let alone an ‘independent’ existence the sole purpose of which is a military beach-head to finish the job and which would slice its victim in half?

To put it another way, why does Joe Biden think that Israel ‘deserves’ to surrender?

And why, once again, is a final solution being imposed by America upon democratic and beseiged Israel, while the administration of which Biden is such an ornament refuses to take any effective measures against the genocidal Iranian regime which is already responsible for countless American deaths and of which Israel is the present and potentially future victim, and which threatens the safety of the western world against which it has long declared war?

That's the Melanie Philips article to which the first article is a response.

[mawilson 2,133]

I like Melanie's article better.

[scandal 951]

I'm not familiar with Alex Massie or Melanie Philips, as I don't normally read the British press.

I am familiar with the positions they stake out, however. They're both quite common amongst the Israeli public.

mawilson prefers Melanie. Ideologically I'm much closer to Alex.

The Melanie position is associated with the hard-right in Israel, the Alex position with the center-left.

Starting with Melanie -

Here's a complete fallacy. Repeated often and widely believed by the Israeli right, but still a fallacy:

the fact that the Abbas administration has said it will never accept a Jewish state of Israel and refuses to renounce the Arab aim of ending Israel's existence

This statement is true of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other intransigent Palestinian radical movements that have never brought themselves to accept the reality of the modern state of Israel, 6 decades after its founding.

It was also true of the PLO from its founding in the 1960s until 1993. In September of that year, Yassir Arafat made a historic and sweeping statement recognizing Israel's legitimacy and offering to negotiate a two-state solution. That became the basis of the Oslo accords. It remains policy of the PA to this day. Now, many within the PA and Fatah have very questionable allegiance to this point of view, I'm not naive to think it's all roses. But Melanie's quoted statement is flat-out wrong.

Biden also said:

the Palestinians deserve a ‘viable’ independent state with contiguous territory

Why? What have they done to deserve it?

They deserve it because they are a people with universally recognized national aspirations for self determination and with a valid historic claim on the land.

Just as Israelis are a people with with universally recognized national aspirations for self determination and with a valid historic claim on the land.

Two peoples, one land. Two peoples who must either share a common state, or agree to be divided into two distinct states.

My choice is the latter. I see far more problems for a democratic yet Jewish Israel with the former.

To put it another way, why does Joe Biden think that Israel ‘deserves’ to surrender?

Joe Biden has not asked Israel to surrender. I am confident that in his heart of hearts he does not want Israel to surrender - on the contrary, he wants a strong, confident, democratic Israel to remain a staunch friend and ally of the US in a vital region of the world. It is out of concern and genuine friendship for Israel that he (and in fairness, all US administrations and most in Congress) have entreated Israel to find a way to resolve these longstanding issues in a comprehensive peace agreement. Good friends helping each other does not equate to surrender.

There is a view in Israel, sometimes a fair one, that they are all out to get us. Before Israel existed, we had centuries of persecution of Jews throughout the Diaspora when we had no one to defend us but benevolent parties. Now, we have a state - a strong and proud one. The feeling of persecution continues however. We are surrounded on all sides by states that refuse to recognize our very existence and have been embroiled in numerous wars during our existence. We are criticized continuously in the media and by parliamentarians throughout the world - particularly in European countries, the UN, and much of the Third World and "non aligned" nations. Our one true and steadfast ally has been the US. Fearful that we may lose America's support and friendship too, many Israelis see every critique of Israeli government policy by the US as a "betrayal". That is the sentiment Melanie is writing from.

As to Alex - much of what she wrote I agree with wholeheartedly, particularly the Obama stance on Iran.

As to this:

Still, since Melanie doesn't believe there should be a Palestinian state, what does she think should be done? However much some people might wish it, the Palestinians cannot be wished away. They're not going anywhere. Right? And if this is so, then at some point some kind of a deal will have to be reached. Perhaps not for many years, but sometime for sure.

I agree with this too. However, there is a school of thought in Israel that the solution may be something short of a Palestinian state. Many talk of some form of limited autonomy that curtails rights to a standing army, immigration processing, etc. I don't think it's very realistic talk, but that is the response given by some on the Right, who are not on the radical extreme Right.

[scandal 951]

It's a slow news day. Bump.