Marble Composition

Middle East Analysis

I'm no expert on the Middle East, but I have done quite a bit of reading on the subject. After all, I'm just a dummy with a blog. For some analysis I agree with, and I must say I don't agree with all of it, go check out Billmon and Juan Cole. Also, check out Eric Alterman's blog, Altercation, on MSNBC.

There's plenty of stuff to chew on there, and you couldn't read smarter people on the subject.

Of the reams of stuff I've read recently on the subject, both good and bad, nothing comes closer to my view than Alterman's writing from July, 31st, here:

It’s been a bad week for people —like George W. Bush— who seek to defend the Israeli invasion of Lebanon: an estimated 56 innocent people killed in one raid at Qana, most of them children, and then it refuses to hold to a mere 48 hour ceasefire allegedly hammered out by U.S. Secretary of State, demonstrating to the world that it will not be bound by its word, and that Bush is either a political weakling, a chump, or a liar. (“Why the false choice?” some might say?) The New York Times reported that Rice "wrung the first significant concession from Israel" but it was over before most people even picked up their paper off the sidewalk, here. That shouldn’t have surprised anyone, despite the credulous, pro-Bush reporting. "'There is no cease-fire,' a 'senior government source' told the newspaper Haaretz, adding, 'If they are associated with Hassan Nasrallah, we will hit them.'" And they weren’t kidding.

Meanwhile, in addition to being a public relations catastrophe everywhere but the White House, the war is strengthening Hezbollah politically, as was predictable. The Lebanese prime minister, who the LAT notes has been no friend of Hezbollah's in the past, "'thanked' the Islamic militant group for its 'sacrifices'" and said: "We scream out to the world community to stand united in the face of Israel's war criminals."

The thing is, however horrific, it’s not going to change many people’s minds. It’s my experience that precious few people are actually interested in examining events related to Israel with an eye toward making an honest judgment. I found myself oddly depressed after dropping by synagogue on Saturday morning when a woman stood to ask the rabbi what she could say to her teenage daughter, who was watching the carnage on TV and could not understand how the mass killing of innocents could be justified. The Rabbi answered with nothing but bluster and bul**hit. Refusing to even engage the question, he trolled for applause from the congregation with chauvinistic argument that because the world had treated the Jews so badly for so many years, Israel should not be criticized no matter what it did. He even used the word "disproportionate" to refer to Palestinian attacks on Jews, when everyone knows that Israel has killed many, many more Palestinians than vice-versa since the conflict began. [*] It was the same old lugubrious interpretation of Jewish history that connects Pope Pius with Adolf Hitler with Hezbollah. The idea that the Israeli government might actually be mistaken in its judgments or that American Jews had the right to think for themselves, or that this (absent) young woman might actually have the right to ask a tough moral question about the behavior of the Jewish state was effectively ruled out of order. Many in the audience applauded. Another woman complained that “even Fox’s” coverage was unfair to Israel. A third blamed Hezbollah for putting its weapons in civilian areas. Nobody offered an ounce of evidence and none was demanded. It made me so angry I couldn’t even stay for the free food afterward. And remember, this took place in one of the most progressive areas in America. If Jews like this will never question Israeli behavior—even in a supportive manner that draws on mainstream opinion in Israel—then you can pretty much forget about it.

But people who oppose the invasion, save for a small minority, are not all that interested in evidence either as far as I can tell. MJ Rosenberg writes about the phenomenon here. The thing for me, however, is that nobody on the pro-Palestinian side of the equation understands the essential realist fact of this problem. There is never going to be any genuine statehood, or dignity, or peace or prosperity or even the opportunity to earn a decent living for the Palestinians unless they convince the Israeli public that they want to live alongside Israel in peace. There is no military option for the Palestinians save suicide. There is no possibility that the United States will ever “force” Israel to make peace. In the first place, I don’t know how you’d do it. In the second place, the Israel lobby is too powerful to let it happen and unwilling to challenge Israeli political leadership (except to undermine peace, as it did under Barak). That’s why anybody who does not attend to this essential fact is not doing the Palestinians any favors. And as long as the Palestinians have their present dysfunctional leadership crisis, as evidenced by their election of Hamas, no Israeli government can even imagine negotiating a peace agreement. That’s just commonsensical.

So therefore I don’t think the advertisement that appears in today’s Times signed by a bunch of pro-peace Jews is all that useful, since it does not address the inability of any Israeli government to make peace with these Hamas fanatics and corrupt Fatah-ists, particularly when they cannot make peace with themselves. And though I would have liked to—because I found their previous intervention so useful, I could not bring myself to sign this version of the "Open Letter from American Jews." In the first place, referring to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as a “crime” is going to shut down most conversations with most supporters of Israel, however much they may also value peace and justice. In the second, whereas I agree that “Israel's ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories and massive human rights abuses against the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples are opposed by many Jews in Israel, the U.S., and throughout the world,” and that “attacks on civilians will not bring peace, security or justice to Palestinians, Israelis, or Jews anywhere,” every honest person must admit that these statements constitute at best, only half the story. The other, crucial half is that the Palestinians have given the Israeli public no indication at all that they are ready to live side by side with Israel. And if you ignore that, you’re ignoring the crux of the problem.

For me, the last point he makes is crucial. I'm going on retained writings here, but it's pretty well known that if Yassir Arafat had made any agreements with Israel while the Clinton administration was making their drive towards a permanent solution, the Palestinian extremists would have murdered him as soon as he returned home. That points to an endless cycle of martyrdom and victimhood, of which there's always been plenty to spread around in that region of the world. Who is Israel supposed to negotiate with if that person, whomever that Palestinian may be, has an instant price on their head as soon as they touch down at home? And from their own people? I guess I just wanted to emphasize that portion of Eric's post. As for the rest, I couldn't agree more, and he's ten times the writer I'll ever be.

(As an aside, these are the same issues that brought war and tradgedy to Catholics and Protestants in Ireland and England for centuries. Thankfully that waking nightmare is nearly over. I really can't see that being the case in the Middle East. In my son's lifetime, maybe.)

While I've never met Eric Alterman, he is an acclaimed author, scholar, journalist, and professor, and his writings paint the picture of a concerned and decent man, and man with a keen nose for bullshit and spin. I mention all this because he's been called some really vile and despicable names, and he's often misquoted and lumped in with other people that don't reflect any of his views. We as a nation ignore his words at our own peril.

posted by FuzzFinger @ 8/14/2006 06:45:00 PM