More than three quarters of the U.S. Senate, including 38 Democrats, have signed on to a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implicitly rebuking the Obama Administration for its confrontational stance toward Israel.
The letter, backed by the pro-Israel group AIPAC, now has the signatures of 76 Senators and says in part:
We recognize that our government and the Government of Israel will not always agree on particular issues in the peace process. But such differences are best resolved amicably and in a manner that befits longstanding strategic allies. We must never forget the depth and breadth of our alliance and always do our utmost to reinforce a relationship that has benefited both nations for more than six decades.
A similar letter garnered 333 signatures in the House, and its support marks almost unified Republican support for Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, along with strong, but more divided, public Democratic discomfort with Obama’s policies in the region.
I can’t tell you how ridiculous this is- 3/4 of the Senate is telling the administration to back down when Israel does not keep their word. Not to mention, if 3/4 of the Senate had told President Bush to back down to a foreign nation, we’d be calling it treason.
Congress has now sent Netanyahu a clear message to continue doing WTFHW.
Jamie
once again Washington DC is more pro-Israel than Tel Aviv.
Ajay
I have never understood this blind patriotism of our govt towards whatever Israel stands for. Its amazing that it doesnt get punished in the polls even in regions where the masses are not that Israel inclined.
Israel has it good: Get our money and break international laws at the same time. This on top of our military doing their dirty work at our expense.
John Quixote
Nice to finally have confirmation that we are Israel’s bitch.
Guster
At some point, my fellow actual Jews, instead of the Imaginary Jewy Right-Wing Monolith Represented By Lieberman and Kristol, are gonna get a trifle peeved at this sorta bullshit.
Guster
@Jamie: Screw you for saying it better!
BenA
@Guster: I was going to post something along these lines. Just because your Jewish doesn’t mean you’re lock step with everything the “Jewish State” does.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that a fairly hefty share of the Jews that vote Dem are the same ones that probably aren’t exactly happy with all the moves made by the current administration in Israel.
JGabriel
From the letter:
Do we have to retake our vows, or can we settle for simple commitment ceremony?
.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Yes, but if we don’t keep Israel happy, Jesus will cry instead of coming to visit again, and then we’ll be stuck with the fundamentalists forever.
cleek
cowards
PeakVT
This is mind-boggling. Not only is uncritical support for Israel bad for the US, it’s bad for Israel. And yet, here we have Congresscritters kneecapping the President for the second time in the past month.
Our “leadership” needs to pay closer attention to what is really going on in Israel these days.
Crusty Dem
Why are the most insanely pro-Israeli Americans not even Jewish? (If you are Jewish and insanely pro-Israeli, you’ve got a job at Commentary)
El Cid
The U.S. Congress will be happy to keep loudly and ignorantly and chauvinistically backing the most reactionary, militarist, hawk-crazy policies in Israel until that nation’s collapse.
It’s never “pro-Israel” to back sanity — only the screaming, lunatic, stapler-throwing John Bolton approach (here and there) counts as “pro-Israel”.
It’s the love shown by a paranoid jealous abuser to his family.
Nick
I see St. Russ of Madison is on this list. With this and guns, when does Jane Hamsher and David Sirota call for a primary?
slag
I’m pretty sure this pisses me off more than anything the teabaggers could ever do. Idiot Democrats. Way to tie our nation’s hands.
JGabriel
PeakVT:
Exactly. Kind of hard to be seen in the Arab world as an honest arbiter if we’re so in the tank for Israel, which makes it hard to argue for the credibility of any suggested peace agreement.
If the “bond” is that strong, reasonable negotiators for the Palestinians could easily conclude that we’ll take no action if Israel breaks the agreement.
.
Svensker
@Guster:
Well, if you have any influence, tell them to hurry the fuck up already.
Comrade Darkness
Jewish Jesus, congress is full of more f*cking maniacs than even I feared. I didn’t honestly realize that was possible.
Israel can keep building walls around the ghettos and working on that final solution in a state of perpetual immunity to self awareness. War Foreverz beetches!
Kryptik
Again…when you have more fierce criticism against Israel from Haaretz than you would find in any mainstream institution in the US, you know something is wrong.
I will never, ever, ever understand why Israel is such a sacred cow politically to the US. If the Israeli gov’t was a little more sane, I could understand it, but it really hasn’t been terribly sane since the Rabin assassination.
Short Bus Bully
Does it still count as “Crusade X” if they already hold Jerusalem? Maybe aim for Mecca this time?
Dunno.
Nick
@Guster:
Well get on it, because your Lieberman/Kristol-esque brothers in Brooklyn and Palm Beach are causing enough problems
Citizen_X
Okay, elected representatives of AIPAC, I see how this relationship has benefited Israel, but please inform us as to how it has benefited us.
geg6
@PeakVT:
This.
Fuck these cowards. I am not in favor of my country being the subordinate to Israel. And the idea that I am supposed to specifically be Bibi’s bitch is more infuriating than almost anything else.
Ash Can
O noez! Not the dreaded sternly-worded letter!
Seriously, though, WTF is wrong with these people in Congress? Is something funny getting piped into the chamber through the ventilating system? Or did AIPAC threaten to discontinue free lunches if they didn’t make nice?
JGabriel
@Kryptik:
To be fair, Barak tried. It was Arafat who scuttled the talks last time they came close to an agreement.
.
Guster
@Svensker: Well, 78% of us voted for Obama, even though the other 12% are the Official Jews. Far as influence goes, this is where I donate: http://jstreet.org/
What are Feingold and Franken doing on that letter? Damn I love me some Sanders.
Punchy
It’s clear from this post that Cole’s an anti-Semite
Clear as day it is. Also, thus. Too.
Guster
@JGabriel: Yeah, it’d be a different world if only …
Violet
I have no interest in my country being another country’s bitch. It’s bad enough that we’re in all sorts of economic mire with China, but Israel? They wouldn’t even exist without all the money we send. How the hell do they get to call the shots?
It reminds me of a bad divorce, where not only can you just not quit your ex, the alimony checks bleed you dry every month and your friends inexplicably hate you because you had enough guts to stand up to your emotionally abusive spouse.
WTF, Dems?
me
@Nick: Well, his sister’s temple has had the Israeli flag flying on it’s flagpole for years.
Redshirt
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but here’s why I think Israel has become this sacred in US politics:
US politics have been hijacked by radical religious fundamentalists who think Jerusalem must be in the hands of the Jews, with the Temple rebuilt, yadda yadda, in order for Jesus to return and end this wicked world. Thus, Jews must be given 110% support in their occupation, for Jesus.
Also, Holocaust guilt prevents any criticism of the above insanity.
I think that covers it, scarily enough.
catclub
It is interesting that the depth and breadth of that alliance
DOES NOT include actual mutual defense treaties – like NATO.
So actually our alliance is deeper with the Czech republic.
If I am wrong, let me know.
Linda Featheringill
@El Cid: Chauvinism! That’s the word! [I have been looking for it for a while.]
I always connect “chauvinism” with the support some people extend towards Israel. And it is silly.
Israel is a man-made state, run by humans. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they’re wrong. [And yes, sometimes you just can’t tell.]
Golly gee whiz, folks! This Israel-is-always-right-no-matter-what monologue is irritating. Hush, already!
Cerberus
@Crusty Dem:
Because they need a strong Jewish state so Jesus can come back and the Rapture will spirit them away to Heaven.
No, seriously, as this blog does a great job of hammering home.
Delusional fundamentalists are at the root of a lot of our more confounding public policies, such as the extreme fear most right-wingers have to anything akin to a peace process and global actions on anything (including global warming).
If someone has a time machine, there are fewer greater goods you could accomplish than going back in time and whacking Tim LaHaye before he ever even thought about ghost-writing his Mary-Sue epic.
cleek
@Redshirt:
there’s also the fear of being called “anti-Semitic” by people who make their living calling other people “anti-Semitic”.
PTirebiter
More profiles in courage. God I love being a Democrat.
Svensker
@JGabriel:
To be fair, there’s a fair amount of controversy on that point.
Osprey
Being Israel’s bitch is just another (the MAIN one cited by some) reason for us to keep fuckin’ around in the Middle East. Since WWII we have had to ‘manufacture’ reasons to send our troops to desert or jungle wastelands to needlessly die. Defending Israel from all of these ‘rogue states’ makes a great straw-man.
It’s blatantly obvious politicians are scared shitless that anything they do can be even REMOTELY called anti-semitic. And you know what, I’ll bet it’s not because anybody gives a shit, fart, or flying fuck about Israel, or its people. It’s because to them, being an anti-semite means you’re not sympathetic with the victims of the Holocaust, and douchebag groups like AIPAC (Assholes Intent on Pilfering America’s Coffers) will scream anti-semite at anybody who doesn’t pay enough attention to the balls while sucking Israel’s corrupt cock.
Fuck Israel.
(not bashing Holocaust victims, it’s just an example).
liberal
@JGabriel:
Not at all a fair characterization of what happened.
[on edit:] Ah…I see Svensker beat me to it.
liberal
@catclub:
I’m pretty sure you’re right. No mutual defense treaty.
liberal
@me:
I understand that polls show a lot of American Jews don’t support a lot of this nonsense, but parallel to “me’s” comment, around here (a Maryland suburb of DC) I see temples with this banner displayed out in front, “WE SUPPORT ISRAEL, IN ITS QUEST FOR SECURITY AND FREEDOM.”
Now, you can read that many ways, some more charitably than others. But my impression is that the Jewish establishment (including the Reform) branch is solidly in the tank.
liberal
@Cerberus:
I don’t buy it. The support of the Armageddon crowd obviously makes things worse, but IMHO it accounts for definitely less than half of the political power of the “lobby.”
E.g. both my Senators (MD) signed the letter, and they’re both pretty liberal. Also e.g., Waxman in the House, who’s otherwise quite liberal, voted for the Oct 2002 AUMF (aka the quasi-declaration of war on Iraq).
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
The modern corollary to this is: find out just what the United States will noisily support in an cherished ally, and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong they will impose on others.
liberal
@Guster:
I think a very interesting way to look at that kind of thing is to see what otherwise liberal members of Congress voted for the Oct 2002 AUMF.
Tim O
Gee Whiz, remember how they pounded Kerry in 2004 saying that he was going to abdicate US sovereignty to the UN?!?
F-ing cowards!
JGabriel
Svensker, liberal: Perhaps I’m wrong, but at the time, the impression I got was that Barak came to the table with specific proposals, wanting a deal, and willing to compromise (though maybe not far enough), whereas Arafat equivocated and didn’t offer much specific in the way of compromise.
So … educate me.
.
Pococurante
Someone explain to me why a “Berlin Wall” in Jerusalem is a good idea. It didn’t work in Berlin, and it is barely working in Baghdad and Belfast.
While you’re at it explain to me why all pressure is on Israeli Palestine, and yet there is no pressure on or standards applied at all for the Palestinian Arabs. What possible positive outcome can anyone expect from this?
Is it simply by favoring one side too long and opposing Hamas as the thugs they are, we now feel it is ok to adopt the Fox “Fair and Balanced” standard by going to the completely opposite extreme?
I’m no fan of AIPAC and I think Marty Peretz / Barry Rubin et al are lunatics. I’m grimly opposed to the Orthodox Jewish thugs stealing land in the greater countryside and those who terrorize their Arab neighbors. The current Israeli Wall, as tragically necessary as it is, clearly destroys Arab economic and territorial stability.
But I also don’t get why the only acceptable solution from people, apparently unable or unwilling to remember more than two years ago, is why Israel needs to commit demographic (at best) and even literal suicide to please “the world”.
Fatah and Hamas are mafioso. Their power comes from intimidation, corruption, and cynical theological manipulation. It’s hardly smart to push for an Arab version of Serbia in the ME.
Side observation: it’s practically Rovian to me how “Palestinian” in the last decade and a half has come only to mean a minority Arab group that no one in the Arab world will lift a finger to feed, make citizens, or give jobs. Or, that matter, anyone outside the ME including all the pearl clutchers posting here. That bit of land was named Palestine by a bunch of imperialist Italians who wanted to destroy the native Judean culture.
Svensker
@JGabriel:
If you read my link, you’ll see the Wiki article. Down at the bottom, it has the counter opinions, with links.
Svensker
@Pococurante:
David Horowitz, is that you?
winguts to iraq
pathetic.
This makes no sense.
Fuck Israel.
anonymous
If Israel doesn’t want to please the world, it can start by refusing to take US aid money (and the US can stop propping up the Egyptian dictatorship).
Pococurante
@Svensker: Nice…
The “controversy” is one man’s book. Strangely enough none of the key participants support its premise.
@anonymous:
You do realize the US gives money to very unsavory countries and their leaders. Compare how much we give to the Arab countries, many of whom directly and indirectly subvert our interests. A nice way of saying they kill people we are supposed to like and want to protect. We give far more to Saudi and Egypt for example.
Lamers…
geg6
@Svensker:
That’s what I thought. Sounds a lot like him.
Israel is gonna commit demographic suicide no matter what they do; it’s inevitable and demographics bear that out. Just like the fat, white, male conservatards here are, they fight a losing battle against a tidal wave.
Svensker
@Pococurante:
Ah, I was right. It is you, David.
Comrade Dread
Well, we did cut off all subsidies to Israel.
Wait… no we didn’t.
Well, okay, we did stop selling them arms.
Oh, no, we didn’t do that either.
Well, what did we do?
We gave them a stern talking to.
Yeah, I can certainly see why Congress would be upset about that.
The Moar You Know
@Pococurante: Interesting that you didn’t address the issue that the post is about.
Why do we, as a nation, feel a need to pledge fealty to a foreign power that has done nothing for us?
Answer that.
John Cole:
Pat Lang is going to have a fucking stroke and die when he hears about this.
JGabriel
@Svensker: Ah, I missed the link on the first go around. Thanks.
.
Pococurante
@geg6: So that’s three posts coming from Bill O’Reilly’s team of thoughtful analysts.
Seriously why not simply explain? I’ll even lend you my crayons.
Paris
The Commander in Chief can handle foreign policy just fine by himself. Now where is that treaty you don’t have time to ratify?
Svensker
@Pococurante:
Pie of the evening, beautiful pie. Nice song, but a bit irritating.
Mark S.
@Pococurante:
No, we don’t. One-third of all US aid goes to Israel and Egypt, with Israel getting more.
ellaesther
@JGabriel: Sadly, not so, my friend. The “it was Arafat’s fault” is the Israel-Palestine meme that will not die.
It was all manner of things, but the famous “generous offer” that Barak offered was not generous. He and Clinton wrecked what was a very, very shaky set-up to begin with, one that the Palestinians said they weren’t ready for but were pressured into with all sorts of Clintonian promises that he didn’t stand by.
I’m actually in the middle of writing something, so I will be a responsible working adult and not take the time to look up my references, etc, right now — but I promise to come back with more information and sources later.
WATCH THIS SPACE! (or, one below it a bit).
(I’ll start by saying read Robert Malley in the New York Review of Books http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2001/aug/09/camp-david-the-tragedy-of-errors/www.nybook and/or Aaron David Miller’s book The Much Too Promised Land on the topic. Both men were on the American Team at Camp David).
El Cid
@Linda Featheringill: Although it is chauvinism against Arabs (Palestinians), it isn’t simply chauvinism in favor of “Israel”, any more than supporting the Iraq war was “supporting” the USA.
The chauvinism is in favor of the most hawkish and militarist policies and politicians in Israel (and this is not a Likud / Labor issue) versus more reasonable policies.
It isn’t “pro-Israeli” any more than any other politicians bellicose, endangering rhetoric and policies are “pro-” whatever country they’re in. The U.S. cheerleaders and Israeli militarists don’t care how much danger they put Israeli and Palestinian civilians in, and what long-term instability they’re taking on, as long as it favors their militarist policies.
Ed Marshall
That’s conjecture about a country that almost certainly never existed. It wouldn’t matter if it was true. The bullshit about “Arabs” and how they should just fuck off to some other place Arab is racist and stupid.
LD50
@Citizen_X:
Very simple. Israel stands up for us in the Middle East, when all the other Middle Eastern countries hate us for unconditional support of Israel.
It’s like a perpetual motion machine.
LD50
@geg6:
Yes, and if it weren’t for the fucking Tibet Lobby running US foreign policy, I might very well be inclined to be sympathetic to them. But as the process goes along, we can be sure the Palestinians will suffer and die in far greater numbers than will the Jewish Israelis. Being powerless does that.
El Cid
@Mark S.:
That used to be the case, but isn’t any longer. If 2008 figures are still accurate, Israel would now be 3rd after Iraq and Afghanistan, and then Israel followed by Egypt, Russia, Sudan, and Pakistan, followed by a whole bunch of nations getting $400 – 600 million. (Including “loan guarantees” to Israel wouldn’t change its position in rankings.) (Data link.)
LD50
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, Diane Feinstein DIDN’T sign the letter (but Boxer did)? That’s very surprising indeed.
liberal
@El Cid:
Aside from the obviously singular nature of Iraq and Afghanistan, none of these figures take into account the fact that Israel has a much smaller population. Not to mention it’s now essentially a first world country, so it’s odd we’re handing them a few percentage points of their GDP every year.
liberal
@El Cid:
That’s all true, but what fraction of Israeli MK’s would support an equitable land-for-peace deal vis-a-vis the Palestinians? “Militarists” seems to include the entire Israeli political establishment, aside from the Arab party(parties?) and maybe some tiny left-wing ones.
(Of course, given the recent history of the US, it’s not like our politics is any better.)
liberal
@The Moar You Know:
Exactly.
Those two dead white males, Washington and Quincy Adams, had it exactly right.
El Cid
@liberal:
That is now true, and it’s spoken of as though it’s some natural reality instead of as the result of the last 40 years of Israeli-U.S. militarism.
El Cid
@liberal: No, the figures do not account for Israel’s smaller population, but I wasn’t giving the context for any of the aid, nor attempting to justify any of it, nor even call it by the PR term “aid”, but simply listing what figures I could as far as dollar value.
liberal
@ellaesther:
That’s what I remember.
El Cid
@liberal: FWIW, the traditional U.S. foreign policy establishment view is that the Israeli government and military have indeed been valuable to their goals, whether or not you or I might think them harmful, useless, or insane.
The U.S. didn’t care what you or I might rationally have thought should have been ‘goals’ as it shoveled money into Colombia for the ‘drug war’ under which drugs production and trafficking skyrocketed during that same ‘aid’ period, nor about the rise of a right wing death squad narco-paramilitary force throughout the nation displacing millions of people and slaughtering entire villages and extorting election results, as long as the Colombian military made sure and kill the left wing narco-guerrillas.
You should remember that your and my notion of “us” and “our country” is not the viewpoint of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, the same one which gleefully went to invade and occupy Iraq, no matter the god-awful amounts of harm done to ‘our country’ in any sane conception.
ellaesther
Back but briefly to say this:
@ Those wondering why America is in so deep with Israel:
There is a lot to be said for all of the theories that get bandied about — cultural affinity, influential lobbyists, easy low-cost points for Congress members in their home districts, failure of the Palestinian people to effectively organize, demonization of the Palestinian people, etc — not to mention plain old inertia. I am a big fan of the theory that says that we (humans) often just keep doing things the way we’ve always done them because that’s the way we do them.
BUT, I’ve also been reading a lot lately about how Israel has done much of America’s dirty work on the foreign policy front (think South America in the 1980s), creating a relationship of real symbiotic dependency. Stuff that America just couldn’t do, got/gets outsourced. (Likewise: What stick with Saudi? ‘Cause they generally pay for the same, or similar, shit).
And I have a feeling that at the highest levels of government, in the executive branch, where people know the ins and outs of these sorts of under-the-counter dealings, this fact likely has a very powerful influence on the decisions that are made.
(I’ll be back later with more resources on Camp David 2000!)
liberal
@El Cid:
Yeah, I know you probably know that. But a lot of people out there say “buh-buh-buh we give Egypt a lot, too!” as if the pop of Egypt weren’t many times higher that of Israel, and ignoring that Egypt’s economy makes it nominally a potential candidate for “aid”. (Not that I think “aid” is aid anywhere we give it.)
liberal
@El Cid:
Yes.
Though in terms of history, it might have been true the past few decades, but it’s not at all clear it was true before 1967. Certainly it wasn’t true in 1956, AFAICT.
Futhermore, I’m pretty sure liberal Democrats in Congress opposed a lot of the stuff we did in Latin America. Not so much the Middle East stuff.
Slide
Infuriating… At a time when we need to stand up to Israel so that they know we are serious, we have those cowardly little weasels in the Senate undercutting the President. Unbelievable.
Paula
There are a lot of True Progressives ™ on that list. Given that the road to mid-east peace runs right through Israel and Palestine, should I start demoting the merit of everything Franken, Feingold et al say re the de-escalation of the wars in Af-Pak and Iraq from this moment on?
[Gawd Barbara Boxer, I’d never thought I’d be ashamed of you being my Senator.]
Joel
The letter is, in and of itself, meaningless.
This is just ass-covering so these senators can continue getting handies from AIPAC.
Mr Furious
How?
Seriously. Someone give me a list of benefits for the U.S. Start with one, and see where we end up.
Pococurante
@Mr Furious: Reasonings are in short supply for this thread. “Every one just knows” a lot of things.
U.S. support for Israel has always been a cynical real politik calculation. Clearly Israel has presumed on us and, surprise surprise, that is pretty much the story of all national relations. Hoocoodanode.
What I’m trying to understand is why the happy group think here that Palestinian Arabs deserve a clear pass to dominate their people in a glorified theftocracy and somehow Israel is obligated to make all the concessions those Arab leaders whip up to distract from the feudalism.
What exactly makes so many believe that all Israel has to do is stop all settlements, retreat to pre-1967 borders, give half of Jerusalem over into a walled capital, and remove all road blocks. And the problem is solved. What problem do you really think is being solved?
Svensker
@Pococurante:
Oh, wait. Maybe you’re WinSmith? You sound less nuts than Horowitz and more of a ‘liberal”.
Anyway, thanks for the pie.
PeakVT
U.S. support for Israel has always been a cynical real politik calculation.
Bullshit. Support for the Turkish military dictatorship during the Cold War, Iraq after the Iranian Revolution, and Saudi Arabia (an absolute monarchy where women are so repressed they are not even allowed to drive) as long as the oil keeps flowing can be ascribed to cynical realpolitik. Israel, OTOH, has provided no geostrategic benefit to the US since the late 1970s.
MattR
@Pococurante:
Will all those who agree with this strawman please speak up.
.
.
.
crickets
No surprise there.
El Cid
@liberal: That’s true. A policy which is consistent over 40 years is certainly not a permanent predictor but pretty established.
———-
It doesn’t matter whether one thinks the Palestinians have a great government or not. The Israeli occupation is, and is universally recognized as being illegal, so the Israelis must cease their occupation, whether or not Israelis or Americans think the Palestinians have a fantastic or barbaric ruling regime.
If we are now to begin supporting the principle that self-determination will be determined by other nations’ and populations’ views on whether or not a regime is democratic or just enough, then we’re going to have a lot more wars on our hand.
ExtremismInTheDefenseOfLiberty
Is there an element of our foreign policy that has served the true interests of the United States less favorably, over a longer period of time, than our general policy towards Israel, which appears to me to be ICDNW. Israel Can Do No Wrong.
Advancing what amounts to an unexamined, knee-jerk policy towards the most volatile region on the planet, often in conflict with our most critical interests in that region, sounds like something out of a bad movie.
Instead, it’s reality. Enjoy your stay at the Perpetual King David Hotel. You can check in anytime you want, but you can never leave.
ellaesther
@JGabriel: I don’t know why my above link (# 61) to the Robert Malley piece doesn’t work, but it doesn’t! Foiled!
In spite of my promise to come back and write about the issue of the Barak-Arafat meeting at Camp David in 2000, I don’t have time to pull something really annotated together.
Suffice it to say: The Palestinians knew they weren’t ready, domestically, for an intense negotiating process, but Clinton assured Arafat that all would go well and even went so far as to promise that the United States would not publicly blame Arafat if it didn’t.
The parties arrived at Camp David, and Barak (who is one of the worst negotiators in Israel’s history) played all manner of power games, thinking that he could force Arafat’s hand, announcing that whatever he was presenting was an absolutely inviolable red-line — and then when the Palestinians said something like “but we can’t possibly…! You knew we couldn’t possibly before you even brought it up…!”, he would suddenly move his red-line and say “no, no, I meant THIS! This is now the red line!”
Ultimately what he was trying to fob off on the Palestinians amounted to somewhere in the range of 67-90% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (bearing in mind that this means 67-90% of 22% of historic Palestine), and in some stretches of land, didn’t include the hilltops — those would be Israeli.
On top of that, the demands that most of Palestinian East Jerusalem and the holy sites would remain in Israeli sovereignty was just too much, and ultimately the talks fell apart. And Arafat went home. And Bill Clinton blamed him for the talks’ failure — publicly, loudly, and instantly.
Read Robert Malley and Hussein Agha and you’ll get the full picture: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2001/aug/09/camp-david-the-tragedy-of-errors/?page=1
(and if the link is hinky again, the article is “Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors,” in the August 9, 2001 edition of the New York Review of Books).
ellaesther
@ellaesther: Wow. Just imagine how long-winded I would have been if it had been annotated…!
Mike G
Excuse me, what the fuck do we get out of it? The bombing and strafing a US Navy ship killing 37 American sailors, and the enmity of the Arab and/or Muslim world don’t count as benefits.
Unless you’re a defence contractor or a bought-off politician, I don’t see sufficient benefits to outweigh the costs. Some might say “we owe it to them” or that loyalty trumps everything, but the cost/benefit analysis sucks wind.
El Cid
@ellaesther: The operative discussion assumption in the U.S. media & foreign policy establishment is that since the Palestinian delegation wasn’t prepared to agree to whatever they were handed, no matter how ludicrous, as long as it was called ‘generous’ and ‘almost everything they wanted’ and ‘peace’, then it was Arafat who destroyed the effort.
Svensker
@ellaesther:
Thank you. And not long-winded at all. :)
Kyle
We need Israel to support us against the Arab states…who hate us because we support Israel. It’s Mobius Strip foreign policy.
At some point, my fellow actual Jews, instead of the Imaginary Jewy Right-Wing Monolith Represented By Lieberman and Kristol, are gonna get a trifle peeved at this sorta bullshit.
By Lieberwhore and Kristol Meth standards, three quarters of Israelis are “anti-Semites” who “hate Israel”.
Mnemosyne
@Pococurante:
Because stealing people’s land and caging them up in refugee camps for three generations is clearly morally superior to whatever government they might come up with.
And I don’t mean “stolen land in the 1940s” or the boundaries of the 1967 war. I mean that the Israelis are currently building settlements on land that doesn’t belong to them. Right now. As we speak.
JMG
The only way Congress will stop supporting Israel is, well, there is no way. They would gladly vote to end the food stamp program to save the spending of money on Israel. Sooner or later, probably later, but not too much later, the rest of the world will find a way to make us pay a price for this blind allegiance.
bdg
dont forget! its easy to argue that with US funding and loan guarantees, we Americans are all basically paying for Israel’s socialized medicine.
think any teabaggers (or AIPAC Dems) are against that?
SteveinSC
Sorry I’m late to this party. Nothing pleases me more than to sink my teeth into AIPAC and its lick-spittles. So target rich!
Polar Bear Squares
Tired of getting Deebo’d by these guys.
Thought we were supposed to be allies.
Not the bottom b!tc#.
Josh
Why is the harshest critic of the “fuck Israel” sentiment in this thread using the name of a character from a story in which Voltaire’s pretty explicit in expressing his lifelong antisemitism?
JGabriel
@ellaesther: A belated thanks for the info, ella.
.
Morgoth
Why is the harshest critic of the “fuck Israel” sentiment in this thread using the name of a character from a story in which Voltaire’s pretty explicit in expressing his lifelong antisemitism?
Because its typical of how the vast majority of Ballon Juice posters and commenters are, according to the EU Working Definition of Antisemitism, outright antisemites. The vast majority of posts in this thread are blatantly antisemitic, and people round here aren’t even polite enough to hide that any more underneath their pointy hoods.
As ever, the story is this: Jews mustn’t be allowed to defend themselves so that Western narcissistic liberals can feel good about themselves. When pre-1948 the spiritual ancestors of John Cole were justifying their persecution of Jews on the grounds that they didn’t have a state like other people, now they’re justifying their hatred on the grounds that the Jews have a state, like other people.
Jews can’t win with the likes of Balloon Juice. Its that simple.