The apparently escalating conflict between the US and Israel did not have to occur. It must be resolved now, before it does irreparable harm to prospects for peace.
The conflict was largely contrived by people with agendas. The initial impetus for the brouhaha was an ill-timed announcement that permits had been issued for building 1,600 additional residences in a part of Jerusalem that had been captured by Israel in the 1967 war. The Netanyahu government had been praised by President Obama for agreeing to a freeze on building permits on the West Bank, despite the fact that the freeze did not extend to any part of Jerusalem.
Thus the announcement of new building permits did not violate any agreement by Israel. Nonetheless, the timing of the announcement embarrassed Vice President Joe Biden who was in Israel at the time. The timing was neither an accident nor was it purposely done by Prime Minister Netanyahu to embarrass Biden. Many believe that the announcement was purposely timed by opponents of the peace process in order to embarrass Netanyahu.
Whatever the motivation, the announcement deserved a rebuke from Vice President Biden. It also warranted an apology and explanation from the Israeli government, which immediately came from Netanyahu. That should have ended the contretemps. But some in the Obama Administration apparently decided that they too had an agenda beyond responding to the ill-timed announcement, and they decided to take advantage of Israel's gaff. They began to pile on and on and on. Instead of it being a one day story, the controversy continues to escalate and harden positions on all sides to this day, and perhaps beyond. The real victim is the peace process and the winners are those -- like Iran, Hamas and extremist Israelis -- who oppose the two-state solution.
The building permits themselves were for residences not in East Jerusalem, but rather in North Jerusalem, and not in an Arab section, but rather in an entirely Jewish neighborhood. This neighborhood, Ramat Shlomo, is part of the area that everybody acknowledges should and will remain part of Israel even if an agreement for a two state solution and the division of Jerusalem is eventually reached. In that respect, it is much like the ancient Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, which was illegally captured from the Jewish residents by the Jordanian army in the 1948 war. The Jordanians then desecrated Jewish holy places during its illegal occupation, and the Israelis legally recaptured it during the defensive war of 1967. No one in their right mind believes that Israel has any obligation to give up the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, the holiest Jewish site in the world, despite the fact that it was recaptured during the 1967 war.
Because the Palestinians understand and acknowledge that these entirely Jewish areas of Jerusalem will remain part of the Jewish state even after an agreement, the ill-timed announcement of building permits during the Biden visit generated a relatively mild and routine complaint, rather than a bellicose response, from the Palestinian Authority leadership. The bellicose response came from the American leadership, which refused to let the issue go. Once this piling on occurred, the Palestinian leadership had no choice but to join the chorus of condemnation, lest they be perceived as being less Palestinian than the Obama Administration.
Now positions have hardened on both sides, due largely to the public and persistent nature of the American condemnation. This rebuke culminated in the very public dissing of Prime Minister Netanyahu by President Obama during their recent White House meeting. Obama treated Netanyahu far worse than he treated Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is corrupt to the core and who had invited Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to deliver an anti-American tirade inside Afghanistan's presidential palace. According to a high ranking Afghan source, Karzai "invited Ahmadinejad to spite the Americans." Nonetheless, President Obama flew to Afghanistan and had a very public dinner with Karzai, according him the red carpet treatment, thus granting him legitimacy following his fraudulent re-election.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, on the other hand, has been treated with disrespect in what many Israelis see as an effort to delegitimize him in the eyes of Israeli voters who know how important the US-Israeli relationship is in the Jewish state.
The shabby treatment accorded Israel's duly elected leader has also stimulated an ugly campaign by some of Israel's enemies to delegitimize the US-Israeli strategic relationship, and indeed the Jewish nation itself, in the eyes of American voters. The newest, and most dangerous, argument being offered by those who seek to damage the US-Israel alliance is that Israeli actions, such as issuing building permits in Jerusalem, endanger the lives of American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This phony argument -- originally attributed to Vice President Biden and General David Petraeus but categorically denied by both of them -- has now taken on a life of its own in the media. A CNN headline on the Rick Sanchez Show blared "Israel a danger to US Troops." Other headlines conveyed a similar message: "US Tells Israel: 'You're undermining America, endangering troops.'" Variations on this dangerous and false argument have been picked up by commentators such as Joe Klein in Time Magazine, Roger Cohen in The New York Times, DeWayne Wickham in USA Today and not surprisingly, Patrick Buchanan and Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.
It is a dangerous and false argument. It is dangerous because its goal is to reduce support for Israel among mainstream Americans who understandably worry about our troops fighting abroad. This is ironic since the major pillar of Israel's policy with regard to US troops is that Israel never wants to endanger our troops. That's why it has never asked US soldiers to fight for Israel, as other allies have asked our soldiers to fight for them. By seeking to scapegoat Israel for the death of American troops at the hands of Islamic terrorists, this argument blames those who love America for deaths caused by those who hate America.
Most of all, it is an entirely false argument. There is absolutely no correlation between Israeli actions and the safety of American troops -- none.
No one has ever shown any relationship between what Israel does and the rate of American casualties, because there is no such relationship -- none
Consider two significant time periods. The first is the end of 2000 and the beginning of 2001, when Israel offered the Palestinians virtually everything they could have wanted: a state on 100% of the Gaza and 97% of the West Bank, a capital in a divided Jerusalem and a $35 billion reparation package for refugees. Virtually the entire Arab world urged Arafat to accept this generous offer, but he declined it. During the very months that Israel was doing everything possible to promote peace with the Palestinians, al Qaeda was planning its devastating attack on the World Trade Center. No correlation between Israeli actions and American casualties.
Then consider the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 when Israel was engaged in Operation Cast Lead, which caused significant Palestinian casualties. During that difficult period, there was no increase in American casualties. Again, no correlation.
Those offering up this phony empirical argument have an obligation to present evidence in support of this fallacious correlation, or else to stop making this bigoted argument.
The reason there is no correlation is because extremist Muslims who kill American troops are not outraged at what Israel does, but rather at what Israel is -- a secular Jewish, democratic state. As long as Israel exists, there will be Islamic extremists who regard that fact as a provocation. The same is true of the United States: as long we continue to exist as a secular democracy with equal rights for women, Christians and Jews, the Osama Bin Laden's of the world will seek our destruction. Certainly as long as American troops remain in any part of the Arab world--whether it be Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Afghanistan--Muslim fanatics will try to kill our soldiers. Blame for the murder of American troops should be placed on those who kill them, rather than on those who stand for the same values of democracy and equality as America does.
In considering the relationship between the United states and Israel, several points must be kept in mind. First and foremost, the US and Israel are on the same side in the continuing struggle against Islamic extremists who endanger the lives of American troops and American civilians. Second, Israel is one of America's most important strategic allies, providing us with essential intelligence, research and developments and other important assets. Third, there is nothing that Israel or the United States can do that will turn these extremist enemies into friends. It is what we are, rather than what we do, that enrages those who wish to turn the entire world into an Islamic caliphate and subject us all to Islamic Sharia law. Fourth, any weakening of the alliance between the United States and Israel will make it far less likely that Israelis -- who get to vote on these matters -- will take significant risks for peace. Fifth, the Obama Administration's public attacks on Israel will harden Palestinian demand and make it less likely that they will accept a compromise peace. Sixth, if Israel's enemies were to lay down their arms and stop terrorist and rocket attacks against Israel, there would be peace. Seventh, if Israel were to lay down its arms, there would be genocide. And eighth, when the Palestinian leadership and population want their own state more than they want there not to be a Jewish state, there will be a two-state solution.
It is in the best interest of the United States, of the peace process and of Israel for disagreements between allies to be resolved quietly and constructively, so that progress can be made toward achieving a two-state solution that assures Israel's security and Palestinian statehood.
He asks that the US and Israel deal with their differences " quietly ! " Implying that the US is responsible, since we dared to be deliberately insulted while on a peace mission. So he's saying right wing Israel can spit at us on world-wide TV, but the US has to show displeasure later, and whispered away from the media.
This is why we have to break away from this region, we will be damned no matter what. Israel does not need our money, they do not appreciate it. We do need it, so please tell Congress to keep it here.
I too want peace in the Middle East. But unlike Mr. Dershowitz, I realize it isn't going to happen %100 percent on Israel's terms.
The only thing we've piled on for Israel are billions upon billions of dollars... This is the thanks we get, being scolded as if we're the rowdy child in this scenario.
Blech.
There is no single Israeli who is not appreciative of American aid to Israel and as important as it is, it must view in proportion. The total US aid (not including loans guarantees) to Israel is about 3 billions p.a which represents around 1.5% of Israel GDP and most of it must be be spent in the USA., this is true not only for grants but also for loans that are being repaid.
Millions of Americans worked hard for that money.
Too much to ask?
He doesn't care about peace. He wishes to become companion and accomplice of the Muslims, and will do whatever it takes.
That includes changing the nature of the US. His reforms will make America a welfare country, which will increase Muslim immigration into it, the same way it did in Europe. The health reform is just one small step in that direction.
China objects sanctions against Iran, as it understands that Obama will not fight to defeat Khomeinism. He is just maneuvering towards getting friendly with Iran, and take China's place as its ally. The sanctions are intended to lead Iran into a dialog with the US. Eventually, Obama will care less if Iran becomes nuclear and if that will mark the end of the Jewish state in one way or another, as long as Iran and the US will be buddies. The consequences to real worldwide Human Rights issues will be horrendous. But Obama wouldn't care, as he has fully adopted the new twisted Human Rights PC language.
Breaking Israel's last red-lines of defense to create a "Palestinian" state that will replace Israel, rather than live peacefully next to it, is just a minor sacrifice for winning the Muslims' goodwill.
Muslims hate America for what it stands for (e.g. Life, Liberty Happiness). In due time, Obama will make them love America, as it will stand for something completely different.
We don't mind peace with Israel, we already have that
We need to get this monkey off our backs...
Enough money wasted on them already for way too long
We need to cut funding from Israel, they have never supported us when we have needed them and this recent debacle was symbolic of their resentment of us, even as we send billions of dollars to their aid.
Enough!
enough
Debating the TRUTH, verses the public relations truth we have been fed so long in the west.
I see progress in my old age. It seems that the demise of the 'one sided solution' to the truth is coming apart.
Arguing whether Israel was 'always right' ten years ago was unimagined. I see change in the conversation of the people.
I can hope for peace now for all involved. I am as old as this modern conflict. I always thought it would end soon. I can see the end now, as more people join the conversation, and as articles like this are the beginning of dialouge rather than the end of the story.
We have 60 or more years of sludge to muck through, but the computer age has made everything faster, and hopefully, before many more people have to suffer, we end this with all walking away with thier dignity.
"'Fool me once...uh...shame on — shame on...you? Fool me...uh....uh — you can't get fooled again"
Hardly a majority.
The entire Iraq war was necessary to disarm a ticking time-bomb on Israel's doorstep. You may not admit that but it is certainly true.
And so, your statement is completely ridiculous.
There is nothing inherently wrong with putting U.S. soldier's in harm's way to defend Israel. Israel has done the same for the U.S. and the U.S. has done the same for other allies.
It's just silly and unnecessary to deny that it is so.
A strong stomach is required reading such rubbish. Dershowitz is for two state solution, then where does he suggest establishing ethnically cleansed of Jews such state? Please define its borders. Will Hamas or PLO run it?
Does Dershowitz really think Israel has a peace partner? Will Arabstinian aka Palestinian state bring peace to Israel? Will Arabs change their spots over night? NO Arabstinian State carved out of Israel's present land for sure bring the enemy to Ben Gurion airport and Tel-Aviv beaches backyard.
The Arabs, aka Palestinians want one way solution: Israel off the map and such map less Israel already exists which they already use
Martin Sherman has sensible, better for everyone solution requiring sane leadership to accomplish: http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/rethinking_palestine_a_paradigm_shift_from_the_political_to_the_humanitaria/.
Dershowitz runs hot and cold; either unconditionally sides with Israel or its adversary. Linking Israelis to extremism is a leftist opinion. The religious ['extremist'] Jews are Zionists, best supportive element Israel has; Israel needs all the support it can muster and get.
That is why I many like me avoid reading Mr. Dershowitz's commentaries. Tip toeing through the tulips and other equally stupid dances never sell.
What does the Dersh think is going to happen if we go to war with Iran for Israel?
“What to do with Iran?
We must coordinate independent strike with US, prepare for Iranian response”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3346275,00.html
He wrote specifically:
“President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure.”
BTW, Ariel Sharon does not have a private army, the decision to invade Lebanon was made by the Israeli cabinet
Israelis live in paranoia of the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors and the paranoia is probably justified.
Israeli conquered the land while defending themselves from their attacking neighbors. They didn't start a the war. The opposite outcome would have annihilated the Israeli people. No chance at any negotiations.
Anyway, Israelis and Americans have shared values and are long time friends. And this should be respected on both sides.
i think Israel should be nudged into painful negotiations but everyone should realize that giving up these lands are scary to Israelis and their security.
The Muslim world has much more power, money and people. They have much more influence on Governments. Israel needs America on their side to continue and exist.
Jimmy Carter could not have been more correct when he labled Israel an apartheid state. And just as Americans tired of the South African situation, so are they of this. Is it not evident by most of the comments on this board?
MY COMMENT: The professor doth protest too much, methinks.
Dershowitz is wrong in denying “that Israeli actions…endanger the lives of American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.” How do we know that America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are attributable in part to the Israel-Palestinian conflict? First, the terrorists say so. We believe them when they say they hate us. We should believe them when they say that Israel’s abuse of Palestinians is part of the reason. That was part of the reason for the 9-11 attack. George W. Bush admitted that part of the reason for invading Iraq was to protect our ally, Israel. US supporters of Israel now advocate a US attack on Iran in part to protect Israel.
Americans have and will continue to die for Israel in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. American needs to change this now.