An Honest Broker

Please, if you have any interest in the I/P conflict at all, READ THIS.

This is absolutely stunning, and something close to the inverse of Camp David. I think the key takeaways here are that:

a) This was in Hebrew in the largest newspaper. The key readership is Israeli. Netanyahu’s coalition is shaky enough as it is. Note the glowing words about Tzipi Livni, who despite Hatanuah’s poor showing in the last election, has already carried a general once. I think this is as much about trying to change the hearts and minds of Israeli voters and build the antipathy towards the settler movement and its representatives like Bayit Hayehudi. Kerry’s recent statement reflected that, too. The current coalition simply doesn’t have a realistic vision of peace and most of it doesn’t want it under any circumstance (like Uri Ariel.)

b) Tom Friedman’s reporting on the Framework was accurate, that the general reaction (the Framework was very favorable to the Israeli position) was not unnoticed by the Americans, and that coalition intransigence was at the center of the breakdown.

c) Urgency. Abu Mazen is nearing the end of his time in public life, is seeking a successor, and seems to genuinely want peace. Yair Lapid this week said that Hamas can be negotiated with. Livni no doubt agrees. Bougie Herzog obviously does, and Zahava Gal-On (whoever many seats Meretz has) would probably rather as many people at the table as possible. This is meant to create urgency, precisely to counter the sort of inertia and “sustainability” that Roger Cohen described the Occupation as having.

“Unsustainable” is the administration keyword on this. It’s the keyword of the secular Israeli middle class and Tel Avivians. It’s the way any right-thinking Zionist thinks of this. The idea is to foment a coalition that gets it and is willing to make peace, especially on favorable and mutually agreed upon terms like the potential Kerry Framework could be/have been.

I am very, very curious as to the domestic Israeli media response to this as well as the NYT/WaPo response.

Framework

Regardless of my (secular, Diaspora) own inclinations (a duly, fairly negotiated two or three state settlement) I suspect the actual outcome to the peace process will look like this:

a) Completion and fortification of the security barrier, akin to annexing an additional 7%-ish of the West Bank.

b) Declaration of the barrier as a border. There would be total withdrawal from beyond the border with the exception of necessary and duly administered security coordination. Functionally, this means that most of Jerusalem would be Israeli.

c) Settlers who do not repatriate and are beyond the Wall become Palestinians. The Right of Return would not be recognized. Very significant aid and assistance would be available to any Arab Israeli wishing to move to Palestine.

d) A massive aid package to the PA in the West Bank.

e) Economic + security coordination and cooperation with the PA in the West Bank, along with massive EU/Jordanian/American influence and dozens of Rawabi projects in a sort of Marshall Plan in exchange for implicit recognition.

f) This last bit could be a bit pie in the sky, but: passage of a formal constitution encompassing the existing Basic Law and defining the borders of the State of Israel and its character as a Jewish nation-state (I'm very curious as to opinions on this.)

Essentially, something like what Michael Oren or Ari Shavit has laid out. I think it happens sooner rather than later. I think it goes without saying that the coalition that enacts this likely won't include Jewish Home or Yisrael Beteinu (maybe even not Likud, considering the rank and file?) I think there's some European protest, but not a ton. I think Americans would largely support this, despite the lack of a peace process imprimatur. I don't think relations with Jordan or Egypt would break down. It's a crappy but likely livable solution (akin to South Korea?)

The Incredibly Disappointing Week That Was

(This ran longer than I expected it to, it’s still a touch embryonic. If anyone reads, please do comment!)

I don’t really think it’s an accident that this leaked. I don’t really think Kerry’s assessment is wrong, either.
As the Occupation continues and deepens, a two state solution grows more and more imperiled. With that comes the choice: a Jewish state or a democracy. Plans to annex Area C only add to this problem, as would the “Autonomy on Steroids” Bantustan proposed by Naftali Bennett today. Given the events of the last week (Fatah-Hamas unity involving Gazan leadership, Abbas’ acceptance in Arabic of the Holocaust), I don’t see how anybody can take Bibi Netanyahu’s commitment to a 2 state solution at face value anymore. Even if you accept that there is a 2 state vision he’d get behind, it is as far removed from reality as Hamas’ unitary solution.
Andrew Sullivan (in a piece I disagree with for reasons I’ll get to in a moment) just posted this well-written bit: link to dish.andrewsullivan.com

Sullivan’s analysis isn’t out of place with anything you’d see on Mondoweiss or Electronic Intifada. Probelmatically, it also ignores Yesh Atid, Hatnuah, or the desperate-for-peace Israel left led by Labour’s Bougie Herzog. I suppose, by Sullivan’s analysis, Americans were all pro-torture warmongers in 2004? Roger Cohen’s piece in the Times was essentially true: the status quo is sustainable for Israel, and however odious it may seem, most Israelis appreciate their safety and economic growth. That’s the real problem, particularly as Netanyahu pivots towards being a Russian client due to common ethos and the growing influence of the Soviet bloc.

The animosity between the Netanyahu and Obama administrations is real, visceral and clear as day. The neutral vote on the Ukraine may well have been the final straw for Obama (whereas Moshe Ya'alon's slur of Kerry and the lack of appropriate sanction by Netanyahu appears to have burnt that bridge.) The pivot towards Putin is as much a product of the Soviet segment of Israeli society as any other, but the Soviet anti-democratic culture has clearly suffused the Israeli body politic: this ain't your father's Israel with Labour as the party of Government. If it was, then the Olmert Plan would still be on the table, the Arab League proposal would be taken seriously, and the differences would be hashed out in short order.

My hope is that the Obama admin’s pressure cracks up the Netanyahu coalition, that Lapid bolts to the opposition along with Livni, and that a newly installed Prime Minister Herzog meets with the moderate new Palestinian President (al-Masri? Fayyad? Dahlen?) Even if you think that’s Utopian (and even I’m inclined to say that my hope might be…) I think the likelihood is that Michael Oren is right and there will be a unilateral disengagement in the near-future contemporaneous with PA efforts towards UN recognition that the US may well support. The moment that a two state solution is impossible and a one state solution is inevitable (which I contend is still a little ways off), the position of the Israelis will shift from immoral Occupier to apartheid governor.

One final bit: The Daily Beast (which also hosted Andrew Sullivan and Peter Beinart) just released the American Secretary of State saying this after Barack Obama spoke with similar frankness to Jeffrey Goldberg a mere month ago. There is no war with Iran. Apartheid is a loaded word meant to scare the Israeli public and government, a sort of step up from the mention of BDS a few months back. These are not things that puppets say. At what point can we speak frankly on this blog about the nature of the “Israel Lobby”: that it’s not some all powerful tail that wags the dog, but rather the more obvious answer that the reflexive Likudnik tendencies of most Washingtonians are dulling due to a combination of the obstinacy and shameful governance of the Netanyahu coalition and the deeper influence of realpolitik retrenchment following the neocon adventurism of the Aughties (as embodied in Obama’s foreign policy)?

Stephen Walt joins John Mearsheimer again

This strikes me as not unlike the moment in which John Mearsheimer doubled down on his defense of the anti-Semite, Gilad Atzmon.There is, at this point, good reason to believe that both Mearsheimer and Walt's motives are indicative of something much darker, and their analysis should be viewed through that prism. 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.586082

 

 (I don't think it's paywalled, as I don't sub and was able to read it in full.)

Shalev: "Aren’t you absolving the American hawks, who ruled this country for at least eight years, of any responsibility? Are you saying that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld were just putty in the hands of the Israel lobby? Are they simpletons?"

Walt: “Well, if you’ve read the book and I haven’t persuaded you, then I haven’t persuaded you. And we’ve spent almost all of our time talking about one chapter of the book.”

I certainly think that Walt and Mearsheimer had impeccable academic credentials prior to the publication of the Israel Lobby. However, I think that's inapposite here. The question is one of motivation and overtones. I don't think that the article was unfair in its depiction of Walt. 

Shalev was very, very upfront about his own misgivings heading into the interview and while I obviously posted the salacious "money quote" from the very end, I don't think there's any misrepresentation there, either Mearsheimer & Walt's original critique was massively mono-causal, used a definition for the Lobby so broad as to be worthless, and utterly imbalanced. I don't think it's a stretch to say that their support for Israel doesn't go much past lip service (which is strange, especially considering Mearsheimer's own advice on the former Yugoslavia.) This is probably a point where I should make clear that I am strongly opposed to the sitting Likud-YB coalition, the rightward drift empowering the likes of Uri Ariel, Moshe Ya'alon, the forever odious Naftali Bennet and his disturbing Area C annexation plan, and look forward to the moment that the burgeoning Labour-Shas alliance forms the basis for a new coalition (perhaps picking off Livni/Hatnuah? Would Lapid go back on his promise to avoid any coalition with Shas?) after elections (which seem like they might happen soon?). A peace based on the Kerry Framework, the 08 Olmert offer, or the '02 Arab League Initiative would be immensely preferable to the untenable, morally and pragmatically appalling Occupation. 

I think it's reasonable to mention that the imagery invoked by The Israel Lobby is similar to the tropes which have defined anti-Semitism for ages. It's obviously important to consider that when writing on the topic. The allegation, repeated by Walt in this interview, that Israel is the tail that wags the American dog (in the personage of Paul Wolfowitz, to start) is a deeply troubling one. It is not hysterical to say that the modern anti-Zionist cottage industry (the Andrew Sullivan/Mondoweiss school, not quite the MEM/Electronic Intifada variety) owes a heavy debt to Walt and Mearsheimer. 

Moreover,  Mearsheimer's own dark motivations were made clear when he endorsed - and then doubled down - a book by Gilad Atzmon, an outspoken anti-Semite of the most boorish variety (http://www.theatlantic.com/.../john-mearsheimer.../245518/

 

 I went with Goldblog, but Walter Russell Mead is similarly useful if you'd prefer:http://www.the-american-interest.com/.../john.../

 

). Here, Walt took a step in the same direction by elucidating what amounts to a rank conspiracy theory with deeply pernicious undertones. It's not the first time, either (http://ottomansandzionists.com/.../stephen-walts.../

 

 ). 

That's the point of this post. Not that Adelson-style blind faith and devotion to Eretz Yisrael is the only politically viable statement (it's prima facie not), but rather that Walt has given away his darker motives, just like Mearsheimer, and it's time that we reckon with that in the discourse, just as we should any other factor.

On Ascendant Israeli Conservatism

I certainly think Israel is veering rightward in a problematic way. However, the conflation of this with the rise of religiosity is indicative of a seriously thin understanding of Israeli politics.

The latest election cycle was predicated on Lapid’s Yesh Atid’s ascendancy, which is a secular party which sought (successfully) to integrate the Ultra-Orthodox through ending draft exemptions and the like. FM Lieberman’s YB is a secular-zionist party. Naftali Bennett is threatening (with no seriousness) to bolt from the Coalition. The latest rumblings are that there’s a Shas-Labour union in the offing (potentially with Meretz?) which is trying to pick off Lapid and Tzipi Livni’s Hatnuah (something that I think is actually fairly likely, in a way similar to the undoing of Barak’s tenure in the early 00′s.) Herzog (Labour leader who is explicitly pro-peace) has been saying that Israel needs to adjust to something similar to the Arab League Initiative terms!

Pegging religiousity to ascendant conservatism in Israel is utterly falacious. The State of Israel remains a recognizable liberal democracy and I sincerely doubt that’s changing any time soon, even with the demographic shift underway due to massive Haredi birthrates.

I think the Times is right here. If Kerry were to just publish his rumored framework and leave it on the table as the official US position, it would have to effect of likely breaking the Likud-YB coalition. Most of the Israeli moderate right, and virtually all of the center and left seek a peace deal and the Kerry Framework would placate all of those groups. In the meantime, it would leave open the possibility of someone more sensible like Livni, Herzog, or Lapid becoming PM, and that is obviously an outcome the Obama administration would prefer. Similarly, an officially stated US position might actually push the Palestinians to move away from Abbas (who certainly isn’t the most moderate leader the Palestinians could put forward) and towards someone new and more reasonable such as Dahlen, al-Masri, or Fayyad. 

Chag sameach! 

Rhetoric (I feel like Camera)

During my time as a Violet, I studied rhetoric fairly closely. Let's put those chops to use! 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/11/world/middleeast/mideast-tensions-sideline-a-gazan-marathon-runner.html?ref=middleeast&_r=0

Continuing its recent trend, the NY Times has run an article sympathetic to the plight of a Palestinian distance runner.  To be clear, it flat out sucks that this poor fellow's running career has been derailed due to the I/P conflict, and it serves as (once again!) a reminder as to why a 2 state solution is urgently needed for the most practical of purposes.  It is prima facie ridiculous that Palestinian runners cannot cross Israel to get from Gaza to the West Bank for the purposes of running a marathon and Jodi Rudoren is right for highlighting this.  Security clearances can and should be issued, and this is emblematic of the childish tit for tat which has characterized the Likud-YB's governance, particularly as of late.   So, how clear are we that ol' Anime Bollocks thinks there's a massive human toll to Gazan oppression and that the Israeli government is acting in bad faith?  Crystal.  Now, onto the meat of this...

That having been said, leave it to the Old Grey Lady to give short shrift to the Israeli side in this highly biased piece.  The article dedicated exactly one line to the militant anti-Zionist Hamas gov't, made exactly zero mention of the rising Islamic Jihad movement which is even further radicalized than Hamas, mentioned "occasional Israeli airstrikes" without citing the fact that they are *always* measured and in retaliation to state sanctioned rocket attacks on southern Israel (ask the good folks of Sderot how they feel about this), and while it took pains to describe the impoverished nature of Gaza due to Israeli sanctions since the 2005 withdrawal, made only a brief reference to the fact that Egypt imposes the same policies right down to the Rafah border crossing.  

Real talk: Gaza is an independent, Islamist state which is under heavy sanctions from its two neighbors due to its policy of state-sponsored terror.  It sucks to be a citizen there, and that's because the government is oppressive and refuses to recognize the legitimacy of a neighboring state.  Israel's hands aren't clean, but their actions are understandable.  This runner's plight should have been framed as a reason for a continuation of the peace talks, a revived set of talks along the Arab League Initiative, something, but not a puff piece on how rough and tumble it is at the hands of the Israeli oppressors.  

Be sure to watch the video piece, too. At 1:08, there's a sign which makes references to Yaffa (Yaffo) but not the far larger Zionist city of Tel Aviv, which has subsumed it (and whose inspiration is the namesake of this blog).

In re. Zion

This is, I think, the first time I ever really spelled out my case for Zionism. It was in response to a troll, but I think it's valid.  Unedited, here it is. 

"I find your use of the phrase "ideally shaped" interesting. Would you care to clarify it? Are you aware that the majority of Israelis are secular and support a 2 state solution? Or that a state can have a state religion and still fulfill a promise of equality and largely secular governance, like England or Denmark does?

Look, I'm a secular member of the Diaspora myself, and I identify as a Zionist. That is to say that I believe that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination as expressed through a sovereign national homeland. Moreover, I believe that right exists as a fact in 2014 because Israel exists and there is an 80/20 Jewish majority within her borders.

We can argue the Nakba, the placement of settlements (which don't expand outward, but rather grow denser within settlement blocs which are almost universally placed strategically on the borders of the Green Line), or the treatment of Palestinians within the Occupied Territories or the Gaza, but the fact is that this Zionist project has created a bulwark of actual democracy in the Middle East while also growing into a first world economy. This is to say nothing of the incredible historic persecution of Jews which continues to this day in France, Hungary, and as state policy throughout the Arab world.

The existence of a Jewish state is important because there is an Israel which is succeeding, because that state has saved Jews from the world over (look up Aliyah from Ethiopa or the Arab States in 1948) and offers a right to self-defense and self-determination, and this state has a right to exist like any other state does.

It's not a matter of pro-military or pro-Zionist (which just means that you support the existence of a Jewish sovereign nation state) in the abstract, but rather a question of whether or not you think that France should exist for the French, Australia for the Australians, or Israel for the Jews."

Sup?

Is there anything more lovely than watching Austrians forced to play Hatikva?

(but why would they speak English?  Is that the lingua franca?)
 

On the Mainstreaming of Modern Anti-Semitism

(Prof. John Mearsheimer, co-progenitor of the modern anti-Semitism and fan of Gilad Atzmon.) 

Mondoweiss is a repository of anti-Zionist rhetoric which engages in regular, sometimes thoughtful and sometimes thoughtless support of the Palestinian cause. Make no mistake: the Occupation is loathsome, problematic, and counter-productive to every interest and particularly Israel's. However, this is a site that has sometimes found common cause with Hamas. Moreover, this is a site that, due to a lax moderation policy, is a hive of the anti-Semitism which frankly characterizes the majority of Israel bashing.

An example of Anti-Semitism masquerading as pro-Palestinian sympathy (look to the comments). Here, the author ignores the Holocaust and Palestinian terror in the initial post and when challenged in the comments, responds in a tone best described as blithe and exasperated. Moreover, other comments refer to Holocaust exploitation in a loathsome way and, as the new anti-Semitism is want to do, rehashes all manner of Judenhaas with the supposedly polite alteration of "Zionist" for "Jewish". Umkukn zikh. 

UPDATE: So, I just noticed this thread.

Please take note of the tone and direction of the commentary. It's hard to avoid the inevitable conclusion that the anti-Israel conversation is deeply suffused with anti-Semitism. As to the topic on hand, this is more just a general comment and an opinion of mine:

What I find interesting here is that this is an example of the commitment and power of the Israeli center and left, demonstrating that Zionism is essentially and naturally secular in its practical character.

Yair Lapid (who is currently polling poorly, granted) swept in on the Yesh Atid ticket largely because he promised to deal with the Haredi problem pragmatically. Now Lapid has begun to do so in a fashion which will (in the tradition of the Israeli founders and especially Herzl) suffuse the Israeli character further through the population of the state at the expense of traditional religious Judaism. This is precisely the opposite of what the national-religious YB/JH right might support, but what is precisely necessary for the continuing success of the Zionist project.

OMG! STAHP THE POPULAYSHUN TRANZFER

The Israeli government's lust for population transfer and displacement knows no bounds! Those Zionists won't stop until they've moved every single person around like the Levant is a Risk board. 

...wait, wha?  It's actually ultra-efficient, beneficent and stimulative eminent domain policy that would make any urban planner squeal with delight?  And it's happening in Tel Aviv? 

Oh, hotness:

Unlike San Francisco, Tel Aviv has taken steps to mitigate the effects of the new arrivals on existing residents, chiefly through a program known as Pinui Binui—Vacate and Build. What it means, in practice, is that private real-estate developers are invited to raze old and decrepit housing in places like Neve Sharett—where the average apartment size in the three-story housing blocks is just 540 cramped square feet—and erect luxury high-rises. The original owners are given new apartments, and the rest of the units are sold off at market price.

Right now, six apartment blocks—450 apartments—have been vacated to make way for nearly 1,200 new ones. But Tel Aviv has already approved Pinui Binui plans for the entire neighborhood of Neve Sharett—all 3,000 apartments, which house about 7,500 people. The city has also announced that it is eyeing the neighborhood of south Florentin—another impoverished and neglected area—for the next major Pinui Binui push.

Really, this is no worse than anything that's been done under Kelo.  Frankly, it's better on a great many levels, not least of which that this is more akin to NYC's own development policy (see Sugar, Domino) than it is to any sort of spin Mondowuss is sure to try and fling on this. This incentivizes major capital investment from heavyweight companies while creating more and better housing stock. It improves density, and in concert with green spaces and efficient planning, that's actually better for the environment.

Win-win, eh?  

May I Make Montaigne Proud

Welcome to the Alt-New-Land. We* hope to displace your worldview through ponderous ruminations, general blowhardery, replies to the people we read, and all other manner of prattling folderol. My name isn't Anime Bollocks, but that is what We** shall use for now.  Expect a stream of consciousness that would do Faulkner proud, and you, dear Reader, are encouraged to reply in the comments.

The topics on my mind of late (and as usual) have been sabermetrics as applied to baseball, smark analysis of pro graps, general wonkery on domestic (American) political economy, law, rhetoric, non-monogamy, gastronomy, and the liberal Zionism from the perspective of the Diaspora. I skew Tory but I think that means something different in the United States in 2014 than what you'd might expect.

That's all I have to say for now, but expect more shortly.

- Anime

*Is it the royal we? No. There's more than one of us.
**This is the royal We.