In the aftermath of Obama's Cairo speech, the field is open as to how much he is willing to throw Israelis under the bus. MSNBC has an opinion piece that suggests that Obama is more than willing to use the School Marm Doctrine of Condi Rice. It would appear that BO is willing to trade in trust--years of Israeli trust for Muslim world mistrust.
Noah Pollok at Commentary has an excellent analysis on the situation. I have only two thoughts where I think he could be sharper.
First, if Bibi's government falls, it will be replaced by one even more to the right. Anti Obama sentiment is very strong here. The more BO moves to bow to the feet of the Muslim oligarchy, the tighter Israelis will rally to the right.
Second, in the post holocaust generation (the children of survivors), there has been a shacky balance about trusting the "outside" world if at all. The general assumption is that that world cannot be trusted. The underlying premise of the left has been to oppose that notion--times are different and outsiders can be trusted. Now comes Obama--comparisons with the secularized pre-war Europe are being made. The recent national air-raid drill is a classic sign of the times--while the rest of the world might be horrified of such a prospect, here everyone knows where to find the shelters, how to get there, and they STILL would rather have a coffee break.
So, Obama plays into the hard line. Perhaps Obama should have gone to Masada rather than the Wall since that is where most Israelis think he is pushing them--off a cliff.
Friday, June 5, 2009
More Ruach Lamatta from DC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I can understand why the Israelis are a little reticent to trust either the Palestinians or the outside world with their security as neither has an inspiring track record. But, on the assumption that what you are really objecting to is a 2 state solution based more or less on the 67 borders, what is the alternative? How long will the world let you rule over a majority population of Arabs (not there yet but will be in the next 2 decades)? We cut the South Africans and the Rhodesians off, the fact that they had been on our side in the war was ignored.
I'd agree that the Palestinians seem to have gone out of their way to show why they shouldn't be trusted with their own state, but again what is the alternative?
The West Bank is neither South Africa nor Rhodesia. In fact, there is more potential for joint economic growth under peace for both groups. The issue has never been about "peace" nor self determination; it's always been about co-existance.
Despite the current popular marketing of the issue, the current situation vastly benefits the ancient political regime of the agrarian Palestinian oligarchy. Statehood/self-determination would sweep away the old order of patrimonialism--THAT is the true conflict from a straight Marxist perspective.
Any sort of peace--economically based rather than politically based--would immediately benefit the average Palestinian in revolutionary ways starting with medical and dental coverage, jobs, and access to consumer goods and services. It would also carry with the force of law of a state rather than the Patron.
Another dimension to the issue is the appalling lack of historical context. Israel is to the Middle East what the Reconstructed South was to the post Civil War History--OR--to the post Jim Crow South. Just as some southern white oligarchs strongly resisted the change in black social status and economic participation, so too do the traditional Middle Eastern oligarchs object to sudden emergence of their pariach castes from the bottom of the heap to co-existant status.
You might want to Google "pariah caste" and Max Weber to get a sense of the relative placement of Jews, American Blacks, and South Asian Untouchables, to name a few, to get a better resolution of the issue sociologically and historically.
In short, any solution put forward needs to examine not what will be but what is. It is time to stop the war that began long before the Holocaust and the pograms of 1929 in Hevron. It wouldn't hurt if the institutionalized hatred of Jews in Islamic theology were toned down a bit--sort of along the lines of the Protocols of Westphalia in 1648.
Land for peace does not work; road maps don't work; soft talk hasn't worked. So, plain speaking and clear unwaiverable terms are required. Period.
Will the US give back LA in a spirit of reconciliation with Mexico or Florida to Spain? Absurd. But Jerusalem is the center of the Jewish world and has been since the time of King David.
All well and good but what I don't get is what you see as the solution. Presumably not the 67 borders and a divided Jerusalem. Ok, but what then are you willing to accept and offer the Palestinians? If nothing, then some time between 2020 and 2030, you have a Jewish minority ruling over an Arab majority and the game changes. I simply don't see that the world will let that happen, not least because Israel is a democracy and has to play by democratic rules. You could try the Rhodesian route and ignore world opinion but how feasible is that, particularly with a very high tech army that sanctions would hit very hard and no friendly neighbour to help bypass them? So, again, if you don't like the Obama plan (which is pretty similar to Bush as far as I can see) what is your alternative?
Post a Comment