Published on February 22nd, 2010 | by Jim Lobe
40Baker Accuses Obama of “Caving In” on Israel-Palestine
The James Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University has published a major report entitled “Getting to the Territorial Endgame of an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Settlement” based on off-the-record deliberations of former U.S., Israeli, and Palestinian officials over an 18-month period. The reports calls, among other things, for Washington to play a more aggressive role in getting the two sides to a peace agreement, including by offering a “bridging proposal” on territory and borders.
Noting the new report, the National Journal Saturday published an interview with Baker and his top Middle East aide, Institute’s director Edward Djerejian, in which he accuses Obama of “caving in” on the settlements issue and argues that it is “not unreasonable to ask the Israeli leadership to respect U.S. policy on settlements” in light of the aid that we have provided to its government. Like Jimmy Carter — and for that matter, Defense Minister Ehud Barak — Baker also argues that Israel will have negotiate a peace with Palestinians or “become an apartheid type of nation.”
Some quotes from the interview, which is unfortunately not available on the Internet:
NJ: Secretary Baker, do you fault the Obama administration for initially insisting on a “freeze” on Israeli settlements, a proposal that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected outright?
Baker: I don’t fault President Obama for making settlements an issue, but I do fault him for caving in. You can’t take a position that is consistent with U.S. policy going back many years, and the minute you get push-back you soften your position. When you are dealing with foreign leaders, they can smell that kind of weakness a thousand miles away. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have long endorsed the U.S. policy that settlements are an obstacle to peace. If “land for peace” is the path to a resolution, then settlements clearly create facts on the ground that foreclose the possibility of negotiations.
I would also stress that United States taxpayers are giving Israel roughly $3 billion each year, which amounts to something like $1,000 for every Israeli citizen, at a time when our own economy is in bad shape and a lot of Americans would appreciate that kind of helping hand from their own government. Given that fact, it is not unreasonable to ask the Israeli leadership to respect U.S. policy on settlements.
NJ: You were the only senior U.S. official to ever use the leverage of U.S. aid to try to halt the continuing construction of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Did you ever regret that decision?
Baker: No, because if we hadn’t done that, the [1991] Madrid Conference would never have happened. But you have to remember the context. At the time Israel was asking for $10 billion to help them settle Jewish émigrés from the Soviet Union and elsewhere, on top of the $3 billion we were already giving them annually. We had also recently repealed a United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism. We had just decimated the Iraqi military machine, removing a major threat to Israel.
Against that backdrop, we had an opportunity to convene a historic conference where the Arabs were willing to reverse 25 years of policy and meet face-to-face with Israeli leaders. So we told the Israelis that we wouldn’t give them the extra $10 billion unless they agreed to respect the U.S. position regarding settlements. Israeli leaders told us they would just get the money from the U.S. Congress. Our reply was, “We’ll see you on Capitol Hill.” And we eventually won the vote on that bill. So I don’t regret that decision at all.
…
NJ: Ambassador, why did your report call for a specific U.S. “bridging proposal” on territory and borders, instead of proposing that the two sides just get back to the negotiating table to settle those issues themselves?
Djerejian: Because absent a proactive American role in bringing the two parties closer together and showing them that the necessary territorial compromises are possible, this issue will not be resolved simply by direct talks between Israelis and Palestinians. That’s why a U.S. bridging proposal is so important. President Obama will have to spend political capital, however, because there are elements on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides, and perhaps domestically, who will attack a bridging proposal.
…
NJ: Given the myriad problems he faces at home and abroad, why should Obama spend his already depleted political capital on an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal that has eluded so many presidents over so many years?
Djerejian: Fundamentally, because this issue affects the United States’ core national security interests. The Arab-Israeli conflict, and especially the Palestinian issue, remains one of the most contentious and sensitive issues in the entire Muslim world. The Palestinian issue can get Muslims demonstrating in the streets from Jakarta to Nigeria to Lebanon. Osama bin Laden exploits the plight of the Palestinians, as does [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, as did [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein.
When the United States is expending its blood and treasure fighting insurgencies in overwhelmingly Muslim Iraq and Afghanistan, the dots are even easier to connect. It’s all part of a very important whole. We would be naive to think that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will eliminate the problems of terrorism and radicalization in the Islamic world, but it will go a long way toward draining the swamp of issues that extremists exploit for their own ends. So I think any American president would be well-advised to tackle this issue. How much political capital to spend at any given time, however, is a decision only the president himself can make.
…
NJ: Secretary Baker, how do you assess today’s prospects for a peace deal?
Baker: Well, the situation is difficult, but there are some new dynamics in play. First and foremost, there is a general appreciation on the part of the Israeli body politic that Israel will be unable to maintain both its Jewish and democratic character as long as it continues to occupy Arab lands and, in particular, the West Bank. More and more Israelis understand that sooner or later, the demographics of occupation [given higher Arab birthrates] are going to overwhelm them. If Israel doesn’t want to become an apartheid type of nation — and as a democracy I don’t believe it does — then in order to retain its Jewish, democratic character Israel will have to find a negotiated peace. As positive as the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza was, it showed that unilateral actions alone will not bring about a lasting peace.
…
NJ: Secretary Baker, given current circumstances and your long experience with this problem, is a two-state solution still attainable?
Baker: Yes, because everyone knows what a two-state solution looks like and the general formula for getting there. Ed is right — the tough thing is marshaling the necessary political will. In that regard, I always stress a few axioms for negotiating the Arab-Israeli conflict. First, because of our special relationship with Israel and the fact that we’re trusted by the Israelis in ways that other nations are not, you will get no progress toward peace without active U.S. participation. Second, there is no military solution to this conflict, meaning a lasting peace depends on United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338. Three, it’s the hard-liners on both sides that are the real problem.
My fourth axiom is the real Catch-22: Israel will never enjoy real security as long as it occupies Palestinian land, and Palestinians will never achieve an independent state as long as Israel feels insecure. The most important thing the United States can do is help them both out of that conundrum.
About the Author
Jim Lobe is best known for his coverage of U.S. foreign policy, particularly the neo-conservative influence in the Bush administration. The Washington Bureau Chief of the international news agency Inter Press Service (IPS), Lobe has also written for Al Jazeera English, Foreign Policy In Focus, Alternet, Tompaine.com, and was featured in BBC and ABC television documentaries about motivations for the US invasion of Iraq. Read his complete biography here.
Related Posts
WaPo Really Thinks U.S. Should Be World’s Policeman →
On Ambassador Sherman’s Testimony on Iran →
Framing Iran: Media Coverage Echoes Some Iraq Problems →
Baker should be president.
Since we can’t go exhume Eisenhower, who also didn’t tolerate being given the finger by any client state that tried to tell us to stuff our own interest while keeping their hands in our pockets.
Do the Israelis really understand that “the demographics of occupation” will eventually overwhelm them? (It’s gratifying to see Baker use the same phrases I’ve been using for years.) I wonder. If they do get it, then why the agressive posture on settlements? I think they’ve missed the bus. The Palestinians, I believe, are content to wait until they can demand majority rights throughout ALL of Palestine. And where will that leave the Israelis? What choices will be left to them? A Palestine in which Jew and Muslim and Christian live together peacefully and democratically is the only sane choice. But even if the Israelis were to agree to give up a Jewish-dominated state, would the majority Muslims necessarily go along, after decades of Israeli violence and oppression? What is the Jewish future in Palestine? What drastic expedient might the Israelis adopt if they feel their very existence threatened? Every passing year makes a peaceful outcome less likely.
More and more it seems that the failure of the Clinton-brokered deal in 2000 (ironically, a failure caused by Arafat, not the Israelis) represented the last chance to save Israel, and that as a result Israel is indeed doomed to be “overwhelmed demographically” at some point. The Israelis are staring into the pit.
I am and have been a huge fan of James A Baker III for a long time. We Texans have long provided the best advice a President could get. (Though our Texan Presidents have not sought that advice for themselves)
James Baker is the consummate diplomat, statesman and technocrat. He is the difference between Bush 41 and 43.
The James A Baker III institute out of Rice University has provided stellar work related to oil, international relations and other topics. I would hope you would seek a closer relationship covering their reports.
Thanks for this ‘un.
Jim Baker has a better mind than any of the presidents he served, but he isn’t ten feet tall. You two sound like you’re looking for a job at the James Baker III Institute. Try looking a little more deeply into his time as Secy. of State, for example. And don’t forget his role in making president a man who lost the election by 500,000 votes. Such a result could only be justified if the aforesaid president proved a giant, a genius. Unfortunatelty, Bush II was a pygmy and a fool.
James Baker and the comments ignore one fundamental issue: Arab refusal to recognize Israel as a permanent state, no matter how small its boundaries. He ignores 60 years of ongoing Arab initiated wars to destroy a small Jewish state.
Baker does not call for a single concession from the Palestinians. The latter have consistently refused to compromise on any issue: borders, refugees, Jerusalem.
If Baker had demanded that the Palestinians give up their spurious “right of return”, he might have some credibility on this issue.
The US should demand that the Arab world recognize the rights of all the Jewish refugees from the Arab world as equivalent to the Palestinian refugee issue.
The US should demand an end to the racist incitement that is everywhere in Arabs, schools, and mosques, and bedevils any chance of peace.
Suppose that there were no settlements, and Israel even gave up all of East Jerusalem.
Do you really think there would be peace? All the evidence points to the Arab League sensing victory and preparing another invasion – as they did in 1948 and 1967 and 1973.
The bottom line in the Arab-Israeli conflict is not settlements, or refugees, or Jerusalem. The bottom line remains the refusal of the Arab world to accept Jewish self determination behind any boundaries.
Until that changes, all the “peace processes” will go nowhere. And one-sided US pressure on Israel will simply encourage demands for more concessions from Israel.
Jim Baker blames the Jews when his bath water is too warm. The guy is a stero-type of Blame the Jews first. Jim “F_them, they don’t vote for us anyways” has never changed. He is the primary reason that George Bush 41 never got re-elected.
The fact is that the Arabs don’t want peace with Israel, they merely want the destruction of the Jews in Israel.
If you want truth about the situation, read Caroline Glick, unless of course you want to continue to blame the West for Islamist terrorists
“Spurious right of return,” Doron? Isn’t the shoe on the other foot?
Why should the Palestinians make any concessions to Israel? What gave the Israelis the right to take over part of Palestine, which had been Arab for 1,300 years? The Jews lived in Palestine until the Romans threw them out. That was almost 2,000 years ago. So who has the better claim, Arab or Jew? Because the Germans murdered the Jews of Europe, the Palestinians should pay a price? That’s absurd.
I fervently hope that Jew and Arab can someday live together in harmony in a Palestine that’s united and democratic. But a Jewish apartheid state is a foreign body in the Middle East. As with any foreign body, it will eventually be expelled. A Jewish state surrounded on three sides by 300 million Arabs cannot stand.
Jon, I was about to get on you for blaming the Clinton talks on Arafat. There are reports that put that on the old crossdresser/assassin Barak.
As to Arab initiated wars, I know of only one war with Israel that the Arabs started, that was the Yom Kippur war. As to Arabs rejecting Israel, well the Saudis have something to say about that. The Hasbarists have found your site.
Doron, I think you missed a letter. There is nothing as vile as the Book of Joshua which seems to inform your understanding of diplomacy and the Israel/Palestine issue.
“Suppose that there were no settlements, and Israel even gave up all of East Jerusalem.”
Israel would still insist on having Jew only roads to support their forces on the Jordan River. Once the US posts soldiers on the Mexican Belize border then perhaps I’ll understand.
“The bottom line remains the refusal of the Arab world to accept Jewish self determination behind any boundaries.” When does the JEwish state accept the Palestinian’s humanity.
Jon, the problem is religious fanaticism. Of course the Koran has little to do with this, but the Bible fuels the religious obsession with the Holy Land for Jew and Christian alike.
Fact: in 1946 only 5% of the land was Jewish. Two years later, the Jews had cleansed the land as their forbears did, possessing 75% of the land after just a few years later. They invaded and occupied the rest of the land, also unprovoked in 1967.
Without explaining that the Arabs refused the
Partition of Palestine ,November 29 1947 and attacked Israel May 1948 after its proclamation
gives a distorted vision of the Arab Israeli conflict. Moreover more Jews were chased from Arab
countries where they lived for more than 2500 years
as in Irak, than Arabs fled from Palestine also
encouraged by Arab leaders to do so.
Ralph
Israel has always painted the Palestinian struggle for justice as Muslim Fanaticism. The reality is exactly the opposite. Let us consider the following points.
1) A well off Jew from the U.S., who suffers no discrimination in his own country, comes to Palestine, steals the land of a poor Palestinian and says “It is my Biblical duty to come and occupy this land.”
2) Muslims and Christians whose forefathers must have been Jews before they coverted to the newer religions in Palestine, are mercilessly deprived of their own land, just because they no more are Jews.
3) Palestinian Christians too have suffered enormously at the hands of Israel. No wonder, the chief Catholic Cleric in Palestine said in a BBC interview: “We hyave no proiblem with Hamas. We have been living with the Muslims peacefully for 1400 years, but we have a problem with Israel.”
Remember that James Baker is also the one the left Saddam in power to murder his own people after the US spent billions of dollars protecting Bush’s buddies in Kuwait.
Baker was also a key influencer when Pres Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon in 1983 after the murder of 241 Marines.
Arab oil money has funded Baker his whole life, We know where his loyalties lie and it is not with the people of the United States
“Arab oil money has funded Baker his whole life, We know where his loyalties lie and it is not with the people of the United States”
As opposed to the many Americans whose loyalties put supporting Israel and its policy of go-slow ethnic cleansing above America’s own interests?
…adding, that as a liberal Democrat in my opinion there were two very good things about the Bush 41 administration:
(1) The stuff that Baker discusses above, in re pressuing Israel and the following Madrid conference;
(2) The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, a compromise between Bush and the Democratic Congress, which (with its ensuing amendmends) was the only effective budgetary control regime we’ve had recently.
Israel is not a democracy by virtue of their conduct. Israeli Arabs can not purchase land in
Israel. Only Jews and selected affiliations can purchase land. A democracy has borders. Irael
always grabs land beyond its borders. Israel is a corporate enterprise grabbing for profits and land legally and illegally. President Obama is no President Eisenhower …for sure.
Baker was instrumental in bringing George Bush II into power in 2000. Now, 10 years later, he says that we need to get serious about Israel respecting international law? It is nice that he says that, but he is decades late, and now has no influence to make his opinions carry weight. At some point, America needs honest and courageous politicians, who when they have power will pursue the real interests of the US population.
Jim Baker is an anti-Semite.
He’s an anti-Semite because he’s an
anti-Semite because he’s an anti-Semite…
Give Israel more money. More Money Money Money.
Its not a wise move to cross someone of the stature of a James Baker the III, the architect of the Bush family dynasty even if you are President of the United States. Baker, not given to public or press comments has just publicly presented Obama with some criticism he had best not disdain.
One way to never settle anything is to over complicate it.
Throw in victimhood, religion, past grievances etc,ect..
Bottom line.
Suppose in 1947 the Jews promised land given them by the UN had turned out to be some strip in Wyoming or Georgia.
And they had moved in, displacing some Americans and their goat herds and run some off their land and more or less did exactly the same things they did in Palestine.
What do you suppose would have happened?
You know exactly what would have happened.
Eventually israel will be taken over by the Arabs sooner rather than later america is broke that will hasten the reversal.As of now america has little or no say in the middle east,that will also contribute to the situation.
Some of you guys are getting a bit out there.
Baker didn’t make the call to leave Saddam in power in 1990.
The Budget Enforcement Act was a craven repudiation of a very public campaign pledge. “Pay As You Go” (later abandoned) in combination with the Clinton tax increase (required in the absence of spending cuts) gave us a somewhat effective budgetary control regime, one that came to grief when the dot-com bubble burst and Bush II started spending like a drunken Democrat.
Baker an anti-semite (or were you joking)? I am soooo sick of people simply calling any criticism of Israel or the Israeli lobby anti-semitism. This is the new libel that gets thrown around in place of reasoned argument. It’s sickening and it ought to stop.
There was plenty of federal land available to settle the Jews on after 1945. Anybody losing grazing rights or the like would have been compensated and then gone on to bigger and better things. The proper solution would have been settling the Jews in America, or at least offering them that opportunity. Shitting all over the Palestinians because they were weak was wrong, but perhaps inevitable, given that we are all “human, all-too-human.”
James baker is a pathetic heartless murderer’s aide and a defender of the saudi royal family and the terrorists over the widows of the 911 victims.
he is a war criminal and accomplice and will go down in history as such.
Doron,
your post shows how ignorant you are about the situation in that region.
if you don’t remember, and you can research it for yourself, let me remind you about the Saudi initiative, that all Arab leaders agreed to recognize Israel if they go back to the 1967 war borders. Sharon ignored it completely, if Israel really wants peace they should have jump on it.
there is no where in the world that a Russian Jew can come to land like Palestine and kick their inhabitants out in the name of religion….. must be a real estate God.
if the blinds can’t see why blame the sun??
Though James Baker did have a hand in getting Bush Jr in office, he did publicly and harshly criticize his war-mongering.
I don’t know that Baker didn’t have a strong hand in pulling the troops out of Iraq. I must have been Baker’s council that got Cheney to admit that overthrowing Saddam would be biting off far more than the coalition had signed on for.
Further, Baker got other countries to fund that first invasion, Bush Jr, not so much.
If you want good realism James A Baker is the standard. James Baker is a technocrat in the best sense of the word. I don’t agree with all his positions, but no one can call him a sophist.
I’m supposed to be thankful that Baker criticized Bush II, after helping to put him in the White House? Please.
Nobody that I know of in the Bush I administration wanted to go on to Baghdad. Nor was it necessary. The problem with Gulf War I was that it was stopped 72 hours too soon. Bush I got queasy watching the massacre from the air on CNN. And then of course the armistice terms were weak. Kinda reminds one of Bush II failing to put in the horses necessary to catch Osama at Tora Bora. But that’s a congenital weakness of the Bush family — lack of crispness in decision making. (I almost said small balls, but Bush I did show guts as a fighter pilot.)
Yes, Baker did a nice job signing up allies and money for Gulf War I. For once we got paid for our work. As I said, he’s smarter than any of the presidents he worked for. But he’s no genius.
I am going to say one more thing.
Give Palestine back their damn land!
Putting Israel there was a bad idea, but it’s there. Obviously it’s going to stay.
But it should stay only within the original boarders it was given.
Israel would have to give up their Greater Israel dream but that’s better than not existing…because eventually Israel will lose the numbers game if they don’t genocide all the Palestines. And any expansion from the original should have to come about thur barter, exchange or cooperation for “mutual” benefit…..worked out by Isr and Pal….NOT some boarder definition for Israel set with US help to allow Israel to keep settlements.
I/P has gone on long enough and caused enough grief that I am convinced that majority of Palestine and the Arab States would fall all over themselves to make peace with Isr on that basis.
Kinda reminds one of Bush II failing to put in the horses necessary to catch Osama at Tora Bora.
Jon, you’re mistaken about the events there, the soldiers were well armed, in position, they called for permission to act on the 3 planes that were loading with Taliban and Al Queda and were told to stand down.
This very narrative was exposed/reported on FreshAir in an interview for Steve Coll’s book Ghost Wars [I think] back in 2003. I think Sy Hersh also had this story even sooner. And was just recently affirmed less than two months ago. The memory hole amazes me.
Whether the events you point to would have led to the death/capture of Osama and Ayman is unknown and unknowable. Steve Coll is a good reporter; Sy Hersh is a much more complex figure, and I won’t take the time to discuss him here.
The point is that a much larger force should have been in a “block” position well before Nov.-Dec. 2001.
The idea that “if only they hadn’t gotten the order to stand down” Osama would’ve been toast, is comic-book stuff. Unknowable. A big footprint at the border would have made an escape far less likely.
The last thing you ever want to believe in life is that journalists always give you the straight dope.
George A,
Protecting Bush’s buddies in Kuwait?
A sovereign country was invaded and annexed, its people terrorized and forced to live in tyranny. The US had other interests in liberating it but at least have the decency to not trivialize it like that.
I can never get used to you morally bankrupt leftists, I don’t think any people are more rotten.
And btw, kuwait was one of the mos nationalistic arab countries before iraq invaded, they weren’t ‘buddies’ with bush.
Also, blaming baker and bush for ‘leaving’ saddam in power makes no sense. Removing him would have required a much longer and costlier war. I’m pretty sure the same people saying these things would have blamed bush and baker for the chaos that would have happened (and did with bush II’s war, though I still support it) and said they should have not ‘meddled’ and left him in power.
Last thing I want to add, not sure if anybody’s reading this anymore, but the gulf war stopped saddam from controlling the persian gulf’s oil. Do you have ANY IDEA what a horrifying future that could have been for the whole world? Think about what he’d do with that amount of power. Pushing out of kuwait and destroying his military and now recently his power was one of the best things the US ever did. The people whining about it can do that because a much darker history has been avoided, they’re like the tea party protestors screaming ‘socialist’ at president obama while enjoying medicare.
Infidel wrote: 1. “they weren’t ‘buddies’ with bush.”
2. “stopped saddam from controlling the persian gulf’s oil.”
1. is wholly ignorant. Bush, the CIA and the US have long-standing ties with the Kuwaiti royal family. Those families are related to the Saudi Royal Family all close Bush family friends.
2. That is laughable. Iran and Saudi Arabia might have something to say about that. Which says nothing about our own presence there nor why Saddam would s#it in his own mess-kit. Saddam could have never achieved what Goldman Sachs did in driving up oil to $147/barrel. Complicit in this were Bush and Sam Bodman, Sec of Energy who reported we were short on oil when his own Energy dept had reported 10 weeks of oil surpluses and would enjoy another 7 more each with over a million barrels/wk surplus in gas and crude.
The lowlife Nazi scum on here should go convert to Islam and strap some bombs on. Israeli land will never go to those genocidal Jihadis invented as “Palestinians”. Go move to Mecca and marry a 9 year old
what is all your assumptions about Demographics are incorrect?
Read recent studies on demographics that show Israeli families getting bigger and Palestinian growth slowing. Demographer Yoram Ettinger has found that Palestinian Authority data about its growth spurt are distorted, untrue, and wildly contradict World Bank figures. He says there are 2.6 million Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and not the 3.8 million reported by the PA.
Dear Benny:
Please see http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a17460/Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html. You may want to reassess your faith in ettinger’s demographic skills.
James Baker illegally gave Saddam Hussein over 500 Million Dollars in loan guarantees which were used in purchasing nuclear equipment from front companies such as Matrix Churchill in Ohio. This was the so-called Iraqgate scandal which James Baker, of course, avoids addressing and from which using his “connections” has avoided indictment and prosecution.
The Arab demographic threat to Israel is red herring used to “persuade” the Jews to give up “Arab” land (really land designated for close Jewish settlement by the League of Nations Mandate and the San Remo Convention) again by James Baker, the author of a Princeton Bachelor’s thesis supporting British foreign minister Ernest Bevin as a realist who opposed Jewish statehood. As Baker, himself, said, “It’s to bad what happened to the Jews in the Holocaust, but there are 50 Million Arabs and only 3 Million Jews (I guess he means those left over in Europe after the Final Solution), and we can’t afford to offend those Arabs.” That makes Baker a realist in the eyes of the MSM. Well, I think that makes the “former US Marine” Baker an ideal tennis partner for a reincarnated SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich, his alter ego.
Pingback: Israel Won’t Change Unless the Status Quo Has a Downside | Amauta
Israel has never in its 43 years of occupation given its vision of a solution of the partition of the land between the mediterranean and the jordan River. While shoving 500,000 israelis into the occupied territories it has made it abundantly clear that it is interested in owning all this land. Its answer to the palestinian question is to either transfer them to Jordan or to keep them as an underclass. Israel’s or actually the Zionist axiom is that Jews are a people rather than a religion. This is clearly not so historically, as has been pointed out by Jewish and Israeli intellectuals and historians themselves (the latest being Professor Shlomo Sand. Zionism was founded at a time when nationalism was at tis worst and heavily influenced by German/Austrian thinkers. israel should realize (especially considering that Jews suffered greatly in this hothouse of European nationalism–which directly led to Nazi atrocities) that its policis are outdated, dangerous for the rest of the world and untenable for its own future.
The injustice of what is being done to the Palestinians over more than sixty years and the systematic government supported denial of the rights of more than 40% of the population of the land can and will end in calamity if nothing is done. Jefferson was right to carefully separate religion from state politics. Why is Israel our closest ally when its policies supporting a religiosly pure state (how else to define Jews who are clearly not one people) so diametrically opposed to the multi-ethnic, multi-religious ideals of the USA. We have all, liberal Jews and non-Jews, been intimidated to keep quiet while the faantics of AIPAC who do NOT represent the majority of American Jews–after all 76% voted for Obama–carefully twist American foreign policy to the point that we will never succed in the Middle East.
Until we have a one state solution in Israel/Palestine with equal rights for all the people who wish to live between the Sea and the Jordan we will continue to watch an ever intensifying death spiral by Israel. The Netanyahu/Avigdor-lieberman regime has many overtones of fascism. It is good to see that Jewish opinion is coming forward and is beginning to realize that its interests are not necessarily linked to those of the present israeli government.
M., 04/26/10 common era
The Obama Administration’s proposed 2-State Solution would end up being a 2-State Final Solution 2. James A. Baker, no dummy he, knows this full well. If it walks like a duck, etc., then it is in fact and in truth a duck. (So what else is new!?)
The Israeli Foreign Minister said later that if he had been Arafat, he would have refused the Camp David deal, for being too vague on Jerusalem.
So this propaganda that it was Arafat’s fault?
Think again.
I think only one Israeli PM in history was serious about peace.
And he was murdered–almost certainly with the full collaboration of Israeli security forces.
According to a very courageous, credible and well-known former MI-5 agent, Princess Diana was about to publicly advocate for the Palestinians when she died.
And the ONLY major US journalist to investigate Israeli security’s involvement in the Rabin assassination was–John F. Kennedy, Jr., who was about to meet with Mossad.